Party of hate?

[Athos_131]

Nearly half of white Republicans say it bothers them to hear people speaking foreign languages

A new survey finds white Republicans are far more likely to be put off by foreign language speakers than their Democratic counterparts.

According to Pew Research Center, 47 percent of such Republicans say it would bother them “some” or “a lot” to “hear people speak a language other than English in a public place.” Eighteen percent of white Democrats said they would be similarly bothered.

Aside from politics, age and education are the major predictors of linguistic discomfort. Eighteen percent of whites younger than 30 said they would be bothered by a foreign language being spoken, compared with 43 percent in the 50-to-64 age group, and 45 percent among those 65 and older.

Among all racial groups, whites (34 percent) are most likely to be bothered hearing foreign languages, followed by blacks (25 percent), Asians (24 percent) and Hispanics (13 percent). Among Americans overall, 70 percent put their level of unease at “not much” or “not at all.”

The study follows a number of high-profile confrontations between English and Spanish speakers. Last year, a U.S. Border Patrol agent detained two women — both U.S. citizens — when he overheard them speaking Spanish at a gas station in Montana. In New York, a man launched into a rant after hearing deli workers conversing and threatened to call immigration authorities.

The United States has no official national language, although a number of states have declared English to be theirs. More than 1 in 5 U.S. residents speak a language other than English at home, according to census data. In many regions of the country the percentage is much higher than that. The data show that the majority of those foreign language speakers are also fully proficient in English, meaning they are bilingual by choice.

The new report comes on the heels of a Pew study on the nation’s demographic shifts. When asked about the projected makeup of the United States in 2050, some 37 percent of Republicans said that “having a majority of the population made of up of blacks, Asians, Hispanics and other racial minorities” would be bad for the country — the highest share among any demographic group surveyed. Nearly 60 percent of Republicans said that a majority nonwhite population would “weaken American customs and values,” while an identical percentage predicted it would lead to greater conflict between racial and ethnic groups.

Republicans also stood out in that survey for their skepticism of interracial marriage: One-third said “the fact that more people of difference races are marrying each other” was good for the country, while 16 percent said it was bad.

Other questions in the latest Pew survey shine a light on what’s driving Republicans’ displeasure with foreign language speakers: For one thing, Republicans are more skeptical of racial diversity in general. Thirty-nine percent of Republican respondents said it was “very good” that “the U.S. population is made up of people of many different races and ethnicities.” Among Democrats, 71 percent hold that view, as do 57 percent of Americans overall.

More than 1 in 5 Republicans support the view that having a population comprising “people of many different races and ethnicities has a negative impact on the country’s culture.” That compares with 12 among the total population.

Meanwhile, solid majorities of every demographic group — blacks, whites, Democrats, Republicans — would prefer employers not take race into account when making hiring decisions, even if doing so resulted in less diversity within the company.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

Huh, "White Republicans."  Like that's not redundant. 

[staci]

Huh, "White Republicans."  Like that's not redundant. 

Yeah. One of those oxy morons

[Jed_]

Be careful with stereotyping all old white men.  Some of us are actually intelligent enough to reject bigotry.  As far as being uncomfortable hearing a foreign language being spoken, only at get-togethers with my Peruvian’s family when they all look at me and laugh at some inside joke.  My solution to that is to increase my understanding and become fluent.  It sure beats the hell out of just catching a word here and there and barely following along.  I do know what ‘gringo loco’ means.

[RopeFiend]

Hey, *I'm* an old, white man, and I'm neither an ultra-con nor a racist.  Old white guys  come in all sorts of tasty flavors.  Lick one and see!

And yes, I know what pinche payaso means, too.  I've been called a fucking clown in several languages. 

[Athos_131]

Alabama Senate Erupts Into Chaos as Republicans Try to Ram Through Vote on Abortion Ban

#Resist

[RopeFiend]

I'm amused.  Our (apparently untutored) Trumpeter at work thinks we're still on the Gold Standard.  I barked laughter and said that Nixon drove the final nail in that coffin, but Roosevelt cut the legs off of it during the Depression when he disassociated the dollar from gold and started printing funny money.  I didn't remember the dates, but did remember roughly when we went to Fiat Currency.  My Econ teacher in the '70s wasn't happy about it. 

Our Trumpeter spends WAAAYYYY too much time listening to crackpots and disinformation to recognize truth when it slaps her in the face.

