FCC's Net Neutrality Order

Although the FCC voted along partisan lines Tuesday to pass a network neutrality order, it wasn't until hours later that the public got to see glimpses of what was passed.

Hours after the vote the FCC posted several "key excerpts" from the order on its Web site. The final order is still being written and will likely be posted over the next few days, as the commission still has to iron out concerns from members who voted for the order but also dissented on some parts.

So what does this order mean for Internet access? The short version is that it makes fixed broadband services neutral, it leaves mobile broadband operators a lot of maneuverability in managing their networks and it takes a wait-and-see approach to carriers' plans to develop specialized IP-based services that are separate from the public Internet.

The FCC says that it isn't applying the same requirements on wireless Internet service because "mobile broadband presents special considerations that suggest differences in how and when open Internet protections should apply." Thus, the FCC has settled on taking "measured steps" to ensure very limited network neutrality restrictions that only cover access to Web sites and to competing applications. The FCC says nothing about wireless carriers slowing or degrading traffic to targeted Web sites or applications.

This agreement, said officials, would put in place three high-level rules for service providers, i.e. cable and telecommunications companies. The first, dubbed “Robust transparency”, calls for providers of both fixed and mobile broadband to clearly disclose their bandwidth management policies to consumers and application developers.

The second, called the “No blocking rule,” prohibits fixed broadband providers from blocking content but allows “reasonable network management.” Mobile broadband providers get a lighter version of the policy. They are simply forbidden from blocking competing voice and videoconferencing services.

The third rule appears to overlap with the second. It says that fixed broadband providers can’t levy “unreasonable discrimination” against outside applications. An FCC official summarized this last rule as “No picking winners and losers [on a particular network].” Overall, the policies reach beyond the FCC’s original Net Neutrality principles, which were struck down in the so-called Comcast decision earlier this year.

The passage will mark the FCC’s first time to adopt enforceable rules related to Net Neutrality, and because this concept is fairly new, the FCC says it will simply monitor how such services develop to ensure they aren't "in any way retarding the growth of or constricting capacity available for broadband Internet access service." The FCC also says it expects broadband providers to "disclose information about specialized services' impact, if any, on last-mile capacity available for... broadband Internet service access." Additionally, the FCC expects that carriers will "increase capacity offered for broadband Internet access service" if they choose to expand their network for more specialized services.

Less clear are the exact definition of the term broadband, the penalties for flouting these rules and what transpired over the past three weeks as companies and lobbyists sought to shape the policies to their liking.

This opens up the question of what happens if these additional services become so intertwined with the regular Internet that the two become indistinguishable. For instance, let's say FiOS incorporates Hulu as an application of its fiber-based television services, thus letting users re-watch reruns of their favorite shows on demand. Won't this by definition be giving favorable treatment to a preferred Web site at the expense of others? The FCC has decided for now that this particular concern can wait to be addressed another day.

The FCC's action, in a 3-2 vote comes as consumers are increasingly using broadband Internet connections for both wired and wireless devices to watch TV shows, movies, video snippets and the ever present online gamers.

"The FCC acted out of fear that some isolated instances of telecommunications companies restricting access to phone and other services from competitors would become more frequent. And that could change the Internet for the worse", said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski

.

As a FCC licensed radio operator (HAM) I tell you that these latest actions taken by the FCC are over and above the "call of duty".

NFTOS believes that these new regulations are a radical and illegal revision to federal policy.

Hold on to your hats here readers, as its a cold day in hell when we agree with righties, but Robert McDowell, a Republican FCC commissioner, Penned it best by saying ""On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation," McDowell wrote. "The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom."

McDowell called the proposed net neutrality rules a "threat to Internet freedom," arguing,

"Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure."

As a business owner whom relies hugely on the Internet I tell you this vote weakened this most powerful tool. Tuesday the FCC deflated, marred and scored the main link in the chain.

Certainly there are times when the Government needs to stand clear of meddling, and in this instance its that time for Big Daddy to keep his hands out of the cookie jar.





NFTOS

Birthers, Mexicans, and Gays, OH MY!

We are led to believe that America is number one in everything, would that include being insensible witless ignoramuses?

Republican conspiracy theories about the citizenship of Barack Obama reject the legitimacy of the United States citizenship of President Barack Obama or his eligibility to be President of the United States. Some of these conspiracy theories allege that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, or that his birth certificate is a forgery. Others allege that Obama is a citizen of Indonesia, or that because he had dual citizenship at birth (British and American), he is not a natural born citizen of the United States, which is a requirement to be President of the United States.

These claims are promoted by a number of fringe theorists and political opponents, some of whom filed lawsuits that sought to disqualify Obama from running for, or being confirmed as, President, or to obtain additional proof that he is qualified. All of the cases have been rejected in lower courts. Three suits were filed with and dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Although Obama was confirmed as president-elect by Congress on January 8, 2009, and sworn in as President on January 20, litigation continued into his presidency. Those promoting these conspiracy theories are frequently called "birthers", paralleling "truthers" for adherents of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

In 2008 the Obama campaign released his birth certificate, certified by the Hawaii Department of Health, and posted a scanned image of it online. (See Certificate below).

Really readers, are we really this incoherent or ignorant to believe that our current President is not an American?


                                          ******

Egged on by more illegal immigrant protests, the cantankerous debate about immigration policy continues to play out in Washington.

Republicans are, indeed, nearing a civil war -- not a North-versus-South type in which one is expected to triumph over the other after a scrap, but a Beirut-style multi-faction imbroglio.

Republicans are racists who oppose non-white immigration. There are at least four identifiable factions within the GOP. They are, in the order of permissiveness to immigration:

1. Limousine (Liberal) Republicans

These barely-Republicans want to open the borders. They care little for sovereignty or popular culture, but believe in the triumph of economic efficiency, and thus advocate completely free mobility of both capital and labor. Socially liberal, internationalist in outlook, they are a vestige of the pre-Goldwater party elites. A dying breed, they are marginalized among party activists, but somehow have managed to hang on longer among the elites. For them, amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the country is just a start.

2. Karl Rove Republicans (Pragmatists)

Simply put, these party loyalists want to forge a permanent Republican majority at almost any cost. They subscribe to Karl Rove-style "triangulation." They recognize that the party's current Southern white male base may not be sufficient to win national elections in the future. Thus, they see the key to that permanent majority in Hispanics, who account for most of the illegal immigrants today.

Led by President Bush and the business-wing of the party, they claim to oppose amnesty, but support it by other names (e.g. "earned citizenship" and "guest worker program"), and are willing to sign on for border security in return for the "compassionate" legalization of illegal's.

3. "Dirty Harry" (Law and Order) Republicans

Republicans who make up this group are primarily motivated by the allegiance to the rule of law as the wellspring of all that is good in America. They see the massive illegal immigration creating a parallel shadow society, undermining the rule of law. Many are not opposed to immigration per se. Some are even willing to expand legal immigration while cracking down hard on illegal immigrants and their complicit American employers.

These Republicans are horrified by any amnesty proposal, because it would unfairly reward illicit behavior and discourage abiding the laws of the country. Many legal immigrants-turned-citizens actually subscribe to this view. Their motto is "Remember the 1986 'just this once' amnesty?"

4. "Anglo-Saxon" Culture Warriors

This bloc is often called the "extreme right" by NFTOS. They see and battle "multiculturalism" everywhere. Two of their most articulate spokesmen on immigration are Mark Krikorian, himself a scion of Armenian immigrants, and Sharon Angle once tea bag candidate for senate in Nevada.

For these cultural conservatives, the issue is about race and skin color. Not only do they oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants, they also seek to curtail legal immigration, except perhaps from those societies considered more culturally compatible.

These internal fault lines within the GOP stem from core beliefs that make up the party. Combined with other contentious issues now dividing the country, such as taxes, spending (earmarks) and "Obamacare", that immigration threatens to embroil the country in a bitter internecine conflict.

