Democalypse 2014 - The Battle Hymn of the Republicans

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

IF THEY ONLY KNEW

America’s First President Was The Tea Party’s Worst Nightmare

Five years after General George Washington took command of a revolutionary army, he believed that the revolution was on the verge of collapse.

The Articles of Confederation, which bound the thirteen former British colonies together prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, were fundamentally flawed. Congress, under the Articles, could not directly tax individuals or legislate their actions. Delegates to Congress had little authority to exercise independent judgment, as they both owed their salaries to their state government and could be recalled “at any time.” Of particular frustration to General Washington, the Articles also gave Congress no real power to raise troops or to provide for them once they were assembled under Washington’s command. Congress could request recruits or money, but it was powerless if the states denied these requests.

“Unless Congress speaks in a more decisive tone,” Washington wrote in 1780, “unless they are vested with powers by the several States competent to the purposes of war . . . our Cause is lost.”

The Revolutionary War taught our first president the value of a strong central government. And this understanding was not limited simply to the need to provide a capable army. As Washington wrote a young former aide named Alexander Hamilton shortly after the war was won, “unless Congress have powers competent to all general purposes, [] the distresses we have encountered, the expences we have incurred, and the blood we have spilt in the course of an eight years’ war, will avail us nothing.”

National Problems, National Solutions

As both Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin and the Constitutional Accountability Center have explained, this concern about a too-weak national government provided much of the impetus for the new Constitution. When the framers of the Constitution met in Philadelphia, with Washington serving as president of this Constitutional Convention, they adopted a resolution declaring that the new federal government’s powers should be quite expansive indeed. Congress, in the framers’ vision must be able “to legislate in all cases for the general interests of the Union, and also in those to which the States are separately incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation.”

The framers understood, in other words, that there will be problems that face the entire nation, and that these problems require a government powerful enough to address these national concerns — Congress may legislate “in all cases for the general interests of the Union.” Though the framers could not possibly have anticipated the way new innovations would weave the nation together into one grand community (decades after the Constitution was ratified, for example it still took nearly a third of a year to travel from New York to California. The transcontinental railroad reduced this to 6 days). They had the foresight to build a central government that was robust enough to tackle the problems presented by an interconnected nation and multinational corporations.

To implement the framers’ resolution, a committee of the Constitutional Convention drafted the list of powers Congress is permitted to exercise, such as the power to “raise and support armies” or to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization” that are now contained in Article I of the Constitution. Arguably the most significant of these powers are Congress’ authority to “regulate commerce . . .among the several states,” which gave Congress broad authority to regulate the nation’s economy and the power to raise taxes and spend money in ways that advance “the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” As railroads, highways, telephones and the Internet caused our nation’s economy to become more and more interconnected, the Constitution’s broad grant of power would grow to touch more people’s lives, but this outcome flowed naturally from the text of the Constitution of 1787.

The First Great Constitutional Fight
Though the text of the resolution adopted at the Constitutional Convention suggests that there was a consensus around the need for robust federal power, the Founding Fathers soon divided into two factions. Broadly speaking, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton led a faction which supported Congress’ broad constitutional authority to regulate the economy, to fund public works, and to otherwise spend money for the benefit of the nation. On the other side, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and his ally, Virginia Congressman James Madison, led a faction that would have almost certainly viewed anything resembling a modern welfare and regulatory state as unconstitutional.

These two visions collided in 1791 over Hamilton’s proposal to create the First Bank of the United States. Hamilton envisioned the bank as both a place to deposit federal tax revenue and a way to ensure access to credit. Should the new government experience a temporary shortfall in revenue, the bank could offer a short term loan to cover the gap. More broadly, bank loans would enable both the federal government and private interests to fund public works. Thus, Hamilton viewed the power to create such a bank as implicit in Congress’ broad authority to tax and provide for the new nation. As he explained to President Washington,
the very general power of laying and collecting taxes, and appropriating their proceeds — that of borrowing money indefinitely — that of coining money, and regulating foreign coins — that of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the property of the United States. These powers combined, as well as the reason and nature of the thing, speak strongly this language: that it is the manifest design and scope of the Constitution to vest in Congress all the powers requisite to the effectual administration of the finances of the United States. As far as concerns this object, there appears to be no parsimony of power.

Jefferson offered a very different view of the bank, and of the Constitution itself. If the Constitution permitted Congress to incorporate a national bank merely because doing so would enable it to carry out its other duties more effectively, then Jefferson feared the federal government’s powers would expand without limit. “If such a latitude of construction be allowed,” Jefferson told Washington, “it will go to everyone, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other . . . . It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power.”

Jefferson offered a very different view of the bank, and of the Constitution itself. If the Constitution permitted Congress to incorporate a national bank merely because doing so would enable it to carry out its other duties more effectively, then Jefferson feared the federal government’s powers would expand without limit. “If such a latitude of construction be allowed,” Jefferson told Washington, “it will go to everyone, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other . . . . It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power.”

Jefferson, in other words, believed that the primary goal of the Constitution was to restrain federal power, and thus it should be read narrowly to limit Congress ability to act. Hamilton, by contrast, understood the new Constitution to empower the United States to confront challenges it was powerless to address under the Articles of Confederation. The battle over the national bank posed a fundamental question about what kind of nation the United States would become: would we be governed by a national government fully empowered to meet national problems with national solutions, or did we fear central power so much that we were willing to risk impotence to ward off centralized tyranny?

George Washington chose the first option. He sided with Hamilton and signed the bank bill into law.


The War That Never Ends

President Washington, however, was not able to calm this fight over how to read our Constitution for long. To the contrary, the history of American constitutional law has, to a large extent, been a never ending fight between Hamilton’s vision and Jefferson and Madison’s. Though Washington, the Supreme Court, and ultimately, even Madison himself would eventually concede that a federally charted bank is constitutional, the nation’s seventh president never did. President Madison signed a bill authorizing a Second Bank of the United States, but President Andrew Jackson allowed this bank’s charter to expire — to disastrous results.

