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

Tuesday, December 31, 2013



NFTOS wishes all our readers a happy and prosperous new year.

Roger West

Monday, December 30, 2013


.....inside his restaurant.

Country music star Toby Keith is facing some backlash from gun owners after one of his new I Love This Bar And Grill restaurants in Woodbridge, Virginia posted a “No Guns Permitted” sign outside its premises.

“I’ll never eat here. Lawfully armed and spending my money elsewhere,” read one of many disgruntled reviews on the restaurant’s Facebook page.

The furor spurred a response by the restaurant, explaining, “While we understand and respect every person’s right to own and bear arms, we at Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar and Grill, with guidance from the State of Virginia and based on insurance regulations, have adopted a no weapons policy. It is our desire to provided a safe, enjoyable and entertaining experience for our patrons and staff.”

That did little to quell the ire of gun owners, one whom responded to the restaurant’s Facebook message by saying, “Your post regarding your stance on not allowing patrons to defend them selves should the need arise is a total cop out to the bad publicity that your bad policy has initiated.”

But gun owners may actually be legally allowed to carry loaded weapons in Keith’s restaurant under Virginia law, irrespective of what the sign says. Virginia is one of at least six states — the others being Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona — that explicitly allows loaded guns in bars. “No Guns Permitted” signs don’t actually have the force of law in Virginia unless the state specifically lists the facility as one where people cannot carry guns.

Another 18 states allow loaded weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol, according to a 2010 New York Times report — and data on violence in America suggests that could be dangerous policy. Gun owners are far more likely to binge drink, drive drunk, and engage in other risky behaviors than people who don’t own guns, according to a 2011 report in the medical journal Injury Prevention. Furthermore, arguments and fights that often involve drinking or a perceived insult lead to nearly half of all homicides and an estimated 40 percent of men and 30 percent of women who killed someone had been drinking at the time.

Keith has previously performed at rallies sponsored by the National Rifle Association and has spoken in support of gun rights. “If one percent of non-felons would go get their concealed weapons license and carry a gun where they can, one percent puts you in a pretty good position of being somebody that could save a bunch of people’s lives,” he said at a 2011 event.

Cross Posted from thinkprogress

Staff Writer

Sunday, December 29, 2013


Who the phuck knew?

An incredibly in-depth New York Times report on the Benghazi attack of September 11th, 2012 concludes that there is “no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,” instead led by rebel fighters that were supported by the U.S. during the uprising against Moammar Qaddafi. And on top of all that, the Times report says that despite what members of Congress have claimed to the contrary, that the anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims actually played a pretty significant part in fueling the anger surrounding the attack that left four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, dead.

The Times says that both major narratives (“the attack was spontaneous” and “the attack was meticulously planned in advance”) surrounding Benghazi are both lacking, and points to what it deems as the real intelligence failure in all this.

The Benghazi-based C.I.A. team had briefed Mr. McFarland and Mr. Stevens as recently as the day before the attack. But the American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to Al Qaeda…

Members of the local militia groups that the Americans called on for help proved unreliable, even hostile aide. The fixation on Al Qaeda might have distracted experts from more imminent threats. Those now look like intelligence failures.

The report includes interviews with Libyan rebel fighters, and provides some in-depth details about the attack itself and the security at the Benghazi compound when the attack occurred.

You can read the full report here.


Here are six major takeaways from the report:
1. Al Qaeda was not involved in the assault. It has become an article of faith for some in the GOP that the Benghazi attack was a highly orchestrated terrorist attack led by the same group that carried out the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. “It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event,” said Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, in an interview on Fox News in November. But according to the Times report, there is no evidence to support this assertion. 
2. Anger at the “Innocence of Muslims” video motivated the initial assault and fueled the anger that powered the attack. After the film appeared online dubbed into Arabic in September 2012, media in Cairo played a major role in stoking the rage that led to an assault on the American embassy in Benghazi. Witnesses on the ground at the attack recount numerous ways in which leaders of the assault used the video to stoke the rage of militiamen. 
3. The spontaneous response to the video stoked another attack that was already in the works, planned by smaller militia not affiliated with Al Qaeda. Evidence suggests that hardline elements within the complex web of Islamist militias operating in Benghazi, including an uneducated loner and contrarian named Ahmed Abu Khattala, had been planning an attack, though it’s unclear when they had intended to strike. The U.S. government has sought to have Khattala apprehended in order to press charges, but authorities and powerful Islamist elements in Libya have closed ranks around the hardliner. 
4. American officials were overly reliant on moderate Islamist elements for protection. As the assault turned full fledged, officials called on the leaders of militias that had been publicly friendly to the U.S. to come to their aid. But when the time came, almost none turned up to rescue Americans trapped inside the compound. “Whatever happened, they were other Libyans,” said one Islamist leader who eventually did enter the compound after resisting at first. 
5. Inside the compound, attackers looted and plundered wildly. Witnesses describe men taking out suits on hangers, televisions and found food. One man reportedly poured what appeared to be Hershey’s chocolate syrup into his mouth. 
6. Benghazi joined the list of Faux News scandals such as- Obama's birth certificate is fake, he's Muslim, he's appointing more "czars" than anyone before, he's playing more golf than anyone before, he's creating FEMA camps, the IRS targeting the Tea Party gave him the election, he's a Marxist because he said "spread the wealth around".....

Fox News, Darrell Issa, Lindsey Graham, and other radical tin foil hat society members owe many apologies, most going to Susan Rice.

Reiterating, who the phuck knew Darrell Issa? You sir are today's asshat of the year! Congratulations Einstein, maybe you should go back to doing what you do best.....stealing cars.

Roger West

Saturday, December 28, 2013


BAD [Chicken] POLLO

The last several decades have seen the U.S. food production system privatized and deregulated to the point that it has become a menace to public health and a major contributor to climate change. It's amazing, that in the richest country in the world, it's "consumer beware." It's left to consumers to empower themselves with information to even begin to navigate healthy food choices for themselves and their families.

