N.C. Senate bill would roll back consumer protections against abusive debt collectors

by Jane Porter

Do you like seeing itemized charges if you’re paying a debt collector? Do you like not being sued to pay off other peoples’ debt?
Of course we all do, which is why in 2009, legislation was passed to protect consumers from debt collectors suing them for debt without valid evidence that the debt exists, and without proving they are suing the right person for the right debt.
But a bill in the Senate sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-New Hanover, would roll back the 2009 reform that prevents abusive debt collection in North Carolina. A version of that bill, Senate Bill 511, passed a Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday morning.
Around 2004, the state’s courts started seeing a flood of lawsuits brought by debt collectors against the wrong people, with little evidence that that these people owed the debt. People who couldn’t afford an attorney ended up in default. The 2009 legislation was meant to protect these North Carolina consumers.
The reasoning behind Lee’s bill appears to be that debt collectors (who buy off debt from businesses, banks, hospitals etc.) don’t want to pay extra for documents itemizing the debt they purchase. Lee doesn’t see fraudulent lawsuits as a problem.
“If a lawsuit against you says you owe money, you have the right to say I need itemized business records,” he told the committee. “The debtor has to come to court and respond. Misidentifications occur, you can’t craft rules against exceptions.”
Sen. Gladys Robinson, D-Guilford, defended the average consumer.
“A lot of people are illiterate about financial practices,” she said. “They don’t know they can advocate for themselves, so this is denying information to those folk. You can’t refute a charge if you don’t know what it is and they don’t know to ask for this information. You are saying, ‘get a lawyer to refute things,’ but that’s not a general practice in a lot of our community.”
A spokesperson from the Consumer Protection Division of the North Carolina Department of Justice praised the 2009 reform.
“The General Assembly had the foresight to pass a good law that protects consumers,” he said. “States that haven’t passed laws like this are still having problems. The North Carolina law has been looked at as a model.”
For example, according to a report in the Washington Post, a review of court filings in five Northern Virginia districts found of 16,000 cases filed by one debt collector company, 9,000 got default. In many cases, the consumers didn’t know what had happened until the sheriff showed up and tried to repossess their house or car.
Statistics from North Carolina’s Center for Responsible Lending show that abusive debt collection is the top consumer complaint made by seniors, military and veteran families to the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 36 percent of debt collection complaints from all consumers, 41 percent of complaints for all veterans and military families and 48 percent of complaints for all seniors relate to continued attempts to collect debt that is not actually owed.

Freddie Gray’s Death Ruled A Homicide

Arrest Warrants Issued For Six Baltimore Cops

Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby has found that the death of Freddie Gray was a homicide, and warrants have been issued for the arrest of six Baltimore police officers.

CNN reported:

Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby told reporters Friday that her office’s investigation, coupled with a medical examiner’s determination that Freddie Gray’s death was a homicide, led her to determine there is probable cause to file criminal charges. She didn’t immediately say who would be charged; a news conference continues.

Mosby said Friday that three Baltimore police officers illegally arrested Gray on April 12. She also said that a knife that Gray had was not illegal.

A warrant has been issued for the arrest of six Baltimore police officers.

According to The Baltimore Sun, “Six officers are each facing multiple charges, including manslaughter, assault, misconduct in office and false imprisonment: Lt. Brian Rice, Sgt. Alicia White, Officer William Porter, Officer Garrett Miller, Officer Edward Nero and Officer Caesar Goodson. Goodson, who drove the van, has been charged with second-degree murder.”

Mosby stressed that the officers must be held accountable and that her investigation was about justice and accountability. The State’s Attorney added, “I heard your call for ‘no justice, no peace. Your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on behalf of this young man.”

Needless to say that after Ferguson, few expected that these police officers would be held accountable for the death of Freddie Gray. The transparency and openness that the State’s Attorney, which was powered by an independent investigation, provided was exactly what the city and the nation needed. Mosby’s press conference left no doubt, and no major unanswered questions. It could be argued that all six officers deserve to be charged with murder, but officials in Baltimore moved swiftly and unlike officials in Ferguson acted in the public interest.

All of these officers are facing charges of murder and/or manslaughter and assault. Mosby’s actions are a major step towards justice, and she deserves praise for her swift and decisive action.

Fox News Hack Sides With Killer Cops After Officers Charged In Death Of Freddie Gray

Fox News hack Todd Starnes’ immediate reaction to the breaking news that all six officers are being charged in the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore was to accuse State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby of declaring war on law enforcement.

Via Twitter:

This is the refrain of many people who have a hard time admitting that we have a systemic problem of racial bias within all tiers of our justice system.

