Your blogger

My photo
When Roger West first launched the progressive political blog "News From The Other Side" in May 2010, he could hardly have predicted the impact that his venture would have on the media and political debate. As the New Media emerged as a counterbalance to established media sources, Roger wrote his copious blogs about national politics, the tea party movement, mid-term elections, and the failings of the radical right to the vanguard of the New Media movement. Roger West's efforts as a leading blogger have tremendous reach. NFTOS has led the effort to bring accountability to mainstream media sources such as FOX NEWS, Breitbart's "Big Journalism. Roger's breadth of experience, engaging style, and cultivation of loyal readership - over 92 million visitors - give him unique insight into the past, present, and future of the New Media and political rhetoric that exists in our society today. What we are against: Radical Right Wing Agendas Incompetent Establishment Donald J. Trump Corporate Malfeasence We are for: Global and Econmoic Security Social and Economic Justice Media Accountability THE RESISTANCE

Monday, January 31, 2011


Now, you may have heard a thing or two about Koch Industries. Their role in funding climate change deniers is well documented. What you may not realize is that Koch intentionally flies beneath the radar. David Koch likes to joke that Koch Industries is the biggest company you've never heard of. They're able to remain unknown because they hide behind shadowy front groups like Americans for Prosperity. Co-founded by David Koch, Americans for Prosperity funds advertising and public events designed to mislead Americans about climate change and energy policy.

Koch Industries knows that if Americans realized that a massive oil pipeline and refinery company was behind harmless-sounding groups that work to mislead us about climate change, no one would listen to them. They want you to think that what is good for the oil industry is good for the American people, but you and I both know what they actually care about: their bottom line.

But if you never have heard of Koch Industries hold on to your hat:

Koch Industries, Inc. (pronounced /ˈkoʊk/) is an American private energy conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch also owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Flint Hill Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, Koch Minerals and Matador Cattle Company.

Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining and distribution[1] of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching, finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments.

In 2008, Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion, down from the largest in 2006. If Koch Industries were a public company in 2007, it would rank about sixteenth in the Fortune 500.

Fred C. Koch, for whom Koch Industries, Inc. is named, co-founded the company in 1940 and developed an innovative crude oil refining process. His sons, Charles G. Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer, and David H. Koch, executive vice president, are principal owners of the company after they bought out their brothers, Frederick and William for $1.1 billion in 1983. Charles and David Koch each own 42% of Koch Industries, and Charles has stated that the company will publicly offer shares "literally over my dead body".
Much attention has been paid to Koch’s role in funding the organizers of the Tea Party movement and its supporting institutions. Koch operatives orchestrated the first anti-Obama Tea Party protests, channeled Tea Party groups into increasing the Koch’s personal wealth, and organized Tea Parties for Republican campaigns and lobbying drives.

Koch Industries is the largest private corporation in America and they thrive on emitting carbon pollution and other forms of pollution for free. Much of Koch Industries’ $120 billion-a-year revenues are derived from burning fossil fuels: oil refineries and pipelines, chemical plants, fertilizer plants, manufacturing factories, and the shipping of coal. Moreover, Koch Industries owns Georgia Pacific, one of the largest timber companies, so Koch also contributes to global warming by decreasing the world’s carbon sink capacity. The National Academy of Sciences, the US Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all come to the same conclusion: “that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and the loss of carbon-sink capacity in heavily timbered forests are increasing temperatures and making oceans more acidic.” Corporate documents revealed by ThinkProgress show that Koch Industries explicitly targeted laws to reduce carbon emissions as a threat to Koch’s bottom line.

To boost their profits, Koch is the largest funder of climate change denying organizations and media outlets in the world. For example, Koch bankrolls denier groups like the CATO Institute, Fraser Institute, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, the Manhattan Institute, the Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the State Policy Network, and dozens of others. Not only have Koch fronts instructed Tea Party groups to kill national legislation to address climate change, but Koch groups have been instrumental in pushing climate change-believers out of the Republican Party. As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has detailed, the vast majority of new Republicans in Congress are “climate zombies.” Koch Industries is so fervently anti-climate science that it recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a belief in global warming damages its reputation.

Koch’s active role in Republican politics and multifaceted propaganda campaigns are almost always tied to Koch Industries’ business interests.

Oh the web one weaves when one chooses to deceive. The below links (provided by think progress) show a clear and present danger that Koch Industries provides in both politics and global business.

Arguing Over Racial Segregation Plan, AFP Official Threatens Professor: ‘I’m Going To Knock You For A Loop’

Exclusive: Tea Party Billionaire David Koch Denies Climate Change, Shrugs Off His Carbon Pollution

Exclusive: David Koch Refuses To Answer Questions About Citizens United, Secret Right-Wing Meetings

Fulfilling Father’s Campaign To Segregate Public Schools, Koch Groups End Successful Integration Program In NC

Tea Party Billionaire David Koch Entertains Newly Elected Republicans On The First Day Of The New Congress

Theater Audience Boos Tea Party Billionaire David Koch

Koch-Funded Book Argues Against Mine Safety Laws In West Virginia

Koch-Backed Groups Helped Kill Law Designed To Prevent Voter Suppression Plot Hatched By Koch-Backed Groups

Meet Mike Pompeo: The Congressional Candidate Spawned By The ‘Kochtopus’

TP’s Lee Fang Discusses The ‘Kochtopus’ Network On Countdown

Koch Industries Takes Credit For The ‘Spontaneous’ Tea Parties: We’re Glad We ‘Helped Stimulate’ Them

McCain Caught Fundraising With Business Group That Killed McCain-Feingold, Shouts ‘I Love The Chamber!’

TIMELINE: From Promoting Acid Rain To Climate Denial, Over 20 Years Of David Koch’s Polluter Front Groups

Drilling Is Not The Solution To Create Jobs And Reduce Reliance On Foreign Oil

Right-Wing Billionaire David Koch Funding SwiftBoat Campaign Against Global Warming Science

Beck’s Character Assassination Campaign Against Van Jones Was Fueled By AFP’s Efforts To Kill Green Jobs

This past weekend, David and Charles Koch, the co-owners of the $100 billion Koch Industries pollution conglomerate, hosted their annual meeting in Palm Springs to coordinate strategy and raise funds for the extreme radial tea bag movement.

Top on the Koch agenda is the elimination of the estate tax for billionaires, the end to an open Internet, and the prevention of limits on their toxic pollution. Spending millions of dollars a year — a tiny percent of their pollution-based wealth — the Koch brothers and their ideological allies intend to manipulate American democracy to protect their private economic interests. Their selfish pursuit puts everyone else’s liberties at terrible risk, threatening the “four essential human freedoms” articulated by President Frank Delano Roosevelt: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, from want, and freedom from fear.

