CORRUPT OR INCOMPETENT?

Today Chris Christie found himself waist deep in cow dung - today he spent the better half of two hours trying to tell both his state and the country that he knew nothing about "Bridgegate".

It's no surprise that Christie says he didn't know anything about his administration's involvement in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal until Wednesday of this week. But what is surprising is his explanation for why we should believe him, because it's a really flimsy one.


MADDOW Video Courtesy of MSNBC




E-mails show that the Christie administration wanted to create traffic problems in Fort Lee.

Even as Chris Christie attempts to distance himself from responsibility for the GWB fiasco, e-mails recently released to the public show that his administration orchestrated the traffic delays, with no concern about medical emergencies or the health and safety of New Jersey residents. This was apparently done in order to retaliate against the Mayor of Ft. Lee, Mark Sokolich.

CHRIS HAYES Video Courtesy of MSNBC




Wildstein today refused to testify before the Assembly, on January 9th.

Another Christie staffer, David Wildstein, later gave the order to close down the three lanes around the GWB. The public was not notified, nor were any plans made to prevent accidents and injuries, or ensure the safe flow of traffic for emergency vehicles.

Wildstein has been fighting against state and federal authorities, in effort to get a quash for a subpoena from the New Jersey State Assembly. A superior court judge denied his motion to quash and ordered him to testify before the Assembly, on January 9, 2014. Almost as soon as Wildstein took the stand, he exercised his right to remain silent, in order to avoid incriminating himself.

Christie can forget ever being President, and if a fired staffer steps up and speaks up, and they can link the bloviated road blocker to this fiasco, his days as governor are numbered as well.

Christie spent an enormous amount of his time today telling us how much of a bully - he is not -trying to slip-n-slide away from the narrative of - " are you sure you knew nothing of this plan"

Personally I could care less if Christie is a bully, my concern is- if he knew of this diabolical retribution schema, then he is one of the most corrupt deviant f*cks to ever hold a governors office - and if he indeed knew nothing of this, then he is the most incompetent Governor to ever hold office. Embarrassed, shamed, who cares.

So, I propose two queries, is Chris Christie a corrupt bastard, or is he incompetent? Does it matter if he is either of the two?

I would imagine that there is much more to story to be told, I'll hold judgment until the smoking gun is fully engulfed before I go full throttle on his ass. I would imagine there is a weasel in the weeds just waiting to sing the "Chris Christie knew of the plan" song. Stay tuned!

RELATED:

This is not the first time Christie has conducted retribution.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

CHRIS CHRISTIE INVOKING PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY

NEW JERSEY GOVNA CHRIS CHRISTIE ON THE TRAFFIC JAM

Look, it's Dick Cheney ordering Scooter Libby to take the fall for him all over again - oh no wrong liar.


Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.




Governor Soprano just turned rat.

As they said of the GOP God Ronnie Reagan during the Iran-Contra affair - if he knew that this was happening on his watch, then he's corrupt as hell - if he didn't know about it then he's completely incompetent. Which is it Chris?

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

THE TURTLE NEVER BATS AN EYE AS HE HONES HIS HOSTAGE TAKING SKILLS

MITCH "THE TURTLE" MCCONNELL

As Congress is attempting to negotiate a deal to extend unemployment benefits to the 1.3 million Americans who lost them at the end of December, Senate Minority Leader Mitch "the turtle" McConnell is seizing the opportunity to refocus attention on Obamacare. On the Senate floor on Tuesday, McConnell suggested that Democrats should agree to a one-year delay in Obamacare’s individual mandate in order to offset the cost of reinstating unemployment benefits for one year.

“I’d like to propose that… my side be allowed to offer an amendment to pay for these benefits by lifting the burden of Obamacare’s individual mandate for one year, and take care of our veterans who were harmed by the recently agreed to budget deal while we are at it, in the same amendment,” the Kentucky lawmaker said.

The GOP has repeatedly pushed to delay Obamacare’s individual mandate, a proposal that would ultimately increase the number of uninsured Americans and raise premiums in the individual market. Health policy experts agree that it’s too late to make such a major change to the structure of the health reform law, since the individual mandate — which incentives people to purchase health care — is a central component of Obamacare. On January 1, the health law’s coverage expansion officially took effect.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that delaying this Obamacare provision could saving the U.S. $35 billion over the next 10 years. But that’s because it would prevent millions of low-income people from accessing Medicaid coverage, so fewer taxpayer dollars would be spent on extending health care to that population.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid has already rejected McConnell’s request.

Quickly reaching a deal on unemployment benefits, rather than haggling over proposals to attack the health law, could actually end up benefiting the economy. In the week immediately following Congress’ failure to extend unemployment benefits, states lost out on $400 million. According to the CBO, if these federal benefits aren't restored, the U.S. could lose about 200,000 jobs this year due to reduced consumer spending.

If this Einstein and his band of tin foil hat society members had not held us hostage last year to the tune of 24 billion dollars, maybe helping those in need wouldn't be such a problem. The turtle is happy to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the needy, the unemployed, and especially the middle class - anybody except for the filthy rich.

Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor. The turtle believes in stealing from the poor to give to the poor.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

POLAR VORTEX

COMPUTER MODEL OF POLAR VORTEX

On Sunday night, a reporter for The Weather Channel stood in a Minnesota snowstorm, talking about local efforts to move homeless children into heated shelters. “How cold is it supposed to get?” the anchor, back in the studio, asked. The reporter replied: “Colder than Mars.”

Indeed, recent temperatures across the U.S. have been Mars-like. Forecasts in the midwest call for temperatures to drop to 32 below zero in Fargo, N.D.; minus 21 in Madison, Wis.; and 15 below zero in Minneapolis, Indianapolis and Chicago. Wind chills have been predicted to fall to negative 60 degrees — a dangerous cold that could break decades-old records.