[Athos_131]

Abortion extremists make fools of Kavanaugh defenders

During the confirmation fight for Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, abortion rights activists warned that with his ascension to the Supreme Court, abortions would be criminalized, putting at risk the health and lives of thousands of women who, like their grandmothers’ generation, would be forced to resort to back-alley abortions if they did not have the means to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to a state where abortion was legal.

Kavanaugh’s defenders called such claims hysterical and disingenuous. Although Kavanaugh was put on a list blessed by pro-life groups and had questioned the jurisprudence behind Roe v. Wade, his defenders argued that he wouldn’t approve state laws that went so far as to ban abortion. On the other side, women’s groups pointed to pro-lifers’ decades-long commitment to ending legal abortions based on equating any abortion with murder.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) risked her decades-long reputation as a pro-choice Republican and her prospects for reelection in 2020 by voting to confirm Kavanaugh and spouting the pro-lifers’ line that legal abortion wasn’t really at risk.

Collins, of course, was played. In a Louisiana case earlier this year, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was the fifth vote to block a bill that would have restricted abortions. Kavanaugh, despite all those promises about not really upsetting Roe, was one of the four in dissent.

We now are seeing the full impact of confirming a justice who could eviscerate Roe. The very type of legislation Kavanaugh defenders claimed were not in the cards was passed in Georgia and is poised to pass in Alabama. State lawmakers are now emboldened to pass laws effectively outlawing abortion with the hope that this Supreme Court will now uphold them.

The Post reports:

The Georgia law will ban abortions after a doctor is able to detect “a fetal heartbeat in the womb,” usually at about six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant. It was one of the nation’s most stringent proposals until the all-out ban introduced in Alabama.

Under the proposed Alabama bill, doctors would not be able to perform the procedure once a fetus is “in utero.” That version caught national attention because the bill that passed in the House allowed for a single exception, in cases involving a serious health risk “to the unborn child’s mother.” Cases of rape and incest were not exempt as they are in other states.

Just when Republicans were gaining advantage on the issue, falsely accusing Democrats of favoring infanticide, they’ve now handed Democrats the high ground. Republicans want to jail women. Republicans want to force rape victims to go through a full pregnancy. That will be a powerful issue in 2020 in some jurisdictions, exacerbating the already widening gender gap.

These laws (if the Alabama bill passes) will likely make their way up the appeals courts to the Supreme Court. Given the gravity of the issue and the conflict with precedent and governing law in other circuits, the court would almost certainly be compelled to take up the issue. And then?

We might see Roberts once again side with Roe precedent and avoid putting the court’s credibility at risk. If Roberts, along with Trump’s two appointees, sided with the states, however, the Supreme Court’s decision would set off a political firestorm. The potential to ban abortion in many states (or even more radically, for the entire country if Congress decides to act) would elevate abortion to a top-tier issue.

Republicans would be forced to wrestle with the results of their absolutist position and the backlash from women who have never lived in a country where safe and legal abortions were not available. The political damage to the GOP (outside deep-red states) could be severe, ruining chances for the party to hold onto more libertarian, western states, the Upper Midwest and the eastern seaboard.

In sum, the pro-life forces — shocker! — misrepresented their agenda. Should they “win” at the Supreme Court (or even in circuit courts with a Supreme Court decision pending), Collins and other moderate Republicans who voted for Trump appointees will be on the endangered list in 2020 and beyond. Additionally, as extreme state laws make their ways through the courts, women in places such as Georgia and Alabama may be denied abortions even in the first trimester and/or in some cases because of rape, incest or danger to health (if not life-threatening) of the mother, forcing them to become lawbreakers or flee the states. And finally, states that go down this road will face a torrent of public criticism and calls for economic boycotts just as North Carolina did after the transgender student bathroom bill and Arizona did after passing extreme immigration laws.

Make no mistake, laws like Georgia’s and Alabama’s have severe real world consequences for women — and for our politics.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

‘Two homosexuals and a Jew’

Congressman Steve King, a Republican from Kiron, defended himself Saturday against claims of racism and bigotry with a story that ended with him sitting at a table with two gay men and a Jewish man.

His remarks came during a town-hall-style meeting at the Carroll Chamber of Commerce. About 40 people attended, and some were allowed to ask questions after they were screened by King’s aide.

