STEVEN CROWDER; ANDY BREITBART WOULD BE PROUD

Steven Crowder Gets A Well Deserved Face Wash!

Faux News has been raging over the airwaves with reports and interviews surrounded by what they are characterizing as a unprovoked assault, and assault on one of their own "contributors" - by a bunch of “leftist union thugs”. Unfortunately for The American Taliban, a simple review of their own raw video footage clearly shows Crowder knocking a union member to the ground, who in turn leveled several punches back at Crowder. And rightly so!


FOX UN-EDITED

Steven Crowder, the Fox News contributor and Breitbart acolyte who admits he went to Lansing, Michigan union protests looking for trouble and is now touting, with a lot of help from Fox News, a highly-edited video showing him getting punched by “union thugs,” was on Hannity again last night. But this time, there was another guest who accused Crowder of pushing the man to the ground first. Hannity denied that happened. But Crowder never did.


The New York Times reported:

Unfortunately for Mr. Crowder, a look at the video broadcast on the Sean Hannity show appears to show quite clearly that he left out an important section of the footage when he put together his edit. A section of the Fox News broadcast preserved by the Web site Mediaite shows that Mr. Hannity’s producers at Fox News started the clip five seconds earlier than Mr. Crowder did. What the extra footage reveals is the man who punched Mr. Crowder being knocked to the ground seconds before and then getting up and taking a swing at the comedian.

There is one more anomaly in Mr. Crowder’s edit of the footage shot by his associates. The still frame he used for the clip’s title image on YouTube, which offers a much clearer image of the man punching him, was obviously shot by a second camera, from an entirely different angle than the rest of the footage he presented of the man hitting him. If Mr. Crowder wants to clear up the mystery of exactly what happened just before he was punched, it might make sense for him to release any footage of the incident shot from that second angle.

Steven Crowder, like the dead Andrew Breitbart, is not so great at editing videos. You would think that these asshats would better trained [as film makers and editors] before releasing second grade workmanship, but knowing the dead Breitbart, he would be proud of his protégé , would be tweeting away about raping the poor Crowder - publishing blogs for years on how Crowder was man-handled by a more manly man than he.



ANDY IN BETTER TIMES




Crowder's footage has obviously been edited to cut out a portion where he pushes the man to the ground. Notice the choppy edit at 0:38.



 CROWDER'S EDITED VERSION




We have learned much over time, and the list is long, a list of radical tea baggers whom would toss their own flesh under the bus for 15 minutes of fame, or to portray the Democrats in an bad light: Breitbart.com et al, Dana Loesch, Chris Crowder, James O'Keefe, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck would be a few whom have few scruples when it comes to reporting on "leftist socialist".

Crowder went on Fux Ewes the very night of his pummeling and was seen stammering about threats of arrests, bounty money to find the man whom kicked his ass, to challenge the man to a sanctioned cage match fight.......hopefully Crowder fights better inside an octagon rather than how poor he did at the Union busting rally, as his cowering girlish antics in Michigan would certainly garner him a much bigger and sever ass whipping! I would pay much to see someone legally beat the shit out of Steven Crowder!

Hey Steven Crowder, "Hey Mr. America", in the most famous words of your beloved mentor.......behave yourself, behave yourself you freak, stop raping the videos! You filthy, filthy freak, stop raping the videos.

 

 Steven Crowder, this weeks worst person in the world!

 

 

 

 

 

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

 

 

NFTOS BREAKING: MICHIGAN PASSES RIGHT-TO-WORK LAWS

Numbers Under Right To Work States

Armed with tear gas canisters, pepper spray and batons, State Police officers guarded the Capitol as protesters shouted "No justice, no peace!" and "Shut it down!" Amid throngs of protestors Michigan’s House of Representatives passed the “right-to-work” law for public sector unions, 58-51. It is expected to vote on similar legislation applying to private sector unions later today. Gov. Rick Snyder (R) is also expected to sign the legislation into law today or early tomorrow.

