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
Our political journalist mentor has signed off for now.
We are surprised he survived the campaign funding debacle late last year, whether this was Olbermann's decision or not, democrats lost their loudest voice last night.
Olbermann was MSNBC's most popular personality and single-handedly led its transformation to an outspoken, left-leaning cable news network in prime time. For nearly eight years, Countdown with Keith Olbermann led the charge against conservative misinformation in prime time. He was one of the few voices in the media willing to hold the Bush administration accountable and fight the right-wing smears against progressives and their policies.
MSNBC's entire nightly broadcasting schedule was modeled around Olbermann. Shultz, Maddow, Mathews and O'Donnell. The only speaker with the testicle fortitude of Olbermann is Ed Shultz, and one could assume that Shultz would be the next to topple at the MSNBC guillotine.
Whether you liked Olbermann or not, his journalistic aptitude was bar none top shelf. His way with the English language was exceeded by none. The mans fervor for ensuring those on the left had a voice was unrelenting. His words where often backed up with data and facts rarely used by other cable news entities.
Once Olbermann dropped the pretense of journalistic objectivity, he became a hero to liberals battered by the popularity of Fox News Channel and its conservative commentators. Olbermann openly feuded with Fox, often naming personalities like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck one of his "worst persons in the world" for some of their statements.
Republicans number one nemesis is silenced, yet we hear Beck, Palin, Faux News et al ranting about shutting people up and freedom of speech. Tea bags galore are commenting on right wing blogs everywhere regarding their number one obstacle. If one was to look beyond the smoke screen one would assume that Comcast was the executioner in Olbermann's case.
Olbermann is an innovator and extremely talented broadcaster who showed there was a market for progressive views on cable news.
Where will we find Olbermann next, well Faux News is certainly out (but just think of the possibilities if he was a unbalanced and unfair Faux newsy), and the only other alternative for a major voice would be CNN. CNN has continued to struggle in prime time, most recently with a program in Olbermann's time slot hosted by Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker. Bringing Olbermann on, however, would mean a dramatic shift in the network's determined nonpartisan stance, and there was no indication such a change was imminent.
For now Keith we bid you a fair ado! Your leadership towards NFTOS is greatly appreciated. You absence or the hole you leave will be hard to close, and we at NFTOS look forward to your return. The scales of political journalistic justice have tipped way to the right today.....a sad day indeed!
Until Olbermann surfaces again, we are left with the half witted Lawrence O'Donnell.
And on this day, we wish Olbermann "good night and good luck."
The persistent cacophony from the Republican debt/deficit hawks, who only surface during Democratic administrations, are enough to keep us puking into perpetuity. The most pitiful and annoying aspect of this particular trait in Republicans tea bags, is their seemingly endless forgetfulness when it comes to whom created these debts in the first place. Or could it be they are aware whom created this mess and choose to regurgitate more BS into the political arena?
Indeed, we have become consumed with a burning desire to remind the right wing nut job of exactly who is responsible for driving up U.S. debt. And, as you undoubtedly deduced from our graphic, It is the evil triumvirate of three Republican presidents, at least 2 of which are destined to be remembered in history as "The Two Worst Presidents Ever".
Truly a picture is worth a thousand words, and as one can clearly see (click the image to enlarge it), Republican Presidents, beginning with Reagan, are the ONLY Presidents responsible for the overall increases in the national debt since World War II.
It should be well worth noting that President Reagan took the United States from being the largest creditor nation in the world, to being the largest debtor nation in the world.
A truly sad commentary on the fiscal policy of Republican Presidents.
Police in Arlington, MA this week seized a “large amount” of weapons and ammunition from local businessman Travis Corcoran after he wrote a blog post threatening U.S. lawmakers in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). In a post on his blog (which has since been removed) titled “1 down and 534 to go” — 1 referring to Giffords and 534 referring to the rest of the House of Representatives — Corcoran applauded the shooting of Giffords and justified the assassination of lawmakers because he argued the federal government has grown far beyond its constitutional limits. “It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone,” he wrote in the post.
“We certainly take this as a credible threat,” Arlington police Captain Robert Bongiorno told reporters, adding that “multiple federal law enforcement agencies” were involved. Authorities also suspended Corcoran’s gun license, though he is currently not facing any charges.
Corcoran calls himself “an anarcho-capitalist” and while his blog has been taken down, based on his Twitter page, he appears to hold views similar to those of many in the anti-government libertarian wing of the conservative movement, like many tea party activists. Anarcho-capitalism is a radical subset of libertarianism, and is often referred to as “libertarian-anarchy.” For example, echoing calls from many on the right, Corcoran tweeted, “it is unconstitutional for the Feds to even run a department of education.”
In a Twitter exchange with reporter Laura Leslie, Corcoran lays out a conventional anti-government philosophy, and explains in depth why he views assassination as legitimate:
“I assert that the US federal gov has grown unconstitutionally large, and the legislature exceeds the powers delegated to it by the people,” Corcoran wrote. “As per the Declaration of Indep, when a gov becomes destructive those ends, it may be abolished,” he continued, “and the most moral approach is that which spares the maximum number of lives. Thus, assasination is a legitimate tool.”
He goes on to further justify assassination as “morally legitimate,” citing “Catholic Just War doctrine” among other theories, and explains, “It’s illegal, yes, but it’s not un-American. America was founded on the idea of shooting gov officials. Lexington Concord!” In another tweet, he writes, “I disagree with murder. …but shooting politicians who pass illegitimate, unconstitutional laws is not murder.” And in case there’s any doubt about his sincery, he writes, “Nope, it’s not a joke. I’m 100% serious.”
