SPECULATION

Speculation in food futures is driving food prices up in third world countries, leading to revolutions that might bring extremists to power. Speculation in gas and oil has driven gas prices to almost $4 a gallon. What good are these speculators accomplishing? Shouldn't they be eliminated? Why pay higher prices that aren't justified...would it be so Goldman Sachs could maintain a healthy wealthy and wise status?

Goldman Sachs speculators set up a casino where the chips were the stomachs of millions. What does it say about our system that we can so casually inflict so much chaos and dissension into our global economy?

Until deregulation, the price for food was set by the forces of supply and demand for food itself. But after deregulation, it was no longer just a market in food. It became, at the same time, a market in food contracts based on theoretical future crops – and the speculators drove the price through the roof.

The Ed Shultz video is alarming at best, and depicts the evil that exist on Wall Street.

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

By now, you probably think your opinion of Goldman Sachs and its swarm of Wall Street allies has hit rock-bottomed at raw loathing. You're wrong. There's more. It turns out that the most destructive of all their recent acts has barely been discussed at all. This is the story of how some of the richest people in the world – Goldman, Deutsche Bank, the traders at Merrill Lynch, and more – have caused the starvation of some of the poorest people in the world and they unequivocally share a portion of blame in the revolutions currently storming the globe today.

Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, these uprisings are just the beginning of an avalanche that shall escalate into a snowball that shall rival Biblical proportions.

This phenomenon known as the "food bubble" is not just a United States issue. Food speculation on Wall Street continues to starve millions. Get ready for a rocky year readers. From now on, rising prices, powerful storms, severe droughts and floods, and other unexpected events are likely to play havoc with the fabric of global society, producing chaos and political unrest. Start with a simple fact: the prices of basic food staples are already approaching or exceeding their 2008 peaks, that year when deadly riots erupted in dozens of countries around the world.

A new theory is emerging among democratic bloggers and economists. The same banks, hedge funds and financiers whose speculation on the global money markets caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis are known to be causing food prices to yo-yo and inflate. The charge against Wall Street are overwhelming and they are taking advantage of the deregulation of global commodity markets - they are making billions from speculating on food and causing misery around the world.

There has always been modest, even welcome, speculation in food prices and it traditionally worked like this. Farmer X protected himself against climatic or other risks by “hedging”, or agreeing to sell his crop in advance of the harvest to Trader Y. This guaranteed him a price, and allowed him to plan ahead and invest further, and it allowed Trader Y to profit, too. In a bad year, Farmer X got a good return but in a good year Trader Y did better.

When this process of “hedging” was tightly regulated, it worked well enough. The price of real food on the real world market was still set by the real forces of supply and demand.

But all that changed under Both Bush presidential regimes. Then, following heavy lobbying by banks, hedge funds and free market politicians in the US, the regulations on commodity markets were steadily abolished. Contracts to buy and sell foods were turned into “derivatives” that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture.

People die from hunger while the banks make a killing from betting on food, revolutions and chaos exist because dictators can't provide food to their citizens because food costs are too high.


These rising food prices serve as a powerful reminder that we humans are inextricably linked to our environment, and when it suffers, we suffer. It's also a reminder that development and environment issues cannot and should not be treated as separate. As Gawain Kripke, policy director for Oxfam America noted last week, unless we address both the underlying issues of both climate and development, "we will find ourselves perpetually on the knife's edge of disaster."

How much time do we have before the food bubble bursts? No one knows. If we stay with business as usual, the time is more likely measured in years than in decades. We are now so close to the edge, that politically destabilizing food price rises are at our global doorstep.

Once again, Wall Street and its team of diabolical frenzied money hoarders cause anarchy and ataxia amongst the masses. When will they really be held accountable?

Certainly the civil unrest in the middle East is due in part by the greed of Goldman Sachs. While unemployment and Dictatorships are contributing factors to the unrest and must be weighed in, but there is know doubt a hungry world is a angry world.


NFTOS

Viewers “Significantly More Likely” to be Confused by Faux News

Seven years ago, just six months into the war in Iraq, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland found that those who relied on Faux News network were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions — about WMD in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11, and foreign support for the U.S. position on the war in Iraq.”