Some non-governmental nonprofit groups are trying to take up the slack left by a governmental system which most often represents the interests of multinational corporations rather than the American consumer.

One of the nonprofit groups which has gained consumer trust is Consumer Reports, which since 1936 has published reviews and comparisons of consumer products and services based on reporting and results from its in-house testing laboratory and survey research center.


Consumer Reports has recently turned its independent testing laboratory to investigating our broken food production system with a report on the American poultry industry. The results of its testing are unsettling:
Every one of the four major brands we tested (Perdue, Pilgrim’s, Sanderson Farms, and Tyson) contained worrisome amounts of bacteria, even the chicken breasts labeled “no antibiotics” or “organic.” 
Almost none of the brands was free of bacteria. And we found no significant difference in the average number of types of bacteria between conventional samples and those labeled “no antibiotics” or “organic.” 
More than half of the chicken breasts were tainted with fecal contaminants (enterococcus and E. coli), which can cause blood and urinary-tract infections, among other problems. 
Enterococcus was the most common bacterium we found, occurring in 79.8 percent of our samples. Next was E. coli, in 65.2 percent of them; campylobacter, 43 percent; klebsiella pneumoniae, 13.6 percent; salmonella, 10.8 percent, and staphylococcus aureus, 9.2 percent.
About half of our samples (49.7 percent) tested positive for at least one multidrug-­resistant bacterium, and 11.5 percent ­carried two or more types of multidrug-­resistant bacteria. 
Of the 65.2 percent of samples testing positive for E. coli, 17.5 percent of the bugs were “ExPEC” bacteria, a nasty type of E. coli that’s more likely than other types to make you sick with a urinary-tract infection.

World healthcare in general takes antibiotics for granted. Strep throat, sinus infection, UTI—a quick visit to the doctor, a prescription, and you’re feeling better. But that era is coming to an end because these lifesaving drugs are being overused, particularly in livestock production.

Already 2 million Americans are infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and at least 23,000 die each year. The spread of these "superbugs" is happening so fast the Centers for Disease Control says if we don’t act, our national medicine cabinet will soon be empty.

Portions of blog from DailyKos and Meatless Advocates.

Roger West

Friday, December 27, 2013


Apparently McDonald's now has a Director of Parody, Satire and Self-Deprecation.

On its employee resources website, McDonald’s offers workers reasonable if not unexpected advice for a healthier diet. McDonald’s employees should steer clear of fast food, the website warns, because meal consisting of burger, fries, and a soda cause weight gain.
“Fast foods are quick, reasonably priced, and readily available alternatives to home cooking,” one post on the McResource Line site says. “While convenient and economical for a busy lifestyle, fast foods are typically high in calories, fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt and may put people at risk for becoming overweight.”

Illustrating this point is a picture of what looks suspiciously like McDonald’s food. At 550 calories, McDonald’s Big Mac delivers nearly 50 percent of one’s daily recommended fat. That’s not including the fries and soda.

McDonald’s defended the McResource posts, saying it has been “taken entirely out of context.” “This website provides useful information from respected third-parties about many topics, among them health and wellness,” they told CNBC. “It also includes information from experts about healthy eating and making balanced choices. McDonald’s agrees with this advice.”

The company pointed to its healthier fare; however, these menu adjustments are often superficial and misleading or slow-coming in the fast food industry. By adding a green label to its McWrap, McDonald’s hopes to attract a younger consumer base that associates green with health.

The McResource Line is now infamous for advising low-income fast food workers to sell Christmas presents for cash and to live on food stamps. The corporation stands firm against raising wages, despite facing embarrassment whenever McDonald’s discusses its $7.81 hourly wage workforce. On these wages, even McDonald’s admitted it is nearly impossible for workers to afford basic expenses from healthy food to heating to transportation.

With McDonald size wages, it truly amazing their employees eat at all.


Thursday, December 26, 2013



A Colorado Springs father fatally shot his teenage step-daughter Monday, saying he thought she was a burglar. Prior to the incident, police received a call about a burglary in progress. But when they got there, they found the 14-year-old with a gunshot wound. She was taken to the hospital and died soon after, according to CBS Denver.

The incident is the latest tragedy involving the use of deadly force to protect the home. And it is one of several incidents in which a parent has killed their own child after they mistook them for a burglar. Last September a Connecticut teacher shot and killed his 15-year-old son after his neighbor called to say she thought she saw a robber in the front yard. Just a few weeks after that, a retired Chicago police officer shot and killed his 48-year-old son after he came in the back door late one night. And an off-duty police officer killed his son last July while the two were on vacation in upstate New York, after he told police he believed him to be an intruder. In that case, shooter Michael Leach was charged with second-degree manslaughter and is facing prison time.

Police have not said yet if they will file charges against the Colorado Springs father whose name has not been released, but Colorado is one of many states that has a “shoot first” law that authorizes the use of deadly force in defense of one’s home, and shields individuals who do so from any criminal or civil charges. Although Colorado does not have a Stand Your Ground law, it does have its own version of what is known as the Castle Doctrine, which allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect their dwelling without a duty to retreat.
The law was dubbed the “Make My Day,” law after the 1983 Clint Eastwood film ”Sudden Impact,” in which Detective Harry Callahan — “Dirty Harry” — aims a gun at a criminal suspect and says, ”Go ahead, make my day.”

The statute is particularly broad because it authorizes deadly force not just for fear of great bodily harm or death, but anytime a person “has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property.” Castle doctrine laws that empower civilians with guns to take the law into their own hands have been associated with many tragedies, in cases involving those seeking help after a car accident, an elderly man with Alzheimer’s who wandered onto another’s property, and the fatal shooting of a 20-year-old who walked onto a neighbor’s porch to escape a potential police bust of underage drinking.

The Colorado law gave criminal immunity to a homeowner who shot a teen intruder as he tried to flee through the front door of the home, even though he was no longer threat. Unlike in some other states, however, the deadly force must occur inside the home — not on a porch or yard. Last year, lawmakers unsuccessfully sought to expand the deadly force immunity to those protecting their businesses.

