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
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

CONSERVATIVES TRAMPLE KAYLA MUELLER AFTER DEATH

KAYLA MUELLER


On Tuesday, the radical Islamic group the Islamic State announced that 26-year-old hostage Kayla Mueller was dead, reportedly in a Jordanian bombing raid.

As Talking Points Memo reported, while much of the world reacted with horror and grief at the death, many conservatives took to social media to celebrate the killing and call the young aid worker a terrorist sympathizer and “anti-Israel bitch” because of her work on behalf of the occupied people of Palestine.

In a piece titled “Kayla Mueller: Dead ISIS Hostage Was Jew-Hating, Anti-Israel Bitch,” conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel wrote, “No tears for the newly-departed Kayla Mueller, the ISIS hostage whose parents confirmed today that she is dead.”
“Mueller was a Jew-hating, anti-Israel piece of crap who worked with HAMAS and helped Palestinians harass Israeli soldiers and block them from doing their job of keeping Islamic terrorists out of Israel,” Schlussel wrote.
“I have no sympathy for any of these ‘American’ (in name only!) hostages of ISIS,” she went on. “And my attitude when I hear they’ve been snuffed out is, so sad, too bad.”
One conservative website urged readers to pause before they mourn Mueller’s death and ask whether her support of Palestine was ultimately what killed her.
“People should be asking is why this young American girl was in Syria in the first place,” said Conservative-Headlines.com. “The fact is that Kayla Mueller was a Cultural Marxist who talked about her ‘privilege.’”

On Twitter, some conservatives mocked Mueller for being “liberal.”




The website Shoebat.com’s Lee Kaplan said, “(T)he press tries to paint Kayla as a selfless volunteer helping poor Arab refugees. She may have even helped some injured Arabs in refugee camps. But don’t be fooled where her sympathies laid; she was working to support the goals of Palestinian irredentist/terrorists and to interfere with the IDF on behalf of terrorist groups. As an ISM activist she was a tool for the worldwide jihad.”

And Jim Hoft, also known as the Gateway Pundit, called Mueller “pro-terrorist” for opposing Israel’s ongoing occupation of Gaza.

[h/t rawstory]




NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief
Roger West

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

JON STEWART TAKES ON "ISOLATED INCIDENTS", "RACIAL ARSONISTS" AND "RACE INSTIGATORS"

JON STEWART LAMENTING FOX NEWS ON FERGUSON PROTESTERS



Jon Stewart just back from a week off, laments Fox News and it's "paid" commentators for its views on the Ferguson protests.

The unrest inspired by the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and a grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in his death have nothing to do with race. Or so Fox News would have you believe.

Stewart looked at the skewed framing of the Ferguson protests by one particular network, Fox News. And then Stewart methodically ripped their posterior. He called out Fox News' hypocrisy, their blatant ignoring of "systemic injustice,” and Fox News' insistence that the protests were incited by "race arsonists."

Video Courtesy of Comedy Central




Nothing more to say other than "nailed it"!






NFTOS
Blogger-In-Chief
Roger West




Thursday, October 23, 2014

FLORIDA'S TIN FOIL HAT SOCIETY READY TO SECEDE

CONSERVATIVES AND THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY HIT SOUTHERN FLORIDA


One small city in South Florida is willing to secede from the state if it means the threat of sea level rise will finally be taken seriously.

The city commission of South Miami, FL — a city that sits just west of the University of Miami in Coral Gables — passed a resolution this week that calls for Florida to be split into a North Florida and a South Florida, a creation of an additional state that would allow South Florida to take climate change preparation and adaptation into its own hands.
“It’s very apparent that the attitude of the northern part of the state is that they would just love to saw the state in half and just let us float off into the Caribbean,” South Miami Mayor Philip Stoddard said. “They’ve made that abundantly clear every possible opportunity and I would love to give them the opportunity to do that.”

Under the northern border of South Florida would include the counties of Brevard, Polk, Orange, Pinellas, and Hillsborough, which would mean drawing the new state line north of Orlando, Tampa and Clearwater. South Florida would encompass 24 counties and total about 23,000 square miles, an area that houses 67 percent of Florida’s current population.

The resolution — like all other secession attempts in the U.S., apart from the one in 1775 — isn’t likely to make it very far. In order for Florida to actually split into two states, the resolution would have to be approved by Florida’s state legislature and by the U.S.

Congress. But the three South Miami council members who voted the resolution into being still think the subject of sea level rise is serious enough to make the secession statement.