When NFTOS tells you Koch Industries funds the Tea Party movement, this is what we mean:

"The Koch's are on a whole different level. There's no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I've been in Washington since Watergate, and I've never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times."
Koch Industries, has always been a major backer for a myriad of radical right-wing causes. While the Koch brothers have tried to insure one degree of separation from tea bag central, the plethora of associations are overwhelming.

Righties and Glenn Beck have been on the George "spooky dood" Soros mob lynching parade for months.

Knowing what we know now about Koch Industries and the brothers Grimm (David and Charles Koch) its high time the progressives apply pressure to these radical right wing nut jobs.

There is know doubt that the brothers Grimm are the puppet masters to the tea bag society.

Progressives took to Palm Springs to boycott the Koch's tea party. The theme of the party crash was to "uncloak the Koch's".

We at NFTOS will carry this theme on, moving forward to expose our readers to just how corrupt these boys are. Corporate malfeasance seems to exist everywhere within Koch Industries.

A Bush selected Supreme Court cleared the path for Corporations funding politics. Corporations have been around far longer than our country, and our founding fathers were very wary of extending privileges to economic entities. They were way more concerned with living, breathing human beings. The Bill of Rights was written for the benefit of people, not companies – and there lies the ultimate irony of the Supreme Court ruling.

The Plutocracy is way too big today in our country. Say goodbye to the Republic, because it’s a thing of the past if Koch and the Chamber of Commerce are allowed to keep their hands in the cookie jar.


Saturday, January 29, 2011

Virginia House Revives Doctrine of ‘Interposition’ Last Used To Defend Jim Crow

Segregationist Virginia Senator Harry Byrd Sr.

In response to the landmark Affordable Care Act, numerous right-wing state lawmakers  have introduced unconstitutional bills attempting to nullify this federal law. Earlier this week, however, the Virginia House of Delegates went even further, passing a sweeping nullification bill  that directly conflicts with numerous Supreme Court decisions:

All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of the Commonwealth that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of the Commonwealth shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.

It is all but certain that the Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act under its existing precedents, but this specific question has yet to reach the justices themselves. The Virginia House’s attempt to prevent the federal government from regulating locally produced goods, by contrast, is a direct assault on the judiciary. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress does not simply have the power to regulate commerce that crosses state lines, it also has the power to regulate wholly intrastate matters that substantially affect interstate commerce.”

The Virginia Legislature has pulled this stunt before. In 1956, Virginia lawmakers objected to a different Supreme Court decision — Brown v. Board of Education. Rather than acknowledging that they are bound by the Constitution, however, these lawmakers instead enacted a resolution of interpositionclaiming that they were “duty bound” to defy the Supreme Court:

[W]e have watched with growing concern as the power delegated to the Congress to regulate commerce among the several States has been stretched into a power to control local enterprises remote from interstate commerce; we have witnessed with disquietude the advancing tendency to read into a power to lay taxes for the general welfare a power to confiscate the earnings of our people for purposes unrelated to the general welfare as we conceive it . . . .

Virginia can remain silent no longer. Recognizing, as this Assembly does, the prospect of incalculable harm to the public schools of this State and the disruption of the education of her children, Virginia is duty bound to interpose against these most serious consequences, and earnestly to challenge the usurped authority that would inflict them upon her citizens.

Sadly, the Virginia House is not alone in attempting to revive long discredited legal doctrines to advance its right-wing agenda. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has suggested that child labor laws, FEMA, food stamps, the FDA, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution. Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Rand Paul (R-KY) both believe that they can strip millions of U.S. citizens of their citizenship of their citizenship in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right-wing lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act all ask the courts to jettison nearly two centuries of settled constitutional law.

Indeed, if the right had its way, it’s doubtful there would be much left of the Constitution.


Friday, January 28, 2011


They’re bound to eventually get around to creating jobs, right? The midterm election cycle really wasn’t that long ago. It was recent enough for congressional Republicans to remember that they did well by running around asking questions like, “Where are the jobs?”

Job creation and economic growth remain the dominant issue on the minds of voters, though the GOP seems to have lost sight of public priorities with surprising speed.

The very first issue tackled by the new House GOP majority was, of course, gutting the health care system, despite the fact that their legislation has no chance at passing, and despite the fact that their proposal would hurt job creation. For their second major initiative, Republicans chose abortion.

Last week, the Republican Study Committee announced one of its top new goals is using federal power to restrict marriage rights in the District of Columbia — remember, they hate overbearing federal intervention in local affairs, except when they don’t — and this week the House GOP leadership announced yet another priority.

New House Speaker John A. Boehner formally endorsed a bill Wednesday to revive and expand the school voucher program for the District of Columbia, calling it “a model for similar programs throughout our country.”
Yes, Boehner loathes spending taxpayer money, unless it’s going to pay for private school tuition.

We are curious — when, exactly, might we see Republicans work on creating jobs? After tackling health care, abortion, gay marriage, and school vouchers, maybe then the GOP might care about unemployment?

Honestly, this is getting a little silly. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) wrote an op-ed last week on “economic policy,” and literally didn’t mention jobs at all. There were two Republican responses to the State of the Union address, and neither one presented specific ideas about job creation. The Republican Study Committee has an economic plan of sorts, and it’s intended to deliberately but more Americans out of work.

Can anyone, anywhere, actually describe the Republican plan to reduce unemployment? The White House’s plan is significantly easier to identify.

The GOP is offering nothing on the public’s Issue One (jobs), while Obama is calling for spending on construction, education and energy.
This story mimics the deficit theme from the two headed asp. Republicans are nonstop with the spending issue, but when asked what are they going to cut, not a one can give a program or instance that would shape their deficit reduction bandwagon.

In March, John Boehner asked, “When are we going to address the number one issue on the minds of our fellow citizens? When are we going to focus on the economy and getting people back to work?”

I don’t know, John, when are we?

The time is now for the two headed asp to put up or shut up. Quit bitching about gloom and doom and come to the table with solutions for your bitch, otherwise grab the dunce cap and sit in the corner.


Thursday, January 27, 2011

Republican Party Platform...........Of 1956

Cap and Trade and Healthcare reform where initially created by the republicans. The Dream Act was sponsored by John McCain. This was the mentality of the responsible republican! Somewhere in the last fifty years the republican got off track! Somewhere they lost the ability to maintain the moderate conservative stance that so many worked so hard for. Somewhere along the lines they became very extreme and very radical.

The weltanschauung of the current republican regime seems quite different from the parties platform fifty years ago, and the coarse, or the peregrination of the current republican party is well right of Presidents Eisenhower's vision not so long ago.

We could assume that 2011 tea bags would call Eisenhower and the republican platform of 1956 "liberal" or "progressive".

This must see explanation from Rachel Maddow (Below) details the Republican Party's move to the right, from 1950 to now, and its jaw dropping to say the least.

In 1956, Republicans weren't afraid to be associated with the word "liberal" when it came to people issues. This shows they actually embraced the term that Rush Limbaugh has now basically turned into a curse word in Republican vernacular.

