Your blogger
- News From The Other Side
- When Roger West first launched the progressive political blog "News From The Other Side" in May 2010, he could hardly have predicted the impact that his venture would have on the media and political debate. As the New Media emerged as a counterbalance to established media sources, Roger wrote his copious blogs about national politics, the tea party movement, mid-term elections, and the failings of the radical right to the vanguard of the New Media movement. Roger West's efforts as a leading blogger have tremendous reach. NFTOS has led the effort to bring accountability to mainstream media sources such as FOX NEWS, Breitbart's "Big Journalism. Roger's breadth of experience, engaging style, and cultivation of loyal readership - over 92 million visitors - give him unique insight into the past, present, and future of the New Media and political rhetoric that exists in our society today. What we are against: Radical Right Wing Agendas Incompetent Establishment Donald J. Trump Corporate Malfeasence We are for: Global and Econmoic Security Social and Economic Justice Media Accountability THE RESISTANCE
Saturday, February 5, 2011
10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan
Tomorrow will mark the 100th anniversary of President Reagan’s birth, and all week, conservatives have been trying to outdo each others’ remembrances of the great conservative icon. Senate Republicans spent much of Thursday singing Reagan’s praise from the Senate floor, while conservative publications have been running non-stop commemorations. Meanwhile the Republican National Committee and former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich are hoping to make few bucks off the Gipper’s centennial.
But Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to untie the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.
ThinkProgress has compiled a list of the top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan:
1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.
3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.
4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.
5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.
6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.
8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.
9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”
10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendency.
Conservatives seem to be in such denial about the less flattering aspects of Reagan; it sometimes appears as if they genuinely don’t know the truth of his legacy. Yesterday, when liberal activist Mike Stark challenged hate radio host Rush Limbaugh on why Reagan remains a conservative hero despite raising taxes so many times, Limbaugh flew into a tirade and demanded, “Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes?“
Brought to you by thinkprogress
NFTOS
Friday, February 4, 2011
GLENN BECK AND FAUX NEWS......USEFUL IDIOTS
Republican TV viewers have always searched for a leader and mentor whom could do the thinking for them. Whom do they find, Faux News' featured "Useful Idiot" and television's stupidest, AKA Glenn Beck-- How do we derive to this conclusion?
When he went searching for a religion after years of a drunken, drug-induced stupor he found just the right fit: Mormonism. The hook: he's honest about the fact the he's a self-loathing alcoholic and that he suffers from attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
While most sermonizing conservatives wait for a public debacle to expose their failings-- think of William Bennett and his slot-machine addiction, or Rush Limbaugh and his pill popping problem-- Beck and his many inner demons are on a first-name basis, and he's constantly introducing them to his viewers. His alcoholism is just part of it." Fact of the matter is, every time Beck opens his mouth his failings are exposed. His essential being is a failure. Faux News is simply trying to exploit the ridiculousness of the "C-list pundit" to make a few dollars.
Beck's moronic, and now notorious assertions that any all situations [are either a conspiracy, Nazism, and or total annihilation of the globe] have reached a fever pitch.
Low ratings and boycotts to Faux advertisers [to the Beck show] could be a few reasons for Beck's 27th personality to morph on TV. Beck’s opening monologues are always a jumble of ideas thrown together in a stream of consciousness shtick that conveniently avoids any logical arguments or theories.
Republicans, Glenn Beck, and Faux News must suffer from short term memory loss. Beck always manages to get some attention-- which, of course, is what he was looking for. Even the leather-winged shouting heads at Faux News look like intellectual giants next to this bleating, benighted Cassandra. It's like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.
Becks revelations and predictions mimic or ape those of Nostradamus.
Maybe an attention-deficit host is exactly what an attention-deficit public wants. Listen to a few of Beck's shows and what strikes you most is the enormous ratio of words to substance-- how Beck can monologue for minutes at a time and leave behind almost nothing except the impression of great vehemence.
What is irrational is the failure of conservatives and Republicans to perceive the divergence between Fox’s interests and their own. Republican leaders should have put a hundred miles between themselves and Glenn Beck the first day he began dwelling lovingly on the possibility of right-wing armed violence in the United States. It’s a little awkward to do so now: that would look like falling in step with the Obama administration’s contrivances. But party leaders should quietly urge anyone with an (R.) after his or her name to keep as far away as possible from this unwitting tool of Obama administration spin.
The Glenn Beck show in no way achieves those vitally important aims. Beck's type of "journalism" is dangerous and can have wide-ranging negative effects on society. The kind of material broadcast by Glenn Beck and Faux News is not unique; as a number of other extreme radical tea bags operate the air waves in this same manner as well [AKA Dana Loesch, Rush Limbaugh]. However, none has displayed intolerance on such a frequent and irresponsible scale as Glenn Beck.
If Glenn Beck were here today I would say to him: “Glenn Beck, you are a fear monger. You bring shame to our country, not because you lack balance, but because you are an unthinking buffoon. Rupert Murdoch tolerates you because you are his useful idiot. He uses you to get a foothold in the doors of the powerful. Like his phone-hacking journalists and his pugnacious leader-writers, you as well are expendable. Let us hope he disposes of your nasty brand of intolerance sooner rather than later.
"We , in America, are, often, not as forthright in calling out the curse on America that is Glenn Beck. Neither are we as forthcoming in calling out the cancer in America that is Rupert Murdoch. But, the truth is Glenn Beck is a very dangerous person, whether or not he means to be. His frequent, intellectually challenged, rants are red meat for his followers, who cannot seem to discriminate fact from unconnected ramblings and act on what he says. One has only to watch Beck’s supporters on Twitter to realize what is happening .. and it may just need a single match to ignite a deranged mind to act against those who are the victims of Beck’s rants."For example:
1: Beck has called President Obama a “racist” with a “deep seated hatred for white people”. he also has claimed that Obama’s agenda is designed to settle old racial scores.
2: Beck’s rants reportedly motivated Byron Williams, a California man, to assassinate workers at the Tides Foundation in San Francisco, a frequent target of Beck’s incredible claims that it is a center for left-wing plots against America.
3: Beck frequently tries to connect Obama and his administration to a dangerous group of left-wingers who live and work in the shadows.
Quick searches of Google and YouTube will give you a wealth of resources that illustrate Beck’s far-right conspiracy theories. They all seem to stem from his “guru”, Cleon Skousen, and from the philosophies of the John Birch Society. Often they seem to echo conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones.