The resolution singled out Southeast Florida’s particular vulnerability to sea level rise in its reasons behind its call for secession from the current state of Florida. It noted sea level rise estimates of three to six feet by the end of this century, and stated that, because much of South Florida is low-lying and sits on porous bedrock, even a small amount of sea level rise can easily cause flooding and could pose a threat to the region’s groundwater.
“South Florida’s situation is very precarious and in need of immediate attention,” the resolution states. “Many of the issues facing South Florida are not political, but are now significant safety issues.”
Despite these dangers, however, the resolution notes that Florida’s capitol hasn’t been receptive to South Florida lawmakers’ concerns about sea level rise. South Florida has done what it can to independently tackle the threat — four South Florida counties have formed the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact, which has created a projection for sea level rise in the region and a Regional Climate Action Plan that is adaptable to each county’s needs. But these local efforts aren’t enough without support from the state, which is why the South Miami council members who voted for secession want to create a new governing body in South Florida.
“We have to be able to deal directly with this environmental concern and we can’t really get it done in Tallahassee,” South Miami Vice Mayor Walter Harris said. “I don’t care what people think — it’s not a matter of electing the right people.”
Harris may have given up hope on his state’s capitol, but over the last few months, climate change has become a hot-button issue in Florida’s gubernatorial race. Gov. Rick Scott has refused to take a firm stance on whether or not he thinks climate change is real and man-made, while Democratic challenger Charlie Crist has been open about his belief in climate change and its threat to Florida.

And though the voting to create a new state might seem extreme, South Florida isn’t the only region in recent years to consider secession. Last year, 11 Colorado counties, fed up over state regulations on gun control, agriculture and energy development, tried to create a new state, an attempt that failed. This year, a northern California county voted to secede and create the new state of Jefferson, a would-be state that was first proposed in 1941. Residents in western Maryland also pushed for secession this year, saying they had grown fed up over the state’s Democratic leadership.

"Flat earth society members" [Agenda 21 enthusiasts] have rallied the cry, that neither science nor scientist are culpable of emitting facts - and that they are full of more fecal matter than a Christmas turkey.

Maybe when these conservatives are floating off into the Caribbean - that this is a true reality and not some fabled fantasy - when dawning their tin foil hats, that the reality to join the fabled Atlantis as an underwater city is a very absolute reality. That their hotels will be occupied by octopi, and groupers shall hang out menacingly on street corners. Then there's the gang problem. This area is under Shark jurisdiction.

Seriously, I think there is a much simpler solution to this problem in Florida, quit voting Republican, and raise your educational standards exponentially higher than the fifth grade.




NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives




Harriet Hayes: I don’t even know what the sides are in the culture wars.
Matt Albie: Well, your side hates my side because you think we think you are stupid, and my side hates your side because we think you are stupid.
It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionary novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionary designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionary novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionary novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionary novel and conservatism is evolutionary familiar.

The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives. Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

Like yesterday's blog, [which depicted the conservative as mentally ill, in which a government study concluded "that conservatism can be explained as Bill psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity"], we get the true DNA of the 'conservative", which at the end of the day - is not a very pretty picture.

Call me an optimist readers, but I believe our government will come up with a totally unsatisfactory solution to a completely unnecessary crisis. Whys is that you ask? Because both of these studies, when combined, logically explain why we have radical right wing nut jobs willing to sabotage both the US and global economy over ideological psycho babble bullshit.

Say what you will about America readers, I believe it's a place where any child - even when he's dumber than a box of rocks, he can grow up to wreck the world economy, just like Ted "Carnival" Cruz.






 NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Monday, May 21, 2012

Are You A Conservative?


You Might Be A Conservative If — 2012 Edition


1: You think that if the government is forced into another shutdown scenario this summer — again — it’ll be the fault of the president — again — and not due to John Boehner and Eric Cantor playing the same game they played last year which resulted in the nation’s credit rating being reduced. And you believe this, in spite of the evidence, because Sean Hannity said so last week — again.

2: You believe President Obama’s support for gay marriage will weaken the sanctity of your own marriage. And the two babes you’re banging on the side down at Bubba’s Busty Bistro both agree with you.

3: In the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case, you immediately took the side of Zimmerman, because Martin was wearing a hoodie and had no business being out at night in a gated community. But you still insist your position has nothing to do with race.

4: You bristle whenever someone reminds you that today’s recession began during the George W Bush administration, and have even developed a talking point to combat it; “Bush is gone, It’s Obama’s presidency now!” Except of course, when president Obama killed Osama bin Laden, then suddenly Bush did it.

5: 2012 is already trending to be the warmest year in recorded meteorological history, followed by 2011, 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2009, 2006, 2007, 2004, and 2001. But because 2008 didn’t make the grade, you’re quite certain climate change is bullshit.

6: You’re convinced that there’s massive voter fraud going on in the African/American community, because you saw 13 “New Black Panthers” looking mighty intimidating at a polling station on Fox News once. Even though, those 13 jokers make up the entirety of the New Black Panthers, and Fox News played that footage more times than they played the Rev. Wright tape. Oh, but don’t you assume from this that Fox is appealing to racist voters.