All of which begs the question — if climate change is real, then how did it get so cold?

The question is based on common misconceptions of how cold weather moves across the planet, said Greg Laden, a bioanthroplogist who writes for National Geographic’s Scienceblog. According to Laden, the recent record-cold temperatures indicate to many that the Arctic’s cold air is expanding, engulfing other countries. If true, this would be a perfect argument for a “global cooling” theory. The Arctic’s coldness is growing. Laden asks, “How can such a thing happen with global warming?”

1989 POLAR VORTEX

The answer, he writes, is that the Arctic air that usually sits on top of our planet is “taking an excursion” south for a couple of days, leaving the North Pole “relatively warm” and our temperate region not-so-temperate. “Go Home Arctic, You’re Drunk,” he titled the explanation.

“The Polar Vortex, a huge system of moving swirling air that normally contains the polar cold air, has shifted so it is not sitting right on the pole as it usually does,” Laden writes. “We are not seeing an expansion of cold, an ice age, or an anti-global warming phenomenon. We are seeing the usual cold polar air taking an excursion. So, this cold weather we are having does not disprove global warming.”

In fact, some scientists have theorized that the influx of extreme cold is actually fueled by effects of climate change. Jennifer Francis, a research professor at Rutgers University’s Institute of Marine and Coastal Science said today that it’s not the Arctic who is drunk. It’s the jet stream.

Arctic warming, she said, is causing less drastic changes in temperatures between northern and southern climates, leading to weakened west-to-east winds, and ultimately, a wavier jet stream. The stream’s recent “waviness” has been taking coldness down to the temperate United States and leaving Alaska and the Arctic relatively warm, Francis said. The same thing has been happening in other countries as well. Winter storms have been pounding the U.K., she noted, while Scandinavia is having a very warm winter.

“This kind of pattern is going to be more likely, and has been more likely,” she said. “Extremes on both ends are a symptom. Wild, unusual temperatures of both sides, both warmer and colder.”

Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, a distinguished senior climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research said: "The answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question, All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be."

So sorry GOP science deniers, this influx of cold weather is not your debunking trump card to the reality of climate change. 

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

MADDOW DOESN'T COWER TO THE KOCH WHORES

THE KOCH WHORES DON'T LIKE THE TRUTH TOLD

“We will not stop reporting on the political actions and the consequences of the political actions of rich and powerful men, even if they send angry letters every time we do it. I will not read scripts provided to me by anyone else. I do not play requests.”

Rachel Maddow has spoken of her tussles with the Koch brothers on-air before, and last night she did it again with a blistering indictment of the legal letter sent to her on the Kochs’ behalf to publicly correct a report she did on them. Maddow did a report this week on Florida’s “drug test the poor” law (now on its way out) being tried in other states, partly at the urging of a conservative group that’s part of a network that receives funding from the Koch brothers.


VIDEO COURTESY OF MSNBC

Maddow showed the letter that the lawyer sent, including a script for her to read clarifying that they are “not involved in promoting any such issue.” Maddow said quite sternly, “I’m not going to read their script. I’m not going to renounce my own reporting on this story, because the reporting on this story stands. It is true.”

She found it amusing that the key objection is they don’t want people to know about their political activities, and said that’s not good enough to stop people from reporting negative things about them.

This blistering response is exactly what the doctor ordered. These two money ladened troglodytes need to learn that not all Americans, nor businesses answer to these two trolls.

Maybe the Koch whores are so accustomed to writing scripts for Fox & Friends and congressional GOPers, that they assumed Maddow or MSNBC would cave - guess again asshats.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

WE'VE BEEN TEA-BAGGED

WE'VE BEEN TEA BAGGED!

Many moons ago, almost four years ago now, and some thirteen hundred blogs later - we at NFTOS used to use Current TV's Super News cartoons in our blogs - often. In 2010, when we had maybe 20 readers or visitors to our blog a day, [we now average 35,000 daily] we leaned heavily on both Super News and MSNBC GOP slayer Keith Olbermann, to garner readership.

Three things that led me to start blogging was; Tea-Baggers, Dana Loesch and Keith Olbermann [who is my writing mentor]. My distaste for both Loesch and the tea bagger was overwhelming, and both Super News and Olbermann dissected these nasty beasts with such ease - we thought how could we go wrong connecting the dots with these two sources.

So I thought this morning, this cold frigid day [The recent winter storm proves that global warming does not exist, and so we must repeal Obamacare.] for the old school readers of our blog, why not revisit Super News. With over 46 million visits to our site, we are certain some clung to NFTOS early on due to these two sources. So thanks Super News, we at NFTOS miss your work!

PARTY LIKE ITS 1776 SUPER NEWS

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

LEAKED ZIMMERMAN TAPE A DOUSE

LATEST ROUND OF AS THE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TURNS

After a domestic dispute and call to 911 in November, George Zimmerman's girlfriend told police officers that he had threatened her with a shotgun. The allegations echoed those of Zimmerman's ex-wife following his acquittal on charges of murdering unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, and seemed to signal a pattern of uncontrolled violence.

Pregnant girlfriend of George Zimmerman explains in vivid details of his frequent "episodes" of anger and fondness for handguns, shotguns, and a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle.





"I feel like he always gets off," pregnant 27-year-old Samantha Scheibe told a police investigator after her boyfriend, George Zimmerman, pointed a shotgun at her and smashed her belongings. Scheibe was right, again.

Scheibe later recanted, saying in a sworn statement that she was "intimidated" during police questioning and believed investigators had "misinterpreted" her words.

A recently released video of Scheibe's police interview leaked online by ZimmermanVerdict.net, not only casts doubt on her disavowal, it also adds credibility and disturbing violent new details to Scheibe's original account.