So much for the good guy with a gum saving the day, or the old cliché that guns don't kill people do. I be this family is re-thinking those asinine analogies!

Let's face it readers, having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children. And it doesn't matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own .If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.

The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000.

Roger West

Tuesday, December 24, 2013


For those who are Christians, Merry Christmas from the NFTOS staff.


Christmas Eve/ Sarajevo

Roger West

Monday, December 23, 2013


Phil Robertson has spoken out publicly for the first time since GQ published comments he made condemning homosexuality as sinful and suggesting that African Americans were perfectly happy under Jim Crow laws. He did not address the racist remarks, but used a small group Bible study on Sunday to defend his rebukes of homosexuality, claiming he was merely quoting the Bible.

His new statements, however, clarify further his judgmental views about gay people. For example, he alludes to HIV and other diseases as being the consequence of sexual immorality — reminding of how God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The only safe sexual option for men, he argues, is to marry a woman:
ROBERTSON: We murder each other and we steal from one another, sex and immorality goes ballistic. All the diseases that just so happen to follow sexual mischief… boy there are some microbes running around now. Sexual sins are numerous and many, I have a few myself. So what is your safest course of action? If you’re a man, find yourself a woman, marry them and keep your sex right there. You can have fun, but one thing is for sure, as long as you are both healthy in the first place, you are not going to catch some debilitating illness, there is safety there. 
Commonsense says we are not going to procreate the human race unless we have a man and a woman. From the beginning Jesus said, “It is a man and a woman.” Adam was made and Eve was made for this reason. They left their fathers and mothers and be united to become one flesh, that’s what marriage is all about. But we looked at it and said it was an outdated stereotype. When you look back at the human race, the sins have always been the same: We get high, we get drunk, we get laid, we steal and kill. Has this changed at all from the time God burnt up whole cities because their every thought was evil? 
Robertson went on to assert that sexual immorality is actually worse than any other sins, but that Jesus can take away the sin of homosexuality. 
ROBERTSON: The acts of the sinful nature are obvious. Sexual immorality, is number one on the list. How many ways can we sin sexually? My goodness. You open up that can of worms and people will be mad at you over it. I am just reading what was written over 2000 years ago. Those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom. All I did was quote from the scriptures, but they just didn’t know it. Whether I said it, or they read it, what’s the difference? The sins are the same, humans haven’t changed.

But there’s a way out, do you want to hear the rest of the story or what? Jesus will take sins away, if you’re a homosexual he’ll take it away, if you’re an adulterer, if you’re a liar, what’s the difference? If you break one sin you may as well break them all. If we lose our morality, we will lose our country. It will happen. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all walk around without stealing from each other and killing each other?

Video also surfaced last week of Robertson speaking against homosexuality back in 2010, comparing homosexuality to bestiality just like he did in the GQ interview by claiming that gay people “bow down to birds animals and reptiles and each other and the first thing you see coming out of them is gross sexual immorality.”

A&E suspended Robertson from filming on Duck Dynasty, which prompted his family to suggest that the show about their duck call business might not be able to continue without him.

Conservatives have fervently been defending Robertson’s comments about homosexuality, though they have been noticeably silent about his comments on race and civil rights.

ROBERTSON: "Sexual immorality, is number one on the list."

Actually, God says all sins are equal. There is no ranking. God also said there is no greater commandment than loving thy neighbor. Something Robertson clearly ignores.

Perhaps Robertson like all bible thumping "Christians" should learn the Bible before attempting to practice selective Christianity.

Phil Robertson, congratulations, you are both todays: Asshat of the day and Worst Person In The World!

Roger West

Sunday, December 22, 2013



The right wing makes up a fake "War on Christmas" every year. It's easy to joke about, but not all of their lies are laughing matters.


The Dark Mastermind Behind The War On Christmas

O'Reilly Freaks Out

Sarah Palin 'War on Christmas' Book Flops

Right Wing's Fake War on Christmas Started Nearly 100 Years Ago

This is always a fun time of the year for me, when the NECONS ramp up the lunacy with the war on Christmas. May God keep blessing us with the benighted ignorance of the unlettered GOPer.

Roger West

Saturday, December 21, 2013



Who'd a thunk it?

United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision striking down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, was not the clearest opinion the justices have ever produced. Although that opinion was firmly rooted in the Constitution’s guarantee of equality for all Americans, it contained just enough states’ rights language to give anti-gay lawmakers in the states some hopes that marriage discrimination could remain alive in conservative enclaves throughout the country. If a Utah federal judge’s opinion that was released Friday is upheld on appeal, however, there will no longer be any doubt that marriage equality belongs to all Americans.
“The Constitution protects the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government,” Judge Robert Shelby concludes in his opinion striking down Utah’s ban on marriage equality — and this right applies to everyone. The same Constitution, Shelby explains “protects the choice of one’s partner for all citizens, regardless of sexual identity.”

Although Shelby largely relies on the argument that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, he also made sharp nods towards the promise of equality. “Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples,” he explains, Utah’s “Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition.”
Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples, Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition. Amendment 3 does not thereby elevate the status of opposite-sex marriage; it merely demeans the dignity of same-sex couples. And while the State cites an interest in protecting traditional marriage, it protects that interest by denying one of the most traditional aspects of marriage to thousands of its citizens: the right to form a family that is strengthened by a partnership based on love, intimacy, and shared responsibilities. The Plaintiffs’ desire to publicly declare their vows of commitment and support to each other is a testament to the strength of marriage in society, not a sign that, by opening its doors to all individuals, it is in danger of collapse.

Beyond Judge Shelby’s conclusion that marriage is a question of constitutional rights, not one of states’ rights — as he explains, “the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict” — Shelby’s opinion appears designed to tear down whatever intellectual infrastructure remains supporting marriage discrimination.

The leading argument advanced by supporters of discrimination in same-sex marriage cases is that marriage is necessarily tied to procreation, so same-sex couples can be excluded because they cannot produce biological offspring. Yet, as Shelby points out, the ability to procreate is not “a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view.
” Such an argument does not simply “demean the dignity” of same-sex couples, it also degenerates “the many opposite-sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to have children.” Indeed, under Utah’s argument for maintaining marriage discrimination, “a post-menopausal woman or infertile man does not have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does not have the capacity to procreate.”