Our research highlights some of the planks found in the 1956 Republican Party platform that would be deemed commie pinko by today's Republicans. Like this one:

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs--expansion of social security--broadened coverage in unemployment insurance --improved housing--and better health protection for all our people.
How about the environment:

We favor a comprehensive study of the effect upon wildlife of the drainage of our wetlands. We recognize the need for maintaining isolated wilderness areas.
Or regulation of business:

A continuously vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws

Legislation to enable closer Federal scrutiny of mergers which have a significant or potential monopolistic connotations;

Procedural changes in the antitrust laws to facilitate their enforcement.

Or how about this communist rhetoric?

Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;...

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;

Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public.

Is it just me, or has the Republican Party moved just a tad to the right since the 1950s.

Dwight D. Eisenhower would not only NOT be welcome in today's GOP, if he tried to crash their convention he would be forcibly removed, possibly with fire hoses. This brings into stunning relief just how far to the right the Republican Party has gone in a relatively short time (54 years). And how far out of touch with most Americans they've truly gotten. The American people back in those halcyon, crew cut 1950's agreed with this platform overwhelmingly. But today, Republicans would label it as "socialist".

See entire 1956 platform script here:

If the above is not evidence enough, let a real republican tell you like it is. Meghan McCain daughter of John McCain speaking on how the tea bags infuse their imbue on the country.

Remember the old game show "To Tell The Truth"? Hold that thought a moment.

There are at least ten types of republican:

Going back to the game show thought process.......Will the REAL REPUBLICAN PLEASE STAND UP.


Wednesday, January 26, 2011


Gloom and doom Vs Bat S** Crazy

Where does one begin to start with all the fireworks that entertained the political junkie in us all late last night?

While the President laid low in his State of The Union Speech, we can't say the same for the double dose of rebuttal viewers received from the republican party last night.

For the first time in American history we had two whimsical, capricious rebuttals from the two headed asp known as the republican party. While only one voice was backed and supported by the "official" republican party, another chose to invoke their nonsense into the fray. The plethora, or multitude of personalities that exist in the republican camp are never ending. One could associate republicans to the Sally Field character Sybil (Sally Field starred in the title role of the movie Sybil which dramatizes the life of a shy young graduate student, Sybil Dorsett (in real life, Shirley Ardell Mason), whom was suffering from dissociative identity disorder and claimed a development of at least 12 different personalities.

The "official" republican rebuttal was given by Rep (R-WI) Paul "Gloom and Doom" Ryan. Ryan chose to paint a black and bleak picture of America that would have made republican nut case Glenn Beck proud. You could assume that Ryan graduated from Beck University with his "gloom and doom' report on the countries deficit. (To see the real facts that dispute Ryan's "end of days theory" read Huffington Post story here:


Ryan's philosophy for healthcare is very convoluted and calls for the elderly to get "coupons" when shopping for healthcare, and anyone whom is under 55 is not going to receive their entitlement to Social Security. How's that make you feel readers? Does this give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about your countries future under a republican regime?

While the congressman's dark opinionated diatribe was entertaining, once one completes the lengthy fact checks, we find that his verbiage while eloquent, is just more of the same; i.e. scare tactics and fear mongering.

As if this wasn't enough, the discombobulated party exposed America to more lunacy.

Michele Bachmann, self imposed "tea bag leader of the republican caucus" felt she was entitled a rebuttal. Representative Michele Bachmann didn’t bring a “prom date” to the State of the Union address, she didn’t wear the ribbon corsage and she crashed the after party known as the official Republican response. When Ms. Bachmann addressed the nation with her own, more alarmist assessment of its state, she seemed almost like the telekinetic high school heroine of “Carrie.” The last time we saw eyes like hers, they were on a guy that had carved a swastika between them (Charles Manson). Clearly someone needs to retrofit the congresswoman with a straight jacket for the potential trip to the funny farm.

Ms. Bachmann defied Democratic and Republican leaders who had scripted a night of unity, courtesy and common purpose. Instead, Ms. Bachmann gave viewers a blast of Tea Partisan fury that served as a rebuke to both President Obama and to the milder, more conciliatory official Republican response which was delivered by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

It wasn’t just what she said, though she used words like “explosion” and “exploded” and “Obamacare” a lot. It was the way Ms. Bachmann spoke, smiling and gesturing with an intensity that almost cracked the screen. Bachmann, poised in her normal zombie, hypnotic like state, infused her ignorance once again into mainstream media with comments like:

“Instead of a leaner, smarter government, we bought a bureaucracy that now tells us which light bulbs to buy and which may put 16,500 I.R.S. agents in charge of policing President Obama’s health care bill.”

Remember readers, this is the same congresswoman whom stated that the Presidents Asian trip would cost America $200 million a day to support.

Last night in a solidarity statement, all congressmen and women dawned a black and white ribbon, (support for Congresswoman Giffords) that is all except Rep Bachmann.

Bachmann's defiance is standard protocol for the tea bags. The republican party needs to reign in their parties most extreme and become as one. Last we where aware the country had three political parties, that being Democrat, Independent, and republican, not sure where extreme radical tea comes in.



Apparently Bachmann's elusions of grandeur doesn't stop with rebuttals to presidential State of the Union addresses. Yesterday Bachmann didn't disappoint the fodder gatherers as she has laid claim that 'slavery ended with the founding fathers".

Its never been more evident to our country that Bachmann apparently missed six grade history class. You would presume that with all of their citations of the Constitution and remembrance of the founding fathers, Tea Party candidates would understand history at least a little bit. But that's apparently not the case with Rep. Michele Bachmann.

The problem for Bachmann is that John Quincy Adams died in 1848, 15 years before slavery was abolished with the Emancipation Proclamation. Also, most of the founding fathers did own slaves, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, one of the signers, James Monroe, executed 30 of his slaves after they tried to revolt for their freedom. George Washington also had teeth implanted into his mouth that were taken out of the mouths of his slaves.

For reference George Washington died in 1799 which is 62 years prior to the civil war. Would Bachmann and fellow tea bags be suggesting that 600 thousands soldiers died for nothing?

Slavery and its ending revolves around the thirteenth amendment, and it goes like this:

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward, in a proclamation, declared it to have been adopted. It was the first of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Recently Bachmann also contended and compared the US Census to WWII internment camps.

Prior to one becoming a congress man or woman, some prerequisites should exist:

Knowledge of the constitution
Knowledge of your countries history
An IQ test score above 20
Clearance from a reputable Dr. that your not a certifiable lunatic

The insurmountable amount of emails bombarding NFTOS with regards to Bachmann is at best viral. There is know doubt that the republican party is in complete and utter ataxia.


Whether you follow the "gloom and doom" theory of the republican party, or the "bat sh*t crazy" ideology of their extreme brother, there is know doubt in most Americans mind that the republican party has lost touch with the mother ship.


Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Republicans "Guilty Of Toxic Political Environment"

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s statement saying she wants Minnesotans “armed and dangerous” during a radio interview in 2009 has become a target of liberals in the wake of the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona this weekend. Rep. Keith Ellison, Bachmann’s neighbor to the south, said such statements have consequences, while New York Times columnist Paul Krugman used it as an example of the “climate of hate.”

“I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.” Really Senator?
As Americans search for answers as to why a 22-year old would open fire at a political event, many politicians and pundits have pointed to the increase in violence-tinged rhetoric, mainly from the conservative end of the spectrum.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D) told MPR that the tragedy is an opportunity to scrutinize at the overly violent political rhetoric that has become a large part of the nation’s political climate:

“We’ve gotten so immune to it, and it doesn’t really rank in terms of priority because it’s just so ordinary, so regular,” Ellison said. “But we should never let it become ordinary. We should take these things seriously.”
Ellison notes that back in early 2009, his colleague, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., called for Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous” in response to President Barack Obama’s energy plans.

Ellison said that kind of gun imagery doesn’t belong in the political discourse.

“The political rhetoric has grown increasingly toxic, and making allusions (to) guns and reloading, and armed and dangerous, certainly contributes to a toxic political environment, and does have consequences,” Ellison said.
Paul Krugman of the New York Times notes that there is room for debate in American politics, but not for “eliminationist rhetoric”:

The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

It’s the saturation of our political discourse, especially our airwaves, with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from those with radical extreme views of the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

To often the case we see republican colleagues applauding each other for saying toxic things:

Your colleagues pat you on the back and say 'boy that was good, you called him, you called her, such a good name' and that's celebrated," If you really are nasty to somebody and if you had a hidden microphone, you could hear people saying, "it's like, "good job" and "we've got to stop it".

It’s tough being a Republican watchdog. Every day new spiritually professed alliterations are spewed on the American public under the guise of what’s good for America.

A person who is an expert at rhetoric uses exaggeration as their tool to convince others of their viewpoint. In our blogs we have been accused of using rhetoric simply because our viewpoint was drastically different from that of the accusers. That, in itself, does NOT constitute rhetoric. We call it as we see it. As we have said many times, truth is relative.

We all observe facts differently and arrive at different evaluations and ultimately, different judgments. If we base our evaluations and judgments on FACTS and not OPINIONS, we stand a better chance of offering a convincing argument. We all see the ‘truth” differently and reveal it in our own way.

Using Glenn Beck as an example: NFTOS polled its readers, and they were asked why they listened too, or why they watch Glenn Beck. The reply:
“We watch and listen because we don’t know what he is going to say next.”
This came from both people who liked him and hated him. This type of appeal is based on sensationalism. Ordinary people seeking extraordinary events by vicarious participation. This is exactly the goal of republican right wing toxic rhetoric.


Monday, January 24, 2011

Republicans Often Invoke the "FOUNDING FATHERS"

This, along with other whimsical nonsense often oozes from the lips of the misguided and misinformed Republican.

For much of the extreme radical right, there’s a near-obsession with the nation’s "Founding Fathers". Conservatives’ understanding of history is a little shakier than it should be, but the extreme right seems convinced that their vision of government is identical to that of those who wrote the Constitution.

This is particularly true in the debate over health care reform, in which conservatives insist that the "Founding Fathers" never would have approved of the Affordable Care Act. It’s an odd hypothetical — those living in an 18th-century agrarian society with a modest population couldn’t possibly imagine the needs of modern American society — but the crux of the argument is that the individual mandate is at odds with our historical and legal traditions.

Americans history is already filled with examples to the contrary — government-mandated purchases go back to the days of George Washington:

In July of 1798, Congress passed — and President John Adams signed — “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

Yes readers, in all likelihood, the "Founding Fathers" were aware of what the "Founding Fathers" considered constitutionally permissible.

Most intelligent humans would argue, persuasively, that this is little more than an interesting historical footnote, and that reform proponents should remember that “we can’t decide questions of contemporary policy by trying to figure out what Jefferson, Adams, and Madison would say about them.”

Draft of Declaration of Independence

That’s entirely right. Still, there’s some entertainment value in knocking down one of the right’s favorite arguments, and for Supreme Court justices who are equally obsessed with determining framers’ intent, it’s possible anecdotes like this one could carry some actual weight, whether they should or not.

What’s more, it’s not just Adams — Thomas Jefferson also supported the identical 1798 proposal, which, any way you slice it, required private citizens to pay into a public health-care system, and included a “regulation against a form of inactivity.”

We at NFTOS could imagine the founding fathers would be aghast that so many have molded, twisted and interpreted the Constitution in so many convoluted ways. Interpretations and opinions - they are like posterior ends, everyone has one, but this doesn't always mean that you have it right.

By any sensible standard, one does not need obscure 18th-century anecdotes to know the individual mandate (which was a Republican idea) passes constitutional muster. But for those right of center who consider this original-intent concept paramount, we can add this to the list of things they’ve gotten terribly wrong.


Saturday, January 22, 2011


Our political journalist mentor has signed off for now.

We are surprised he survived the campaign funding debacle late last year, whether this was Olbermann's decision or not, democrats lost their loudest voice last night.

Olbermann was MSNBC's most popular personality and single-handedly led its transformation to an outspoken, left-leaning cable news network in prime time. For nearly eight years, Countdown with Keith Olbermann led the charge against conservative misinformation in prime time. He was one of the few voices in the media willing to hold the Bush administration accountable and fight the right-wing smears against progressives and their policies.

MSNBC's entire nightly broadcasting schedule was modeled around Olbermann. Shultz, Maddow, Mathews and O'Donnell. The only speaker with the testicle fortitude of Olbermann is Ed Shultz, and one could assume that Shultz would be the next to topple at the MSNBC guillotine.

Whether you liked Olbermann or not, his journalistic aptitude was bar none top shelf. His way with the English language was exceeded by none. The mans fervor for ensuring those on the left had a voice was unrelenting. His words where often backed up with data and facts rarely used by other cable news entities.

Once Olbermann dropped the pretense of journalistic objectivity, he became a hero to liberals battered by the popularity of Fox News Channel and its conservative commentators. Olbermann openly feuded with Fox, often naming personalities like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck one of his "worst persons in the world" for some of their statements.

Republicans number one nemesis is silenced, yet we hear Beck, Palin, Faux News et al ranting about shutting people up and freedom of speech. Tea bags galore are commenting on right wing blogs everywhere regarding their number one obstacle. If one was to look beyond the smoke screen one would assume that Comcast was the executioner in Olbermann's case.

Olbermann is an innovator and extremely talented broadcaster who showed there was a market for progressive views on cable news.