Mother Jones reports, "Far from intimidating, the officer who questioned Scheibe, Stephen LaGuardia of the Seminole County Sheriff's office, is a mild-mannered civil servant. And Scheibe's description of events was detailed and vivid—not exactly the kind of thing most people concoct on the fly. Having broken off the relationship, Scheibe said she told Zimmerman to leave her house. He began packing his belongings, including his AR-15 assault rifle. As he removed the clip and shoved it in his rifle bag, a bullet fell on the floor. Zimmerman then grabbed and cocked his shotgun, apparently so that there was a shell in the chamber, and stuffed it in the rifle bag, too."

"Scheibe began carrying Zimmerman's belongings outside "to get him out faster," at which point Zimmerman grew agitated and retrieved the shotgun. "The bag was right there, let’s just say this is the couch, he grabbed it, unlocked it, opened it," she explained, acting out Zimmerman's gestures. Initially, she suspected Zimmerman might commit suicide. "I was trying to figure out, honestly, whether or not he intended to hurt me or himself." But then, Scheibe said, he pointed the gun at her."

Asked again how she felt when Zimmerman aimed the scattergun at her, Scheibe said, "I was trying to figure out, honestly, whether or not he intended to hurt me or himself at that very first moment.

"And then I realized he was pissed at me."

After Scheibe recanted her allegations, prosecutors dropped the domestic violence and assault charges against Zimmerman.

The sixty million dollar question is, will Georgie kill someone else before he kills himself, or vice versa? Its only a matter of time. Hopefully its the latter.



NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

SEAQUESTRATION THREATINING PUBLIC SAFETY SAYS…..

….Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, in his annual Year-End Report on the State of the Federal Judiciary, blasted the 2011 Budget Control Act’s automatic “sequestration” federal spending cuts and warned that the cuts to the federal court system’s budget “pose a genuine threat to public safety.”

Roberts, appointed to the Supreme Court in 2005 by President George W. Bush, listed “adequate funding for the Judiciary” as the “single most important issue facing the courts” and offered a Dickensian look at the federal judiciary past, present, and future.

Conceding that balanced budgets are important, Roberts blasted the Draconian sequester — cuts that came after nearly a decade of belt-tightening by the judicial branch. Because they had previously reduced costs significantly, the $350 million in new across-the-board cuts have already made it difficult for justice to be protected, Roberts argued, noting that “because virtually all of their core functions are constitutionally and statutorily required,” the courts have little discretion over what they spend:

ROBERTS: Sequestration cuts have affected court operations across the spectrum. There are fewer court clerks to process new civil and bankruptcy cases, slowing the intake procedure and propagating delays throughout the litigation process. There are fewer probation and pretrial services officers to protect the public from defendants awaiting trial and from offenders following their incarceration and release into the community. There are fewer public defenders available to vindicate the Constitution’s guarantee of counsel to indigent criminal defendants, which leads to postponed trials and delayed justice for the innocent and guilty alike. There is less funding for security guards at federal courthouses, placing judges, court personnel, and the public at greater risk of harm.

While last month’s Ryan-Murray budget deal will mitigate the sequestration cuts somewhat, Roberts warns that without more restored funding to the federal courts, the future “would be bleak” for America’s judiciary — which “undermines the public’s confidence in all three branches of government.”




NFTOS
STAFF WRITER

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2014

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2014





NFTOS wishes all our readers a happy and prosperous new year.

NFTOS STAFF &

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

TOBY KEITH SAYS NOT TO GUNS......

.....inside his restaurant.

Country music star Toby Keith is facing some backlash from gun owners after one of his new I Love This Bar And Grill restaurants in Woodbridge, Virginia posted a “No Guns Permitted” sign outside its premises.

“I’ll never eat here. Lawfully armed and spending my money elsewhere,” read one of many disgruntled reviews on the restaurant’s Facebook page.

The furor spurred a response by the restaurant, explaining, “While we understand and respect every person’s right to own and bear arms, we at Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar and Grill, with guidance from the State of Virginia and based on insurance regulations, have adopted a no weapons policy. It is our desire to provided a safe, enjoyable and entertaining experience for our patrons and staff.”

That did little to quell the ire of gun owners, one whom responded to the restaurant’s Facebook message by saying, “Your post regarding your stance on not allowing patrons to defend them selves should the need arise is a total cop out to the bad publicity that your bad policy has initiated.”

But gun owners may actually be legally allowed to carry loaded weapons in Keith’s restaurant under Virginia law, irrespective of what the sign says. Virginia is one of at least six states — the others being Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona — that explicitly allows loaded guns in bars. “No Guns Permitted” signs don’t actually have the force of law in Virginia unless the state specifically lists the facility as one where people cannot carry guns.

Another 18 states allow loaded weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol, according to a 2010 New York Times report — and data on violence in America suggests that could be dangerous policy. Gun owners are far more likely to binge drink, drive drunk, and engage in other risky behaviors than people who don’t own guns, according to a 2011 report in the medical journal Injury Prevention. Furthermore, arguments and fights that often involve drinking or a perceived insult lead to nearly half of all homicides and an estimated 40 percent of men and 30 percent of women who killed someone had been drinking at the time.

Keith has previously performed at rallies sponsored by the National Rifle Association and has spoken in support of gun rights. “If one percent of non-felons would go get their concealed weapons license and carry a gun where they can, one percent puts you in a pretty good position of being somebody that could save a bunch of people’s lives,” he said at a 2011 event.

Cross Posted from thinkprogress

NFTOS

Staff Writer

SAY IT ISNT SO DARRELL ISSA

Who the phuck knew?