What, then, is America to do?

The Beirut metaphor used above offers a lesson -- after all, it took the Syrian domination to bring most of the warring Lebanese factions together to demand the restoration of their sovereignty. Perhaps what the righties needs to do is unite again in the bitter taste of defeat.

                                          *******

Republicans, Hookers, and Gays. Oh My! - watch more funny videos

Republicans and gays are like oil and water, and this has never been more prevalent that with the current policy on DADT (Don't ask Don't Tell). Righties would love for America to be running like it was 1957, where hillbillies roamed the land with bib overalls, snuff tobacco in-between their cheek and gums, and running moonshine from the plethora of stills entrenched on grandmas plantations, which are encased with southern style Spanish moss.

If it was up to the righties, gays would be shipped to Africa like the blacks, where then the Redneck could be done with both republican eyesores, in essence " killing two birds with one stone".

Nullification and succession are key words we have heard from republicans since the civil war, and now they are echoed through our hollowed congressional halls on a daily basis.

The stance of the right wing nut job is clear, and Americans hear your position with a resounding thump!

For gays in America to move forward they are going to have to vote out any and all righties in 2012.

A very small amount of Americans are actually pro gay, the LCR (Log Cabin Republicans) are advocates on equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians in the United States. This minute militia will certainly struggle at best to sway the hard core righties.

Tea bags have only one distinct position on gays. They feel gay sex is selfish hedonism and gay behavior should be a criminal offense. They feel gay marriage destroys fundamental moral institutions and gays should have no protections such as hate crime laws, job protection, discrimination protection in housing.

Is it any wonder why America has the issues it does.?

How is it that our mentality has become so depressed and suppressed with convoluted understandings and beliefs?

Republicans must be taught that the principles of democracy are not just words tossed or thrown around while roosting on the plantation. The clearest, most succinct, and yes, most painful way to demonstrate to the tea bags that the American people don't take too kindly to them subverting us with their own unbalanced and demented positions, is to vote them out of office.

The republican mentality says "so what" and the belief is that in America, white supremacy rules, and the righties creed is a total disregard for any and all universal human compassion and rights, weather your gay, POTUS or Mexican, its irrelevant.


Birth certificates, Mexicans, and gays........indeed OH MY!





NFTOS

Michele Bachmann To Sit On Intel Committee

Is this not the biggest oxymoron of the century, Bachmann and Intelligence?

Rep. Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota Republican who helped create a tea party caucus of House members is getting a seat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Speaker-designate John "Tan Man" Boehner (R, Ohio) named Ms. Bachmann, a favorite with tea party activists, to the panel a few weeks after she bowed out of a potentially combative race for the job of Republican Conference chairman, the no. 4 slot in the party’s leadership hierarchy. Boehner thought better to have Bachmann get Intel info, than to have the lunatic 4th in command.

Ms. Bachmann is considered a prolific fundraiser and influential voice for the tea bags conservative base. She raised more than $13 million in the last two years.

She also has a record or history of foot-in-mouth disease by making sparks fly with her comments on a wide array of issues.

In 2008, she caused an uproar after she suggested President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, were “anti-American” and called on the media to investigate whether members of Congress are “pro-American or anti-America.” Last month, she said the White House was spending $200 million-a-day for the president’s trip to Asia – a figure the White House dismissed as “a long trip from reality.”

Ms. Bachmann, in a statement, said it “was a leading desire of mine to serve on this panel because of the key role it plays in keeping our nation safe.”

Do we really want muttonheads like Bachmann making National Security decisions, or even being privy to this type of information?

How is it that so many females of the republican persuasion become such ideological psycho babblers of inane fecal matter? Bachmann, Angel, O'Donnell, Palin, the plethora of female lunatics from righty land are never ending.

Ms Bachmann has also taken it upon herself to "tutor" incoming freshman congressman on constitutional education classes.

I have a superabundance of issues with Bachmann being a congresswoman, never mind sitting on committees and teaching constitutional law! Whatever happened to someone being a subject matter expert on things before they go forth to set out to conquer the world.

Bachmann goes on to say "We're going to practice every week, if you will, our craft, which is studying and learning the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights,"

What is it about this country that those so supremely qualified to be Senators, or Justices or Republicans, could be felled by the likes of the Michele Bachmann's of our nation?

All of us recited the same Pledge of Allegiance, we all say words, "liberty and justice for all," thousands and thousands of times.

Just like the rest of us, Bachmann pledged a allegiance, but hers and the republicans allegiance is to a nation for the rich, republicans pledge allegiance to a nation that has two sets of tax rules, one for the rich and another for the poor, Bachmann pledges allegiance to a nation that has two set of laws, one for children of immigrants, and then a different and better set for others' children.

Michele Bachmann says the words of the Pledge. But clearly Michele Bachmann doesn't take the Pledge to heart. For where is the heart, or the justice, in Bachmann's proposals to cut back government spending on programs that enable the hungry to eat, the ill to get medical care, the old to get health insurance? There isn't any.

Where is the liberty in Bachmann's proposals that Social Security should be eliminated or that the minimum wage not be increased? There isn't any.

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

Today we learn that the irrational, kooky, maniacal, nonsensical, nutty, preposterous, psyched out, Bachmann is to seek a senate seat in 2012, and then place her sights in 2016 on a Presidential stratagem.

Bachmann's suit is her fundraiser power, while many radical righties support her, I doubt America could swallow a Bachmann for President campaign. Bachmann the inventor of "don't Palinize" me, which in republican dialect means:

- To smear or mock someone using falsehoods, baseless accusations or unsubstantiated character assassinations for the purpose of blocking them from achieving a goal.

- To exaggerate the truth or lie by omission.

- To attack a person for his or her conservative values by focusing an inordinate amount of attention on a single example of that person falling short (or being perceived as falling short) of the values they espouse. We all certainly can attest that Bachmann has more than her share of comments that "fall short" of the truth.

Sarah Palin is a beacon of sanity compared to Michele Bachmann. To think that such insanity and ignorance graces the halls of our Congress is truly a travesty of epic proportions. When it comes to Michele Bachmann I am often left wondering if somewhere there is an asylum missing a lunatic.



NFTOS

FOXLEAKS

Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science


This blog brought to you in whole by mediamatters.org

In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

The directive, sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record."

This latest revelation comes after Media Matters uncovered an email sent by Sammon to Fox journalists at the peak of the health care reform debate, ordering them to avoid using the term "public option" and instead use variations of "government option." That email echoed advice from a prominent Republican pollster on how to help turn public opinion against health care reform.

Sources familiar with the situation in Fox's Washington bureau have expressed concern about Sammon using his position to "slant" Fox's supposedly neutral news coverage to the right.

Sammon's orders for Fox journalists to cast doubt on climate science came amid the network's relentless promotion of the fabricated "Climategate" scandal, which revolved around misrepresentations of emails sent to and from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

At the time of Sammon's directive, it was clear the "scandal" did not undermine the scientific basis for global warming and that the emails were being grossly distorted by conservative media and politicians. Scientists, independent fact-checkers, and several investigations have since confirmed that the CRU emails do not undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet.

Contrary to Sammon's email, the increase in global temperatures over the last half-century is an established fact. As the National Climatic Data Center explains, the warming trend "is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change" and "is also confirmed by other independent observations."


* * *

On the December 8 edition of Happening Now, one of Fox News' daytime straight news shows, Fox White House correspondent Wendell Goler delivered a live report from Copenhagen and was asked by host Jon Scott about "U.N. scientists issuing a new report today saying this decade is on track to be the warmest on record."