“If we can’t get you back on a committee, this country is going to hell in a handbasket,” said Dr. Allen Anneberg, of Carroll, a long-time King supporter.

King was stripped of his committee assignments by his Republican colleagues in January after The New York Times published a quotation of his that questioned why phrases such as “white supremacy” are considered offensive.

King told Anneberg and his other constituents Saturday that his words were taken out of context and that he would soon move to regain his seats on the Agriculture and Judiciary committees of the U.S. House of Representatives.

His removal from those committees shut him out of substantial portions of the legislative process, which has led some to question how he can effectively represent the northwestern quadrant of Iowa.

“It was a political lynch mob, and you have to let their blood cool before you can reason with a lynch mob,” King said.

He said his staff has authored a six-page document that attempts to prove to his fellow lawmakers that he was misquoted by the Times. His staff has examined his quotations in news media dating back to 2000 and have not found other instances of King using the phrases “white nationalist” or “white supremacist.”

“I’m about out of patience,” King said of the loss of committee assignments. “I want to do it the nice way. I want to do it a democratic way, but some way or another this is going to come to a head, because it’s wrong.”

King declined to identify what other avenues he might use to regain his assignments when later asked by a reporter. He declined to answer any questions from reporters at the event.

To further illustrate his alleged unfair treatment by news media, King attacked a Washington Post article that detailed his August trip to Europe — which was paid for by a Holocaust memorial group — during which he visited Jewish and Holocaust historical sites in Poland. The Post article reported that King extended his trip to visit Austria — which he paid for with his own money — and meet with “members of a far-right Austrian party with historical Nazi ties.”

“I was introduced to five people I didn’t know,” King said Saturday of his time in Vienna. “We sat down at the table, and during that pause of who’s going to talk first, the gentleman on my right said, ‘Congressman, I think you should know that you’re seated at the table with two homosexuals and a Jew.’ The man across the table said right away, ‘Well, who’s the Jew?’ And that told the rest of us he knew who the other homosexual was, I guess.”

Some people in the audience Saturday chuckled.

“But I tell you this because nobody is doing any neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic plots with homosexuals and Jews at the table,” King concluded. “It’s the most improbable configuration of people possible.”

Anneberg, 89, vouched for King’s character and said he has backed King since his first election to the House in 2002.

“I’ve never known you as a bigot, a racist, or a radical white supremacist, whatever the hell that is,” said Anneberg, who rang a cowbell several times to show his support for King.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

The Deal With the Devil That Got Us Here

How is it that, against the will of the public, a minority sect of religious zealots can be empowered to essentially ban abortion in an entire state? This is the product of a grand bargain that keeps our political system permanently broken. We often don’t notice until it kills us or throws us in jail.

What is the existential purpose of the Republican Party? The existential purpose of the Republican Party is to serve the interests of the rich. The reason why the Republican Party has the incredible resources and power that it does is that rich people, who by definition have many resources, are willing to fund the Republican Party as an investment that will make them money. And politics pays off handsomely. Tax cuts and business deregulation alone make the Republican Party a great investment.

In a fair direct democracy based purely on the will of the majority, a party serving the interests of the rich would lose every election. Not only are the rich a small minority of the population, but their interests are very often in direct opposition of the interests of the vast majority of people. This is why America was designed as a republic, rather than a direct democracy—to protect the political power of the rich. This is also why, to this very day, the Republican Party engages in the widespread, systematic pursuit of policies that will thwart the will of the majority. This is why voter suppression exists; this is why gerrymandering exists; this is why our campaign finance system allows the wealthy to buy elections; this is why the U.S. Senate exists, as a body that gives much more power to rural states than to urban ones; this is why the Electoral College exists, as a body that has a proven track record of overruling the popular vote. In a nation with only two major political parties, one of those parties exists to serve the interests of a tiny minority of people. And yet it must get more than half of the votes. Most of the blatant injustices of our broken political system can be traced back to this fact.

How does the party of the rich attract the votes of the non-rich? It does so primarily by waving the flag and the cross. Patriotism and religion are the tools the Republican Party uses to gain mass support. Forcing you to work two jobs in order to pay the rent so that hedge fund investors can buy third vacation homes is not popular, but God and Country are. And so the Republican Party makes its public face patriotic and Christian, even as its real business is to funnel as much of America’s wealth as possible into the pockets of its donor class. Guns? Abortion? Standing for the national anthem? These are the issues that the Republican Party loves to talk about most. They appeal to the basic sensibilities of millions of Americans, and inflame their passions, so that they do not notice they are being robbed.

