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

Saturday, June 30, 2012


Since the Supreme Court decision, crisis lines have been inundated with calls from Teapublicans/tea baggers/teabillies distraught that 95% of Americans will have access to affordable healthcare!

Tea bagger's if you can't laugh with them, laugh at them.

Roger West

Friday, June 29, 2012


The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare], the health care reform law signed by President Obama in 2010, ruling 5-4 that the law was constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan on the opinion. The individual mandate, the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance or pay a fine, was upheld as legal under Congress’ taxing ability.

Health care reform isn’t important just because it expands access to quality, affordable care, but also because rapidly rising costs and the fact that 30 million Americans don’t have insurance are weighing down the American economy. Here are four reasons why the Court’s decision is good news for the still-struggling economy:
Obamacare will reduce the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2011 that Obamacare will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next decade. The law is expected to save about $1 trillion over its second decade, according to other CBO analyses. The CBO found that repealing the law, as Republicans attempted to do in 2011, would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years.

Health care costs for young Americans won’t skyrocket. More than 3.1 million young Americans have insurance thanks to Obamacare. Without the law, the cost of acquiring an equivalent health care plan would have risen dramatically at a time when young people are still struggling with the effects of the Great Recession.

 Millions of jobs will be created. Health reform will help create roughly 4 million jobs over the next decade, according to a 2010 Center for American Progress report, by reducing the cost of health care and making it cheaper for businesses to hire. The law will create between 250,000 and 400,000 jobs a year, and they will be spread across sectors: according to the study, the law will help create more than 200,000 manufacturing and 900,000 in the service sector by 2016.

 It will be cheaper for employers to provide health care. American businesses are under tremendous pressure thanks to rising health care costs, and these costs are often passed on to customers (one study estimates that each car sold by General Motors contains $1,200 in built-in health costs). The ACA, however, will make it cheaper for businesses to provide care, and not just by reducing the cost of care. Small businesses are already receiving tax credits contained in the law to help insure their employees, and it has already offered more than $4.7 billion in reinsurance payments to companies that are providing health care to retirees who aren’t yet eligible for Medicare.

Even a judge who was a finalist for appointment to the Supreme Court under George W. Bush agreed that striking down health care would have had disastrous consequences for the American economy. “States’ rights are important in many spheres, but the benefits of a national economic policy must also be considered,” federal appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in February. “A vibrant economic order requires some political predictability, and the prospect of judges’ striking down commercial regulation on ill-defined and subjective bases is a prescription for economic chaos that the framers, in a simpler time, had the good sense to head off.” Fortunately, a majority on the Supreme Court agreed.

Roger West

Thursday, June 28, 2012


Roger West

SCOTUS Throws The Tea Overboard

Yes OBAMACARE is now "Constitutional!"

The Supreme Justices of the United States bitched slapped the radical republican tea baggers and told them to sit down and shut the phuck up, with an unprecedented 6-3 vote upholding POTUS’sObamacare. Obamacare is constitutional!

Score one for the good guys.

 CNN drops the ball in reporting the decision:

Well, almost. If by almost you mean - almost exactly wrong!

Reports are still coming in, and the ruling is reportedly rather complicated, but it appears that Chief Justice John Roberts unexpectedly sided with the center-left justices, upheld the individual mandate, and the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court majority.

The key, at this point, is that the court majority appears to have upheld the mandate as a tax.

Stay tuned for more info as it comes in.

Roger West



Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has literally shocked the world as he voted in favor of upholding health care reform.

Stay tuned for further updates.


Wednesday, June 27, 2012


POST SCRIPT:  Tomorrow is a big day for healthcare as the SCOTUS decides on Obamacare. Get the latest info here at NFTOS


Tuesday, June 26, 2012


A picture us truly worth a thousand words.

Roger West

Monday, June 25, 2012

What You Will Miss When Obamacare is Axed?

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act this week and could potentially strike down part or the whole of ‘Obamacare.’ Below are 10 things you will miss about the law if the justices invalidate it:

1) Access to health insurance for 30 million Americans and lower premiums. More than 30 million uninsured Americans will find coverage under the law. Middle-class families who buy health care coverage through the exchanges will be eligible for refundable and advanceable premium credits and cost-sharing subsidies to ensure that the coverage they have is affordable.