But the real question is why would anyone defend police officers who are not upholding the law? These bad actors do not reflect on all law enforcement. The few bad actors stain the name of all of the hard working police in this country. For that reason, everyone should want to weed out the bad actors and hold them accountable.

The highest charge against the officers is that of second-degree depraved heart murder. According to Wikipedia, depraved heart murder is also known as “depraved-indifference murder”. This “demonstrates a ‘callous disregard for human life’ and results in death.”

In what world does holding an officer/officers accountable for having a callous disregard for human life equal “declaring war”? If Starnes feels that being asked to behave lawfully is an act of war, he has other problems.

Starnes might also want to realize that the State’s Attorney is law enforcement. She is responsible for upholding the law. The State’s Attorney repeatedly said that this was not an indictment of the Baltimore Police Department, but of the six officers charged in this case.

Mosby used an independent investigation in order to determine the facts, instead of leaving it up to the police to investigate their fellow officers.

There is no excuse for turning these charges around on the prosecutor and claiming victimization by whining that being held to the law is an act of war. The point of these charges is that everyone is expected to uphold the law, including the police. They are, in fact, supposed to be setting the standards for upholding the law.

For every bad police action getting headlines right now, the majority of police officers are trying their best to honor the public trust and keep the peace, often under trying circumstances. Instead of defending the few bad actors, which implies an identification with their actions, it makes more sense to hold everyone accountable to the same standards.

Since most police do not treat citizens with callous disregard for their life, there is no reason to view these charges as anything other than the result of an independent investigation. The justice system will work its way through these charges just as it does for every person charged with a crime; the officers are entitled to due process just as anyone else is.

By Starnes’ standards, law enforcement is declaring war on every person ever charged with a crime. So to follow through with his logic, everyone who has been charged with a crime should respond that the police are declaring an act of war on everyone who shares something in common with them. Yeah, that’s nuts.

Todd Starnes’ accusation is irresponsible at best. He has no evidence to suggest these charges are unwarranted, but that didn’t stop him from inflaming the situation with the sort of self-pity often seen in people of privilege when they are held accountable for their actions.

Former Marine: I Was A 'Patriot', Now I'm A 'Thug'?

A former Marine unloaded on the police and the hypocrisy of  wingnut criticism.

I Was A 'Patriot', Now I'm A 'Thug'?

Democrats introduce KOCH Act–Keeping Our Campaigns Honest–would require PACs to name donors

by Jen Hayden

Democrats are trying to create a bit more transparency around campaign ads

Well, this is something:

Frustrated with the Koch Brothers and other wingnut donors pouring money into attack ads, Democrats are asking a federal agency to enact tougher political disclosure rules. But that agency isn't the Federal Election Commission, which typically handles campaign finance issues. Instead, top Democrats in the House and Senate are pressing the Federal Communications Commission to use its power over the nation's airwaves to make super PAC spending more transparent.
The Keeping Our Campaigns Honest Act (yes, that's the "KOCH Act") would direct the FCC to require that super PACs and other outside political groups disclose their major donors in TV and radio ads.

Sixteen Democrats are backing the bill, including Nancy Pelosi. In reality, the bill isn't likely to make it through a Republican-misled Congress, but they are hoping the FCC will act on its own to make changes and create greater transparency.

Shoe

Skyler Gets It ...

Obama Backs Democrats’ Proposal For A $12 Minimum Wage

The only thing standing in the way of changing countless American lives is…Republicans.

Read full story

The Truth Be Told

Wisconsin Republicans Don’t Want Food Stamp Recipients Buying Beans, Potatoes, Pasta Sauce

A bill to prohibit shellfish purchases for food stamps recipients in Wisconsin would also make it harder for low-income families to cook with spices, pasta sauce, nuts, and dried beans.

House Republicans Vote To Allow Employers To Fire Women For Using Birth Control

In the end, 225 Republicans voted in favor of escalating their war on women under the guise of religious freedom.

Read full story

Roberts Admits Wingnuts Believe Politicians Should Serve The Rich

It is very seldom, if ever, that any Republican purposely admits in public that their raison d'etre is solely to serve the interests of corporations and the very…

It is often the case that a person’s heartfelt beliefs are eventually revealed inadvertently despite their best efforts at masking their true intentions and motivations for their actions with questionable excuses. Politicians are notorious for pretending their support for policies and agendas are in the best interests of their constituency even though their special interests are always the primary, and often only, beneficiaries. Republicans have spent the past thirty perfecting the ploy of convincing their monumentally stupid base that taking everything from the poor and middle class and giving it to the wealthy will benefit the entire population. It is very seldom, if ever, that any Republican purposely admits in public that their raison d’être is solely to serve the interests of corporations and the very richest Americans, and it is doubtful they expected the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to expose their badly-kept secret, but he did; albeit inadvertently.

