MICHIGAN JUDGE OVERTURNS SAME SEX MARRIAGE BAN

A federal judge has overturned Michigan’s constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage. In the decision, Judge Bernard Friedman, a Regan appointee, argued that this is a case about people’s equal protection, lauding the couple that brought the case for the sacrifices they've made to raise their children:

In attempting to define this case as a challenge to “the will of the people,” state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people. No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples. It is the Court’s fervent hope that these children will grow up “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail.

Michigan’s trial was unique because it included testimony from a panel of experts, and the state brought in several researchers that have been responsible for fueling conservatives’ claims that children of same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by a married mom and dad. Outlining the case’s findings of fact, Judge Friedman rejected the anti-gay researchers’ claims, saying in particular of Mark Regnerus’s testimony that it was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration”:

Marks, Price, and Allen all failed to concede the importance of “convenience sampling” as a social science research tool. They, along with Regnerus, clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields. The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the “no differences” consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples.

In other words, though the research on same-sex parenting is still advancing, nothing worth considering has yet contradicted the consensus that same-sex couples make just as effective parents as their heterosexual counterparts.

Friedman’s decision follows similar rulings in Texas, Kentucky, Virginia, Oklahoma, Ohio, Illinois, and Utah.

Cross posted from thinkprogress

NFTOS 

STAFF WRITER

FRED PHELPS NOW LEARNING WHAT GOD TRULY HATES

THE DISGUSTING POS NAMED FRED PHELPS

BREAKING: Hell welcomes its newest resident.

Wednesday night, anti-gay, military gravesite protester, and Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelps passed away at the age of 84. His church’s rallying cry of “God Hates Fags” has long drawn the ire of people everywhere - all across the spectrum - his death only served to underscore this worldly unity of hate for this asshat.

Yes, Fred Phelps was the lowest form of human excrement to ever troll this earth.

The truth is, Fred Phelps made a lot of people angry. Not only the families of AIDS patients, but gay men and American soldiers alike - celebrities whose funerals he relentlessly picketed along with a few dozen members of his Westboro Baptist Church. As journalist Donna Minkowitz chronicled almost twenty years ago in Poz magazine, “harassing bereaved families is Phelps’s specialty.” “I love to use words that send them off the edge emotionally,” he told her, “There’s nothing better than that.”

Phelps’s early victims included not just AIDS advocates like Nicholas Rango (1993) and Randy Shilts (1994) and gay men of modest fame like composer Kevin Oldham (1993), but also anonymously harassed individuals like Kenneth Scott, a Topeka graduate student who died in 1992. Scott’s sister Sue Mee told Minkowitz, “When Kenny died, they came to the funeral with a sign that said ‘Fags=Death’ with a big smiley face,” and that years later, Scott’s family would still receive phone calls from random individuals asking, “Is this the house where fags live?”

Later, Phelps would broaden his grotesque trolling to include the funerals of slain US soldiers, whom he reckoned God had killed as punishment for America’s sexual immorality.

Phelps ranted on about God’s hate for fags, for America, for Muslims, for Catholics, gun massacre victims and US troops. If American exceptionalism is in some way an attempt to imbue the profane - Phelps merely reversed polarities, swapping in eternal damnation. To discuss Phelps as if he were a morally vexing and profound evil - is to kind for this disgusting prick, dignifying him with a complexity he lacked. His hatred was banal, his existence, a waste of human flesh.

May his judgment be harsh, and may his nasty soul burn in hell for eternity. Good riddance asshat, this world is much better with you gone.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

VIRGINIA GOPER SAYS MEDICAID EXPANSION MUCH LIKE A TAR BABY

FRANK "TAR BABY" RUFF

Virginia State Senator Frank M. Ruff’s ardent opposition to the Medicaid expansion offered to the states under the Affordable Care Act took a new turn on Tuesday. Ruff has confirmed that he “compared reliance on promised funds to provide health insurance for thousands of low-income Virginians to a ‘tar baby,’” a statement that was first reported in the Virginian-Pilot.

Ruff told attendees at the Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce’s legislative breakfast that Virginia would be stuck if Medicaid expansion became financially disadvantageous in the future, like a “tar baby.” The Virginian-Pilot noted that the term “comes from the Uncle Remus collection of African American folklore tales published in the post-Reconstruction South and written in the eye dialect of rural blacks of that era,” and is “perceived as a racial slur against African Americans in some circles.”

John Gilstrap, a member of the Danville City Council, denounced the comment as “not a correct statement to make” and “offensive to a couple African Americans in the audience.” Gilstrap told the Pilot that Danville Mayor Sherman Saunders had walked out of the meeting after Ruff’s comparison.

In an email, Ruff said:

“Speaking with no prepared remarks I used the term ‘tar baby’ referring to a sticky situation one time. Never have I ever heard this as a racial term. I called the Mayor yesterday afternoon to clarify that. I consider Sherman a friend and do not expect this to change our working together in the future for all of the people of the region.”

Ruff was one of 17 Senate Republicans to vote against accepting billions of dollars in federal funding to expand Medicaid eligibility to roughly 400,000 Virginians. Ruff and other legislative Republicans say they are worried that the promised federal funding will not come through, and thus have voted to effectively let $5 million each day of Virginians’ tax dollars subsidize other states that have opted into the expansion. Though the expansion passed the Democratic Party-controlled Senate (with three Republicans joining all 20 Democrats) and enjoys the strong support of Gov. Terry McAuliffe , the Republican-controlled House of Delegates has, thus far, refused to accept it.

A standoff over this issue prevented agreement on a state budget and a special session has been called for next week. At the breakfast, Ruff expressed hope that Democrats would accept a “clean budget” without the expansion, effectively surrendering their leverage.