Beck’s shows are permeated by paranoia and a constant, albeit subtle, incitement toward violence against the “enemies” who want to take down America, as he knows it, and replace it with a Marxist society. And here, Obama is always the enemy, ably assisted by a variety of Marxist/Communist/Socialist allies.
Here are a few quotes selected from the schizoids trunk of "useful idiots, a guide to insanity":
Hello, you sick twisted freak.
The Glenn Beck Program, Show Opener
Can you let your son's body become the same temperature as your son's head before you turn this into a political campaign against the president? Could you do that?
The Glenn Beck Program, Premiere Radio Networks, 2004-05-14
Comment on Michael Berg, the father of murdered American businessman Nicholas Berg
I find this guy [Michael Berg] despicable. Everything in me says that. The want to be a better person today than I was yesterday says he's a dad, he's grieving, but I don't buy that. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I think he is grieving, but I think he's a scumbag as well. I don't like this guy at all.
The Glenn Beck Program, Premiere Radio Networks, 2004-05-14
"Clear Channel radio host railed against Nick Berg's father, called him a "scumbag"", Media Matters, 2004-05-17
"Radio host who called Nick Berg's father "a scumbag" responded to MMFA report: "I think public opinion will grow closer and closer to mine"", Media Matters, 2004-05-18
Would you kill someone for that?...I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore...I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,...No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.
The Glenn Beck Program, Premiere Radio Networks, 2005-05-17
"Radio host Glenn Beck "thinking about killing Michael Moore"", Media Matters, 2005-05-18
Cindy Sheehan is a tragedy slut.
The Glenn Beck Program, Premiere Radio Networks, 2005-08-15
Reports show that death threats against President Obama are up around 400% more than against President George W. Bush. Beck cannot be blamed for all of this, but he feeds into the constant steam of vitriol and incandescence directed against Obama (and Democrats) by right-wing and far-right talking heads, bloggers, radio and TV hosts, and members of the GOP and Tea Bag Parties.
Beck says that he is a former alcoholic and drug addict, who also suffers from Attention Deficit disorder (ADD). Have these addictions been replaced by a “Messiah Complex”, or a need for adulation?
The problem I see is that Beck does not have to convince everyone who hears him to violence, but just one – just one nut. So, is Glenn Beck a curse on America? To most, he is, and too most he and Faux News are "Useful Idiots"
NFTOS
Thursday, February 3, 2011
‘You’re One Sick, Miserable, Evil SOB’
Sean Hannity Tells Controversial Imam:
Anyone interested in just seeing a conversation between two people who absolutely loathe the existence of one another will find enjoyment from witnessing the exchange of many memorable insults here. Choudary to Hannity: “you’re very immature, next time we can have a more decent conversation” and “your viewers will see through your lies and your propaganda.” Hannity returning fire: “you’re a bit of a coward” and “you’re one sick, miserable, evil SOB.”
Yet even on substance this shootout is really entertaining. It’s rare to see someone so confidently state, as Choudary does, that “Americans are the biggest criminals in the world today,” that he wants all of the Jewish people out of Israel, and that America’s version of “freedom” is not something desired by the rest of the world. Most terrifying though was a cryptic warning Choudary issues to Hannity that America should be “worried that Islam is coming to your backyard.”
Aside from an awkwardly long back-and-forth about who gets to ask the questions, Hannity was in rare Faux form here. Not because of his skewed unapologetic patriotism, which is certainly entertaining in the face of confrontation, but more specifically for exposing Choudary to a truly American ideal of a free society: opportunities to passionately and peacefully debate with those whom you disagree.
I have to tell you that I quit watching much on Faux News many months back after Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck heaped some scorn on the “birthers” (a pejorative term for people who would like to see some as-yet not released documented verification that President Obama is Constitutionally eligible to hold office). There are many reasons for not watching Faux, but this was the straw for me.
Just by happenstance did I catch the Hannity V Choudary lexical attack.
The icing on the cake would have been to see Hannity and Chouldary in a MTV death match.
NFTOS
WHERE IS EGYPT EXACTLY?
With Faux News laying claim to many things, one claim to fame that certainly resounds to be true is there infamous way of being very ignorant and misinformed.
Recently Faux News displayed the map above showing Egypt in the wrong location. Since, according to a recent poll, Fox is the most trusted name in news, it's essential that the network accurately show where important Middle Eastern countries like Egypt and Iraq are. Such accuracy is especially urgent since studies show that Fox viewers are already particularly misinformed. We therefore present the following map for Fox producers as a public service:
Is it any wonder why republicans run around half cocked with data and facts that are less than truthful? This latest aberration only solidifies our theory that extreme radical republicans and faux news propagandist are the party of "know nothings".
NFTOS
Recently Faux News displayed the map above showing Egypt in the wrong location. Since, according to a recent poll, Fox is the most trusted name in news, it's essential that the network accurately show where important Middle Eastern countries like Egypt and Iraq are. Such accuracy is especially urgent since studies show that Fox viewers are already particularly misinformed. We therefore present the following map for Fox producers as a public service:
Is it any wonder why republicans run around half cocked with data and facts that are less than truthful? This latest aberration only solidifies our theory that extreme radical republicans and faux news propagandist are the party of "know nothings".
NFTOS
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
SPECULATION
Speculation in food futures is driving food prices up in third world countries, leading to revolutions that might bring extremists to power. Speculation in gas and oil has driven gas prices to almost $4 a gallon. What good are these speculators accomplishing? Shouldn't they be eliminated? Why pay higher prices that aren't justified...would it be so Goldman Sachs could maintain a healthy wealthy and wise status?
Goldman Sachs speculators set up a casino where the chips were the stomachs of millions. What does it say about our system that we can so casually inflict so much chaos and dissension into our global economy?
Until deregulation, the price for food was set by the forces of supply and demand for food itself. But after deregulation, it was no longer just a market in food. It became, at the same time, a market in food contracts based on theoretical future crops – and the speculators drove the price through the roof.
The Ed Shultz video is alarming at best, and depicts the evil that exist on Wall Street.
By now, you probably think your opinion of Goldman Sachs and its swarm of Wall Street allies has hit rock-bottomed at raw loathing. You're wrong. There's more. It turns out that the most destructive of all their recent acts has barely been discussed at all. This is the story of how some of the richest people in the world – Goldman, Deutsche Bank, the traders at Merrill Lynch, and more – have caused the starvation of some of the poorest people in the world and they unequivocally share a portion of blame in the revolutions currently storming the globe today.
Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, these uprisings are just the beginning of an avalanche that shall escalate into a snowball that shall rival Biblical proportions.
This phenomenon known as the "food bubble" is not just a United States issue. Food speculation on Wall Street continues to starve millions. Get ready for a rocky year readers. From now on, rising prices, powerful storms, severe droughts and floods, and other unexpected events are likely to play havoc with the fabric of global society, producing chaos and political unrest. Start with a simple fact: the prices of basic food staples are already approaching or exceeding their 2008 peaks, that year when deadly riots erupted in dozens of countries around the world.
A new theory is emerging among democratic bloggers and economists. The same banks, hedge funds and financiers whose speculation on the global money markets caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis are known to be causing food prices to yo-yo and inflate. The charge against Wall Street are overwhelming and they are taking advantage of the deregulation of global commodity markets - they are making billions from speculating on food and causing misery around the world.
There has always been modest, even welcome, speculation in food prices and it traditionally worked like this. Farmer X protected himself against climatic or other risks by “hedging”, or agreeing to sell his crop in advance of the harvest to Trader Y. This guaranteed him a price, and allowed him to plan ahead and invest further, and it allowed Trader Y to profit, too. In a bad year, Farmer X got a good return but in a good year Trader Y did better.
When this process of “hedging” was tightly regulated, it worked well enough. The price of real food on the real world market was still set by the real forces of supply and demand.
But all that changed under Both Bush presidential regimes. Then, following heavy lobbying by banks, hedge funds and free market politicians in the US, the regulations on commodity markets were steadily abolished. Contracts to buy and sell foods were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture.
People die from hunger while the banks make a killing from betting on food, revolutions and chaos exist because dictators can't provide food to their citizens because food costs are too high.
These rising food prices serve as a powerful reminder that we humans are inextricably linked to our environment, and when it suffers, we suffer. It's also a reminder that development and environment issues cannot and should not be treated as separate. As Gawain Kripke, policy director for Oxfam America noted last week, unless we address both the underlying issues of both climate and development, "we will find ourselves perpetually on the knife's edge of disaster."
How much time do we have before the food bubble bursts? No one knows. If we stay with business as usual, the time is more likely measured in years than in decades. We are now so close to the edge, that politically destabilizing food price rises are at our global doorstep.
Once again, Wall Street and its team of diabolical frenzied money hoarders cause anarchy and ataxia amongst the masses. When will they really be held accountable?
Certainly the civil unrest in the middle East is due in part by the greed of Goldman Sachs. While unemployment and Dictatorships are contributing factors to the unrest and must be weighed in, but there is know doubt a hungry world is a angry world.
NFTOS
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Viewers “Significantly More Likely” to be Confused by Faux News
Seven years ago, just six months into the war in Iraq, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland found that those who relied on Faux News network were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions — about WMD in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, and foreign support for the U.S. position on the war in Iraq.”
Ben Armbruster added, “An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out last year found that Faux News viewers were overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals. A 2008 Pew study ranked Faux News last in the number of ‘high knowledge’ viewers and a 2007 Pew poll ranked Faux viewers as the least knowledgeable about national and international affairs.”
The problem has arguably gotten worse. Recently PIPA published a report, this time on “Misinformation and the 2010 Election” (pdf). The point was to measure Americans’ understanding of a variety of key developments that news consumers would likely be familiar with. As was the case seven years ago, Faux News viewers were “significantly more likely” to be confused about reality.
Researchers found that Americans who paid more attention to the news were more likely to know about current events. But Americans who relied on Faux News were “significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe”:
This point, in particular, seems especially noteworthy — in some cases, regular Faux News viewers would have done better, statistically speaking, if they had received no news at all and simply guessed whether the claims about current events were accurate.
What’s more, this isn’t party affiliations — Democrats who watch Faux News were worse off than Democrats who relied on legitimate news organizations (though Dems who watch Faux News were still less confused than Republicans who watch Faux News).
It would take an unlikely twist of self-reflection, but at a certain point, Faux News and its audience might take a moment to ponder why these viewers are so wrong, so often, about so much. That almost certainly won’t happen, of course, in part because the network and its viewers aren’t quite informed enough to realize they’re uninformed.
It's a disturbing trend. The growth in Faux News' popularity has coincided with rising distrust of the rest of the media, which the right tends to dismiss as "liberal" and view with reflexive suspicion. That, coupled with Faux's commitment to producing distorted, right-wing journalism, has essentially created a competing media culture in which counter-factual information with palate-pleasing right-wing spin is considered "the news."
What the study shows is the necessary result of a news organization putting ideology over accuracy. It's not news, and it's not healthy for a functioning democracy.
You would have thought that Glenn Beck University would have raised the mentality of the Faux viewer, and staunch Faux viewers always claim to exhibit the know-it-all syndrome, but it's hard to debate the wrong end of a horse, as you always get nothing but manure.
NFTOS has said for months that watching Faux News is detrimental to your intelligence, this study on confirms our theory. So the more you watch Faux, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false.
This is not an isolated review of Faux’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Faux News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if Americans are making choices based on lies.
Hands down Faux viewers win the coveted "clueless" award for 2011.
NFTOS
Ben Armbruster added, “An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out last year found that Faux News viewers were overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals. A 2008 Pew study ranked Faux News last in the number of ‘high knowledge’ viewers and a 2007 Pew poll ranked Faux viewers as the least knowledgeable about national and international affairs.”
The problem has arguably gotten worse. Recently PIPA published a report, this time on “Misinformation and the 2010 Election” (pdf). The point was to measure Americans’ understanding of a variety of key developments that news consumers would likely be familiar with. As was the case seven years ago, Faux News viewers were “significantly more likely” to be confused about reality.
Researchers found that Americans who paid more attention to the news were more likely to know about current events. But Americans who relied on Faux News were “significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe”:
Here is a list of what Faux News viewers believe that just isn't so:
91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)
This point, in particular, seems especially noteworthy — in some cases, regular Faux News viewers would have done better, statistically speaking, if they had received no news at all and simply guessed whether the claims about current events were accurate.
What’s more, this isn’t party affiliations — Democrats who watch Faux News were worse off than Democrats who relied on legitimate news organizations (though Dems who watch Faux News were still less confused than Republicans who watch Faux News).
