Overlooked Provision in Omnibus Spending Bill Throws Lifeline to Struggling Food Banks

by Nomad

If austerity-minded organizations, like the Heritage Foundation, or the Tea Party might have been roaring in anger about the omnibus spending package, some people thought certain provisions in the deal provided a much-needed ray of hope.

Republican members of Congress didn't really look forward to their constituents dwelling too much on the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill signed into law by President Barack Obama right before Christmas.

Better to think of happier things, seasonal joys and the promise of the new year. It's no wonder too. Far-Right Activists could understandably claim that once again they have been hoodwinked by politicians who promised a lot of things they had no intention of delivering upon.

The worst offender, according to their point of view, was Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. He was supposed to replace the cowardly crybaby John Boehner.  Fox News regaled Ryan back then. All of the cliches were present and accounted for: "a new day" and "turning a page."  

That was only in October. By Christmas, the honeymoon was definitely over. The annulment has already begun. It's really not his fault, though, that American government doesn't actually function the way some people think it does. 

Rand Paul and the Language the 1% Understands

by Nomad

Why Rand Paul's Remarks about Gay Discrimination by Employers Exposes his True Character

by Nomad

While Rand Paul claims to be against all forms of discrimination when it comes to discrimination against gays in the workplace, Paul is willing to look the other way.

In Iowa on Wednesday, Presidential candidate Rand Paul exposed himself. 
Not literally. 

Today MSNBC reports noted that during his 3-day tour in Iowa, Paul was asked whether there was a need for hiring. He didn't think discrimination against gay and lesbians was a matter for the courts. He came out against any employment protections for LGBT citizens, saying:

"I think society is rapidly changing and that if you are gay, there are plenty of places that will hire you."

Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation by employers was something that all gay and Lesbian Americans should just put up with. They had no right to expect any protection under the law.

Paul said that designating the LGBT community as a protected class, like race, gender, and ethnicity, would create a new group "who can now sue." 

Demanding equality is not, and has never been, seeking to become a "protected class."

And the same argument used by Pand could be applied to every other group presently covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, or ethnic origin.

Once you open the doors for discrimination in labor practices, it can easily spread to other areas, like the public sphere. 

Indeed, Rand Paul's reply could have been used for anti-discrimination laws in the past. The owners of "whites-only' restaurants or swimming pools could easily have made the same arguments. "There are other restaurants for blacks to eat at. Other swimming pools that black children can swim in. If they don't like sitting at the back of the bus, then let them walk."

If you think that comparison is an exaggeration, it's just not true.
Five years ago, that very question was brought up and Paul stumbled and fumbled for an answer.

Here's Why You Shouldn't be Listening to Anything Rand Paul Says

by Nomad

Senator Rand Paul says a lot of things. Some of the things he has said might sound quite reasonable, or at least quotable to some people.
Some other things that he has uttered should perhaps be seen as a warning to the wise.

Back a few years ago, when Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky was talking with University of Louisville medical students,  he was asked if he had any good advice about an upcoming comprehensive exam. It was an easy chance to wow the easily-wowed crowd with a sample of Rand's wit. 

What he said, however, gives us a very clear insight into the character of the Senator from Kentucky.

He told the impressionable minds that on exams he never cheated. He didn't condone cheating he said. Then he added:

But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important."

According to an article by Jill Lawrence, a reporter for the National Journal:

He went on to describe studying for a pathology test with friends in the library. "We spread the rumor that we knew what was on the test and it was definitely going to be all about the liver," he said. "We tried to trick all of our competing students into over-studying for the liver" and not studying much else.

"So, that's my advice," he concluded. "Misinformation works."

It's an interesting (and somewhat disturbing) peek into the Paul sense of ethics. Cheating is, in Paul's mind, more disreputable than spreading false information. A unique position to say the least.

A Breakdown of Rand's Rationalization

Most people however, would categorize spreading misinformation as, no matter how it is rationalized, lying. When you spread misinformation (as opposed to mere gossip) you are actively aware that the information is untrue. 

So, we can assume that lying, in Rand Paul's eyes, is okay. It is not only acceptable,  it is something to boast about to a younger generation.