Goler accurately reported that, indeed, 2000-2009 was "expected to turn out to be the warmest decade on record," following a "trend that has scientists concerned because 2000-2009 [was] warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s." Goler went on to explain that "ironically 2009 was a cooler than average year in the U.S. and Canada," which, he said, was "politically troubling because Americans are among the most skeptical about global warming."

When Scott brought up the "Climategate" emails, Goler explained that although people had raised questions about the CRU data, "the data also comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and from NASA. And scientists say the data of course across all three sources is pretty consistent."

Less than 15 minutes after the segment, Sammon sent the following email to the staffs of Special Report, Fox News Sunday, and FoxNews.com, as well as to other reporters, producers, and network executives, instructing them to "IMMEDIATELY" include objections of "critics" when reporting on climate data:

From: Sammon, Bill

To: 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 036 -FOX.WHU; 054 -FNSunday; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers; 069 -Politics; 005 -Washington

Cc: Clemente, Michael; Stack, John; Wallace, Jay; Smith, Sean

Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009

Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data...

...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

That night's Special Report with Bret Baier -- Fox's flagship news program -- featured another report by Goler on the Copenhagen conference. Anchor Bret Baier introduced the report by saying that as "'climategate-fueled skeptics continued to impugn global warming science, researchers today issued new and even more dire warnings about the possible effects of a warmer planet."

Goler's report featured a clip of Michel Jarraud of the World Meteorological Association explaining the recent finding that 2000-2009 "is likely to be the warmest on the record."

Appearing to echo Sammon's orders, Goler immediately followed this by saying that "skeptics say the recordkeeping began about the time a cold period was ending in the mid 1800s and what looks like an increase may just be part of a longer cycle."

After running a clip of American Enterprise Institute scholar Kenneth Green questioning the "historical context" of the WMO's climate findings, Goler then brought up the climategate emails:

GOLER: Meanwhile, the hacked or leaked e-mails from East Anglia University pushed the U.N. to once again defend its data. Scientists say it's consistent with that from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, and the U.N. secretary general says nothing in the e-mails cast doubt on the basic scientific message.

BAN KI-MOON, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: That the climate change is happening much, much faster than we realized and we human beings are the primary cause.

That night, on the same Special Report broadcast, correspondent James Rosen advanced the wildly misleading claim that climate scientists "destroyed more than 150 years worth of raw climate data."
By the time Sammon sent his email on December 8, it was already clear that "Climategate" was not only overblown, but also had no bearing on the validity of scientific theories about climate change.

•In a letter to Congress sent four days before Sammon's memo, 29 prominent scientists -- including 11 members of the National Academy of Sciences -- stated: "The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming."

•On December 2, the prestigious science journal Nature stated: "Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real -- or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails."

•On November 25, the American Meteorological Society released a statement saying: "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true -- which is not yet clearly the case -- the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

•On November 23, Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a "lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report" by the IPCC said: "[O]ur understanding of climate science is based not on private correspondence, but on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge often represented in the dry and factual prose of peer-reviewed literature."

Several subsequent inquiries into the climategate emails did not find evidence of scientific malpractice that damages the credibility of CRU's climate science and also cleared the scientists of deceptively manipulating climate data.

Shortly after Sammon's memo, numerous media outlets, including the Associated Press, FactCheck.org, and PolitiFact.com also analyzed the emails and concluded that they did not undermine climate science.

Nonetheless, Fox's news and opinion programs relentlessly hyped the supposed scandal in order to cast doubt on the scientific case for climate change, both before and after Sammon's memo. Some lowlights:

•Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace repeatedly pushed climategate distortions, both before and after Sammon's directive.

•On December 3, America's Newsroom host Bill Hemmer falsely claimed the emails showed scientists hiding "evidence of a decline in global temperatures."

•Online, Fox's website Fox Nation characterized the emails as "Global Warming's Waterloo."

•Neil Cavuto, Fox's "Senior Vice President of Business News" and host of Your World with Neil Cavuto, interviewed a filmmaker dressed as a polar bear during the Copenhagen conference and joined him in promoting "Climategate" distortions.

A month after Sammon sent his memo, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies released data confirming that 2009 was the second warmest year on record and marked the end of the warmest decade on record.

After spending weeks hyping the Climategate non-scandal, Special Report never mentioned the NASA report.





NFTOS

"TEARS OF A CLOWN"

Poltroon, Whey-face, Sissy, Softy, Whiner, Wimp, Wuss, Crybaby, player of the house, or sensitive man. John Boehner’s sobfest on “60 Minutes” profiled last Sunday has fueled the debate on when it’s ever appropriate for Senators or for that matter, men to cry in public.


Barbara Walters said the incoming speaker of the House has an emotional problem, and that if Nancy Pelosi had been such a serial bawler, she’d never have heard the end of it. Walters’s colleague on “The View,” Joy Behar, called Boehner “The Weeper of the House.” And Sean Hannity of Fox said people should lay off Boehner, because when righties cry it’s not a sign of weakness.



Around Washington, he’s known as a chain-smoking, Merlot-swilling, golf-loving conservative hardliner. Lobbyists love him, no more so than when he handed out checks from the tobacco industry to compliant members of Congress on the House floor.

Tan mans tears shed most often when he speaks about how he rose from his humble past, the son of a bar owner, one of 12 children who grew up in a small home with a single bathroom.

“Making sure these kids have a shot at the American Dream like I did is very important,” he said, choking up, when asked on “60 Minutes” about his crying.

The American Dream that Boehner evokes between tears has never been more threatened. By some measures, social mobility — that is, the ability of people to move up a notch in class — is at an all-time low in this country. Poor Americans now have less than a 5 percent chance of rising to the upper-middle-class within their lifetimes.

At the same time, the gap between the rich and poor, and the concentration of wealth owned by those at the very top, has never been so great. After examining these trends, The Economist wrote that “the United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.”

But a look at Boehner’s record during his two decades in Congress shows a man who has voted against nearly every boost for the working stiff. There’s no empathy for those with the longest shots at the American Dream in his voting pattern. Instead, we see a politician who is hard-hearted in his legislative treatment of the people now coping with the kind of economic conditions in which the Boehner family grew up.

Numerous studies have shown that what knocks people out of the middle class, or keeps them from ever joining it, is a catastrophic bill or two, usually from getting sick and not having health care. Then, those debts go on credit cards, which leads to a life filled with high interest rates and limited choices.

Rep. John Boehner was fighting back tears after the midterm elections. Against this backdrop, Boehner has fought against strivers and strugglers at the lower end, while shilling for ever-more concentrated corporate power and banker control. The one thing that stirs his passion is tax cuts. But nearly half of American households don’t pay any income tax at all, so Boehner’s crusade doesn’t affect them. And a decade of aggressive tax-cutting has done nothing to reverse the woes of everyday working people.

Boehner voted for the major trade agreements that make it easier to ship jobs overseas, while voting against assistance to workers who lose jobs to globalization. He voted no on expanding health care for poor children, no on raising the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and no on a bill to allow people to purchase F.D.A.-certified prescription drugs at a cheaper price from certain countries.

Boehner wants to deny health care to poor children, let millionaires hold onto more of their money, all the while blocking a small raise for the lowest earners and prevent people on fixed incomes from getting a break on the costliest item in their personal budget — their meds.

Boehner received a zero rating from Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonprofit founded in 1979 to give average people a greater voice on tax policy amidst a stadium full of lobbyists for the rich.

More recently, Johnny voted against modifying bankruptcy rules, rebuffing an effort to help people avoid mortgage foreclosures. He said no to the federal rescue of General Motors, which saved the American auto industry countless jobs, many which are in Boehner’s district. Lastly John-John gave a thumbs down to regulation of the subprime mortgage industry.

Great record for a man whom can cry at a whim for his own device, but yet when it comes to the Americans whom he represents, screw them! This is not just a John Boehner mentality, as many righties seem to have morphed from the same mold.