Where will we find Olbermann next, well Faux News is certainly out (but just think of the possibilities if he was a unbalanced and unfair Faux newsy), and the only other alternative for a major voice would be CNN. CNN has continued to struggle in prime time, most recently with a program in Olbermann's time slot hosted by Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker. Bringing Olbermann on, however, would mean a dramatic shift in the network's determined nonpartisan stance, and there was no indication such a change was imminent.

For now Keith we bid you a fair ado! Your leadership towards NFTOS is greatly appreciated. You absence or the hole you leave will be hard to close, and we at NFTOS look forward to your return. The scales of political journalistic justice have tipped way to the right today.....a sad day indeed!

Until Olbermann surfaces again, we are left with the half witted Lawrence O'Donnell.

And on this day, we wish Olbermann "good night and good luck."


Friday, January 21, 2011


The persistent cacophony from the Republican debt/deficit hawks, who only surface during Democratic administrations, are enough to keep us puking into perpetuity. The most pitiful and annoying aspect of this particular trait in Republicans tea bags, is their seemingly endless forgetfulness when it comes to whom created these debts in the first place. Or could it be they are aware whom created this mess and choose to regurgitate more BS into the political arena?

Indeed, we have become consumed with a burning desire to remind the right wing nut job of exactly who is responsible for driving up U.S. debt. And, as you undoubtedly deduced from our graphic, It is the evil triumvirate of three Republican presidents, at least 2 of which are destined to be remembered in history as "The Two Worst Presidents Ever".

Truly a picture is worth a thousand words, and as one can clearly see (click the image to enlarge it), Republican Presidents, beginning with Reagan, are the ONLY Presidents responsible for the overall increases in the national debt since World War II.

It should be well worth noting that President Reagan took the United States from being the largest creditor nation in the world, to being the largest debtor nation in the world.

A truly sad commentary on the fiscal policy of Republican Presidents.


Thursday, January 20, 2011


Brought to you by

Police in Arlington, MA this week seized a “large amount” of weapons and ammunition from local businessman Travis Corcoran after he wrote a blog post threatening U.S. lawmakers in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). In a post on his blog (which has since been removed) titled “1 down and 534 to go” — 1 referring to Giffords and 534 referring to the rest of the House of Representatives — Corcoran applauded the shooting of Giffords and justified the assassination of lawmakers because he argued the federal government has grown far beyond its constitutional limits. “It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone,” he wrote in the post.

“We certainly take this as a credible threat,” Arlington police Captain Robert Bongiorno told reporters, adding that “multiple federal law enforcement agencies” were involved. Authorities also suspended Corcoran’s gun license, though he is currently not facing any charges.

Corcoran calls himself “an anarcho-capitalist” and while his blog has been taken down, based on his Twitter page, he appears to hold views similar to those of many in the anti-government libertarian wing of the conservative movement, like many tea party activists. Anarcho-capitalism is a radical subset of libertarianism, and is often referred to as “libertarian-anarchy.” For example, echoing calls from many on the right, Corcoran tweeted, “it is unconstitutional for the Feds to even run a department of education.”

In a Twitter exchange with reporter Laura Leslie, Corcoran lays out a conventional anti-government philosophy, and explains in depth why he views assassination as legitimate:

“I assert that the US federal gov has grown unconstitutionally large, and the legislature exceeds the powers delegated to it by the people,” Corcoran wrote. “As per the Declaration of Indep, when a gov becomes destructive those ends, it may be abolished,” he continued, “and the most moral approach is that which spares the maximum number of lives. Thus, assasination is a legitimate tool.”

He goes on to further justify assassination as “morally legitimate,” citing “Catholic Just War doctrine” among other theories, and explains, “It’s illegal, yes, but it’s not un-American. America was founded on the idea of shooting gov officials. Lexington Concord!” In another tweet, he writes, “I disagree with murder. …but shooting politicians who pass illegitimate, unconstitutional laws is not murder.” And in case there’s any doubt about his sincery, he writes, “Nope, it’s not a joke. I’m 100% serious.”

He also appears to be a fan of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), re-tweeting a positive message about him in May: “Lefties: Before you start fringe-baiting Rand Paul, note that he’s better on civil liberties than most Democratic senators. And Obama.” He seems to dislike liberals, writing, “You so-called liberals make me laugh – you’re all for free speech until someone disagrees, then it’s ‘report him!’” He also accuses the Daily Kos of “Stalinism.”



Politics in America remains a touchy subject, but for many Americans, the word "touchy" barely even touches the surface or the problems facing us. We are a nation divided. Our politicians are a direct reflection of our own inability to compromise with one another. One side is pitted against the other. Compromise certainly seem less possible these days. In the end, nothing gets done, and the American people suffer from the bitter battle between party lines which has made our political arena as ineffective as a broken condemn. Let's face it. We are a mess.

After seeing the horrible events in Tucson involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I went on to read many comments from both sides of the isle. Depending on the site you chose as your source of information, you were either greeted with comments in line with your political leaning or you were soon enveloped or engaged by a sea of vitriol, condemnation, and the rhetoric we have come to know over the past ten years. At that point, whether or not the young man who committed this atrocity was a Democrat or a Republican became moot. Let me repeat that point. This post is not about this young man. It is about our political climate.

After reading one comment in particular, it dawned on me. We are likely to remain separated as it appears our country is too divided. Turning back does not seem like an option on the table. A major confrontation is inevitable. A war is looming. The comment itself suggested we go ahead and divide our country and be done with it. Draw the line in the sand.

This brings the obvious question. Where should this line be? If you follow politics, you might suggest that we go back to the old North and South we knew at the time of the Civil War. I know many Americans in the South want the map to look like that (and if you think I'm exaggerating, you need to spend some time living in the South).

Unfortunately, the political spectrum of our country has created more of a speckled map of the United States. Republicans and Democrats are neighbors. Individual states are represented by both Republican and Democratic districts. A line dividing us into North and South would not go over well, kind of like a pregnant nun.

What if we allow individual states to actually secede? Secessionists roam the two lane roads just West and South of Gloucester Virginia. Several other states, likely the same ones who have brought cases against the Federal Government over Health Care Reform, would be on this list. Let's set aside the question of whether or not they can sustain themselves on their own. A state with sovereign rights separate from the Union will provide a place for those unhappy with the US Government to go. Let them worry about the anarchy inside their walls.

The point is, the only way America can remain standing is if we lose the anarchy and those whom wish it divided. United, we are not. We have crossed the line. Turning back seems like a unlikelihood.

As if even the strongest and most honest of leaders could be remotely capable of fighting against such a wave of ignorance and hate.

There is a loud voice in this country which exacerbates this situation. They do not see that what they are suggesting will create anarchy. Much like their perception of evolution, they believe secession and huge leaps can come overnight. To their dismay, the voice of reason here is to remind them that evolution took millions of years. Secession and divisions comes at a price, and they often lead to a very long road to recovery.