Ben Armbruster added, “An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll out last year found that Faux News viewers were overwhelmingly misinformed about health care reform proposals. A 2008 Pew study ranked Faux News last in the number of ‘high knowledge’ viewers and a 2007 Pew poll ranked Faux viewers as the least knowledgeable about national and international affairs.”

The problem has arguably gotten worse. Recently PIPA published a report, this time on “Misinformation and the 2010 Election” (pdf). The point was to measure Americans’ understanding of a variety of key developments that news consumers would likely be familiar with. As was the case seven years ago, Faux News viewers were “significantly more likely” to be confused about reality.
Researchers found that Americans who paid more attention to the news were more likely to know about current events. But Americans who relied on Faux News were “significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe”:

Here is a list of what Faux News viewers believe that just isn't so:

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs

72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit

72 percent believe the economy is getting worse

60 percent believe climate change is not occurring

49 percent believe income taxes have gone up

63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts

56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout

38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP

63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

This point, in particular, seems especially noteworthy — in some cases, regular Faux News viewers would have done better, statistically speaking, if they had received no news at all and simply guessed whether the claims about current events were accurate.

What’s more, this isn’t party affiliations — Democrats who watch Faux News were worse off than Democrats who relied on legitimate news organizations (though Dems who watch Faux News were still less confused than Republicans who watch Faux News).


It would take an unlikely twist of self-reflection, but at a certain point, Faux News and its audience might take a moment to ponder why these viewers are so wrong, so often, about so much. That almost certainly won’t happen, of course, in part because the network and its viewers aren’t quite informed enough to realize they’re uninformed.

It's a disturbing trend. The growth in Faux News' popularity has coincided with rising distrust of the rest of the media, which the right tends to dismiss as "liberal" and view with reflexive suspicion. That, coupled with Faux's commitment to producing distorted, right-wing journalism, has essentially created a competing media culture in which counter-factual information with palate-pleasing right-wing spin is considered "the news."

What the study shows is the necessary result of a news organization putting ideology over accuracy. It's not news, and it's not healthy for a functioning democracy.

You would have thought that Glenn Beck University would have raised the mentality of the Faux viewer, and staunch Faux viewers always claim to exhibit the know-it-all syndrome, but it's hard to debate the wrong end of a horse, as you always get nothing but manure.

NFTOS has said for months that watching Faux News is detrimental to your intelligence, this study on confirms our theory. So the more you watch Faux, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false.

This is not an isolated review of Faux’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Faux News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if Americans are making choices based on lies.


Hands down Faux viewers win the coveted "clueless" award for 2011.


NFTOS

KOCH INDUSTRIES

Now, you may have heard a thing or two about Koch Industries. Their role in funding climate change deniers is well documented. What you may not realize is that Koch intentionally flies beneath the radar. David Koch likes to joke that Koch Industries is the biggest company you've never heard of. They're able to remain unknown because they hide behind shadowy front groups like Americans for Prosperity. Co-founded by David Koch, Americans for Prosperity funds advertising and public events designed to mislead Americans about climate change and energy policy.

Koch Industries knows that if Americans realized that a massive oil pipeline and refinery company was behind harmless-sounding groups that work to mislead us about climate change, no one would listen to them. They want you to think that what is good for the oil industry is good for the American people, but you and I both know what they actually care about: their bottom line.


But if you never have heard of Koch Industries hold on to your hat:

Koch Industries, Inc. (pronounced /ˈkoʊk/) is an American private energy conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch also owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Flint Hill Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, Koch Minerals and Matador Cattle Company.

Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining and distribution[1] of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching, finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments.

In 2008, Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion, down from the largest in 2006. If Koch Industries were a public company in 2007, it would rank about sixteenth in the Fortune 500.

Fred C. Koch, for whom Koch Industries, Inc. is named, co-founded the company in 1940 and developed an innovative crude oil refining process. His sons, Charles G. Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer, and David H. Koch, executive vice president, are principal owners of the company after they bought out their brothers, Frederick and William for $1.1 billion in 1983. Charles and David Koch each own 42% of Koch Industries, and Charles has stated that the company will publicly offer shares "literally over my dead body".

