NFTOS DAILY BREAKDOWN

Are republicans racist?

Two incidences within the last 24 hours assure most that at least in some form or fashion the 'redenck", "civil war" mentality is strong and bountiful in the good ole USA.

See CNN Video here on Montana "birther" stance.

GEN. Nathan Bedford Forrest

As if the "birther" campaign isn't enough, Mississippi wants to institute a license plate honoring Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest whom is at best, is or was the Aliester Crawley of his time. Gen. Forrest's war crimes at the "battle of Fort Pillow" are well documented.

Nathan B. Forrest also served as the first Grand "poobah" Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, a secret vigilante organization which launched a reign of terrorism against blacks and Republicans during Reconstruction in the South.









African-American leaders have reacted with shock at a plan to feature an early Ku Klux Klan leader on Mississippi license plates.

The proposal by the Mississippi Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) asked that the state issue a series of license plates between now and 2015 to honor the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.


A 2014 plate would feature Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, who became an important leader of the Klan after the war.

Forrest was most known for directing a massacre of black Union soldiers who had already laid down their arms at Fort Pillow in April 1864.

"It is in connection with one of the most atrocious and cold-blooded massacres that ever disgraced civilized warfare that his name will for ever be inseparably associated," according to an obituary published in The New York Times at his death in 1877.


"The garrison was seized with a panic: the men threw down their arms and sought safety in flight toward the river, in the neighboring ravine, behind logs, bushes, trees, and in fact everywhere where there was a chance for concealment. It was in vain. The captured fort and its vicinity became a human shambles."

"The news of the massacre aroused the whole country to a paroxysm of horror and fury," the Times added.

"Forrest probably did not object to the violence, per se, as a means of restoring the pre-war hierarchy, but as a military man, he deplored the lack of discipline and structure that defined the growing KKK," according to a biography by PBS' Antiques Roadshow.

NAACP president Derrick Johnson reacted with surprise when first told about SCV plans to honor Forrest.

"Seriously?" he said. "Wow."

A Facebook page titled "Mississippians Against The Commemoration Of Grand Wizard Nathan Forrest" had 820 members at the time of publication.

"We are united in sending a message to the state government of Mississippi that WE WILL NOT STAND for the public glorification of one of the original leaders of the Ku Klux Klan," the page said.

Robert McElvaine, director of the history department at the private Millsaps College in Jackson and a member of the Facebook group, told The Associated Press that Forrest should should not be honored due to his role in the massacre.

"The idea of celebrating such a person, whatever his accomplishments in other areas may have been, seems like a very poor idea," he said.

Celebrating Forrest is not something that is unprecedented in the South. In 1998, a statue was erected of the Civil War leader in Nashville, Tennessee.

NFTOS occupies space and resides in the glorious state of Virginia. "having live here for over 35 years you see this "hillbilly" mentality constantly in the south" said Roger West, Editor-in-Chief of NFTOS.

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

Since African Americans started voting in the south - openly racist position are not rare to find, but here is what history tells us.



In 1948 Strom Thurmond running on a segregationist platform carried LA, MS, AL and SC.

In 1968 George Wallace carried AR, GA, LA, MS, AL, all of these states are about 1/3 black except AR which was at 15% .

Average Black Victims of Lynchings per year per 100,000 Blacks 1882-1930


Virginia 38.0
Mississippi 52.8
Georgia 41.8
Louisiana 43.7
Alabama 32.4
South Carolina 18.8
Florida 79.8
Tennessee 38.4
Arkansas 42.6
Kentucky 45.7
North Carolina 11.0

In a 50 year adult life time a black male in most of these states would have had a more than 2% probability of being Lynched.

It would appear with Montana, Mississippi, that "lynching's" still exist in some fashion in America circa 2011.

There is no "MOST" Racist state in our "Union".......... the most racist are the people of these United States.

All states have the same problem, and the amount of racism depends on what type of racism you are talking about, and so it appears that still today African Americans are still exposed to "racial lynching's".


NFTOS

ATTACKING MICHELLE OBAMA

Michelle Obama has fallen foul of the most vicious slight yet with her portrayed as an overweight, hamburger-munching glutton in a very personal cartoon attack.

The offensive caricature, which was posted on Biggovernment.com, is a dig at the U.S. First Lady's obesity campaign, which celebrated its one-year anniversary last week.