Congratulations Frank Ruff, you are today's asshat of the day and today's worst person in the world.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

TIN FOIL HAT SOCIETY IN WISCONSIN AIDING AND ABETTING SCOTT "KOCH WHORE" WALKER

Photo from Crooks and Liars

Scott Walker is barely maintaining his governorship - between the John Doe investigation and a strong Democratic challenger - now enters the Wisconsin tea baggers, who are working to ease the pains of the reckless Governor.

Troubled Scott Walker - After last month's massive email dump revealed the depth of his staff's probable illegal on-the-job campaign activity and their awful attitudes, he's barely holding on against challenger Mary Burke.

But not to worry, Scottie! Your Senate cronies are on it for you. PRWatch:

SB 654, quietly introduced earlier this month by Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, who is reportedly under investigation in the John Doe probe, would reverse judicial precedent and declare that "issue ads" cannot be considered a candidate contribution. Those changes, if enacted, would conform Wisconsin statutes to Wisconsin Club for Growth's arguments in the John Doe case, and legalize the conduct under investigation in time for statewide elections later this year.

No worries says Walker, when in trouble, have your fellow society members change the law for you - if you fail to follow the law, change it, especially if it means you could coordinate with outside groups.

If enacted, the legislation would not necessarily stop the John Doe probe. It would, however, legalize the conduct under investigation in the John Doe for state elections later this year -- including Scott Walker's hotly-contested reelection campaign. 

This means that the Walker campaign could work hand-in-glove with an "issue ad" group like Wisconsin Club for Growth, which can accept secret, unlimited donations. 

"The proposed policy change is a horrible one," the Campaign Legal Center's Ryan told CMD. "It would pose a serious threat of corruption in Wisconsin politics, and open the door wide to unlimited and undisclosed political expenditures." 

As CMD has previously pointed out, allowing coordinated issue ads could undermine campaign finance and disclosure laws, since a multi-million-dollar donation to Wisconsin Club for Growth would have almost the same value as a donation directly to Walker -- with the same opportunity for corruption, and the same problems with the press and the public not knowing about the true source of the donations. Because a donation to a candidate-aligned issue ad group would not be publicly disclosed, the public would be unable to track whether the donation resulted in favorable treatment.

Its time to amp up the pressure on this Koch Whore!

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

ANOTHER UNBELIEVABLE STORY FROM TEA BAGGER LAND

A Republican lawmaker in South Dakota believes that businesses should be able to deny services to African Americans, gay people, or anyone else who offends their religious beliefs.

Phil Jensen, who the Rapid City Journal describes as the state’s most conservative senator, argues that the government should get out of the way and allow the free market to shut down discriminatory businesses. Last session, he introduced a measure that would have allowed employers to turn away undesirable clients without any legal repercussions:

“It’s a bill that protects the constitutional right to free association, the right to free speech and private property rights,” he said. 

Jensen goes so far as to say that businesses should have the right to deny service based on a customer’s race or religion – whether that’s right or wrong, he says, can be fairly addressed by the free market, not the government. “If someone was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and they were running a little bakery for instance, the majority of us would find it detestable that they refuse to serve blacks, and guess what? In a matter of weeks or so that business would shut down because no one is going to patronize them,” he said.

The measure, Senate Bill 128, ultimately died in committee, after LGBT advocates and even some Republicans characterized it as “a mean, nasty, hateful, vindictive bill.”

Multiple states have defeated similar proposals, including Mississippi, Arizona, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia Kansas, Maine, Tennessee, and Idaho. Missouri is the only state that is still considering a similar measure.

Phil Jensen, you are today's worst person in the world!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY DUMPING COPIUS AMOUNTS OF CASH TO DENY POOR HEALTH CARE

 KOCH ADS

Obamacare opponents have already run more than 30,000 television ads attacking the health law and Democratic candidates who support it, according to the media tracking group CMAG — a staggering 12-fold increase from four years ago. Many of the ads are being run in states with high un-insurance rates where hundreds of thousands of poor people could benefit from the Affordable Care Act, including Arkansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

Nearly half of all ads that have been run about the health law in House and Senate races through March 9 are critical of the ACA. And in a reflection of the post-Citizens United political landscape, spending by outside groups without any official connection to a particular organization or party accounts for almost three-fourths of all the commercials, compared to just 13 percent in 2010.

“We knew there would be heightened public awareness around the implementation of the law, and we thought it was important to go up early with a heavy effort,” said Tim Phillips, president of the Koch brother-funded group Americans for Prosperity (AFP), in an interview with Bloomberg.

AFP has run the most anti-Obamacare ads of any political group by a large margin, targeting vulnerable Democrats who are up for re-election, such as Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Sen. Mary Landrieu . The organization’s spots play up misleading “horror stories” related to the health law, such as Americans who have had their insurance policies cancelled or seen their premiums spike. But the ads’ content tends to range from exaggeration to outright misinformation — and AFP has even been caught hiring paid actors to play the roles of “real” local residents.

It remains to be seen just how much the advertising assault will affect this November’s elections. But many of the commercials are concentrated in regions where large numbers of people can — and already have — take advantage of Obamacare’s consumer protections and financial assistance, especially the health law’s optional expansion of Medicaid.

More than 100,000 of the poorest Arkansas residents have enrolled in private health plans under the state’s alternative to Medicaid expansion. Louisiana, which has rejected the expansion, has seen more than 45,000 people sign up for plans through the state’s Obamacare marketplace as of March 1. And Kentucky, where AFP is going all out to assist Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s re-election bid, has one of the most successful Obamacare marketplaces in the entire country, with over 87,000 enrollments through the Medicaid expansion and 55,000 enrollments through the private exchange.

A Bloomberg poll from Thursday also suggests that the “repeal-or-bust” stance being advanced by Obamacare foes isn’t particularly popular. Just under 65 percent of Americans either support the ACA outright or small fixes to the health law while just 34 percent endorse full repeal, according to the poll.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

HOLY SHIP

On Friday evening, Bill Maher‘s “New Rules” segment concluded with a lengthy evisceration against the arbitrary rules and customs set forth in the Bible, as well as some of the more unbelievable details religious folks still believe to be literally true.