Christian fundamentalists in America have made a deal with the devil. That deal is to throw their political support wholeheartedly behind the Republican Party. The party will seek to ban abortion, and persecute gay people, and prop up Christian schools; in exchange, the Christian right will ignore the rather un-Christian true face of the party of the rich, as it steals from the poor and starts wars. The spectacle of devout Christians feverishly supporting a self-worshiping billionaire who has committed every sin is just the most recent absurd manifestation of something that has been going on for a long time. This grand bargain has served the narrow interests of both sides well, even as it has been detrimental to humanity as a whole.

Women in Alabama and Georgia will suffer, and probably die, because they now live in kingdoms controlled by religious zealots. History is full of examples of religious zealots causing misery among the masses when they assume power—that much is not surprising. It is important to focus on the question of how these people came to be in charge of us all. The most basic answer to that question is: They came to be in charge because, in a roundabout way, it serves the interests of the rich. They came to be in charge thanks to the support of a vast, decades-long national program to suppress the will of the majority in favor of the desires of a small minority. They came to be in charge because the rich need the Republican Party, the Republican Party needs 51% of the votes, and that means they need all those good Christians to turn up at the polls for something. They probably won’t be motivated by the need for lower taxes on pass-through entities. So they must instead be motivated by the chance to assume control of the female body, on behalf of god. In order to maintain our treasured free enterprise system that allows billionaires to keep the majority of their wealth, some things must be sacrificed. Today, it’s women.

This happens, and will keep happening, because of that deal with the devil between the Republican Party and its non-rich voters. That may sound distasteful. So let’s call it, instead, a deal with Jesus. The outcome is exactly the same.

#Resist

[_priapism]

The Deal With the Devil That Got Us Here

Every man, woman, and child in America should read this.

[Athos_131]

Here’s why women have fled the GOP

President Trump and his Republican allies have made it easy for future historians and political scientists to understand how the gender gap exploded under his presidency. The vast majority of African American women (and men) for decades have identified with the Democratic Party, the party of civil rights, women’s rights and social welfare support. However, until the Trump presidency, the GOP had managed to hold onto white women (even Trump won 52 percent of them; by contrast he got 4 percent of African American women.) With Trump in power the GOP is now tied to a president who has offended, appalled and scared white women, most especially college-educated white women. This week is a perfect example of why that has happened.

Trump personally is a large part of the problem. The misogynist bully, a know-nothing who rejects science and basic economics, encapsulates every quality these women despise. This week has been no different — insulting presidential candidates, heightening conflict with other powers (Iran, China) for the sake of riling up his base, lashing out at law enforcement in venom-filled tweets, playing the tough guy, refusing to recognize any legitimate oversight role for Congress and, of course, lying up the wazoo about tariffs, which are obviously a tax on American consumers.

Now there is an added element. There are the efforts underway in Georgia, Alabama and a slew of other states to essentially outlaw abortion. Georgia’s new law would prohibit abortions after six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant. Beyond that it’s murder under the new state law.

In Alabama, as Joyce Vance White pointed out in a column for The Post, the idea is to deny exceptions for rape or incest precisely so pro-lifers can set up a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. It may come as a shock to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), but around the country antiabortion forces figure they’ve got their majority to overturn Roe with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and are racing to outdo one another in criminalizing abortion.

The draconian legislation in Alabama (and in states sure to follow its lead), for example, would require a minor who is raped to complete the pregnancy. The no-exceptions abortion ban would also put at risk a doctor who follows his professional obligation to spare a woman grievous physical (but not life-threatening) harm and thereby may face a murder charge. If this cruel invasion of women’s autonomy in the most aggressive fashion imaginable isn’t the personification of the war on women, I don’t know what is. (And, of course, these laws won’t stop women from having abortions; they will revive illegal and unsafe abortions, putting women’s health and lives at risk.)

Until Trump, abortion has actually not been a top issue for most voters (even women) because, frankly, voters saw (whether they liked it or not) the Supreme Court preserving Roe. That has all changed with two Trump appointees.