It comes as Barack Obama's wife pushes her campaign to improve workplace rules for breastfeeding to reduce the number of overweight children.




First Lady Being Slammed by Tea Bags

 Conservatives have hit out at the campaign by Mrs. Obama, calling her a hypocrite and suggesting it is not her place to tell Americans what they can and cannot eat.


In the cartoon, she is seen telling her husband: 'I've stepped up my efforts to control America's eating habits by telling restaurants to lower portion sizes and fat content.'

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

 
Sarah Palin criticized Mrs. Obama's campaign last year, saying: 'What (Michelle Obama) is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat.'

"No Sarah since most of our families and kids are lazy lard asses!"

Tea bags have hit an all time low with this smear attack on the first lady. Andy Breitbart and Co., and its dwelling of blogger trolls have had a myriad of less than ethical instances with the African Americans. Let us not forget the Shirley Sherrod instance, where lead buffoon Andrew Breitbart was caught doctoring videos and is now currently being sued by Sherrod for his less than ethical shenanigans.

Yes, Big government and the tea bag movement have supported African Americans, twice to be exact. We constantly hear Dana Loesch backing the "Pigford" issue. This along with the Sherrod facade would be the only times you will see or hear the radical tea associated with African Americans. And lets be clear, the Sherrod fiasco is not supporting the "African American movement"!

Loesch, Breitbart, and tea bags galore will tell you in blogosphere land that the cartoon attack on Michelle Obama rests on her hypocritical stance on healthy eating, as the Obama's ate fat and greasy foods during their super bowl party.

If this is not a pot and kettle moment, then I am not sure what is. If Dana and Andy practiced what they preached, then certainly they would be taken more seriously. Dana and Andy always look for the "double standard", or "oh "X" did this so its acceptable for "Y" to do the same. I say to Dana Loesch and Andy....."practice what your preach"!

The radical extreme rights stance has always been that they will not allow "big government" tell them how to operate anything, never mind tell them the type of foods that they should intake, and having it come from an "African American" woman......... well its insult to injury to the republicans.

Until Breitbart and Company dumps the grade school playground mentality, then and only then can we take them at their word and truly believe that they are not white trash racists.



NFTOS

BALANCE THE BUDGET

BALANCING THE U.S. BUDGET

For all you republicans whom are complaining about President Obama's budget, you now have your chance to put your economic wit to use and "balance the budget". Is it realistic to believe that the United States of America can or ever will balance the budget? Probably not.

Today, you’re in charge of the nation’s finances. Some of your options have more short-term savings and some have more long-term savings. When you have closed the budget gaps for both 2015 and 2030, you are done.


President Barack Obama's 2012 budget proposal aims to slash $1.1 trillion from the U.S. deficit over 10 years. It includes a range of domestic spending reductions. The president faces the twin tasks of bringing down the ballooning budget deficit while keeping the economy afloat.

The Congressional Budget Office expects the budget deficit to hit $1.5 trillion this year. Couple that with a national debt nearing its $14.3 trillion ceiling, and a stubbornly high unemployment rate, Obama has his work cut out for him.

However, Republicans retort that the plan does not go far enough, and that it still spends, taxes and borrows too much. They are promising a plan of their own that will go further.

Most families have mortgages and credit cards, and they rarely if ever balance their budget, so are we ever to expect our Government to balance the budget?

Give the budget puzzle a try, and if you balance the budget and are able to sustain the economy, then you get the nod for the 2012 Presidential run.

NEW YORK TIMES BUDGET PUZZLE


NFTOS

BREAKING NFTOS NEWS

Editor-in-Chief Roger West inks deal with Examiner.com. Roger will represent the Richmond Virginia bureau. Roger will be the examiners "Richmond's Political Buzz Examiner".                                               



NFTOS Editor-in-Chief Roger West


Stay tuned, and we hope all twenty thousand daily readers of NFTOS will support Roger in his new digs.

Nothing changes here at NFTOS, as we will continue to blast out blogs on radical extreme politics and main stream media hot button issues.

Congrats Roger! We are proud of you!

NFTOS Staff



DIVIDED by POLITICS

It seems that with all the tea-partying (CPAC) shenanigans we've seen in the news, the trolling we see while on the Internet regarding Obama's decisions, and the Beckistan (Glenn Beck) rule about Socialism everywhere, I can say that we, as Americans, are split in half because our political views are so extremely divided. I realize after watching many CPAC snippets, that Progressives and angry teas will never ever come together for the betterment of one another, let alone our country.