He also appears to be a fan of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), re-tweeting a positive message about him in May: “Lefties: Before you start fringe-baiting Rand Paul, note that he’s better on civil liberties than most Democratic senators. And Obama.” He seems to dislike liberals, writing, “You so-called liberals make me laugh – you’re all for free speech until someone disagrees, then it’s ‘report him!’” He also accuses the Daily Kos of “Stalinism.”
Politics in America remains a touchy subject, but for many Americans, the word "touchy" barely even touches the surface or the problems facing us. We are a nation divided. Our politicians are a direct reflection of our own inability to compromise with one another. One side is pitted against the other. Compromise certainly seem less possible these days. In the end, nothing gets done, and the American people suffer from the bitter battle between party lines which has made our political arena as ineffective as a broken condemn. Let's face it. We are a mess.
After seeing the horrible events in Tucson involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I went on to read many comments from both sides of the isle. Depending on the site you chose as your source of information, you were either greeted with comments in line with your political leaning or you were soon enveloped or engaged by a sea of vitriol, condemnation, and the rhetoric we have come to know over the past ten years. At that point, whether or not the young man who committed this atrocity was a Democrat or a Republican became moot. Let me repeat that point. This post is not about this young man. It is about our political climate.
After reading one comment in particular, it dawned on me. We are likely to remain separated as it appears our country is too divided. Turning back does not seem like an option on the table. A major confrontation is inevitable. A war is looming. The comment itself suggested we go ahead and divide our country and be done with it. Draw the line in the sand.
This brings the obvious question. Where should this line be? If you follow politics, you might suggest that we go back to the old North and South we knew at the time of the Civil War. I know many Americans in the South want the map to look like that (and if you think I'm exaggerating, you need to spend some time living in the South).
Unfortunately, the political spectrum of our country has created more of a speckled map of the United States. Republicans and Democrats are neighbors. Individual states are represented by both Republican and Democratic districts. A line dividing us into North and South would not go over well, kind of like a pregnant nun.
What if we allow individual states to actually secede? Secessionists roam the two lane roads just West and South of Gloucester Virginia. Several other states, likely the same ones who have brought cases against the Federal Government over Health Care Reform, would be on this list. Let's set aside the question of whether or not they can sustain themselves on their own. A state with sovereign rights separate from the Union will provide a place for those unhappy with the US Government to go. Let them worry about the anarchy inside their walls.
The point is, the only way America can remain standing is if we lose the anarchy and those whom wish it divided. United, we are not. We have crossed the line. Turning back seems like a unlikelihood.
As if even the strongest and most honest of leaders could be remotely capable of fighting against such a wave of ignorance and hate.
There is a loud voice in this country which exacerbates this situation. They do not see that what they are suggesting will create anarchy. Much like their perception of evolution, they believe secession and huge leaps can come overnight. To their dismay, the voice of reason here is to remind them that evolution took millions of years. Secession and divisions comes at a price, and they often lead to a very long road to recovery.
This week, Republicans are pressing legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a move that would eliminate health benefits for young people, seniors, and small businesses, hinder job growth, and add $230 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. In the time since our previous blog, national cable news networks and newspaper editorial boards have been denouncing Republicans’ repeal bill, with even more newspaper editorials have been published echoing those repudiations.
Quoting NFTOS readers: “The Republicans' "repeal and replace" plan looks more perilous for them than it seemed just a few months ago. The tide seems to be turning on Americans' feelings about the overhaul”
“Returning to a system that is too expensive and filled with incentives to drive up costs even further is the riskiest health care strategy of all”
With the House poised to vote today on Republican-sponsored legislation to repeal health care reform, it's crucial to dispel the myths from the facts.
The historic Affordable Care Act expands access to health care for 32 million people while reducing the deficit and helping to create jobs. With so many false claims online and in the news, never before has it been so important to know the truth – here’s a look at myths and facts surrounding the Affordable Care Act’s impact on the economy and deficit.
Myth: Repealing health reform would reduce the deficit.
Fact: Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates that the “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act” would “increase federal budget deficits over the 2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion,” $230 billion in by 2021, and increase the deficit in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars beyond the 10-year window.
Myth: Health reform will lead to tax increases for families and small businesses
Fact: Not true. The Affordable Care Act includes tax credits to help make health care affordable for working families. All told, the Affordable Care Act represents the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in American history.
Myth: The Affordable Care Act increases the cost of health care for small businesses.
Fact: Small businesses will receive $40 billion in new tax credits to help cover the cost of health coverage for their employees. The tax credit is designed to both support those small businesses that provide coverage today as well as new businesses who decide to provide coverage. Effective immediately, the tax credit is worth up to 35 percent of the premiums a business pays to cover its workers and in 2014, the value of the credit will increase to 50 percent. An estimated 4 million small businesses will be eligible to receive these tax credits.
Myth: Health reform kills jobs, and repealing reform would save jobs.
Fact: Harvard economist David Cutler argues in new paper that repealing the health law would reverse months of private-sector growth and could destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade. Eliminating the law would increase health care costs, causing employers to reduce wages or eliminate jobs.
Myth: This bill does nothing to bring down the cost of health care.
Fact: Not true. The health policy experts and economists who have looked at this legislation have said we are pursuing every possible mechanism to reduce health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office found that health insurance reform will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion in this decade and by more than $1 trillion over the following 10 years.
The below video depicts how clueless those from right of center are.
If the video is any indication, we can now understand why the plethora of convoluted wrongs and misunderstanding exists with regards to Obama Care.
NFTOS has also said all along that if the republicans plan to repeal the bill then should be required to forgo government-sponsored health insurance for themselves. Period!