Maher began the monologue by declaring that America is “stupid” because 60 percent of the country reportedly believes the tale of Noah’s ark is literally true. He went on to slam the film Noah as “floating giraffe crap,” but said it “must be doing something right” since it’s been condemned by both Muslims and Christians. And the fact that it might lose a lot of studio money, he joked, “may put it in hot water with the Jews too.”

That gave way to a rant on how the world is now four centuries removed from the scientific revolution, and yet we still find the Noah’s ark story to be entirely true, despite some of the more… unbelievable… details. Christians are mad about the blockbuster film, he noted, because it doesn't take the Bible literally enough. “They’re mad that this made-up story doesn't stay true to their made-up story,” he quipped.

But, really, Maher said, Noah’s tale is an “immoral” one because it’s about a “psychotic mass murderer who gets away with it and his name is God.” The Earth’s creator became so irate that he had created mankind so flawed, as Maher related, that he sent a flood to kill everyone, including babies.

“What kind of tyrant kills everyone just to get back at the few he’s mad at? I mean, besides Chris Christie,” he jabbed.

“Isn't life hard enough without making shit up out of thin air to fuck with yourself?” he later asked of religion’s arbitrary rules about food, clothing, and other material goods.

VIDEO COURTESY OF HBO

Episode 310 by BillMaher1956

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

BULLSHIT MOUNTAIN LEARNS THE TRUTH ABOUT FOOD STAMPS

FOX NEWS AKA BULLSHIT MOUNTAIN

Last night, Jon Stewart delivered an epic take-down of the utter hypocrisy of Fox News for attacking those on food stamps, while also making excuses for big corporations that drain a lot more money from our system - after Eric Bolling was bold enough to actually try and attack Stewart for calling them out last week.


Stewart Part I Video Courtesy of Comedy Central

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

Stewart Part II Video Courtesy of Comedy Central

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

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

MEET ARIZONA'S NEWEST TIN FOIL HAT SOCIETY MEMBER

Arizona congressional candidate Jim Brown (tea bagger) compared entitlements to slavery in a Facebook post Wednesday, explaining that entitlements give politicians “power over the people allowing them to control us” much like slave owners that “took pretty good care of their slaves and livestock.” 

Brown urged people to vote so lawmakers start to focus on “jobs, education, and opportunity – not slavery”:

The government programs panned as “slavery” include Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, housing subsidies, unemployment insurance, and low-income tax credits — all of which take aim at reducing poverty. Without them, the country’s poverty rate would be twice as high today.

After exiting an adjacent House race for Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick’s seat, Brown joined Republicans Martha McSally and Shelley Kais in the primary race to compete against Rep. Ron Barber. Brown’s own webpage describes him as “direct and not always Politically Correct. I am the imperfect candidate.”

Congratulations Jim Brown, you are today's asshat of the day!

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief 

Roger West

DESPICABLE ME, GIFTING FOR ALLIES

DESPICABLE ME, CHRIS CHRISTIE GIVES AWAY 9/11 LEFTOVERS

Just when you thought the train had finished crashing - if you thought that Chris Christie's "bridge-gate" was disgusting, hold the phone, as it is emerging that Governor "Krispy Kreme" AKA New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has given away wreckage taken from the 9/11 World Trade Center site as political gifts to his allies.

An investigation has revealed that Christie used New Jersey's Port Authority as a "de facto political operation" where he would hand political favors to supporters. Understanding readers that the Port Authority was crucial to Christie as a means of winning the endorsement of Democrats and union leaders - which Christie used to strip his Democratic gubernatorial challenger Barbara Buono of allies and political capital.

MADDOW PART I video courtesy of MSBNC




MADDOW Part II




I think this story proves that Governor Krispy Kreme is a vile tactless pig. Grab the torches, I have the pitch fork.

Congratulations Chris Christie, your are this weeks worst person in the world!

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

STEWART'S SYNOPSIS OF CPAC [Crazy People At Convention] 2014

Jon Stewart rounded up the best of “crazy” CPAC Monday night, which he described as “Burning Man for people who don’t do drugs and are afraid of fire.” He summed up the big, patriotic speeches with some genital-centered jokes, declaring, “Take it out and jerk it for America!”

Stewart mocked Ted Cruz doing a Jay Leno joke, advising the senator, “Listen, Cruz, don’t quit your day job… Let me rephrase that. Quit your day job.” He took on Paul Ryan‘s anecdote about “free lunches” with the takeaway: “If you give a man a fish, don’t. Period. End of Bible.”

But Stewart saved the best barbs for NRA official Wayne LaPierre, declaring that people need as many guns as possible to defend themselves from all the evil around them. Stewart bewilderedly asked, “Where the fuck do you live? Vice City?”

PART ONE

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

PART TWO

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

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

ROBERT GATES ENLIGHTENS TIN FOIL HAT SCOIETY

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates pushed back on Sunday against conservatives who’ve blamed President Obama’s “weak” foreign policy for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Crimea.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Gates dismissed arguments that Obama’s handling of the conflict in Syria or his efforts to trim the defense budget emboldened Putin, arguing that the Russian president also invaded Georgia during the George W. Bush administration.

“My own view is, after all, Putin invaded Georgia when George W. Bush was president. Nobody ever accused George W. Bush of being weak or unwilling to use military force,” Gates, who served as Defense Secretary for Presidents George W. Bush and Obama said. “So I think Putin is very opportunistic in these arenas. I think that even if — even if we had launched attacks in Syria, even if we weren’t cutting our defense budget — I think Putin saw an opportunity here in Crimea, and he has seized it.” Earlier this week, Gates told the Washington Post that the GOP lawmakers should “tone down” their criticism and “try to be supportive of the president rather than natter at the president.”