It would take an unlikely twist of self-reflection, but at a certain point, Faux News and its audience might take a moment to ponder why these viewers are so wrong, so often, about so much. That almost certainly won’t happen, of course, in part because the network and its viewers aren’t quite informed enough to realize they’re uninformed.
It's a disturbing trend. The growth in Faux News' popularity has coincided with rising distrust of the rest of the media, which the right tends to dismiss as "liberal" and view with reflexive suspicion. That, coupled with Faux's commitment to producing distorted, right-wing journalism, has essentially created a competing media culture in which counter-factual information with palate-pleasing right-wing spin is considered "the news."
What the study shows is the necessary result of a news organization putting ideology over accuracy. It's not news, and it's not healthy for a functioning democracy.
You would have thought that Glenn Beck University would have raised the mentality of the Faux viewer, and staunch Faux viewers always claim to exhibit the know-it-all syndrome, but it's hard to debate the wrong end of a horse, as you always get nothing but manure.
NFTOS has said for months that watching Faux News is detrimental to your intelligence, this study on confirms our theory. So the more you watch Faux, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false.
This is not an isolated review of Faux’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Faux News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if Americans are making choices based on lies.
Hands down Faux viewers win the coveted "clueless" award for 2011.
NFTOS
Monday, January 31, 2011
KOCH INDUSTRIES
Now, you may have heard a thing or two about Koch Industries. Their role in funding climate change deniers is well documented. What you may not realize is that Koch intentionally flies beneath the radar. David Koch likes to joke that Koch Industries is the biggest company you've never heard of. They're able to remain unknown because they hide behind shadowy front groups like Americans for Prosperity. Co-founded by David Koch, Americans for Prosperity funds advertising and public events designed to mislead Americans about climate change and energy policy.
Koch Industries knows that if Americans realized that a massive oil pipeline and refinery company was behind harmless-sounding groups that work to mislead us about climate change, no one would listen to them. They want you to think that what is good for the oil industry is good for the American people, but you and I both know what they actually care about: their bottom line.
But if you never have heard of Koch Industries hold on to your hat:
Koch Industries, Inc. (pronounced /ˈkoʊk/) is an American private energy conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch also owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Flint Hill Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, Koch Minerals and Matador Cattle Company.
Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining and distribution[1] of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching, finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments.
In 2008, Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion, down from the largest in 2006. If Koch Industries were a public company in 2007, it would rank about sixteenth in the Fortune 500.
Fred C. Koch, for whom Koch Industries, Inc. is named, co-founded the company in 1940 and developed an innovative crude oil refining process. His sons, Charles G. Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer, and David H. Koch, executive vice president, are principal owners of the company after they bought out their brothers, Frederick and William for $1.1 billion in 1983. Charles and David Koch each own 42% of Koch Industries, and Charles has stated that the company will publicly offer shares "literally over my dead body".
Much attention has been paid to Koch’s role in funding the organizers of the Tea Party movement and its supporting institutions. Koch operatives orchestrated the first anti-Obama Tea Party protests, channeled Tea Party groups into increasing the Koch’s personal wealth, and organized Tea Parties for Republican campaigns and lobbying drives.
Koch Industries is the largest private corporation in America and they thrive on emitting carbon pollution and other forms of pollution for free. Much of Koch Industries’ $120 billion-a-year revenues are derived from burning fossil fuels: oil refineries and pipelines, chemical plants, fertilizer plants, manufacturing factories, and the shipping of coal. Moreover, Koch Industries owns Georgia Pacific, one of the largest timber companies, so Koch also contributes to global warming by decreasing the world’s carbon sink capacity. The National Academy of Sciences, the US Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all come to the same conclusion: “that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and the loss of carbon-sink capacity in heavily timbered forests are increasing temperatures and making oceans more acidic.” Corporate documents revealed by ThinkProgress show that Koch Industries explicitly targeted laws to reduce carbon emissions as a threat to Koch’s bottom line.
To boost their profits, Koch is the largest funder of climate change denying organizations and media outlets in the world. For example, Koch bankrolls denier groups like the CATO Institute, Fraser Institute, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, the Manhattan Institute, the Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the State Policy Network, and dozens of others. Not only have Koch fronts instructed Tea Party groups to kill national legislation to address climate change, but Koch groups have been instrumental in pushing climate change-believers out of the Republican Party. As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has detailed, the vast majority of new Republicans in Congress are “climate zombies.” Koch Industries is so fervently anti-climate science that it recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a belief in global warming damages its reputation.
Koch’s active role in Republican politics and multifaceted propaganda campaigns are almost always tied to Koch Industries’ business interests.
Oh the web one weaves when one chooses to deceive. The below links (provided by think progress) show a clear and present danger that Koch Industries provides in both politics and global business.
Arguing Over Racial Segregation Plan, AFP Official Threatens Professor: ‘I’m Going To Knock You For A Loop’
Exclusive: Tea Party Billionaire David Koch Denies Climate Change, Shrugs Off His Carbon Pollution
Exclusive: David Koch Refuses To Answer Questions About Citizens United, Secret Right-Wing Meetings
Fulfilling Father’s Campaign To Segregate Public Schools, Koch Groups End Successful Integration Program In NC
Tea Party Billionaire David Koch Entertains Newly Elected Republicans On The First Day Of The New Congress
Theater Audience Boos Tea Party Billionaire David Koch
Koch-Funded Book Argues Against Mine Safety Laws In West Virginia
Koch-Backed Groups Helped Kill Law Designed To Prevent Voter Suppression Plot Hatched By Koch-Backed Groups
Meet Mike Pompeo: The Congressional Candidate Spawned By The ‘Kochtopus’
TP’s Lee Fang Discusses The ‘Kochtopus’ Network On Countdown
Koch Industries Takes Credit For The ‘Spontaneous’ Tea Parties: We’re Glad We ‘Helped Stimulate’ Them
McCain Caught Fundraising With Business Group That Killed McCain-Feingold, Shouts ‘I Love The Chamber!’
TIMELINE: From Promoting Acid Rain To Climate Denial, Over 20 Years Of David Koch’s Polluter Front Groups
Drilling Is Not The Solution To Create Jobs And Reduce Reliance On Foreign Oil
Right-Wing Billionaire David Koch Funding SwiftBoat Campaign Against Global Warming Science
Beck’s Character Assassination Campaign Against Van Jones Was Fueled By AFP’s Efforts To Kill Green Jobs
This past weekend, David and Charles Koch, the co-owners of the $100 billion Koch Industries pollution conglomerate, hosted their annual meeting in Palm Springs to coordinate strategy and raise funds for the extreme radial tea bag movement.