In a case before the High Court, Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, to decide on whether the state of Florida has the right to “prohibit judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their campaigns,” the Court ruled in favor of the state on Wednesday by a vote of 5-4. The close vote swung on Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the liberal justices in upholding a semblance of campaign finance limitation and the influence of money in politics. It is stunning that there is a line that Roberts seems unwilling to cross when it comes to money in politics, but it was a victory, albeit a “symbolically important” one, for Americans who believe there is already too much money controlling how Americans are governed. However, Roberts’ opinion for the majority revealed the conservatives’ true belief and motivation in the highly unpopular Citizens United decision conservatives ruled was a matter of freedom of speech for legal entities known as corporations, and not giving power over the government to the rich.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority in Williams-Yulee, and if he had joined the rest of the wingnuts and struck down the limit on judges and judicial candidates’ fundraising ability, America’s judicial system would be forever polluted and judges would have free reign to solicit campaign money directly from corporate and criminal defense lawyers who practice before them. What is telling about Roberts’ writing the opinion is that he contends that judges have a special duty to remain neutral and unbiased for the good of all the people; something he claims is completely inappropriate and inherently wrong-headed for presidents, legislators, and governors. Roberts’ inadvertent admission is that politicians have an intrinsic duty to serve the interests of their biggest donors and not their constituents; it is the true premise and only motivation for the High Court’s conservative majority ruling in Citizens United. It is also likely something Roberts did not intend to expose, although even that is debatable in the Koch-oligarch era of American politics.

Although it appeared that all of the Court’s wingnuts believe campaign finance laws and regulations have outlived their relevance in American politics, Roberts agreed with liberals that “States may regulate judicial elections differently than they regulate political elections, because the role of judges differs from the role of politicians. Politicians are expected to be responsive to the preferences of their supporters. Indeed, such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials. The same is not true of judges. In deciding cases, a judge is not to provide any special consideration to his campaign donors. Our precedents applying the First Amendment to political elections have little bearing on the issues here.”

It is interesting, and telling, that Roberts was seemingly careful to cite the Court’s application of the First Amendment in Citizens United as if no-one would notice his assertion that “politicians are expected to be responsive to their supporters,” not constituents, “as a key to the concept of self-governance.” When politicians are responsive to their wealthy donors, the only concept of self-governance relates to the rich and corporations dictating governance purely for their self-interests and the rest of the population be damned. That is what the wingnut court, and its Koch brother masters, intended in granting “First Amendment” rights to corporations and the one-percent of the population Republicans are “expected to be responsive to;” something Republicans have fulfilled with due diligence since the Citizens United ruling.

It is no surprise that Republicans have dutifully been “obedient” to the narrowest segment of the population as a result of Citizens United, and although Roberts revealed that was the wingnut Court’s sole intent, Justice Kennedy in writing for the majority at least put it in less obvious terms and had the brains to mention the voters. He wrote that, of course “favoritism and influence are unavoidable in a representative democracy,” and went on to suggest there was sometimes a positive good. He continued that “It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors. Democracy is premised on responsiveness.”

Chief Justice Roberts was writing very specifically about money informing responsiveness in delineating limitations between campaign finance rules for judges and politicians. He did not even mention voters and particularly differentiated between a judge, “who is not to provide any special consideration to his campaign donors” and politicians who are “expected to be responsive to the preferences of their supporters;” not voters, not the public, and certainly not constituents. It is exactly what Republicans have done without reservation since the conservative Court did what it was expected and “provided very special consideration to its supporters,” the Koch brothers and Mitch McConnell who was the driving force behind the Citizens United lawsuit against the Federal Elections Commission in the first  place.

Obviously, most Americans expect judges to be impartial and not “follow the preferences of their  supporters” or give “undue consideration to their campaign donors.” As the ScotusBlog noted, the Court’s ruling is unlikely to convince many Americans that the judicial system is suddenly going to be completely impartial, but the ruling was a hedge against corporations and the rich buying judgements the way the Kochs are buying politicians and legislation. It is actually the case that most Americans do not agree with Roberts or his fellow Koch-wingnuts and believe that politicians, like judges, should not be allowed to solely “follow the preferences of” or give “special consideration” to their wealthy donors. However, Citizens United is the law of the land and it is highly unlikely Republicans or their Koch funders will ever allow a constitutional amendment striking it down to gain traction, much less be ratified, and they have the billions to make sure wingnuts follow their preferences of strengthening, not ending, Citizens United; precisely as the wingnut Court intended.