Its well known that republicans are known as the hypocritical society. To date, in sum, only eight GOP congressman, or three percent of all House Republicans, have opted out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. One Republican loudly complained about having his own government-sponsored health insurance delayed approximately four weeks. But most GOPers have quietly continued to accept government-sponsored health care while loudly decrying the government’s role in helping provide health care to a segment of the American public.
While we at NFTOS are not surprised, constituents of these congress folk should be jamming the phones lines and email pipelines asking for these hypocrites to back the bill, and if they can't do that, then do not accept the sponsored health care.
On average, congressmen receive $700 per month in taxpayer subsidies to help pay for their health insurance. Members use these subsidies to choose a health insurance plan available through a government-sponsored exchange which, among other regulations, bars discrimination based on preexisting conditions.
“The federal system mirrors the reforms enacted by Democrats and President Obama, which end health insurance abuses by regulating coverage through an exchange, while offering subsidies to individuals and small businesses to make coverage more affordable.”
The video below provides you with proof that republicans want their cake and to be able to eat it too.
This position by the republicans is both despicable and disgusting. Hypocrisy is not a trait we look for in our politicians, but it is the backbone and fiber of the extreme radical republican.
While the 2nd Amendment is a ‘Right’ it holds a wide array of interpretations as it has become a far too important topic for those with little to do with their time. So let’s take a look at this amendment and some interpretations:
The Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
The Breakdown:
“Bear Arms” refers to military service, which is why the plural is used (based on Greek ‘hopla pherein’ and Latin ‘arma ferre’) – one does not bear arm, or bear an arm. The word means, etymologically, ‘equipment’ (from the root ar-* in verbs like ‘ararisko’, to fit out). It refers to the ‘equipage’ of war. Thus ‘bear arms’ can be used of naval as well as artillery warfare, since the “profession of arms” refers to all military callings.
While this seems to be a pretty good case they have found several interpretations arguing the opposite as follows by Olson and Cramer:
Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that…have nothing to do with military service…[and] The common law was in agreement. Edward Christian’s edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries that appeared in the 1790’s described the rights of Englishmen (which every American colonist had been promised) in these terms ‘everyone is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the [unlawful] destruction of game.’ This right was separate from militia duties
And if you see the source of this article you can be overwhelmed with the attention given to this topic over the past several years. The verbiage is decidedly controversial in regards to ‘Militia’ and the following about ‘Bearing Arms’ by Hamilton.
If a well regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security….A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
As of late, we’ve seen some articles floating around about increasing ability to carry concealed weapons and the statistics regarding whether that leads to more or less deaths in the United States. To that I say, what an experiment. In our research we looked up some other studies done on the subject. It appears in Australia, when they implemented their gun control in 1996 that murders by guns have decreased sharply to date. The source below will actually enforce this and claims that the increase in gun control does not definitely insinuate dictatorship and chaos within a country. Maybe in America, however, where the crazies whose biggest worry is owning enough assault weapons so they can fight “terrorist” should be feared in this event.
As a side note: NRA – Another ‘could have been good’ organization that refuses to actually be responsible in this debate. When Obama was running for office they spent millions perpetuating propaganda regardless of the supported evidence that Obama was not going to revoke home gun control laws. While it seems they should be a champion of civil liberties, they are seemingly more of an agenda seeking organization versus the former.
The NRA has circulated printed material and ran TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.
And then in further investigation…
The NRA spent $40 million during this year’s elections, including $15 million to portray Sen. Barack Obama as a threat to gun rights. The NRA circulated fliers and mailers that claimed to be “Barack Obama’s 10-Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment.”
Republicans hold two rights dear to their heart, one being freedom of speech, and the other the right to bear arms. These two rights are the hobbyhorse for the extremist radical right wing nut job, and in there undying love for them they let fearous ignoramia take over. This fear often causes otherwise rational people to act like assholes. Quoting Roger West NFTOS editor-in chief "It should be noted that no right is absolute, even those supposedly granted by God and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights."
So what does this all mean? Well, regardless of how you’d like to determine what our rights in this matter are or should be, in going forward we should agree the following:
Guns can kill people. They can be distributed by the masses or prohibited completely and you can not necessarily derive an end result regarding either extreme. If you are part of the NRA and have a sticker on your car, hat, tie, or otherwise.. you have a serious misunderstanding of what they represent. I’m all for civil liberties but if you are wearing this then you clearly will never be wrong about your standpoint despite anything anytime. If you are about civil liberties then check out Alan Dershowitz or even Jean Edward Smith.
NFTOS is enjoying the holiday off, so enjoy a blog from our friends at Open Scandal
There are five basic precepts that, individually or collectively, contribute to the birth of a Republican Party ideologue. They will tell you that it involves limited government, low (or, preferably, no) taxes, rugged individualism and a “free” market environment which demands the lack of governmental oversight and the ability of workers to organize. Within these parameters lies the black heart and soul of a socially responsible Republican (conservative, libertarian).
But, in reality, there are five conditions that might give birth to this sort of person and no one person needs to possess more than one of these conditions (although they often share several).
1. You are super rich. You are a bona fide member of the nouveau riche, admittedly a meritocrat, but nevertheless part of the one or two percent of the global population with resources the other 99 percent can only imagine (and not fully). You are globally financed and hardly nationalistic. You see four people climbing out of abject poverty in India and one American falling out of the increasingly fragile middle class due to chronic unemployment and see this as acceptable. In reality, you have moved the sources of your sickening wealth to countries where the government knows how to control its workers. It is 21st century exploitation but you define it as competitive market and blame the exploited worker for his failures.