Wednesday, January 19, 2011


UPDATED: 1/20/11 11:52AM

This week, Republicans are pressing legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a move that would eliminate health benefits for young people, seniors, and small businesses, hinder job growth, and add $230 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. In the time since our previous blog, national cable news networks and newspaper editorial boards have been denouncing Republicans’ repeal bill, with even more newspaper editorials have been published echoing those repudiations.

Quoting NFTOS readers: “The Republicans' "repeal and replace" plan looks more perilous for them than it seemed just a few months ago. The tide seems to be turning on Americans' feelings about the overhaul”

“Returning to a system that is too expensive and filled with incentives to drive up costs even further is the riskiest health care strategy of all”

With the House poised to vote today on Republican-sponsored legislation to repeal health care reform, it's crucial to dispel the myths from the facts.

The historic Affordable Care Act expands access to health care for 32 million people while reducing the deficit and helping to create jobs. With so many false claims online and in the news, never before has it been so important to know the truth – here’s a look at myths and facts surrounding the Affordable Care Act’s impact on the economy and deficit.

Myth: Repealing health reform would reduce the deficit.
Fact: Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates that the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” would “increase federal budget deficits over the 2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion,” $230 billion in by 2021, and increase the deficit in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars beyond the 10-year window.

Myth: Health reform will lead to tax increases for families and small businesses
Fact: Not true. The Affordable Care Act includes tax credits to help make health care affordable for working families. All told, the Affordable Care Act represents the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in American history.

Myth: The Affordable Care Act increases the cost of health care for small businesses.
Fact: Small businesses will receive $40 billion in new tax credits to help cover the cost of health coverage for their employees. The tax credit is designed to both support those small businesses that provide coverage today as well as new businesses who decide to provide coverage. Effective immediately, the tax credit is worth up to 35 percent of the premiums a business pays to cover its workers and in 2014, the value of the credit will increase to 50 percent. An estimated 4 million small businesses will be eligible to receive these tax credits.

Myth: Health reform kills jobs, and repealing reform would save jobs.
Fact: Harvard economist David Cutler argues in new paper that repealing the health law would reverse months of private-sector growth and could destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade. Eliminating the law would increase health care costs, causing employers to reduce wages or eliminate jobs.

Myth: This bill does nothing to bring down the cost of health care.
Fact: Not true. The health policy experts and economists who have looked at this legislation have said we are pursuing every possible mechanism to reduce health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office found that health insurance reform will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion in this decade and by more than $1 trillion over the following 10 years.

The below video depicts how clueless those from right of center are.

If the video is any indication, we can now understand why the plethora of convoluted wrongs and misunderstanding exists with regards to Obama Care.

NFTOS has also said all along that if the republicans plan to repeal the bill then should be required to forgo government-sponsored health insurance for themselves. Period!

Its well known that republicans are known as the hypocritical society. To date, in sum, only eight GOP congressman, or three percent of all House Republicans, have opted out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. One Republican loudly complained about having his own government-sponsored health insurance delayed approximately four weeks. But most GOPers have quietly continued to accept government-sponsored health care while loudly decrying the government’s role in helping provide health care to a segment of the American public.

While we at NFTOS are not surprised, constituents of these congress folk should be jamming the phones lines and email pipelines asking for these hypocrites to back the bill, and if they can't do that, then do not accept the sponsored health care.

On average, congressmen receive $700 per month in taxpayer subsidies to help pay for their health insurance. Members use these subsidies to choose a health insurance plan available through a government-sponsored exchange which, among other regulations, bars discrimination based on preexisting conditions.

“The federal system mirrors the reforms enacted by Democrats and President Obama, which end health insurance abuses by regulating coverage through an exchange, while offering subsidies to individuals and small businesses to make coverage more affordable.”

The video below provides you with proof that republicans want their cake and to be able to eat it too.

This position by the republicans is both despicable and disgusting. Hypocrisy is not a trait we look for in our politicians, but it is the backbone and fiber of the extreme radical republican.


Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Gun Control & The National Rifle Association

While the 2nd Amendment is a ‘Right’ it holds a wide array of interpretations as it has become a far too important topic for those with little to do with their time. So let’s take a look at this amendment and some interpretations:

The Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The Breakdown:

“Bear Arms” refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek ‘hopla pherein’ and Latin ‘arma ferre’) – one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, ‘equipment’ (from the root ar-* in verbs like ‘ararisko’, to fit out). It refers to the ‘equipage’ of war. Thus ‘bear arms’ can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the “profession of arms” refers to all military callings.

While this seems to be a pretty good case they have found several interpretations arguing the opposite as follows by Olson and Cramer:

Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that…have nothing to do with military service…[and] The common law was in agreement. Edward Christian’s edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries that appeared in the 1790’s described the rights of Englishmen (which every American colonist had been promised) in these terms ‘everyone is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the [unlawful] destruction of game.’ This right was separate from militia duties

And if you see the source of this article you can be overwhelmed with the attention given to this topic over the past several years. The verbiage is decidedly controversial in regards to ‘Militia’ and the following about ‘Bearing Arms’ by Hamilton.

If a well regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security….A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

As of late, we’ve seen some articles floating around about increasing ability to carry concealed weapons and the statistics regarding whether that leads to more or less deaths in the United States. To that I say, what an experiment. In our research we looked up some other studies done on the subject. It appears in Australia, when they implemented their gun control in 1996 that murders by guns have decreased sharply to date. The source below will actually enforce this and claims that the increase in gun control does not definitely insinuate dictatorship and chaos within a country. Maybe in America, however, where the crazies whose biggest worry is owning enough assault weapons so they can fight “terrorist” should be feared in this event.

As a side note: NRA – Another ‘could have been good’ organization that refuses to actually be responsible in this debate. When Obama was running for office they spent millions perpetuating propaganda regardless of the supported evidence that Obama was not going to revoke home gun control laws. While it seems they should be a champion of civil liberties, they are seemingly more of an agenda seeking organization versus the former.

The NRA has circulated printed material and ran TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.

And then in further investigation…

The NRA spent $40 million during this year’s elections, including $15 million to portray Sen. Barack Obama as a threat to gun rights. The NRA circulated fliers and mailers that claimed to be “Barack Obama’s 10-Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment.”

Republicans hold two rights dear to their heart, one being freedom of speech, and the other the right to bear arms. These two rights are the hobbyhorse for the extremist radical right wing nut job, and in there undying love for them they let fearous ignoramia take over. This fear often causes otherwise rational people to act like assholes. Quoting Roger West NFTOS editor-in chief "It should be noted that no right is absolute, even those supposedly granted by God and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights."

So what does this all mean? Well, regardless of how you’d like to determine what our rights in this matter are or should be, in going forward we should agree the following:

Guns can kill people.
They can be distributed by the masses or prohibited completely and you can not necessarily derive an end result regarding either extreme.
If you are part of the NRA and have a sticker on your car, hat, tie, or otherwise.. you have a serious misunderstanding of what they represent. I’m all for civil liberties but if you are wearing this then you clearly will never be wrong about your standpoint despite anything anytime. If you are about civil liberties then check out Alan Dershowitz or even Jean Edward Smith.