Even women who had been amenable to regulations of abortion clinics or to restricting late-term abortions can see how Trump’s GOP has gone off the deep end. (This is why you see support for Roe spike in polls.)

And there you have it — the perfect formula for turning women off the GOP, perhaps permanently. These developments come after multiple attempts to repeal Obamacare, cuts to education spending and the inhumane child separation policies — all intensely unpopular with women voters.

The question is not whether women will abandon the GOP in 2020 but whether they will ever come back. If white women (even just white college-educated women who went for Hillary Clinton narrowly — 51 to 44 percent — in 2016) start voting more like nonwhite women, the GOP is toast.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Missouri passes "one of the strongest" abortion bills yet in U.S.

Missouri's Republican-led Senate has passed a wide-ranging bill to ban abortions at eight weeks of pregnancy, acting only hours after Alabama's governor signed a near-total abortion ban into law. The Missouri bill needs another vote of approval in the GOP-led House before it can go to Republican Gov. Mike Parson, who voiced support for an earlier version Wednesday.

It includes exceptions for medical emergencies, but not for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Doctors would face five to 15 years in prison for violating the eight-week cutoff. Women who receive abortions wouldn't be prosecuted.

Republican Senate handler Sen. Andrew Koenig described it on Thursday as "one of the strongest" abortion bills yet passed in the U.S.

As CBS News' Kate Smith has reported, Missouri already has some of the most restrictive abortion access laws in the country. Missourians seeking an abortion are subject to a 72-hour waiting period and only one abortion clinic exist in the state.

Missouri joins a movement of GOP-dominated state legislatures emboldened by the possibility that a more conservative Supreme Court could overturn its landmark ruling legalizing the procedure. Its senators voted only hours after Alabama's governor signed the most stringent abortion ban in the nation on Wednesday, making performing an abortion a felony in nearly all cases.

Outnumbered Missouri Senate Democrats launched into an attack on the bill before Republican supporters had a chance to bring it up for debate on the Senate floor.

"So much of this bill is just shaming women into some kind of complacency that says we are vessels of pregnancy rather than understanding that women's lives all hold different stories," St. Louis-area Democratic Sen. Jill Schupp said.

Missouri is among a growing number of states where abortion opponents are working with renewed enthusiasm following President Donald Trump's appointment of more conservative high court justices. Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia have approved bans on abortion once fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which can occur in about the sixth week of pregnancy. Similar restrictions in North Dakota and Iowa have been struck down in court.

Supporters say the Alabama bill is intentionally designed to conflict with the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationally in hopes of sparking a court case that might prompt the justices to revisit abortion rights.

Missouri's bill also includes an outright ban on abortions except in cases of medical emergencies. But unlike Alabama's, it would kick in only if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

If courts don't allow Missouri's proposed eight-week ban to take effect, it includes a ladder of less-restrictive time limits ranging from 14 to 20 weeks. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion up until viability, which is usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

"This is not a piece of legislation that is designed for a challenge," Missouri's Republican House Speaker Elijah Haahr said. "This is the type of legislation that is designed to withstand a challenge and to actually save lives in our state."

Republicans and Democrats worked for hours to reach a compromise on the bill, which included an expansion of tax credits for donations to pregnancy resource centers, and waters down other provisions.

The approved version of the wide-ranging bill bans abortions based solely on race, sex or a "prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating Down Syndrome or the potential of Down Syndrome." It also requires that both parents be notified for a minor to get an abortion, but a change was made after hours of late-night negotiations to remove the requirement when a parent lacks legal or physical custody. Current law requires written consent from only one parent.

Still, some lawmakers on both sides of the debate walked away unhappy.

Democrat Schrupp said even after changes, it's "an extreme and egregious piece of legislation that puts women's health at risk."

"It is outrageous that it has no exemptions for victims of human trafficking, rape or incest," she said.

Republican Sen. Bob Onder said negotiators went too far to compromise, leaving the bill "a shadow of what it once was."

"This should be entitled not the 'Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act,'" Onder told colleagues on the Senate floor, "but the 'Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act, sort of kind of only after the minority party and the strongest Planned Parenthood lawyers in the country were done with the bill.'"

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Proposed HUD rule would strip transgender protections at homeless shelters

The Department of Housing and Urban Development on Wednesday proposed a new rule that would weaken Obama-era protections for homeless transgender people, allowing federally funded shelters to deny people admission on religious grounds or force transgender women to share bathrooms and sleeping quarters with men.