When NFTOS tells you Koch Industries funds the Tea Party movement, this is what we mean:
"The Koch's are on a whole different level. There's no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I've been in Washington since Watergate, and I've never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times."Koch Industries, has always been a major backer for a myriad of radical right-wing causes. While the Koch brothers have tried to insure one degree of separation from tea bag central, the plethora of associations are overwhelming.
Righties and Glenn Beck have been on the George "spooky dood" Soros mob lynching parade for months.
Knowing what we know now about Koch Industries and the brothers Grimm (David and Charles Koch) its high time the progressives apply pressure to these radical right wing nut jobs.
There is know doubt that the brothers Grimm are the puppet masters to the tea bag society.
Progressives took to Palm Springs to boycott the Koch's tea party. The theme of the party crash was to "uncloak the Koch's".
We at NFTOS will carry this theme on, moving forward to expose our readers to just how corrupt these boys are. Corporate malfeasance seems to exist everywhere within Koch Industries.
A Bush selected Supreme Court cleared the path for Corporations funding politics. Corporations have been around far longer than our country, and our founding fathers were very wary of extending privileges to economic entities. They were way more concerned with living, breathing human beings. The Bill of Rights was written for the benefit of people, not companies – and there lies the ultimate irony of the Supreme Court ruling.
The Plutocracy is way too big today in our country. Say goodbye to the Republic, because it’s a thing of the past if Koch and the Chamber of Commerce are allowed to keep their hands in the cookie jar.
NFTOS
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Virginia House Revives Doctrine of ‘Interposition’ Last Used To Defend Jim Crow
Segregationist Virginia Senator Harry Byrd Sr.
In response to the landmark Affordable Care Act, numerous right-wing state lawmakers have introduced unconstitutional bills attempting to nullify this federal law. Earlier this week, however, the Virginia House of Delegates went even further, passing a sweeping nullification bill that directly conflicts with numerous Supreme Court decisions:
All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of the Commonwealth that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of the Commonwealth shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.
It is all but certain that the Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act under its existing precedents, but this specific question has yet to reach the justices themselves. The Virginia House’s attempt to prevent the federal government from regulating locally produced goods, by contrast, is a direct assault on the judiciary. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress does not simply have the power to regulate commerce that crosses state lines, it also has the power to regulate wholly intrastate matters that “substantially affect interstate commerce.”
The Virginia Legislature has pulled this stunt before. In 1956, Virginia lawmakers objected to a different Supreme Court decision — Brown v. Board of Education. Rather than acknowledging that they are bound by the Constitution, however, these lawmakers instead enacted a “resolution of interposition” claiming that they were “duty bound” to defy the Supreme Court:
[W]e have watched with growing concern as the power delegated to the Congress to regulate commerce among the several States has been stretched into a power to control local enterprises remote from interstate commerce; we have witnessed with disquietude the advancing tendency to read into a power to lay taxes for the general welfare a power to confiscate the earnings of our people for purposes unrelated to the general welfare as we conceive it . . . .
Virginia can remain silent no longer. Recognizing, as this Assembly does, the prospect of incalculable harm to the public schools of this State and the disruption of the education of her children, Virginia is duty bound to interpose against these most serious consequences, and earnestly to challenge the usurped authority that would inflict them upon her citizens.
Sadly, the Virginia House is not alone in attempting to revive long discredited legal doctrines to advance its right-wing agenda. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has suggested that child labor laws, FEMA, food stamps, the FDA, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution. Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Rand Paul (R-KY) both believe that they can strip millions of U.S. citizens of their citizenship of their citizenship in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right-wing lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act all ask the courts to jettison nearly two centuries of settled constitutional law.
Indeed, if the right had its way, it’s doubtful there would be much left of the Constitution.
NFTOS
Friday, January 28, 2011
CREATING SNOW JOBS
They’re bound to eventually get around to creating jobs, right? The midterm election cycle really wasn’t that long ago. It was recent enough for congressional Republicans to remember that they did well by running around asking questions like, “Where are the jobs?”
Job creation and economic growth remain the dominant issue on the minds of voters, though the GOP seems to have lost sight of public priorities with surprising speed.
The very first issue tackled by the new House GOP majority was, of course, gutting the health care system, despite the fact that their legislation has no chance at passing, and despite the fact that their proposal would hurt job creation. For their second major initiative, Republicans chose abortion.
Last week, the Republican Study Committee announced one of its top new goals is using federal power to restrict marriage rights in the District of Columbia — remember, they hate overbearing federal intervention in local affairs, except when they don’t — and this week the House GOP leadership announced yet another priority.
New House Speaker John A. Boehner formally endorsed a bill Wednesday to revive and expand the school voucher program for the District of Columbia, calling it “a model for similar programs throughout our country.”Yes, Boehner loathes spending taxpayer money, unless it’s going to pay for private school tuition.
We are curious — when, exactly, might we see Republicans work on creating jobs? After tackling health care, abortion, gay marriage, and school vouchers, maybe then the GOP might care about unemployment?
Honestly, this is getting a little silly. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) wrote an op-ed last week on “economic policy,” and literally didn’t mention jobs at all. There were two Republican responses to the State of the Union address, and neither one presented specific ideas about job creation. The Republican Study Committee has an economic plan of sorts, and it’s intended to deliberately but more Americans out of work.
Can anyone, anywhere, actually describe the Republican plan to reduce unemployment? The White House’s plan is significantly easier to identify.
The GOP is offering nothing on the public’s Issue One (jobs), while Obama is calling for spending on construction, education and energy.This story mimics the deficit theme from the two headed asp. Republicans are nonstop with the spending issue, but when asked what are they going to cut, not a one can give a program or instance that would shape their deficit reduction bandwagon.
In March, John Boehner asked, “When are we going to address the number one issue on the minds of our fellow citizens? When are we going to focus on the economy and getting people back to work?”
I don’t know, John, when are we?
The time is now for the two headed asp to put up or shut up. Quit bitching about gloom and doom and come to the table with solutions for your bitch, otherwise grab the dunce cap and sit in the corner.