No matter how you slice, Boehner’s life story never gave him a more capacious governing vision for the folks he knew in his hometown of Reading, Ohio. When he turns on the faucet while talking about them, it raises two questions:

Does Boehner cry because he escaped that fate? Or is it because he has become a pitiful politician whose votes show he really could give a rats ass for the people he left behind?

NFTOS



.

Eleventh Hour Wrangling

A NFTOS COMMENTARY

President Obama tonight is one step away from having his 858 billion tax compromise with the tea bags and hence it shall be the law of the land. Currently at this hour the only one whom can stop this is Nancy Pelosi.

I know that there are different aspects of this plan to which members of congress on both sides of the aisle object, that's the nature of compromise. Congress needs to work hard to negotiate an agreement that's a win for the middle-class families and a win for our economy, we cannot afford to let this to fall victim to either delay or defeat, so we at NFTOS urge members of congress to not take this vote lightly, and do not pass these tax cuts "as swiftly as possible", as recommended by President Obama.

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell is warning, the house, "you better not tinker with this bill." If this agreement is "not subject to being real," then we have an understanding, and NFTOS hopes that our friends in the house will understand that the best way to go forward with this bill is to simply not pass the senate bill.

This take-it-or-leave-it mentality that the senate has with this bill has a lot of folks over on the house side angrier than ever, however house democrats want to change the inheritance take giveaway. Now by law, the estate tax would go back to a million dollars, tax free, and the balance taxed at 55%, and the republican compromise takes it up to $5 million and the rest of the rate would go to 35%. Today's lop sided senate vote and new polling is really putting enormous pressure on Nancy Pelosi, and house members to get this bill through the house. MSNBC, and the Wall Street Journal polls show that 59% of Americans support the deal, and only 36% disapprove. So what's it mean? NFTOS is a 36 percenter tonight readers. NFTOS will never trust the republicans when it comes to tax cuts.

NFTOS is absolutely convinced that this tax cut plan will not help grow our economy and create jobs in the private sector.

Americans are getting the bum rush, as this bill spends a trillion dollars, that's $3,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. All of this is being forced through without a hearing, without a markup, without even a study of its economic effects. This is the bum rush, and we at NFTOS are not happy about it.

Okay readers, if you don't grasp anything else about what is going on with this whole bend over and take it mentality, let us sum it up for you. Between the tax cuts and the spending bill, congress is about to dump $2 trillion on your kid's credit cards without so much as a hearing, no markup, no CBO score, no economic forecast, its take it or leave it. Well, actually, it's a government takeover.

Now if we travel back to the health care debate. how long did that last, 15 months? How many committees did it have to go through? Five, and a reconciliation vote as well.

The righties are getting exactly what they want. They're getting the top 2% tax cuts and they are getting the time frame that they want, and they're getting the estate tax giveaway.

This is not a democratic process. Americans now have a gun held to their heads, speaking from a liberal perspective. What makes these tea bags tick? Is it the pollution in Washington, is it the special potion, or the kool-aid they drink?

This readers is your basic government takeover. By not going through the legislative process, by not going through the due diligence, not doing the CBO scoring to tell us exactly how and where this is all going to turn out. This is know different than a urban gangsta going to the local choke and puke to commit a strong hold robbery.

Democrats constantly go out on the campaign trail and tell the American people that their really concerned about the deficit, that their really concerned about the next generation. The deficit reduction commission will soon become the "kill the social security crowd", and "the kill the Medicare crowd", to which Americans have already paid for these programs.

This is an a-typical example of what a real government takeover is all about. Hell, it's only $2 trillion. This is not the way our democracy is supposed to work, this is not fair, and we are being held hostage. I don't think hostage is a strong enough word. Maybe sacrificial lamb, token dumb ass, bozo, droll, fool, harlequin, jester, joker, merry-andrew, are more suited for the middle class progressive society.

Congressman Jerry Nader is quoted as saying "they're acting like gangsters because they're saying it in effect to us and to the country, yeah a very nice middle-class tax cut here, pity if anything should happen to it, and if you don't extend the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires we'll kill the middle-class tax cut. that's blackmail, that's extortion."

What should be the liberal progressives response be to this bullying?

Stand strong and lay down some lines. We cannot hold the working and middle class hostage. Its obvious we lost out President on November second. We at NFTOS don't think anyone should trust politicians or fall in love with politicians. It's about accountability politics, and it's up to progressives moving forward to create the conditions, organize, mobilize, drive ideas into the debate. NFTOS thinks we need a whole new tax debate in this country, and a new tax system that is fairer, simpler, which rewards the real working stiff, and its imperative that the president come forward at state the union with this. We the progressives have to push him do this, lay it out and fight for it. Politicians need to be held accountable for the rhetoric they spew while on the campaign trail. We need different debates in this country, we're not being served well as citizens or as a democracy. At present, current debates, republican hostage taking, and republican extortion are unacceptable conditions that we're living with under a Republican regime. And it only gets worse come January 2011.

Our Presidents has turned yellow and superficial. His new mentality is too let the tail wag the dog. Of  late, he has certainly shown us that he is not a man of his words or convictions.

Economists state that growth forecasts might reach one percentage point in 2011 based on the tax measures being passed, (Whoopee bull farts) and deficit watchers fear that the tax bill deepens the nearly $14 trillion federal debt, which soon will be in a insurmountable deep spiral into a encumbrance of hell.

Hopefully Nancy Pelosi is wearing her man-ty-hose and does the right thing here, hopefully she has found the testis that our President lost many months ago.

Do the right thing here House Democrats, for if not, our grand babies shall certainly never have a chance at the American dream.





NFTOS

What Does It Take To Be A RNC Chair

"The Michael Steel Experiment"



That giant groaning and moaning sound you hear is the Republicans reacting to the surprise news that Michael Steele is running for reelection as chairman of the Republican National Committee.

To most coherent humans, Steele's defiant obstruction to the chair is defying all logic, sensibility, and political acuteness, and Michael Steele isn't going away quietly. Despite earlier rumors to the contrary, the embattled Republican National Committee chairman told a conference call of GOP officials Monday that he will seek another term as RNC chair.

"Yes, I have stumbled along the way, but have always accounted to you for such shortcomings," Steele said, per a prepared statement obtained by Politico's Mike Allen. "No excuses, no lies, no hidden agenda."

The RNC chairman spent nearly a half-hour defending his tenure, trashing critics who talked "smack" about his troubled fund-raising efforts. He urged GOP officials not to "look backwards" and to allow him to "finish" the job he'd started. "Our work is not done," Steele said. "My commitment has not ended."

Yet Steele faces a tough road ahead in what is an increasingly crowded RNC chair race. Already, five Republicans are vying to replace him, while another two are eying the race. An informal survey last month of voting RNC members by the Associated Press's Phil Elliott found that most oppose a second term for Steele.

Steel is a buffoon or epic proportions and is certainly not exclusive when it comes to tripping over his tongue.



Michael Stephen Steele (born October 19, 1958) is the chairman of the Republican National Committee, bizzarro Barack Obama, former lieutenant Governor of Maryland, and Fox News contributor.

Steele is seemingly the next model in a recent line of inept Republican officials who have risen to power simply because they are seen as an antidote to a major democratic candidate rather than being something unhelpful like, say, a strong advocate for their constituents positions.

Through his frequent use of "slang" and attempts to appeal to urban youth, it is unclear if Steele is actually an African-American holding a high office in the Republican Party or just trying to be what most Republicans officials imagined an African-American holding a high office in the Republican Party would look like.

In either case, Steele is ironically a poor man's Barack Obama who was created for the rich man's political party, making him like the sharper image of American politics.



After obtaining a Jurist Doctorate, Steele becoming a corporate lawyer, Steele then failed the Maryland bar exam. He also went on to run a failed legal consulting firm. This would become a pattern for the lose lips sink ships harlequin gangsta called Michael Steele.