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

Michigan Republicans [Michigan's version of "The American Taliban] claim the state needs the measure to stay competitive with Indiana, where lawmakers passed “right-to-work” last year. In reality, though, such laws have negative effects on workers and little effect on economic growth. Here is what you need to know about the state GOP’s campaign:


THE LEGISLATION: Both the state House and state Senate passed legislation on Thursday that prohibits private sector unions from requiring members to pay dues. The Senate followed suit and passed a different but similar measure that extends the same prohibition for public sector unions, though firefighters and police officers are exempt. The state House included a budget appropriations provision that is intended to prevent the state’s voters from being able to legally challenge the law through a ballot referendum. Due to state law, both houses are prevented from voting on legislation passed by the other for five days, so neither will be able to fully pass the legislation until Tuesday at the earliest.

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

THE PROCESS: Union leaders and Democrats claim that Republicans are pushing the legislation through in the lame-duck session to hide the intent of the measures from citizens, and because the legislation would face more trouble after the new House convenes in January. Michigan Republicans hold a 63-47 advantage in the state House, but Democrats narrowed the GOP majority to just eight seats in November. Six Republicans opposed the House measure; five of them won re-election in 2012 (the sixth retired). And Michigan Republicans have good reason to pursue the laws without public debate. Though the state’s voters are evenly split on whether it should become a right-to-work state, 78 percent of voters said the legislature “should focus on issues like creating jobs and improving education, and not changing state laws or rules that would impact unions or make further changes in collective bargaining.”

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

THE CONSEQUENCES: While Snyder and Republicans pitched “right-to-work” as a pro-worker move aimed at improving the economy, studies show such legislation can cost workers money. The Economic Policy Institute found that right-to-work laws cost all workers, union and otherwise, $1,500 a year in wages and that they make it harder for workers to obtain pensions and health coverage. “If benefits coverage in non-right-to-work states were lowered to the levels of states with these laws, 2 million fewer workers would receive health insurance and 3.8 million fewer workers would receive pensions nationwide,” David Madland and Karla Walter from the Center for American Progress wrote earlier this year. The decreases in union membership that result from right-to-work laws have a significant impact on the middle class and research “shows that there is no relationship between right-to-work laws and state unemployment rates, state per capita income, or state job growth,” EPI wrote in a recent report about Michigan. “Right-to-work” laws also decrease worker safety and can hurt small businesses.

Union leaders are, of course, aghast at Snyder and the GOP’s right-to-work push. “In a state that gave birth to the modern U.S. labor movement, it is unconscionable that Michigan legislators would seek to drive down living standards for Michigan workers and families with a law that will do nothing to improve either the state’s economic climate or the quality of life for Michigan residents,” RoseAnn DeMoro, the executive director of National Nurses United, said in a statement.

Radical Tea Baggers obviously didn't get the message last November. These remaining douche bags in office need to be sent packing when it's time for their re-election! Make your voice heard readers!

 

 

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Be careful What You "Like" On Facebook

It could cost you your job.

Daniel Ray Carter and Robert McCoy were deputies in the Hampton, Virginia sheriff’s office. Were, that is, until they made the mistake of “liking” their boss’ opponent’s Facebook page during a contested sheriff election. They were both fired shortly after their boss won reelection.

As government employees, Carter and McCoy are protected by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, a federal judge in Virginia denied their claim that they were unconstitutionally fired for expressing their political view on the unusual theory that “liking” a Facebook page does not constitute a form of expression protected by the First Amendment:

It is the Court’s conclusion that merely “liking” a Facebook page is insufficient to merit constitutional protection. In cases where courts have found that constitutional speech protections extended to Facebook posts, actual statements existed within the record. . . . These illustrative cases differ markedly from the case at hand in one crucial way: Both [precedents] involved actual statements. No such statements exist in this case. Simply liking a Facebook page is insufficient. It is not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection. The Court will not attempt to infer the actual content of Carter’s posts from one click of a button on Adams’ Facebook page. For the Court to assume that the Plaintiffs made some specific statement without evidence of such statements is improper. Facebook posts can be considered matters of public concern; however, the Court does not believe Plaintiffs Carter and McCoy have alleged sufficient speech to garner First Amendment protection.