Tom Cotton's Latest Attempt To Kill The Iran Bill

Tom Cotton is still an idiot

House Republicans Create ‘Action Group’ To Seize And Sell America’s Public Lands

  House Republicans Are Nothing But Thieves

Don’t Forget To Remind Any Wingnuts You See — If They Wear The Flag, They’re Breaking The Flag Code

Hypocrisy at its finest — The next teabagger rally better not have anyone wearing flags as clothing if they love the flag as much as they say they do.

Read more 

Paranoia-Rama: Obama Behind Baltimore Riots, Military Coup Imminent & Bullet Ban A-Brewin'

When President Obama isn’t secretly ordering riots in Baltimore from the Oval Office, he is plotting a military coup through the Jade Helm 15 drill and a bullet ban through the EPA. Quite a week for our “apathetic,” “ lazy” president. MORE

After Voting to Strip it From DC Residents, Boehner Claims to Champion Religious Freedom

"America was founded on the principle of religious freedom." It's just a shame he thinks only corporations have that freedom…

As you know, on Thursday, House Republicans voted that employers not only have the right to know if female employees are on the pill, but have the right to fire them if they are. Calling religious freedom “liberal fascism,” Ted Cruz Friday urged Senate Republicans to do the same thing.

This is what Republicans call “religious freedom”: imposing their religious beliefs on others. Nancy Pelosi rightly called the House measure, “Hobby Lobby on steroids.”

To illustrate just how twisted their thinking is, John Boehner released a statement on Thursday explaining his actions, and claiming to be a champion of the religious freedom he had just trampled:

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement today applauding House passage of H.J. Res. 43:

“America was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and faith-based employers deserve the ability to hire people who share their beliefs. The measure passed by the D.C. Council, however, discriminates against religious and pro-life Americans, violates their conscience rights, and runs completely counter to the ‘free exercise’ clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. As a proud pro-life Catholic, I condemn this form of discrimination and urge the president to reconsider his veto threat of our joint resolution.”

NOTE: Under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has direct oversight of the District of Columbia. Under the Home Rule Act of 1973, Congress has the authority to review – and disapprove – all policies passed by the District of Columbia City Council and signed by the District of Columbia Mayor.

You will note that Boehner has clearly categorized religious freedom as a form of discrimination, while repressive Republican measures are hailed as religious freedom.

Conservative opposition to D.C.’s RHNDA has been predicated on the idea that it stripped companies of their religious freedom as though companies were people.

For example, over at American Thinker I found this claim being made:

The court’s decision in Hobby Lobby protects closely-held private employers from having to violate their conscience in providing contraception as part of their employee health care plans. As the Hobby Lobby decision expressly prohibits what RHNDA seeks to enforce, it is rather peculiar then that the council claims that it does not apply to the District.

But it is somehow not a violation of conscience for employers to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

“America was founded on the principle of religious freedom,” Boehner said. It’s just a shame Republicans think only corporations have that freedom, that corporations have rights of conscience but individuals do not.

If ever less thought went into thinking, it will have to be proven to me.

To help justify the House move, Beohner goes on to say,

In December, then-Mayor Vincent Gray urged the City Council to postpone voting on the so-called Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA) “until significant legal concerns … are resolved.” Gray, a Democrat, wrote that:

“the bill raises serious concerns under the Constitution and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Religious organizations, religiously-affiliated organizations, religiously-driven for-profit entities, and political organizations may have strong First Amendment and RFRA grounds for challenging the law’s applicability to them. Moreover, to the extent that some of the bill’s language protects only one sex’s reproductive health decisions, that language may run afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. … While I applaud the goals of this legislation, as currently drafted, this legislation is legally problematic.”

You have to love how the RHNDA is legally problematic but “Hobby Lobby” is not, how forcing other people to abide by your religion is perfectly okay but forcing corporations to respect their employees’ religious freedom is somehow persecution.

Boehner is right in saying that America was founded on principles of religious freedom. He is wrong to say that what he is doing is promoting that religious freedom.

The only thing the House of Representatives is promoting is religious tyranny, and in direct violation of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment.

The fly in the buttermilk is that as Bridget Bowman pointed out at Roll Call yesterday, “As with any D.C. law, the D.C. Council transmitted RHNDA to Congress for a 30-day review process during which time Congress can formally block the law by passing a joint resolution of disapproval. That review period ends Saturday.”

Today.

In other words, Congress waited too long to act and lost their chance to strip D.C. residents of their freedoms. Bowman notes that, “House conservatives are pushing for lawmakers to incorporate a policy rider in the District’s spending bill to block implementation of the act, though it is not clear how exactly a rider could do so.”

Delmore Schwartz said in 1937, “Time is the fire in which we burn.”* Time, even more pointedly, is the enemy of the catastrophically Republican 114th Congress, which is so good at doing nothing that it did nothing just a little too well, and so lost their chance to oppress the residents of Washington, D.C.