2) The ability of businesses and individuals to purchase comprehensive coverage from a regulated marketplace. The law creates new marketplaces for individuals and small businesses to compare and purchase comprehensive coverage. Insurers will have to meet quality measures to ensure that Americans can access comprehensive coverage when they need it.

3) Insurers’ inability to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Beginning in 2014, insurers can no longer deny insurance to families or individuals with pre-existing conditions. Insurers are also prohibited from placing lifetime limits on the dollar value of coverage and rescinding insurers except in cases of fraud. Insurers are already prohibited from discriminating against children with pre-existing conditions.

4) Tax credits for small businesses that offer insurance. Small employers that purchase health insurance for employees are already receiving tax credits to encourage them to continue providing coverage.

5) Assistance for businesses that provide health benefits to early retirees.The law created a temporary reinsurance program for employers providing health insurance coverage to retirees over age 55 who are not eligible for Medicare, reimbursing employers or insurers for 80% of retiree claims. The program has offered at least $4.73 billion in reinsurance payments to more than 2,800 employers and other sponsors of retiree plans, with an average cumulative reimbursement per plan sponsor of approximately $189,700.

6) Affordable health care for lower-income Americans. Obamacare extends Medicaid to individuals with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty line, guaranteeing that the nation’ most vulnerable population has access to affordable, comprehensive coverage.

7) Investments in women’s health. Obamacare prohibits insurers from charging women substantially more than men and requires insurers to offer preventive services — including contraception — at no additional cost.

8) Young adults’ ability to stay on their parents’ health care plans. More than 3.1 million young people have already benefited from dependent coverage, which allows children up to age 26 to remain insured on their parents’ plans.

9) Discounts for seniors on brand-name drugs. Pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to provide a 50% discount on prescriptions filled in the Medicare Part D coverage gap. Seniors have already saved $3.5 billion on prescription drug costs thanks to the Affordable Care Act provision.

10) Temporary coverage for the sickest Americans. The law established temporary national high-risk pools that are providing health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions who cannot find insurance on the individual market. In 2014, they will be able to enroll in insurance through the exchanges. 67,482 individuals have already benefited from the program.

Roger West

Sunday, June 24, 2012



Here is theory that some Congressional Republicans believe: The Obama Administration intentionally handed over automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels, who they knew would commit violent acts, because they wanted to scare Americans into supporting stricter gun laws.

That supposed series of events has now led Congress to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt.

Holder is caught up in a scandal over what happened during Operation Fast and Furious, one in a series of efforts started under former President Bush, in which firearms owned by the U.S. government are intentionally sold to criminals with the hopes that they can be traced back, and criminal activity can be monitored. One such firearm turned up at the crime scene where border patrol agent Brian Terry was killed.

Republicans cite the case as a national security issue, but they’ve simultaneously turned it into an indictment over what they believe is a conspiracy aimed at taking away their own firearms. They argue that this was all a ploy to expose how dangerous guns can be. Here are the facts you should know about the conspiracy, and who’s behind it:

The man who started the conspiracy theory also rallied people to break congressional windows. Mike Vanderboegh, a man who once called for militias to break the windows of members of Congress because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, started this conspiracy theory. Rachel Maddow uncovered that Vanderboegh has been encouraging members of Congress to embrace the theory.
Major Republicans, including Darrell Issa, endorse this conspiracy theory. Among those are Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is Chair of the House Oversight Committee and is heading up the investigation of Eric Holder. In an interview on FOX, Issa said, “very clearly, they made a crisis, and they’re using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people’s Second Amendment rights.” He also pushed the theory at an NRA convention. But Issa isn’t the only one who is buying in: former Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich just two days ago agreed with the theory. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), and many other Republicans have voiced support for this theory too.
The NRA is driving the conspiracy theory paranoia though ads. The National Rifle Association is furthering the paranoia as a way to rally gun owners by running advertisements and a petition calling on President Obama to fire Eric Holder. The ads don’t specifically mention the gun control conspiracy, but the Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action is a full-throttle conspiracy believer. The NRA also threatened members of Congress who voted on the contempt charge yesterday, saying that a vote against contempt wouldreflect poorly on that member’s pro-gun ratings.
Conspiracy theorists blame Holder for a new gun law he didn’t make. Even if one were to believe the vast conspiracy theory, a linchpin in the theorists’ argument is based on a false premise. They say that recently Holder ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to report anyone who bought more than one large gun in five day as a way to track American gun owners. In reality, ATF made a request about reporting gun purchases and the Justice Department only approved it after a delay.
Issa defended Bush for the same thing of which he is accusing Holder. Issa has been tearing apart Holder for not wanting to hand over private communications from the Justice Department that could compromise ongoing criminal investigations. But when George Bush refused to do the same thing in 2007, Issa blasted the move as a “political witch hunt.”