An incredibly in-depth New York Times report on the Benghazi attack of September 11th, 2012 concludes that there is “no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,” instead led by rebel fighters that were supported by the U.S. during the uprising against Moammar Qaddafi. And on top of all that, the Times report says that despite what members of Congress have claimed to the contrary, that the anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims actually played a pretty significant part in fueling the anger surrounding the attack that left four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, dead.

The Times says that both major narratives (“the attack was spontaneous” and “the attack was meticulously planned in advance”) surrounding Benghazi are both lacking, and points to what it deems as the real intelligence failure in all this.

The Benghazi-based C.I.A. team had briefed Mr. McFarland and Mr. Stevens as recently as the day before the attack. But the American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to Al Qaeda…

Members of the local militia groups that the Americans called on for help proved unreliable, even hostile aide. The fixation on Al Qaeda might have distracted experts from more imminent threats. Those now look like intelligence failures.

The report includes interviews with Libyan rebel fighters, and provides some in-depth details about the attack itself and the security at the Benghazi compound when the attack occurred.

You can read the full report here.

REMEMBER READERS HOW MANY BENGHAZI'S HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH

Here are six major takeaways from the report:

1. Al Qaeda was not involved in the assault. It has become an article of faith for some in the GOP that the Benghazi attack was a highly orchestrated terrorist attack led by the same group that carried out the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. “It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event,” said Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, in an interview on Fox News in November. But according to the Times report, there is no evidence to support this assertion. 

2. Anger at the “Innocence of Muslims” video motivated the initial assault and fueled the anger that powered the attack. After the film appeared online dubbed into Arabic in September 2012, media in Cairo played a major role in stoking the rage that led to an assault on the American embassy in Benghazi. Witnesses on the ground at the attack recount numerous ways in which leaders of the assault used the video to stoke the rage of militiamen. 

3. The spontaneous response to the video stoked another attack that was already in the works, planned by smaller militia not affiliated with Al Qaeda. Evidence suggests that hardline elements within the complex web of Islamist militias operating in Benghazi, including an uneducated loner and contrarian named Ahmed Abu Khattala, had been planning an attack, though it’s unclear when they had intended to strike. The U.S. government has sought to have Khattala apprehended in order to press charges, but authorities and powerful Islamist elements in Libya have closed ranks around the hardliner. 

4. American officials were overly reliant on moderate Islamist elements for protection. As the assault turned full fledged, officials called on the leaders of militias that had been publicly friendly to the U.S. to come to their aid. But when the time came, almost none turned up to rescue Americans trapped inside the compound. “Whatever happened, they were other Libyans,” said one Islamist leader who eventually did enter the compound after resisting at first. 

5. Inside the compound, attackers looted and plundered wildly. Witnesses describe men taking out suits on hangers, televisions and found food. One man reportedly poured what appeared to be Hershey’s chocolate syrup into his mouth. 

6. Benghazi joined the list of Faux News scandals such as- Obama's birth certificate is fake, he's Muslim, he's appointing more "czars" than anyone before, he's playing more golf than anyone before, he's creating FEMA camps, the IRS targeting the Tea Party gave him the election, he's a Marxist because he said "spread the wealth around".....

Fox News, Darrell Issa, Lindsey Graham, and other radical tin foil hat society members owe many apologies, most going to Susan Rice.

Reiterating, who the phuck knew Darrell Issa? You sir are today's asshat of the year! Congratulations Einstein, maybe you should go back to doing what you do best.....stealing cars.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West
 

BAD POLLO

BAD [Chicken] POLLO

The last several decades have seen the U.S. food production system privatized and deregulated to the point that it has become a menace to public health and a major contributor to climate change. It's amazing, that in the richest country in the world, it's "consumer beware." It's left to consumers to empower themselves with information to even begin to navigate healthy food choices for themselves and their families.

Some non-governmental nonprofit groups are trying to take up the slack left by a governmental system which most often represents the interests of multinational corporations rather than the American consumer.

One of the nonprofit groups which has gained consumer trust is Consumer Reports, which since 1936 has published reviews and comparisons of consumer products and services based on reporting and results from its in-house testing laboratory and survey research center.

SALMONELLA

Consumer Reports has recently turned its independent testing laboratory to investigating our broken food production system with a report on the American poultry industry. The results of its testing are unsettling:

Every one of the four major brands we tested (Perdue, Pilgrim’s, Sanderson Farms, and Tyson) contained worrisome amounts of bacteria, even the chicken breasts labeled “no antibiotics” or “organic.” 

Almost none of the brands was free of bacteria. And we found no significant difference in the average number of types of bacteria between conventional samples and those labeled “no antibiotics” or “organic.” 

More than half of the chicken breasts were tainted with fecal contaminants (enterococcus and E. coli), which can cause blood and urinary-tract infections, among other problems. 

Enterococcus was the most common bacterium we found, occurring in 79.8 percent of our samples. Next was E. coli, in 65.2 percent of them; campylobacter, 43 percent; klebsiella pneumoniae, 13.6 percent; salmonella, 10.8 percent, and staphylococcus aureus, 9.2 percent.
About half of our samples (49.7 percent) tested positive for at least one multidrug-­resistant bacterium, and 11.5 percent ­carried two or more types of multidrug-­resistant bacteria. 

Of the 65.2 percent of samples testing positive for E. coli, 17.5 percent of the bugs were “ExPEC” bacteria, a nasty type of E. coli that’s more likely than other types to make you sick with a urinary-tract infection.

World healthcare in general takes antibiotics for granted. Strep throat, sinus infection, UTI—a quick visit to the doctor, a prescription, and you’re feeling better. But that era is coming to an end because these lifesaving drugs are being overused, particularly in livestock production.

Already 2 million Americans are infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and at least 23,000 die each year. The spread of these "superbugs" is happening so fast the Centers for Disease Control says if we don’t act, our national medicine cabinet will soon be empty.





