Your blogger

My photo
When Roger West first launched the progressive political blog "News From The Other Side" in May 2010, he could hardly have predicted the impact that his venture would have on the media and political debate. As the New Media emerged as a counterbalance to established media sources, Roger wrote his copious blogs about national politics, the tea party movement, mid-term elections, and the failings of the radical right to the vanguard of the New Media movement. Roger West's efforts as a leading blogger have tremendous reach. NFTOS has led the effort to bring accountability to mainstream media sources such as FOX NEWS, Breitbart's "Big Journalism. Roger's breadth of experience, engaging style, and cultivation of loyal readership - over 92 million visitors - give him unique insight into the past, present, and future of the New Media and political rhetoric that exists in our society today. What we are against: Radical Right Wing Agendas Incompetent Establishment Donald J. Trump Corporate Malfeasence We are for: Global and Econmoic Security Social and Economic Justice Media Accountability THE RESISTANCE

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

SCANDALS AND CONSPIRACIES




Since the election of President Obama, the American Taliban has been OCD [Obsessive-compulsive disorder] with scandals and conspiracies. The list of darts to throw at the President on any given day is a plethora if you are a GOPer.

If you spend every hour of your working life inventing new ways to attack Barack Obama or the government [or both], this is a very good week for you — or at least it should be. After wallowing through the deserts of Benghazi and Fast and Furious for four years, trying to extract any tiny drop of scandal from stone, now suddenly comes gold from the heavens, courtesy of the IRS and its misguided attempt to prevent political groups from taking advantage of the non-profit tax code. Then, even before your salad is done, the Department of Justice snoops on reporters. Hallelujah to the Republican God Ronald Reagan! The Promised Land of Impeachment can’t be far off.

Three scandals in a period of seven days, the mother load has cometh for the American Taliban.

Unfortunately, as with most of these stories, same ole shit just a different political party. Before we start urinating our pants and dancing in the streets with "we got him this time", let's autopsy what we know.


REV AL


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



THE COLBERT REPORT





BENGHAZI:

As we have written over the past few weeks, Benghazi is the story that never was. Yes 4 Americans died, and that is a tragedy, but making up shit so that you have something against the President doesn't work, because as always, facts out trump bullshit any day of the week. 74% of the American Taliban think that Benghazi is worse than Watergate and Iran - Contra. The kicker to this stat is - that 39% of the 74% cannot tell you where Benghazi is. Really? If your going to call bullshit, shouldn't you at least know where bullshit is?

In breaking news: the Benghazi "Scandal" - Jack Tapper of CNN exposed ABC - as an email found by Tapper shows that ABC edited their content to make the President look bad. Here is the Tapper release as it was sent out last night.

This latest bit of information shows just how low the American Taliban will go to discredit the President, and this disgusting signal, is as disturbing as the party itself. Of late, the American Taliban's motto is, if we can't hit the goal, move the goal post so that we can hit the target. A disgusting pattern of shoot first and ask queries later.

Epic Failure by the American Taliban!


ASSOCIATED PRESS

Let's be clear readers, jeopardizing National Security is a dangerous game to play, [First amendment to the constitution or not]. On MSNBC last night Rachael Maddow explains the complexities of "freedom of the press"

Pay attention to the Maddow clip below:


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





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



IRS


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


Taken from a mentor of mine, Jared Bernstein
Nope, I'm not going to defend the IRS, which appears to have acted in ways wholly inconsistent with their mandate for unbiased investigations into, in this case, whether certain political groups should receive tax-exempt status. It is unclear how high up the chain of command these untoward actions went, but this morning's news suggests it wasn't just a few rogue auditors in Cincinnati.

The problem wasn't that the agency scrutinized these so-called "social welfare" organizations -- as I'll emphasize in a moment, tax law in this area is an accident going out to happen. It's that they violated neutrality, investigating conservative groups by searching on "tea party" and "patriot."

Republicans will of course try to pin this on the president, despite the fact that since Nixon used the IRS to target his enemies, the president's been barred from even discussing this kind of thing with the agency.

No, the problem here isn't the president. It's the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and subsequent tax law written by Congress that gives these groups tax exempt status (under rule 501(c)(4)) as long as most of their activities are primarily on educating the public about policy issues, not direct campaigning.

Of course, the ambiguities therein are insurmountable. Many of these groups, especially the big ones, spend millions on campaign ads mildly disguised as "issue ads," and under current law they can do so limitlessly and with impunity.

According to today's NYT:

The tax code states that 501(c)(4)'s must operate "exclusively" to promote social welfare, a category that excludes political spending. Some court decisions have interpreted that language to mean that a minimal amount of political spending would be permissible. But the I.R.S. has for years maintained that groups meet that rule as long as they are not "primarily engaged" in election work, a substantially different threshold.