It was around this time that Steele realized his potential as a political pawn was far more promising than his career in corporate law and he decided to begin working for the Maryland Republican party.

In what must have been a scene out of a Mel Brooks film, Maryland state party officials were most likely dumbstruck upon first meeting Steele, but quickly guided him up the ranks until he was nominated as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. Unfortunately, unlike most actors in Mel Brooks films, Steele did not disappear to never be heard from again.

In September 2002 during a governors' debate, Steele and others reported that Oreo cookies were tossed on to the stage in a tasteless display of racism. Some opponents claim that no Oreos were actually found, while others argue that the disrupters were instead using them to antagonize his gubernatorial opponent.

Steele was elected to two terms as Maryland's Lieutenant Governor, becoming the state's first African-American statewide elected official while simultaneously being it's least qualified. This marked the first time that both opponents and supporters of affirmative action had the opportunity to be outraged about the same thing.

In 2006, Steele ran unsuccessfully for the Senate with the help of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

At the 2008 Republican Convention, one of Steele's first major acts as a national public tea bag, was to introduce one of the most irritating political cheers in American history: "Drill baby, drill." In an interesting turn of events, this phrase would later be chanted by legions of Sarah Palin supporters in a frightening display that would reaffirm why most black people wanted nothing to do with the Republican Party.

The ability to incite white people in cowboy hats to angry chanting and the inability to understand the nuance of a global energy crisis being major qualification for the position, Steele decided to run for chairmanship of the Republican National committee. Steele refuted critics by saying, "I am a Republican who happens to be African-American," which brought the total number of individuals believing that to one .



After the political success of Barack Obama, the GOP decided to capitalize on the trend and promote the only guy who looked like Obama that they could find to be the head of their party, Michael Steele. These events have led many to wonder what would have happened if the Democrats had a major female presidential candidate and the Republicans then decided to promote an unqualified woman to—oh wait, enter Sarah Palin.

Soon after his election, Steele immediately went on the offensive, declaring he would give the GOP a "hip-hop makeover." One of his first orders of business was to go on every talk show and newspaper possible and use phrases like "off the hook" for his campaign strategy and "bling bling" for his opposition to the stimulus package. There is some debate as to whether this was to lure young African-Americans to the party or simply to remind everybody of his ethnicity, but one thing has been determined: this strategy is less appropriately likened to Newt Gingrich's Contract with America than it is to the first time you heard your mom say "talk to the hand."

The argument that Steele is simply trying to appeal to a younger, hipper audience in these interviews has led many to question what the exact circulation of The Washington Times is in "the hood."

With Republican funds in short supply after the 2008 election, Steele decided that it would be a perfect time to remodel his entire RNC office. It is currently unclear if it is the energy platform or the economic platform that requires having a bowflex for the office.

During his first embattled month on the job, Steele guest hosted the William Bennett radio show. In addition to attempting to draw connections between the Obama and Nixon administrations as well as referring to Benito Mussolini as "Roberto Mussolini" (a common mistake among people who skipped 10th grade history), he also claimed that there's no such thing as global warming and that instead we're in a period of "global cooling." Not content merely being in the minority of scientists and school children, he went on to explain that Greenland is called that for a reason, an error that could have been avoided simply by paying attention to that woman from Iceland's dialogue in D2: The Mighty Ducks.

Though it's easy to say Steele was not initially aware of all the intricacies of Republican strategy, it became immediately clear that he had not even read the memo of what his party's been about for the last 10 years.

Among his first orders of business were stating that abortion should be a woman's choice and that homosexuality is something you're born with. Initially, this could be mistaken for an individual trying to advance a dying party into the 21st century. But that would only be the case if the individual were pretty much anyone who is not Michael Steele.

Steele also confounded everyone by declaring that Rush Limbaugh was not the de facto leader of the party and that Limbaugh's show was "incendiary" and "ugly." Unfortunately, this major, noteworthy statement was delivered on D.L. Hughley Breaks the News, which is the Meet the Press of Saturday evening, comedy-news shows no one even knew existed.

But such clearheaded, on-par-with-the-majority-of-the-country thought can only be short lived at the RNC, and Steele quickly apologized for all of these remarks, clarifying: "Words that I said weren't what I was thinking. It was one of those things where I was thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently."

NFTOS will leave you the readers with some Steele points to ponder:

- Steele has said that he likes old school hip-hop like "P. Diddy" as well as the Dean Martin and the "Pack Rats," proving that in addition to being unable to live up to the hype of his chairmanship, he cannot effectively live up to the hype of the two stereotyped constituencies he's trying to appeal to.

- He has claimed that his gaffes are all "strategic." Many observers of this unique stratagem are anxious to discover where screwing up Mussolini's first name fits in.

- Joe the Plumber has been an outspoken critic of Steele, though that could be because he's still trying fit together the words "black" and "republican" in a context that is not followed by "walk into a bar."

- Steele once declared he offered "some slum love" to Bobby Jindal, which is either an incredibly poor formed Slumdog Millionaire reference or a semi-severe venereal disease one might contract at a Cincinnati massage parlor.

Its a great thing for Democrats that Steele seeks a second term as the RNC. He is the card that completes a inside straight.

Steele's (King) suit flushes in well with the likes of fellow axis of idiots, (Ace) Sarah Palin, (Queen) Christine O'Donnell, (Jack) Sharon Angle, and (Ten) Michelle Bachmann.

Lets hope Steele is elected in before the Republicans find that brain they have been seeking, as ousting this king know-nothing would a be a travesty to future political fodder.



NFTOS

Virginia Court Ruling "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

For hundreds of years Virginians have been trying to succeed from something. Failing to be the first to succeed from the Union in 1860-61 during pre-civil war era has left a bitter taste in those born and bred from the state . Virginian Edmund Ruffin was the first to fire a shot during the civil war in on April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m at Fort Sumter, which was a claim to fame many Virginians wanted.

Virginia today is know different than 149 years ago, as it the first state trying to distance itself, or succeed from Presidents Obama's health care reform plan. As a resident of the state for over 36 years, I can tell you that this is not the first time the state has had an ass backwards mentality to how rules, regulations, laws, and the U.S. constitution applies to its daily life.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on March 23, 2010,filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the Constitutionality of the federal health care bill passed on March 21, claiming that it exceeded the Federal government's power under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

Today at 12:49 pm Virginia federal district judge Henry Hudson ruled that the Affordable Care Act’s individual requirement to purchase health care coverage violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, but did not issue an injunction baring enforcement of the provision. “The power of Congress to regulate a class of activities that in the aggregate has a substantial and direct effect on interstate commerce is well settled,” Judge Henry Hudson a George W. Bush appointee writes in the ruling, before adding, “but these regulatory powers are triggered by some type of self-initiated action”.

Virginia's Attorney General Cuccinelli is already using today's ruling to raise money for future campaigns, as within hours of Judge Henry E. Hudson’s decision that the individual mandate portion of the health care law is unconstitutional, a celebratory Cuccinelli ad appeared on the Drudge Report asking supporters to sign his anti-Obamcare petition — and donate to Cuccinelli’s campaign war chest.

Since his election in 2009, Cuccinelli has become a hero to the witless Tea Party fanatics, as well as a bogeyman to the left, for taking hard-line stances against health care reform, climate change research, and gay rights. His conservative crusades have garnered plenty of press attention, making him the highest profiled attorney general in the country, and thus setting the stage for a gubernatorial campaign in 2013.