2. You are a devout Christian. This means that you are so full of religious dogma and superstition that it consumes you from your ass to your eyeballs. You can no longer perceive cause from consequence and obliterate the lines separating facts from fiction. Socially this translates into an inability to recognize human suffering whenever your church (or personal belief system) decides it is anti-god. Abortion, contraception, homosexuality, legalization of pot, the so called “war” against Christmas, liberals, progressives, Marxists, Nazis, socialists, anti marriage groups, ACLUs are just some of the issues and beliefs that cause you to froth at the political and social mouth. You are a climate change denier but you see transubstantiation as “proof” that god exists. Often, you can wax poetic about creationism because magic is a far superior alternative to accident.
3. You vehemently oppose social programs. Welfare is the bane of your existence. You see this as a program that guarantees poverty and is responsible for crime, reprehensible social values and slums. It is only given to the poor. Welfare given to the rich is called subsidies and is not the same thing. Head start and education in general leave you suspicious because you know only socialists are teaching these days. This leads to trouble later on. Social Security and Medicare fall into the category of social programs, too. Of course, you realize that these programs may one day (or perhaps already are) vital to your own survival. But you know these benefits are extended to illegal immigrants and people who have never worked a day in their lives. Even when shown that this isn’t the case you revert to # 2. The lines between fact and fiction are indecipherable and you tend to believe the hate mongers at Fox News.
4. Your own educational background is suspect. This means that even if you attended a school of higher education it was probably a trade school. Literature, philosophy, humanities, social and political science are foreign subjects. Your defense for this is to talk louder, wrap yourself in a flag and blame everything on liberals in government. At night, you sit down to mindless sitcoms or reality shows. If you’ve read a book since high school it was either romantic fluff or it was written by Bill O’Reilly or Sarah Palin (and then you skipped huge parts in the middle). If I went to the bathroom in your house I would find nothing to read except the toothpaste box. Your dearth of education is palpable and leads to prejudices such as the one implicit with # 5.
5. You are a white supremacist. This doesn’t mean that you run around with a sheet over your head (but it might!), it means that you tend to distrust people of color, latinos, even white foreigners with accents. You are highly suspicious of languages other than English and demand that people in this country speak English. You believe that “native” born Americans are exceptional (ask Karl Rove) and that god put you here in the US because you are exceptional. Illegal immigrants should be shot as they cross over our borders. President Obama, in Rush Limbaugh’s tortured lexicon is a “half-ican”. Limbaugh is your natural hero as he fits into every category presented here.
Somewhere in here stands the issue of guns and a perky, if misconstrued understanding of the Constitution. Yesterday I read a conservative who felt that constitutionally our government should not fix roads or bridges or worry about infrastructure because it isn’t in the great writ. He goes on to say that “James Madison wrote in 1817. . .” I’d already read enough.
Ron Paul claims that guns are necessary to prevent our government from becoming tyrannical. That’s why our founders wrote the second amendment. Obviously he sees this as superior, or at least equal to, the ballot box. Sharron Angle, who but through the grace of a poorly organized Republican effort, was defeated in Nevada, suggested that the second amendment was an acceptable route to take when the ballot box doesn’t yield acceptable results. Conversely, and tongue in cheek, Rachel Maddow suggests that if redress of grievances (ie tyranny) is the real objective interpretation of the second amendment, then everything should be on the table. That means from machine guns to privately owned nukes.
Antonin Scalia interprets the “equal protection clause” to pertain to white men only. Samuel Alito (and others) interpret corporations as people. The Republicans proposed 42 amendments to the constitution last year alone, leaving one to wonder precisely which constitution these people revere? The spirit and intention of the real one or the religiously tainted, plutocratic, white supremacist mush that pollutes the air waves and the printed page all too often.
The right to bear arms and freedom of speech are the hobbyhorse for republicans.
I hear there’s an auction next door with assault weapons and religious icons, really cheap. But first I have to accost my children for not having given their children good Christian names and for not voting for a real American hero like John McCain. Satire is a wonderful gift and it should be shared.
What does the tea party moniker stand for? Armed rebellion, right? This has been a theme of the Republican candidates and of Sarah Palin since 2009.
History lesson #1: The Boston tea party was a nonviolent economic statement against the Stamp Act. They threw tea in the water, not one gun was involved.
Gregory Giusti, Charles Wilson, and Byron Williams have all acted out violence, and often these men referenced the incendiary and often violent rhetoric spewed by Faux News and it's myriad of radical extreme republican views. This vitriol, rhetoric, and banter is said to be a motivating factor, if not the inspiring factor, in these men's actions.
BYRON WILLIAMS:
On July 18, 2010, Byron Williams was stopped by California Highway Patrol and engaged in a shootout with law enforcement. He later said he was on his way to murder individuals at the Tides Foundation and ACLU.
Williams Wanted To "Start A Revolution" By "Killing People Of Importance At The Tides Foundation." On July 18, 2010, Byron Williams, a convicted felon, engaged in a shootout with police after being pulled over on I-580 in California. Williams was heavily armed, wearing body armor and wielding "a 9mm handgun, a .308-caliber rifle and a shotgun." After being taken into custody, Williams reportedly told investigators that "his intention was to start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU." [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/21/10]
Williams' Mother: Son "Was Upset" With "The Way Congress Was Railroading Through All These Left-Wing Agenda Items." The San Francisco Chronicle further reported that Williams' mother, Janice Williams, described her son as "angry at left-wing politicians" and at "what's happening to our country." The Chronicle further reported: "Williams watched the news on television and was upset by 'the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items,' his mother said." [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/19/10]
Williams: "The Things" Beck Exposed "Blew My Mind." During an interview with reporter John Hamilton after his arrest, Williams said: "I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn't for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind. I said, well, nobody does this." Williams continued: "You need to go back to June -- June of this year, 2010 -- and look at all his programs from June. And you'll see he's been breaking open some of the most hideous corruption. ... A year ago, I was watching him, and it was OK, he was all right, you know? ... But now he's getting it." [Media Matters, 10/11/10]
Williams Was Driven By Belief In Conspiracy Theories That Have Been Pushed By Beck. Hamilton wrote that in one letter to him, Williams "repeatedly cites Beck when discussing the Soros-Obama-Petrobras story and insists I check out Beck's 'June' shows." Hamilton continued:
In his letter to me, Byron writes: "I have been praying for a media advocate; one, to make people aware of why I'm in here (public opinion could help me), and two, to make people realize that corrupt killers are in power, and want re-election! I was also fearful that this issue would be 'burried.' "
Byron writes, "You want to know about Soros and Tides, yes, Glenn Beck is doing very well uncovering his wickedness, check his 'June' programs for 'Petrobraz', also look into 'DiscoverTheNetworks.com.' "
Byron also writes that "very good information regarding 'Petrobraz' can be found in Glenn Beck's 'June' shows, where he accurately covered the Obama-Soros-Petrobraz-Chicago (Crime Inc.) connections for several days. It's all true."