Much attention has been paid to Koch’s role in funding the organizers of the Tea Party movement and its supporting institutions. Koch operatives orchestrated the first anti-Obama Tea Party protests, channeled Tea Party groups into increasing the Koch’s personal wealth, and organized Tea Parties for Republican campaigns and lobbying drives.

Koch Industries is the largest private corporation in America and they thrive on emitting carbon pollution and other forms of pollution for free. Much of Koch Industries’ $120 billion-a-year revenues are derived from burning fossil fuels: oil refineries and pipelines, chemical plants, fertilizer plants, manufacturing factories, and the shipping of coal. Moreover, Koch Industries owns Georgia Pacific, one of the largest timber companies, so Koch also contributes to global warming by decreasing the world’s carbon sink capacity. The National Academy of Sciences, the US Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all come to the same conclusion: “that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use and the loss of carbon-sink capacity in heavily timbered forests are increasing temperatures and making oceans more acidic.” Corporate documents revealed by ThinkProgress show that Koch Industries explicitly targeted laws to reduce carbon emissions as a threat to Koch’s bottom line.

To boost their profits, Koch is the largest funder of climate change denying organizations and media outlets in the world. For example, Koch bankrolls denier groups like the CATO Institute, Fraser Institute, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, the Manhattan Institute, the Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the State Policy Network, and dozens of others. Not only have Koch fronts instructed Tea Party groups to kill national legislation to address climate change, but Koch groups have been instrumental in pushing climate change-believers out of the Republican Party. As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has detailed, the vast majority of new Republicans in Congress are “climate zombies.” Koch Industries is so fervently anti-climate science that it recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a belief in global warming damages its reputation.

Koch’s active role in Republican politics and multifaceted propaganda campaigns are almost always tied to Koch Industries’ business interests.

Oh the web one weaves when one chooses to deceive. The below links (provided by think progress) show a clear and present danger that Koch Industries provides in both politics and global business.

Arguing Over Racial Segregation Plan, AFP Official Threatens Professor: ‘I’m Going To Knock You For A Loop’

Exclusive: Tea Party Billionaire David Koch Denies Climate Change, Shrugs Off His Carbon Pollution


Exclusive: David Koch Refuses To Answer Questions About Citizens United, Secret Right-Wing Meetings


Fulfilling Father’s Campaign To Segregate Public Schools, Koch Groups End Successful Integration Program In NC

Tea Party Billionaire David Koch Entertains Newly Elected Republicans On The First Day Of The New Congress

Theater Audience Boos Tea Party Billionaire David Koch

Koch-Funded Book Argues Against Mine Safety Laws In West Virginia

Koch-Backed Groups Helped Kill Law Designed To Prevent Voter Suppression Plot Hatched By Koch-Backed Groups

Meet Mike Pompeo: The Congressional Candidate Spawned By The ‘Kochtopus’

TP’s Lee Fang Discusses The ‘Kochtopus’ Network On Countdown

Koch Industries Takes Credit For The ‘Spontaneous’ Tea Parties: We’re Glad We ‘Helped Stimulate’ Them

McCain Caught Fundraising With Business Group That Killed McCain-Feingold, Shouts ‘I Love The Chamber!’

TIMELINE: From Promoting Acid Rain To Climate Denial, Over 20 Years Of David Koch’s Polluter Front Groups

Drilling Is Not The Solution To Create Jobs And Reduce Reliance On Foreign Oil

Right-Wing Billionaire David Koch Funding SwiftBoat Campaign Against Global Warming Science

Beck’s Character Assassination Campaign Against Van Jones Was Fueled By AFP’s Efforts To Kill Green Jobs

This past weekend, David and Charles Koch, the co-owners of the $100 billion Koch Industries pollution conglomerate, hosted their annual meeting in Palm Springs to coordinate strategy and raise funds for the extreme radial tea bag movement.