Last year the Vice President of the NRA said that there is “a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment.” This conspiracy theory feeds directly into that sentiment. But there is absolutely no evidence that the President has any intention of tightening gun laws. In fact, he’s loosening regulations on firearm exports.

Roger West

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Modus Operandi Darrell Issa Style

Here’s what you need to know about Issa’s witch hunt vote:

1. Issa Has No Case: Issa’s uncovered no evidence showing Holder bears any blame for the botched operations begun under George W. Bush, even though the Justice Department turned over thousands of pages of documents concerning the operations. Instead of accepting this fact, Issa has requested many more documents containing confidential information regarding ongoing law enforcement investigations, and is now threatening to hold Holder in contempt if these documents are not turned over. Holder is entirely correct to withhold these documents, however, because Justice Department documents are not subject to congressional subpoena if they would reveal “strategies and procedures that could be used by individuals seeking to evade [DOJ's] law enforcement efforts.”

2. Reagan’s Justice Department Agreed With Holder: President Reagan’s Justice Department warned in the 1980s that the Constitution’s separation of powers prevents the kind of documents Issa is seeking from being revealed to Congress because of the risk that the legislature could “exert pressure or attempt to influence the prosecution of criminal cases.”

3. Law Enforcement Rejects Issa’s Witchhunt: Issa’s efforts to embarrass Holder are an unnecessary distraction that hinders the Department of Justice’s ability to do its real job. As an organization representing numerous senior law enforcement officials warned Issa, his efforts are “an impediment to the vigorous enforcement of violence and crime.”

4. Even Top Republicans Think Issa Goes Too Far: After Issa leaked his plans to pursue contempt charges to the media, the House Republican leadership pressured him to back off. Indeed, even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has indicated that Issa is overreaching.

5. Issa Is Fixated On A Conspiracy Theory: Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this affair is what Issa once suggested his investigation will uncover. In an interview with Sean Hannity, Issa claimed that the Obama administration “made a crisis” when they continued the Bush-era gunrunning operations because they wanted to “us[e] this crisis to somehow take away or limit people’s Second Amendment rights.” This accusation originates from a former militiaman who supports violent resistance to imagine government attempts to seize his guns. And it amounts to an accusation that a series of botched gun stings that begun during the Bush Administration were actually part of a secret Obama plot to release guns to Mexican drug lords, so that those guns could then be used to kill federal agents, which would then cause a national uprising in support of gun control.

Darrell Issa, you sir win the oxygen thief of the month award, better known as asshat of the month!

Roger West

Wednesday, June 20, 2012


Planned Parenthood’s action fund is sending a costumed package of birth control dubbed “Pillamina” out on the campaign trail to highlight Mitt Romney’s opposition to President Obama’s birth control coverage provision. In a statement introducing Pillamina, Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards noted that her organization wants to emphasize the fact that birth control is “an economic issue for women — period. That’s something that President Obama clearly understands, and that Mitt Romney simply doesn’t.” Romney has said that he opposes requiring insurers to offer birth control coverage without additional co-pays.


Tuesday, June 19, 2012


What Would Mittens Romney Do;

In March, Mitt Romney demanded “President Obama needs to level with the American public about his real agenda.” But on numerous topics, Romney has refused to answer basic questions about his views, leaving voters to guess at where he stands on important issues. Romney’s ambiguity appears to be a calculated strategy to avoid alienating the conservative base or moderate swing voters. If he’s successful in avoiding articulating policy positions, he can market himself as the “generic Republican” alternative to President Obama.