Byron adds that he "found allusions to the Horizon disaster as a 'false-flag' operation in Alex Jones 'Info.Wars.com' and 'PrisonPlanet.com.' "
"Think like a conspiracy theorist," Byron tells me during the interview. "Except don't use the word 'theory.' Because the conspiracies are not theories. The official report is the lie; the conspiracy is the truth."
Byron says he thinks Beck has improved in recent months. "I don't think he's a natural newscaster, you know what I mean?" he says. "I look at it more like a schoolteacher on TV, you know? He's got that big chalkboard and those little stickers, the decals. I like the way he does it." [Media Matters, 10/11/10]
CHARLES WILSON:
Beck Linked With Stoking "Fears" That Caused Charles Wilson To Threaten Murray
In October 2010, Charles Wilson was sentenced to a year and a day in prison for threatening Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) with "violence" in phone calls to her office.
Wilson Said He "Want[ed] To fucking Kill" Murray Because Of The Passage Of Health Care Legislation. In an April 6 article, Politico reported that Wilson "allegedly called Murray's office on numerous occasions" saying that she " 'had a target on her back,' and 'I want to fucking kill you,' according to court documents." Politico also reported that Wilson "allegedly told undercover FBI agents that he carries a concealed firearm with a permit, and said he was 'extremely angry' with the passage of health care legislation." The article continued:
Wilson Relative: Wilson's Threats Occurred Because He "Was Under The Spell That Glenn Beck Cast." A relative of Wilson said in publicly available documents filed in federal court that Wilson's "fears were grown and fostered by Mr. Beck's persuasive personality" and that Wilson's actions occurred because he "was under the spell that Glenn Beck casts.
GREGORY GIUSTI:
Faux News Inspired Gregory Giusti To Repeatedly Threaten To Destroy Pelosi's Home
In December 2010, Gregory Lee Giusti was sentenced to a year and nine months in federal prison for threatening to destroy former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home if she voted in support of the health care reform law.
Giusti Admitted To Making "More Than 30 Phone Calls" Threatening Pelosi Not To Support Health Care Reform. The Associated Press reported in April 2010 that in one recorded call, "Giusti said, 'if you pass this freaking health care plan don't bother coming back to California cause you ain't gonna have a place to live,' according to a transcript of the message included in an amended complaint." The AP added: "Officials said the caller often recited Pelosi's home address and said if she wanted to see it again, she should not support the health care overhaul bill that since has been enacted. Giusti left at least two recorded messages containing threats involving one of Pelosi's residences in Northern California, according to the complaint." [The Associated Press, 4/8/10]
The AP further reported that Giusti "told investigators he had phoned Pelosi about a half-dozen times, called her a witch and said he did not like her 'pushing the health care bill down the people's throats,' the complaint stated." [The Associated Press, 4/8/10]
Giusti's Mother Blamed Fox News For Her Son's Actions. During an interview with the local San Francisco ABC affiliate, Giusti's mother, Eleanor Giusti, stated that Fox News was a factor in her son's actions. She stated:
ELEANOR GIUSTI: Greg has -- frequently gets in with a group of people that have really radical ideas and that are not consistent with myself or the rest of the family and -- which gets him into problems. And apparently I would say this must be another one that somehow he's gotten onto either by -- I'd say Fox News or all of those that are really radical, and he -- that's where he comes from. [ABC's San Francisco affiliate, KGO-TV, 4/7/10]
Fox News CEO Roger Ailes says he put the word out at Fox to “tone it down” and make arguments “intellectually” with less heated rhetoric. “You don’t have to do it with bombast.”(if Faux and Co. where not engaging in this type of journalism, why issue the memo to "tone down"? Just like if Plain wasn't guilty of inciting anger then why take down the web page filled will targets marked for democrats?) We all know why. A spade is a spade, know matter how hard you try to camouflage it. Go back 5 years and listen to every radio and TV show Beck has done from then to today.
But Ailes in his infamous wisdom draws the line at any suggestion the "passion" of Fox News hosts had anything to do with the shooting spree in Arizona that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded: “That is just bullsit,” he told Russell Simmons in an interview posted to the music mogul’s website.
At the very least, the nonsense that oozes from Faux News and Glenn Beck et al feed and stir the foamy froth of the rapid pit-bull, and all it takes is a daily dose of Becksitan asking for chaos an anarchy to set the pit-bull pendulum in motion.
Loughner in this case may be the exception rather than the rule, but the jury is still out as his facts are just not there yet. But in the same breath, Giusti, Wilson, and Williams fall into the criminal statistical category as having been association to extreme, radical, right-wing ideology which is filled with whatever conspiracy theory Beck and Faux News have devised or concocted for the day.
