What a way to make an impression with one's constituents. For some reason, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R) thought it would be a great idea to insult a group of undocumented immigrants confronting him over his inhumane anti-immigrant policies, including a rule that bars DREAMers from attending public colleges in Georgia.
Here's what Nathan Deal got wrong: He clearly wasn't expecting this good of a comeback. Oh, and the students he claimed were undocumented immigrants were actually US citizens. Whoops.
And this isn't the only recent example of G-O-TEA politicians encountering hot water when trying to spin away anything & everything immigration related. Earlier this month, Senator (& likely 2016 Presidential Candidate) Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) ran away when confronted by DREAMers. And earlier this week, Rep. (& fellow likely 2016 Presidential Candidate) Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) refused to answer questions from DREAMers on why he voted to deport them along with Central American refugee children.
And then, there's Senator (& another possible 2016 Presidential Candidate) Marco Rubio (R-Florida). Once upon a time, Rubio was a lead sponsor of S 744, the comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) bill that handily passed the Senate last year. But as of late, Rubio has been trying to catch up with Rand Paul in the anti-immigrant department. And now, Senator Rubio is condemning the very CIR legislation he once sponsored.
The devolution is now complete. Republican politicians who once supported CIR are now running away from it as fast as they can. And once respected "conservative think tanks" are now advocating public funding for anti-immigrant/anti-government militia groups.
So why are they doing this? Why are they flip-flopping so wildly? And why are they now embracing the extreme anti-immigrant militia movement?
Simple answer: Short term politics. Longer answer: They're so frightened of their 21st Century Know Nothing base that they're willing to sacrifice sound policy (and smart political strategy) to grovel to G-O-TEA Culture Warriors' darkest desires.
This is why CIR now lies dead in some House committee room. And this is why President Obama must take executive action to address what the lower House of Congress refuses to fix. While DACA does provide some relief for DREAMers, their family, friends, colleagues, and neighbors are still being deported en masse. Even though they committed no crimes and have made many positive contributions to our communities, they're still being deported. In fact, President Obama has presided over more deportations than any other US President.
Since the lower House of Congress refuses to act, President Obama must. Since House Republicans (cough- Joe Heck -cough) insist on playing petty politics with real people's lives, President Obama must look past the petty politics and focus on good policy. Since the lower House of Congress declined to "go big", the President must.
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
The Iraq Question
At one point, it seemed like it was beginning to fade from our memory. It was becoming "ancient history". And with so much to worry about at home, why must we think about it again?
But now, Iraq is back in the news. Isis (or "Islamic State") is on the move in Northern Iraq, and it may now have sights on Syria and Turkey as well. And now, fears are growing of a possible genocide in the region.
The US is moving back towards military engagement in Iraq. But before we debate what we should do there next, we must remember how we fell into this hot mess in the first place.
In October 2002, Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq to combat the alleged stockpiling of "weapons of mass destruction" by then Iraqi Prime Minister Saddam Hussein. Before the vote, the Bush Administration made claims that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the September 11, 2001, (9/11) terrorist attack. There was never a formal declaration of war when the US led invasion began in March 2003. And after the invasion, it became painfully clear that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" prepared to be used against us... And that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
After the invasion began, the Iraq War transformed from an allegedly "anti-terrorist operation" into some "armed humanitarian liberation of the Iraqi people". All of a sudden, our armed forces were in Iraq to initiate "regime change" and essentially force "democracy" at gunpoint. The neoconservatives who were advising then President George W. Bush on foreign policy were praising "freedom fighters" like Ahmad Chalabi and urging the US to expand our military presence into Iran, Syria, and elsewhere so we can spread "democracy" all over the Middle East. What was supposed to be a fast & easy "shock & awe" war to disarm terrorists was suddenly becoming a grandiose attempt to set up an American Empire halfway across the world.
Ironically, this war that was supposed to "disarm terrorists" actually succeeded... In arming terrorists. al-Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq before March 20, 2003. But after the US led "coalition of the willing" toppled Saddam Hussein's regime from power, an enormous power vacuum emerged. And by mid 2004, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was wreaking havoc in the "Triangle of Death" around Baghdad.
US forces only succeeded in wresting control of the Baghdad exurbs from "al-Qaeda in Iraq" by arming Sunni militias who had grown uncomfortable with their continued presence in the region while providing "The Surge" of additional US soldiers into Iraq. But even then, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was never fully eradicated. It only went dormant (until the inevitable "rebranding" that we'll get to in a moment).
