Tuesday, January 21, 2014

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. 

Monday, January 20, 2014

Christian Family's Special Message: We aren't ALL like that!

by Nomad

We interrupt our normal broadcasting to bring you this message from the Lord family from Memphis, Tennessee. 


Of course, the sad truth of the matter is that as long as Christians like this remain silent, it's only natural to think that the Westboro Church,  Tony Perkins, Pat Robertson and groups like Focus on the Family and American Family Association are the actual representatives of the Christian faith. Of course, I have met a lot of Christians in my life and the majority were quiet, down-to-earth types, wishing no harm on anybody as far as I could see. It's the loud ones you have to be wary of, I guess.


__________________________

Friday, January 17, 2014

Sequester Cuts and Killing Unemployment Benefit Extensions: When GOP Values Make no Sense

by Nomad


This week the Republicans appeared to be sticking to its tried and true conservative principles by blocking a vote on extending unemployment benefits. 
Add to that the impact of sequester cuts to state jobs training programs and you have a campaign issue nightmare. The question is: can any party get elected by hurting its most vulnerable voters? 
Not once but twice?

Two days ago, Republican conservatives used the power of the filibuster to block a Democratic bill to restore unemployment benefits to over a million Americans, hit hard by the recession. According to an announcement of this decision, the lawmakers declared they were standing on conservative principle.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) stated:
"People, if you pay 'em for years and years, they won't look for a job." 
Who is the "'em" and who are the "they"? What happened to "us" and "we"? 
Extending unemployment benefits, he added, creates no jobs. At a cost of $6.4 billion, the cost of the extension could not be justified, according to the Republicans. Shelby told an interviewer,
"That is a huge expenditure. What we need to do is spend that money on retraining these people that are unemployed -- help them for a few months and get them retrained and get them back in the job market. That's the problem."
As we shall see, there is a major problem with that idea. 
Other Republicans cited their conservative principles to support the filibuster. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said:
"I certainly ran because we're mortgaging our children's future. We're bankrupting this nation."
It's not hard to imagine the possible fallout from this decision come election time. With more than.1.3 million people Americans left without any kind of safety net nationwide, it could make a difference who controls the houses of Congress.