The proposed rule comes one day after HUD Secretary Ben Carson assured members of Congress the agency had no plans to eliminate the 2012 Equal Access Rule, which barred federal housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

When questioned by Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) on HUD’s treatment of transgender people, Carson said his responsibility is to “make sure everybody is treated fairly. ”

He assured Wexton that HUD had no plans to alter the Equal Access protection, saying: "I’m not currently anticipating changing the rule. ”

The proposal is the latest move by the Trump administration to weaken protections for transgender Americans, including a Department of Defense ban on transgender troops and a Department of Health and Human Services proposal allowing medical providers to deny treatment to transgender people on religious grounds.

In 2017, the HUD website removed links to documents that guided emergency shelters on how best to serve transgender people facing homelessness and comply with agency regulations. It also withdrew policy proposals requiring HUD-funded emergency shelters to post notices informing people of LGTBQ rights and protections.

Carson told the House Financial Services Committee that those notices were unnecessary because the Equal Access Rule provisions already “adequately provide for fairness for all communities.” He said he wanted to allow for more “local jurisdictional control” over how to treat people.

As to whether LGBTQ people should be protected under fair housing and other civil rights laws, Carson said: “If you want to do something different about the definition of gender, that is a congressional duty. ”

Wexton on Wednesday chastised Carson for HUD’s move to roll back transgender protections.

“Yesterday, I asked Secretary Carson directly if he was anticipating any changes to HUD’s Equal Access Rule and he said no. The announcement today that HUD will now allow anti-trans discrimination in shelters demonstrates that he either lied to Congress or has no idea what policies his agency is pursuing. Either way, it’s unacceptable," Wexton said in a statement.

The agency published a one-paragraph summary of the proposal, allowing shelters whose facilities are segregated by sex -- such as bathrooms, showers, and sleeping quarters -- to establish a policy that considers an individual’s sex for the purposes of determining admission. The new rule says shelters could consider a range of factors, including “privacy, safety, practical concerns, religious beliefs,” when deciding whether or how to accommodate someone.

The agency, in its summary, also said the rule “continues HUD’s policy of ensuring that its programs are open to all eligible individuals and families regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Transgender advocates characterized it as a “heartless attack” and said it signifies an “escalation of the Trump administration’s broader plan to erase transgender people from federal regulations and legal interpretations. ”

“It completely guts the Equal Access Rule," said Mara Keisling, Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality. “The Trump administration is, once again, targeting the most vulnerable trans people by empowering shelters to turn people away and deny them equal access to services."

The agency told the Post it has no intention of removing the Equal Access Rule and will continue enforcing its provisions. But in a statement HUD acknowledged that the agency will be proposing a change later this year “that will offer local homeless shelter providers greater flexibility when making decisions about individuals who may misrepresent their sex to access sex-specific shelters.”

One in three transgender people have experienced homelessness — including one in eight in the last year alone, putting them at risk of physical and sexual violence and being forced into sex work, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Seventy percent of transgender people who tried going to a shelter in the last year were kicked out for being transgender, were physically or sexually assaulted, or faced another form of mistreatment because of their gender identity, the center said.

The new proposal caught career staffers by surprise, including some who have worked on writing housing policies related to LGTBQ people.

“We don’t even know where it’s coming from. What are they hoping to accomplish?" said one staffer who is not authorized to speak on the record. "Now it’s not clear what guidelines people are supposed to follow. It’s crazy.”

Similarly, HUD career staff were not involved in another Trump administration proposal to purge undocumented immigrants from subsidized housing. Career staff later wrote an analysis of the proposal targeting families of mixed immigration status and concluded that it could put up to 55,000 children who are legal U.S. residents or citizens at risk of eviction and homelessness.

#Resist

[_priapism]

Lone Republican blocks disaster aid package on House floor

Rep. Chip Roy became the man who delayed $19.1 billion in disaster aid to communities throughout the country on Friday.

House leaders tried to pass a multibillion-dollar disaster assistance measure, by unanimous consent, but the Texas Republican objected on the floor.

[Lois]

Feel the love. 

[Athos_131]

Another Republican blocks disaster aid in House

(Associated Press) - Another conservative Republican has once again blocked efforts by House leaders to speed a $19 billion disaster aid bill to President Donald Trump’s desk.