Portions of blog from DailyKos and Meatless Advocates.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

MCDONALD'S HAS A POT AND KETTLE MOMENT

Apparently McDonald's now has a Director of Parody, Satire and Self-Deprecation.

On its employee resources website, McDonald’s offers workers reasonable if not unexpected advice for a healthier diet. McDonald’s employees should steer clear of fast food, the website warns, because meal consisting of burger, fries, and a soda cause weight gain.

“Fast foods are quick, reasonably priced, and readily available alternatives to home cooking,” one post on the McResource Line site says. “While convenient and economical for a busy lifestyle, fast foods are typically high in calories, fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt and may put people at risk for becoming overweight.”

Illustrating this point is a picture of what looks suspiciously like McDonald’s food. At 550 calories, McDonald’s Big Mac delivers nearly 50 percent of one’s daily recommended fat. That’s not including the fries and soda.

McDonald’s defended the McResource posts, saying it has been “taken entirely out of context.” “This website provides useful information from respected third-parties about many topics, among them health and wellness,” they told CNBC. “It also includes information from experts about healthy eating and making balanced choices. McDonald’s agrees with this advice.”

The company pointed to its healthier fare; however, these menu adjustments are often superficial and misleading or slow-coming in the fast food industry. By adding a green label to its McWrap, McDonald’s hopes to attract a younger consumer base that associates green with health.

The McResource Line is now infamous for advising low-income fast food workers to sell Christmas presents for cash and to live on food stamps. The corporation stands firm against raising wages, despite facing embarrassment whenever McDonald’s discusses its $7.81 hourly wage workforce. On these wages, even McDonald’s admitted it is nearly impossible for workers to afford basic expenses from healthy food to heating to transportation.

With McDonald size wages, it truly amazing their employees eat at all.

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

"RESPONSIBLE" GUN HUGGER KILLS OWN KID THINKING SHE WAS AN INTRUDER

GUNS IN HOME? NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA, JUST ASK A COLORADO DAD

A Colorado Springs father fatally shot his teenage step-daughter Monday, saying he thought she was a burglar. Prior to the incident, police received a call about a burglary in progress. But when they got there, they found the 14-year-old with a gunshot wound. She was taken to the hospital and died soon after, according to CBS Denver.

The incident is the latest tragedy involving the use of deadly force to protect the home. And it is one of several incidents in which a parent has killed their own child after they mistook them for a burglar. Last September a Connecticut teacher shot and killed his 15-year-old son after his neighbor called to say she thought she saw a robber in the front yard. Just a few weeks after that, a retired Chicago police officer shot and killed his 48-year-old son after he came in the back door late one night. And an off-duty police officer killed his son last July while the two were on vacation in upstate New York, after he told police he believed him to be an intruder. In that case, shooter Michael Leach was charged with second-degree manslaughter and is facing prison time.

Police have not said yet if they will file charges against the Colorado Springs father whose name has not been released, but Colorado is one of many states that has a “shoot first” law that authorizes the use of deadly force in defense of one’s home, and shields individuals who do so from any criminal or civil charges. Although Colorado does not have a Stand Your Ground law, it does have its own version of what is known as the Castle Doctrine, which allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect their dwelling without a duty to retreat.

The law was dubbed the “Make My Day,” law after the 1983 Clint Eastwood film ”Sudden Impact,” in which Detective Harry Callahan — “Dirty Harry” — aims a gun at a criminal suspect and says, ”Go ahead, make my day.”

The statute is particularly broad because it authorizes deadly force not just for fear of great bodily harm or death, but anytime a person “has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property.” Castle doctrine laws that empower civilians with guns to take the law into their own hands have been associated with many tragedies, in cases involving those seeking help after a car accident, an elderly man with Alzheimer’s who wandered onto another’s property, and the fatal shooting of a 20-year-old who walked onto a neighbor’s porch to escape a potential police bust of underage drinking.

The Colorado law gave criminal immunity to a homeowner who shot a teen intruder as he tried to flee through the front door of the home, even though he was no longer threat. Unlike in some other states, however, the deadly force must occur inside the home — not on a porch or yard. Last year, lawmakers unsuccessfully sought to expand the deadly force immunity to those protecting their businesses.

So much for the good guy with a gum saving the day, or the old cliché that guns don't kill people do. I be this family is re-thinking those asinine analogies!

Let's face it readers, having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children. And it doesn't matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own .If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.

The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

MERRY CHRISTMAS

For those who are Christians, Merry Christmas from the NFTOS staff.

LINUS




Christmas Eve/ Sarajevo

NFTOS STAFF &

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

PHIL DOUBLES DOWN

Phil Robertson has spoken out publicly for the first time since GQ published comments he made condemning homosexuality as sinful and suggesting that African Americans were perfectly happy under Jim Crow laws. He did not address the racist remarks, but used a small group Bible study on Sunday to defend his rebukes of homosexuality, claiming he was merely quoting the Bible.

His new statements, however, clarify further his judgmental views about gay people. For example, he alludes to HIV and other diseases as being the consequence of sexual immorality — reminding of how God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The only safe sexual option for men, he argues, is to marry a woman:

ROBERTSON: We murder each other and we steal from one another, sex and immorality goes ballistic. All the diseases that just so happen to follow sexual mischief… boy there are some microbes running around now. Sexual sins are numerous and many, I have a few myself. So what is your safest course of action? If you’re a man, find yourself a woman, marry them and keep your sex right there. You can have fun, but one thing is for sure, as long as you are both healthy in the first place, you are not going to catch some debilitating illness, there is safety there. 

Commonsense says we are not going to procreate the human race unless we have a man and a woman. From the beginning Jesus said, “It is a man and a woman.” Adam was made and Eve was made for this reason. They left their fathers and mothers and be united to become one flesh, that’s what marriage is all about. But we looked at it and said it was an outdated stereotype. When you look back at the human race, the sins have always been the same: We get high, we get drunk, we get laid, we steal and kill. Has this changed at all from the time God burnt up whole cities because their every thought was evil? 