Though most Republicans agree with Obama’s policy for handling the Crimean crisis, some conservatives have argued that Obama’s perceived “weakness” on the global stage has given Putin the space to move Russian troops into Crimea. “We have a weak and indecisive president” and that “invites aggression,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said last week. “Putin is playing chess and I think we’re playing marbles,” Rep. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee claimed, adding that Russia is “running circles around us.”

During his appearance, Gates also dismissed criticism of Obama’s weekend vacation. “I’ve seen this happen year after year, president after president. President takes a day or two off and plays golf. Doesn’t matter whether it’s President Obama or the first President Bush going fishing. I think you’ve got to give these guys a little time off, you know, mostly they are working 20 hours a day.”

Gates said he does not believe that “Crimea will slip out of Russia’s hand.” “I think its part of a long-term strategy on Putin’s part to create a Russian sphere of influence, a Russian bloc,” he explained. “I don’t think he will stop in Ukraine until there is essentially a pro-Russian government in Ukraine, in Kiev.”

Cross posted from thinkprogress




NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

RAND PAUL TAKES RWNJ FRUIT LOOP BOWL - STRAW POLL FOR SECOND STRAIGHT YEAR

HILLARY'S IMMEDIATE REACTION TO RAND PAUL'S TIN FOIL HAT STRAW POLL WIN

Now with the clown convention ending and with 31 percent of the vote, Sen. Rand Paul won the closely watched Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll this weekend, dwarfing second place finisher Sen. Ted Cruz’s 11 percent of the vote.

The son of libertarian icon and former Congressman Ron Paul, Rand Paul has emerged as the nation’s leading spokesperson for an anti-government philosophy that would undo nearly all the accomplishments of the New Deal and the Civil Rights Era. As a Senate candidate in 2010, Paul came out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964′s bans on private discrimination — including the bans on employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters — claiming that the right of “private ownership” should trump African Americans’ and other minorities’ right to be free from invidious discrimination. Permitting private discrimination, according to Paul, is “the hard part about believing in freedom.”

Nor are Paul’s libertarian views limited to his skepticism towards civil rights protections. In 2013, Paul endorsed a long-ago overruled Supreme Court decision called Lochner v. New York. The Court’s Lochner opinion relied on a fabricated “right to contract” that it and subsequent cases used to strike down various laws protecting workers from exploitative employers — on the idea that if a worker signs a contract that forces them to work 16 hours a day for barely subsistence wages then it would somehow violate the worker’s rights to pay them more money for fewer hours work.

Lochner was overruled in 1937, after the Great Depression discredited the largely libertarian economic policy that had been imposed upon the country by the Supreme Court. And it was, until very recently, viewed as a disastrous opinion even among leading conservatives. Robert Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by a Senate that deemed him too conservative, labeled Lochner as “the quintessence of judicial usurpation of power.”

Yet, if Rand Paul were elected president, he would have the power to nominate potential Supreme Court justices who would restore Lochner and who would potentially strike down the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters to boot. And this is the man that one of the nation’s top conservative gatherings selected as their first choice to be the next President of the United States.

Unfortunately, Paul's logic has a gaping holes in it. Transactions are two party deals. "Freedom" does not accrue to only one party in the deal. That is why we have a Constitution - to protect the weak from the powerful. It is why we cannot establish a religion in America and why we have freedom of speech. It is only in the last decade has the Court ruled that money is speech and greatly devaluing that freedom. One of the very reasons we have government is to level out the playing field - and right now, it could use some more leveling out.

In a tribute to both CPAC and the dead Andrew Breitbart, how could we forget this freaks antics?

THE DEAD BREITBART IN BETTER TIMES FOR CPAC

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

THE GOP MINOTITY OUTREACH THAT WASN'T

EMPTY OUTREACH ROOM AT CPAC 14

CPAC attracts a certain type of crowd. No, not necessarily just the rich, though One Percenters are a bit over-represented at probably 50% of the audience. Not just gun nuts either, though Wayne LaPierre had no problem filling a large ballroom at the 2014 CPAC convention. No, the crowd CPAC attracts is overwhelmingly…white.

In the minutes prior to Wayne LaPierre’s brought a stirring round of applause upon saying “Freedom is having all the handguns, shotguns and rifles we want,” the ballroom in which he said it was oddly silent and empty. A few minutes before LaPierre took the stage to represent Blackwater and Beretta, those waiting in the room caught the tail end of one of the GOP’s most important panels.

The panel on minority outreach.

Tweeted by John Hudak, this is what the ballroom looked like during this discussion.

The empty room was, itself, the subject of some discussion during the panel, as political strategist Jason Roe suggested that Democrats draw larger minority crowds because they have more “goodies” to offer. Robert Woodson, another GOP strategist, responded.

“It’s not goodies. It bothers me that people assume that lower-income respond to gifts —food stamps or things that will be given to them. Nobody wants to be dependent so let’s assume that people want a hand up and not a hand down.”

Well said, Bob. But that’s not exactly the thing that should be bothering you here. What SHOULD be bothering you is that in a discussion about “minority outreach,” the subject of government handouts and “goodies” should come up AT ALL.

Woodson says it’s because they don’t have a “ground game” in minority areas.

And this is what lay at the echoing heart of the GOP’s empty room: It’s not an outright maliciousness toward minorities. It’s the frame of reference itself. As this panel shows, the GOP can’t even talk about minorities without characterizing them as “the other guys,” “the people who need a hand up,” “the disadvantaged ones.” For certain, minorities are at a disadvantage in the United States, but even on its best day the GOP cannot help itself from referring to said minorities as wards of a higher and wiser power. That higher and wiser power, of course, being people who aren’t minorities.