Nowhere do the rules specify what "primarily engaged" means...

Again, I see no way that a government agency could fairly interpret and enforce these instructions. What is "primarily engaged"-at which point does an issue ad cross the threshold into campaign ad -- what kind of "education" is GPS Crossroads providing and how is it promoting "social welfare?"

Weirdly, the IRS hasn't seemed particularly interested in going after the big fish here, like Rove's Crossroads GPS on the right or Priorities USA on the left. Instead, they appear to have systematically targeted small fry on the far right. If so, not only is that clearly biased and unacceptable -- it's also ridiculous given the magnitude of the violations of tax exempt status by these small groups relative to the big ones.

At the end of the day, we should really ask ourselves what societal purpose is being served here by carving out special tax status for any of these groups. If anyone can show me any evidence that the revenue forgone is well spent, that these groups are making our political system and our country better off, please do so. If not, then no one's saying shut them down -- they've got a right to speak their minds. But not tax free.

Fact: Mitch McConnell used to be suspicious of the same 501(c)(4) groups that the IRS targeted.

Dear Tea Baggers, It sucks when you're unfairly treated because of prejudices about your name and appearance - see how things tend to come full circle?


All three of the scenarios above also happened on G.W. Bush's watch. The problem with the comparisons are, that under Bush, not a republican raised an eyebrow to complain, to impeach, nor did they attempt to drag any senior government official through the mud.

Benghahzi, Bush had thirteen type Benghazi's under his watch.

Bush wires taps country.

IRS attacks NAACP under George Bush.

When the IRS targeted Liberals.


If I had advice to give to the tea baggers, I would say - number one rule in maintaining your narrative in a political stance, Stop accepting new information when the tide of facts turns contrary to your agenda.

At the very least the American Taliban suffers from Bushnesia, at its worst, they are the diabolical party that we see on Cable news on a nightly bases, lying, deceiving, hypocrisy of the highest order. The key to all these "scandals and conspiracies" is to dissect facts from bullshit, let the whole story play itself out before jumping the C&S freight train!

The IRS has always been a deviant entity, whether under Democratic rule or the American Taliban - freedom of press, its been a source of problematic issues since our countries inception, hence why the founders addressed it in the first amendment.

At the end of the day the American Taliban has what they want, "lame street medias" attention, Obama is engaged and taking action. The time for the narrative of "media bias" is no more, at least for the IRS and AP stories.

A saying here at the NFTOS horseshoe is "what these scandals need are a good conspiracy theory".



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

AMERICA'S LOONIEST CONGRESSMAN, NUT JOBS VERSUS BATSHIT CRAZY



For the last few weeks, Bill Maher has been seeking our countries most FUBAR Congress person. The list is long, and if you note, Texas is well represented having the most idiots in the contest.

Personally the brackets where not big enough. Most certainly the Paulbots [Paul and Rand], Allen West, Dennis Kucinich, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Joe Wilson, Jason Chaffetz, Paul Ryan, deserve at least an honorable mention!

The fruits this basket area plethora, and why these unlettered asshats keep gaining political office is beyond me, speaks volumes of the voting base I guess.

ROUND ONE




ROUND TWO




And the winner is..........

BATSHIT CRAZY WINS AGAIN



One thing is for sure, these tools make for good fodder. It's like Christmas everyday for a political blogger, and there always seems to be an "Adams family" season with the endless line of dimwits.




NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Monday, May 13, 2013

ROBERT GATES SAYS HE'D HANDLE BENGHAZI THE SAME WAS AS OBAMA

Robert Gates Once G.W. Bush's Top Dog At The Pentagon.


Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican who was appointed to the position by George W. Bush, told CBS News on Saturday that he would have handled the situation in Benghazi the same way that the Obama administration did last September.

During an interview that aired on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday morning, Gates defended the administration’s reaction to the attacks in Libya and dismissed many of the criticisms leveled by his fellow Republicans as “cartoonish”:
“Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were,” said Gates, now the chancellor of the College of William and Mary.
“We don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible.” he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to “scare them with the noise or something,” Gates said, ignored the “number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi’s arsenals.”
Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, “send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous.”

“It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces,” he said. “The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that.”

Gates also defended former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has increasingly become the subject of Republican criticism. Gates responded with a simple and emphatic “no” when asked if he believed Clinton could possibly be involved in any sort of a cover up, as some Republicans have baselessly suggested.

Republicans have refused to put their Benghazi obsession to rest, focusing on discrepancies between talking points and agency infighting rather than addressing ways to prevent future attacks and finding out who was responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other colleagues. Critics have accused Republicans of turning their Benghazi hearing into a political circus, trying to hang the attack on Hillary Clinton to hurt her chances of a possible run for the White House in 2016.