NFTOS
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Republican Party Platform...........Of 1956
Cap and Trade and Healthcare reform where initially created by the republicans. The Dream Act was sponsored by John McCain. This was the mentality of the responsible republican! Somewhere in the last fifty years the republican got off track! Somewhere they lost the ability to maintain the moderate conservative stance that so many worked so hard for. Somewhere along the lines they became very extreme and very radical.
The weltanschauung of the current republican regime seems quite different from the parties platform fifty years ago, and the coarse, or the peregrination of the current republican party is well right of Presidents Eisenhower's vision not so long ago.
We could assume that 2011 tea bags would call Eisenhower and the republican platform of 1956 "liberal" or "progressive".
This must see explanation from Rachel Maddow (Below) details the Republican Party's move to the right, from 1950 to now, and its jaw dropping to say the least.
In 1956, Republicans weren't afraid to be associated with the word "liberal" when it came to people issues. This shows they actually embraced the term that Rush Limbaugh has now basically turned into a curse word in Republican vernacular.
Our research highlights some of the planks found in the 1956 Republican Party platform that would be deemed commie pinko by today's Republicans. Like this one:
Is it just me, or has the Republican Party moved just a tad to the right since the 1950s.
Dwight D. Eisenhower would not only NOT be welcome in today's GOP, if he tried to crash their convention he would be forcibly removed, possibly with fire hoses. This brings into stunning relief just how far to the right the Republican Party has gone in a relatively short time (54 years). And how far out of touch with most Americans they've truly gotten. The American people back in those halcyon, crew cut 1950's agreed with this platform overwhelmingly. But today, Republicans would label it as "socialist".
See entire 1956 platform script here:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838
If the above is not evidence enough, let a real republican tell you like it is. Meghan McCain daughter of John McCain speaking on how the tea bags infuse their imbue on the country.
Remember the old game show "To Tell The Truth"? Hold that thought a moment.
There are at least ten types of republican:
Going back to the game show thought process.......Will the REAL REPUBLICAN PLEASE STAND UP.
NFTOS
The weltanschauung of the current republican regime seems quite different from the parties platform fifty years ago, and the coarse, or the peregrination of the current republican party is well right of Presidents Eisenhower's vision not so long ago.
We could assume that 2011 tea bags would call Eisenhower and the republican platform of 1956 "liberal" or "progressive".
This must see explanation from Rachel Maddow (Below) details the Republican Party's move to the right, from 1950 to now, and its jaw dropping to say the least.
In 1956, Republicans weren't afraid to be associated with the word "liberal" when it came to people issues. This shows they actually embraced the term that Rush Limbaugh has now basically turned into a curse word in Republican vernacular.
Our research highlights some of the planks found in the 1956 Republican Party platform that would be deemed commie pinko by today's Republicans. Like this one:
We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs--expansion of social security--broadened coverage in unemployment insurance --improved housing--and better health protection for all our people.
How about the environment:
We favor a comprehensive study of the effect upon wildlife of the drainage of our wetlands. We recognize the need for maintaining isolated wilderness areas.
Or regulation of business:
A continuously vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws
Legislation to enable closer Federal scrutiny of mergers which have a significant or potential monopolistic connotations;
Procedural changes in the antitrust laws to facilitate their enforcement.
Or how about this communist rhetoric?
Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;
Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;
Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;...
Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;
Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;
Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;
Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;
Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;
Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public.
Is it just me, or has the Republican Party moved just a tad to the right since the 1950s.
Dwight D. Eisenhower would not only NOT be welcome in today's GOP, if he tried to crash their convention he would be forcibly removed, possibly with fire hoses. This brings into stunning relief just how far to the right the Republican Party has gone in a relatively short time (54 years). And how far out of touch with most Americans they've truly gotten. The American people back in those halcyon, crew cut 1950's agreed with this platform overwhelmingly. But today, Republicans would label it as "socialist".
See entire 1956 platform script here:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838
If the above is not evidence enough, let a real republican tell you like it is. Meghan McCain daughter of John McCain speaking on how the tea bags infuse their imbue on the country.
Remember the old game show "To Tell The Truth"? Hold that thought a moment.
There are at least ten types of republican:
Going back to the game show thought process.......Will the REAL REPUBLICAN PLEASE STAND UP.
NFTOS
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
REPUBLICANS LOSE TOUCH WITH MOTHER SHIP
Gloom and doom Vs Bat S** Crazy
Where does one begin to start with all the fireworks that entertained the political junkie in us all late last night?
While the President laid low in his State of The Union Speech, we can't say the same for the double dose of rebuttal viewers received from the republican party last night.
For the first time in American history we had two whimsical, capricious rebuttals from the two headed asp known as the republican party. While only one voice was backed and supported by the "official" republican party, another chose to invoke their nonsense into the fray. The plethora, or multitude of personalities that exist in the republican camp are never ending. One could associate republicans to the Sally Field character Sybil (Sally Field starred in the title role of the movie Sybil which dramatizes the life of a shy young graduate student, Sybil Dorsett (in real life, Shirley Ardell Mason), whom was suffering from dissociative identity disorder and claimed a development of at least 12 different personalities.
The "official" republican rebuttal was given by Rep (R-WI) Paul "Gloom and Doom" Ryan. Ryan chose to paint a black and bleak picture of America that would have made republican nut case Glenn Beck proud. You could assume that Ryan graduated from Beck University with his "gloom and doom' report on the countries deficit. (To see the real facts that dispute Ryan's "end of days theory" read Huffington Post story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/paul-ryans-rebuttal-fact-check_n_814060.html)
GLOOM AND DOOM CLIP
Ryan's philosophy for healthcare is very convoluted and calls for the elderly to get "coupons" when shopping for healthcare, and anyone whom is under 55 is not going to receive their entitlement to Social Security. How's that make you feel readers? Does this give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about your countries future under a republican regime?
While the congressman's dark opinionated diatribe was entertaining, once one completes the lengthy fact checks, we find that his verbiage while eloquent, is just more of the same; i.e. scare tactics and fear mongering.
As if this wasn't enough, the discombobulated party exposed America to more lunacy.
Michele Bachmann, self imposed "tea bag leader of the republican caucus" felt she was entitled a rebuttal. Representative Michele Bachmann didn’t bring a “prom date” to the State of the Union address, she didn’t wear the ribbon corsage and she crashed the after party known as the official Republican response. When Ms. Bachmann addressed the nation with her own, more alarmist assessment of its state, she seemed almost like the telekinetic high school heroine of “Carrie.” The last time we saw eyes like hers, they were on a guy that had carved a swastika between them (Charles Manson). Clearly someone needs to retrofit the congresswoman with a straight jacket for the potential trip to the funny farm.