Less than a quarter century later, President James Buchanan vetoed the land grant college act, relying in part on adistinctly Madisonian interpretation of the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln would later reject this interpretation, and sign a very similar bill into law.

In the late Nineteenth Century, the nation’s leading opponent of a strong government spoke of Washington’s decision to side with Hamilton over Madison as if it were America’s original sin. Justice Stephen Field — who led an economically libertarian insurgency within the Supreme Court even as he voted to uphold both Jim Crow segregation and laws with such extravagantly racist names as the “Chinese Exclusion Act” — campaigned for president in 1880 against a chain of evils he traced all the way back to Alexander Hamilton. “The old Constitution,” one of Field’s campaign pamphlets claimed, “has been buried under the liberal interpretations of Federalist-Republican Congresses and administrations, grasping doubtful powers and making each step towards centralization the sure precedent of another.”

Though Field was never really a viable candidate for president, he would live long enough to see his radical libertarian understanding of the Constitution largely embraced by a majority of his colleagues on the Supreme Court. A few years before President Grover Cleveland appointed Melville Fuller as Chief Justice of the United States in 1888, Fuller published a revealing analysis of American political history:

Two great parties have always divided the people of this country . . . the doctrine of the one is that all power not expressly delegated to the general government remains with the states and with the people; of the other, that the efficacy of the general government should be strengthened by a free construction of its powers. The one believes that that is the best government that governs least; the other, that government should exercise the functions belonging to Divine Providence, and should regulate the profits of labor and the value of property by direct legislation. The leader and type of one school of thought and politics was Thomas Jefferson; and Alexander Hamilton was the leader and type of the other.

After joining the Court, Fuller revealed himself to be a proud member of the Party of Jefferson. In a single year, Fuller’s Court declared the income tax unconstitutional and it gave a nationwide sugar monopoly immunity to anti-trust law on constitutional grounds. Chief Justice Fuller also presided over the odious Lochner decision, which led to numerous laws protecting workers from rapacious employers being struck down.

Zombie Constitutionalism

So, while Washington rejected Jefferson and Madison’s vision of a Constitution fundamentally distrustful of government power, that vision did not die in 1791. It may never die. It was the vision that animated the Supreme Court’s conservatives to stand athwart the New Deal yelling stop. It was the vision that led Barry Goldwater to label a federal ban on whites-only lunch counters unconstitutional. And it was the vision that drove the nearly successful lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act.

The mistake that most constitutional lawyers made — the mistake that I made — in treating the constitutional case against Obamacare as a joke is that we thought the eternal struggle between Hamilton and Jefferson had finally come to a close. The legal theory in that case was a joke, if you took the Constitution’s text and precedent seriously. Indeed, no less of an authority than Judge Laurence Silberman, a prominent conservative who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush, proclaimed that the case against the Affordable Care Act has no basis “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.”

But it is firmly rooted in the skeptical view of government that George Washington rejected in 1791.

Jefferson and Madison’s vision of the Constitution is a vision that would declare not just Obamacare, but Medicare and Social Security unconstitutional. It is a vision that is wholly unsuited to a modern nation that must respond creatively to a complex and vibrant national economy. Yet, to borrow from Justice Antonin Scalia, it rises again and again “like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried.”

But it is also not the vision that drove the Constitutional Convention. And it is not the vision that won the support of our first president. Today is the day when we celebrate George Washington’s Birthday. If the Tea Party fully understood what Washington did for this country, they would treat today as a day of mourning.

Written by Ian Millhiser thinkprogress

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

WE'VE BEEN TEA-BAGGED

WE'VE BEEN TEA BAGGED!

Many moons ago, almost four years ago now, and some thirteen hundred blogs later - we at NFTOS used to use Current TV's Super News cartoons in our blogs - often. In 2010, when we had maybe 20 readers or visitors to our blog a day, [we now average 35,000 daily] we leaned heavily on both Super News and MSNBC GOP slayer Keith Olbermann, to garner readership.

Three things that led me to start blogging was; Tea-Baggers, Dana Loesch and Keith Olbermann [who is my writing mentor]. My distaste for both Loesch and the tea bagger was overwhelming, and both Super News and Olbermann dissected these nasty beasts with such ease - we thought how could we go wrong connecting the dots with these two sources.

So I thought this morning, this cold frigid day [The recent winter storm proves that global warming does not exist, and so we must repeal Obamacare.] for the old school readers of our blog, why not revisit Super News. With over 46 million visits to our site, we are certain some clung to NFTOS early on due to these two sources. So thanks Super News, we at NFTOS miss your work!

PARTY LIKE ITS 1776 SUPER NEWS

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

THE GOP, THE PARTY OF HUBRIS

I love Rachael Maddow. The dissection of the GOP in her reporting is bar none top shelf material. In an age where 'bullshit mountain" [Fox News] piece meals content to appease the unlettered GOPer , its soothing to see real journalism taking place during Maddow's hour segment on MSNBC.

In the clip below, Maddow tells the story of the reality, the after effects, the state of the GOP, after the Virginia gubernatorial race - how the GOP and the Tea Party have major issues ahead. But in perfect true to form GOP fashion, they ignore the facts and the obvious - and deny that any problems exist.

The GOP is truly the party of hubris. When you alienate African Americans, women, students and the elderly alike - and you find yourself wondering and asking why you lost an election, - one doesn't need to be Einstein to be able to connect the dots.

MADDOW Video courtesy of MSNBC




As long as the GOP links themselves to the tea party, they shall always remain the pimple on the ass of society, and therefore solidifying that they never ever occupy the oval office again.

If you look at the exit poll data via the NY Times, the picture isn't rosy for the GOP, especially with gender gaps, color gaps, age and educational gaps. Cuccinelli performed very poorly compared to his Republican counterpart in 2009 - in nearly every group, including his base: white men and women and Republicans. He also failed to get the same level of support among independents, almost a third of the electorate, with the Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, picking up 16 percent of respondents.