Here are seven major issues on which Romney has refused to take a stand:

1. Romney won’t say whether he would undo Obama’s decision to end deportations of DREAM-eligible immigrants. Romney and his campaign passed up numerous opportunities over the weekend to say whether he agreed with the substance of the Obama administration’s order to stop deporting some young undocumented immigrants and whether a President Romney would rescind the order, saying only, “We’ll look at that — we’ll look at that setting as we– as we reach that.”

2. Romney won’t say whether he’d support the Paycheck Fairness Act. Romney repeatedly dodged questions about whether he’d support the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill to crack down on wage discrimination and close the wage gap between men and women. His campaign didn’t respond to five requests by the conservative Washington Times seeking his stance on the bill.

3. Romney won’t specify which tax loopholes he’d close. Asked yesterday which tax deductions he would eliminate to offset his massive proposed tax-cuts for the rich, Romney refused to offer any specifics on a plan that he has admitted is so vague it cannot even be scored, saying only, “We’ll go through that process with Congress.”

4. Romney won’t say which federal agencies he’d eliminate. At a private fundraiser, Romney reportedly told donors he would eliminate or combine “a lot of departments in Washington,” but that he was “probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go.” Why? Because he feared telling the voters his plans before the election might hurt his political chances, just as it did in his 1994 Senate race.

5. Romney won’t say whether he supports the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Romney’s campaign refused to say whether he would have signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law that helps women hold employers accountable for discriminating in the pay practices based on gender. Romney said, “I’m not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed.”

6. Romney won’t say whether he’d support full reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Offering only general support for renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, Romney would not specify whether he supported the bipartisan Senate version or the GOP House rolllback bill. His spokeswoman said only that he “hopes [the bill] can be reauthorized without turning it into a political football.”

7. Romney won’t say whether say whether he’d eliminate the “carried interest” tax break for private equity partners. Romney’s campaign has refused to answer questions about whether he supports eliminating the “carried interest” tax break for private equity partners, even when asked directly, saying only that we should probably “take a close look at to see if we’re treating capital gains as capital gains or are we treating, in some cases, carried interest as capital gains when it’s more like ordinary income.”

If you want a snapshot of mittens, might I suggest you take one from 40, 000 feet in the air, this way you shall see the snake in the grass. The man with reversal Robin Hood in his ideology. If we don't call him out on these issues, then truly get what we deserve should this oxygen thief win in November.

Roger West

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Tea Baggers By The Numbers

A reminder for the upcoming election when the yea baggers try to claim they are concerned about jobs and the economy.


Friday, June 15, 2012

Why Is G.W. Too Blame You Ask?

Sixty-eight percent of Americans — including 49 percent of Republicans — say President George W. Bush is responsible for the state of today’s economy, a new Gallup poll finds.

Indeed, the country is still reeling from Bush’s disastrous economic stewardship. His irresponsible tax cuts and deregulatory policies have contributed significantly to the slow recovery and are partly responsible for the nation’s economic plight. Here are 5 reasons why:

1. Deregulated Wall Street: It was a great time to be a Wall Street executive during the Bush administration. Sweeping financial deregulation helped build the housing bubble and allowed financial institutions to pursue risky trades unchecked. In fact, Bush eliminated the rules that allowed Wall Street to cause the financial crash that plunged the nation into the Great Recession.

2. Cut Taxes For The Wealthy: The Bush tax cuts — over 50 percent of which benefited the richest 5 percent of American taxpayers — cost about $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were enacted. Ten years later, Bush’s tax cuts are still the main driving factor of the national debt:

3. Ran Up A Tab On Two Wars: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the country trillions of dollars. Combined with Bush’s tax cuts, war spending was a main factor in blowing up the deficit and spending the surplus accumulated under Clinton. Lawmakers now use the deficit as an excuse for inaction.

4. Left Homeowners In A Lurch: While Bush was happy to help out the banks in the wake of the housing crisis, he did little to assist struggling homeowners. Hope For Homeowners, Bush’s proposal to assist those struggling with their mortgages, was a colossal failure; in its first six months, it helped just one homeowner renegotiate his mortgage. Many mortgage holders — 15.7 million or, one in three — are still underwater today.