7: You take Mitt Romney at his word when he said “Of course I would have given the order [to go after bin Laden in Pakistan], even Jimmy Carter would have.” Even though Mitt Romney previously said “Osama bin Laden is not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch. I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours.” But hey, this is all academic anyway, because everyone knows President Obama was only following Bush’s strategeiry.

8: You think the recall movement going on in Wisconsin is un-American, and Scott Walker is only doing what the voters of his state demand. And that recording of Walker taking a phone call from a bogus David Koch was overblown… He just thought it was a courtesy call to discuss their mutual love of cheese.

9: You think Romney will be a better president than Obama, because he’s made it crystal clear that he wants nothing to do with those creepy gays. Well, except for that one time, when he was running for governor of Massachusetts.

10: You believe the debt is at $15 trillion today, primarily due to Barack Obama’s failed policies, even though it was at $11 trillion when he was inaugurated, and the tax cuts and wars had yet to be factored in during the Bush years. You also believe George Bush’s role in doubling it was necessary, because he had to combat a Democratic-controlled Congress… the very Democrats that voted 126 to 81 against the Iraq War. And the two tax cuts became law by Bush using reconciliation, against the will of the majority. Together, these made up the bulk of Bush’s spending spree, because after all; “Deficits don’t matter.” ~ Dick Cheney

11: You tout the concept of “American Exceptionalism,” because America’s the bomb! We’ve done it all, we do it right every time (unless a Democrat’s in power) and those stupid European socialist twits would have been lost decades ago, if not for us. And anybody who says our claims of American Exceptionalism are really just arrogant boasts of “American Superiority,” is just jealous, because they know we’re the best. Booyah!

12: Even though Rush Limbaugh called a young birth control activist a slut and nobody within the GOP condemned him for it, the Komen Foundation was infiltrated by a mole whose intent was to defund Planned Parenthood, the governor of the state of Virginia proposed a bill that would have required a trans-vaginal probe against her will before being permitted to have an abortion, Planned Parenthood itself has been under attack by Boehner’s congress, and most Republicans voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Law, a bill guaranteeing equal pay for women — you still deny that there’s any sort of “War on Women,” because Gretchen Carlson said so on Fox & Friends. And she’s a woman, so case closed!

13: You think Mitt Romney would make a better president than Barack Obama, because he’s had hands-on experience in the business world. And who was the last president who ran on his record of business experience? George W. Bush. So there.

14: You think Barack Obama broke the law by backing the NATO mission to support the Libyan rebellion, which ultimately toppled a true supporter of international terrorism, but Bush’s invasion of Iraq … which wasn’t condoned by NATO or the United Nations, was just swell.

15: You believe teachers, firemen and cops are overpaid, and that’s a better place to make budget cuts than asking millionaires and billionaires to pay the same tax rate they did under Clinton… when times were good, and the budget was balanced.

16: You’re a big supporter of free speech, but nothing ruins your day more than when some immigrant says Sarah Palin was dumb. How dare they? If that’s what they think, then they should go back to Russia. Then Sarah can wave at them from her porch.

17: You think Citizens United was the best thing to happen to Democracy since Glenn Beck, because finally, those poor downtrodden corporatists will have a say in who represents their interests… just as poor Siemens, Mengele GmbH, IG Farben and Bayer were finally permitted to do what they do best, once freed of those pesky, restrictive regulations. Because nothing says “Freedom,” better than a government kept in check by industry!

18: You were shocked, SHOCKED when the Romney campaign suggested Barack Obama might try to use Romney’s Mormon faith as a wedge issue in the coming months, even though there are no such plans to do so. What sort of sick, anti-American commie party would ever use religion to divide America? After all, who’s ever done that?


Blog in its entirety brought to by Addingtinginfo.com



NFTOS
STAFF

Saturday, January 28, 2012

NFTOS Weekend Brief

NFTOS Weekend Brief


Haley Barbour's pardoned pal is AWOL:

Missing records

Missing Pardoned Murderer:


I have got to say, told you so, and who couldn't have predicted this? Do we really have to explain to teabagging Govna's that pardoning cold callous murderers is not a good idea?


Ron Paul "approved" incendiary material:


Ron Paul’s Former Secretary Confirms That Paul Proofread His Newsletters.

A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters.



Miscellaneous Radical Teapublicans:

North Carolina GOP Lawmaker Calls For Bringing Back Public Hangings, Starting With Abortion Providers.

Lies Conservative Media Tell Their Audience.

Welfare Drug Testing Bill Withdrawn After Amended To Include Testing Lawmakers.



Keep voting teapublican America, the above briefs are a prime example of what not to do when you have the right to vote!



NFTOS
Staff Writer
Steve "Damn Nazi Liberal" Chevapravatdumrong








Saturday, February 5, 2011

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Brought to you by thinkprogress


NFTOS