Like judge Hudson, Cuccnelli's is not shameful of, or exclusive to controversy. Cuccinelli's less than formidable background includes:

- Campaign contributions controversy - Cuccinelli has been criticized for his handling of $55,500 in campaign contributions from Bobby Thompson.
- Utility regulation - Cuccinelli previously worked as an energy industry lobbyist, the Attorney Generals Office continues to represent the public interest in rate cases before the State Corporation Commission.
- Female breast on Virginia seal - Cuccinelli was against the state seal showing a bare breast, the breast of Roman Goddess Virtus which was adopted in 1776. He has since recanted his buffoonery on this issue.
- Using kill health care reform for his pulpit for campaign funds for his bid to be Virginia's next Governor.

Other controversies by VA AG are: extradition of Jens Soering to Germany, Cyberbullying, and Usury.

The "FAIR" Judge that ruled today has many claims and links to right wing extremism. Why didn't this judge rescues himself from this decision, when he has both ties to the states attorney General, and too the political party that opposes the bill? This "fair" judge owns a Republican strategy firm that has fought against health care reform since its inception, and AG Ken Cuccinelli gave nine thousand dollars to this firm. Hmmmm.

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

The reoccurring theme that everything not of the Republican way is always "unconstitutional" certainly reigns loud and clear here.

At the very least Cuccinelli and the little less than fair judge are guilty of conflicts of interest for supporting the Republican platform against health care reform. As a resident of Virginia I tell you that I am not surprised by the judges, nor the AG's actions. Should Americans be surprised, no, should they ever resided in the land of hillbillies and rednecks, they would see yet more of the same from the good ole boys by the good ole boys.

American diplomats cry foul with Chinese rule of law, and yet we can't get two tea baggers to keep their hands out of the political cookie jar.

Most honest Americans will deduce correctly that coercion and other illegal unethical laws apply her as well.

To be sure, the legal fight is far from over. Hudson’s ruling will be appealed to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and may even end up before the Supreme Court. Appeals are also pending in other circuits and a federal judge will hear arguments Thursday in a challenge brought by a coalition of 20 state attorneys general led by Florida’s Bill McCollum (R).

This lawsuit is an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government -- which is nothing new when dealing with right wing extremism.

We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act - constitutional challenges were brought to all three of these monumental pieces of legislation, and all of those challenges failed, so too will the challenge to health reform.

Let it be known that to date, two previous judges ruled that Obamacare is "constitutional".

President Obama commented after the ruling saying "Keep in mind this is one ruling by one federal district court. We've already had two federal district courts that have ruled that this is definitely constitutional," Obama said. "You've got one judge who disagreed. That's the nature of these things."

After the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House in 1865, the fiery Southerner (Edmund Ruffin) penned these last words in his diary:

"I here declare my unmitigated hatred to Yankee rule—to all political, social and business connection with the Yankees and to the Yankee race. Would that I could impress these sentiments, in their full force, on every living Southerner and bequeath them to every one yet to be born! May such sentiments be held universally in the outraged and down-trodden South, though in silence and stillness, until the now far-distant day shall arrive for just retribution for Yankee usurpation, oppression and atrocious outrages, and for deliverance and vengeance for the now ruined, subjugated and enslaved Southern States!"

We at NFTOS emit and transmit Ruffin's sentiments to the Republican establishment.

50 million Americans are without health care readers. Not having health care is a serious risk to our national fiber and backbone. Many small companies cannot afford to provide health care, and if they did provide it they would be out of business. The number of uninsured adults in the United States continues to rise, with 1 in 4 adults under 65 reporting they were without health insurance at some point in this year.

Among middle-income adults — those earning two to three times the poverty level, or between $43,000 and $65,000 a year for a family of four — 1 in 3 were without insurance for some part of this year. Overall, 59.1 million Americans of all ages had no health insurance for at least part of the year before their interview, up from 58.7 million in 2009 and 56.4 million in 2008.

This data allows us to debunk two myths about health care coverage, the first myth is that only the poor are uninsured, as half of the uninsured are over the poverty level.

The second myth, is that “it’s only healthy people who are uninsured — that young people are healthy and make a choice not to be insured.” In fact, two of every of five people without insurance during the year had at least one chronic condition, like diabetes, hypertension, or asthma, and were far more likely than insured people to go without care they needed.

UNACCEPTABLE America!

Pass health care reform now, and ensure during the next Virginia voting session that Ken Cuccinelli is a "one term" Attorney General.

Post Script - Every Republican congressman and woman should be forced by law to "opt out" of Government provided health care!



NFTOS

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Just Argue

Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the term commonly used for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers or applicants, while barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. The restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). The policy prohibits people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." (10 U.S.C. § 654(b)) The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specifies that service members who disclose they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct shall be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" (10 U.S.C. § 654(e)).

As it exists, DADT specifies that the "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though credible and articulable evidence of homosexual behavior may cause an investigation. Violations of this aspect through unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women resulted in the policy's current formulation as "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass."

Efforts to repeal the policy, in effect since 1993, have increased since the election of President Barack Obama, who advocated a full repeal during his election campaign. In 2010 the House of Representatives passed a bill that would repeal the relevant sections of the law, but this measure was stalled in the Senate.
In the autumn of 2010, a federal district court judge declared the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy unconstitutional and issued an injunction prohibiting the Department of Defense from enforcing or complying with the policy. The appellate court stayed the injunction pending appeal; thus Don't Ask, Don't Tell remains in effect. On November 12, the US Supreme Court declined to overturn the stay.

Public opinion polls have been widely varied in their results. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants don't oppose openly gay people from serving in the military. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 64% of Republicans – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.

April 2009 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that 48% of Americans approved of the DADT policy, 8% believed that the policy was too lenient on gays, while 37% believed that the policy was too harsh.

February 2010 Quinnipiac University national poll shows 57% of American voters favor gays serving openly, compared to 36% opposed, and 66% say the current policy of not allowing openly gay personnel to serve is discrimination, opposed to 31% who see no discrimination. A CBS News/New York Times national poll done at the same time shows 58% of Americans favor gays serving openly, compared to 28% opposed. A November 2010 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 58 percent of the American public favors permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military, while less than half that number (27 percent) are opposed. According to a November 2010 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll 72% of adult Americans favor permitting people who are openly gay or lesbian to serve in the military, while 23 % oppose it. "The main difference between the CNN poll and the Pew poll is in the number of respondents who told pollsters that they didn't have an opinion on this topic - 16 percent in the Pew poll compared to only five percent in the CNN survey," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The two polls report virtually the same number who say they oppose gays serving openly in the military, which suggests that there are some people who favor that change in policy but for some reason were reluctant to admit that to the Pew interviewers. That happens occasionally on topics where moral issues and equal-treatment issues intersect."

Since the policy was introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT. The number of discharges per fiscal year under DADT dropped sharply after the September 11 attacks and has remained comparatively low since. Discharges exceeded 600 every year until 2009.
With the Bradley Manning case (Gay soldier whom stole documents and passed them to Julian Assange and Wikileaks) exhibiting viral status, many might make the challenge that gays do not belong in the military, but most, if not all of American traitors have been of the heterosexual variety. So we can't invoke all gays are traitors, at least in the literal sense.
In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office released estimates on the cost of the policy. Cautioning that the amount may be too low, the GAO reported $95.4 million in recruiting costs and $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003.

The DADT bill failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to reach the Senate floor for debate. The vote failed 57-40. Many Tea bags whom are, or where for repealing DADT voting against the bill because earlier this week Democrats failed to pass the Bush tax cuts, even after Obama disgorged his anger for the left to pass the Bush taxes. While Thursday's vote wasn't strictly on the merits of repealing the policy, reconsideration is highly unlikely this year because of the limited time and the Senate's full agenda of tax cuts, government funding, and perhaps the New START nuclear arms treaty. Clearly the axis of idiots will block any and all until these Bush taxes are extended. This vote is a major setback for President Obama and other Democrats who sought a legislative reversal of the 17-year-old policy.

Arguing amongst congress in nothing new. With much on the table, these knockdown exchanges between parties only exacerbates an already discombobulated country.