That’s true whether conservatives are talking about people of other genders or other races. Even at its most benevolent, the GOP cannot hide its desire to rule those outside of its own club, rather than to govern all clubs equally. And you can bet even the hardest core conservatives haven’t missed the message that that message is failing…nor did they miss the irony of the fact that the room only began filling up as the outreach panel ran over its time, and Wayne LaPierre fans came for early seats. Hudak:

“The GOP grassroots and activist groups are perfectly right to cheer the words of LaPierre. But they should be cheering the words of Ed Gillespie and Elroy Sailor even louder. The diversity panel is the path to the party being successful and making inroads into traditionally Democratic groups. If the GOP wants to see the Democratic Party struggle to elect a president, they should win 20% of the African American Vote or 50% of the Latino vote. Adding the votes of a few more gun rights supporters won’t make the difference in 2016 and 2020 and beyond.

If the attendance pictured above reflects the party’s future approach to diversity outreach, it is probably safe to say that for some the given future, the White House will be a solid hue of deep blue.”

Here’s the CSPAN video of the panel. Note in the beginning that the speaker is talking to a room that is virtually empty:


The Rest of the Story

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

FREE BIRTH CONTROL DOES NOT ENCOURAGE RISKY SEX

Providing women with access to no-cost contraception doesn't spur them to make riskier sexual choices, according to a large study published in the Obstetrics & Gynecology journal this week. The researchers who collected the data noted that their results should dispel social conservatives’ fears that the risk of pregnancy is “the only thing standing between women and promiscuity.”

The study is part of the ongoing Contraceptive CHOICE project, a research initiative at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis that has been tracking nearly 10,000 low-income women of reproductive age for several years. The women participating in the project received an FDA-approved contraceptive of their choice at no additional cost to them.

In 2012, the researchers confirmed that this policy — which simulates the Obamacare provision that extends birth control coverage without a co-pay — effectively helped lower these women’s rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. Then, the researchers conducted a follow-up investigation into other aspects of the participants’ sexual behavior, surveying them about their number of sexual partners and the frequency of sexual intercourse during the year after they received their free birth control.

Most of the women did report that they were having sex more frequently — but they were doing it safely. The majority of participants, 70 percent, reported that there was no difference in the number of their sexual partners. The women who did report an increase were most likely to have gone from zero sexual activity to a sole sexual partner. There also weren't any increased rates of sexually transmitted infections among the group that got no-cost contraception.

“Increasing access to no-cost contraceptives doesn't translate into riskier sexual behavior,” Jeffrey Peipert, the study’s senior author, explained. “It’s not the contraception that drives their sexual behavior.”

Indeed, even among the women who indicated that they wanted to start using birth control specifically so they could become sexually active, more than 45 percent had not actually started having sex after a year of using contraception.

The new research paper directly refutes arguments from

groups like the right-wing Family Research Council, which argues that it’s important to restrict access to contraception to dissuade teens from having sex. Nonetheless, the debate over Obamacare’s birth control provision has largely centered on this myth about female sexuality. Particularly after Sandra Fluke testified in favor of the policy, conservatives were quick to bash her for being a “slut” who wanted the government to finance her promiscuous sex life. Two years later, Republican lawmakers are still repeating this line of reasoning.

Thanks to deeply ingrained societal attitudes toward women — who are expected to remain pure, and who are often punished for displaying their sexuality — this attitude extends to other areas of sexual health, too. Many Americans are uncomfortable with the HPV vaccine, effective long-lasting forms of birth control, and comprehensive sex education because they believe these resources could somehow encourage girls to become sexually active.

Cross posted from thinkprogress

NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

ITS TIME FOR "MR. GRAND THEFT AUTO" TO GO

At a House hearing yesterday, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa cut the mic of Democratic Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings, fueling the Congressional Black Caucus to demand Issa face punishment for his “unequivocally unacceptable” actions.

Writing on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Marcia Fudge said House Speaker John Boehner should reprimand Issa and strip him of his chairmanship.

Boehner has no plans to condemn the fellow Republican. “I think he was within his rights to do what he did,” Boehner told reporters Thursday. “Darrell Issa is the chairman, he’s been an effective chairman, and I support him.” But Fudge argued, “The abuse of authority and misuse of the Congressional privileges afforded them are an affront to the expectations of the American public. Congressman Darrell Issa of California abused his authority and therefore must be reprimanded to ensure the dignity of the House of Representatives is preserved.”

The letter points out that not only were Issa’s actions “deplorable” and a “disgrace” but he also violated Oversight Committee rules and the rules of the House. Those rules maintain all members shall be treated and act with an integrity and behavior “that reflects creditably on the House,” and that each member is allotted a full 5 minutes to question a witness. Issa adjourned the committee before Cummings could question the witness at the hearing about the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of tax-exempt status groups.

Issa defended his behavior after the hearing, saying that Cummings “was actually slandering me at the moment that the mics did go off by claiming that this had not been a real investigation.”

In a party-line vote, the House tabled a resolution condemning Issa for his behavior at the hearing.

In most committees Issa would be a disgrace, for the GOP led house, he fits right right in.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

POOR DARRELL "GRAND THEFT AUTO" ISSA

RADICAL RIGHT WING NUT JOB DARRELL ISSA

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa sought to silence the ranking Democrat on the Committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings, during a hearing on the Internal Revenue Service’s improper targeting of groups applying for tax-exempt status.

On Wednesday, after former IRS official Lois Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination, Issa quickly moved to adjourn the session, saying he could “see no point in going further.” But as Cummings began to ask a procedural question about the issue, the Chairman tried to cut his mic, leaving Cummings to shout from his seat.

THE WALK OUT

“I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America! I am tired of this,” he said, adding that after spending at least $14 million, the Committee has uncovered “no evidence to support allegations of a political conspiracy against conservative groups.”