NFTOS
STAFF WRITERS

Sunday, May 12, 2013

SOMEONE CALL DARRELL ISSA, JODI ARIAS AND CLEVELAND KIDNAPPINGS ARE TO BLAME FOR BENGHAZI

This week’s Saturday Night Live opened with a news-of-the-week recap of sorts, meshing the Benghazi hearings with the Cleveland kidnappings and the Jodi Arias trial.

Mocking the GOP’s persistence of a cover-up in the Benghazi attacks, SNL held its own House Oversight Committee hearings, in which a faux-Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) doggedly pursued the truth by grilling… convicted murderer Jodi Arias. The show’s version of Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) also made an appearance — albeit with a bizarre “Rep. Peter Welch” plaque in front of him — to grill Arias.

Kenan Thompson portrayed Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) — but, like Gowdy, with an incorrect name card? — who downplayed the entire situation, and even suggested the committee consider grilling Cleveland kidnapping suspect Ariel Castro.


SNL COLD OPENING





NFTOS
Editor-In Chief
Roger West

Saturday, May 11, 2013

BULLSHIT ARTISTS

USE THIS BAG WHEN GETTING FACTS FROM LISTED NEWS SOURCES


Republican politicians, conservative talk show hosts, conservative authors, and all Fox News media types - are all very capable of convincing their unlettered followers of bullshit they emit. From Benghazi, to Presidential birth certificates, the heaping pile of steaming dog shit that oozes from these media outlets - is exponentially massive.

Republicans often talk about the media's "liberal bias", and while MSNBC promotes a progressive message during their prime time line-up, the news organization often tags themselves with the slogan "lean forward." But at least they are honest about their positions and their reporting.

NFTOS has covered numerous Faux News stories [and other right wing-nut news sources] - where the "fair and balanced" aficionados, at best, have had a problem with facts - frequently stretching the limits between fact and fiction. [If you use NFTOS search engine you shall see 8 pages of bullshit labeled to Fox News].

Faux News is not the only conservative information source that struggles with telling the truth. Below is a list of 50 bullshit artists, a guide if you will - a who's who of conservative news fecal matter masters.

Why are "contemporary" Republicans so full of shit? How did the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and General Eisenhower get taken over by such lying, thieving, self-serving scoundrels?

1. Fox News

2. The Rush Limbaugh Show

3. Glenn Beck

4. Savage Nation w/ Michael Savage

5. Alex Jones' Info Wars

6. The Heritage Foundation

7. The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

8. The Neal Boortz Radio Show

9. Sean Hannity

10. Bill O'Reilly

11. Rightwingnews.com

12. National Review

13. The Mark Levin Show

14. The Weekly Standard

15. Washington Times

16. The American Conservative

17. The Drudge Report

18. The Cato Institute

19. Media Research Center

20. Townhall.com

21. Red State

22. Andew Breitbart's Big Government

23. The American Cause

24. Christian Coalition

25. The John Birch Society

26. Citizens United

27. Freedom Works

28. Tea Party Express

29. Tea Party Patriots

30. The Herman Cain Show

31. News Busters

32. News Max

33. The New York Post

34. Conservative HQ

35. Sirius radio "Patriot"

36. Conservative American News

37. Conservative Daily News

38. Judicial Watch

39. The Source Daily

40. Republican National Committee

41. American Spectator

42. Reason Magazine

43. Freedom Rings Radio hosted by Kenneth

John

44. Conservapedia

45. The Right Side of the Web

46. CNS News

47. Michael Reagan

48. Family Research Council

49. Conservative Underground

50. The Hugh Hewitt Show


To often is the case, that the radicals on the right try to demonize anyone who is willing to tell the truth. The real truth however is, that the majority of the right wing-nut media outlets (TV, radio, internet, print) are owned by big corporations [Koch Whores] who try to protect the radical conservative archaic ideology. From big news outlets to small time blogs, there are many places that you want to avoid when trying to get good news and information.




NFTOS
Editor-In Chief
Roger West

Friday, May 10, 2013

13 BENGHAZI'S UNDER BUSH, NOT ONE WORD FROM FAUX NEWS


The Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House Oversight Committee’s Benghazi hearings this week there’s renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi.

Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation — turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins.

Back in October as a bit of a refresher — especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press, intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they’re so obsessed by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly “keeping us safe.”

The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009:
January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

A few obser
vations about this timeline. This initial list was quoted from an article on the Daily Kos which actually contained several errors and only 11 attacks (the above timeline contains all 13 attacks). Also, the list above doesn't include the numerous and fatal attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Iraq war — a war that was vocally supported by Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Fox News Channel.