Should the National Democratic base -  stay steadfast, resolved and engaged like Virginia's liberal base, then the conservatives are indeed in trouble in the 2014 mid-term elections. Needing only 17 seats to retake the house of representatives, at this point in the game, anything is possible.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

NORTH CAROLINA GOP, RACISTS MUCH? "IF THE HAT FITS, WEAR IT"!

NORTH CAROLINA GOP RACISTS DON YELTON

PAGE ONE:

Apparently ex-GOP county chair Don Yelton never took a course in crisis management; nor does he think he’s in the midst of a GOP cataclysmic crisis after deriding “lazy blacks” on The Daily Show Wednesday evening and subsequently resigning from his post. While continuing to defend himself from accusations of racism, Yelton has dug in even deeper, using the “n-word” repeatedly to make his point.

In an interview with The Wrap, Yelton once again stood by his controversial remarks, pointing the finger at reverse-racism.

“When a n—– can use the word n—– and it not be considered racist, that’s the utmost racism in the world, and it’s hypocrisy,” he told The Wrap.

MADDOWS DISCUSSES NORTH CAROLINA RACISTS

JON STEWART AND THE GOP RACISTS




According to Yelton, not only is the Republican Party “gutless” for forcing him out of his position, but they missed a perfect opportunity to use his comments as proof they are tolerant of many views.

“They can turn it into a positive if they want to,” he told The Wrap. “The party does not try to control the speech of individuals. That’s the point they could have made. You have to let people have an opinion.”

Instead, he lamented how the party chose to accept “this comedy show” as “the truth” and “come down with an iron fist.” 

“There’s no political party that’s going to tell me what to say as long as I have breath in my body,” he concluded.

Yelton, meanwhile, feels no remorse since resigning, naturally, and claims that the comments of his that aired were actually tame compared to some of the others he made during the sit-down that were edited out.

Reports the Mountain Xpress:

Despite the controversy, Yelton tells Xpress: “The comments that were made, that I said, I stand behind them. I believe them.” 

The short interview clips were edited together from a much longer two-hour sit-down, says Yelton. But he says he was pleased overall with the parts that were included. In fact, he notes that some of the comments he made that weren't included might’ve even been more controversial. “To tell you the truth, there were a lot of things I said that they could’ve made sound worse than what they put up.”

Well there you go!

Lets be clear readers, the republican party did not distance themselves from this guy until after he/they got caught. Does anyone in their right mind believe that Yelton, a "party leader" became a racist just in time for an interview with The Daily Show? Yelton was in a party leadership position because the people who put him there had no problems with his bigotry - that is until he made the critical error of telling the truth about his party in public.

PAGE TWO:

Alan Grayson, with his email to the masses, which compared the Tea Party to the KKK, while upsetting to the racists, it is a fair analogy of the tin foil hat society, as Grayson said. "if the hat fits wear it".

Megan Kelly and Allen West [no relationship to this blogger] Defending the Racists



Grayson's full statement below.

Regarding the image that the campaign circulated, the Tea Party has engaged in relentless racist attacks against our African-American President. For example, when the President visited my home of Orlando, Tea Party protesters shouted “Kenyan Go Home.” Other examples include Tea Party chants of “Bye Bye, Blackbird,” and Tea Party posters saying “Obama’s Plan: White Slavery,” “Imam Obama Wants to Ban Pork” and “The Zoo Has An African Lion, and the White House Has a Lyin’ African,” as well as this repulsive one, depicting the President of the United States as an African witch doctor with bananas in his hair:

Tea Party members also have persisted in falsely characterizing the President as Kenyan and Moslem, despite all evidence, in order to disparage him. Members of the Tea Party have circulated countless altered pictures depicting President Obama and the First Lady as monkeys. Tea Party members also called my fellow Member of Congress, civil rights hero John Lewis, a “n***ger,” and Rep. Barney Frank a “faggot.” More generally, the leader of the Texas Tea Party displayed a poster saying “Congress=Slave Owner, Taxpayer=Niggar [sic].” Tea Party Members of Congress have referred to Hispanics as “wetbacks,” and having “cantaloupe-sized calves” from picking fruit. Tea Party candidates, including my opponent in the last election, have endorsed forcing Hispanics to speak English. One could go on and on, because there is overwhelming evidence that the Tea Party is the home of bigotry and discrimination in America today, just as the KKK was for an earlier generation. If the hood fits, wear it.

Grayson's comparison is not novel. Professors Matt Barretto and Christopher Parker, in their book "Tea Party, Change They Can't Believe In," published by Princeton University Press, make a similar case. "The authors argue that this isn't the first time a segment of American society has perceived the American way of life as under siege," the book's blurb reads. "In fact, movements of this kind often appear when some individuals believe that 'American' values are under threat by rapid social changes. Drawing connections between the Tea Party and right-wing reactionary movements of the past, including the Know-Nothing Party, the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920's, and the John Birch Society, Parker and Barreto develop a framework that transcends the Tea Party to shed light on its current and future consequences.

Regarding Allen West - when one of the most foul-mouthed ex-congressman is upset by someone else's "inflammatory" remarks - its truly a moment saturated in irony.

I keep harping back to the quote, "if that hat fits, wear it"!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

RICK "FROTHY" SANTORUM SPEAKS OUT ON PORNOGRAPHY

RICK "FROTHY" SANTORUM

Teapublican candidate Rick Santorum is declaring a war on pornography. The religious conservative wants to ban and censor sexually explicit pictures and videos in an attempt to “preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography."

While one might think a war on poverty, or a war on unemployment, or a pledge to end real war, might be a more appropriate and relevant goal for a presidential hopeful, [caution this link is EXTREMELY GRAPHIC] "Frothy" Santorum obviously feels different.