Additionally, opponents of marriage equality who cheered Justice Antonin Scalia’s sharply worded dissent in Lawrence v. Texas — another landmark gay rights opinion — may come to regret Scalia’s words after reading Judge Shelby’s opinion. Scalia wrote in Lawrence that “today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.” Shelby’s opinion proclaims that Scalia was right.

It should be noted, however, that Shelby’s opinion is significantly less sweeping that Thursday’s marriage equality decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court. The New Mexico court unanimously held that “because same-gender couples (whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, hereinafter ‘LGBT’) are a discrete group which has been subjected to a history of discrimination and violence, and which has inadequate political power to protect itself from such treatment, the classification at issue must withstand intermediate scrutiny to be constitutional.” Thus, under the New Mexico decision, any anti-LGBT law will be subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny — and the New Mexico court explicitly included transgender individuals within the scope of its holding. Shelby’s opinion, by contrast, is largely focused on the right to marry.

Nevertheless, Shelby’s opinion is broad enough to extend the blessings of full marriage equality to all same-sex couples if it is upheld by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, however, it will need to be reviewed by the conservative-leaning United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. So it will probably be quite a while before this case reaches the nation’s highest Court.

Roger West

Friday, December 20, 2013


With the shit-storm over Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson’ comments about homosexuality dominating cable news Thursday, Jon Stewart really had no choice but to offer the world his take on the issue. The Daily Show host took the opportunity to deliver a scathing take down of the “free speech absolutists” at Fox News.
“Look, I think what the guy said is ignorant,” Stewart said, “but I also have an inclination to support a world where saying ignorant shit on television doesn’t get you kicked off that medium.” But does Fox News truly believe you shouldn’t “pressure people to have to adhere to cultural norms of speech?”

This led to an all out “War on Christmas” montage, after which Stewart explained that Fox’s “belief in free speech doesn't extend to the holidays where the word Christmas is mandatory.”

Video Courtesy of Comedy Central

I was emailed this today regarding this issue:
"Political correctness is all about changing the language to cater to an aggrieved group, usually a minority."
My response: You're halfway there, once you realize who the targets [of 'politically incorrect' comments 'usually'] are. But since you're not 'usually' in any of those minorities, who gives a shit - right?

It's all about civility - not your '1st amendment right' to spew hateful speech. The government is not preventing you from doing that - but society has a right and obligation to scorn you for doing so.

Roger West

Thursday, December 19, 2013


Cross Posted from Crooks and Liars

Sarah Palin took to her Facebook page to defend the Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson, after he was placed on indefinite leave by A&E for his homophobic words, on the grounds that our free speech is endangered.
Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.

Here's what he said about the gays:
In the GQ interview, Robertson goes on record with comments about the sinfulness of gays and black people under Jim Crow. In the profile, an unedited Robertson sounds off on what's ailing the country during a trip through the Louisiana backwoods. 
"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he tells reporter Drew Magary. "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

He also muses about his own sexual orientation: "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."

And as Jamie wrote, he also made a claim that African Americans were better off in the pre-civil rights era:
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy?

Sarah Palin isn't offended by those words at all because in her mind people should be able to say anything they want, anywhere without retribution. It's not surprising that she knows so little about 'freedom of speech' and what it means, (maybe we can get Katie Couric to ask her about it).

But if we go by her own understanding of it, why didn't she defend Martin Bashir over his callous words about her --which caused a conservative outrage and then led him to resign his job at MSNBC? She wallowed in his ridiculous words to her and bathed in the conservative backlash politics that ensued.

Did she say that Bashir was entitled to say anything he wants on MSNBC's airwaves, even attacking her? After all, it was his personal opinion that he voiced. Nope. Did she then go on and debate Bashir over what prompted him to say those things about her? Nope. So it's OK for anti-gay and and pro-Jim Crow words to be uttered by Robertson, but not anti-Palin words.

It's very typical of conservatives like Sarah Palin that their understanding of politics only extends as far as the last Facebook entry they made.


Wednesday, December 18, 2013



New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie still hasn’t offered an alternate –more believable – explanation for his administration’s controversial lane closures on the George Washington Bridge. The most plausible explanation – that the governor’s administration was punishing a mayor who refused to endorse Christie – is the most politically damaging one, but also the most credible pending further revelations.

Video courtesy of MSNBC

An in-depth follow up can be read here. - RELATED: Gov. Christie's cronies lawyer up as "Bridgegate" gets even messier

You just can't make this stuff up.

Roger West

Tuesday, December 17, 2013


Ann Coulter really has a problem with single women. On a Fox & Friends episode from Dec. 15, she said that tea bageers don’t have a problem with women, they have a problem with single women. On her planet, single women want the government to be their husbands. They want the government to provide for them and pay for their birth control, and basically just take care of everything for them.

It’s not hard to understand that Ann Coulter is a woman with an odd view on women’s issues. Her ideal world is back in 1950, when women knew their place as secondary to men. She wants women everywhere to be married, and submissive to their husbands. It seems she thinks the world’s problems would all go away if women would just get married and shut up. Or, to put it in Ann Coulter’s own words:
“By the way, Republicans don’t have a problem with women. They have a problem with unmarried women who think, ‘No, we don’t need national defense, we need our birth control paid for.’ [...] And why? Because single women look at the government as their husbands. [They say] ‘Please provide for me, please take care of me.’”

Coulter, the "female" version of Rush Limbaugh - once I get over her Adams apple and wondering whether this hate hag has a severe thyroid problem, or is she just the creature I think she is, "Coultergeist" - does she really believe the shit she spews, or is this a dog and pony show for the unlettered tea bagger?