Monday, January 17, 2011

The Republican Manifesto

NFTOS is enjoying the holiday off, so enjoy a blog from our friends at Open Scandal

There are five basic precepts that, individually or collectively, contribute to the birth of a Republican Party ideologue. They will tell you that it involves limited government, low (or, preferably, no) taxes, rugged individualism and a “free” market environment which demands the lack of governmental oversight and the ability of workers to organize. Within these parameters lies the black heart and soul of a socially responsible Republican (conservative, libertarian).

But, in reality, there are five conditions that might give birth to this sort of person and no one person needs to possess more than one of these conditions (although they often share several).

1. You are super rich. You are a bona fide member of the nouveau riche, admittedly a meritocrat, but nevertheless part of the one or two percent of the global population with resources the other 99 percent can only imagine (and not fully). You are globally financed and hardly nationalistic. You see four people climbing out of abject poverty in India and one American falling out of the increasingly fragile middle class due to chronic unemployment and see this as acceptable. In reality, you have moved the sources of your sickening wealth to countries where the government knows how to control its workers. It is 21st century exploitation but you define it as competitive market and blame the exploited worker for his failures.

2. You are a devout Christian. This means that you are so full of religious dogma and superstition that it consumes you from your ass to your eyeballs. You can no longer perceive cause from consequence and obliterate the lines separating facts from fiction. Socially this translates into an inability to recognize human suffering whenever your church (or personal belief system) decides it is anti-god. Abortion, contraception, homosexuality, legalization of pot, the so called “war” against Christmas, liberals, progressives, Marxists, Nazis, socialists, anti marriage groups, ACLUs are just some of the issues and beliefs that cause you to froth at the political and social mouth. You are a climate change denier but you see transubstantiation as “proof” that god exists. Often, you can wax poetic about creationism because magic is a far superior alternative to accident.

3. You vehemently oppose social programs. Welfare is the bane of your existence. You see this as a program that guarantees poverty and is responsible for crime, reprehensible social values and slums. It is only given to the poor. Welfare given to the rich is called subsidies and is not the same thing. Head start and education in general leave you suspicious because you know only socialists are teaching these days. This leads to trouble later on. Social Security and Medicare fall into the category of social programs, too. Of course, you realize that these programs may one day (or perhaps already are) vital to your own survival. But you know these benefits are extended to illegal immigrants and people who have never worked a day in their lives. Even when shown that this isn’t the case you revert to # 2. The lines between fact and fiction are indecipherable and you tend to believe the hate mongers at Fox News.

4. Your own educational background is suspect. This means that even if you attended a school of higher education it was probably a trade school. Literature, philosophy, humanities, social and political science are foreign subjects. Your defense for this is to talk louder, wrap yourself in a flag and blame everything on liberals in government. At night, you sit down to mindless sitcoms or reality shows. If you’ve read a book since high school it was either romantic fluff or it was written by Bill O’Reilly or Sarah Palin (and then you skipped huge parts in the middle). If I went to the bathroom in your house I would find nothing to read except the toothpaste box. Your dearth of education is palpable and leads to prejudices such as the one implicit with # 5.

5. You are a white supremacist. This doesn’t mean that you run around with a sheet over your head (but it might!), it means that you tend to distrust people of color, latinos, even white foreigners with accents. You are highly suspicious of languages other than English and demand that people in this country speak English. You believe that “native” born Americans are exceptional (ask Karl Rove) and that god put you here in the US because you are exceptional. Illegal immigrants should be shot as they cross over our borders. President Obama, in Rush Limbaugh’s tortured lexicon is a “half-ican”. Limbaugh is your natural hero as he fits into every category presented here.

Somewhere in here stands the issue of guns and a perky, if misconstrued understanding of the Constitution. Yesterday I read a conservative who felt that constitutionally our government should not fix roads or bridges or worry about infrastructure because it isn’t in the great writ. He goes on to say that “James Madison wrote in 1817. . .” I’d already read enough.

Ron Paul claims that guns are necessary to prevent our government from becoming tyrannical. That’s why our founders wrote the second amendment. Obviously he sees this as superior, or at least equal to, the ballot box. Sharron Angle, who but through the grace of a poorly organized Republican effort, was defeated in Nevada, suggested that the second amendment was an acceptable route to take when the ballot box doesn’t yield acceptable results. Conversely, and tongue in cheek, Rachel Maddow suggests that if redress of grievances (ie tyranny) is the real objective interpretation of the second amendment, then everything should be on the table. That means from machine guns to privately owned nukes.

Antonin Scalia interprets the “equal protection clause” to pertain to white men only. Samuel Alito (and others) interpret corporations as people. The Republicans proposed 42 amendments to the constitution last year alone, leaving one to wonder precisely which constitution these people revere? The spirit and intention of the real one or the religiously tainted, plutocratic, white supremacist mush that pollutes the air waves and the printed page all too often.

The right to bear arms and freedom of speech are the hobbyhorse for republicans.

I hear there’s an auction next door with assault weapons and religious icons, really cheap. But first I have to accost my children for not having given their children good Christian names and for not voting for a real American hero like John McCain. Satire is a wonderful gift and it should be shared.


Friday, January 14, 2011


In light of recent events, we at NFTOS thought it best to leave the readers with a little humor for the weekend.

Enjoy and we'll see you right back here Monday.


Thursday, January 13, 2011

Glenn Beck and Faux News "Has Been Responsible For At Least Three Thwarted Assassination Attempts"

UPDATED 16:25pm

What does the tea party moniker stand for? Armed rebellion, right? This has been a theme of the Republican candidates and of Sarah Palin since 2009.

History lesson #1: The Boston tea party was a nonviolent economic statement against the Stamp Act. They threw tea in the water, not one gun was involved.

Gregory Giusti, Charles Wilson, and Byron Williams have all acted out violence, and often these men referenced the incendiary and often violent rhetoric spewed by Faux News and it's myriad of radical extreme republican views. This vitriol, rhetoric, and banter is said to be a motivating factor, if not the inspiring factor, in these men's actions.


On July 18, 2010, Byron Williams was stopped by California Highway Patrol and engaged in a shootout with law enforcement. He later said he was on his way to murder individuals at the Tides Foundation and ACLU.