When speaking on extreme political rhetoric, logical, coherent humans don't believe anyone is actually saying hate speech made Jared Loughner release his insanity, what those with half a brain are saying is it creates an atmosphere where its inevitable that someone will get hurt , there is no connection between matches and gasoline, but put them together and what happens.
The violent rhetoric is desensitizing the nation to political violence .Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
Many whom reside of the right side of the fence continue to refute that their party holds any responsibility for hate crimes in America, but yet today NFTOS provides you with three serious assassination attempts which at the end of the day are associated to Ailes and Beck.
As unfortunate as it is, these are the facts and they are indisputable!
If you haven't heard by now Sarah "snowbilly" Palin is now the "victim".
Today via Facebook the half Governor posted a narcissistic video claiming that America has it wrong, and political pundits are guilty of "blood libel".
A pretty "ballsy" move to say the least. In her woe is me speech today Palin trying to clear and rid herself of guilt or any wrong doing, failed to say "hey maybe I was wrong" to post gun sights on Democratic politicians, which may or may not have been a variable in the Tucson massacre.
Readers should not be shocked that Sarah maintains the "all about me" mentality, as this genome or DNA structure is the mainstay of the tea bag.
While most of the video was more republican "who me" attitude, we at NFTOS feel that two lone words in Palin's diatribe cut like the 31 bullets sprayed by the lunatic Jared Loughner.
"BLOOD LIBEL" is as bad as the "n" word. For Palin to use this choice of vocabulary means she either dropped out of high school, or she is just a spineless diabolical evil kobold. Nothing is more incendiary than this type of verbiage. If she was trying to purport her intelligence by using such terminology, she failed miserably, maybe if she thought before she spoke, or maybe if those handling her thought first, then maybe they would have chosen a better choice of words.
These inflammatory, grotesque, vile words, cost thousands of Jews their lives.
BLOOD LIBEL - Blood libel (also blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, almost always Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims have–alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration–been a major theme in European persecution of Jews.
The libels typically allege that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover. The accusations often assert that the blood of Christian children is especially coveted, and historically blood libel claims have often been made to account for otherwise unexplained deaths of children. In some cases, the alleged victim of human sacrifice has become venerated as a martyr, a holy figure around whom a martyr cult might arise. A few of these have been even canonized as saints, like Gavriil Belostoksky.
In Jewish lore, blood libels were the impetus for the creation in the 16th century of the Golem of Prague by Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel. Many popes have either directly or indirectly condemned the blood accusation, and no pope has ever sanctioned it. These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time.
We have said this a million times if not once, freedom of speech has consequences, and in the hands of the ignorant or less intelligent, it is just as dangerous as Jared Loughner toting a gun.
Freedom of speech also has limititations... for instance, I cant say fire in a crowded theater ~ in the same breath extreme gun toting republicans should not be able to rant "lock", "reload", and be "armed and dangerous" in political theaters or gatherings.
While Palin's choice of words are reprehensible in their own right, the kick in the ass, or the oppps I really fucked up moment, better yet, the foot-in-mouth disease moment is, hold on to your hats here readers, as this is very disturbing and disgusting -
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is JEWISH!!
As if the through and through bullet wound was not enough!
BLOOD LIBEL is not common in rebound video grievances, and never is it used in such generic political rants. BLOOD LIBEL is very specific in where its intent is to be made!
No matter how you slice this story, Palin is either an idiot of epic proportions, or she is as callous as Adolph Hitler himself. Insensitive is an understatement! Stupid, absolutely, moronic also seems suitable verbiage for Palin.
She certainly had a fit (and she was entitled) when those senseless journalist attack her mongoloid child, this type of nasty rhetoric by Palin is know different!
Whether Palin had a brain fart moment, or knowingly placed BLOOD LIBEL verbiage in her pity me speech is irrelevant. Stupidly is no excuse for comments like this, especially from a woman whom has visions of owning the right to nuclear key codes. There is no doubt this last expedition by the snowbilly solidifies her never getting to the oval office, that is unless she chooses to take the five cent White House tour.
Palin got caught in the political storm by a "maverick" whom needed a pretty face to aid his deflating presidential candidacy. Palin was just in wrong place at right time. She is out of her element in this arena, and these last few days have showed us how far out she really is. Truly she was just a pretty face, and to this blogger that's a stretch.
An old Paul Harvey quote so eloquently fits here, "gonads are certainly useful for their purpose, but the are no substitute for brains"!
If the crosshair fiasco didn't require an apology, (one could question why did she immediately remove the sights from her Sarah PAC website) then certainly this cretinous, contemptible, degrading, detestable, dirty, disgraceful, disreputable, ignominious, loathsome, low-life, mean, no-good, pitiful, shameful, slimy, sordid, vile, worthless, wretched, comment does!
Palin receives "asshat" of the year award, and we are only 12 days in!
While the above videos are both funny and graphic, they provide us with the full spectrum of really how off keel and extreme they republican tea party movement folks really are.
Anderson Cooper of AC360 was quoted saying "its hard to talk when your tea bagging", and that term resonates and reverberates strongly between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Yes indeed Anderson, tea bagging is a mouthful.
"Tea baggers" terminology is for the followers of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Plain, Instapundit, Joe the Plumber, and other miscreants who cannot stand big government spending when liberals are in power, but yet somehow they couldn't find the time to protest big government spending when their party was in power. They adopted the name because they liken their hypocritical "Tea bagging Party" protests to the original Boston Tea Party.
They have created a hilarious backronym for "tea" to use as their slogan: "taxed enough already".
It is unclear whether any relationship exists between the sexual definition and the republican party definition. Probably so, as most tea baggers would, in fact, teabag one of the leaders mentioned above, thus is the strength of the personality cult that started it.