The former Pennsylvania senator is advocating for a harsh crackdown on the distribution of pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, hotel/motel TV, retail shops and through the mail.
Santorum issued his declaration of war on porn via his website. The following is an excerpt from that declaration:

America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography... Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships...

Every family must now be concerned about the harm from pornography. As a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture...

The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration...

As the excerpt indicates, Santorum is not only concerned with the supposed harm caused to society, but he is also interested in blaming the Obama administration for said supposed harm. Santorum is, after-all, a politician. Many see this latest move as but another political stunt to ingratiate himself further with the religious right.

Santorum has made a political career out of fighting the culture wars. His declaration of war on porn is part and parcel of his on-going defense of a conservative Christian world view many find to be intolerant and hypocritical.

Recently Santorum trashed a classic speech delivered by John F. Kennedy articulating the constitutional demands for a separation between church and state. Santorum has also condemned women for working outside the home and using birth control, expressed a hatred for higher education, and declared women are too emotional for combat.

AND NOW THE REST OF THE STORY

Unfortunately for "forthy" Santorum, porn research indicates that more porn (both gay and straight) is most consumed in the 'Bible Belt' red states of America (Utah, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alaska, North Dakota, and West Virginia) than anywhere else in the U.S.




Sometimes the story is just to good to be true, in this case I sit back while writing this blog laughing my ass off, as it appears that the tea baggers are the biggest supporters of porn in the USA. Per the statistics, "Frothy" would be cutting off the sex supply to the very base he expects to vote for him. How appropos!




NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

"JUST CLOSE YOUR EYES"

Penn Gov says "just close your eyes".

PA GOP Governor Defends Ultrasounds Bill.

More than 10 state legislatures are considering or have passed bills forcing women to receive an ultrasound before having an abortion. And Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering one of the most far-reaching ultrasound bills in the nation.

Gov. Tom Corbett (R) reaffirmed this week that he supports the anti-abortion measure so long as it’s not obtrusive because women could simply close their eyes during the procedure:

QUESTION: Making them watch…does that go too far in your mind?


CORBETT: I’m not making anybody watch, OK. Because you just have to close your eyes. As long as it’s on the exterior and not the interior.

Critics say Corbett’s comments show he doesn’t understand how the bill would even work. While the Pennsylvania legislation has been amended to remove references to invasive transvaginal ultrasounds, the language suggests a transvaginal ultrasound could still be required if the embryo is too small. Patrick Murphy, a Democrat running for attorney general, called for Corbett to apologize for his statement. “It’s unthinkable that he would so casually dismiss this by advising women to just close their eyes,” Murphy said.

The state House canceled a vote on the bill this week because medical associations have voiced concerns about the measure. And 48 percent of Pennsylvania voters oppose the ultrasound bill, with 42 percent supporting the measure, according to a new Quinnipiac poll. And 64 percent of voters oppose requiring transvaginal ultrasounds.

Meanwhile, Corbett’s approval rating among Pennsylvanians is dropping. 

The mentaility of a radical tea bagger, its deep rooted in hate, arrogance, and ignorance. 


NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

NFTOS SUNDAY FUNNIES

NFTOS
STAFF

NOTHNG SAYS GOP LIKE MISSISSIPPI

A Must See Video - Explain to me again why you're a conservative.

March 9, 2012 Clip: Alexandra Pelosi

I bet you thought this type of unlettered American died with the civil war? Many GOP'ers - like these Mississippians [Hillbilly, redneck, "South's Gonna Do IT Again Mentality"] express this ideology. This is why education is important, a mind is truly a terrible thing to waste, and if you believe not, keep watching the above video until it sinks in.

This should be your wake up call readers! This is the proof in the pudding, this is why its imperative for progressives to vote in the general election come November.

POLL CONFIRMS REPUBLICANS IGNORANT


Teapublicans have a major gap within their own Party. They pretty much look like true troglodytes at this point.

They have their Nobles (Leadership) and their Peasants (The Base)

They continue to thrive on and embrace ignorance and the lack of education, because to them, an educated peasant is a dangerous one. Its hard to hand feed educated people lies to scare them into voting for them.

Then when they finally do get into office, they do everything to help their fellow noblemen, while continuing to suppress the lower class.



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

The Anatomy Of A Tea Bagger



How To Be A Tea Bagger

Anatomy of a Tea Bagger:

Creativity:

The tea bagger has been known to be cleaver with his/her sign making. Unfortunately the signs are often misspelled or unintentionally ironic.

Whats wrong with this sign?

Solidarity:

Though this modern tea party has little or nothing to do with the original, wearing tea bags on or around their foreheads gives them a sense of belonging and of brotherly camaraderie.

Blow Hard:

This is the tea baggers most effective weapon. This weapon has been known to yell racial and homophobic epithets at people who disagree with their ideology.

Religion:

 The tea bagger not only clung to his/her gun when the "Kenyan" President stole power, but also to righteous indignant of his/her purpose driven Evangelical religion.

 Liberty:

The tea bagger is typically conservative with libertarian ideals. The irony of this is that most receive a Government Social Security check every month, due to the fact 46% of the movement are 55 or older.

Faux News:

Although most of the tea baggers information comes from talk radio, the tea baggers always find time for "fair and balanced" reporting coming from the blow hard pundits at Faux News. 

Patriot:

The tea bagger is the best kind of American there is, because every article of flag clothing and memorabilia they own comes from Wal-Mart and was made in China.

Caucasian:

The typical tea bagger is white and over 55. It is surprising that this demographic would have any problem with a black President.

Sig Sauer P228:

The tea bagger has a permit to always carry his/her hand gun. This is a special gun because its the same one their TV hero Jack Bauer uses.

Right-Wing Radio:

The tea bagger receives most of their inspiration from the white man's everyday heroes,

Dana Loesch, Glernn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Galactically Stupid, Just How Unlettered Are Teapublicans?