5. Weakened Workers: Bush weakened worker safety regulations and collective bargaining rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Department of Labor throughout his time in office. Today, corporations are back to making record profits, while workers’ incomes are falling.

Roger West

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Shellie Zimmerman Arrested

Liar, Liar Pants On Fire

Shellie Zimmerman, 25, is the wife of George Zimmerman, the man who is charged with the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin, a 16 year old African-American male.

She has been charged with perjury and was arrested Tuesday in connection with her husband's trial. The charge stems from her testimony about the family's finances. Following the shooting, there was a national outcry and there is still an ongoing debate about Zimmerman's responsibilities. An account was opened and interested parties were able to make donations. In a short amount of time the Zimmerman's had acquired over $135,000, and then failed to disclose the money in court at the initial bond hearing.

Under the microscope of scrutiny, did they think they would be able to keep the money a secret? Why was the money not immediately disclosed and verified?

Sheller Zimmerman was released on a $1,000 bond after being taken to the John E. Polk Correctional Facility, coincidentally the very same facility that is currently housing her husband.

She will be arraigned on July 31. If convicted, she faces a single year in prison for a first degree felony. Had the prosecutor's office sought a third degree charge, she could have faced up to 15 years.

The George Zimmerman family, two peas in a pod, a family of bullshit artists!

Roger West

Monday, June 11, 2012

Health Care Insurer Sides With “OBAMACARE"

UnitedHealthcare — one of the nation’s largest health insurers — has announced that it will preserve a provision of the health care law that allows young adults to stay on their family health care plans up to age 26, even if the high court rules the law unconstitutional later this month.

The measure is one of several so-called “Patients’ Bill of Rights” included in the law that UnitedHealthcare will keep in place. The company will also continue offering preventive health care services without out-of-pocket costs and end lifetime limits on insurance payouts:

“The protections we are voluntarily extending are good for people’s health, promote broader access to quality care and contribute to helping control rising health care costs,” Stephen J. Hemsley, president and chief executive of UnitedHealth Group, said in a statement. “These provisions are compatible with our mission and continue our operating practices.”

A spokesman at UnitedHealthcare said officials chose to announce their intentions now because “people in this uncertain time are worried about what might happen to their coverage and we think the time is right to let people know that these provisions will continue and they can count on us.”

The announcement applies to the roughly 9 million consumers in plans that they or their employer have purchased from UnitedHealthcare.

So far, 6.6 million young adults between 19 and 25 years old have signed up for insurance coverage through their parents’ policies. It’s a popular provision that even Republicans, like Tea Party favorite Rep. Allen West (FL), support. During an appearance on Fox News Monday morning, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) — one of the staunchest opponents of the law — also defended the insurer’s decision, noting, “to allow them to stay on that family plan, just helps the family until that person goes to school [and is] established in life.”

The growing bipartisan support for some provisions of the law will complicate the GOP’s efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, particularly as Americans start to benefit from it. The measure expands access to health insurance for millions of Americans, and UnitedHealthcare’s decision to continue at least some of its provisions means that Obamacare has already changed the health care system — no matter what the Supreme Court decides.


Saturday, June 9, 2012


6.6 Million young adults insured thanks to Obamacare!

Even though much of the Affordable Care Act does not go into effect until 2014, conservatives insist the bill is making things worse for Americans. But a new study shows that one implemented provision of the ACA is already providing millions of young Americans with health insurance.

According to a study by the Commonwealth Fund, 6.6 million young adults have signed up for coverage through their parents’ health insurance plans. Under the ACA provision, young people can now stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 26. About half of the 19-to-25 year-olds interviewed for the study reported opting in to their parents’ plans between November 2010 and November 2011.

Last month, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan wrote college presidents and student organizations urging them to remind students they can stay on their parents’ plans after graduation. “Now, graduating students are free to make career choices based on what they want to do, not where they can get health insurance,” they wrote.