Speaking of Graham, a search was done on each attack along with the name “Lindsey Graham” in the hopes of discovering that Graham had perhaps commented about the attacks or raised some questions about why the administration didn't prevent the attacks or respond accordingly to prevent additional embassy attacks. No results. Of course. Now, this could mean the search wasn't exhaustive enough. But one thing’s for sure: neither Graham nor any of his cohorts launched a crusade against the Bush administration and the State Department in any of those cases — no one did, including the congressional Democrats, by the way.

This leads us to the ultimate point here. Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrive before the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times. Why didn't the Bush administration do something to secure the compounds after the first attacks? Why didn't he provide additional security?

Nearly every accusation being issued about Benghazi could have been raised about the Bush era attacks, and yet these self-proclaimed truth-seekers refused to, in their words, undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm’s way (a line they repeated over and over again during those years).

So we’re only left to conclude the obvious. The investigations and accusations and conspiracy theories are entirely motivated by politics and a strategy to escalate this to an impeachment trial. In doing so, the Republicans have the opportunity not only to crush the president’s second term, but also to sabotage the potential for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Even if they never arrive at that goal, they have in their possession a cudgel formed of horseshit — a means of flogging the current administration with the singularly effective Republican marketing/noise machine, including the conservative entertainment complex. Very seldom does this machine fail to revise history and distort the truth. Ultimately, they don’t even need a full-blown impeachment proceeding when they have a population of way too many truthers and automatons who take all of these lies at face value — not to mention dubiously sourced chunks of “truth” proffered by radio and cable news conspiracy theorists who, if nothing else, are masters at telling angry conservatives precisely what they want to hear: that the probably-Muslim president is weak on terrorism. And so they’ll keep repeating “Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate, Benghazi-Gate!” without any regard for history or reality. Like always.

Blog from the daily Banter



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Thursday, May 9, 2013

‘Denizens Of Bullshit Mountain Have Cried Wolf Before’



Jon Stewart took on the big Congressional hearing on Benghazi, and specifically on how it’s become the latest way Faux News has gone all-out in covering a potential Obama administration scandal while wondering where the rest of the media is. But Stewart pointed out that no one else is quite on board because everyone’s basing their outrage on speculation, and, frankly, “the denizens of Bullshit Mountain have cried wolf before.”


Stewart I



Stewart pointed out how Faux News has repeatedly highlighted how each different testimony in the past few months would be the big game-changer on Benghazi, and this one would be no different. He pointed out that there was already an accountability report released, and that the GOP seems to be more outraged about this attack than any attack on Americans abroad during the Bush administration.

Stewart also reminded viewers that pretty much every potential Obama administration scandal has been described as worse than Watergate, with one Teapublican congressman saying Benghazi is worse than Watergate plus Iran Contra times ten. But Stewart had to point out that the reason no one else is as outraged as Fox is that while they’re “at DefCon ‘this definitely happened,’” no one actually knows what happened, and so everyone’s just speculating. Stewart mocked all the speculation, saying “if dingleberries were diamonds, I could open a Kay Jewelers in my pants.”

Stewart said that Faux News has a “history of hysteria,” and they may be proven right when more facts come out, “but the denizens of Bullshit Mountain have cried wolf before.”


Stewart II




Things we have learned from the witch-hunt of the American Taliban on Benghazi:

The Benghazi hearing has totally uncovered the heretofore unknown fact that Tepublicans watch a lot of Faux News.
 That dipshit Darrell will next be on HLN to connect both the Jodi Arias case and the Cleveland kidnappings to President Obama and Hilary Clinton.
Faux News is pissed off because both the Arias case and the kidnappings are taking away their thunder.

We at NFTOS are guessing the GOP wing nuts didn't get what they where looking for out of this hearing.

Republicans insist Benghazi is the worst cover-up since whatever the last thing was that was worse than Watergate.

Based on all the people on Fox attacking Hillary right now, she must be doing very well in the polls.

We did a story yesterday about Benghazi, and the important fact to take from that story is that under G.W. Bush ten embassies where attacked and 60 Americans died. Where was the American Taliban then?



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING


BENGHAZI 9/11/2012

Republicans are touting today’s House Oversight Committee hearing as a potential final nail in the coffin of the Obama administration’s continuing cover-up of what really happened the night a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya was attacked last September. In truth, the event is sure to be a rehash of previously debunked finger-pointing and yet another round of political posturing surrounding the tragic death of four Americans.

The GOP’s star witness at today’s hearings is the former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, Gregory Hicks, who the right-wing has labeled the main Benghazi “whistle-blower.” Hicks is expected to give testimony before the panel detailing what he believes could have done above and beyond the efforts the administration expended the night of the attack, actions he claims could have saved lives:
“If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split,” Hicks told House Republican investigators.