Ms. Bachmann defied Democratic and Republican leaders who had scripted a night of unity, courtesy and common purpose. Instead, Ms. Bachmann gave viewers a blast of Tea Partisan fury that served as a rebuke to both President Obama and to the milder, more conciliatory official Republican response which was delivered by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
It wasn’t just what she said, though she used words like “explosion” and “exploded” and “Obamacare” a lot. It was the way Ms. Bachmann spoke, smiling and gesturing with an intensity that almost cracked the screen. Bachmann, poised in her normal zombie, hypnotic like state, infused her ignorance once again into mainstream media with comments like:
“Instead of a leaner, smarter government, we bought a bureaucracy that now tells us which light bulbs to buy and which may put 16,500 I.R.S. agents in charge of policing President Obama’s health care bill.”
Remember readers, this is the same congresswoman whom stated that the Presidents Asian trip would cost America $200 million a day to support.
Last night in a solidarity statement, all congressmen and women dawned a black and white ribbon, (support for Congresswoman Giffords) that is all except Rep Bachmann.
Bachmann's defiance is standard protocol for the tea bags. The republican party needs to reign in their parties most extreme and become as one. Last we where aware the country had three political parties, that being Democrat, Independent, and republican, not sure where extreme radical tea comes in.
BACHMANN CLIP
WEINER CLIP
Apparently Bachmann's elusions of grandeur doesn't stop with rebuttals to presidential State of the Union addresses. Yesterday Bachmann didn't disappoint the fodder gatherers as she has laid claim that 'slavery ended with the founding fathers".
Its never been more evident to our country that Bachmann apparently missed six grade history class. You would presume that with all of their citations of the Constitution and remembrance of the founding fathers, Tea Party candidates would understand history at least a little bit. But that's apparently not the case with Rep. Michele Bachmann.
The problem for Bachmann is that John Quincy Adams died in 1848, 15 years before slavery was abolished with the Emancipation Proclamation. Also, most of the founding fathers did own slaves, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, one of the signers, James Monroe, executed 30 of his slaves after they tried to revolt for their freedom. George Washington also had teeth implanted into his mouth that were taken out of the mouths of his slaves.
For reference George Washington died in 1799 which is 62 years prior to the civil war. Would Bachmann and fellow tea bags be suggesting that 600 thousands soldiers died for nothing?
Slavery and its ending revolves around the thirteenth amendment, and it goes like this:
Recently Bachmann also contended and compared the US Census to WWII internment camps.
Prior to one becoming a congress man or woman, some prerequisites should exist:
Knowledge of the constitution
Knowledge of your countries history
An IQ test score above 20
Clearance from a reputable Dr. that your not a certifiable lunatic
The insurmountable amount of emails bombarding NFTOS with regards to Bachmann is at best viral. There is know doubt that the republican party is in complete and utter ataxia.
BACHMANN FULL REBUTTAL
Whether you follow the "gloom and doom" theory of the republican party, or the "bat sh*t crazy" ideology of their extreme brother, there is know doubt in most Americans mind that the republican party has lost touch with the mother ship.
NFTOS
Where does one begin to start with all the fireworks that entertained the political junkie in us all late last night?
While the President laid low in his State of The Union Speech, we can't say the same for the double dose of rebuttal viewers received from the republican party last night.
For the first time in American history we had two whimsical, capricious rebuttals from the two headed asp known as the republican party. While only one voice was backed and supported by the "official" republican party, another chose to invoke their nonsense into the fray. The plethora, or multitude of personalities that exist in the republican camp are never ending. One could associate republicans to the Sally Field character Sybil (Sally Field starred in the title role of the movie Sybil which dramatizes the life of a shy young graduate student, Sybil Dorsett (in real life, Shirley Ardell Mason), whom was suffering from dissociative identity disorder and claimed a development of at least 12 different personalities.
The "official" republican rebuttal was given by Rep (R-WI) Paul "Gloom and Doom" Ryan. Ryan chose to paint a black and bleak picture of America that would have made republican nut case Glenn Beck proud. You could assume that Ryan graduated from Beck University with his "gloom and doom' report on the countries deficit. (To see the real facts that dispute Ryan's "end of days theory" read Huffington Post story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/paul-ryans-rebuttal-fact-check_n_814060.html)
GLOOM AND DOOM CLIP
Ryan's philosophy for healthcare is very convoluted and calls for the elderly to get "coupons" when shopping for healthcare, and anyone whom is under 55 is not going to receive their entitlement to Social Security. How's that make you feel readers? Does this give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about your countries future under a republican regime?
While the congressman's dark opinionated diatribe was entertaining, once one completes the lengthy fact checks, we find that his verbiage while eloquent, is just more of the same; i.e. scare tactics and fear mongering.
As if this wasn't enough, the discombobulated party exposed America to more lunacy.
Michele Bachmann, self imposed "tea bag leader of the republican caucus" felt she was entitled a rebuttal. Representative Michele Bachmann didn’t bring a “prom date” to the State of the Union address, she didn’t wear the ribbon corsage and she crashed the after party known as the official Republican response. When Ms. Bachmann addressed the nation with her own, more alarmist assessment of its state, she seemed almost like the telekinetic high school heroine of “Carrie.” The last time we saw eyes like hers, they were on a guy that had carved a swastika between them (Charles Manson). Clearly someone needs to retrofit the congresswoman with a straight jacket for the potential trip to the funny farm.
Ms. Bachmann defied Democratic and Republican leaders who had scripted a night of unity, courtesy and common purpose. Instead, Ms. Bachmann gave viewers a blast of Tea Partisan fury that served as a rebuke to both President Obama and to the milder, more conciliatory official Republican response which was delivered by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
It wasn’t just what she said, though she used words like “explosion” and “exploded” and “Obamacare” a lot. It was the way Ms. Bachmann spoke, smiling and gesturing with an intensity that almost cracked the screen. Bachmann, poised in her normal zombie, hypnotic like state, infused her ignorance once again into mainstream media with comments like:
“Instead of a leaner, smarter government, we bought a bureaucracy that now tells us which light bulbs to buy and which may put 16,500 I.R.S. agents in charge of policing President Obama’s health care bill.”
Remember readers, this is the same congresswoman whom stated that the Presidents Asian trip would cost America $200 million a day to support.