Robertson went on to assert that sexual immorality is actually worse than any other sins, but that Jesus can take away the sin of homosexuality. 

ROBERTSON: The acts of the sinful nature are obvious. Sexual immorality, is number one on the list. How many ways can we sin sexually? My goodness. You open up that can of worms and people will be mad at you over it. I am just reading what was written over 2000 years ago. Those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom. All I did was quote from the scriptures, but they just didn’t know it. Whether I said it, or they read it, what’s the difference? The sins are the same, humans haven’t changed.

But there’s a way out, do you want to hear the rest of the story or what? Jesus will take sins away, if you’re a homosexual he’ll take it away, if you’re an adulterer, if you’re a liar, what’s the difference? If you break one sin you may as well break them all. If we lose our morality, we will lose our country. It will happen. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all walk around without stealing from each other and killing each other?

Video also surfaced last week of Robertson speaking against homosexuality back in 2010, comparing homosexuality to bestiality just like he did in the GQ interview by claiming that gay people “bow down to birds animals and reptiles and each other and the first thing you see coming out of them is gross sexual immorality.”

A&E suspended Robertson from filming on Duck Dynasty, which prompted his family to suggest that the show about their duck call business might not be able to continue without him.

Conservatives have fervently been defending Robertson’s comments about homosexuality, though they have been noticeably silent about his comments on race and civil rights.

ROBERTSON: "Sexual immorality, is number one on the list."

Actually, God says all sins are equal. There is no ranking. God also said there is no greater commandment than loving thy neighbor. Something Robertson clearly ignores.

Perhaps Robertson like all bible thumping "Christians" should learn the Bible before attempting to practice selective Christianity.

Phil Robertson, congratulations, you are both todays: Asshat of the day and Worst Person In The World!

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

A WAR ON CHRISTMAS STORY

CONSERVATIVES MADE-UP WAR ON CHRISTMAS STORY

The right wing makes up a fake "War on Christmas" every year. It's easy to joke about, but not all of their lies are laughing matters.


HAPPT FESTIVUS FOX




The Dark Mastermind Behind The War On Christmas




O'Reilly Freaks Out




Sarah Palin 'War on Christmas' Book Flops




Right Wing's Fake War on Christmas Started Nearly 100 Years Ago

This is always a fun time of the year for me, when the NECONS ramp up the lunacy with the war on Christmas. May God keep blessing us with the benighted ignorance of the unlettered GOPer.

NFTOS 

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

UTAH JUDGE GETS IT RIGHT

MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Who'd a thunk it?


United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision striking down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, was not the clearest opinion the justices have ever produced. Although that opinion was firmly rooted in the Constitution’s guarantee of equality for all Americans, it contained just enough states’ rights language to give anti-gay lawmakers in the states some hopes that marriage discrimination could remain alive in conservative enclaves throughout the country. If a Utah federal judge’s opinion that was released Friday is upheld on appeal, however, there will no longer be any doubt that marriage equality belongs to all Americans.

“The Constitution protects the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government,” Judge Robert Shelby concludes in his opinion striking down Utah’s ban on marriage equality — and this right applies to everyone. The same Constitution, Shelby explains “protects the choice of one’s partner for all citizens, regardless of sexual identity.”

Although Shelby largely relies on the argument that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, he also made sharp nods towards the promise of equality. “Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples,” he explains, Utah’s “Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition.”

Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples, Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition. Amendment 3 does not thereby elevate the status of opposite-sex marriage; it merely demeans the dignity of same-sex couples. And while the State cites an interest in protecting traditional marriage, it protects that interest by denying one of the most traditional aspects of marriage to thousands of its citizens: the right to form a family that is strengthened by a partnership based on love, intimacy, and shared responsibilities. The Plaintiffs’ desire to publicly declare their vows of commitment and support to each other is a testament to the strength of marriage in society, not a sign that, by opening its doors to all individuals, it is in danger of collapse.

Beyond Judge Shelby’s conclusion that marriage is a question of constitutional rights, not one of states’ rights — as he explains, “the Fourteenth Amendment requires that individual rights take precedence over states’ rights where these two interests are in conflict” — Shelby’s opinion appears designed to tear down whatever intellectual infrastructure remains supporting marriage discrimination.

The leading argument advanced by supporters of discrimination in same-sex marriage cases is that marriage is necessarily tied to procreation, so same-sex couples can be excluded because they cannot produce biological offspring. Yet, as Shelby points out, the ability to procreate is not “a defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view.

” Such an argument does not simply “demean the dignity” of same-sex couples, it also degenerates “the many opposite-sex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to have children.” Indeed, under Utah’s argument for maintaining marriage discrimination, “a post-menopausal woman or infertile man does not have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does not have the capacity to procreate.”

Additionally, opponents of marriage equality who cheered Justice Antonin Scalia’s sharply worded dissent in Lawrence v. Texas — another landmark gay rights opinion — may come to regret Scalia’s words after reading Judge Shelby’s opinion. Scalia wrote in Lawrence that “today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.” Shelby’s opinion proclaims that Scalia was right.

It should be noted, however, that Shelby’s opinion is significantly less sweeping that Thursday’s marriage equality decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court. The New Mexico court unanimously held that “because same-gender couples (whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, hereinafter ‘LGBT’) are a discrete group which has been subjected to a history of discrimination and violence, and which has inadequate political power to protect itself from such treatment, the classification at issue must withstand intermediate scrutiny to be constitutional.” Thus, under the New Mexico decision, any anti-LGBT law will be subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny — and the New Mexico court explicitly included transgender individuals within the scope of its holding. Shelby’s opinion, by contrast, is largely focused on the right to marry.