But then again, without any of these radical republicans and their somewhat irrational decisions, we would just become some savage and odorless nation of kobolds always fighting over more trivial things.

Why are Americans and politics so divided?

Would it be because it's much easier for republicans to get away with lunacy when the proletariat's are fighting amongst themselves.

If I was to offer this message to any radical republican on this topic, they would snub their nose and produce a big thumbs down. Isn't it foolish to stand divided in the face of this historical economic crisis.

Its not that the tea bags do not like Obama's policies, (that would too be rational) it is that they don't like the President himself. It has become evident, from their recent irrelevant posts and actions of late regarding Obama's wife, or his birthplace - that as long as BROCK holds office, well shall remain a country severely divided.

Many years ago in my humanities class, we discussed this very thing. We were analyzing a famous Benjamin Franklin political cartoon, where, as most people know, a snake with initials of the colonies are spread apart - the caption reads, "JOIN OR DIE."

I stood up in class and stated what I believe is the perfect summary of what Franklin was trying to convey.
"in unity, there is strength." Most would agree that when a group of people work as individuals, the ending product fails terribly. This could explain some of the problems that America faces today.

If there is a new mantra in American politics, it is "bipartisanship." Barack Obama won the presidency emphasizing national unity; his rival, Senator John McCain, made bipartisan credentials a centerpiece of his own campaign. Prominent politicians from President Bill Clinton to high-ranking House Republican John Boehner speak of bipartisanship as an independent, innate good. It is not hard to understand the appeal of bipartisanship.

Our country has become so segmented. Middle ground doesnt exist any longer. There are no blurred lines that unite the men and women that should be working as hard as they possibly can to preserve the qualities that make our inhabitants so proud to be Americans. There is nothing respectable about a vast majority of republican politicians these days. Conservatives have traveled so far right that they cannot even begin to communicate and come to a compromise. Instead, they deceive the public and often the case play off our countries weakness to advance their own extreme agendas, but in doing so they are leaving this country in reckless chaos, and it is the common people that are suffering.

The foundation of this country is really something that we should all be reflecting on in our current situation. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, politically opposing figures, had to work together for the sake of this country. They were able to move forward and turn this country into something we can all be proud of. They were not concerned with themselves as much as they were for the newly created country - a country that we have learned to love and cherish because of the deeds these men did: TOGETHER. Their hard work and dedication resulted in this nations resolve to protect the freedom of all its citizens.  
Scoring "political points" shouldn't be the main objectives or goals for any political leader.

"If only - republicans would become less advantageous and more considerate of those they are representing".


It should not be about their own personal desires and convictions that necessitate their careers, but the desires and convictions of the nation as a whole. Like many other things in this world, our country has become more interested in a label, one’s party - not the actual fabric of the matter.

It wasn't so long ago that politicians had the luxury to bicker over how to spend a record budget surplus, Barack Obama was a state senator trying unsuccessfully to get a foot in the door of the U.S. Capitol, and George W. Bush went to sleep with visions of a dominant Republican majority dancing in his head. This first decade of the 21st century has taken us from hanging chads, to radical tea bags and beyond. From peace and prosperity to war and economic turmoil.

The United States is a divided nation. It is divided between politics and reality. There is a minority of powerful people who are focusing on politics. The majority consists of normal low to middle class people who have sincere concerns about their future. The statesmen that founded this country have long since gone and given way to a new breed, a radical breed. This breed consists of extreme politicians with radical views who have themselves in mind when making policy. These radical leaders whom lean well right of center have lost touch with reality.

Politicians are the only groups that can vote on its own pay raises. What other low to middle income American is allowed the pleasure of deciding his or her own pay? Individual business owners can't even have that luxury. If their business does not have the money to pay, they can't borrow from themselves and not have to pay it back.

Yes, our house is divided as a nation. Long ago it was divided by basic principles, not so now. It is divided by extreme radical politics. Politics has become a dirty word. Even the best intentions are thwarted after spending a few years in the political arena. It is time for the republicans to return this great country to where it once was, and instill those same ideals that it was founded on. The United States needs to go back to a country ran by the people and for the people.