After walking out, Issa defended his actions to reporters, saying that Cummings intended to “make a speech.” “He was talking into a mic in an adjourned meeting,” Issa said. “He was actually slandering me at the moment that the mics did go off by claiming that this had not been a real investigation.”

Related, Darrell Issa's Criminal Rap Sheet:

Papantonio and Ed Schultz Discuss Darrell Issa’s Criminal Record

Martin Bashir Reminds Viewers Of Darrell Issa's Criminal Past

I applaud Rep Elijah Cummings for doing what most won't, and that's go toe-to-toe with radical teabaggers like Darrell Issa.

Darrell Issa is yet another GOP example of what we call the "Ted Nugent Maxim": The louder the snarl, the wider the yellow stripe of cowardice".

Congratulations Darrell Issa, you are todays' asshat of the day, and worlds worst person!

In other news, the tin foil hat society hits a milestone, as they yet again - voted for the 50th time to repeal "Obamacare". Seriously readers, if you keep voting for this shit may you live eternity in the misery you create.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

THE GOP JUST DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BEING STUPID

TODAY'S WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD - LINDSEY GRAHAM

Now Enters Sen. Lindsey Graham (Tea bagger) blaming President Obama’s handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, tweeting Tuesday afternoon that it somehow emboldened the Russians to attack.

Though the Russian incursion into Crimea was motivated principally by Russian strategic concerns after the fall of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Graham blamed American conduct in North Africa:

Last month, a GOP House Armed Services Report, which found that there was no plausible way for the United States to have used military force to prevent the Benghazi attack.

Below is a photo of Obama's predecessor and how he handled a similar situation. 

May God keep blessing us with these unlettered troglodytes!






NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

EX-ZIMMERMAN LAWYERS SAYS REFORM IS IN ORDER

The lawyer whose client, George Zimmerman, first made Florida’s Stand Your Ground law famous has become a potential unlikely ally in calling for at least limited reform of the law.

Mark O’Mara said he plans to propose a rule limiting when juries would be instructed on the notorious self-defense law, which allows deadly force with no duty to retreat. The law first came up in the killing of Trayvon Martin when police cited the law as a reason for not initially charging Zimmerman. After national outcry, Zimmerman was charged 44 days later, and Zimmerman’s lawyer later opted not to specifically raise the Stand Your Ground defense at trial.

But the law was included in the instructions given to the Zimmerman jury. And the comments of several jurors after their deliberations suggest the law was central to their decision to acquit Zimmerman. O’Mara seemed to agree that the law could have affected the outcome in comments to Reuters last week, and said it confused the jury.

While O’Mara didn't cite the Stand Your Ground law during trial, he nonetheless blamed Martin for Zimmerman’s shooting, saying during closing arguments that the unarmed teen “did, in fact, cause his own death.”

O’Mara said he doesn't like the implication that the Stand Your Ground law played a role in the acquittal, and argues Zimmerman didn't need it to make his self-defense case. The Stand Your Ground provision is now part of standard jury instruction language on the “justifiable use of force” and included whenever a case involves self-defense claims, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

O’Mara told Reuters that he plans to propose a rules change to the Florida bar that would give judges discretion to only instruct the jury on the Stand Your Ground law in cases where it is “relevant.” He says another recent Stand Your Ground defendant, Michael Dunn, would not have needed the law either to argue he acted in self-defense in shooting dead 17-year-old Jordan Davis. But Dunn’s lawyer cited the law in closing arguments.

As Reuters reports, changing the rules would require approval by the legislature. And that means it could have as much trouble gaining traction in Florida as moves to repeal or limit the Stand Your Ground law.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

APPLE CEO TO FLAT EARTH SOCIETY...

GOP, SCIENCE DENIERS AND THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY

.....If you want to invest in the future of Apple, you better have a stake in the future of the planet.

That’s the message Apple CEO Tim Cook sent on Friday at Apple’s annual shareholders’ meeting, after a conservative think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), derided the company for hiring former Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson and focusing on sustainability efforts. Prior to the meeting, NCPPR released a statement saying that government-imposed environmental standards could be bad for business, and Apple should be doing more to fight them.

“We do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive,” Cook said of the NCPPR’s call, according to Mashable. “We want to leave the world better than we found it.”

He then advised, “If you want me to do things only for [return on investment] reasons, you should get out of this stock.”

After the meeting, NCPPR released a statement saying, “After today’s meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. The only remaining question is: how much?”

While some company CEOs have opted to leave climate change up to God, Apple has taken action. Under the leadership of Cook, the company has massively increased its use of renewable energy over fossil fuels. By Apple’s own count, it increased its use of renewables from 35 percent in 2010 to 75 percent worldwide . The company aims to up that number to 100 percent. To that end, last year Apple announced it would build one of the world’s largest solar arrays. And while NCPPR thinks that’s all bad news for stakeholders, the numbers say otherwise: The project is projected generate about $11 million in annual revenue, and to add 7,400 jobs in Cupertino, California.

If only more CEOs were as enlightened as Tim Cook. But, alas, most company CEOs are shortsighted greedy bastards looking only to make as much as possible for shareholders and themselves - unconcerned with the future of the planet or who might get hurt by their rapacious ways.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

BABIES ON A PLANE

Bill Maher's New Rules last night didn't disappoint, as he went after the "babies on a plane" - you know, the one percenters.

Watch, as Maher provides us the difference between a GOP one percenter versus a liberal one percenter. Good stuff, watch below:

Video Courtesy of HBO

Episode 309 by BillMaher1956

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

From Virginia Attorney General To Sleaze Bag

Four months ago, former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli thought he was going to be the next governor of Virginia. Now his opponent, Gov. Terry McAuliffe is comfortably nestled in the state’s governor’s mansion — and Cuccinelli is trying to make a buck by offering financial piece of mind to gun owners who might shoot people.