What was supposed to be a "liberation of the Iraqi people" quickly devolved into a complete organizational clusterfuck as the US occupation of Iraq dragged on. Alleged "Iraqi Messiah" Ahmad Chalabi ran to Iran whenever they had money for him and became a nagging destabilizing force in the region. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that took over after the end of Saddam's reign quickly emerged as a Keystone Kops style money laundering scheme. And the Shia led political bloc that ultimately took the keys from the CPA never seemed to unite the nation behind its government.
By 2011, what had previously been known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" "rebranded" itself as Isis. And when Isis decided to disobey al-Qaeda Central's orders to limit civilian deaths when it jumped into Syria's civil war, the 2 terrorist networks divorced this past February. But now that Iraq's government is as unstable as ever, President Obama faces tough choices on how to prevent a horrid genecidal bloodbath in the region.
Oh, and so does Congress. But already, many of the same neoconservatives who misled the nation into the Iraq War in 2002 want to criticize just about anything & everything President Obama decides to do now. Some of the current G-O-TEA hotheads on Capitol Hill even want to return US ground troops to Iraq and revive the US occupation. And to make matters even more bizarre, some Democrats (who happen to be the same ones who voted for military force authorization in 2002) are harping about the Obama Administration's caution in arming rebels, even as many of the rebels the neoconservatives have wanted to support actually have ties to Isis.
As we ponder what to do next about Iraq, it's critical for us to remember the history of this war. It's crucial for us to remember the many painful errors and brutal blunders made in the 12 years so that we don't repeat them. And as Members of Congress decide what parameters to set on this latest mission into Iraq, they must remember their Constitutional duty and their precedecessors' big mistake.
But now, Iraq is back in the news. Isis (or "Islamic State") is on the move in Northern Iraq, and it may now have sights on Syria and Turkey as well. And now, fears are growing of a possible genocide in the region.
The US is moving back towards military engagement in Iraq. But before we debate what we should do there next, we must remember how we fell into this hot mess in the first place.
In October 2002, Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq to combat the alleged stockpiling of "weapons of mass destruction" by then Iraqi Prime Minister Saddam Hussein. Before the vote, the Bush Administration made claims that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the September 11, 2001, (9/11) terrorist attack. There was never a formal declaration of war when the US led invasion began in March 2003. And after the invasion, it became painfully clear that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" prepared to be used against us... And that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
After the invasion began, the Iraq War transformed from an allegedly "anti-terrorist operation" into some "armed humanitarian liberation of the Iraqi people". All of a sudden, our armed forces were in Iraq to initiate "regime change" and essentially force "democracy" at gunpoint. The neoconservatives who were advising then President George W. Bush on foreign policy were praising "freedom fighters" like Ahmad Chalabi and urging the US to expand our military presence into Iran, Syria, and elsewhere so we can spread "democracy" all over the Middle East. What was supposed to be a fast & easy "shock & awe" war to disarm terrorists was suddenly becoming a grandiose attempt to set up an American Empire halfway across the world.
Ironically, this war that was supposed to "disarm terrorists" actually succeeded... In arming terrorists. al-Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq before March 20, 2003. But after the US led "coalition of the willing" toppled Saddam Hussein's regime from power, an enormous power vacuum emerged. And by mid 2004, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was wreaking havoc in the "Triangle of Death" around Baghdad.
US forces only succeeded in wresting control of the Baghdad exurbs from "al-Qaeda in Iraq" by arming Sunni militias who had grown uncomfortable with their continued presence in the region while providing "The Surge" of additional US soldiers into Iraq. But even then, "al-Qaeda in Iraq" was never fully eradicated. It only went dormant (until the inevitable "rebranding" that we'll get to in a moment).
What was supposed to be a "liberation of the Iraqi people" quickly devolved into a complete organizational clusterfuck as the US occupation of Iraq dragged on. Alleged "Iraqi Messiah" Ahmad Chalabi ran to Iran whenever they had money for him and became a nagging destabilizing force in the region. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that took over after the end of Saddam's reign quickly emerged as a Keystone Kops style money laundering scheme. And the Shia led political bloc that ultimately took the keys from the CPA never seemed to unite the nation behind its government.
By 2011, what had previously been known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" "rebranded" itself as Isis. And when Isis decided to disobey al-Qaeda Central's orders to limit civilian deaths when it jumped into Syria's civil war, the 2 terrorist networks divorced this past February. But now that Iraq's government is as unstable as ever, President Obama faces tough choices on how to prevent a horrid genecidal bloodbath in the region.