Last night in a solidarity statement, all congressmen and women dawned a black and white ribbon, (support for Congresswoman Giffords) that is all except Rep Bachmann.
Bachmann's defiance is standard protocol for the tea bags. The republican party needs to reign in their parties most extreme and become as one. Last we where aware the country had three political parties, that being Democrat, Independent, and republican, not sure where extreme radical tea comes in.
BACHMANN CLIP
WEINER CLIP
Apparently Bachmann's elusions of grandeur doesn't stop with rebuttals to presidential State of the Union addresses. Yesterday Bachmann didn't disappoint the fodder gatherers as she has laid claim that 'slavery ended with the founding fathers".
Its never been more evident to our country that Bachmann apparently missed six grade history class. You would presume that with all of their citations of the Constitution and remembrance of the founding fathers, Tea Party candidates would understand history at least a little bit. But that's apparently not the case with Rep. Michele Bachmann.
The problem for Bachmann is that John Quincy Adams died in 1848, 15 years before slavery was abolished with the Emancipation Proclamation. Also, most of the founding fathers did own slaves, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, one of the signers, James Monroe, executed 30 of his slaves after they tried to revolt for their freedom. George Washington also had teeth implanted into his mouth that were taken out of the mouths of his slaves.
For reference George Washington died in 1799 which is 62 years prior to the civil war. Would Bachmann and fellow tea bags be suggesting that 600 thousands soldiers died for nothing?
Slavery and its ending revolves around the thirteenth amendment, and it goes like this:
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward, in a proclamation, declared it to have been adopted. It was the first of the Reconstruction Amendments.BACHMANN FLUNKS HISTORY
Recently Bachmann also contended and compared the US Census to WWII internment camps.
Prior to one becoming a congress man or woman, some prerequisites should exist:
Knowledge of the constitution
Knowledge of your countries history
An IQ test score above 20
Clearance from a reputable Dr. that your not a certifiable lunatic
The insurmountable amount of emails bombarding NFTOS with regards to Bachmann is at best viral. There is know doubt that the republican party is in complete and utter ataxia.
BACHMANN FULL REBUTTAL
Whether you follow the "gloom and doom" theory of the republican party, or the "bat sh*t crazy" ideology of their extreme brother, there is know doubt in most Americans mind that the republican party has lost touch with the mother ship.
NFTOS
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Republicans "Guilty Of Toxic Political Environment"
Rep. Michele Bachmann’s statement saying she wants Minnesotans “armed and dangerous” during a radio interview in 2009 has become a target of liberals in the wake of the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona this weekend. Rep. Keith Ellison, Bachmann’s neighbor to the south, said such statements have consequences, while New York Times columnist Paul Krugman used it as an example of the “climate of hate.”
Rep. Keith Ellison (D) told MPR that the tragedy is an opportunity to scrutinize at the overly violent political rhetoric that has become a large part of the nation’s political climate:
Ellison said that kind of gun imagery doesn’t belong in the political discourse.
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
It’s the saturation of our political discourse, especially our airwaves, with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from those with radical extreme views of the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
To often the case we see republican colleagues applauding each other for saying toxic things:
It’s tough being a Republican watchdog. Every day new spiritually professed alliterations are spewed on the American public under the guise of what’s good for America.
A person who is an expert at rhetoric uses exaggeration as their tool to convince others of their viewpoint. In our blogs we have been accused of using rhetoric simply because our viewpoint was drastically different from that of the accusers. That, in itself, does NOT constitute rhetoric. We call it as we see it. As we have said many times, truth is relative.
We all observe facts differently and arrive at different evaluations and ultimately, different judgments. If we base our evaluations and judgments on FACTS and not OPINIONS, we stand a better chance of offering a convincing argument. We all see the ‘truth” differently and reveal it in our own way.
Using Glenn Beck as an example: NFTOS polled its readers, and they were asked why they listened too, or why they watch Glenn Beck. The reply:
NFTOS
“I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.” Really Senator?As Americans search for answers as to why a 22-year old would open fire at a political event, many politicians and pundits have pointed to the increase in violence-tinged rhetoric, mainly from the conservative end of the spectrum.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D) told MPR that the tragedy is an opportunity to scrutinize at the overly violent political rhetoric that has become a large part of the nation’s political climate:
“We’ve gotten so immune to it, and it doesn’t really rank in terms of priority because it’s just so ordinary, so regular,” Ellison said. “But we should never let it become ordinary. We should take these things seriously.”Ellison notes that back in early 2009, his colleague, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., called for Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous” in response to President Barack Obama’s energy plans.
Ellison said that kind of gun imagery doesn’t belong in the political discourse.
“The political rhetoric has grown increasingly toxic, and making allusions (to) guns and reloading, and armed and dangerous, certainly contributes to a toxic political environment, and does have consequences,” Ellison said.Paul Krugman of the New York Times notes that there is room for debate in American politics, but not for “eliminationist rhetoric”:
The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.
It’s the saturation of our political discourse, especially our airwaves, with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from those with radical extreme views of the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
To often the case we see republican colleagues applauding each other for saying toxic things:
Your colleagues pat you on the back and say 'boy that was good, you called him, you called her, such a good name' and that's celebrated," If you really are nasty to somebody and if you had a hidden microphone, you could hear people saying, "it's like, "good job" and "we've got to stop it".
It’s tough being a Republican watchdog. Every day new spiritually professed alliterations are spewed on the American public under the guise of what’s good for America.
A person who is an expert at rhetoric uses exaggeration as their tool to convince others of their viewpoint. In our blogs we have been accused of using rhetoric simply because our viewpoint was drastically different from that of the accusers. That, in itself, does NOT constitute rhetoric. We call it as we see it. As we have said many times, truth is relative.
We all observe facts differently and arrive at different evaluations and ultimately, different judgments. If we base our evaluations and judgments on FACTS and not OPINIONS, we stand a better chance of offering a convincing argument. We all see the ‘truth” differently and reveal it in our own way.
Using Glenn Beck as an example: NFTOS polled its readers, and they were asked why they listened too, or why they watch Glenn Beck. The reply:
“We watch and listen because we don’t know what he is going to say next.”This came from both people who liked him and hated him. This type of appeal is based on sensationalism. Ordinary people seeking extraordinary events by vicarious participation. This is exactly the goal of republican right wing toxic rhetoric.
NFTOS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)