Roger West

Monday, December 16, 2013


Cross-posted from thinkprogress:

John Miller, reporting for CBS’ “60 Minutes,” found himself the target of ridicule on social media for his Sunday “exposé” on the National Security Agency (NSA). The segment, which takes viewers through some portions of the NSA building, has been characterized as puff piece with Miller soft-balling questions to Gen. Keith Alexander, the agency’s director and head of the U.S. Cyber Command, and NSA Analyst Stephen Benitez. Here are four questions Miller, a former U.S. Department of National Intelligence employee who reportedly is preparing to join the New York Police Department, missed or didn’t press hard enough to get answered:

Why did Alexander and National Intelligence Director James Clapper tell Congress that NSA wasn’t collecting U.S. citizens’ personal data when it really was?

In a March hearing, Clapper told Congress that no data was “wittingly” collected, according to a letter he sent in June to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Alexander was quoted in the letter as saying, “The story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.” During the interview with Miller, he conceded the NSA was collecting some data, arguing, “How do you know when the bad guy who’s using those same communications that my daughters use, is in the United States trying to do something bad?”
Why were employees using NSA tactics to spy on their love interests?

“Nobody [in the NSA] willfully or knowingly trying to break the law,” Alexander said. Miller did point out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court thought differently, saying “the NSA systematically transgressed both its own court-appointed limits in bulk Internet data collection programs.” But he didn’t bring up that NSA employees have admittedly abused their access in the past. Most notably, many employees used the NSA’s databases to gather intelligence on significant others and exes, violations known under the spycraft label LOVEINT. There was also no mention of the nearly 3,000 incidents of unauthorized data collection by NSA employees discovered over the course of internal investigations, which The Washington Post first reported.

What can the NSA get from spying on Google and Yahoo that it can’t get directly?

Miller acknowledged the agency openly cooperates with the two Internet giants, Apple and others to access user information. However, the NSA still infiltrated Google and Yahoo’s data centers per documents released by NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden. Alexander dodged a similar question when Miller asked if the NSA hacked into U.S. Internet companies’ foreign data centers: “No, that’s not correct,” Alexander said. “We do target terrorist communications. And terrorists use communications from Google, from Yahoo, and from other service providers. So our objective is to collect those communications no matter where they are.” Alexander’s comments echoed those of his predecessor, Michael Hayden, but still didn’t address the need to gather information secretly from companies they work with. Since the revelation, Google, Yahoo and six other tech companies have asked the NSA to revise their agreements after Snowden documents revealed the agency spied on ‘World of Warcraft’ video game users.

Does the NSA ever track people’s cell phone call locations and to what extent?

Miller and Alexander discussed phone monitoring, with Alexander skirting the issue saying, “We’re defending this country from future terrorist attacks and we’re defending our civil liberties and privacy. There’s no reason that we would listen to the phone calls of Americans. There’s no intelligence value in that. There’s no reason that we’d want to read their email. There is no intelligence value in that.” Miller’s narration goes on to say that the NSA only collects “metadata” of phone records for more than 300 million Americans that reveal the number from which a call originated and the one receiving the call. That metadata can also include information about where the call was placed, using GPS technology that most phones have these days. Numerous reports have surfaced on how the NSA uses cell phone tracking data, and that it collects billions of such records world wide each day. But geolocation tracking never came up.


Sunday, December 15, 2013


When you blog 365 days a year - now for over three years, its at times, a struggle to put one out. This would be one of those days. In the past we have posted our sites statistical analysis, which shows how many hits and readers we have had to our site to date.

Not one to brag much, oh who the hell are we kidding, in the graph below - we have had over 45.7 million hits [page views, unique visits and return visits] since April 2010.


When you think of it, holding a masters degree in engineer and not in journalism - I am just a compassionate "Damn Nazi Liberal", and to say we have had 46 million computer screens seeing our work - its humbling and mind numbing.

We at NFTOS appreciate every hit to our site whether its a fellow progressive or an American Talibaner.

We would like to thank you for visiting our page [whether you agree with us or not]. There are times when I wonder how much longer we do this, and then a right wing nut job goes to the brink, and then we no longer wonder.

Enjoy your Sunday fellow progressives, and as always, we very much are grateful for your readership.


Roger West & Staff

Saturday, December 14, 2013



NRA, Gun Huggers, Guns Over People unite, be proud, for over thirty three thousand lives have been taken since Newtown one year ago today.

Today flags in Connecticut will fly at half staff to honor the 20 first-graders and six adults gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012.

I am one of those "Damn Nazi Socialist Liberals" who wants total control over the Guns Over People, until we can prove that we indeed are truly "responsible" with weapons, then we all the pay the fiddler. I often find that "responsible" gun huggers are the ones we really need to watch the most, you know the ones who leave armed weapons on the kitchen table so that 4 year old baby Suzy can pick it up and kill herself or her two year old brother Johnny. How about the "responsible" Ex Vice President who shit his best friend in the face.....responsible my ass!

I posted yesterday on Twitter that over 173 children under the age of 12 have been killed over this same period, and the gun hugging twitter nuts went into a frothy frenzy. One NRA nut asked me to list every gun used in these is the thing numbnutz, I don't give a phuck what weapon was used!

One year later, after this most disgusting event, and still having not done anything in this country to curb this, speaks volumes about Americans as a whole. When a organization [which is only 4 million strong] dictates what we do and don't do with regards to guns - Houston we have a problem! America has over 325 million citizens, since when did 4 million rule 325 million?

We have had more deaths this year alone than the entire 15 year war of Afghanistan and Iraq combined. Thirty three thousand dead via guns - is eight [8] thousand Benghazi's readers, where the hell is the outrage Faux News, Megyn Kelly, GOP, Guns Over People, Gun Huggers, NRA?

Where the phuck are all these good guys with a gun - where are all these "responsible" gun huggers at?

Email just in to NFTOS from a gun hugger:
"Gun control laws have been demonstrated not to work. Gun control laws have been proven to be a huge waste of money. Gun control laws disarm the law-abiding and empower the criminal. Gun control laws are legal booby traps for the unwary, but rarely hinder the criminal." 
Except in every other country in the world where the gun laws are so stringent they basically prohibit routine ownership of weapons. This argument only works in the vacuum of addressing the US attempts at firearm regulation.

