BREAKING NEWS:

NFTOS POSTED A "TRILOGY" OF BLOGS TODAY REGARDING SEVERAL KEY ISSUES IN TODAY'S POLITICS AND APPARENT "FAKE" NEWS SOURCES.

SEE ALL OUR POST TODAY BELOW:

"STUFF MADE UP"

"REPUBLICANS AND UNIONS"

""SUPREME JUSTICE"........ THOMAS NEEDS TO RECUSE HIMSELF"

THNX AND ENJOY THE READ!

NFTOS

“Stuff Is Just Made Up”

Says a Faux News Insider:

Asked what most viewers and observers of Faux News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.”

Indeed, a former Faux News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about Murdoch’s cable channel. Namely, that Faux News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Faux News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking.

“It is their M.O. (method of operation) to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”

And that’s the word from inside Faux News.

Note the story here isn’t that Faux News leans right. Everyone knows the channel pushes a conservative-friendly version of the news. Everyone who’s been paying attention has known that since the channel’s inception more than a decade ago. The real story, and the real danger posed by the cable outlet, is that over time Faux News stopped simply leaning to the right and instead became an open and active political player, sort of one-part character assassin and one-part propagandist, depending on which party was in power. And that the operation thrives on fabrications and falsehoods.

“They say one thing and do another. They insist on maintaining this charade, this façade, that they’re balanced or that they’re not right-wing extreme propagandist,” says the source. But it’s all a well-orchestrated lie, according this former insider. It’s a lie that permeates the entire Faux News culture and one that staffers and producers have to learn quickly in order to survive professionally.

“You have to work there for a while to understand the nods and the winks,” says the source. “And God help you if you don’t because sooner or later you’re going to get burned.”

The source explains:

 

“Like any news channel there’s lot of room for non-news content. The content that wasn’t ‘news,’ they didn’t care what we did with as long as it was amusing or quirky or entertaining;  as along as it brought in eyeballs.  But anything—anything--that was a news story you had to understand what the spin should be on it. If it was a big enough story it was explained to you in the morning [editorial] meeting. If it wasn’t explained, it was up to you to know the conservative take on it. There’s a conservative take on every story no matter what it is. So you either get told what it is or you better intuitively know what it is.”

What if Faux News staffers aren’t instinctively conservative or don’t have an intuitive feeling for what the spin on a story should be? “My internal compass was to think like an intolerant meathead,” the source explains. “You could never error on the side of not being intolerant enough.”

The source recalls how Faux News changed over time:

“When I first got there back in the day, and I don’t know how they indoctrinate people now, but back in the day when they were “training” you, as it were, they would say, ‘Here’s how we’re different.’ They’d say if there is an execution of a condemned man at midnight and there are all the live truck outside the prison and all the lives shots. CNN would go, ‘Yes, tonight John Jackson, 25 of Mississippi, is going to die by lethal injection for the murder of two girls.’ MSNBC would say the same thing.

“We would come out and say, ‘Tonight, John Jackson who kidnapped an innocent two year old, raped her, sawed her head off and threw it in the school yard, is going to get the punishment that a jury of his peers thought he should get.’ And they say that’s the way we do it here. And you’re going , alright, it’s a bit of an extreme example but it’s something to think about. It’s not unreasonable.

"When you first get in they tell you we’re a bit of a counterpart to the screaming left wing lib media. So automatically you have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don’t even start arguing that or you won’t even last your first day.

“For the first few years it was let’s take the conservative take on things. And then after a few years it evolved into, well it’s not just the conservative take on things, we’re going to take the Republican take on things which is not necessarily in lock step with the conservative point of view.

“And then two, three, five years into that it was, we’re taking the Bush line on things, which was different than the GOP. We were a Stalin-esque mouthpiece. It was just what Bush says goes on our channel. And by that point it was just totally dangerous. Hopefully most people understand how dangerous it is for a media outfit to be a straight, unfiltered mouthpiece for an unchecked president.”

It’s worth noting that Faux News employees, either current or former, rarely speak to the press, even anonymously. And it’s even rarer for Faux News sources to bad mouth Murdoch’s channel. That’s partly because of strict non-disclosure agreements that most exiting employees sign and which forbid them from discussing their former employer. But  it also stems from a pervasive us-vs.-them attitude that permeates Faux News. It’s a siege mentality that network boss Roger Ailes encourages, and one that colors the coverage his team produces.

“It was a kick ass mentality too,” says the former Faux News insider. “It was relentless and it never went away. If one controversy faded, goddamn it they would find another one. They were in search of these points of friction real or imagined. And most of them were imagined or fabricated. You always have to seem to be under siege. You always have to seem like your values are under attack. The brain trust just knew instinctively which stories to do, like the War on Christmas.”