The above videos explicitly explain why we at NFTOS will not be tea bagging anytime soon.
Gun control has never been at higher pitch than today, and Gun violence in the United States is an intensely debated political issue in the United States.
Yesterday we discussed why the extreme right needs to pipe down the venomous vitriol. The massive shootings in Tucson was a festering pimple ready to pop.
We also disclosed other reasons for this shooting, while the angry nut cases from the right certainly own their portion to this tragedy, guns and how they are managed is another.
First off let me say I am both a proponent of the right to bear arms and the constitution, but both are not free of errors and or flaws.
Words, policies, and personal Rights, all have consequences.
The constitution while a phenomenal document has flaws. It was written when a time was different. And in some cases time has passed the document by. Republicans cling to this document like it was there soul. If Americans where as loyal and resolved about the bible like they where with the constitution, halleluiah all the worlds woes would be gone. Certainly we can agree (if your a progressive) that gun laws need to be modified.
Human rights is clearly defined in the First Amendment. For the less than educated republican, here is the first amendment:
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as erecting a separation of church and state.
Freedom of assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests. The right to freedom of association is recognized as a human right, a political freedom and a civil liberty.
The second amendment goes like this:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Where does the rubber meet the road with regards to guns and control?
Right's - While the gun slinging republican is screaming about their right to bear arms, we in our infamous wisdom forget that Congresswoman Giffords had rights' as well, that right, a part of the first amendment that enabled her to gather at corners, That right we speak of, "the freedom of assembly". So the congresswoman and 20 others lost their right, and in some instances lost their lives so that others had the right to carry a weapon for mass murder. Some how the scales of justice didn't equalize here.
Most Americans are a after-the-fact, downstream, reactionary society, three terrible qualities for success. If businesses, space flight, and military troops used these methods of operation, they wouldn't be in existence.
We can know longer sit idly back and allow congresswomen and precious nine year old daughters to die in vain, in the "right to bear arms" vain.
Some astonishing facts about guns:
Guns were used in 12,632 homicides in 2007, comprising over 40% of all gun deaths, and nearly 69% of all homicides.
On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2002-2007.7
Regions and States with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than States with lower rates of gun ownership. Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.
For the five point seven year run (2001 -2007.7) that's 72,002.4 deaths.
Costs of Gun Violence
Firearm-related deaths and injuries result in estimated medical costs of $2.3 billion each year – half of which are borne by U.S. taxpayers.
Once all the direct and indirect medical, legal and societal costs are factored together, the annual cost of gun violence in America amounts to $100 billion.
Gun Ownership
Americans own an estimated 270 million firearms – approximately 90 guns for every 100 people.
Gun Crimes
In 2007, nearly 70% of all murders nationwide were committed with a firearm.
In 2007, 385,178 total firearm crimes were committed, including 11,512 murders, 190,514 robberies, and 183,153 aggravated assaults.
There are a variety of ways of dealing with the problems caused by guns in society, and legislation is one of the methods most commonly used.
Attempting to legislate for the complex realities of gun-related violence is a daunting task. The ideal gun control measure would be one that would "prevent all crime and violence involving guns without interfering with their legitimate use in contemporary life." In reality, the best we are likely to achieve is to reduce the problems caused by the illegitimate use of firearms while "minimizing the restraints on the legitimate uses of guns".
Constantly we continue to debate the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition. Various federal laws have been enacted since 1934 to promote such regulation.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, data from 1987 to 1992 indicate that in each of those years, roughly about .01% used guns to defend themselves, yet republicans maintain the need for the weapons as a means of self-defense. Your chances are greater for being struck by lightning than for you to use your weapon in self defense.
It should be noted that no right is absolute, even those supposedly granted by God and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
NFTOS' has a proposal for a rational gun control system:
Although we would personally like to see as many civilian-owned guns eliminated from mainstream society as possible, we realize that this is not a politically realistic goal. Thus, we present our own plans for gun control that we would consider a valid compromise. Perhaps policy discussions can start from these.
1. A national system for registering guns and ammunition. Part of the reason New York City has stiff gun laws and high gun death rates is that anybody can go from New York to a state with less restrictive laws, get a friend who lives in the state to buy the guns for them, and take those guns back to NYC. (Yes, I am aware this is illegal, but it happens.) First, a national system would prevent this by scaring those "friends" into not buying the guns legally and selling them illegally, for if the guns are used in an illegal crime, that person can be held accountable. Second, a national system would be more helpful in tracking crimes after they have happened, to bring the perpetrators to justice.
2. Instant background checks on people attempting to buy guns or ammunition. Brady is still patchwork, and does indeed have its flaws in tracking felons. Felons and ex-cons should not have access to weapons, and many misdemeanors and juvenile crimes should also count against a person's record.
3. Stiffer sentences for gun crimes. This has been the position of the NRA for quite some time, and it is certainly one with which we agree.
4. Gun education. Many guns are involved in accidents that could easily have been prevented by a little care or forethought. Perhaps gun purchasers should be required to take lessons in gun safety, at the purchaser's expense. Again, the NRA has long been a proponent of gun education.
5. General education. Study after study has concluded that there is a direct correlation between lack of education and violent crime. Every dollar spent on education now will prevent countless dollars worth of crime damage in the future. Think of all the private and public funds used to pay for gun violence -- hospital bills, funerals, insurance bills, the actual cost of buying firearms. Now invest that money in education, and watch the crime rate drop.
6. Hand grip ID tagging. This is technologically probably still in the future, but it would be a good goal to work for. The theory is, each gun is "registered" to one's person palm prints (the legal purchaser of the gun), and only that person can fire that gun. If another person tries, the gun simply will not fire. Thus, stolen guns become useless, and cannot be used to harm anybody in the course of a crime. Biometrics is used everywhere and certainly has a place with weapons.