While 99.6% of Americans suffer, Republicans argue over .393% of population. There are only approximately 1.18 Million people that earned $250,000 or more in 2009. Reiterating that's only .393% of the US population!!

These tax cuts WILL NOT create jobs. All issues and bills are separate from each other and should be treated as such. Holding these bills hostage, and for that matter the country because the left is not for these cretinous extensions are ludicrous and asinine at best. The Democrats are only asking the rich, less than 1% of Americans to pay an additional 4.6%, from 35% up to 39.6%!

DADT is only one of many bills being held up by the axis of idiots, and it appears this dust shall only settle when the majority of rancid tea bags rule the roost in January.

The laundry list of those effected by this stonewalling is astronomical, gays, military, wasted tax funds, the unemployed, the list is never ending.

President Obama needs to honor his plethora of commitments to those whom voted him into office. DADT should be the first on his bucket list!





NFTOS

PUBLIC CORRUPTION AT ITS BEST

Roger is ill today so enjoy a blog from our pals at Thinkprogress.

To many Americans, Washington is fundamentally broken. While corporations enjoy record profits and executives reward themselves with million-dollar bonuses, lobbyists have gamed the system so corporate behemoths like ExxonMobil and GE pay zero corporate income taxes. During the economic crisis, with high unemployment and stagnant wages, middle class Americans seem to be bearing the sacrifices. Riding a wave of this popular discontent, Republicans won a historical congressional election this year by channeling anger against “Beltway insiders” and Washington corruption.

Perhaps to the surprise of many Tea Party populists who helped elect them, the Washington Post reports, “Many incoming GOP lawmakers have hired registered lobbyists as senior aides. Several of the candidates won with strong support from the anti-establishment tea party movement.” These lobbyists are not public servants. They are experts at carving out special deals and tax giveaways to powerful corporations:

– Rep.-elect Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) selected lobbyist Tim Harris as his chief of staff. Harris works as lobbyist for a trade association representing the shareholders of energy companies like American Electric Power, Duke Energy, NiSource, Vectren.

– Rep.-elect Mike Pompeo (R-KS) selected Mark Chenowerth as his chief of staff. Chenowerth previously worked as a lawyer on the lobbying team for Koch Industries, the conglomerate owned by Charles and David Koch. As ThinkProgress reported early this year, Pompeo was groomed for office by Koch Industries-run front groups, and has served as an executive for Koch Industries oil company subsidiaries.

– Rep.-elect Robert Dold (R-IL) selected corporate lobbyist Eric Burgeson as his chief of staff. Burgeson works for the lobbying firm BGR Holdings serving business clients in China, the coal industry, and a nuclear company.

– Rep.-elect Chip Cravaack (R-MN) selected corporate lobbyist Rod Grams as his chief of staff. Grams works for a lobbying firm called Hecht, Spencer, and Associates where he represents 3M, Norfolk Southern and the Financial Services Roundtable, the trade association for the country’s largest banks.

– Rep.-elect Krisi Noem (R-SD) selected Jordon Stoick as her chief of staff. Stoick is a vice president at the lobbying firm Direct Impact. Direct Impact also specializes in building public support for corporate causes, boasting on its website that it once generated hundreds of letters to the FCC on behalf of the telecom industry.

– Rep.-elect Jeff Denham (R-CA) selected corporate lobbyist Jason Larrabee as his chief of staff. Larrabee is the founder of his own lobbying firm.

– Sen.-elect Pat Toomey (R-PA) selected former corporate lobbyist Chris Gahan as his chief of staff. Gaham previously worked at the lobbying firm Latham and Watkins.

– Rep.-elect Steve Pearce (R-NM) selected Todd Willens as his chief of staff. Willens is a lobbyist at Vitello Consulting, a firm that represents a number of interests, including a casino.

– Sen.-elect Charlie Bass (R-NH) selected lobbyist John Billings as his chief of staff. Billings is a lobbyist for a food marketing and whole sale trade association.

– Rep.-elect Chris Gibson (R-NY) selected Steve Stallmer as his chief of staff. Stallmer is a lobbyist for the Associated General Contractors of New York State.

– Sen.-elect Ron Johnson (R-WI) selected Don Kent as his chief of staff. Kent is a lobbyist for the firm Navigators Global. Navigators Global represents AT&T, CitiGroup, and other major corporations.

– Sen.-elect Mike Lee (R-UT) selected lobbyist Spencer Strokes as his chief of staff. Lee is one of the most prominent corporate lobbyists in Utah, representing clients from the private prison industry to the nuclear industry.

– Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) selected anti-union lobbyist Douglas Stafford for his chief of staff. Stafford is the vice president of the National Right to Work Committee.

These Republican lawmakers, many of whom cast themselves as insurgents, are linking their professional decisions into the corporate establishment of influence peddling. Congressional chiefs of staff are often in charge of helping members make pivotal decisions, like which positions to take on public debates, how to vote on pieces of legislation, and of course, how to use your votes to raise money for your re-election.

As the Washington Post reported last weekend, freshmen “Tea Party” Republicans have already ingratiated themselves into the cocktail culture of K Street. Dozens of freshmen Republicans have crowded into near-daily fundraisers, parties, and high-priced dinners hosted by corporate lobbyists. Already undercutting a promise to wean themselves off earmark giveaways to corporate interests, the new Republican Chairman of the Appropriations Committee is leaning towards hiring a defense industry lobbyist as the committee chief of staff

"OPERATION PAYBACK"

Today America and the world are engage in a war which is in unprecedented territory, that of which is in uncharted waters . While we have had a few "political" Internet wars which normally represent a bar fight which has been taken to the streets.

Politically motivated attacks reach back at least as far as 2001, when a U.S. Navy plane landed on Hainan Island in China. A Chinese hacking group named "Honker Union" attacked U.S. websites in the days that followed.

These the tit for tat attacks against Wikileaks and those whom support Assange have a colossal chance to bring this street brawl to a planetary viral cyber war,should things continue to escalate.

Today while the 'court jester' (Julian Assange) stayed in jail, his followers and fellow hackers rushed to his defense and attacked feverishly in the cyber world. Undoubtedly Assange had a detailed premeditated process for what to do in his absence or of his demise.

Internet "hacktivists" operating under the label "Operation Payback" claimed responsibility in a Twitter message for causing severe technological problems at the website for MasterCard, Visa, and a Swiss bank which pulled the plug on its relationship with WikiLeaks a day ago.



Per Hellqvist, a security specialist with the firm Symantec, said a network of web activists called Anonymous — to which Operation Payback is affiliated — appeared to be behind many of the attacks. The group, which has previously focused on the Church of Scientology and the music industry, is knocking offline websites seen as hostile to Assange and WikiLeaks.

Operation Payback said today "While we don't have much of an affiliation with WikiLeaks, we fight for the same reasons," the group said in a statement. "We want transparency and we counter censorship ... we intend to utilize our resources to raise awareness, attack those against and support those who are helping lead our world to freedom and democracy."

Julian Assanges' hacking career goes deep as in 1987, after turning 16, Assange began hacking under the name "Mendax" (derived from a phrase of Horace: "splendide mendax," or "nobly untruthful"). He and two other hackers joined to form a group which they named the International Subversives. Assange wrote down the early rules of the subculture: "Don’t damage computer systems you break into (including crashing them); don’t change the information in those systems (except for altering logs to cover your tracks); and share information".

In response to the hacking, the Australian Federal Police raided his Melbourne home in 1991. He was reported to have accessed computers belonging to an Australian university, the Canadian telecommunications company Nortel, and other organizations, via modem. In 1992, he pleaded guilty to 24 charges of hacking and was released on bond for good conduct after being fined AU$2100. The prosecutor said "there is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what's the expression—surf through these various computers".