The way it works is this: gun owners who think they may someday use their weapon in “self defense” against another human being pay “as little as $8.33 a month” to Cuccinelli and his three partners. In return, the firm will provide legal defense for no additional charge if the gun owner faces charges after shooting someone in what they claim is self-defense. As a bonus, the firm will also defend clients who claim they were “harassed by law enforcement for lawfully carrying their weapon.”

Although one of Cuccinelli’s partners claims that this is not an insurance plan for people who anticipate facing gun charges in the future, this arrangement resembles an NRA endorsed insurance program for people “involved in an act of self-defense.” That program provides that “Criminal Defense Reimbursement is provided for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of such criminal charges or the charges are dropped.”

Cuccinelli’s firm differs in one important way from the NRA endorsed plan, however.

According to Torrey Williams, an attorney with Cuccinelli’s firm has said their business model, “when someone contracts with our legal services, we provide them regardless of outcome.” Thus, if someone like Michael Dunn, who was convicted on three counts of attempted second degree murder for firing at four black teens in an SUV, had been a client of Cuccinelli’s firm, the firm could wind up covering his legal costs despite the guilty verdict.

The one caveat to this rule is something Cuccinelli describes as a “sex, drugs, rock-n-roll clause.” If a client is engaged in illegal activity, such as a drug sale, during the shooting, then the client’s pre-paid fees will not cover the cost of representation. (Notably, neither sex nor rock-n-roll are illegal. Although, if it were up to Cuccinelli, many kinds of sex would be.)

Williams acknowledges that there will be “grey areas” where it is not immediately clear whether their client was engaged in criminal activity at the time of the shooting. In those cases, he said the firm would “make a determination” as to whether they take the case or not, but he emphasized that because of their ethical obligations as attorneys, they would not drop out of a case if it turned out that the client was indeed a criminal so long as the client did not mislead them about their actions. “Once we make a determination, we’re going to stick with it,” said Williams. “Ethically, as attorneys, we can’t leave our client hanging.”

The practical effect of this new legal service, in other words, will be that gun owners will enjoy fairly broad certainty that they will not be hit with massive legal bills if they shoot someone. That’s one less thing they’ll have to worry about when they are deciding whether to squeeze the trigger.

NFTOS 

STAFF WRITER

MAYBE THEY ARE GETTING THE MESSAGE?

HATING FOR REPUBLICAN JESUS

On January 31, the Mississippi Senate unanimously passed SB 2681, a bill that adds “In God We Trust” to the state seal. It also contained language just like that in Arizona’s freshly-vetoed bill that would allow people to use religious beliefs as a defense in civil cases — thereby instituting the same “license to discriminate” that prompted a national backlash in Arizona. The bill passed under the radar, without any discussion about whether it was anti-LGBT, but thanks to pressure from the ACLU, the bill is receiving a significant rewrite.

Late Wednesday night, the Mississippi House Civil Subcommittee voted to strike all of the problematic language that would have protected discrimination. Instead, the bill will resemble the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) that 18 other states have. These laws, along with their federal counterpart, help protect individuals’ religious practices from government intrusion without allowing them to be imposed on others.

Mississippi is only the latest state to scrap, stall, or defeat a “license to discriminate” measure disguised as “religious liberty.” In addition to the veto in Arizona, bills were defeated this week in Ohio, Indiana, and Georgia and last week in Kansas, Maine, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Idaho. Missouri is currently the only state where such a bill is still on the table.





NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

Texas Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Is Unconstitutional

A federal judge has ruled that Texas’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the equal protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. According to Judge Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointee, the state’s marriage laws deny same-sex couples the right to marry, and therefore “demean their dignity for no legitimate reason.” Garcia stayed his decision pending appeal, so same-sex couples cannot begin marrying yet.

The case was brought by two couples: Victor Holmes and Mark Phariss, who want to marry in Texas, and Cleopatra De Leon and Nicole Dimetman, who want their Massachusetts marriage recognized. Dimetman and De Leon are raising a child together. The ruling would prevent the state from enforcing its 2003 law and 2005 constitutional amendment that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. Voters passed that amendment by a 3-to-1 margin, but a plurality of Texans now support marriage equality.

According to the ruling, not only are these families denied benefits under the law, they are also subjected to “state sanctioned discrimination, stigma, and humiliation,” explaining: “In this case, it is clear that Plaintiffs suffer humiliation and discriminatory treatment under the law on the basis of their sexual orientation, and this stigmatic harm flows directly from Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage.” Garcia cited Windsor, the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, noting that not recognizing same-sex marriages “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”

Garcia also dismissed the state’s arguments that banning same-sex marriage was somehow worthwhile to protect children or promote procreation. Echoing the similar ruling in Utah, he ruled that the ban only hurts the children of same-sex couples while doing nothing to affect whether heterosexual couples marry or how they raise their children.

Preempting responses from conservatives accusing him of judicial activism or overturning the will of the people, Garcia concluded by pointing out that he is simply enforcing the U.S. Constitution:

Today’s Court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution. Furthermore, Supreme Court precedent prohibits states from passing legislation born out of animosity against homosexuals (Romer), has extended constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals (Lawrence), and prohibits the federal government from treating state-sanctioned opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently (Windsor).

Garcia is the seventh federal judge to rule against a federal ban on same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act last summer, following rulings in Illinois, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah.

The dominoes are starting to fall.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

WALKER STILL INVOKING PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he hasn't installed a secret email system in the governor's office for conducting campaign business and that he's followed the law when it comes to separating his gubernatorial duties from campaigning, but:

Walker once again refused to say whether as county executive he knew of or used a secret email system set up in his office to avoid public scrutiny.

On Monday he called it a "slippery slope" to answer specifics about the more than 27,000 records released last week, because "once you start on one thing, then there's hundreds of questions on each of those."

Walker would not say whether he favored releasing all the documents that the Journal Sentinel and other outlets are seeking to obtain.