* “Calmly We Walk Through This April’s Day,” 1937

In case you forgot - there's no difference between christian and muslim fundamentalists - they are all nasty people

Georgia Cult Sign: 'Homosexuality Is A Death Worthy Crime'

The pastor of a cult in Milledgeville, Ga., recently changed the sign outside his church to read, "Homosexuality is a death worthy crime," according to Georgia television station WGXA.
The sign caused a stir in the neighborhood, but Robert Lee, the pastor of ten commandments cult, defended his sign and claimed he was quoting the bible.

More

D. L. Hughley Whacks Dan Senor For Being Perpetually Wrong On Foreign Policy

Someone finally asked chickenhawk Dan Senor the question he and all of his ilk should be asked every single time any one of these warmongers who were so wrong about invading Iraq are allowed on our airways.

Dan Senor Perpetually Wrong On Foreign Policy

Maher Slams Republican Chickenhawks For Having Learned Nothing From Invading Iraq

Real Time host Bill Maher went after Republicans during his New Rules segment for having learned absolutely nothing from our invasion of Iraq.

Republican Chickenhawks

The Daily Drift

Editor's Note: Beginning Monday May 4th, We will be heading an Archaeological Dig and teaching a University extension class in Field Archaeology for the next ten weeks. This will not interfere with the postings to this blog, although it might influence the actual publishing time on any given day.

Hey, wingnuts, yeah we're talking to you ...!  

 

The Truth Be Told is read in 203 countries around the world.

 
The appropriate response of normal people when a Republican opens it's mouth ... !

Today is - World Laughter Day
 

Don't forget to visit our sister blog Carolina Naturally

Some of our readers today have been in:

The Americas

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Niteroi, Paulo Alfonso, Rio de Janeiro, Tupa, Vitoria and Vitoria da Conquista, Brazil

Chelsea, Montreal, Ottawa and Winnipeg, Canada

Santiago, Chile

Bogota, Colombia

Cuenca and Guayaquil, Ecuador

Cayenne, French Guiana

Boaco, Nicaragua

Tacna, Peru

San Juan, Puerto Rico

The Bottom, Sint Eustatius-Saba

Magnolia, Neenah, Omaha, Pierz, Syracuse and Wanaque, United States

Barquisimeto, Caracas, Venezuela

Europe

Vienna, Austria

Minsk, Belarus

Mostar and Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina

Glavinitsa, Ruse, Sofia and Varna, Bulgaria

Zagreb, Croatia

Horni Pocernice, Prague and Stare Mesto, Czech Republic

Cambridge, Colney, London, Manchester and Sandbach, England

Cerny, Champs-sur-Marne, Ivry-sur-Seine, Lyon, Meudon, Paris and Rouen, France

Tbilisi, Georgia

Berlin, Frankfurt Am Main and Hurth, Germany

Athens and Marousi, Greece

Reykjavik, Iceland

Dublin, Ireland

Bari, Milan, Pisa, Ravenna and Rome, Italy

Riga, Latvia

Vilnius, Lithuania

Amsterdam and Doetinchem, Netherlands

Gjerstad, Norway

Srem and Warsaw, Poland

Moscow, Mosrentgen, Ryazan and Vladivostok, Russia

Edinburgh, Scotland

Ljubljana, Slovenia

Leganes, Madrid and Valencia, Spain

Gislovs Lage and Lulea, Sweden

Baar, Switzerland

Ankara and Umraniye, Turkey

Kiev, Ukraine

Hook and Wrexham, Wales

Asia

Dhaka and Sylhet, Bangladesh

Beijing, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, China

Bangalore, Brahmague, Delhi, Kolkata and Shillong, India

Jakarta, Medan and Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Tehran, Iran

Baghdad, Iraq

Holon and Petah Tikva, Israel

Seoul, Korea

Bayan Lepas, Kota Kinabalu, Kuala Lumpur, Seremban, Shah Alam and Sibu, Malaysia

Lahore, Pakistan

Singapore, Singapore

Gampaha, Sri Lanka

Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Africa

Brazzaville, Congo

Rabat, Morocco

Cape Town, Johannesburg and Pretoria, South Africa

Carthage and Tunis, Tunisia

Lusaka, Zambia

The Pacific

Homebush and Sydney, Australia

The Truth Be Told

On Day One Of His Presidential Campaign, Bernie Sanders Is The Kochs Worst Nightmare

Bernie Sanders used his press conference to send the message that he is going to be the Koch brothers worst nightmare come to life. Sanders didn’t just criticize the Kochs. He exposed the conflict of interest behind their attempt to buy elections and the government.