Top on the Koch agenda is the elimination of the estate tax for billionaires, the end to an open Internet, and the prevention of limits on their toxic pollution. Spending millions of dollars a year — a tiny percent of their pollution-based wealth — the Koch brothers and their ideological allies intend to manipulate American democracy to protect their private economic interests. Their selfish pursuit puts everyone else’s liberties at terrible risk, threatening the “four essential human freedoms” articulated by President Frank Delano Roosevelt: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, from want, and freedom from fear.

When NFTOS tells you Koch Industries funds the Tea Party movement, this is what we mean:

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

"The Koch's are on a whole different level. There's no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I've been in Washington since Watergate, and I've never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times."

Koch Industries, has always been a major backer for a myriad of radical right-wing causes. While the Koch brothers have tried to insure one degree of separation from tea bag central, the plethora of associations are overwhelming.

Righties and Glenn Beck have been on the George "spooky dood" Soros mob lynching parade for months.

Knowing what we know now about Koch Industries and the brothers Grimm (David and Charles Koch) its high time the progressives apply pressure to these radical right wing nut jobs.

There is know doubt that the brothers Grimm are the puppet masters to the tea bag society.

Progressives took to Palm Springs to boycott the Koch's tea party. The theme of the party crash was to "uncloak the Koch's".

We at NFTOS will carry this theme on, moving forward to expose our readers to just how corrupt these boys are. Corporate malfeasance seems to exist everywhere within Koch Industries.

A Bush selected Supreme Court cleared the path for Corporations funding politics. Corporations have been around far longer than our country, and our founding fathers were very wary of extending privileges to economic entities. They were way more concerned with living, breathing human beings. The Bill of Rights was written for the benefit of people, not companies – and there lies the ultimate irony of the Supreme Court ruling.

The Plutocracy is way too big today in our country. Say goodbye to the Republic, because it’s a thing of the past if Koch and the Chamber of Commerce are allowed to keep their hands in the cookie jar.


NFTOS

Virginia House Revives Doctrine of ‘Interposition’ Last Used To Defend Jim Crow

Segregationist Virginia Senator Harry Byrd Sr.

In response to the landmark Affordable Care Act, numerous right-wing state lawmakers  have introduced unconstitutional bills attempting to nullify this federal law. Earlier this week, however, the Virginia House of Delegates went even further, passing a sweeping nullification bill  that directly conflicts with numerous Supreme Court decisions:

All goods produced or manufactured, whether commercially or privately, within the boundaries of the Commonwealth that are held, maintained, or retained within the boundaries of the Commonwealth shall not be deemed to have traveled in interstate commerce and shall not be subject to federal law, federal regulation, or the authority of the Congress of the United States under its constitutional power to regulate commerce.

It is all but certain that the Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act under its existing precedents, but this specific question has yet to reach the justices themselves. The Virginia House’s attempt to prevent the federal government from regulating locally produced goods, by contrast, is a direct assault on the judiciary. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress does not simply have the power to regulate commerce that crosses state lines, it also has the power to regulate wholly intrastate matters that “substantially affect interstate commerce.”

The Virginia Legislature has pulled this stunt before. In 1956, Virginia lawmakers objected to a different Supreme Court decision — Brown v. Board of Education. Rather than acknowledging that they are bound by the Constitution, however, these lawmakers instead enacted a “resolution of interposition” claiming that they were “duty bound” to defy the Supreme Court:

[W]e have watched with growing concern as the power delegated to the Congress to regulate commerce among the several States has been stretched into a power to control local enterprises remote from interstate commerce; we have witnessed with disquietude the advancing tendency to read into a power to lay taxes for the general welfare a power to confiscate the earnings of our people for purposes unrelated to the general welfare as we conceive it . . . .

Virginia can remain silent no longer. Recognizing, as this Assembly does, the prospect of incalculable harm to the public schools of this State and the disruption of the education of her children, Virginia is duty bound to interpose against these most serious consequences, and earnestly to challenge the usurped authority that would inflict them upon her citizens.

Sadly, the Virginia House is not alone in attempting to revive long discredited legal doctrines to advance its right-wing agenda. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has suggested that child labor laws, FEMA, food stamps, the FDA, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution. Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Rand Paul (R-KY) both believe that they can strip millions of U.S. citizens of their citizenship of their citizenship in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right-wing lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act all ask the courts to jettison nearly two centuries of settled constitutional law.