As Eugene Volokh points out, this is not correct. The First Amendment does not simply shield “actual statements,” it shields a long list of expressive activity, including “saluting a flag (and refusing to do so), wearing an armband to protest a war, displaying a red flag, and even ‘marching, walking or parading’ in uniforms displaying the swastika.” If passively wearing a black armband speaks clearly enough to convey a First Amendment protected message, than surely clicking a button that indicates approval of a political candidate or his message speaks just as clearly.

Indeed, it’s difficult to find any meaningful distinction between Carter and McCoy’s actions here and any number of activities protected by the First Amendment beyond the fact that they used a new method of communication to convey their message. But this cannot be a constitutionally relevant distinction. The First Amendment didn’t stop functioning with the invention of the telephone, the instant message, the text message or the email. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t apply to social media.

Additionally, there is always something perverse about court decisions which prevent career employees from speaking out about how their boss is doing their job. Few people are better suited to judge the current sheriff than his deputies, and they should not be discouraged from sharing their views with the public.

First amendment or not Virginia is a right to work State, and if you have read this blog before, right to work equals you have no rights.



NFTOS
Staff Writer
Steve "Damn Nazi Liberal" Chevapravatdumrong

RIGHT TO WORK

MAP OF RIGHT TO WORK STATES

The below story is why you should stand for your right to unionize! The below is what happens when you work in a State that is a "right to work" State. You'll soon see that in right to work states...you have no rights!

They weren't wearing sagging pants or revealing clothing. But dressing in an orange shirt is apparently enough to get fired at one Florida law firm, where 14 workers were unceremoniously let go last Friday.

In an interview with the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, several of the fired workers say they wore the matching colors so they would be identified as a group when heading out for a happy hour event after work. They say the executive who fired them initially accused them of wearing the matching color as a form of protest against management.

Orange is widely considered to be one of the most visible colors to the human eye. Orange vests are worn by most hunters as a safety precaution and by school crossing guards. Most prisoners are required to wear orange jump suits.

The color orange is arguably Florida's defining color. The self-described "Sunshine State" is widely known for its orange juice exports.

The law offices of Elizabeth R. Wellborn, P.A. offered "no comment" to Sun-Sentinel reporter Doreen Hemlock, but four ex-employees tell the paper they were simply wearing their orange shirts to celebrate "pay day" and the upcoming Friday group happy hour.

"There is no office policy against wearing orange shirts. We had no warning. We got no severance, no package, no nothing," Lou Erik Ambert told the paper. "I feel so violated."

Ironically, had the employees been wearing orange as a form of protest, it would have been illegal to fire them, ABC News reports.

After the 14 employees were fired, an executive said anyone wearing orange for an "innocent reason" should speak up. At least one employee immediately denied any involvement or knowledge of a protest and explained the happy hour color coordination. Nonetheless, they were still fire.

"I'm a single mom with four kids, and I'm out of a job just because I wore orange today," Meloney McLeod told the paper.

And there's nothing anyone can do about the terminations since Florida is an at-will state, meaning employers can fire an employee who doesn't have a contract "for a good reason, for a bad reason or even for the wrong reason, as long as it's not an unlawful reason," Eric K. Gabrielle, a labor and employment lawyer at Stearns Weaver, told the Sun-Sentinel. Gabrielle said there was no apparent violation of the law in this case.

This is why it's important for Wisconsinites and other States undergoing union busting ideology to get out and VOTE, for if not, you truly get what you deserve!


 NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West