Hicks is also expected to explain to the panel that a team of special operations forces was told not to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi prior to the second wave of the attack. According to an excerpt of Hick’s testimony “[Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”


More Embassy Attacks happened under this guy than any other and not one GOP inquiry.

Republicans are latching onto Hicks’ testimony about the lack of military response during the attack as evidence of the administration’s negligence in protecting diplomats overseas and a resulting cover-up to avoid scrutiny. “We were certainly misled at every step of the way,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), one of the loudest voices on Benghazi, said on Monday to a surprisingly skeptical panel on Fox News.

The military has repeatedly said, however, that there were simply no air assets close enough to Benghazi that would have arrived in time to make a difference. Hicks himself admitted during his pre-hearing testimony that the nearest fighter jets were at Aviano Air Base in southern Italy, hours away from Libya with no tanker assets available for refueling purposes.

And while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) during the Senate’s last hearing on the military’s response to Benghazi scolded the Pentagon for not having assets available at the Souda Bay naval base in Crete, Greece, the fact remains that even the hour and a half from the island to Benghazi would have been too late to save Ambassador J. Christopher Stephens and communications specialist Sean Smith. Both died during the first wave of the attack, less than an hour after the Pentagon was first notified.

Likewise, despite what Fox News reports have said, U.S. forces based in Europe as part of U.S. Africa Command would not have arrived until after the second wave of attacks, which took place at the CIA annex in Benghazi hours after the first, had finished.

“The United States military, as I’ve said, is not and frankly should not be a 911 service, arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world,” then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the Senate Armed Services committee in February. That hasn’t stopped conservatives from railing against the lack of cavalry riding into Benghazi at the last minute, which in turn ignores the valiant efforts from the CIA’s response team that saved lives the night of the attack.

Much of what’s to be discussed today was already covered in the State Department’s Accountability Review Board report, which was overseen by former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Michael Mullen and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from trying to tear down the Board’s findings. Instead, the House GOP released its own report with a focus on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, claiming that their findings contradicted her testimony that she was unaware of requests for additional security in Libya.

Attacking Clinton seems to be the raison d’être of today’s hearings, despite lacking the authority order Defense Department assets into the field. “They’re no longer going after the White House, perhaps because the president’s not running for reelection, and they’re going after the former secretary of state, perhaps because she will be,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, explained. And, much like the rest of today’s hearing, going after Clinton in relation to Benghazi is in itself nothing new.

Let's face it readers, this is the smoking gun that wasn't, this is more about discrediting the next President of the United States, AKA Hilary Clinton.

The facts are, more embassy attacks occurred under G. W. Bush than any other President, and in the same breath - during these attacks not one GOPer stood up and bitched, nor did they hold a "House oversight committee hearing".

Instead of wasting time with this hearing, why are these same tea baggers not holding hearings on sequestration, jobs, global warming, housing, wall street?



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

CPAC WITH GUNS

US MAINSTAY ABANDONS THE NRA

When NRA asshat Wayne LaPierre is the voice of reasoning in a convention, you know that the attendees are some pretty loony characters. Yes, unless you have been living under a rock, the Guns Over People [Formally the GOP] met in Texas for their yearly gun hugging get together fest.

Understanding this freak show for what it was, Jon Stewart last night eviscerated the National Republican Association, [Formally known as the NRA].


STEWART I





Stewart opened Monday night’s edition of The Daily Show by looking back at the weekend’s NRA convention and its not-so-singular focus on guns. With Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and others in attendance, Stewart realized, “this is the same lineup, with the same laundry list of conservative grievances, that we saw at CPAC a month and a half ago.”

STEWART II




Depending on which American Taliban'er was speaking at the convention - the degrees of tyranny against the United States varied.

Based on Beck’s warnings against tyranny, the “government is the bad guy.” But based on LaPierre’s praise of the Boston police, “government is the good guy.” By the end of the segment, Stewart said he believes we all want the same thing: for “bad guys not to have guns.” While he and other Democrats want background checks, it appears some on the right want to “wait for a bad guy to draw and then draw faster.”

But if that’s the case, he said, “stop pretending that background checks are the last barrier standing between a free America and Obama-sponsored government mom rape.” 



The full throated lunacy of the NRA has been abound since the Newtown massacre, and America’s mighty proponent of deadly weaponry here, there and everywhere, including in bars and kindergartens, announced that they are prepared to offer meaningful contributions.

Don’t get your hopes up.

The only “meaningful contributions” the NRA has ever made to public safety have been malignant ones — most notably, the millions of dollars by which the organization buys influence in the House, Senate and state capitals.

What can be learned or taken away from this convention you ask? We learned that the NRA and the Guns Over People freaks need to be "Well Regulated"!