According to the insider, Ailes is obsessed with presenting a unified Faux News front to the outside world; an obsession that may explain Ailes’ refusal to publically criticize or even critique his own team regardless of how outlandish their on-air behavior. “There may be internal squabbles. But what [Ailes] continually preaches is never piss outside the tent,” says the source. “When he gets really crazy is when stuff leaks out the door. He goes mental on that. He can’t stand that. He says in a dynamic enterprise like a network newsroom there’s going to be in fighting and ego, but he says keep it in the house.”

It’s clear that Faux News has become a misleading, partisan outlet. But here’s what the source stresses: Faux News is designed to mislead its viewers and designed to engage in a purely political enterprise.

In 2010, all sorts of evidence tumbled out to confirm that fact, like the recently leaked emails from inside Faux News, in which a top editor instructed his newsroom staffers (not just the opinion show hosts) to slant the news when reporting on key stories such as climate change and health care reform.

Meanwhile, Media Matters revealed that during the 2009-2010 election cycle, dozens of  Faux News personalities endorsed, raised money, or campaigned for Republican candidates or organizations in more than 600 instances. And in terms of free TV airtime that Faux News handed over to GOP hopefuls, Media Matters calculated the channel essentially donated $55 million worth of airtime to Republican presidential hopefuls last year who also collect Faux News paychecks.

And of course, that’s when Murdoch wasn’t writing $1 million checks in the hopes of electing more Republican politicians.

So, Faux News as a legitimate news outlet? The source laughs at the suggestion, and thinks much of the public, along with the Beltway press corps, has been duped by Murdoch’s marketing campaign over the years. “People assume you need a license to call yourself a news channel. You don’t. So because they call themselves Faux News, people probably give them a pass on a lot of things,” says the source.

The source continues:

“I don’t think people understand that it’s an organization that’s built and functions by intimidation and bullying, and its goal is to prop up and support Republicans and the GOP and to knock down Democrats. People tend think that stuff that’s on TV is real, especially under the guise of news. You’d think that people would wise up, but they don’t.”

As for the press, the former Faux News employee gives reporters and pundits low grades for refusing, over the years, to call out Faux News for being the propaganda outlet that it so clearly is. The source suggests there are a variety of reasons for the newsroom timidity.

“They don’t have enough staff or enough balls or don’t have enough money or don’t have enough interest to spend the time it takes to expose Faux News. Or it’s not worth the trouble. If you take on Faux, they’ll kick you in the ass,” says the source. “I’m sure most [journalists]  know that. It’s not worth being  Swift Boated for your effort,” a reference to  how Faux News traditionally attacks journalists who write, or are perceived to have written, anything negative things about the channel.

The former insider admits to being perplexed in late 2009 when the Obama White House called out Murdoch’s operation as not being a legitimate new source, only to have major Beltway media players rush to the aid of Faux News and admonish the White House for daring to criticize the cable channel.

“That blew me away,” says the source, who stresses the White House’s critique of Faux News “happens to be true.” 

Many Tea bags and extreme righties are in arms over this story, claiming any "insider source" for Faux News signs a "non-disclosure agreement" and that anything contrary to this source is utter nonsense.

There is a fine line between non-disclosure agreements and "ethical" practices. If Faux News is making fecal matter up as they go, shouldn't they be held accountable for such propaganda?

There was a study done some years ago (during the Reagan administration at the height of the Iran Contra scandal) that sought to determine the honesty of presidential administrations.

This study asked various people whether or not they would support an administration lying to the public if the lies were intended to keep national secrets or protect the public from harmful information.

The twist the researchers found were that nearly all people who believed that lying is acceptable by an administration were convinced that Reagan, Oliver North, John Poindexter, and others were being truthful.

I think this goes a long way in helping to understand the mindsets of people like radical republicans who honor authority and ideology above morality and integrity. Of course, these are the very people who are convinced that they are moral and have integrity, and will endlessly defend their positions, no matter how paradoxical or illogical.

It is obvious to anyone who can think that the greatest majority of stories on Faux news are either made up, or badly distorted. No big surprise here. What is a surprise, is that someone finally from inside camp Faux admitted it.



NFTOS

"SUPREME JUSTICE"........ THOMAS NEEDS TO RECUSE HIMSELF

Yesterday Seventy-four House Democrats asked Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any health care reform cases, citing reports that his wife financially benefited from efforts to repeal the legislation.


The members, led by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), ask that he “maintain the integrity of this court.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There are several lawsuits challenging the health care reform law’s so-called individual mandate. Three cases are already docketed for oral arguments at the appellate court level. The Supreme Court is widely expected to take up the issue.