Williams Wanted To "Start A Revolution" By "Killing People Of Importance At The Tides Foundation." On July 18, 2010, Byron Williams, a convicted felon, engaged in a shootout with police after being pulled over on I-580 in California. Williams was heavily armed, wearing body armor and wielding "a 9mm handgun, a .308-caliber rifle and a shotgun." After being taken into custody, Williams reportedly told investigators that "his intention was to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU." [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/21/10]

Williams' Mother: Son "Was Upset" With "The Way Congress Was Railroading Through All These Left-Wing Agenda Items." The San Francisco Chronicle further reported that Williams' mother, Janice Williams, described her son as "angry at left-wing politicians" and at "what's happening to our country." The Chronicle further reported: "Williams watched the news on television and was upset by 'the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items,' his mother said." [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/19/10]

Williams: "The Things" Beck Exposed "Blew My Mind." During an interview with reporter John Hamilton after his arrest, Williams said: "I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn't for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind. I said, well, nobody does this." Williams continued: "You need to go back to June -- June of this year, 2010 -- and look at all his programs from June. And you'll see he's been breaking open some of the most hideous corruption. ... A year ago, I was watching him, and it was OK, he was all right, you know? ... But now he's getting it." [Media Matters, 10/11/10]

Williams Was Driven By Belief In Conspiracy Theories That Have Been Pushed By Beck. Hamilton wrote that in one letter to him, Williams "repeatedly cites Beck when discussing the Soros-Obama-Petrobras story and insists I check out Beck's 'June' shows." Hamilton continued:

In his letter to me, Byron writes: "I have been praying for a media advocate; one, to make people aware of why I'm in here (public opinion could help me), and two, to make people realize that corrupt killers are in power, and want re-election! I was also fearful that this issue would be 'burried.' "

Byron writes, "You want to know about Soros and Tides, yes, Glenn Beck is doing very well uncovering his wickedness, check his 'June' programs for 'Petrobraz', also look into '' "

Byron also writes that "very good information regarding 'Petrobraz' can be found in Glenn Beck's 'June' shows, where he accurately covered the Obama-Soros-Petrobraz-Chicago (Crime Inc.) connections for several days. It's all true."

Byron adds that he "found allusions to the Horizon disaster as a 'false-flag' operation in Alex Jones '' and '' "

"Think like a conspiracy theorist," Byron tells me during the interview. "Except don't use the word 'theory.' Because the conspiracies are not theories. The official report is the lie; the conspiracy is the truth."

Byron says he thinks Beck has improved in recent months. "I don't think he's a natural newscaster, you know what I mean?" he says. "I look at it more like a schoolteacher on TV, you know? He's got that big chalkboard and those little stickers, the decals. I like the way he does it." [Media Matters, 10/11/10]


Beck Linked With Stoking "Fears" That Caused Charles Wilson To Threaten Murray

In October 2010, Charles Wilson was sentenced to a year and a day in prison for threatening Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) with "violence" in phone calls to her office.

Wilson Said He "Want[ed] To fucking Kill" Murray Because Of The Passage Of Health Care Legislation. In an April 6 article, Politico reported that Wilson "allegedly called Murray's office on numerous occasions" saying that she " 'had a target on her back,' and 'I want to fucking kill you,' according to court documents." Politico also reported that Wilson "allegedly told undercover FBI agents that he carries a concealed firearm with a permit, and said he was 'extremely angry' with the passage of health care legislation." The article continued:

Wilson Relative: Wilson's Threats Occurred Because He "Was Under The Spell That Glenn Beck Cast." A relative of Wilson said in publicly available documents filed in federal court that Wilson's "fears were grown and fostered by Mr. Beck's persuasive personality" and that Wilson's actions occurred because he "was under the spell that Glenn Beck casts.


Faux News Inspired Gregory Giusti To Repeatedly Threaten To Destroy Pelosi's Home

In December 2010, Gregory Lee Giusti was sentenced to a year and nine months in federal prison for threatening to destroy former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home if she voted in support of the health care reform law.

Giusti Admitted To Making "More Than 30 Phone Calls" Threatening Pelosi Not To Support Health Care Reform. The Associated Press reported in April 2010 that in one recorded call, "Giusti said, 'if you pass this freaking health care plan don't bother coming back to California cause you ain't gonna have a place to live,' according to a transcript of the message included in an amended complaint." The AP added: "Officials said the caller often recited Pelosi's home address and said if she wanted to see it again, she should not support the health care overhaul bill that since has been enacted. Giusti left at least two recorded messages containing threats involving one of Pelosi's residences in Northern California, according to the complaint." [The Associated Press, 4/8/10]

The AP further reported that Giusti "told investigators he had phoned Pelosi about a half-dozen times, called her a witch and said he did not like her 'pushing the health care bill down the people's throats,' the complaint stated." [The Associated Press, 4/8/10]

Giusti's Mother Blamed Fox News For Her Son's Actions. During an interview with the local San Francisco ABC affiliate, Giusti's mother, Eleanor Giusti, stated that Fox News was a factor in her son's actions. She stated:
ELEANOR GIUSTI: Greg has -- frequently gets in with a group of people that have really radical ideas and that are not consistent with myself or the rest of the family and -- which gets him into problems. And apparently I would say this must be another one that somehow he's gotten onto either by -- I'd say Fox News or all of those that are really radical, and he -- that's where he comes from. [ABC's San Francisco affiliate, KGO-TV, 4/7/10]

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes says he put the word out at Fox to “tone it down” and make arguments “intellectually” with less heated rhetoric. “You don’t have to do it with bombast.”(if Faux and Co. where not engaging in this type of journalism, why issue the memo to "tone down"? Just like if Plain wasn't guilty of inciting anger then why take down the web page filled will targets marked for democrats?) We all know why. A spade is a spade, know matter how hard you try to camouflage it. Go back 5 years and listen to every radio and TV show Beck has done from then to today.

But Ailes in his infamous wisdom draws the line at any suggestion the "passion" of Fox News hosts had anything to do with the shooting spree in Arizona that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded: “That is just bullsit,” he told Russell Simmons in an interview posted to the music mogul’s website.

At the very least, the nonsense that oozes from Faux News and Glenn Beck et al feed and stir the foamy froth of the rapid pit-bull, and all it takes is a daily dose of Becksitan asking for chaos an anarchy to set the pit-bull pendulum in motion.

Loughner in this case may be the exception rather than the rule, but the jury is still out as his facts are just not there yet. But in the same breath, Giusti, Wilson, and Williams fall into the criminal statistical category as having been association to extreme, radical, right-wing ideology which is filled with whatever conspiracy theory Beck and Faux News have devised or concocted for the day.

When speaking on extreme political rhetoric, logical, coherent humans don't believe anyone is actually saying hate speech made Jared Loughner release his insanity, what those with half a brain are saying is it creates an atmosphere where its inevitable that someone will get hurt , there is no connection between matches and gasoline, but put them together and what happens.

The violent rhetoric is desensitizing the nation to political violence .Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.

Many whom reside of the right side of the fence continue to refute that their party holds any responsibility for hate crimes in America, but yet today NFTOS provides you with three serious assassination attempts which at the end of the day are associated to Ailes and Beck.

As unfortunate as it is, these are the facts and they are indisputable!