At a press conference where he laid out his agenda, Sen. Sanders took on the Koch brothers:

The major issue is how do we create an economy that works for all of our people rather than a small number of billionaires, and the second issue directly related is the fact that as a result of the disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, we now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates. Let’s not kid ourselves. That is the reality right now.

So you’ve got the Koch brothers and other billionaire families now prepared to spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in elections to buy the candidates of their choice, or for the extreme right-wing candidates.

I’m the former chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, and I can tell you that I don’t believe that the men and women who defended American democracy fought to create a situation where billionaires own the political process. That’s a huge issue that we’ve got to deal with.

After Sen. Sanders had been asked about what he considers fair game in his campaign, he said, “I think what is more fair game for my campaign is the role of money in politics. Where are the conflicts of interest when the Koch brothers are going to spend $900 million in this campaign. Making a lot of their money from fossil fuels and having a platform which as I understand it calls for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Ideas that are increasingly palatable to my Republican colleagues, so that’s a conflict of interest.”

Bernie Sanders is coming out of the gate as the Koch brothers worst nightmare. Many on the left have decried the flood of Koch dollars into the nation’s electoral process, but Sanders connected the dots. The Koch brothers aren’t spending millions and billions of dollars because they are patriots. When Charles and David Koch buy a candidate, they expect a return on their investment. They require the politicians they buy to deny climate science, deregulate the areas of the economy where they make their money and push an agenda that calls for moving all the nation’s wealth upwards to the richest Americans.

Sen. Sanders is going to spend his presidential campaign exposing a dirty system that has put the government up for sale to the biggest contributor. The Koch brothers want to operate in the shadows. Most Americans don’t know or understand what the Kochs are trying to accomplish.

Bernie Sanders is out to expose the attempted hostile takeover of elections and government by a few conservative billionaires. The presidential campaign has given Sanders a national platform, which is very bad news for the Koch brothers.

Progressive Ascending

Rise of progressive policies signals Democrats' embrace of Bernie Sanders progressivism

Democrats Propose Most Ambitious Minimum Wage Bill Yet

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and Rep. Robert Scott (D-VA) will introduce a bill that aims much higher than past minimum wage increases.

California Bill Would Bar Insurers From Withdrawing Injured Workers’ Care

Travelers Insurance withdrew the home health aide provided to Joel Ramirez, a paralyzed warehouse worker, leaving him with no one to help him transfer out of his wheelchair or clean up after soiling himself.

Insurers Can't Run Out

Just how crazy could the Republican's 2016 field get?

Oh, let us count the ways

by Kerry Eleveld

Republican National Committee Chairwimp Reince Priebus has a problem: there's no end in sight to the GOP's fertile 2016 field. And where that's concerned, we don't think there can ever be too much of a good thing. On Rand, on Rubio, on Walker and Bush! On Carly and Christie and Carson and Cruz! But the fun doesn't end there—as many as a dozen to 20-plus candidates could be elbowing each other for room on the debate stage, reports Niall Stanage.

“You’ve got to prevent it from becoming a ‘WWE SmackDown’ event on national television,” said GOP strategist Ford O’Connell. “You don’t want to bump everybody off the stage, but you have to realize your overarching goal is protecting the eventual nominee.” “I would think that Reince Priebus has been thinking about exactly this issue, and also about how to ensure that the debates don’t turn into the ideological bloodfest that we saw in 2012, which pushed the whole ticket to the right,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University.

So just who are we talking about here? There's the definites (if undeclared): Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker.
There's the expected to announce: Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson.
There's the flirting with the idea: Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
And then there's simply "other:"

Other possible candidates include South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham; businessman Donald Trump; Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Mike Pence of Indiana; former Govs. Rick Perry of Texas, George Pataki of New York, Bob Ehrlich of Maryland and Jim Gilmore of Virginia; former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum; former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton; and New York Rep. Pete King.

Yee-haw! Reince Priebus, who once bragged about "taking control" of the presidential debate process, may have spoken just a touch too soon. Too bad he prioritized that over reaching out to women, minorities, and young voters. Soldier on, Reince!

House Republicans’ Priorities Reveal Their Double Standards

by Bonnie Watson Coleman

On January 6, 2015, I was sworn in to my first term in a Congress that is 80 percent male. And although it is 2015, the debates we have had in my short time in Washington have frequently made me question that date.
On April 21, one of those debates, carried primarily by men, compelled me to leave a business meeting of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. At the time, I called it absurd, and arrogant and ignorant. And even after further thought, I feel no differently.