The signers of the letter include: Reps. Al Green, EB Johnson, Wm. Lacy Clay, Carnahan, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Karen Bass, Neal, Welch, Chu, Yarmuth, Sutton, Perlmutter, Connolly, Kucinich, Meeks, Schwartz, Doggett, Moore, Polis, Waters, Payne, Rush, Cohen, Crowley, Engel, Cicilline, Susan Davis, Sires, Doyle, Slaughter, McDermott, Velazquez, Garamendi, Carson, Capuano, Berkley, Wasserman Schultz, Tim Bishop, Barbara Lee, Courtney, DeLauro, Conyers, John Larson, George Miller, Boswell, Edwards, Capps, Becerra, Deutch, Israel, Owens, Richardson, Clarke, Hirono, Ackerman, Ellison, Grijalva, Chris Murphy, Woolsey, DeFazio, Jesse Jackson Jr, Reyes, Maloney, Andrews, Pascrell, Filner, Tonko, Fudge, Hinchey, Honda, Eshoo, Pallone, Stark

The move comes after Republicans have floated similar concerns about the impartiality of Justice Elena Kagan, who was solicitor general during the health debate.

Supreme Court spouse Ginni Thomas recently opened a lobbying firm which promises to give “voice to…the tea party movement in the halls of Congress.” The job will likely lead her to lobby in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, conservatives are mounting a nationwide litigation strategy to convince Ginni’s husband to give voice to the tea party movement in the halls of the Supreme Court.

Democrats cite that Thomas did not disclose his wife’s receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2006.

In response to Ginni Thomas’ involvement with groups trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 74 Members of Congress signed a letter to Ginni’s husband — Justice Clarence Thomas — pointing out that his wife’s new job could have ethical consequences for him:

As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.



(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: …


(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: . . .


(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

It’s worth noting that conservatives have already interpreted this ethics law in a way that requires Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the health care litigation. After progressive Judge Stephen Reinhardt was assigned to the appellate panel that was to hear a challenge to anti-gay Proposition 8, supporters of the anti-gay law called for Reinhardt to recuse because his wife’s organization advocates against Prop 8.

But, of course, Ginni Thomas used to lead a Tea Party group called Liberty Central which vigorously opposes the Affordable Care Act. Liberty Central even briefly signed Ginni’s name to a memo claiming that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional — at least until news reports pointed out the ethical issues her signature raised for her husband. So, by the right’s very same arguments, Justice Thomas must drop out of the health care litigation.

Full text of the letter below:


The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court Building
1 First Street Northeast
Washington D.C., DC 20543
Dear Justice Thomas:

As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case. As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.

The appearance of a conflict of interest merits recusal under federal law. From what we have already seen, the line between your impartiality and you and your wife's financial stake in the overturn of healthcare reform is blurred. Your spouse is advertising herself as a lobbyist who has “experience and connections” and appeals to clients who want a particular decision - they want to overturn health care reform. Moreover, your failure to disclose Ginny Thomas’s receipt of $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, a prominent opponent of healthcare reform, between 2003 and 2007 has raised great concern.

This is not the first case where your impartiality was in question. As Common Cause points out, you “participated in secretive political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the [5-4] decision” on the Citizens United case. Your spouse also received an undisclosed salary paid for by undisclosed donors as CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization that stood to benefit from the decision and played an active role in the 2010 elections.

Given these facts, there is a strong conflict between the Thomas household’s financial gain through your spouse’s activities and your role as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. We urge you to recuse yourself from this case. If the US Supreme Court's decision is to be viewed as legitimate by the American people, this is the only correct path.
We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request.


Sincerely,


ANTHONY D. WEINER
Member of Congress

We bid you a fine adieu Clarence on your opportunity to make your voice heard from your seat as a Associate Supreme Court Justice on this issue, and please feel free to take the radical tea bag wife with you, and always remember, "don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you"!

Recuse yourself now sir!

NFTOS

REPUBLICANS AND UNIONS

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

How many hypocritical republicans complain and bitch about unions but are associated with unions? Having several pals whom wear badges (fire and cops) and who just happen to be staunch radical, Civil War Era, extreme republicans are a plethora! But yet in the same breath, they and their party will scream bloody murder that the unions are demoralizing and demolishing our work infrastructure.

Should we be shocked? NO! This is the pattern for tea bag central. This, like those whom are against "Obama Care"  but yet use the program, (AKA congressmen and women) seem to want to have their cake and be able to eat it too.

At the end of the day, on a daily basis, republicans seemingly become the "masters" of the "idiots society club".

The hypocrisy out of camp "lunatic fringe"  currently has the meter pegged. The smell of republican hypocrisy is rancid at best.

While the republicans are known for their blatant hypocrisy, these latest escapades take it to a new level.

Whether the meter is pegged or the smell or rancid, we need to be done with the wishy washy republican ideology.

Oh yeah, by the way, where are the Jobs John Boehner?