Politics circa 2011 unfortunately is divided by whichever position helps the incumbent get re-elected, regardless of morality, ethics or other concerns having to do with expressions of humanity.



NFTOS

LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats

PolitiFact assigns "Pants on Fire" or "False" ratings to 39 percent of Republican statements compared to just 12 percent of Democrats since January 2010.

PolitiFact, the high profile political fact-checking operation at the St. Petersburg Times, has been criticized by those on the right from time to time for alleged bias in its grading of statements made by political figures and organizations.

The organization (and now its more than a half dozen state offshoots) grades statements made by politicians, pundits, reporters, interest groups, and even the occasional comedian (anyone 'driving the political discourse') on a six point "Truth-O-Meter" scale: True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False, and Pants On Fire for "ridiculously" false claims.

But although PolitiFact provides a blueprint as to how statements are rated, it does not detail how statements are selected.

For while there is no doubt members of both political parties make numerous factual as well as inaccurate statements - and everything in between - there remains a fundamental question of which statements (by which politicians) are targeted for analysis in the first place.

A Smart Politics content analysis of more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011 finds that current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts.

In total, 74 of the 98 statements by political figures judged "false" or "pants on fire" over the last 13 months were given to Republicans, or 76 percent, compared to just 22 statements for Democrats (22 percent).

First, it should be acknowledged that the number of public officials subjected to PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter lens from each party is fairly even during the period under analysis.

Of the 511 statements put through the Truth-O-Meter test from January 1, 2010 through January 31, 2011, PolitiFact devoted 74 percent of its attention to current and former political officeholders and elected officials (379 statements), 17 percent to ideological organizations and individuals not holding political office (85 statements), and 9 percent to other groups and individuals without a partisan or ideological agenda (28 statements). Another 20 statements came from chain e-mails, public opinion polls, bumper stickers, or "bloggers" generally (4 percent).

For those current or former political officeholders, PolitiFact has generally devoted an equal amount of time analyzing Republicans (191 statements, 50.4 percent) as they have Democrats (179 stories, 47.2 percent), with a handful of stories tracking statements by independents (9 stories, 2.4 percent).

Assuming for the purposes of this report that the grades assigned by PolitiFact are fair (though some would challenge this assumption), there has nonetheless been a great discrepancy regarding which political parties' officials and officeholders receive the top ratings and those that are accused of not telling the truth.

Republican statements were graded in the dreaded "false" and "pants on fire" categories 39 percent of the time, compared to just 12 percent for statements made by Democrats.

Republicans were also assigned a larger percentage of "Barely True" statements than Democrats, bringing the tally of all falsehoods or near falsehoods in the bottom three categories to 52.9 percent of Republican statements to just 24.6 percent of those made by Democrats.

That means a supermajority of falsehoods documented by PolitiFact over the last year - 76 percent - were attributed to Republicans, with just 22 percent of such statements coming from Democrats.

As a consequence, Democrats have therefore been presented as much more truthful - with over 75 percent of statements receiving the top three grades of True (16 percent), Mostly True (27 percent), or Half True (33 percent).

Less than half of Republican statements graded by PolitiFact were regarded as half truths or better - just 90 out of 191 (47 percent).


PolitiFact Ratings of Current and Former Political Officials, January 2010 - January 2011

During the last 13 months, the Republicans that have led the way with the largest number of Barely True, False, and Pants On Fire grades are Sarah Palin with eight, Michele Bachmann with seven, and John Boehner, Mike Pence, and the National Republican Congressional Committee with four each.

Whereas Boehner received six "True," two "Mostly True," and one "Half True" ratings during this span, Pence and the NRCC received none in these categories, Bachmann only two, and Palin just four.

What is particularly interesting about these findings is that the political party in control of the Presidency, the US Senate, and the US House during almost the entirety of the period under analysis was the Democrats, not the Republicans.

And yet, PolitiFact chose to highlight untrue statements made by those in the party out of power.

But this potential selection bias - if there is one at PolitiFact - seems to be aimed more at Republican officeholders than conservatives per se.

An examination of the more than 80 statements PolitiFact graded over the past 13 months by ideological groups and individuals who have not held elective office, conservatives only received slightly harsher ratings than liberals.

Half of the statements made by conservatives received ratings of Pants on Fire (12.5 percent), False (16.1 percent), or Barely True (21.4 percent), compared to 41 percent for liberals.