It is time to right this wrong - God forbid, but I wonder what happens to a gun hugger when they, or their family become a statistic of gun violence, are they still a proponent of zero gun control?

Roger West

Friday, December 13, 2013


From thinkprogress:

Twitter caused quite a stir late Thursday regarding a change in its block policy, provoking outrage from victims of online harassment and advocates. The new policy, which would have allowed blocked users to keep following and retweeting their blockers, was reversed hours after its debut.

But while the decision to reverse the change was welcomed, it may not go far enough for those most vulnerable to violent threats and harassment — specifically women, people of color, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community.

Women took to Twitter soon after the announcement to protest the change, explaining they used the block function to shield themselves from rape and death threats. In a petition against the new policy, several users shared examples of how they had been stalked and threatened on Twitter. “As a public person who uses the medium for my work, I am very concerned because stalkers and abusers will now be able to keep tabs on their victims, and while there was no way to prevent it 100 percent before, Twitter should not be in the business of making it easier to stalk someone,” wrote Zerlina Maxwell, a political analyst and feminist writer who started the petition. Maxwell received hundreds of rape and death threats after an appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program earlier this year.
“We never want to introduce features at the cost of users feeling less safe,” Michael Sippey, Twitter’s vice president of product wrote in an announcement Thursday night. He also mentions that Twitter is dissatisfied with the “old” block option, which keeps blocked users from seeing any activity of the blockers, saying it’s “not ideal, largely due to the retaliation,” which sometimes involves blocked users recruiting their followers to harass the blockers.
However, to some, the fact that Twitter launched the policy in the first place smacks of insensitivity to female users.
“It’s always a safe bet that if you put money on dudes in tech or media corporate hierarchies underestimating or not considering the needs of women, you’ll always beat the house,” Jenn Pozner, executive director of Women in Media and News. Pozner monitors online harassment of women and has experienced repeated rape and death threats. “Even in the way they discussed why they were making their change, [their] entire mindset was, ‘Let’s coddle harassers who are pissed off and fix something that, even nominally, makes their lives difficult.”

Despite recanting the block policy, users feel Twitter should make a more concerted effort to protect users from online abuse. “I’m pleased that Twitter decided to revert back to the ‘old’ blocking policy, but I would really like to see them improve certain aspects of their reporting policy,” Maxwell said.

Those changes should include a “very clear policy” on abusive tweets that’s actively enforced, Pozner said. Twitter currently has an abusive behavior policy that prohibits “direct, specific threats of violence against others,” a characterization that omits more generalized expressions of violence that still make many targets feel unsafe. The network also has recently rallied against online abuse by holding a video contest under the #ByeByeBullying hashtag and supporting Bullying Awareness Week.

In addition to the now restored blocking option, there should be a “mute” option, which would temporarily filter out someone from your feed and mentions without fully blocking them, Maxwell suggested. Other changes should include a spam reporting function, as well as more aggressive enforcement and follow-up for the current reporting policies and reports, Maxwell said.
“Right now, abusers really can just harass you with impunity. And while no solution is 100 percent, the frequency of threats and harassment that people—and women in particular—deal with on a daily basis is unacceptable,” she added.

Pozner blamed this lax policy on an indifference to women. “They have been told directly by their female users in a ton of different ways that there is a long-term problem that female users have with violent harassment . “I’ve stopped reporting stuff to Twitter because nothing ever happens. They never did anything about it.”

Reigning in threats of abuse, specifically rape, has been an ongoing struggle for Twitter and other social networking sites. Twitter recently agreed to ease its reporting requirements after users complained that it was too hard to report repeated rape threats. The site also promised over the summer to take these abusive tweets more seriously and streamline the reporting process.


Thursday, December 12, 2013



Cross-posted from thinkprogress:

After several right-wing outside groups slammed the bipartisan budget deal negotiated by House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) — in some cases before the deal was even announced — Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) hit his breaking point. “When you criticize something and you have no idea what you’re criticizing, you’ve lost your credibility,” he told reporters Thursday, noting that it “comes to a point where some people step over a line.” But Boehner’s frustration has no doubt been building up over this three years as Speaker, as groups like Heritage Action, Freedom Works, and the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF) have stymied his attempts to pass even conservative-friendly legislation.

In 2011, Boehner and President Obama were on the verge of reaching a “grand bargain” on taxes, spending, and deficit reduction. The talks fell through, in part because freshmen Republicans and the conservative groups that backed them were unwilling to accept new revenue.

Here are some of the bipartisan and GOP measures the groups have worked to block over the past three years:

The 2011 Budget Control Act.

Facing a possible default on the national debt, Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed on a bill to force automatic spending cuts, known as sequestration, unless a “super committee” could find sufficient savings cut hundreds of billions of dollars from federal spending over the next ten years. Though Boehner had made in clear in 2010 that when Washington hit its debt limit, Congress would “have to deal with it as adults,” groups on the right opposed increasing the ceiling. Heritage Action denounced the agreement, arguing that “Speaker Boehner’s most recent proposal to raise the debt limit is regrettably insufficient for our times.” With Freedom Works and SCF also opposed, 66 House Republicans voted against the bill.

The 2012 highway bill.

With the Highway Trust Fund set to run out of money, the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-control Senate sent an extension bill to conference committee. Freedom Works announced its opposition to the bipartisan compromise and said it would score it as a key vote, criticizing it for making “few reforms to the federal government’s rampant spending on transportation.” Heritage Action also strongly opposed the extension and scored it as a vote “to maintain unsustainable levels of funding when we are nearly $16 trillion in debt.” 52 House Republicans voted no.

The New Year’s Eve 2012 Fiscal Cliff deal.