NFTOS

NUMBERS DON'T LIE....REPUBLICANS DO

Ed Shultz is on his game of late. The below video provides numbers on President Obama and taxes, and its both heavy and arduous. Taxes are the lowest they have been is sixty years. Huh!? Are you sure NFTOS?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Taxes too high? Actually, as a share of the nation's economy, Uncle Sam's take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting underway.


And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush, thanks to a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike.

Income-tax payments this year will be nearly 13 percent lower than they were in 2008, the last full year of the Bush presidency.

Corporate taxes will be lower by a third, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The poor economy plays a role in the blame game, with corporate profits down and unemployment up. But so is a tax code that grows each year with new deductions, credits and exemptions

In the next few years, many can expect to pay more in taxes. Some increases were enacted as part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. And many states have raised taxes because — unlike the federal government — they have to balance their budgets each year. State tax receipts are projected to increase in all but seven states this year, according to the National Council of State Legislatures.

But in the third year of Obama's presidency, federal taxes are at historic lows. In the current budget year, federal tax receipts will be equal to 14.8 percent of gross domestic product, the lowest level since Harry Truman was president.




Why the tax bite has eased:

Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.
 
Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.
 
Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.
 
A Gallup Poll last month found that 48% thought taxes were "too high" and 45% thought they were "about right." Those saying taxes are "too high" remain near a 50-year low.
 
The lower tax burden should last at least through mid 2011, says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C. "Virtually all the stimulus tax cuts expire at the end of the year," he says. "So the key decision is whether to extend them into 2011."




No matter how you "slice" it, it's obvious no one is going to modify the radical rightie social engineering tax, budget, warfare crap.

Republicans have added another layer of stupidly and absurdity to the "Obama raises taxes" ideology, although at some point and time to balance the budget taxes should and will have to increase.

The question isn't whether tax cuts or tax increases are always the right answer. The question is at what level of taxes do we stimulate the economy, collect enough revenue to run a functioning government and let people keep as much of their income as we can. No one wants to pay more in taxes personally. We just need to find the right balance so that everyone wins.

NFTOS

Olbermann Going to Current TV

UPDATE: 2/8/11 11:19 Olbermann Inks Deal.


Keith Olbermann, the former top-rated host on the news channel MSNBC, will announce his next television home on Tuesday, and people on Monday familiar with his plans pointed to a possible deal with the public affairs channel Current TV.

Mr. Olbermann, his representatives and executives from Current TV declined to comment on the move, but they did not deny that the channel, which counts former Vice President

Al Gore as one of its founders, will become at least one partner in Mr. Olbermann’s future media plans.

One of the people with knowledge of the plans said Mr. Olbermann would have an equity stake in Current TV. The people insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized by their employers to comment in advance of the official announcement.

On Monday a public relations agency hired by Mr. Olbermann scheduled a Tuesday morning conference call for an announcement about his next job. “He and his new partners will make an exciting announcement regarding the next chapter in his remarkable career,” the agency wrote in an e-mail.

Current TV has set up a presentation with advertisers for Wednesday afternoon in Manhattan to announce its future plans. The channel may be betting on Mr. Olbermann to put it on the cable map. The low-rated five-year-old channel needs the help. Targeting young people, it originally subsisted on YouTube-style submissions and video journalists. More recently it started producing and acquiring traditional television series, like repeats of “This American Life.”

Mr. Olbermann departed MSNBC in January after some stormy interactions with management, including a suspension for contributing to political candidates. The settlement of his contract precluded his joining another television outlet for an undetermined period of time, but an announcement of a future assignment on Current TV would presumably not violate the terms of that deal as long as he did not start until after the agreed-upon waiting period.

A move to Current TV would challenge Mr. Olbermann’s fans of his MSNBC show — where he drew about a million viewers a night — to follow him to a channel that is considerably less accessible. Current TV is available in only about 60 million homes, and is usually provided only on the digital tier of cable television systems, which requires a separate receiver. MSNBC, which is owned by NBC Universal, is available in 85 million homes and is almost always available as a basic cable entry.

But the addition of Mr. Olbermann, the former sports anchor who made himself a progressive star at MSNBC, would surely elevate the channel, bringing it attention it has never before received. The channel also wears its liberal politics on its sleeve.

With Current TV, Mr. Olbermann would also gain a measure of independence. Unlike most cable channels, including MSNBC, which are owned by large media companies, Current is privately and independently owned by Mr. Gore and other backers.

It is also possible that Mr. Olbermann will separately pursue other ventures, like an Internet destination.

Speculation has surrounded Mr. Olbermann since he abruptly left his job at MSNBC. He has been savoring the speculation, even posting a link on Twitter on Monday afternoon to a countdown clock for his announcement.