PolitiFact Ratings of Non-Officeholder Ideologues, January 2010 - January 2011

These findings beg the central unanswered question, and that is what is the process by which PolitiFact selects the statements that it ultimately grades?

When PolitiFact Editor Bill Adair was on C-SPAN's Washington Journal in August of 2009, he explained how statements are picked:

"We choose to check things we are curious about. If we look at something and we think that an elected official or talk show host is wrong, then we will fact-check it."

If that is the methodology, then why is it that PolitiFact takes Republicans to the woodshed much more frequently than Democrats?

One could theoretically argue that one political party has made a disproportionately higher number of false claims than the other, and that this is subsequently reflected in the distribution of ratings on the PolitiFact site.

However, there is no evidence offered by PolitiFact that this is their calculus in decision-making.

Nor does PolitiFact claim on its site to present a 'fair and balanced' selection of statements, or that the statements rated are representative of the general truthfulness of the nation's political parties or the elected officials involved.

And yet...

In defending PolitiFact's "statements by ruling" summaries - tables that combine all ratings given by PolitiFact to an individual or group - Adair explained:

"The media in general has shied away from fact checking to a large extent because of fears that we'd be called biased, and also because I think it's hard journalism. It's a lot easier to give the on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand kind of journalism and leave it to readers to sort it out. But that isn't good enough these days. The information age has made things so chaotic, I think it's our obligation in the mainstream media to help people sort out what's true and what's not."

The question is not whether PolitiFact will ultimately convert skeptics on the right that they do not have ulterior motives in the selection of what statements are rated, but whether the organization can give a convincing argument that either a) Republicans in fact do lie much more than Democrats, or b) if they do not, that it is immaterial that PolitiFact covers political discourse with a frame that suggests this is the case.

In his August 2009 C-SPAN interview, Adair explained how the Pants on Fire rating was the site's most popular feature, and the rationale for its inclusion on the Truth-O-Meter scale:

"We don't take this stuff too seriously. It's politics, but it's a sport too."

By levying 23 Pants on Fire ratings to Republicans over the past year compared to just 4 to Democrats, it appears the sport of choice is game hunting - and the game is elephants.

NFTOS







CNN HIRES A BREITBART FLUNKY

The original cable news network (a.k.a. CNN) announced yesterday that it has hired St. Louis Tea Party co-founder Dana Loesch for its 2012 election coverage. HUH!

The contract is the latest coup d'état for Loesch, who -- in just a few years' time -- has rocketed from a local mommy blogger to a nationally recognized political pundit.

Loesch stated in a CNN press release yesterday: "I'm excited to be working with CNN and am appreciative of their efforts to showcase diverse political thought on their airwaves," said Dana Loesch. "I look forward to the discussions."

Here at NFTOS we're not privy to why and/or how CNN came upon hiring the uber-conservative Loesch, though she had been a somewhat regular on Larry King Live. Also, it's worth noting that CNN is a network clearly on the decline, having lost huge market share to the more partisan programming of Fox News and MSNBC.

Will Loesch help stem the tide? Who knows. Some (but not this blogger) admit her face is easy on the eyes, even if her shrill arguments can be painful on the ears. Perhaps that "lovely mug" of hers will help keep her followers and readers from changing the channel?

Many of the commenter's over at Andrew Breitbart's website, Big Journalism, for which Loesch serves as editor-in-chief, aren't convinced. They refer to CNN as the "Commie News Network" and say not even Loesch could make them tune in.

Other comments from Big Journalism go like this:

"Ms Loesch needs to work on her game"...


"Her scattered appearances on FOX were pretty embarrassing; she may be right on the issues but came across as in over her head- and out of her league. Her posts here at BH are ok; nothing cutting edge or particularly enlightening."

"She is pretty, though- and a conservative female with looks will get hired, that's for sure."

"CNN is now a graveyard for political analysis. No one watches them unless there is a natural disaster, or some big foreign conflagration. She does risk becoming the Joe Scarborough of CNN."

"I haven't been winning many fans here over the months, with my comments in this regard. If she wants to be a professional, and be treated as such, she better get a razor strop, and hone her skill. They are lacking in many areas. This post will go over like a fart in church, but it is the truth. "

"Because your fans will stop and think, and then agree with your assessment. For no matter how much one likes the comely young lass from St Louis, she- so far- has not been ready for prime time. She has had a recent makeover, but her looks were fine to begin with. "

"Unfortunately, at this stage of the game she is still a dilletante. Now, Arianna Huffington has made a career out of that- but it won't work for a conservative"...