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie objected to a request by Georgia Democrat Sanford Bishop to pass the bill under special procedures requiring unanimous agreement among all lawmakers. Sanford's district's economy is largely based on agriculture and was slammed by Hurricane Michael last year.

Massie said that if Democratic leaders thought the measure was so urgent they should have kept the House in session last week so that members could go on record with a roll call tally.

The developments were expected but No. 2 House Democrat Steny Hoyer warned that further delays would put keep millions of flood and hurricane victims at risk.

Last week, Texas freshman GOP Rep. Chip Roy blocked the bill.

Passage of the bill, supported by Trump and top leaders in Congress, is a forgone conclusion. Trying again on Tuesday is a political freebee for Democrats, who went on the attack after Texas freshman GOP Rep. Chip Roy blocked the bill on Friday. Roy had complained about its cost and a move by Democrats to dump Trump’s request for $4.5 billion to address the crisis of Central American refugees at the southern border.

Many Republicans, including southerners facing re-election, are frustrated that the bill has taken so long. After being denied his border money in a fight with House Democrats such as Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, Trump still embraced the bill, which directs much of its aid to political strongholds of his such as the Florida Panhandle and rural Georgia and North Carolina.

Passing legislation without any objection from anyone is often trickier to do in the House than the Senate, however.

"I just think a unanimous consent, voice vote, on the way out the door — there's always, out of 535 (members of Congress) there's always a few who think maybe that's not appropriate," said Sen. Ken Cramer, R-N.D, a conservative who presided over a moments-long pro forma session of the Senate on Tuesday.

Cramer moved over to the Senate this year after spending three terms in the House GOP majority, also pointing out that the final disaster bill "actually took out some of the things that the House conservatives wanted" such as billions of dollars to care for the influx of migrants seeking asylum after crossing the southern border.

There are also newer additions to the measure to help Midwestern areas suffering from springtime floods, along with large chunks of money to rebuild military bases such as Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were damaged by a string of disasters dating to last fall's hurricane season. The measure ordinarily would have passed months ago but Trump injected himself into the debate, demanding that funding sought by Puerto Rico's elected officials, Republicans and Democrats both, be kept out.

Democrats held firm in demanding that Puerto Rico, a territory whose 3 million people are U.S. citizens, be helped by the measure. Their confidence was clear from the outset and GOP resolve on Puerto Rico, never particularly strong to begin with, steadily faded as the impasse dragged on. The bill now contains more money for Puerto Rico, about $1.4 billion, than Democrats originally asked for.

Roy said last week that lawmakers ought to go on record either way on the legislation, which is among the few significant bills to make it through the system despite the intense partisanship dominating Washington.

“This is a $19 billion bill that is not paid for when we are racking up $100 million of debt per hour,” Roy said. “And we now are expected to let the swamp continue to mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren.”

#Resist

[Athos_131]

GOP Ghoul on Children Dying at the Border: 'Fine!'

Republicans have made it known just how they feel about migrant children being treated ruthlessly and dying at the border (hint: they do not care!!) but it’s still shocking to hear their dressed down, straightforward assholery.

Just take this Tuesday night CNN interview with Texas Rep. Chip Roy, in which Roy, when confronted by host Chris Cuomo with the reality that children are dying at the border (six so far), replied, “FINE!”

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1133543069696090113

Roy is one of two Republicans who so far have blocked a bipartisan bill for more than $19 billion in disaster relief from being signed by President Donald Trump. According to the Washington Post, Roy said he blocked the bill because it didn’t include the $4.4 billion in supplemental border spending that Trump had requested earlier this month.

On CNN, Cuomo stressed to Roy the urgency of the children dying at the border, questioning how Republicans would be able to secure more border funding when they couldn’t even negotiate with Democrats. Roy responded by stressing the need to “debate” the funding, to which Cuomo said there is no time—children are dying now.

“You guys can’t even agree on getting done what will help stop these kids from being held in places where they’re going to be sick, held too long, maybe worse,” Cuomo said. “You guys can’t handle it all at once, you can’t even handle one part of it. You can’t even get these kids out of harm’s way.”

#Resist

[joan1984]

 The House of Representatives is controlled by Democrats.

  Seeking a vote without the Speaker of the House knowing the outcome, via vote counting among members of her own party to know the outcome, is not responsible management of the House Of Representatives.