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Monday, May 6, 2013

NRA INSRUCTS AUDIENCE TO STORE GUNS IN KIDS ROOM




The National Republican Association, once known as the National Rifle Association, is telling gun owners should store a gun in their kids’ room, according to a ‘Home Defense Concepts’ seminar offered at the National Rifle Association’s Annual Meeting, comments that came just days after the fatal shooting of a two-year-old at the hands of her five-year-old brother.

The course was taught by Rob Pincus, who owns the popular firearm instruction company I.C.E. Training. Pincus argued that, in the event of a home invasion, parents would instinctually run to their children’s room anyway, they might as well have a gun stored there to kill two birds with one stone:
PINCUS: How about putting a quick-access safe in your kids’ room? Good idea or bad idea? We have an emotional push-back to that. Here’s my position on this. If you’re worried that your kid is going to try to break into the safe that is in their bedroom with a gun in it, you have bigger problems than home defense. [Laughter] If you think that the kid who’s going to try to break into the safe because it’s in their room isn't sneaking into your room to try to break into stuff, you’re naive and you have bigger problems than this. So let’s settle that issue and think about it. In the middle of the night, if I’m in the bathroom or getting a glass of water or in the bedroom or watching TV in the living room, if that alarm goes off and the glass breaks and the dog starts barking, what’s the instinct that most people are going to have, in regards to, “am I going to run across the house to get the gun, or am I going to run over here to help the screaming kid?” And if I’m going to go to the kid anyway, and I have an extra gun and an extra safe, why not put it in their closet?




Defensive gun use against home invasions are extremely rare. Many of the statistics commonly cited by the NRA and its allies are based on mathematically impossible calculations, and the best available evidence suggests that almost all criminals hit in gunfire were shot by other criminals.

However, children are wounded and killed by accidental gunshots with horrifying frequency. Roughly 900 kids were killed in gun suicides or accidents in 2010. A Center for Disease Control study of 30,000 incidents of children killed by accidental firearm discharge found kids 0-4 were 17 times more likely to be killed in a gun accident in the states with the four highest levels of gun ownership than those with the four lowest (the figure was 13 times for kids aged 5-14).

Related, a RAND Institute study found that only 39 percent of parents who own guns kept their guns “locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition.” 

Pincus teaches an intruder defense course in schools around the country.

Rob Pincus and The National Republican Association you are  - and shall always be, the worsts person in the world.




NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

Sunday, May 5, 2013

SNL SKEWERS FOX AND FRIENDS

SNL takes another turn giving the dolts at Fox & Friends the respect they deserve!

This is the type of skit, I could watch over and over again never tiring of it - for if you can't make fun of these idiots, then what else do we have?

SNL




There's enough material on Fox every day that Saturday Night Live could make an entire hour out of all of their programming and not just mocking Fox & Friends. For that matter, if anyone wanted to devote an entire network to mocking them -- they would never run out of material as well. There are so many things wrong with the crap that network pumps out on a daily basis that the list is endless.




NFTOS
Staff Writer
Steve "Damn Nazi Liberal" Chevapravatdumrong

Saturday, May 4, 2013

JESUS ONLY FORGIVES REPUBLICANS


Videos courtesy of HBO and Bill Maher

Bill Maher telling it like it is. [Caution Language].




" Fucking Shit" 






NFTOS
Staff Writer
Steve "Damn Nazi Liberal" Chevapravatdumrong

Friday, May 3, 2013

THE SICKNESS

GUN HUGGERS AND THEIR SICKNESS


On Thursday night’s MSNBC's All In, host Chris Hayes tackled the difficult story of Caroline Sparks, the Kentucky two year-old who was accidentally shot and killed by her five year-old brother on Tuesday. It’s a story that stands alone in a clearing amid the forest of the issues we think about when it comes to guns; there’s no background check, or waiting period, or assault weapons ban that could have prevented it. There’s no bad guy. Standing before a hunting graphic emblazoned with the words “The Sickness,” an uncharacteristically fired-up Hayes delivered a commentary that challenged the foundational assumptions we make about gun culture when we talk about firearms regulation.

Hayes began the segment by describing the current state of play in the fight for gun reform, and the likely celebratory goings-on at the annual NRA convention in Houston this week. He urged attendees of that conference to “spend time tonight, tomorrow and all through this conference, thinking about and talking about Caroline Sparks, a 2-year-old Kentucky toddler accidentally shot to death this week by her 5-year-old brother. Not with a gun the 5-year-old found laying around somewhere, with his own gun.”

As it turns out, 5 year-old Kristian Sparks shot and killed his sister with something called a Crickett rifle, a gun manufactured by Keystone Sporting Arms, LLC, and marketed to young children.