Nevertheless, Shelby’s opinion is broad enough to extend the blessings of full marriage equality to all same-sex couples if it is upheld by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, however, it will need to be reviewed by the conservative-leaning United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. So it will probably be quite a while before this case reaches the nation’s highest Court.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

DUCK DYNASTY SHITSTORM

With the shit-storm over Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson’ comments about homosexuality dominating cable news Thursday, Jon Stewart really had no choice but to offer the world his take on the issue. The Daily Show host took the opportunity to deliver a scathing take down of the “free speech absolutists” at Fox News.

“Look, I think what the guy said is ignorant,” Stewart said, “but I also have an inclination to support a world where saying ignorant shit on television doesn’t get you kicked off that medium.” But does Fox News truly believe you shouldn’t “pressure people to have to adhere to cultural norms of speech?”

This led to an all out “War on Christmas” montage, after which Stewart explained that Fox’s “belief in free speech doesn't extend to the holidays where the word Christmas is mandatory.”


Video Courtesy of Comedy Central

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

I was emailed this today regarding this issue:

"Political correctness is all about changing the language to cater to an aggrieved group, usually a minority."

My response: You're halfway there, once you realize who the targets [of 'politically incorrect' comments 'usually'] are. But since you're not 'usually' in any of those minorities, who gives a shit - right?

It's all about civility - not your '1st amendment right' to spew hateful speech. The government is not preventing you from doing that - but society has a right and obligation to scorn you for doing so.

NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

FREE SPEECH SARAH PALIN STYLE

Cross Posted from Crooks and Liars





Sarah Palin took to her Facebook page to defend the Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson, after he was placed on indefinite leave by A&E for his homophobic words, on the grounds that our free speech is endangered.

Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.

Here's what he said about the gays:

In the GQ interview, Robertson goes on record with comments about the sinfulness of gays and black people under Jim Crow. In the profile, an unedited Robertson sounds off on what's ailing the country during a trip through the Louisiana backwoods. 

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he tells reporter Drew Magary. "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

He also muses about his own sexual orientation: "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."

And as Jamie wrote, he also made a claim that African Americans were better off in the pre-civil rights era:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy?

Sarah Palin isn't offended by those words at all because in her mind people should be able to say anything they want, anywhere without retribution. It's not surprising that she knows so little about 'freedom of speech' and what it means, (maybe we can get Katie Couric to ask her about it).

But if we go by her own understanding of it, why didn't she defend Martin Bashir over his callous words about her --which caused a conservative outrage and then led him to resign his job at MSNBC? She wallowed in his ridiculous words to her and bathed in the conservative backlash politics that ensued.

Did she say that Bashir was entitled to say anything he wants on MSNBC's airwaves, even attacking her? After all, it was his personal opinion that he voiced. Nope. Did she then go on and debate Bashir over what prompted him to say those things about her? Nope. So it's OK for anti-gay and and pro-Jim Crow words to be uttered by Robertson, but not anti-Palin words.

It's very typical of conservatives like Sarah Palin that their understanding of politics only extends as far as the last Facebook entry they made.

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER

CHRIS CHRISTIE'S  "BRIDGEGATE"

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie still hasn’t offered an alternate –more believable – explanation for his administration’s controversial lane closures on the George Washington Bridge. The most plausible explanation – that the governor’s administration was punishing a mayor who refused to endorse Christie – is the most politically damaging one, but also the most credible pending further revelations.

Video courtesy of MSNBC




An in-depth follow up can be read here. - RELATED: Gov. Christie's cronies lawyer up as "Bridgegate" gets even messier

You just can't make this stuff up.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

COULTERGIEST ON SINGLE WOMEN

Ann Coulter really has a problem with single women. On a Fox & Friends episode from Dec. 15, she said that tea bageers don’t have a problem with women, they have a problem with single women. On her planet, single women want the government to be their husbands. They want the government to provide for them and pay for their birth control, and basically just take care of everything for them.






It’s not hard to understand that Ann Coulter is a woman with an odd view on women’s issues. Her ideal world is back in 1950, when women knew their place as secondary to men. She wants women everywhere to be married, and submissive to their husbands. It seems she thinks the world’s problems would all go away if women would just get married and shut up. Or, to put it in Ann Coulter’s own words:

“By the way, Republicans don’t have a problem with women. They have a problem with unmarried women who think, ‘No, we don’t need national defense, we need our birth control paid for.’ [...] And why? Because single women look at the government as their husbands. [They say] ‘Please provide for me, please take care of me.’”

Coulter, the "female" version of Rush Limbaugh - once I get over her Adams apple and wondering whether this hate hag has a severe thyroid problem, or is she just the creature I think she is, "Coultergeist" - does she really believe the shit she spews, or is this a dog and pony show for the unlettered tea bagger?

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

WHAT CBS DIDN'T ASK

Cross-posted from thinkprogress:

John Miller, reporting for CBS’ “60 Minutes,” found himself the target of ridicule on social media for his Sunday “exposé” on the National Security Agency (NSA). The segment, which takes viewers through some portions of the NSA building, has been characterized as puff piece with Miller soft-balling questions to Gen. Keith Alexander, the agency’s director and head of the U.S. Cyber Command, and NSA Analyst Stephen Benitez. Here are four questions Miller, a former U.S. Department of National Intelligence employee who reportedly is preparing to join the New York Police Department, missed or didn’t press hard enough to get answered:

Why did Alexander and National Intelligence Director James Clapper tell Congress that NSA wasn’t collecting U.S. citizens’ personal data when it really was?