Indeed, if the right had its way, it’s doubtful there would be much left of the Constitution.



NFTOS

CREATING SNOW JOBS

They’re bound to eventually get around to creating jobs, right? The midterm election cycle really wasn’t that long ago. It was recent enough for congressional Republicans to remember that they did well by running around asking questions like, “Where are the jobs?”


Job creation and economic growth remain the dominant issue on the minds of voters, though the GOP seems to have lost sight of public priorities with surprising speed.

The very first issue tackled by the new House GOP majority was, of course, gutting the health care system, despite the fact that their legislation has no chance at passing, and despite the fact that their proposal would hurt job creation. For their second major initiative, Republicans chose abortion.

Last week, the Republican Study Committee announced one of its top new goals is using federal power to restrict marriage rights in the District of Columbia — remember, they hate overbearing federal intervention in local affairs, except when they don’t — and this week the House GOP leadership announced yet another priority.

New House Speaker John A. Boehner formally endorsed a bill Wednesday to revive and expand the school voucher program for the District of Columbia, calling it “a model for similar programs throughout our country.”

Yes, Boehner loathes spending taxpayer money, unless it’s going to pay for private school tuition.

We are curious — when, exactly, might we see Republicans work on creating jobs? After tackling health care, abortion, gay marriage, and school vouchers, maybe then the GOP might care about unemployment?

Honestly, this is getting a little silly. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) wrote an op-ed last week on “economic policy,” and literally didn’t mention jobs at all. There were two Republican responses to the State of the Union address, and neither one presented specific ideas about job creation. The Republican Study Committee has an economic plan of sorts, and it’s intended to deliberately but more Americans out of work.

Can anyone, anywhere, actually describe the Republican plan to reduce unemployment? The White House’s plan is significantly easier to identify.

The GOP is offering nothing on the public’s Issue One (jobs), while Obama is calling for spending on construction, education and energy.

This story mimics the deficit theme from the two headed asp. Republicans are nonstop with the spending issue, but when asked what are they going to cut, not a one can give a program or instance that would shape their deficit reduction bandwagon.

In March, John Boehner asked, “When are we going to address the number one issue on the minds of our fellow citizens? When are we going to focus on the economy and getting people back to work?”

I don’t know, John, when are we?

The time is now for the two headed asp to put up or shut up. Quit bitching about gloom and doom and come to the table with solutions for your bitch, otherwise grab the dunce cap and sit in the corner.


NFTOS

Republican Party Platform...........Of 1956

Cap and Trade and Healthcare reform where initially created by the republicans. The Dream Act was sponsored by John McCain. This was the mentality of the responsible republican! Somewhere in the last fifty years the republican got off track! Somewhere they lost the ability to maintain the moderate conservative stance that so many worked so hard for. Somewhere along the lines they became very extreme and very radical.


The weltanschauung of the current republican regime seems quite different from the parties platform fifty years ago, and the coarse, or the peregrination of the current republican party is well right of Presidents Eisenhower's vision not so long ago.

We could assume that 2011 tea bags would call Eisenhower and the republican platform of 1956 "liberal" or "progressive".

This must see explanation from Rachel Maddow (Below) details the Republican Party's move to the right, from 1950 to now, and its jaw dropping to say the least.

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

In 1956, Republicans weren't afraid to be associated with the word "liberal" when it came to people issues. This shows they actually embraced the term that Rush Limbaugh has now basically turned into a curse word in Republican vernacular.

Our research highlights some of the planks found in the 1956 Republican Party platform that would be deemed commie pinko by today's Republicans. Like this one:

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs--expansion of social security--broadened coverage in unemployment insurance --improved housing--and better health protection for all our people.

How about the environment:

We favor a comprehensive study of the effect upon wildlife of the drainage of our wetlands. We recognize the need for maintaining isolated wilderness areas.

Or regulation of business:

A continuously vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws

Legislation to enable closer Federal scrutiny of mergers which have a significant or potential monopolistic connotations;

Procedural changes in the antitrust laws to facilitate their enforcement.

Or how about this communist rhetoric?

Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;...