The abruptness of Mr. Olbermann’s departure last month suggested that he already had lined up another media job. The Internet domain name TheOlbermannShow.com was registered two days before his televised goodbye. A few days afterward, he set up a new Twitter account, called "FOK" News Channel,” short for “Friends of Keith.”

The departure came just days before Comcast took control of NBC, leading some to suspect that he was forced out by Comcast — an assertion that the companies vigorously denied. Comcast owns a 10 percent stake in Current TV.



NFTOS

Mr. Republican.....Do You Understand the Difference Between Climate and Weather?

NASA defines the difference between climate and weather as  "a difference in time".

GLENN BECKS WEATHER FORECAST

With record-breaking climate disasters crippling the United States, defenders of global warming pollution are growing increasingly desperate. Gordon Peterson, host of PBS’s weekly Inside Washington show, noted the scientific fact that “there’s about a four percent more water vapor in the air now in the atmosphere than there was in the ’70s because of warmer oceans and warmer air, and it returns to earth as heavy rain and heavy snow.” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer — like his colleague George Will, a radical climate denier — countered with a Godzilla-spores theory, attacking Al Gore and claiming that climate science is a “religion”:

"Look, if Godzilla appeared on the Mall this afternoon, Al Gore would say it’s global warming, because the spores in the South Atlantic Ocean, you know, were. Look, everything is, it’s a religion. In a religion, everything is explicable. In science, you can actually deny or falsify a proposition with evidence. You find me a single piece of evidence that Al Gore would ever admit would contradict global warming and I’ll be surprised."



Krauthammer seems incapable of understanding that man-made changes to the climate could affect weather, as if adding billions of tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere should have no effect on meteorological systems. It’s certainly true that climate scientists can’t perfectly predict the consequences of melting the Arctic, heating the oceans, and disrupting ecosystems — which means that humanity cannot be fully prepared for the changes fossil fuel pollution brings, even if deniers like Krauthammer are ignored.

Unfortunately, every day brings new evidence of how dangerous our superheated climate system is to modern civilization, with floods, droughts, and storms taking down power grids, driving up food prices, and bringing devastation to millions of people around the globe.

Now, it may be hard for republicans, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck to keep multiple thoughts in their heads at once, but to suggest a couple days of heavy snow refutes decades of climate change science — even though it fits in perfectly with scientific predictions — well readers its just utter nonsense.

It’s like claiming a flying airplane refutes gravity, or that Sarah Palin’s success refutes survival-of-the-fittest.

In a recent poll, 53 percent of Republicans said there is no evidence for climate change, when only three years ago 62 percent of GOPers said they did believe in global warming. Almost 90 percent of Democrats and a majority of independents said there is solid evidence for global warming.

Overall, 59 percent of adults thought there was good evidence that the planet is warming, and 34 percent said global warming is mostly caused by human activity. An overwhelming number of scientists say global warming exists, is harmful and is caused by human-created carbon emissions, from cars, factories and other sources. Ninety-seven percent of top scientists are in agreement that global warming exist today.

Reiterating readers "weather is not climate change"!

Are the Republicans capable of applying common sense?

"One of the most disturbing things about the extreme radical republican party over the last couple of decades is that they just don’t believe in science any more. And that is not an approach that is likely to generate any kind of creative thinking. Hence the 1776 mentality"!

The thinking process of most Republicans is worse than random. If you want to feel the glow of acceptance by a big group of Republicans, all you’ve got to do is say the magic phrase: “Global Warming has not been proven.” Say it just often enough to piss off Democrats. Don’t say it too often or too loudly, or even the Republicans will think that you’re weird. With those magic words denying global warming, you’ll get smiles and pats on the back from total strangers who will buy you drinks and regale you with stories about how they outwitted stupid Democrats; they’ll laugh at your jokes and they’ll tell you that you’re smart. As long as you keep uttering “Global Warming is hype” (or “Abortion is the same thing as murder” or “Government is incapable of doing anything other than wasting money”), you’ll continue to be invited to continue basking in the warmth of all those new friendships. And as long as you bask in the warmth of all of those inanities, aggregate power will continue to accrue to the intellectually misguided group. Bonding is powerful–it enables groups to accomplish many things that its members, acting individually, could never accomplish.

The lunacy that is republican, feverishly moves on, and yet in a "climate" where stupidity is not a luxury, we here in America are left bundled with the "know nothings" of the extreme right, all the while the world passes us by on whether "global warming" really exists or not.

NFTOS

10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan

Tomorrow will mark the 100th anniversary of President Reagan’s birth, and all week, conservatives have been trying to outdo each others’ remembrances of the great conservative icon. Senate Republicans spent much of Thursday singing Reagan’s praise from the Senate floor, while conservative publications have been running non-stop commemorations. Meanwhile the Republican National Committee and former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich are hoping to make few bucks off the Gipper’s centennial.

But Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to untie the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.


ThinkProgress has compiled a list of the top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan:

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.
9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendency.

Conservatives seem to be in such denial about the less flattering aspects of Reagan; it sometimes appears as if they genuinely don’t know the truth of his legacy. Yesterday, when liberal activist Mike Stark challenged hate radio host Rush Limbaugh on why Reagan remains a conservative hero despite raising taxes so many times, Limbaugh flew into a tirade and demanded, “Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes?“


Brought to you by thinkprogress


NFTOS

GLENN BECK AND FAUX NEWS......USEFUL IDIOTS

Republican TV viewers  have always searched for a leader and mentor whom could do the thinking for them. Whom do they find,  Faux News' featured "Useful Idiot"  and television's stupidest, AKA Glenn Beck-- How do we derive to this conclusion?

When he went searching for a religion after years of a drunken, drug-induced stupor he found just the right fit: Mormonism. The hook: he's honest about the fact the he's a self-loathing alcoholic and that he suffers from attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

While most sermonizing conservatives wait for a public debacle to expose their failings-- think of William Bennett and his slot-machine addiction, or Rush Limbaugh and his pill popping problem-- Beck and his many inner demons are on a first-name basis, and he's constantly introducing them to his viewers. His alcoholism is just part of it." Fact of the matter is, every time Beck opens his mouth his failings are exposed. His essential being is a failure. Faux News is simply trying to exploit the ridiculousness of the "C-list pundit" to make a few dollars.

Beck's moronic, and now notorious assertions that any all situations [are either a conspiracy, Nazism, and or total annihilation of the globe] have reached a fever pitch.

Low ratings and boycotts to Faux advertisers [to the Beck show] could be a few reasons for Beck's 27th personality to morph on TV. Beck’s opening monologues are always a jumble of ideas thrown together in a stream of consciousness shtick that conveniently avoids any logical arguments or theories.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans, Glenn Beck, and Faux News must suffer from short term memory loss. Beck always manages to get some attention-- which, of course, is what he was looking for. Even the leather-winged shouting heads at Faux News look like intellectual giants next to this bleating, benighted Cassandra. It's like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.

Becks revelations and predictions mimic or ape those of Nostradamus.

Maybe an attention-deficit host is exactly what an attention-deficit public wants. Listen to a few of Beck's shows and what strikes you most is the enormous ratio of words to substance-- how Beck can monologue for minutes at a time and leave behind almost nothing except the impression of great vehemence.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What is irrational is the failure of conservatives and Republicans to perceive the divergence between Fox’s interests and their own. Republican leaders should have put a hundred miles between themselves and Glenn Beck the first day he began dwelling lovingly on the possibility of right-wing armed violence in the United States. It’s a little awkward to do so now: that would look like falling in step with the Obama administration’s contrivances. But party leaders should quietly urge anyone with an (R.) after his or her name to keep as far away as possible from this unwitting tool of Obama administration spin.

The Glenn Beck show in no way achieves those vitally important aims. Beck's type of "journalism" is dangerous and can have wide-ranging negative effects on society. The kind of material broadcast by Glenn Beck and Faux News is not unique; as a number of other extreme radical tea bags operate the air waves in this same manner as well [AKA Dana Loesch, Rush Limbaugh]. However, none has displayed intolerance on such a frequent and irresponsible scale as Glenn Beck.

It is Rupert and James Murdoch who should answer for fear mongers such as Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. They employ them. They promote them. They are responsible for them. It is time for thinking citizens in the United States to unite against the Murdochs’ vicious brand of politics that masquerades as publishing.

If Glenn Beck were here today I would say to him: “Glenn Beck, you are a fear monger. You bring shame to our country, not because you lack balance, but because you are an unthinking buffoon. Rupert Murdoch tolerates you because you are his useful idiot. He uses you to get a foothold in the doors of the powerful. Like his phone-hacking journalists and his pugnacious leader-writers, you as well are expendable. Let us hope he disposes of your nasty brand of intolerance sooner rather than later.

"We , in America, are, often, not as forthright in calling out the curse on America that is Glenn Beck. Neither are we as forthcoming in calling out the cancer in America that is Rupert Murdoch. But, the truth is Glenn Beck is a very dangerous person, whether or not he means to be. His frequent, intellectually challenged, rants are red meat for his followers, who cannot seem to discriminate fact from unconnected ramblings and act on what he says. One has only to watch Beck’s supporters on Twitter to realize what is happening .. and it may just need a single match to ignite a deranged mind to act against those who are the victims of Beck’s rants."

For example:

1: Beck has called President Obama a “racist” with a “deep seated hatred for white people”. he also has claimed that Obama’s agenda is designed to settle old racial scores.