Assange later commented, "It's a bit annoying, actually. Because I co-wrote a book about [being a hacker], there are documentaries about that, people talk about that a lot. They can cut and paste. But that was 20 years ago. It's very annoying to see modern day articles calling me a computer hacker. I'm not ashamed of it, I'm quite proud of it. But I understand the reason they suggest I'm a computer hacker now. There's a very specific reason."

The attacks are being conducted with a tool called "LOIC." Which allows a volunteer to simply enter the name of a website to join an attack. The volunteer’s Internet connection is then routed through a "command and control" server, which amplifies the number of requests being sent to the target website from that volunteer's computer, eventually overwhelming the Web server.

LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon) is a network stress testing application, written in C# and developed by "praetox". It attempts a denial-of-service attack on the target site by flooding the server with TCP packets, UDP packets, or HTTP requests with the intention of disrupting the service of a particular host.

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

NFTOS Editor in Chief Roger West who is CISSP {Certified Information System Security Professional} certified, estimates that it took about 5,000 volunteers to topple MasterCard today.

The pro-WikiLeaks vengeance campaign on Wednesday appeared to be taking the form of the destructive cyber war tool for hackers titled "denial-of-service attack"

DoS attack or distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS attack) which is an attempt to make a computer resource unavailable to its intended users. Although the means to carry out, motives for, and targets of a DoS attack may vary, it generally consists of the concerted efforts of a person or people to prevent an Internet site or service from functioning efficiently or at all, temporarily or indefinitely. Perpetrators of DoS attacks typically target sites or services hosted on high-profile web servers such as banks, credit card payment gateways, and even root nameservers. The term is generally used with regards to computer networks, but is not limited to this field.

which are considered violations of the IAB's Internet proper use policy, and also violate the acceptable use policies of virtually all Internet service providers. They also commonly constitute violations of the laws of individual nations. Often DoS attacks computers that are harnessed — sometimes surreptitiously — to jam target sites with mountains of requests for data, knocking them out of commission.

It should be know surprise that the cyber attack community is siding with Assange. Surely the "Operation Payback" clan has several copies of Assanges" book on their shelves. “Underground: Tales of Hacking.” Assange is no dummy when it comes to computers and programming as in

1993, Assange was involved in starting one of the first public internet service providers in Australia, Suburbia Public Access Network. Starting in 1994, Assange lived in Melbourne as a programmer and a developer of free software. In 1995, Assange wrote Strobe, the first free and open source port scanner. He contributed several patches to the PostgreSQL project in 1996. Starting around 1997, he co-invented the Rubberhose deniable encryption system, a cryptographic concept made into a software package for Linux designed to provide plausible deniability against rubber-hose cryptanalysis; he originally intended the system to be used "as a tool for human rights workers who needed to protect sensitive data in the field." Other free software that he has authored or co-authored includes the Usenet caching software NNTP Cache and Surfraw, a command-line interface for web-based search engines.

Futurist have worried for years about the coming era of cyber wars. The future has now arrived. Former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke has written a recent book on the topic, warning of the prospect of a "cyber Pearl Harbor." The future of cyber war is likely to be as asymmetric as the future of conventional war.

This all out cyber war runs deep with emotions, and runs the full gambit of US and international law. Assange and fellow hackers have surrendered their moral high ground a long time ago. Twitter, Facebook, Sarah Palin, and PayPal are said to be next on the hit list of cyber ground attacks.

Cablegate and Assange are devolving into a "Wiki-War". The WikiLeaks - Wikiwar drama is indeed a cyber war. The cyber arms war race underway now is almost irreversible, and maybe Nations and organizations need to create "cyber war treaties". With Assange in jail, the cyber world can only expect these attacks to escalate. As online attacks become more frequent, the price of cyber security will continue to rise in the cat and mouse game hackers continue to play with each other.

Wiki War is a true and pure indication of how technology will play an increasingly central role in future conflicts.

NFTOS expects a laundry list of targets. "They'll research security vulnerabilities on a website. They've defaced websites in the past so we expect to see all sorts of things coming in the future."



Footnote: U.S. agencies have warned some employees that reading the classified State Department documents released by WikiLeaks puts them at risk of losing their jobs. U.S. colleges warn students to not comment on, post links to WikiLeaks on social media sites saying that statements may affect chances of getting security clearance for government jobs.



NFTOS

Had Enough Tea Yet?

The Tea Party, a loosely organized but still scabby collection of pasty lower middle class white people with a penchant toward material excess (without the material attributes). Their intelligence quota stems from incessant and relentless 60 second TV sound bytes primarily emanating from an ideologically driven, half witted pundits exclusively airing on Faux News.

They advertise a strict constitutional interpretation of laws except where:
they don’t like it or
they find it deplorable or
their lack of education hinders them from interpreting anything

Their political ideology adamantly refutes “liberalism” as a divisive, take what you need and leave the rest ideology. Right wing extremisms moral fiber should be a survival of the economically fittest, Wall Street tested, limited government, puritanically religious, big fish eat little fish cesspool of a society that simmers daily on a potpourri of the relatively few haves and the predominate majority of have not's.


Promotion of Christian values plays well with this crowd. God never ordained this country to be anything but freedom loving, tolerant and prayerful. In practice however, Tea Partiers embrace dogma, intolerance and a version of truth not especially warmed by any available facts. There is no room for democracy in Christianity and, by the Founders’ wishes and careful tradition, little, if any, Christian screed should exist in our democracy. Jesus, according to Biblical reports, never sanctioned second amendment rights and wasn’t especially fond of radical racial extremists.

Since a plethora of these self espoused political bigots are often uneducated, low income information voters dependent on their Medicare, social security payments, their hypocrisy, political narcissism, and philosophical inversions reach only those who possess anti-eclectic thought processes, sporadic and inconclusive educations, and an intrepid desire to screw anyone who has failed to aspire to the success implicit in the ideology of the axis of idiots.

The lessons here are invaluable. If Democrats ( liberals, progressives and socially conscious individuals) are not willing to fight for the society they want, they had better learn too like the society they get. This will consist of an ingrained aristocracy, and a protector of an apoplectic dogma, a legal miasma that poisons everyone it touches and a system of government that casts its fate, finally and forever, to a ruling class not far removed from the concepts of Aleister Crowley and Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.

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

I do believe that if BROCK had gone the distance with this “chicken crap” fight that the Republican know nothings would have fell limp. Progressives tend to be fairly flaccid overall, and Mr. President you now have our attention.

With America and the world focused on Wikileaks and its "cablegate" chronicle, Americans lost sight that our President caved in and appeased the right by "compromising" on the Bush tax cuts. Something clearly that he was opposed too while running for office.

Tea parties have derailed Obama's plan for policy, especially when it comes to lining the pockets of the rich. Obama for his capitulation receives 13 months of extended unemployment. The rich keep the money, the poor spend it. If you want to infuse the economy Mr. President, one has to understand how to inculcate money to the recession for it to recover.

Tan man Boehner stated prior to the midterms that he would vote for tax for the middle class only "if he had too". Displaying your anger at your news conference today towards those whom voted in you was, and is, blasphemy at its best.

We at NFTOS are not disloyal to you Mr. President, but we are bound to principle, and we are in self defense mode. If you can't stand up for the democrats, then whom can? Stand for what's right sir! Your hast to tamp down this error is "baseless" sir, and we expect better from you! Stand for the convictions that you ran on, direct your ire to those whom would rather see you as "a one term President".

How pure are your intentions, what is your measure to be a Democrat? This lapse of focus for staying the coarse is a barometer for which the tea bags will expose you too time and time again.

Let me be clear Mr. President, your actions today certainly points to you handing the Republicans the keys back to the car. This template for this new Obama run administration is not the direction we voted for in 2008.

Your political career is a stake here, and we progressives have had enough rancid TEA!


NFTOS