In a March hearing, Clapper told Congress that no data was “wittingly” collected, according to a letter he sent in June to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Alexander was quoted in the letter as saying, “The story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.” During the interview with Miller, he conceded the NSA was collecting some data, arguing, “How do you know when the bad guy who’s using those same communications that my daughters use, is in the United States trying to do something bad?”

Why were employees using NSA tactics to spy on their love interests?

“Nobody [in the NSA] willfully or knowingly trying to break the law,” Alexander said. Miller did point out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court thought differently, saying “the NSA systematically transgressed both its own court-appointed limits in bulk Internet data collection programs.” But he didn’t bring up that NSA employees have admittedly abused their access in the past. Most notably, many employees used the NSA’s databases to gather intelligence on significant others and exes, violations known under the spycraft label LOVEINT. There was also no mention of the nearly 3,000 incidents of unauthorized data collection by NSA employees discovered over the course of internal investigations, which The Washington Post first reported.

What can the NSA get from spying on Google and Yahoo that it can’t get directly?

Miller acknowledged the agency openly cooperates with the two Internet giants, Apple and others to access user information. However, the NSA still infiltrated Google and Yahoo’s data centers per documents released by NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden. Alexander dodged a similar question when Miller asked if the NSA hacked into U.S. Internet companies’ foreign data centers: “No, that’s not correct,” Alexander said. “We do target terrorist communications. And terrorists use communications from Google, from Yahoo, and from other service providers. So our objective is to collect those communications no matter where they are.” Alexander’s comments echoed those of his predecessor, Michael Hayden, but still didn’t address the need to gather information secretly from companies they work with. Since the revelation, Google, Yahoo and six other tech companies have asked the NSA to revise their agreements after Snowden documents revealed the agency spied on ‘World of Warcraft’ video game users.

Does the NSA ever track people’s cell phone call locations and to what extent?

Miller and Alexander discussed phone monitoring, with Alexander skirting the issue saying, “We’re defending this country from future terrorist attacks and we’re defending our civil liberties and privacy. There’s no reason that we would listen to the phone calls of Americans. There’s no intelligence value in that. There’s no reason that we’d want to read their email. There is no intelligence value in that.” Miller’s narration goes on to say that the NSA only collects “metadata” of phone records for more than 300 million Americans that reveal the number from which a call originated and the one receiving the call. That metadata can also include information about where the call was placed, using GPS technology that most phones have these days. Numerous reports have surfaced on how the NSA uses cell phone tracking data, and that it collects billions of such records world wide each day. But geolocation tracking never came up.

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

THANK YOU FROM NFTOS

When you blog 365 days a year - now for over three years, its at times, a struggle to put one out. This would be one of those days. In the past we have posted our sites statistical analysis, which shows how many hits and readers we have had to our site to date.

Not one to brag much, oh who the hell are we kidding, in the graph below - we have had over 45.7 million hits [page views, unique visits and return visits] since April 2010.

NFTOS 3 YEAR STATS

When you think of it, holding a masters degree in engineer and not in journalism - I am just a compassionate "Damn Nazi Liberal", and to say we have had 46 million computer screens seeing our work - its humbling and mind numbing.

We at NFTOS appreciate every hit to our site whether its a fellow progressive or an American Talibaner.

We would like to thank you for visiting our page [whether you agree with us or not]. There are times when I wonder how much longer we do this, and then a right wing nut job goes to the brink, and then we no longer wonder.

Enjoy your Sunday fellow progressives, and as always, we very much are grateful for your readership.


CHEERS




NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West & Staff

OVER 33,000 DEAD BY GUN VIOLENCE SINCE NEWTOWN

THIS PHOTO UPSETS THE GUN HUGGER MOST

NRA, Gun Huggers, Guns Over People unite, be proud, for over thirty three thousand lives have been taken since Newtown one year ago today.

Today flags in Connecticut will fly at half staff to honor the 20 first-graders and six adults gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012.

I am one of those "Damn Nazi Socialist Liberals" who wants total control over the Guns Over People, until we can prove that we indeed are truly "responsible" with weapons, then we all the pay the fiddler. I often find that "responsible" gun huggers are the ones we really need to watch the most, you know the ones who leave armed weapons on the kitchen table so that 4 year old baby Suzy can pick it up and kill herself or her two year old brother Johnny. How about the "responsible" Ex Vice President who shit his best friend in the face.....responsible my ass!

I posted yesterday on Twitter that over 173 children under the age of 12 have been killed over this same period, and the gun hugging twitter nuts went into a frothy frenzy. One NRA nut asked me to list every gun used in these events....here is the thing numbnutz, I don't give a phuck what weapon was used!

One year later, after this most disgusting event, and still having not done anything in this country to curb this, speaks volumes about Americans as a whole. When a organization [which is only 4 million strong] dictates what we do and don't do with regards to guns - Houston we have a problem! America has over 325 million citizens, since when did 4 million rule 325 million?

We have had more deaths this year alone than the entire 15 year war of Afghanistan and Iraq combined. Thirty three thousand dead via guns - is eight [8] thousand Benghazi's readers, where the hell is the outrage Faux News, Megyn Kelly, GOP, Guns Over People, Gun Huggers, NRA?

Where the phuck are all these good guys with a gun - where are all these "responsible" gun huggers at?

Email just in to NFTOS from a gun hugger:

"Gun control laws have been demonstrated not to work. Gun control laws have been proven to be a huge waste of money. Gun control laws disarm the law-abiding and empower the criminal. Gun control laws are legal booby traps for the unwary, but rarely hinder the criminal." 

Except in every other country in the world where the gun laws are so stringent they basically prohibit routine ownership of weapons. This argument only works in the vacuum of addressing the US attempts at firearm regulation.

It is time to right this wrong - God forbid, but I wonder what happens to a gun hugger when they, or their family become a statistic of gun violence, are they still a proponent of zero gun control?

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West