2: Beck’s rants reportedly motivated Byron Williams, a California man, to assassinate workers at the Tides Foundation in San Francisco, a frequent target of Beck’s incredible claims that it is a center for left-wing plots against America.

3: Beck frequently tries to connect Obama and his administration to a dangerous group of left-wingers who live and work in the shadows.

Quick searches of Google and YouTube will give you a wealth of resources that illustrate Beck’s far-right conspiracy theories. They all seem to stem from his “guru”, Cleon Skousen, and from the philosophies of the John Birch Society. Often they seem to echo conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones.

Beck’s shows are permeated by paranoia and a constant, albeit subtle, incitement toward violence against the “enemies” who want to take down America, as he knows it, and replace it with a Marxist society. And here, Obama is always the enemy, ably assisted by a variety of Marxist/Communist/Socialist allies.

Here are a few quotes selected from the schizoids trunk of "useful idiots, a guide to insanity":

Hello, you sick twisted freak.

The Glenn Beck Program, Show Opener

Can you let your son's body become the same temperature as your son's head before you turn this into a political campaign against the president? Could you do that?
The Glenn Beck Program, Premiere Radio Networks, 2004-05-14


Comment on Michael Berg, the father of murdered American businessman Nicholas Berg

I find this guy [Michael Berg] despicable. Everything in me says that. The want to be a better person today than I was yesterday says he's a dad, he's grieving, but I don't buy that. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I think he is grieving, but I think he's a scumbag as well. I don't like this guy at all.
The Glenn Beck Program, Premiere Radio Networks, 2004-05-14

"Clear Channel radio host railed against Nick Berg's father, called him a "scumbag"", Media Matters, 2004-05-17
"Radio host who called Nick Berg's father "a scumbag" responded to MMFA report: "I think public opinion will grow closer and closer to mine"", Media Matters, 2004-05-18



Would you kill someone for that?...I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore...I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,...No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.
The Glenn Beck Program, Premiere Radio Networks, 2005-05-17
"Radio host Glenn Beck "thinking about killing Michael Moore"", Media Matters, 2005-05-18

    

Cindy Sheehan is a tragedy slut.
The Glenn Beck Program, Premiere Radio Networks, 2005-08-15

Reports show that death threats against President Obama are up around 400% more than against President George W. Bush. Beck cannot be blamed for all of this, but he feeds into the constant steam of vitriol and incandescence directed against Obama (and Democrats) by right-wing and far-right talking heads, bloggers, radio and TV hosts, and members of the GOP and Tea Bag Parties.

Beck says that he is a former alcoholic and drug addict, who also suffers from Attention Deficit disorder (ADD). Have these addictions been replaced by a “Messiah Complex”, or a need for adulation?

The problem I see is that Beck does not have to convince everyone who hears him to violence, but just one – just one nut. So, is Glenn Beck a curse on America? To most, he is, and too most he and Faux News are "Useful Idiots"


NFTOS

‘You’re One Sick, Miserable, Evil SOB’

Sean Hannity Tells Controversial Imam:

Last night Faux News' Sean Hannity took on controversial Imam Anjem Choudary in a guns-blazing, must-see debate that was not only full of fun verbal insults flying back and forth, but was also frightening and informative. After a relentless interrogation by Hannity, Choudary revealed his support of Sharia Law and Osama bin Laden, and provided for some great television.

Anyone interested in just seeing a conversation between two people who absolutely loathe the existence of one another will find enjoyment from witnessing the exchange of many memorable insults here. Choudary to Hannity: “you’re very immature, next time we can have a more decent conversation” and “your viewers will see through your lies and your propaganda.” Hannity returning fire: “you’re a bit of a coward” and “you’re one sick, miserable, evil SOB.”

Yet even on substance this shootout is really entertaining. It’s rare to see someone so confidently state, as Choudary does, that “Americans are the biggest criminals in the world today,” that he wants all of the Jewish people out of Israel, and that America’s version of “freedom” is not something desired by the rest of the world. Most terrifying though was a cryptic warning Choudary issues to Hannity that America should be “worried that Islam is coming to your backyard.”

Aside from an awkwardly long back-and-forth about who gets to ask the questions, Hannity was in rare Faux form here. Not because of his skewed unapologetic patriotism, which is certainly entertaining in the face of confrontation, but more specifically for exposing Choudary to a truly American ideal of a free society: opportunities to passionately and peacefully debate with those whom you disagree.

I have to tell you that I quit watching much on Faux News many months back after Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck heaped some scorn on the “birthers” (a pejorative term for people who would like to see some as-yet not released documented verification that President Obama is Constitutionally eligible to hold office). There are many reasons for not watching Faux, but this was the straw for me.