ULETTERED REPUBLICANS

You have choices in life, follow reality, or follow fear and ignorance.

I truly believe that teapublicans really do take pride in being Galactically Stupid. Just consider all the things we've heard over the last few years. Some still believe there was WMD in Iraq or that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack, some believe hurricane Katrina hit because of the abortions conducted in America. Some are Galactically Stupid of science and believe that intelligent design or creationism is a valid alternative to evolution. Some also demonstrate their ignorance of science by believing that the scientific consensus on climate change can be ignored because they don’t like the findings. Some are so Galactically Stupid of our own history that they are unaware of the intent of the founding fathers to create a secular government with separation of church and state.

Teapublicans have a made a real effort to distort history as much as possible of late - to the point where they are now seeking to rewrite history again. The teapublican party has bent over backwards to present their own twisted version of history, and it’s starting to look like that one requirement to be a teapublican is to be Galactically Stupid on historical facts and events.

Galactically Stupid




Below is a list of the many historical facts that Teapublicans have either distorted or have just gotten plain wrong along with corrections of their errors.

Were The Founding Fathers A Group Of Right Wingers 

Teapublicans have been crisscrossing the country trying to convince Americans that the Founding Fathers were conservatives. But were they really? The answer to this question is absolutely not. If the Founding Fathers were conservatives they would never have revolted against England. One can hardly call breaking away from the most powerful nation on Earth at the time a conservative act. Plus, the Founding Fathers supported a strong federal government, believed in civil rights, supported separation of church and state, despised corporations, and believed the government had the power to provide health care and levy taxes. This is why the Supreme Court throughout American history has rarely ruled laws unconstitutional using the Tenth Amendment.

Did The Founding Fathers Support A Strong Federal Government Or A Weak One

This is an easy one. Teapublicans are dead wrong when they claim that the Founding Fathers wanted a weak federal government. And that is simple to prove. Before we had the Constitution, America was a loose alliance of states under the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government was weak. So weak in fact that it didn’t have the power to levy taxes, could not regulate commerce, and relied on the states to provide money for defense. The states had all the power and the federal government had virtually none. This was a chaotic system that threatened to tear apart the new nation. So the Founders wrote the Constitution which created a strong central government capable of levying taxes, regulating commerce, printing money, and forming a military. Most importantly, under the Constitution, the federal government was given the power to provide for the general welfare and the states were given far less power. Teapublicans will often cite the Tenth Amendment as proof of state supremacy but they’re wrong about that too. After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add an amendment limiting the federal government to powers “expressly” delegated, which would have denied implied powers. However, the word “expressly” ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause. In other words, the federal government has the power to make laws about things that are not found in the Constitution such as health care.


Is Social Security A "Ponzi Scheme" 

When Rick Perry called Social Security a “ponzi scheme” in the first GOP Debate, he not only made a political mistake of epic proportions, he was also dead wrong. Social Security was created to keep senior citizens out of poverty and it has done a wonderful job of doing just that. When people put money into a ponzi scheme, they don’t get it back. Social Security, however, gives the money back plus more to every person who puts money into the system. It’s far from being a ponzi scheme. The real ponzi scheme is the private health insurance business which takes money from you and then drops you when you need medical car


What Is The Constitutionality Of Federally Mandated Health Care

 Is federally mandated health care unconstitutional? According to Teapublicans it is. But that’s not what the Founding Fathers thought. Congress passed and John Adams signed, a mandatory health care insurance law back in 1791. The mandate required sailors to pay a tax and in the event they needed care, they could get medical care from the government. If it was unconstitutional as Teapublicans claim, why didn’t Thomas Jefferson or James Madison repeal it? The fact is, they didn’t, and I’d say James Madison knew more about the Constitution than any Republican does, considering he’s the primary author of that sacred document.


What Did The Founding Fathers Think About Corporations

Corporations are people according to Teapublicans. They even believe the Founding Fathers loved corporations. But that couldn’t be farther from the truth. The truth is that the Founding generations distrusted corporations with a passion. That’s why corporations were regulated rather harshly compared to the pampering Teapublicans give them today. Corporations were limited to an existence of 20-30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. If the Founding Fathers were still alive and reinstated these regulations, Teapublicans would be accusing George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest of the founders of being evil, un-American socialists.


Did 9/11 Happen On George Bush’s Watch

How many times have we heard a Republican or right-wing talking head on Fox say that no terrorist attacks happened when George W. Bush was President? In July, Fox News host Eric Bolling said “we were certainly safe between 2000 and 2008 — I don’t remember any terrorist attacks on American soil during that period of time.” Other Teapublicans such as Rudy Guiliani and Dana Perino also “misremember” that period of time. I seem to recall sitting in a 20th Century History course at my high school on September 11, 2001 when terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City. And as I also recall, George W. Bush was President at the time.


Who Signed The Smoot-Hawley Act 

Many Teapublicans still have anti–New Deal views. Michele Bachmann blamed FDR for turning a recession into a depression by passing the “Hoot-Smalley Tariff”. Except that FDR didn’t pass it. Hoover did, three years before FDR took the oath of office. Oh, and it’s Smoot-Hawley, NOT “Hoot-Smalley”.


Was Martin Luther King Jr. A Republican

Teapublicans claim that Martin Luther King was a Republican. So they can explain this part of a speech by King, right? In one speech, he stated that “something is wrong with capitalism” and claimed, “There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” So, by claiming King as one of their own - you can assume teapublicans are also adopting his philosophy?


Was Joseph McCarthy A Hero

Another idol of the teapublican party is Joseph McCarthy. Teapublicans are now rewriting school books to present McCarthy as a hero who did no wrong. In reality, where the rest of us live, Joseph McCarthy was nothing more than a witch hunter who accused innocent Americans of being communists. He had no real evidence that people were communists and he should have recognized that people have the right to be part of any political party they choose. He violated the Constitution and ignored the values of freedom that we hold dear. Just like teapublicans today.