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;

Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public.

Is it just me, or has the Republican Party moved just a tad to the right since the 1950s.

Dwight D. Eisenhower would not only NOT be welcome in today's GOP, if he tried to crash their convention he would be forcibly removed, possibly with fire hoses. This brings into stunning relief just how far to the right the Republican Party has gone in a relatively short time (54 years). And how far out of touch with most Americans they've truly gotten. The American people back in those halcyon, crew cut 1950's agreed with this platform overwhelmingly. But today, Republicans would label it as "socialist".

See entire 1956 platform script here:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838

If the above is not evidence enough, let a real republican tell you like it is. Meghan McCain daughter of John McCain speaking on how the tea bags infuse their imbue on the country.



Remember the old game show "To Tell The Truth"? Hold that thought a moment.

There are at least ten types of republican:



Going back to the game show thought process.......Will the REAL REPUBLICAN PLEASE STAND UP.


NFTOS

REPUBLICANS LOSE TOUCH WITH MOTHER SHIP

Gloom and doom Vs Bat S** Crazy



Where does one begin to start with all the fireworks that entertained the political junkie in us all late last night?

While the President laid low in his State of The Union Speech, we can't say the same for the double dose of rebuttal viewers received from the republican party last night.

For the first time in American history we had two whimsical, capricious rebuttals from the two headed asp known as the republican party. While only one voice was backed and supported by the "official" republican party, another chose to invoke their nonsense into the fray. The plethora, or multitude of personalities that exist in the republican camp are never ending. One could associate republicans to the Sally Field character Sybil (Sally Field starred in the title role of the movie Sybil which dramatizes the life of a shy young graduate student, Sybil Dorsett (in real life, Shirley Ardell Mason), whom was suffering from dissociative identity disorder and claimed a development of at least 12 different personalities.

The "official" republican rebuttal was given by Rep (R-WI) Paul "Gloom and Doom" Ryan. Ryan chose to paint a black and bleak picture of America that would have made republican nut case Glenn Beck proud. You could assume that Ryan graduated from Beck University with his "gloom and doom' report on the countries deficit. (To see the real facts that dispute Ryan's "end of days theory" read Huffington Post story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/25/paul-ryans-rebuttal-fact-check_n_814060.html)

GLOOM AND DOOM CLIP

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

Ryan's philosophy for healthcare is very convoluted and calls for the elderly to get "coupons" when shopping for healthcare, and anyone whom is under 55 is not going to receive their entitlement to Social Security. How's that make you feel readers? Does this give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about your countries future under a republican regime?

While the congressman's dark opinionated diatribe was entertaining, once one completes the lengthy fact checks, we find that his verbiage while eloquent, is just more of the same; i.e. scare tactics and fear mongering.

As if this wasn't enough, the discombobulated party exposed America to more lunacy.

Michele Bachmann, self imposed "tea bag leader of the republican caucus" felt she was entitled a rebuttal. Representative Michele Bachmann didn’t bring a “prom date” to the State of the Union address, she didn’t wear the ribbon corsage and she crashed the after party known as the official Republican response. When Ms. Bachmann addressed the nation with her own, more alarmist assessment of its state, she seemed almost like the telekinetic high school heroine of “Carrie.” The last time we saw eyes like hers, they were on a guy that had carved a swastika between them (Charles Manson). Clearly someone needs to retrofit the congresswoman with a straight jacket for the potential trip to the funny farm.

Ms. Bachmann defied Democratic and Republican leaders who had scripted a night of unity, courtesy and common purpose. Instead, Ms. Bachmann gave viewers a blast of Tea Partisan fury that served as a rebuke to both President Obama and to the milder, more conciliatory official Republican response which was delivered by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

It wasn’t just what she said, though she used words like “explosion” and “exploded” and “Obamacare” a lot. It was the way Ms. Bachmann spoke, smiling and gesturing with an intensity that almost cracked the screen. Bachmann, poised in her normal zombie, hypnotic like state, infused her ignorance once again into mainstream media with comments like:

“Instead of a leaner, smarter government, we bought a bureaucracy that now tells us which light bulbs to buy and which may put 16,500 I.R.S. agents in charge of policing President Obama’s health care bill.”