Some of President Obama’s staunchest critics are also beginning to realize the benefit of increased young people in insurance pools. Republican Senators Scott Brown and Roy Blunt broke ranks to speak approvingly of the provision. Even Tea Party favorite Rep. Allen West signaled his support of the measure in an interview with ThinkProgress.

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll also showed that about 71 percent of Americans view the provision favorably.

Late last year, the government estimated there would be 2.5 million new young adults covered under the provision. The new estimate is higher, in part, because it also includes young people who were previously covered but were able to obtain better, cheaper coverage under the Obamacare provision.


Friday, June 8, 2012

Science Fiction Sean Hannity Style

It's sad to lose a Master of Science fiction like Ray Bradbury, but we do still have Sean Hannity.

What an oxygen thief Hannity is!

Roger West

Thursday, June 7, 2012

George W. Bush Most Disliked POTUS Of All

The Baffoon/Stooge Named George W. Bush

George W. Bush’s favorable rating lowest of any living president, poll shows

President George W. Bush had a low favorable rating when he left office, and he's still not popular, according to a CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday. In fact, he's the only living president with a favorable rating that's under 50 percent.

The polls shows that 43% of people questioned had a favorable opinion of Bush, with 54% saying they had an unfavorable view. That's the same favorable rating Bush had in 2010 in CNN polling, but it is up from his mid-30's favorable rating during 2009.

How might this play out in this year's presidential election? "Don't be surprised if the Obama campaign mentions the name of George W. Bush at every opportunity, and don't be surprised if that strategy works," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

When respondents were asked whether they are better or worse off than they were four years ago, they split, 44 percent to 43 percent. But when asked if they are better or worse off than they were "when Bush was president," 47 percent say they are better off compared to 41 percent who say they are worse off, the poll found.

Here's how the other living president's stack up: Bill Clinton, a 66 percent favorable rating and a 31 percent unfavorable; George H.W. Bush, a 59 percent favorable rating and 34 percent unfavorable; and Jimmy Carter, 54 percent favorable and 30 percent unfavorable.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International, with 1,009 adult Americans questioned by telephone from May 29-31. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Roger West

Wednesday, June 6, 2012


Scott "Koch Whore" Walker Wins Recall

Republican Gov. Scott Walker has won the Wisconsin governor’s recall over Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, holding onto his job after his push to slash collective bargaining rights for public employees sparked intense statewide backlash.

Walker’s win caps a chaotic year in Wisconsin, marked by heated demonstrations, endless campaigning and a flood of outside money, all of which vaulted the state from ordinary battleground to Ground Zero of the national political debate — and elevated Walker to national superstardom among the Republican faithful.

Walker was favored from the outset, bolstered by an enormous cash advantage, and a firewall of support from national Republican figures.

With 40 percent of precincts reporting, Walker has 59 percent of the vote, and Barrett has 40 percent, according to the Associated Press. The result is very likely to narrow, with more liberal areas typically reporting later in Wisconsin. Walker has been projected the winner by multiple news organizations.

“This is such a tremendous victory for Wisconsin taxpayers,” said Ciara Matthews, Walker campaign communications director, in a statement. “Today, Wisconsin voters have told the nation they stand with Governor Walker because he stands with them.”
Walker said: “Bringing our state together will take some time, but I hope to start right away. It is time to put our differences aside and figure out ways that we can move Wisconsin forward.”

Barrett told supporters at his concession speech: “And what we have seen over the last 16 months, is we have seen this democracy come alive. To those of you who fought, who obtained signatures, who stood out in the cold, who did what you thought was right — never, ever stop doing what you think is right. That’s what makes this such a great country.”

Walker previously faced Barrett in 2010, when he won the open-seat contest by a 52 percent to 47 percent margin.

The catalyst for the uproar that forced the recall was Walker’s legislation stripping most public-sector workers of collective bargaining rights — and the ensuing protests that filled the state Capitol and inspired demonstrations across the country, along with a high-profile effort by the minority Democrats to flee the state and block a three-fifths budget quorum to prevent the bill from moving forward. After Republicans found a way around the roadblock and passed the bill, Democrats initiated the first round of state Senate recalls, which took place in August 2011 and attracted tens of millions of dollars in political spending from both sides.