7. Ammunition coding which allows police to trace and solve crimes.
8. End gun-show loop hole
9. Limit ammunition capacity
These nine steps towards gun control are only the beginning. Much work is needed to be done, and until we do so, any further death that is a product of gun violence is on our hands.
** Gun information provided by Legal Community Against Violence.**
gWith the recent mass murder and attempted assignation of Congresswoman Giffords and other Federal officials this past Saturday, we at NFTOS find the blame all around us.
Being a alumni of the University of Arizona (Class of 85) I have never been more prouder of both my second home (Tucson) and the universities medical center. Bar none both top shelf entities.
While every township, county, State, city, metropolis in the Unites States has is share of lunatics, what transpired this past weekend in Tucson is an ever present threat in our society. Why is that?
Four main issues seem to come to the forefront:
1. Extreme political vitriol
2. U.S. Gun Laws and the lax thereof - for later blog
3. How the US deals with the lunatic - for later blog
4. Parental (supervision, child raising, monitoring)
NFTOS fully believes that these above issues in their order are the reasons for the shooting that occurred in Tucson.
National temperament, political discourse, political climate, all contribute to the incendiary volatile political arena we now see today.
Gifford's herself in March 2010 spoke to MSNBC about the Sarah Palin (crosshair) webpage. Certainly a full circle moment for Gifford's.
Clearly Jared Loughner's intent was to first assassinate Congresswoman Giffords, and while the right-wing's violent rhetoric is not directly responsible for the tragic shooting in AZ, the current political rhetoric has reached an unacceptable level. Yet, the right-wing media has consistently downplayed its displays of violence toward Democrats, portraying Democrats who received threats following the health care vote as overreacting or lying, while also downplaying the significance of protesters who attended rallies and events while armed.
Right-Wing has media mocked concerns about violent rhetoric during health care debate and once the health bill {obamacare} passed, Democrats saw a increase rise in threats and here is a example: http://mediamatters.org/research/201101100005
Whether the symbol is or is not a crosshair is irrelevant, and we wouldn't expect the uneducated Loesch to know any better. Not surprising to NFTOS Dana's response is yet more denial from right-wing extremism. "Apologize" really Dana?! We have posted a myriad of times a email to Dana Loesch explaining that her hate and anger would on day cause innocent deaths. That days has come to Dana.
NFTOS has emailed both Glenn Beck and Dana Loesch regarding one, the email in question, two asking both to either tone down the garbage talk or either resign their positions on air.
This would be just a start as Faux News itself daily regurgitates hate and discontent toward progressives.
Glenn Beck, Sharon Angel, Sarah Palin, Allen West, Dana Loesch, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, frequently encourage the "old west" mentality.
Extreme GOP Vitriol started or gave birth around the time of the ACORN issue. Andrew Breitbart and company (Biggovernment and bigjournalism) have been the leaders of political discourse, and vitriol. (Visit their website and read some comments as see for yourself http://bigjournalism.com/). Breitbart and Co are also not exclusive to trouble and controversaries.
At the end of the day whether all the hate and discontent distributed from Faux and any of its by products are responsible for the tragedy in Tucson are inappurtenant and inapropos.
When did debate and political differences turn to hate, violence, and mayhem? Why are republicans so angry? Why do they incite anger and then turn the other cheek, or completely ignore the ramifications of the fruits of their labor.
We do not intend to ignore the other 'issues' listed above. Gun control and controlling the insane are just as important as quashing the "hate freedom of speech" of the right.
I have predicted this tragedy or one like it since day one of this blog, some 8 months ago.
There is literally 100's of thousands of videos, soundbites, and information regarding the vitriol from the right. We choose only to post a smattering of some of the most disgusting from camp right wing. Our staff combed 18 hours of video alone today. Why is there so much out there? Because it actually exists, so for those of the right to refudiate it is utterly riduculous!
Until the extreme right tones down the second amendment old west carry em and shoot em up mentality, then we as a society can only expect those with less than half a brain cell to be angered and act upon that anger.
Unequivocally "freedom of speech" has its ramifications, and until we learn that all "unalienable rights" come with severe consequences when they are abused, then and only then shall we become the "United States"!
Here is a copy of an ad that Giffords opponent ran. Very, Very disturbing. Caution when viewing!
Here is Sarah Palin encouraging or inciting as well!
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded today in a shooting at a Tucson, Arizona, Safeway store. At least 11 other people were injured, officials say. The hospital says Giffords is in surgery for a gunshot wound to the head.
This is the very anger and discontent that Dana Loesch {pictured below}, Andy Breitbart, Glenn Beck and other extreme tea bags encourage!
We have posted this email from photographer Steven Treusdell to Dana Loesch. Here it is again for about the 50 time via NFTOS:
{Our researchers came up with this quote from a left wing friend of Loesch's (which honesty astonishes the bloggers of NFTOS that she has Democratic pals). Quoting photographer Steven Treusdell who has no problem calling out dear Dana... "You have the character of a hate radio DJ down pat," Truesdell wrote in an e-mail to Loesch in October. "Your continued rise in this arena will be fun to watch. You have the aggression, the looks, and the vocab to go far in 'Hate broadcasting' and right wing idolatry. Do be careful though, one day the outrage you urge in others will turn to violence and innocent people will die in your name. This is assured. That is a lot to live with, even when one has Religious righteousness and a fervent belief in their absolute rightness. I hope when that day comes you can live with the results of what you have sown."}
"Republican National Temperament" is completely out of control! Its fine to disagree with parties, but to take things to this level, Dana Loesch and Glenn Beck need to be held accountable, PERIOD!