Remember readers, this is the same congresswoman whom stated that the Presidents Asian trip would cost America $200 million a day to support.

Last night in a solidarity statement, all congressmen and women dawned a black and white ribbon, (support for Congresswoman Giffords) that is all except Rep Bachmann.

Bachmann's defiance is standard protocol for the tea bags. The republican party needs to reign in their parties most extreme and become as one. Last we where aware the country had three political parties, that being Democrat, Independent, and republican, not sure where extreme radical tea comes in.

BACHMANN CLIP

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

WEINER CLIP

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

Apparently Bachmann's elusions of grandeur doesn't stop with rebuttals to presidential State of the Union addresses. Yesterday Bachmann didn't disappoint the fodder gatherers as she has laid claim that 'slavery ended with the founding fathers".

Its never been more evident to our country that Bachmann apparently missed six grade history class. You would presume that with all of their citations of the Constitution and remembrance of the founding fathers, Tea Party candidates would understand history at least a little bit. But that's apparently not the case with Rep. Michele Bachmann.

The problem for Bachmann is that John Quincy Adams died in 1848, 15 years before slavery was abolished with the Emancipation Proclamation. Also, most of the founding fathers did own slaves, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, one of the signers, James Monroe, executed 30 of his slaves after they tried to revolt for their freedom. George Washington also had teeth implanted into his mouth that were taken out of the mouths of his slaves.

For reference George Washington died in 1799 which is 62 years prior to the civil war. Would Bachmann and fellow tea bags be suggesting that 600 thousands soldiers died for nothing?

Slavery and its ending revolves around the thirteenth amendment, and it goes like this:

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward, in a proclamation, declared it to have been adopted. It was the first of the Reconstruction Amendments.

BACHMANN FLUNKS HISTORY



Recently Bachmann also contended and compared the US Census to WWII internment camps.



Prior to one becoming a congress man or woman, some prerequisites should exist:

Knowledge of the constitution
Knowledge of your countries history
An IQ test score above 20
Clearance from a reputable Dr. that your not a certifiable lunatic

The insurmountable amount of emails bombarding NFTOS with regards to Bachmann is at best viral. There is know doubt that the republican party is in complete and utter ataxia.

BACHMANN FULL REBUTTAL



Whether you follow the "gloom and doom" theory of the republican party, or the "bat sh*t crazy" ideology of their extreme brother, there is know doubt in most Americans mind that the republican party has lost touch with the mother ship.


NFTOS

Republicans "Guilty Of Toxic Political Environment"

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s statement saying she wants Minnesotans “armed and dangerous” during a radio interview in 2009 has become a target of liberals in the wake of the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona this weekend. Rep. Keith Ellison, Bachmann’s neighbor to the south, said such statements have consequences, while New York Times columnist Paul Krugman used it as an example of the “climate of hate.”

“I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.” Really Senator?

As Americans search for answers as to why a 22-year old would open fire at a political event, many politicians and pundits have pointed to the increase in violence-tinged rhetoric, mainly from the conservative end of the spectrum.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D) told MPR that the tragedy is an opportunity to scrutinize at the overly violent political rhetoric that has become a large part of the nation’s political climate:

“We’ve gotten so immune to it, and it doesn’t really rank in terms of priority because it’s just so ordinary, so regular,” Ellison said. “But we should never let it become ordinary. We should take these things seriously.”

Ellison notes that back in early 2009, his colleague, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., called for Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous” in response to President Barack Obama’s energy plans.

Ellison said that kind of gun imagery doesn’t belong in the political discourse.

“The political rhetoric has grown increasingly toxic, and making allusions (to) guns and reloading, and armed and dangerous, certainly contributes to a toxic political environment, and does have consequences,” Ellison said.

Paul Krugman of the New York Times notes that there is room for debate in American politics, but not for “eliminationist rhetoric”:

The point is that there’s room in a democracy for people who ridicule and denounce those who disagree with them; there isn’t any place for eliminationist rhetoric, for suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.