In any case, Paul's distinction between the two is absurd. To cheat means to spread misinformation about one's abilities or knowledge or qualities of character. If I cheat on an exam, I am spreading the untrue proof that my knowledge is greater than what it actually is.

And if a cheating husband tells his wife, "Yes, dear, I cheated on you. But- wait!- I never lied to you!" most women would have the good common sense to throw whatever is close at hand.

FATCA Repeal : Tax-Avoiding Super Wealthy with Secret Bank Accounts Find a Friend in GOP

by Nomad

Once again, the Republican Party has demonstrated which side it supports. Between the average taxpayer or the 1%, its call for a repeal of Obama's anti-tax haven law of 2009- before it has even had a chance to be put into effect- provides us with a clear answer.  

Some Facts on FATCA

Reuters is reporting that the Republican Party is expected to approve a resolution this week, calling for repeal of an Obama administration law that is designed to crack down on offshore tax dodging.

The law, Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) requires foreign banks to find any American account holders and disclose their balances, receipts, and withdrawals to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or be subject to a 30-percent withholding tax on income from US financial assets held by the banks. Owners of these foreign-held assets must report them on US tax returns if they are worth more than $50,000.

It was always going to be controversial and not beloved by banks, libertarians and some Americans living abroad. Another example of Big Government overreach, they howled. Lobbyists have been successful at delaying the law in operation. Its effective date has been pushed back repeatedly, with enforcement now set to start on July 1. 

If the Republicans have their way- and there doesn't seem to be much chance they will- FATCA would never start at all.

Why Rand Paul's Lawsuit against Obama Administration on Spying Could Backfire on the GOP

by Nomad

Exclusive: Rand Paul's latest gimmick about suing the Obama administration over NSA surveillance operations, like PRISM might just backfire.  A thorough review of the legislation of Congress during the Bush era and the mixed messages from the Republican conservatives ever since 2001 could be a major humiliation in the 2014 election year.  But only if American citizens genuinely care about the truth.

The other day Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky announced that he was planning to open a class-action lawsuit against the Obama Administration over the NSA data-collection policies. Never one to miss an opportunity to make an issue into a spectacle, Rand told reporters that people needed to tell the government that it can't have access to emails and phone records without permission or without a specific warrant.  The folks at Brietbart.com and Fox News went all starry-eyed at the news:

This allows the American people to join together in a grassroots manner against President Obama’s NSA for the first time in the legal system, as all other lawsuits have been individuals suing against the agency.

The irony about it is that a quick glance at history will show us that Rand really needs to turn his attention to his own party -even to his own state. The answer to who relaxed the existing (though inadequate) oversight over the NSA is right under Rand's nose.

The Patriot Act and FISA

In the hysteria that followed the terror attacks on New York and Washington in 2001, Americans were more than ready to accept radical measures to thwart further attacks. What resulted was The Patriot Act. How this constitutionally-questionable legislation was ever passed into law reveals so much about how the Bush administration was able to achieve its goals. The techniques used would be used time and time again, right up until the end with the emergency Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout.

On October 23, 2001, just over a month after the September 11th attacks, (actually only 25 working days) Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 (later to be known as The Patriot Act ) on the House floor. 
In just two days, the bill passed both the House (357 to 66) and the Senate (98 to 1) and was signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2001.  Thus, one of the most controversial pieces of legislation, one that gave unheard of powers to the executive branch and one that effectively shredded long cherished rights in the Constitution, was passed into law in just three days. 

Why African Americans Should be Skeptical of Rand Paul’s New and Improved Republican Party

K
entucky Senator and rising star in the GOP, Rand Paul recently spoke at Howard University, a mostly black campus in Washington DC. He came to the campus to ask black Americans to give conservatism a second look. He appears to be banking on African Americans ignoring decades of controversial stands on racial issues. 

Now that it is clear that the Republican party can no longer win elections by appealing to white prejudices, Paul is trying to re-write history, his own, his father’s and the the Republican conservative movement. African American voters have every reason to be skeptical of Paul’s hollow overture.