"They are going to chew her up, and spit her out in little pieces. If she thinks she has gotten this spot due to talent and achievement, she is wrong. They want to put her there to ridicule her, and make fun of her."

"I sure don't like to write this, but just sit back and watch."

"She isn't "hard" enough, yet."

"I have given the woman a chance.

Going back to the fall of 2009, when she wrote her very first article, and first appeared at Big Government; long before she was Editor here.

Here is something for you, and everyone else to consider.

If she can't do well here, with a friendly audience, she doesn't have a prayer in the Big Leagues. (Or in the case of CNN, more appropriately, the Minor Leagues). "

"count me as someone who isn't happy about Dana doing CNN. i like her a lot more as a blogger than as a panelist... it doesn't look easy, being a political panelist. you have to really pick your spots to butt in, etc.. Dana might develop those skills, but i'm afraid this may do more to hurt her than help her"

"her TV work has shown her to be a lightweight"...

"Spirited, and challenging- and right on the issues. But not a 'prime time player'. She needs work on it, make no doubt about it"...

This once Democrat (yes Loesch was once a leftie) has expedited her claim to fame at a velocious pace. Loesch, with barely a high school education now becomes one of cables news' political subject matter experts. If there ever was a WTF moment this one certainly would rank amongst the top or crème de le crème of WTF's.

I have never bitten my lip when it comes to Loesch, and I am certainly not going to be shy here. Loesch is St. Louis's favorite hatemongering radio personality on Tea Party Radio 97.1 FM . Dana Loesch would fit well at Faux News given her history of outright distortions, lies, and peddling hate speech that poisons the St. Louis Metro Area/Metro East. Prior to her Breitbart gig she was well-known for NOT allowing comments on her blogs, thus making her a coward and a scaredy-cat. She has also alienated her Liberal-leaning fans and even some Conservatives as well from her Mamalogues days due to her political activity.

All of NFTOS' twenty thousand readers are well aware of my documented distaste for this hack.

What ever happened to going to college and getting a higher education prior to becoming an expert in your "professional" career? How is it that most tea bags take the least path of resistance to a political career. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Dana Loesch et al all narrowly escaped graduation from high school! How is this a ticket to stardom and expertise on American politics? Truly the American dream has struck those that exhibit IQ's less than 50.

Dana Loesch is the half female version of Beavis and Butthead (take your pick on which one she is). Loesch is Ann Coulter's twin, the only differentiating factor between the two is Loesch is without the Adams apple.

Last September, CNN unwittingly found themselves enmeshed in a bizarre story after correspondent Abbie Boudreau, while compiling a documentary on the emerging guerilla right-wing press, was saved from being "punked" by Andrew Breitbart protégé James O'Keefe, who allegedly had hatched a scheme to "hit on" Boudreau after luring her onto his boat. That remarkably strange incident happened not long after Breitbart released the now-infamous edited videotapes of Shirley Sherrod, which earned him widespread condemnation from all corners of the media, including CNN.

In November, after ABC invited -- and then disinvited -- Breitbart to take part in their election night coverage, Howard Kurtz, host of CNN's Reliable Sources, described Breitbart as "the conservative activist who pushed the ACORN undercover sting and posted that misleading videotape, the one that made Shirley Sherrod look like a racist," adding: "I'm not sure if Breitbart was the best choice."

CNN should by this point know better than to get involved with anything even remotely connected to Breitbart.

But it seems they haven't quite learned their lesson as local Tea Party leader and radio talk show host Dana Loesch will appear across the network's prime time programs, as well as other dayparts and platforms.

I leave you with this thought process..........."Maybe there are some mental health provisions in the current health care reform bill that will make the Insane-American demographic more sought after by the advertisers of CNN.


Of course, these funds will only go to those who acknowledge their problem, so the more moderate right wing won't see a spike in their representation, but for the more extreme, bat shit, pants-pi$$ing crazy right ( the Breitbart crowd), the ones who can't help but notice they need help, their consumer dollar may be pumped up a little by the add of Dana Loesch."

Roger West

Editor-in-Chief NFTOS

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