ALL IN

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



Most of us have/had young daughters, and many of us live in the city, where gun violence has run amuck. Before you get angry with us liberals for challenging this sacred sick gun culture, keep in mind that our right to not be shot by you gun huggers, way out weighs your right to gun hug.

YOUNG TURKS




That doesn't mean no one should own a gun, but it is clear that gun ownership is going terribly wrong for far too many people, and so, just as gun huggers resent liberals like myself and Chris Hayes, maybe they could look around at what’s happening, and entertain the possibility that they are not infallible, and even if they were, shit still happens. Most caring Americans don’t want anyone to die from gun violence - especially not people who didn't sign up for the risks of gun ownership.



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West




Thursday, May 2, 2013

BACKGROUND CHECK BACKLASH

Senator Kelly Ayotte, NRA puppet and mouthpiece


From the The New Republic:

As the Boston area was gripped by the manhunt that followed the Marathon bombings late last week, the opinion pages of the Concord Monitor just up the road in New Hampshire were consumed with another subject: Senator Kelly Ayotte’s vote against legislation to expand background checks for gun purchases. The paper’s lead editorial Sunday decried Ayotte’s rationale for opposing the bill as “utter nonsense” and an “abomination.” The letters to the editor section is riddled with anti-Ayotte broadsides, the tenor of which are conveyed by their headlines: “Ayotte’s vote should propel her out of office.” “Beyond disappointed.” “Ayotte did not represent her New Hampshire constituents.” “Enabler of murderers.” “Ayotte’s ‘courage.’” “Craven pandering.” “Reckless vote.” “Illogical vote.”

Read the whole story at The New Republic


COLBERT PART I




COLBERT PART II



Ayotte seems to be seeking her fifteen minutes of fame as she makes the headlines yet again. See her in this thinkprogress story.

Senator Kelly Ayotte, NRA mouth piece and puppet, you are today's worst person in the world.



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

GOP FAILS TO LEARN FROM IRAQ


Jon Stewart took offense to the crossing of the "red line" issue of Syria - in its potential usage of chemical weapons against its own people. Stewart focused mostly on the Republican response to this unacceptable red line crossing, calling out their militaristic attitude for not having learned anything from Iraq. Stewart highlighted a few similarities between the current situation with Syria and the one almost ten years ago from Iraq, and found it odd that Republicans haven’t realized they might want to exercise more caution this time around.

Stewart mocked the U.S.-imposed red line, saying “You can come up to the line… [but] you cross that line, mister, you are grounded!” But now that the line has been crossed, what’s the next step? Stewart noticed a lack of clarity from the White House on exactly what happened, using a Dr. Seuss poem to put things into perspective.


WHO'S LINE IS IT ANYWAY PART I




However, what Stewart found more interesting was how the GOP has been criticizing Obama for not getting more involved in Syria, and tore into Lindsey Graham for suggesting giving the right weapons to the right people, by pointing out that could be solved with background checks. But Republicans like Graham and John McCain don’t want boots on the ground, and Stewart couldn’t help but wonder how the hell that’s supposed to happen if the U.S. is going to arm the rebels and then consequently asking for those arms back. When Graham suggested international involvement, Stewart quipped that we may as well just send in Latvian troops.


WHO'S LINE IS IT ANYWAY PART II




But any action is going to run into roadblocks at the U.N., and Stewart found it awkward that any potential intervention in Syria relies on “convincing Vladimir Putin that it’s bad to poison people.” Stewart called out GOP senators and George W. Bush for not learning any lessons from Iraq, suggesting “that little misadventure made us a little more cautious” about how we handle red lines.




NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

SYRIA, WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

THIS MAN NEEDS TO GO AKA BASHAR al-ASSAD.

Over the last several days, the Syrian crisis has exploded back into the news. As the U.S. debates how to respond to the now two-year long struggle, here’s the what you need to know:

How this all began

The current crisis in Syria began in 2011, with civilian protests launched during a wave of pro-democracy sentiment known as the Arab Spring. Those protests were met with harsh repression from the Syrian government under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad. Assad’s regime continued to crackdown on protesters, eventually resorting to massive human rights abuses including torture, disappearances, extrajudicial executions and detention of medical patients. In response, civilians began to take up arms against the Syrian government, transforming a peaceful movement to increase democratic freedoms into an all-out civil war. Since the beginning of the conflict, more than 70,000 Syrians have died.

Who’s doing the fighting
Over the past two years, the make-up of the Syrian opposition has shifted considerably. In the beginning, the opposition was composed mostly of civil society leaders and Syrian citizens with a small armed group taking shape across the border in Turkey. Since then, the rebels have spawned an entire network of loosely affiliated groups fighting against the Assad regime — and each other at times. Instead of hiding across the border, rebels now openly control a large swath of territory in the north and west of the country as the Syrian government continues to push back.