It’s the saturation of our political discourse, especially our airwaves, with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from those with radical extreme views of the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

To often the case we see republican colleagues applauding each other for saying toxic things:

Your colleagues pat you on the back and say 'boy that was good, you called him, you called her, such a good name' and that's celebrated," If you really are nasty to somebody and if you had a hidden microphone, you could hear people saying, "it's like, "good job" and "we've got to stop it".

It’s tough being a Republican watchdog. Every day new spiritually professed alliterations are spewed on the American public under the guise of what’s good for America.

A person who is an expert at rhetoric uses exaggeration as their tool to convince others of their viewpoint. In our blogs we have been accused of using rhetoric simply because our viewpoint was drastically different from that of the accusers. That, in itself, does NOT constitute rhetoric. We call it as we see it. As we have said many times, truth is relative.

We all observe facts differently and arrive at different evaluations and ultimately, different judgments. If we base our evaluations and judgments on FACTS and not OPINIONS, we stand a better chance of offering a convincing argument. We all see the ‘truth” differently and reveal it in our own way.

Using Glenn Beck as an example: NFTOS polled its readers, and they were asked why they listened too, or why they watch Glenn Beck. The reply:

“We watch and listen because we don’t know what he is going to say next.”

This came from both people who liked him and hated him. This type of appeal is based on sensationalism. Ordinary people seeking extraordinary events by vicarious participation. This is exactly the goal of republican right wing toxic rhetoric.

NFTOS

Republicans Often Invoke the "FOUNDING FATHERS"

This, along with other whimsical nonsense often oozes from the lips of the misguided and misinformed Republican.


For much of the extreme radical right, there’s a near-obsession with the nation’s "Founding Fathers". Conservatives’ understanding of history is a little shakier than it should be, but the extreme right seems convinced that their vision of government is identical to that of those who wrote the Constitution.

This is particularly true in the debate over health care reform, in which conservatives insist that the "Founding Fathers" never would have approved of the Affordable Care Act. It’s an odd hypothetical — those living in an 18th-century agrarian society with a modest population couldn’t possibly imagine the needs of modern American society — but the crux of the argument is that the individual mandate is at odds with our historical and legal traditions.

Americans history is already filled with examples to the contrary — government-mandated purchases go back to the days of George Washington:

In July of 1798, Congress passed — and President John Adams signed — “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

Yes readers, in all likelihood, the "Founding Fathers" were aware of what the "Founding Fathers" considered constitutionally permissible.

Most intelligent humans would argue, persuasively, that this is little more than an interesting historical footnote, and that reform proponents should remember that “we can’t decide questions of contemporary policy by trying to figure out what Jefferson, Adams, and Madison would say about them.”

Draft of Declaration of Independence

That’s entirely right. Still, there’s some entertainment value in knocking down one of the right’s favorite arguments, and for Supreme Court justices who are equally obsessed with determining framers’ intent, it’s possible anecdotes like this one could carry some actual weight, whether they should or not.

What’s more, it’s not just Adams — Thomas Jefferson also supported the identical 1798 proposal, which, any way you slice it, required private citizens to pay into a public health-care system, and included a “regulation against a form of inactivity.”

We at NFTOS could imagine the founding fathers would be aghast that so many have molded, twisted and interpreted the Constitution in so many convoluted ways. Interpretations and opinions - they are like posterior ends, everyone has one, but this doesn't always mean that you have it right.

By any sensible standard, one does not need obscure 18th-century anecdotes to know the individual mandate (which was a Republican idea) passes constitutional muster. But for those right of center who consider this original-intent concept paramount, we can add this to the list of things they’ve gotten terribly wrong.


NFTOS

OLBERMANN OUT AT MSNBC

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."





NFTOS

NATIONAL DEBT, THE REAL TRUTH

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.

NFTOS

WHEN TEA BOILS OVER

Brought to you by thinkprogress.org

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.”

NFTOS

AMERICA.........DIVIDED WE STAND

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.


NFTOS

MYTHS vs. FACTS:

UPDATED: 1/20/11 11:52AM




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.


NFTOS

Gun Control & The National Rifle Association

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.


Sources:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

- http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13618

- http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/print_did_gun_control_in_australia_lead_to.html

- http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html


NFTOS