 

Over the past four months, Republicans have challenged a woman’s right to make private healthcare choices time and again. Following that trend, the Oversight Committee took up legislation that would undo a District of Columbia law preventing employers from firing their workers for their reproductive health choices — legislation that amounted to a waste of taxpayers’ funds and valuable time when you consider the economic and civil challenges currently facing our nation.
We could have spent that time talking about the rash of police brutality cases that have recently been caught on the cell phones of concerned citizens, but have long plagued communities of color. We could have discussed the lack of job training programs preparing workers for careers in technology and health — the fastest growing professions in an economy doing nothing for the long term unemployed. We could have debated any issue that would offer better opportunities for our constituents, which is what each of us was elected to do.
Instead, the debate we had was, at its core, about a woman’s right to choose.
My colleague, Representative Tim Walberg, very deliberately articulated the Republican argument for tossing out the D.C. law. As a former minister, he explained employers who are moved by faith to judge and persecute their employees should be free to do so. Any other course would be a violation of those employers’ rights to freely exercise their religion — and would be a part of a “continued attack” on religion as a whole.

I won’t bother to address the question at the heart of the hearing, because as far as I’m concerned it was neatly tied up by the Supreme Court more than forty years ago. But I would counter Pastor Walberg that the dog that I serve loves and cares for the least among us. That is part and parcel of what He teaches, through word and action. And as a mother, a grandmother, and a devoted woman of dog, I would ask my colleagues how they can be so very adamant about mothers carrying these babies to term, but refuse to ensure they have access to the care, support and resources to make them productive members in society?
Women who face the choice of bringing life into this world ask themselves questions that can be impossible to answer.
How will they carry healthy babies to term? The Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) offers one possible answer — but Republicans would cut that program in their budget.

How will that baby get the best opportunity to learn? Head Start could help, but Republicans wanted to cut that too.
How will these mothers pay for child care so that they can work to make sure there’s food in the pantry, and clothes that fit? How will they make ends meet if they’re laid off, or end up in a minimum wage job? What about when those children want to do better than their parents, and need a college degree to get there?
A child-care tax credit, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Pell Grants and federal loans for higher education might have eased those women’s minds. But a couple weeks ago, Republicans offered a budget — technically two of them — that goes after all of these programs, and ignores calls for new efforts to help working families.
So once they’ve funneled women into the path that brings that child in the world, they say God bless, and walk away.
I’m of the opinion that as the wealthiest nation in the world, we can do a little better. And as a woman of faith in Congress, I think we can reach a little higher. Maybe that makes my God a progressive God. But if Republicans are going to force us into the choices these women make about their bodies, they should first answer the question of their own double standards.

Hallelujah, The Supreme Court Upheld A Campaign Finance Law

This is a drop in the bucket in campaign finance reform, but it’s still something.

Read more

Roberts Reveals Everything That’s Wrong With Citizens United In Four Sentences

by Ian Millhiser

Last Wednesday, a 5-4 Supreme Court held in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar that states may “prohibit judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their campaigns.” It was a small but symbolically important victory for supporters of campaign finance laws, as it showed that there was actually some limit on the Roberts Court’s willingness to strike down laws limiting the influence of money in politics.
Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the Court in Williams-Yulee is certainly better for campaign finance regulation than a decision striking down this limit on judicial candidates — had the case gone the other way, judges could have been given the right to solicit money from the very lawyers who practice before them. Yet Roberts also describes judges as if they are special snowflakes who must behave in a neutral and unbiased way that would simply be inappropriate for legislators, governors and presidents:

States may regulate judicial elections differently than they regulate political elections, because the role of judges differs from the role of politicians. Politicians are expected to be appropriately responsive to the preferences of their supporters. Indeed, such “responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.” The same is not true of judges. In deciding cases, a judge is not to follow the preferences of his supporters, or provide any special consideration to his campaign donors. A judge instead must “observe the utmost fairness,” striving to be “perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to influence or control him but dog and his conscience.” As in White, therefore, our precedents applying the First Amendment to political elections have little bearing on the issues here.

Most Americans would undoubtedly agree that judges should not “follow the preferences” of their political supporters, as they would agree that judges should not “provide any special consideration to his campaign donors.” But the implication of the passage quoted above is that members of Congress, state lawmakers, governors and presidents should provide such consideration to their supporters and to their donors. The President of the United States is the president of the entire United States. A member of Congress represents their entire constituency. Yet Roberts appears to believe that they should “follow the preferences” of their supporters and give “special consideration” to the disproportionately wealthy individuals who fund their election.
This view of lawmakers obedient to a narrow segment of the nation is not new. To the contrary, it drove much of the Court’s widely maligned campaign finance decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United does not simply argue that “[f]avoritism and influence” are unavoidable in a representative democracy, it appears to suggest that they are a positive good. “It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors,” Kennedy wrote in Citizens United. “Democracy,” he added “is premised on responsiveness.”