So far, six people, three of them former Walker aides, have been convicted in the investigation - of his time when Walker was a Milwaukee County executive. But other than claiming that he's running a clean ship as governor, Walker won't talk about that investigation.

Last week, thousands of emails from the investigation were released, including racist jokes emailed in his office. About those emails, Walker now says they were "stupid things that people said along the way."

"Obviously anybody that says something that's out of character with who I am and the people that surround me would concern me. I would guess that any office or any business that had 27,000 emails (released) would probably have a few that people would be less than pleased with out there."

So, if we read the Koch whore correctly, he was concerned about those emails because people were "less than pleased with" them? Makes sense I guess - but it does explains why he doesn't want to talk about, let alone release, whatever other emails might be out there related to this investigation.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

LISTEN TO WHAT THIS VIRGINIA STATE SENATOR HAS TO SAY

LOOK HONEY, YOUR GONNA BE A HOST!

A pregnant woman is just a "host" that should not have the right to end her pregnancy, says Virginia State Sen. Steve Martin, (Tea Bagger) who wrote in a Facebook rant defending his anti-abortion views. [...]

"I don't expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent you from obtaining a contraceptive," Martin wrote. "However, once a child does exist in your womb, I'm not going to assume a right to kill it just because the child's host (some refer to them as mothers) doesn't want it."

Martin is a person-hood advocate who invokes, that a "host" loses her person-hood the minute the sperm and the egg hook up. This doesn't bode well for the "host" in Virginia.

If you're in Virginia like me, then this mouth breather [Martin] is one of the people in charge of our laws, which is exactly why Virginia RWNJ's concoct shit like mandatory ultrasound laws - and is a partial explanation for why Ken Cuccinelli was not seen by fellow pasty white Virginia Republicans as hopelessly nuts. We voted this asshat out [Cuccinelli], but the amount of right wing nut jobs is never ending.  It would appear to a logical thinking human that these lunatics are practically cloning themselves.

Congratulations Virginia State Senator Steve Martin, you are today's worst person in the world! 

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

HOW THE TEA BAGGERS CAN DO BETTER

Writing in the Daily Caller, Matt K. Lewis ponders why conservative advocates and journalists are so quick to get excited–or at minimum, come to the defense of–conservative celebrities, even when those famous people are less-than-articulate, or downright counterproductive advocates for conservative causes. “Like the girl who always falls for the guy who’s bad for her, conservatives keep trusting the wrong people and making the same mistakes. One such mistake goes like this: The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” he writes, going on to discuss in particular, reality star and perpetual potential political candidate Donald Trump and actor and anti-gun regulation advocate Ted Nugent.

The perception of a celebrity gap between liberals and conservatives has long been vexing for many on the right, frustrated by the roster of entertainers who hit the campaign trail for Democrats, turn out for left-leaning causes, the perception (which I’d contest) that entertainment better reflects liberal values than conservative ones, and the grumblings that conservative figures in Hollywood are stuck in some sort of closet. As a result, when a celebrity is willing to advocate for conservative candidates and issues, no matter how poorly they might articulate those messages, or whatever Pigpen-like cloud might surround them, I think some on the right have a tendency to feel that they have to take what they can get. But if conservatives want famous advocates who won’t call the President of the United States a “subhuman mongrel” or throw temper tantrums when they get actual media coverage, they need to start acting more like liberals.

Don’t Get Starstruck: The whole point of putting an extremely famous person on stage with a politician, or out in the field with campaign workers or advocates, is to get the folks who will have contact with that celebrity excited, and to draw media coverage to the politician or program that person is associated with. But just because you’re trying to elicit a giddy reaction from your audience doesn’t mean that you should let yourself get starstruck. Sure, it’s exciting when an artist of Clint Eastwood’s stature says he’s willing to speak at your nominating convention. But if you’re a strategist, think clearly about whether it’s a wise move, empty chair or no empty chair. And if you’re watching and commenting, be clear-eyed about whether the celebrity in question is actually doing a good job (or making sense). Defending silliness, ugliness, or incomprehensibility is a quick route to damaging the public perception of your own taste–and it makes it harder in the future to turn down wannabe celebrity endorsers who aren’t cut out to comment on public policy or elections.

Help Them Build Political Bonafides: One thing my colleagues at the Enough Project have done well, I think, is to get celebrities, most notably George Clooney, out into the field. When Clooney writes South Sudan, he does so from the position of someone who’s actually been to the country. Actress Martha Plimpton wears pro-choice symbols on the red carpet, but she’s an articulate advocate in part because she does actual advocacy work. Rosario Dawson spends a lot of time working on Latino participation in politics. This sort of experience often has an inoculating effect: rather than hitting the trail with platitudes, or pandering to audiences by saying the most extreme things possible, entertainers can speak in specific terms about their work. And because they’ll have seen what it takes to do the work, they’re more likely to have some sense of strategy, and to avoid imperiling a cause or a candidacy by grandstanding.

Demand Message Control: There’s no point in recruiting a celebrity spokesman if you’re going to end up constantly apologizing for horrible things they say. Ted Nugent may have a constituency–there’s a reason he remains on the National Rifle Association’s board–but he makes many more headlines for racial remarks about President Obama than for articulate arguments against gun regulation that convince mass audiences. If what you want from celebrities is an opportunity to double down on the worldview your constituents already share, that’s one thing. But if you want to use their public profile to draw in people who aren’t already acquainted with your message, then for goodness sakes, don’t be afraid to talk about what the most effective version of that message might look like! It’s important to remember that the entertainment industry gets just as much out of appearing engaged in politics and policy as politicians and policymakers do from recruiting them. So in keeping with my first piece of advice, it’s smart for conservatives who are dealing with celebrities to remember that they have messaging expertise and policy knowledge that’s genuinely valuable to their more-famous soon-to-be mouthpieces.

 Cross-posted from thinkprogresss

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West