The results were a mixed bag. Democrats picked up two Senate seats, but were not the one more they needed to deprive Republicans of the majority. Out of the recall campaigns that were waged by both parties, four incumbent Republicans and three Democrats retained their seats, while two Republicans lost to Democratic challengers.

Democrats nonetheless sensed political blood was in the water, and quickly began laying the groundwork for an effort to recall Walker himself — an option that was only possible, under Wisconsin’s recall law, once an elected official has served at least one year of his current term.

And this new election saw a huge flood of money, as well. Walker raised over $30 million for the election — aided by the fact that he was able to take in unlimited donations during the 60-day window when petitions were collected — compared to just under $4 million for Barrett. Combined with interest group spending, the total GOP advantage over the Democrats was $47 million to $19 million.
Another clear trend in the election was been the extent to which Republicans have eagerly nationalized the race. Walker received help from surrogates throughout the contest, including visits by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and others.

Indeed, some liberals prominently grumbled throughout the recall about a lack of national backup.

Barrett did, however, eventually get a late boost from high-wattage Democrats, including campaign appearances by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Democratic Governors Association Chairman Martin O’Malley, and finally a stop from former President Bill Clinton.

If you needed you fucking wakeup call America, this was it, continue to vote tea bagger, and soon the America you know will be reverted back to the 1700’s. While there are bigger fish to fry, you liberals need to get off your ass and put you’re money where your mouth is - also get out and vote.

Wisconsin voted for an idiot, let’s not make the same mistake for POTUS in November!

How apropos will it be that the twice elected Koch Whore will more than likely be indicted for his shenanigans?

As the late Molly Ivins once said; the best way to cure a dog from killing chickens is to make that dog wear a dead chicken around his neck for awhile and see how he likes it. I’m thinking the people of WI would be well served with a chicken necklace for the next 2 years.

Roger West

Tuesday, June 5, 2012


Wisconsin voters report receiving robocalls telling them not to vote.

From Eau Claire to Beloit, voters across Wisconsin are relaying stories via Twitter, Facebook and online message boards about anonymous “robocalls” from allies of Scott Walker, telling them–incorrectly–that if they signed petitions to recall Governor Walker, their vote in today’s crucial election has been recorded.

An NBC reporter tweeted that a family friend was one recipient of the call:

Tom Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee and the Democratic nominee to unseat Governor Scott Walker, told MSNBC host Ed Schultz last night that his campaign began receiving complaints yesterday that voters had been contacted with the misinformation. This morning, Salon reported on the robocalls too, and included comments from Carol Gibbons, a Wisconsin resident who got the call herself. And a local CBS affiliate is even reporting that the caller sounds eerily similar to Tom Barrett, suggesting the group behind the call may have hired a Barrett impersonator.

So far no recording of the call has surfaced, but the reports from voters was enough to prompt the Barrett campaign to make calls of its own, warning voters not to listen to the first call. For its part, the Walker campaign denied any involvement in or knowledge of the robocall or who was behind it.

Election day antics were a near certainty in Wisconsin. In the last week, reports of other campaign antics surfaced, including an attempt by Walker supporters to disable the Barrett campaign’s phone lines by flooding their call centers with spam phone calls.

RELATED: Madison City Clerk: Turnout Is On Pace To Reach 119%. Turnout in excess of 100% is possible because Wisconsin allows same-day voter registration. The numbers suggest that many people are registering at the polls. Heavy turnout in Madison, a liberal stronghold, would likely benefit Democrat Tom Barrett.


Monday, June 4, 2012

Zimmerman Back In Jail, But For How Long

In Florida, nearly 70 percent of people who invoked ‘Stand Your Ground’ walked away scot free

It took 44 days before George Zimmerman was arrested for Trayvon Martin’s death because police claimed he was “standing his ground” when he fatally shot the teenager. But these kinds of delays are not all that uncommon under the ALEC-sponsored law, a new report by Tampa Bay Times concludes. The report finds that in nearly one-third of 200 Stand Your Ground cases, the defendant had initiated the fight, shot an unarmed individual or first pursued the victim, and were never even charged with crimes.

Additionally, Stand Your Ground has allowed police a wide latitude of interpretation, resulting in uneven enforcement for whites and blacks. Some of the report’s findings include:

Nearly 70 percent of those who have invoked “stand your ground” to avoid prosecution have gone free.