While many of the rebel groups are secular, recent months have shown an influx of foreign fighters into the country, seeking to impose a harsh version of Islam upon Syria once the Assad regime falls. The U.S. has labeled one such group — Jabhat al-Nusra — a terrorist group for its close ties to Al Qaeda. These murky connections between the rebels and jihadis have proved difficult for Western governments seeking to effect the situation on the ground.

The effect on the Syrian people and the region

As time wore on in the conflict, the Syrian government unleashed more and greater violence was against civilians, including the use of armored vehicles, fixed-wing aircraft and mortars against whole neighborhoods. Making matters worse, rebels are now accused of taking part in atrocities as well.

This has all led to a massive humanitarian crisis in Syria and the surrounding region. As of March, more than one million Syrians have fled into the neighboring countries of Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, placing a massive strain on those states’ governments. According to the United Nations, over 4.25 million Syrians are now internally displaced within the country.

Did Syria use chemical weapons?

Whether or not the Syrian government utilized chemical weapons against its people is the primary reason Syria has exploded back into the news. Last week, the United States announced that it has evidence that chemical weapons were used in Syria, namely sarin. That revelation comes with several caveats, however: the chain of custody of the evidence the U.S. has isn’t clear, nor is exactly how the samples obtained were exposed to the chemical. The U.S. government has also not declared definitively whether or not it was the Assad regime that used sarin, an act that would cross a “red-line” the administration set forth as an action that would spur greater intervention.

The United States’ response

The Obama administration has declared several times that the Assad regime’s days are numbered and that the Syrian president must go. So far, however, the United States has stuck with its policy of providing humanitarian aid — more than $385 million worth to date — to Syria’s civilians and providing “non-lethal aid” to the opposition. That includes a recent decision to provide items such as night-vision goggles and bullet-proof vests to the rebels. The United States is also heavily involved in coordinating the flow of weapons to Syria from Gulf states while not providing such arms itself.

The question that remains is whether a greater U.S. intervention is necessary, and if so in what form. The range of possible responses under consideration range from directly providing arms to the Syrian opposition to establishing a No-Fly Zone in Syria to protect civilians and give the rebels cover to operate. The debate does not evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, with members on both sides advocating for swift action in Syria and members of both parties urging caution in proceeding forward. Even hawks like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), however, are coming out against the idea of American boots being on the ground in Syria.

The current policy towards Syria does not appear to be in the U.S.’ best interests, however. “It is time for a change in policy,” CAP experts said in a report on the situation in Syria released in February. “The United States needs to increase its assistance to the Syrian opposition with the goal of supporting an alternative opposition government that is better organized than at present.” Several CAP experts also last week released a series of recommended courses of action for the U.S. to lead the way in responding to the Assad regime’s possible use of chemical weapons. Such actions include coordinating with NATO and regional allies to provide a major humanitarian aid push for Syrian refugees and calling an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to put the onus on Russia to stand by the Syrian regime publicly in the aftermath of a likely chemical weapons attack.



NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

Monday, April 29, 2013

BUSH v. GORE REGRETS

Former Supreme Justice Sandra Day O' Connor

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the conservative retired justice who provided the fifth vote to install George W. Bush as president, is now having second thoughts about that decision:
Looking back, O’Connor said, she isn’t sure the high court should have taken [Bush v. Gore].

“It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue,” O’Connor said during a talk Friday with the Tribune editorial board. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’”

The case, she said, “stirred up the public” and “gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation.”

“Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision,” she said. “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.“

If nothing else, Bush v. Gore demonstrates how justices who are determined to reach a certain result are capable of bending both the law and their own prior jurisprudence in order to achieve it. In Bush, the five conservative justices held, in the words of Harvard’s Larry Tribe, that “equal protection of the laws required giving no protection of the laws to the thousands of still uncounted ballots.

The Court’s decision to hand the presidency to Bush stunned many legal observers, some of whom were O’Connor’s fellow justices. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens once recounted a story where he ran into fellow Justice Stephen Breyer at a party while a relatively early phase of the case was pending before the Court. According to Stevens, “we agreed that the application was frivolous.”

Indeed, Bush’s own lawyers were skeptical of the legal theory that ultimately made up the basis of the Court’s decision in Bush. As Ben Ginsberg, a top lawyer on Bush’s presidential campaign, explained in 2006, “just like really with the Voting Rights Act, Republicans have some fundamental philosophical difficulties with the whole notion of Equal Protection.”

And, yet, O’Connor and four of her fellow Republicans joined together to embrace a particularly aggressive reading of Equal Protection — at least so long as it could put George W. Bush in the White House.




NFTOS
STAFF WRITER