  The result is that a 'unanimous' voice vote did not happen, multiple times.

  Democrat House Members did not bother to return from their 'vacations' to vote at all, and no arrangements were made to delay their vacations until the vote was taken... and so, success in passing a partisan bill awaits the return of the Democrat partisans.

[Athos_131]

Disney, Netflix and WarnerMedia say new abortion law may push their movies out of Georgia

Three of the world's biggest entertainment companies — Netflix, Disney and WarnerMedia — say they may stop producing movies and TV shows in Georgia if the state's new abortion law takes effect.

And a fourth, Comcast's NBCUniversal, says the spread of these anti-abortion bills, if upheld by the courts, "would strongly impact our decision-making on where we produce our content in the future."

The state is a hub for entertainment industry production, in part because of generous tax breaks Georgia offers filmmakers and producers.

But the companies are warning that they might have to give up those tax incentives and leave the state — flexing their financial muscles in a way that's guaranteed to get the attention of local political leaders.

Earlier this month Georgia's governor, Brian Kemp, signed a bill that would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually at about six weeks of pregnancy.
The restrictive new law, should it survive court challenges from the ACLU and women's rights groups, is set to take effect on January 1.

Prominent celebrities and some production companies have vowed to boycott Georgia as a result. But the deep pockets of Netflix (NFLX) and Disney (DIS) mean the companies have louder voices. They are citing the concerns of the predominantly liberal-leaning stars and producers who make their comedies, dramas and other productions.

Disney CEO Bob Iger was asked about the situation on Wednesday. He told Reuters that the studio will find it "very difficult" to film in Georgia if the new law takes effect.
"I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard. Right now, we are watching it very carefully," Iger said.
He was interviewed at the opening of the new Stars Wars: Galaxy's Edge land at Disneyland in California. But the question has loomed over Hollywood studios for several weeks now.
When the bill was signed into law, the heads of several production companies said they would not film in the state. They included Christine Vachon, chief executive officer of Killer Films; David Simon, creator of "The Wire" and "The Deuce" who heads Blown Deadline Productions; and Mark Duplass of Duplass Brothers Productions.

Director Reed Morano canceled plans to scout locations in Georgia for a forthcoming Amazon series. And actor Kristen Wiig said that a comedy project had pulled out of the state.

Then came Netflix's statement on Tuesday.
"We have many women working on productions in Georgia, whose rights, along with millions of others, will be severely restricted by this law," Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos told Variety. "It's why we will work with the ACLU and others to fight it in court. Given the legislation has not yet been implemented, we'll continue to film there, while also supporting partners and artists who choose not to." But — here's the but — "should it ever come into effect, we'd rethink our entire investment in Georgia."

AT&T's WarnerMedia, which is the parent company of HBO, TNT, TBS, CNN, and other brands, also said the company may stop making "new productions" in the state if the bill takes effect.

"We operate and produce work in many states and within several countries at any given time and while that doesn't mean we agree with every position taken by a state or a country and their leaders, we do respect due process," WarnerMedia said. "We will watch the situation closely and if the new law holds we will reconsider Georgia as the home to any new productions. As is always the case, we will work closely with our production partners and talent to determine how and where to shoot any given project."
WarnerMedia has thousands of employees in Georgia, including at the headquarters of CNN in Atlanta.

One distinction between existing operations and one-off movie and TV productions is that employees are generally eligible to vote and engage in state politics, while actors and producers who fly in for a few months to shoot a movie are not.

Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams tweeted about the issue on Wednesday evening after Iger's comments were published.

"Georgia stands to lose Netflix & Disney. This means lost jobs for carpenters, hair dressers, food workers & 100s of small businesses grown right here. Billions in economic investment headed to states eager to welcome film + protect women." She added a hashtag: "Consequences."

Strict anti-abortion bills have been passed by Georgia, Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Louisiana this year. The bills are designed in part to provoke a court fight, potentially leading to a Supreme Court reexamination of abortion rights.

NBCUniversal cited this legal reality in its statement on Thursday.

"We fully expect that the heartbeat bills and similar laws in various states will face serious legal challenges and will not go into effect while the process proceeds in court," the company said. "If any of these laws are upheld, it would strongly impact our decision-making on where we produce our content in the future."

"Avengers: Endgame" has made over $2 billion.  I guess we are about to see just how much misogyny is worth in Georgia.