As 2012 ended, Congress grappled with a standoff over the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and the beginning of drastic sequestration cuts. After Vice President Joe Biden (D) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reached a deal to extend some of the tax cuts, let others expire, and delay the cuts, the groups blasted the deal as “higher taxes.” FreedomWorks announced it would count a vote for the bill against legislators, while Heritage Action slammed it before it was even announced as a “K Street gravy train,” laden with giveaways to special interest groups. The deal passed with Boehner’s support, but the majority of Republicans voting against.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

The Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill in June by an overwhelming 68-32 super-majority. The bill had the strong opposition of SCF and Heritage Action, who attacked it as “amnesty.” While Boehner initially agreed that it was “time for Congress to act,” GOP opposition has delayed any House action until at least 2014.

Efforts to avert the October 2013 government shutdown over Obamacare.

The effort to force a government shutdown over defunding Obamacare was largely driven by freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and the Senate Conservatives Fund. Even though Boehner warned that it was a bad strategy, SCF and the other groups pressured Republican members to oppose any bill to fund the government without killing the Affordable Care Act. As the government shutdown dragged on, Boehner was forced to pull bills from the floor as members of his caucus refused to go against the groups’ wishes. At one point, he reportedly recited the Serenity Prayer at a closed-door caucus meeting at which he announced his “Plan B” was being scrapped for lack of Republican support. Though FreedomWorks believed the standoff a “brilliant strategy,” Congress eventually reopened government without any repeal. A furious Heritage Action said the compromise “will do nothing to stop Obamacare’s massive new entitlements from taking root — radically changing the nature of American health care.”

The 2013 Farm Bill.

On October 1, Congress allowed the historically bipartisan Farm Bill to expire. Attempts to revive the law, which funds numerous programs vital to the nation’s food supply, have been ongoing. Citing “myriad flaws with both the House and Senate” farm bill proposals, Heritage Action suggested there were “a trillion reasons not to pass the Farm Bill.” Freedom Works opposed even the more conservative House proposal as “80% food stamps and 100% fiscally irresponsible.” Boehner backed the House bill, but 62 Republicans joined with 172 Democrats to defeat it.

Though Paul Ryan has enjoyed a close relationship with Tea Party groups like Freedom Works in the past, these groups slammed the Ryan-Murray compromise as a “surrender.” and promised to hold it against anyone who votes for his bill. Heritage Action condemned the bill as “a step backwards.” The 2012 Vice Presidential nominee dismissed the attacks from the right as a “strange new normal.”

Freedom Works accused Boehner Wednesday of “smearing fiscally conservative groups.” “Speaker Boehner’s real problem here isn't with conservative groups like Freedom Works,” they explained, but “with millions of individual Americans who vote Republican because they were told the GOP was the party of small government and fiscal responsibility.”


Wednesday, December 11, 2013


House Majority Leader and tea bagger extraordinaire - Eric Cantor has published a video featuring a 10-year-old child who last year passed away from brain cancer to attack Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and advance a pediatric research bill he’s co-sponsoring.

In the clip, Gabriella Miller quotes Reid’s objections from October to a Republican-backed measure, proposed during the 17-day government shutdown, that would have partially funded the National Institutes of Health but kept the rest of the government shutdown. Cantor posted the clip to promote The “Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act,” a measure that would eliminate $12.5 million in funding from party nominating conventions and authorize the money for pediatric research grants.

Democrats are whipping against the measure, arguing that it is a political ploy that would not appropriate any additional funds to the NIH. Matt Dennis, a spokesman for Appropriations Democrats, told Congressional Quarterly that the bill wouldn't increase funding “by one dime.” “Rather than increasing the amount that can be appropriated to NIH, it merely creates an unnecessary and unfunded authorization — a solution completely irrelevant to the problem,” Dennis said. “It is a cynical attempt by the majority to obscure their shameful record on medical research funding.”

Indeed, Republicans have voted for budgets that would undercut funding for health care re search and cheered the automatic budget reductions that cut 5 percent or $1.55 billion from the NIH’s fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget. Rep. Paul Ryan’s FY 2012 budget would have also reduced N.I.H. funding by 5 percent or “more than $1 billion” and their latest proposal would result in additional reductions.

The American Taliban has also repeatedly criticized Obama for using children to advance a policy agenda. Rep. John Carter said it was offensive for Obama to invite “so many people whose families had been touched by gun violence” to his 2013 State of the Union address, noting “It’s unfortunate that people feel like they have to throw dead children out in peoples’ faces, as if disagreeing on an issue of guns makes you in favor of killing dead children.” In April, Sen. Rand Paul accused President Obama of exploiting Newtown survivors to advance gun safety and in February, House Speaker John Boehner lashed out at Obama, accusing him of using “our military men and women as a prop in yet another campaign rally to support his tax hikes.”

I guess we can assume that Eric Cantor cared so much for this 10-year old girl that he fought the government shutdown with every fiber of his being - and we can also be assured that Cantor fought against the sequestration - understanding that both of these diabolical events certainly hampered any health research severely. But we know better don't we Eric?

I am ashamed to say that this condescending smirking putz is from my state. He's both reprehensible and a self-aggrandizing buffoon.

Congratulations Eric, you Sir are today's worst person in the world!

Roger West

Tuesday, December 10, 2013


Did Gov. Chris Christie's administration cripple a New Jersey community with a deliberate, brutal traffic jam, purely out of petty and partisan spite?

Take a look and see for yourself.

Video courtesy of MSNBC

What's that smell you ask? I think it must be the stink of corruption and the sound of a door closing on a presidential run. What was once considered a Mafioso modus operandi - is now normal bullying from a GOP [Jersey style] Presidential hopeful.

Roger West

Monday, December 9, 2013


Two hearts and one artificial heart pump later, the great American liar rises from the political dead. The heartless bastard named Cheney said on Monday that the deal the U.S. and its international partners reached with Iran last month over its nuclear program is suspect because of some of the Obama administration’s initial missteps in implementing the president’s new health care law.
“I don’t think that Barack Obama believes that the U.S. is an exceptional nation,” Cheney complained on Fox and Friends. “Nobody cares much in the Middle East anymore what the U.S. thinks because we don’t keep our commitments.”