Did Ronald Reagan Only Lower Taxes

Worshiping Ronald Reagan means you also have to believe that Reagan never raised taxes during his Presidency, but this constant right-wing claim is false. While he did cut taxes in 1981 and again in 1988, Reagan actually raised taxes every year from 1981 to 1987 including The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 which, at the time, had been the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, a higher gasoline levy, a higher payroll tax, and a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history.


Was D-Day All About Health Care

Teapublicans have been very vocal about the Affordable Care Act and Rick Santorum is no exception. He has made the claim that Americans stormed the beaches at Normandy on D-Day because they opposed Obamacare. He said, “Almost 60,000 average Americans had the courage to go out and charge those beaches on Normandy, to drop out of airplanes who knows where, and take on the battle for freedom … Those Americans risked everything so they could make {their own} decision on their health care plan.”

This is absurd. The men that stormed the Omaha and Utah beaches were fighting to liberate Europe from Nazi rule. They weren’t thinking about health care 67 years into the future. They were thinking of their families and whether they’d ever see them again. Santorum also fails to realize that military personnel and their dependents have government-run health care. And the soldiers aren’t complaining about it either. And as a matter of fact, many World War II veterans and their families also have Medicare which is also run by the federal government. That blows Santorum’s claim out of the water.


Do States Have The Right To Secede 

After President Obama took office, many teapublican legislators and governors, particularly in the South, began threatening secession. They say secession is a right but is it really? The answer is absolutely not. Not only did the Civil War settle this dispute, James Madison and Andrew Jackson (both Southerners) also rejected this claim. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the right to secede. The Constitution was created by the people “in order to form a more perfect union” and by seceding, a state breaks up the nation, thus breaking a legally binding contract. And Andrew Jackson once threatened to march an army to South Carolina after that state threatened to secede. In fact, Jackson felt that secession was treason. The Supreme Court has also weighed in on this issue. In Texas v White, the court held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”.


Was The Civil War Fought Over State’s Rights 

Teapublicans claim that it was all about state’s rights and not about slavery. The truth is, state’s rights only played a small role. The South feared that President Lincoln would end slavery, so they took preemptive measures by seceding from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter without any provocation. Slavery was, without a doubt, the main cause of the war between the states. Without slavery, white plantation owners would have to pick their own cotton, or, pay people to do it for them. They also believed Africans to be inferior and would not tolerate their freedom. We should all keep that in mind as the South/teapublican home base continues to make claims that they aren’t racist.
Was The American Revolution Fought To End Slavery 

Yet another claim that David Barton makes in an attempt to present the founding generation as perfect, is that the American Revolution was waged to end slavery. Once again, Barton makes a claim that is completely false. The American Revolution was fought to win American independence from Great Britain. Slaves were certainly not freed before, during, or after the war. They remained as slaves and would be slaves until the Civil War.
Did Benjamin Franklin Reject Evolution 

We continue with the lack of knowledge of the Founding Fathers among the reich-wing. Many teapublicans have been making the claim that Benjamin Franklin rejected evolution. There are two problems with this claim. First, the theory of evolution wasn’t around until Charles Darwin published the theory in 1859, nearly 70 years after Franklin died in 1790. And secondly, Franklin was a man of science above all else. It is unlikely that he would have rejected a scientific theory in favor of creationism. Franklin in fact, rejected the dogma and divinity of Christianity.
Was America Founded As A Christian State 

Ever heard of David Barton? He’s the guy that Glenn Beck goes to when he wants to distort history. David Barton claims that the Founding Fathers intended the United States to be a Christian state. Many teapublicans have since picked up on this claim and have been shamelessly using it to court the Christian reich-wing, and as a reason to end the separation of church and state that has been part of this country since its founding. His claim can be trounced with one question. If the Founding Fathers wanted America to be a Christian state why did they not say so in the Constitution? Instead, the Founders placed this in the document.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
~First Amendment, Bill of Rights of the Constitution

In other words, there is to be absolutely NO state religion.


Did The Founding Fathers End Slavery

Michelle Bachmann isn’t through yet. During a speaking event she once claimed that the Founding Fathers were the ones who ended slavery. That’s a surprise to me since George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe all owned slaves. In fact, 12 of the first 16 American Presidents owned slaves. But Bachmann’s attempt to paint the Founding Fathers as saints is also a denial of past Republican Party history since early teapublicans rose to prominence by fighting against slavery and the first teapublican President, Abraham Lincoln, ended slavery altogether.


Was John Quincy Adams A Founding Father

Michele Bachmann evidentially failed American History in school. Because she has absolutely no knowledge of early American history. She once claimed that John Quincy Adams is a Founding Father of America when in fact, JQA was just a child when the Revolution began. He was born in 1767 and was just 14 when the war ended. And like Palin’s supporters, Bachmann fans proceeded to edit the Wikipedia page of John Quincy Adams in an attempt to make her claim viable. Galactically Stupid!


Was The Shot Heard ‘Round The World Fired In New Hampshire

 Did you know that Lexington and Concord are located in New Hampshire? I didn’t. And the people in New Hampshire and Massachusetts didn’t either. When Michele Bachmann exclaimed to a New Hampshire crowd that “the shot heard ’round the world” occurred in their state, I’m sure that Massachusetts let out a roar of laughter. The sad but hilarious thing is that most American children know that the first shot of the American Revolution occurred in the state of Massachusetts.

Did Paul Revere Ride To Warn The British

 Sarah Palin made the dubious claim that Paul Revere actually warned the British instead of the American colonists. Her supporters even made attempts to edit the Paul Revere Wikipedia entry to make her claims sound correct. If she had taken the time to read Longfellow’s poem, Paul Revere’s Ride, she would not have made this error, as the great majority of school children know that Revere made his midnight ride to warn Americans, not the enemy.
 Teapublicans understand that the lack of education is the key to controlling their base. All they need to do is distort and re-write history in their favor to win the votes of the Galactically Stupid.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
~George Santayana

Its no wonder that Mary and Joseph rode into Bethlehem on a donkey instead of an elephant.Words seriously fail me at this point. Without ignorance we couldn’t even have the current teapublican party. Everyone tries to rewrite history, or at least put their own spin on it, but the teapublicans have taken it to an Orwellian level.