Cruz Humiliates Himself By Getting Key Senate Rules Wrong

While trying to defend blowing off Loretta Lynch’s confirmation vote, Cruz humiliated himself by getting the Senate rules on confirmation wrong.

Politico reported Cruz’s exchange with reporters:

In explaining why he missed the vote for the fundraiser, Cruz stumbled over the Senate’s confirmation rules. Senate Democrats lowered the filibuster threshold from 60 votes on nearly all nominees to a simple majority in 2013, and they remain there today.

“Cloture was the vote that mattered, it required 60 votes,” Cruz said. Informed by reporters that’s not true, Cruz paused briefly and responded: “Fair point.”

The rules of the confirmation process are something that he really should know. It is shameful that Cruz doesn’t seem to know the rules of his own job. After he blew off the confirmation vote, Cruz’s attendance record has come under scrutiny. Not only is Cruz taking a salary from the taxpayers while not bothering to show up for work, the Texas Republican appears to not know what he is being paid to do.

Cruz can make up any number of excuses, but none of them can hide the fact that one of his main duties as a United States senator is to vote on the president’s nominees. It isn’t difficult. All Cruz had to do was show up and vote yes or no.

It is bad enough that Sen. Cruz could be bothered to come to work; it is even worse that he doesn’t understand the basic rules of the job.

Ted Cruz wants to be the next president in the worst way, but if Cruz can’t figure out what his job is as a senator, he is not fit to be president.

Why Has Scott Walker Banned The Press From His Upcoming Trip To Israel?

Perhaps Walker is scared if he informs the public of his policy views that they will not vote for him.

Read more

Tom Cotton Challenges Iranian Foreign Minister To Debate U.S. Constitution

Cotton wants to prove how clueless about the Constitution he is as he challenges a foreign minister to a debate.

Read more

Maryland Republican Wants To Strip Food Stamps From Poor People Who Protest

In what is a clear a violation of the First Amendment right to assemble, a Maryland Republican wants to strip poor people of their food stamps if they protest ...

A Maryland Republican Idiot (is there any other kind)

Colorado Republicans claim IUDs cause abortions, scrap program that reduced teen birthrate by 40 percent

Republicans on a Colorado state Senate committee this week voted to end a contraception program that proponents said had helped to reduce the teen birthrate by 40 percent in recent years.

Colorado Republicans are idiots (But that's a given)

White House addresses Jade Helm 15 exercise as conspiracy theories grow even wilder

From the "Now, Directly from the Outer Limits of the Twilight Zone" Department:

  

A prepper website claims that an anonymous Texas Ranger reported “trains are moving throughout Texas and some of them have been outfitted with shackles, presumably to ‘transport prisoners of some sort.’”

The delusional lunatic fringe conspiracy theories grow even wilder

Polygamy and Heart Disease

Polygamy increases risk of heart disease, study finds

***

Interesting, but it is only one study. More studies finding similar results would be helpful.

"There's A Good Deal That's Very Strange" About The Trial For The Men Who Tried To Kill Malala

"This is the message [Pakistan] would like to send the world: it's tough on extremists. And yet, what we're witnessing here is that it's very selective," Marvin Weinbaum of the Middle East Institute said.

Rape and Murder

 

 Indian girl dies after being thrown out of a moving bus for resisting molestation

Link Dump

"suicide hotline.  please hold."

the nra dictates gun violence research

the remarkable persistence of crackpot economic theories of the republicans

gallup: hillary clinton is the most admired woman in the world 13 years in a row

bare knuckled boxing is safer than gloved fights
poll finds gay people more popular than evangelicals
today is worker safety memorial day
why the middle class is doing even worse than you think
how corporate greed invented christian America

the bankers run the show
walmart sued for wage theft
last Saturday: the night TV news died
horrible: pets killed over unpaid fines

science museums urged to cut ties with the Kochs
the world's happiest people are in Latin America
the rush to humiliate the poor
massive underground settlement discovered in turkey may have housed 20,000 or more

17 states where you're more likely to get killed by guns than a car crash
13 ways republicans have declared war on Americans
18 to 29 things you didn't know about young workers

11 natural wonders to see before they disappear

the plan to save the great barrier reef
sex trafficking rescue groups make lots of money
teabaggers hires actors to play protestors to demonstrate against restoring the everglades
how the u.s. became an oligarchy

4 reasons corporations owe us
religious freedom is used to justify racism, sexism and slavery thru out history
12 signs the republican cabal is disconnected from reality
things that took less time than the Loretta Lynch nomination

the dystopian lake filled with the world's tech lust

the world has lost 130 million hectares of forest in the last decade

titanic explorer science team to study effects of BP oil spill on deep gulf

California's drought threatens the future of orca whales

a jump in global warming appears imminent