Just by happenstance did I catch the Hannity V Choudary lexical attack.

The icing on the cake would have been to see Hannity and Chouldary in a MTV death match.


NFTOS

WHERE IS EGYPT EXACTLY?

With Faux News laying claim to many things, one claim to fame that certainly resounds to be true is there infamous way of being very ignorant and misinformed.

Recently Faux News displayed the map above showing Egypt in the wrong location. Since, according to a recent poll, Fox is the most trusted name in news, it's essential that the network accurately show where important Middle Eastern countries like Egypt and Iraq are. Such accuracy is especially urgent since studies show that Fox viewers are already particularly misinformed. We therefore present the following map for Fox producers as a public service:

Is it any wonder why republicans run around half cocked with data and facts that are less than truthful? This latest aberration only solidifies our theory that extreme radical republicans and faux news propagandist are the party of "know nothings".



NFTOS

SPECULATION

Speculation in food futures is driving food prices up in third world countries, leading to revolutions that might bring extremists to power. Speculation in gas and oil has driven gas prices to almost $4 a gallon. What good are these speculators accomplishing? Shouldn't they be eliminated? Why pay higher prices that aren't justified...would it be so Goldman Sachs could maintain a healthy wealthy and wise status?

Goldman Sachs speculators set up a casino where the chips were the stomachs of millions. What does it say about our system that we can so casually inflict so much chaos and dissension into our global economy?

Until deregulation, the price for food was set by the forces of supply and demand for food itself. But after deregulation, it was no longer just a market in food. It became, at the same time, a market in food contracts based on theoretical future crops – and the speculators drove the price through the roof.

The Ed Shultz video is alarming at best, and depicts the evil that exist on Wall Street.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

By now, you probably think your opinion of Goldman Sachs and its swarm of Wall Street allies has hit rock-bottomed at raw loathing. You're wrong. There's more. It turns out that the most destructive of all their recent acts has barely been discussed at all. This is the story of how some of the richest people in the world – Goldman, Deutsche Bank, the traders at Merrill Lynch, and more – have caused the starvation of some of the poorest people in the world and they unequivocally share a portion of blame in the revolutions currently storming the globe today.

Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, these uprisings are just the beginning of an avalanche that shall escalate into a snowball that shall rival Biblical proportions.

This phenomenon known as the "food bubble" is not just a United States issue. Food speculation on Wall Street continues to starve millions. Get ready for a rocky year readers. From now on, rising prices, powerful storms, severe droughts and floods, and other unexpected events are likely to play havoc with the fabric of global society, producing chaos and political unrest. Start with a simple fact: the prices of basic food staples are already approaching or exceeding their 2008 peaks, that year when deadly riots erupted in dozens of countries around the world.

A new theory is emerging among democratic bloggers and economists. The same banks, hedge funds and financiers whose speculation on the global money markets caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis are known to be causing food prices to yo-yo and inflate. The charge against Wall Street are overwhelming and they are taking advantage of the deregulation of global commodity markets - they are making billions from speculating on food and causing misery around the world.

There has always been modest, even welcome, speculation in food prices and it traditionally worked like this. Farmer X protected himself against climatic or other risks by “hedging”, or agreeing to sell his crop in advance of the harvest to Trader Y. This guaranteed him a price, and allowed him to plan ahead and invest further, and it allowed Trader Y to profit, too. In a bad year, Farmer X got a good return but in a good year Trader Y did better.

When this process of “hedging” was tightly regulated, it worked well enough. The price of real food on the real world market was still set by the real forces of supply and demand.

But all that changed under Both Bush presidential regimes. Then, following heavy lobbying by banks, hedge funds and free market politicians in the US, the regulations on commodity markets were steadily abolished. Contracts to buy and sell foods were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture.

People die from hunger while the banks make a killing from betting on food, revolutions and chaos exist because dictators can't provide food to their citizens because food costs are too high.


These rising food prices serve as a powerful reminder that we humans are inextricably linked to our environment, and when it suffers, we suffer. It's also a reminder that development and environment issues cannot and should not be treated as separate. As Gawain Kripke, policy director for Oxfam America noted last week, unless we address both the underlying issues of both climate and development, "we will find ourselves perpetually on the knife's edge of disaster."

How much time do we have before the food bubble bursts? No one knows. If we stay with business as usual, the time is more likely measured in years than in decades. We are now so close to the edge, that politically destabilizing food price rises are at our global doorstep.

Once again, Wall Street and its team of diabolical frenzied money hoarders cause anarchy and ataxia amongst the masses. When will they really be held accountable?

Certainly the civil unrest in the middle East is due in part by the greed of Goldman Sachs. While unemployment and Dictatorships are contributing factors to the unrest and must be weighed in, but there is know doubt a hungry world is a angry world.


NFTOS