Two-thirds of the teapublicans think POTUS is a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say "he may be the Antichrist." HUH
Teapublicans define themselves largely by the worthiness of their objectives and the sincerity of their motives. The teapublican party is abysmally ignorant about its country, abysmally!

8 Facts That Prove the Tea Party Is Galactically Stupid of the U.S. Constitution

I often rail against the teapublican party, and for good reason - their ideology is socially destructive. Teapublicans use xenophobia (damn those illegal's) and religion (praise Jesus, who hates pro-choicers) to substantiate the mentality, the mentality of the Galactically Stupid!



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

WEEKEND SNIPPETS

POTUS Disrespect Teapublican Style

Faux News Eric Bolling Style

Nothing says repulsive like Bolling

Aspirin Between Your Knees:

Money is green regardless of whether the person is politically adept.

Friess: ‘Gals’ Used To Put Aspirin Between Their Knees For Contraception

"On this contraceptive thing, my Gosh it such an inexpensive--You know, back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn't that costly."

Random thoughts that I posted on my twitter account last night:

"Bayer is now going to expand it's line of aspirin: Regular, Children's and new Bayer Contraceptive Strength."

"Catholic church has banned the use of aspirin as it has been deemed a form of birth control by teapublican ideology."

"The best form of birth control is looking at congressional Republicans discussing birth control." And finally:

"I am guessing Bristol Palin was out of aspirin?"

What Americans - more importantly, what women heard, was evidence that "conservatives" white, pasty, redneck guys, and any Breitbart blogger -  ignorance rooted deep in the previous century, lives strong in the land of this radical group.

All told, if the teapublicans truly want to kiss off women voters -  the party need only keep doing what it's doing.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

ANDY BREITBART, TEAPUBLICAN BOTTOM FEEDER

Liberals Favorite Fodder "Andy Breitbart"

In case you missed NFTOS' Saturday blog, here is your intro:

 Breitbart Losing Control



Aside from looking and sounding like a guy who was in the midst of a serious 2 week crack binge, Breitbart lecturing anyone on the finer points of ”behaving” themselves is like Newt Gingrich lecturing people about the evils of sex outside of marriage.

Andrew Breitbart has made a living on being an asshat, irritating liberals, and editing tapes to suit his purposes. He’s the patsy for the tea bag movement, and has a nasty streak that only Aleister Crowley could be proud of. And he demonstrated just how psychotic he can be last Friday outside of CPAC 2012. (Above video)

The problem with Britefart is that he is the barker, snake oil bottler, and show tent maker for the CPAC/teabagger freak show that is out there drooling and seething from Obama derangement syndrome.

Breitbart, has been a totally discredited blogger for a long time - and he thinks he is relevant just why? He keeps digging himself deeper and deeper into the cesspool - which is probably the best place suited for this grotesque ignoramus. Poor thing has no insight as to just how absurd he looks with the plethora of distortions, doctored videos, and his continued use of non factual comments. He is often pathological in nature (liar).

This isn’t the first time that Breitbart has said something controversial and outrageous. At a rally in Massachusetts in September, Breitbart incited violence against liberals and claimed the military would side with the teabaggers if a civil war were to ever occur between conservatives and liberals. (HUH?)

“I’m under attack all the time. They call me gay, there are death threats… There are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot.’ Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns… I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with. And I have people who come up to me in the military, major named people in the military, who grab me and they go, ‘Thank you for what you’re doing, we’ve got your back.”

Maybe he needs to put the crack pipe down long enough to see that the boogeyman is not out to get him. You can't make this shit up readers, I am thinking him and Loesch have tip toed through the tulips one two many times!


CPAC 2012 confrontation with teabgger Loesch and Breitbart, Loesch appears to be Breitbart's safety detail (sarcastic)




Breitbarts pejorative talk; anti this, anti that - it sounds to me like these two "journalist" (Loesch/ Breitbart) are auditioning for the Taliban.

Breitbart's "best of":

Breitbart Inadvertently Admits To Lying About Sherrod's NAACP Audience

 The Kenneth Gladney Charade Collapses

 Big Government Pushes State Department Gun Trafficking Myth

 Breitbart Blog Thinks James O'Keefe Invented Ambush Reporting

 Breitbart Editor Still Has Not Retracted False Claim About Murder At Occupy Savannah

 Breitbart Blogger Attacks Press For Claiming Perry Went Birther; Perry Doubles Down On Birther Rhetoric

 Breitbart Smear: Obama (And Thousands More) "Marched With" New Black Panthers

 Breitbart Calls Janeane Garofalo "Hollywood's Sympathy Fuck"

 CNN's Loesch Dissembles In Order To Attack Obama For Pointing Out Booing At Gay Soldier

 Breitbart Blogger: Obama Is "An Ideological Muslim, ... Clinton Was An Ideological Lesbian"

 Breitbart Website Finds Palin Support In Rasmussen Poll That Didn't Include Her

 Breitbart Blogger: U.S. "Open[s] The Doors To Sodomites From Around The World"

 Big Journalism Defends Bachmann Staff, Compares ABC To Nazis

 
I could go on and on readers, as Media Matters For America host over 32 pages, 30 links per page, equaling 960 stories on Breitbart, Breitbart's "Big" websites, and Dana Loesch.

The facts are overwhelming, and it just comes to a point where you say, these two "freaks" are total douche bags and then move on. But since Andy decided to 'retweet" me last night, I thought I'd give my many readers a peak-see at this king of asshats, this king of insane, this king of slimy fecal matter that is teabagger!