The former vice president moved to Iran and without mentioning any specific criticisms of the agreement, claimed it’s bad because of unrelated health care issues. “We don’t follow through and Iran we've got a very serious problem going forward and a deal now been cut,” he said. “The same people that brought us you can keep your insurance if you want are telling us they've got a great deal in Iran with respect to their nuclear program. I don’t believe it.”

The agreement reached in Geneva last month will actually rein in most aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, capping uranium enrichment to low levels and eliminating its stockpile of higher enriched uranium that is closer to weapons grade material. The deal also established more intrusive inspections regime. U.N. nuclear inspectors arrived in Tehran over the weekend to visit the still unfinished heavy water reactor in Arak for the first time in two years.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Cheney and others clinging to the neocon legacy aren't happy about the Obama administration’s diplomacy with Iran. But other various experts, lawmakers, interested parties and the American people think the first step agreement with Iran is a good one.

Since "Dicks" answers to every problem is; invade it, bomb it, or dissolve its culture, I'm not surprised he doesn't like a diplomatic alternative in Iran.

Hey "Dick", time to go back to the slime you once came from and let the adults proceed to run the country.

Roger West

Sunday, December 8, 2013


Rep. Randy Forbes (Virginia Talibangelical) is apparently urging the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) not to support any gay candidates — specifically because they’re gay. This would impact the races of Richard Tisei, who is once again running for Congress in Massachusetts after having narrowly lost in 2012, and Carl DeMaio, a former San Diego City Councilman running in California.

The NRCC helped fund Tisei’s 2012 campaign and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) even traveled to Boston to help him fundraise. Many senior House Republicans have given to both Tisei and DeMaio in their current campaigns, but their support of gay candidates seems not have fazed Forbes’ abstinence on the matter:
Last Wednesday, Forbes told POLITICO he thinks “GOP leaders can do whatever they want to do,” in terms of giving money to gay candidates. 
He said he is more concerned about members being asked to contribute to the campaigns. The NRCC is partially funded by collecting tens of millions of dollars from House Republicans, who pay dues to the organization.

When asked if he would withhold political contributions to the NRCC if they backed DeMaio, Forbes said, “I’m not going to be hypothetical on what we would or wouldn’t do at this particular point in time because you’ve got a lot of scenarios. I don’t think we’ve had primaries and nominations to nominate people. So I don’t want to prejudge.”

Because the NRCC does not involve itself in primary elections, this would only happen should DeMaio win the nomination. NRCC Chairman Greg Walden told Politico that the committee will not make decisions based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Forbes has received a score of 0 on the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard, having not supported a single LGBT equality measure. He is vying to be the next chair of the House Armed Services Committee, but in 2012, he attacked the Pentagon for allowing military service members to wear their uniforms when marching in San Diego’s pride parade, calling the decision “an outrageous and blatantly political determination issued solely to advance this Administration’s social agenda.” On that committee, he has also supported efforts to enshrine anti-gay discrimination within the military. His website still boasts his opposition to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” expressing his concern that the repeal might imply “official military support for the normalization of homosexual behavior.” In October, Forbes was supposed to be the featured speaker at a luncheon hosted by the American Family Association, an anti-gay hate group, at the Values Voter Summit, but for unknown reasons, he didn’t show.

Forbes is one of the co-sponsors of the so-called “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act,” which would provide a license to discriminate against same-sex couples for all businesses with a religious affiliation. Unsurprisingly, he has previously refused to implement nondiscrimination protections for gay employees in his own Congressional office. He also supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage throughout the entire country. In 2007, he opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act on the House floor, arguing that protecting gay people from being fired for their identities could somehow “destroy the institution of marriage.”

So much for the "GOP Autopsy". Forbes is just another bloviated outdated blowhard, with a hate for everything not past white.

If Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz found herself surrounded by men with no heart, no brains and no courage, she would be with the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Randy Forbes you are NFTOS' asshat of the week, congratulations!

Roger West

Saturday, December 7, 2013


Tea bagger Joe Barton told the National Journal that he thinks the country should get rid of the minimum wage. “I think it’s outlived its usefulness,” he said. “It may have been of some value back in the Great Depression. I would vote to repeal the minimum wage.”

Barton’s not the only lawmaker to hold such a view. In June, Sen. Lamar Alexander told a meeting of the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee to mark 75 years since the signing of the Federal Labor Standards Act, which guaranteed a minimum wage, that he “do[es] not believe in it” and that he would abolish the minimum wage. And while he hasn’t called for the full repeal of the minimum wage, Sen. Marco Rubio  has said, “I don’t think a minimum wage law works.”

The minimum wage historically helped many families stay out of poverty. Up until the early 1980s, making the annual minimum wage income lifted a family of two above the federal poverty line. At its peak in 1968, it was enough to lift a family of three out of poverty. Yet despite rising inflation and worker productivity since then, the minimum wage has failed to keep up. It would be over $10 an hour today if it had risen with inflation since that high, and if it had kept pace with gains in productivity it would be more than $20 an hour.

As it is, however, working a 40 hour week at minimum wage won’t bring in enough money to afford a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the country — workers would have to put in at least 80 hours a week. Working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks each year at the minimum wage only brings a worker $15,080, below the federal poverty line for a family of two or more. But bringing the wage in line with inflation by increasing it to $10.10 an hour would lift nearly 6 million people out of poverty, many of them women and people of color.

While critics of raising the minimum wage, like Rubio and Rep. Paul Ryan claim that it will cost jobs, there’s little evidence to back that up. In fact several academic studies have shown that raising the wage doesn’t hurt employment, and one even found that states that raised their wages had slightly above average job growth. Perhaps that’s because a higher wage can benefit businesses through increasing demand, lowering turnover, and increasing employee performance.

The American Taliban may have once recognized this, as they weren’t always against a raise. At least67 talibangelicals who are still serving in Congress today supported an increase under President George W. Bush, including Alexander and Ryan. Yet House tea baggers unanimously voted down an increase in March.

Well of course, I looked and there it was, a Republican party, a group that has outlived its usefulness. If you keep voting for these asshats you certainly get what you deserve.

Roger West