73 percent of those who killed a black person walked away without penalty, while 59 percent of those who killed a white person went free.

Attorneys are increasingly invoking Stand Your Ground in ways state legislators didn’t originally intend, and use of this defense has grown five-fold in nonfatal cases between 2008 and 2011.

Among the incidents where defendants walked free: “One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back.”
There are three times more concealed carry permits in Florida since 2005, when Florida passed the law.

In Florida, the number of Stand Your Ground cases is on the rise, being invoked in cases with both minor injuries and where the defendants shot a person who was unarmed or whose back was turned. As Tampa Bay Times writes, “If you claim ‘stand your ground’ as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.” For George Zimmerman, these inconsistencies have played out in national media, but many times these cases escape notice and even police records.


Sunday, June 3, 2012


Once again, so that if anyone is still on the "Obama wasn't born in America" or as flipflopney spells it "Americia".

GOP/tea baggers/teapublicans; the biggest oxygen thieves on the globe, the mind is a terrible thing to waste!

Roger West

Saturday, June 2, 2012

Women Who Undergo Abortions Should Face Criminal Charges

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) unwilling admitted to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on Friday afternoon that he believed women who receive abortions should face criminal charges. “I think the punishment should certainly be very serious,” he said. “It should be more than a civil case. It should be something very serious”:

Stearns was appearing on the program to talk about the GOP’s recent effort to ban sex-selective abortions. That bill, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act or PRENDA, failed earlier this week and would have fined and imprisoned doctors who knowingly aborted fetuses based on racial or gender discrimination.

The congressman sought to defend the measure by arguing that “if all of Europe and most of Asia has this same rule, that you cannot have sex selection as an abortion, why can’t we in the united states pass the same bill?” But Matthews responded succinctly, saying, “it’s always amazing when you guys on the right want to import the values of other countries. Any time we do it, any time a liberal tries to do it, you say they’re bringing foreign values into this country.”


Friday, June 1, 2012

North Carolina Legislators, First Governing Body To Be Titled Oxygen Thieves

North Carolina Lawmakers

North Carolina is no stranger to the “if you dislike it then you should have made a law against it” model of legislation, but this is extreme: The state General Assembly’s Replacement House Bill 819 would rule that scientists are not allowed to accurately predict sea-level rise. By all legal calculations, the sea level will now rise eight inches by the end of the century. Sure, so far models have predicted an increase of more than three feet, but if they keep that shit up, they’re going to JAIL.

OK, there’s not really a prison sentence attached to this proposed rule, but that doesn’t stop it from being crazeballs. See, actual sea-level rise is nonlinear, because there’s feedback — the warmer it gets, the more the water volume expands, and the more stuff melts, and the more it expands, etc. That’s how most scientific models arrive at their predictions, because that is how physics works. But an increase that big is extremely inconvenient for a state with a beach-based tourist trade. So North Carolina’s solution is simple: Change how physics works, or at least change how people do physics.

Accordingly, this bill mandates that models use a linear increase — a consistent amount of change every year, based on historical data. This will lead to predictions that are much less catastrophic, and much more reassuring for people building resorts in the Outer Banks. The predictions will also be flat-out wrong, but that’s nothing new for North Carolina.

If it’s not obvious why this is stupid, look at it this way: In 1790, the year North Carolina is stuck in, the population was about 400,000. In 1900, it was 1.9 million. That’s an increase of 1.5 million in 110 years — so if there were an analogous rule for population, the state would prepare for 3.4 million residents in 2010. Which might cause some strife among the 9.7 million people who live there now, but you know, whatever — the law is the law, so screw you, math. If the 6.3 million people unaccounted for by the legal model wanted housing and services, they should have fallen in line with North Carolina reality.

Anyway, we wish North Carolina the best of luck in staving off disaster by legislating what mathematical calculations people can perform. It will probably be about as effective as fixing the health-care crisis through etymology, or balancing the budget with entry-level yoga. But if it works, I’m moving to North Carolina, where living in a fantasy world has the force of law.

What a bunch of oxygen thieves!

Roger West