"Retweet" by the bottom feeder

Andy was busy last night, as he also pissed off Current TV's Keith Olbermann:

Olbermann Vs Bottom Feeder

At this point in time, Andy's the guy with no shame, no credibility to further damage, and yet a tiny hint of celeb from his Acorn destroying "one hit wonder" with similarly disgraced and discredited James O'Keefe.

Why anyone actually takes this idiot seriously at this point is a mystery to me. Birds of a feather flock together I guess.

Breitbart is the quintessential bottom feeder, and something tells us he was very disliked by his very own parents. He will be the source of the noisy misinformation that drifts into the echo chamber and gets amplified by the next level of questionable "experts" and propagandists - enter Dana Loesch and Breitbart's "Big Journalism" host of talented bloggers. (sarcastic)

So the next time faux news/CNN/ and Dana Loesch radio says "Sources say"...there's a great chance that source is the discredited bottom feeder aptly named, Andrew Breitbart.



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

The Truth About Birth Control

BIRTH CONTROL

Often is the case with teapublicants - facts are often manipulate to suit their audience, or better yet, completely ignored. Take POTUS' birth control stance - "Most of Obama's "Controversial" birth control rule was law during Bush years."

Radical teabaggers have been livid over POTUS' administration rule requiring employers to offer birth control to its employees, when in fact most firms already had to do it!

Teapublicants and conservatives make it really, really difficult for us to avoid focusing on their lapses in intelligence. And with a conga-line of top shelf teapublicans front and center for the 2012 presidential nomination, we're being treated to more examples of buffoonery from these people.

In the last six or seven months alone, there are enough examples of teapublicants botching very basic ideas and facts to fill volumes of "Bushism" style novelty calendars.

What teapublicants once wanted is no longer on the table, for they now have turned coat and backtracked, an ideology they envision, a time when horses were the only transportation mode, where men owned slaves, and when rope was a high fashioned type of belt that held ones pants up.

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

First let me say the comment in the video about Rachael and her parents not using contraceptives, totally putrid, but this is the "conservatives" we come to know and love. Second, as always, if it isn't teapublican, its got to be "unconstitutional"! How many times have we heard this theme from camp teabag?  These facts are indeed the answer as to why CPAC 2012 is lobbing hate grenades towards Maddow. But often is case, facts frequently offend the less intelligent. And yes teapublicants, your very existence is why the scientific community created contraceptives - for there is no life guard at the gene pool, so please remember to breed responsibly.



As reported by "motherjones":

President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., a federal court agreed with the EEOC's reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent.

"We have used [the EEOC ruling] many times in negotiating with various employers," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "It has been in active use all this time. [President Obama's] policy is only new in the sense that it covers employers with less than 15 employees and with no copay for the individual. The basic rule has been in place since 2000."

Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex—the kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling. DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic university in America, added birth control coverage to its plans after receiving an EEOC complaint several years ago. (DePaul officials did not respond to a request for comment.)

As recently as last year, the EEOC was moderating a dispute between the administrators of Belmont Abbey, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, and several of its employees who had their birth control coverage withdrawn after administrators realized it was being offered. The Weekly Standard opined on the issue in 2009—more proof that religious employers were being asked to cover contraception far before the Obama administration issued its new rule on January 20 of this year.

"The current freakout," Judy Waxman says, is largely occurring because the EEOC policy "isn't as widely known…and it hasn't been uniformly enforced." But it's still unclear whether Obama's Health and Human Services department will enforce the new rule any more harshly than the old one. The administration has already given organizations a year-long grace period to comply. Asked to explain how the agency would make employers do what it wanted, an HHS official said that it would "enforce this the same way we enforce everything else in the law." 

But it is important to remember that those who are most loudly criticizing the President and his policies are those whose policies and ideology created the economic mess he inherited.

There's a spectrum of anti-intellectualism on the right, and that's a fact. The teapublicants spectrum of ignorance runs the gamut.

Categories or levels of unlettered teapublicants:

Genuinely Smart but Wrong,
Deliberately Ignorant,
Un- or Mis-educated,
Incompetent and Incapable,
Genuinely Stupid.

For teapublicants, education and intellectualism is the enemy of their wafer-thin bumper-sticker marketing strategy, and in so doing they deny their base facts - which has become a matter of survival for the teapublican party.

Teapublicants are welcome to act like idiots as a means of pandering to their dumbass base. Just leave the rest of us alone. America needs more intelligence, and I don't think we can afford to wait for the reich-wing to catch up to speed.

Facts are, 97 percent of catholic women use contraceptives. The 2004 John Jay Report was based on a study of 10,667 sexual abuse allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002. One priest even abused 200 deaf boys.

This church has no right to telling anyone what to use and what not to use, and for the Holier than thou conservative jumping this band wagon, I say two things to you:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ~ Mohandas Gandhi,

I respect those who oppose contraception and thus embrace the alternatives, overpopulation and starvation.

During the time of publication of this blog, BREAKING NEWS from the White House is that POTUS will re-align his administrations rule on contraceptives. Stay tuned!


UPDATE: 2/10/2012 13:07

POTUS Speaks:

"No woman’s health should depend on who she is or where she works or how much money she makes. Every woman should be in control of the decisions that affect her own health. Period." -President Obama

I find fault with all the right wing media outlets - based on the fact they just can't tell the truth. For instance, after POTUS' speech today (noon EST) regarding the backlash from teabaggers and catholic pedophiles alike - these media muckrakers are saying that POTUS "walked back" his contraceptive mandate. That is just not true.

Nothing was actually changed if you read the mandate and comprehend what the President has said. What he did was clarify that women's health care coverage will continue to be affordable to ALL women regardless of catholic church opposition. He actually, used intelligence and tactful demeanor, and told the pedophilia catholic church and radical teapublicants to kiss his Presidential posterior!


NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West