Oh, and so does Congress. But already, many of the same neoconservatives who misled the nation into the Iraq War in 2002 want to criticize just about anything & everything President Obama decides to do now. Some of the current G-O-TEA hotheads on Capitol Hill even want to return US ground troops to Iraq and revive the US occupation. And to make matters even more bizarre, some Democrats (who happen to be the same ones who voted for military force authorization in 2002) are harping about the Obama Administration's caution in arming rebels, even as many of the rebels the neoconservatives have wanted to support actually have ties to Isis.
As we ponder what to do next about Iraq, it's critical for us to remember the history of this war. It's crucial for us to remember the many painful errors and brutal blunders made in the 12 years so that we don't repeat them. And as Members of Congress decide what parameters to set on this latest mission into Iraq, they must remember their Constitutional duty and their precedecessors' big mistake.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Decoded
Yesterday, they reached a new low. We've been tracking their dog whistles for some time. But yesterday, one of them finally dropped the whistle and spoke it in plain English.
While other G-O-TEA politicians have continued with the coded language based attacks on President Obama, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) decided to simply decode the dog whistles. Of course, supreme G-O-TEA dog whistler Laura Ingraham begged him not to decode the dog whistles to the general public. But alas, he didn't listen to her.
And now, the reason for Republicans' hardening opposition to comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) has become crystal clear.
Believe it or not, Rep. Brooks then doubled down on his "War on Whites" platform this morning. And why not? This isn't the first time Rep. Mo Brooks spilled all the beans on what the real G-O-TEA immigration plan is.
This also isn't the first time we've heard a G-O-TEA politician repeat verbatim the misleading and xenophobic rhetoric from John Tanton and the late Barbara Coe.
This was just a rare instance when a G-O-TEA politician accidentally gave us a sneak peek of what's happening behind the curtain. This is a chance for us to examine what's behind the veneer of "rebranding".
Back in April, Cliven Bundy decoded the G-O-TEA dog whistles. That's why they quickly cut him loose after that media fire storm. They stuck by him while he was bringing in dangerous Patriot Movement militia outfits to Southern Nevada to fight his "Range War" against the rule of law. They stuck by him when he brought in Richard Mack for "security". No, they only cut Cliven Bundy wanted to tell everyone "something about the negro".
Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) was publicly campaigning alongside notorious anti-immigrant Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) yesterday. He's also done plenty of his own pandering to the 21st Century Know Nothings by doing everything possible to kill CIR. But when two DREAMers showed up to decode their anti-immigrant dog whistles, Senator (and likely 2016 Presidential candidate) Rand Paul ran away from them while Rep. Steve King grabbed a DREAMer Erika Andiola's arm and yelled aboutconspiracy theories John Tanton had whispered into his ear gibberish.
G-O-TEA politicians are all too happy all too often to communicate in coded dog whistles to their "TEA" addicted base (cases in point: Sharron Angle & Mitt Romney). But when one of them forgets to do the dog whistle and instead cracks the code to all the rest of us, the rest of them panic... Not because of the policies they're all espousing, but because their revelations make for "bad optics".
Unfortunately for them, they just decoded themselves. And we can all see what's truly behind their "tough talk on immigration".
While other G-O-TEA politicians have continued with the coded language based attacks on President Obama, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) decided to simply decode the dog whistles. Of course, supreme G-O-TEA dog whistler Laura Ingraham begged him not to decode the dog whistles to the general public. But alas, he didn't listen to her.
And now, the reason for Republicans' hardening opposition to comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) has become crystal clear.
Believe it or not, Rep. Brooks then doubled down on his "War on Whites" platform this morning. And why not? This isn't the first time Rep. Mo Brooks spilled all the beans on what the real G-O-TEA immigration plan is.
This also isn't the first time we've heard a G-O-TEA politician repeat verbatim the misleading and xenophobic rhetoric from John Tanton and the late Barbara Coe.
This was just a rare instance when a G-O-TEA politician accidentally gave us a sneak peek of what's happening behind the curtain. This is a chance for us to examine what's behind the veneer of "rebranding".
Back in April, Cliven Bundy decoded the G-O-TEA dog whistles. That's why they quickly cut him loose after that media fire storm. They stuck by him while he was bringing in dangerous Patriot Movement militia outfits to Southern Nevada to fight his "Range War" against the rule of law. They stuck by him when he brought in Richard Mack for "security". No, they only cut Cliven Bundy wanted to tell everyone "something about the negro".
Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) was publicly campaigning alongside notorious anti-immigrant Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) yesterday. He's also done plenty of his own pandering to the 21st Century Know Nothings by doing everything possible to kill CIR. But when two DREAMers showed up to decode their anti-immigrant dog whistles, Senator (and likely 2016 Presidential candidate) Rand Paul ran away from them while Rep. Steve King grabbed a DREAMer Erika Andiola's arm and yelled about
G-O-TEA politicians are all too happy all too often to communicate in coded dog whistles to their "TEA" addicted base (cases in point: Sharron Angle & Mitt Romney). But when one of them forgets to do the dog whistle and instead cracks the code to all the rest of us, the rest of them panic... Not because of the policies they're all espousing, but because their revelations make for "bad optics".
Unfortunately for them, they just decoded themselves. And we can all see what's truly behind their "tough talk on immigration".
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
27.
27. That now looks to be the magic number. House Democratic leaders need 27 more signatures on their HR 15 discharge petition. Once they reach 218, they can secure a floor vote for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).
27. That's the number that can make a huge difference for families like Astrid Silva's and Bryan Rivera's.
27. If Rep. Joe Heck (R-????) and 26 other House Republicans simply sign the petition for something they've already claimed to support, CIR can finally pass the House. And since most House members have already said they support CIR in theory, it shouldn't be so hard to put it into practice.
So why has it been so hard? Well, why has it been so hard for the "Republican establishment" to muzzle the likes of Rand Paul? Why has it been so hard for the "establishment" to steer the 21st Century Know Nothings away from the siren songs of Laura Ingraham? Why has it been so hard for House Republican "leaders" to stand up for their own "principles for immigration reform"?
Short answer: They don't want to meet the same fate that's run right into Jeb Bush's 2016 campaign plans.
Longer answer: It's easier for G-O-TEA politicians to pander to the Culture Warrior Id than it is for them to publicly challenge this id. So they either keep quiet on CIR, or they flat out reject any real option for CIR. They'd rather placate their "TEA" powered base and hoodwink all the rest of us with "Republican rebranding" than make any real effort to become more compatible with 21st century America.
This is why CIR has been left to die in the House by Republican "leaders" in that chamber. They're too afraid of their own base.
Yet with that being said, this doesn't mean CIR must die. This doesn't mean that individual House Republicans have no choice but leave CIR to die on the "TEA" poisoned vine.
All HR 15 needs is 27 more House members to sign that discharge petition. And the 30 or so House Republicans who have been asked to sign the discharge petition should look at it this way: 27 may ultimately be the number that determines the future national viability of their Republican Party. Do they really want to be one of the 27 who stands in way of not only keeping American families together, but also keeping the Republican Party as an integral force in America's political system?
27. That's all HR 15 needs for a House floor vote. So why won't House Republicans just release 27 members from their caucus in order to save not just CIR, but also their own party?
27. That's the number that can make a huge difference for families like Astrid Silva's and Bryan Rivera's.
27. If Rep. Joe Heck (R-????) and 26 other House Republicans simply sign the petition for something they've already claimed to support, CIR can finally pass the House. And since most House members have already said they support CIR in theory, it shouldn't be so hard to put it into practice.
So why has it been so hard? Well, why has it been so hard for the "Republican establishment" to muzzle the likes of Rand Paul? Why has it been so hard for the "establishment" to steer the 21st Century Know Nothings away from the siren songs of Laura Ingraham? Why has it been so hard for House Republican "leaders" to stand up for their own "principles for immigration reform"?
Short answer: They don't want to meet the same fate that's run right into Jeb Bush's 2016 campaign plans.
Longer answer: It's easier for G-O-TEA politicians to pander to the Culture Warrior Id than it is for them to publicly challenge this id. So they either keep quiet on CIR, or they flat out reject any real option for CIR. They'd rather placate their "TEA" powered base and hoodwink all the rest of us with "Republican rebranding" than make any real effort to become more compatible with 21st century America.
This is why CIR has been left to die in the House by Republican "leaders" in that chamber. They're too afraid of their own base.
Yet with that being said, this doesn't mean CIR must die. This doesn't mean that individual House Republicans have no choice but leave CIR to die on the "TEA" poisoned vine.
All HR 15 needs is 27 more House members to sign that discharge petition. And the 30 or so House Republicans who have been asked to sign the discharge petition should look at it this way: 27 may ultimately be the number that determines the future national viability of their Republican Party. Do they really want to be one of the 27 who stands in way of not only keeping American families together, but also keeping the Republican Party as an integral force in America's political system?
27. That's all HR 15 needs for a House floor vote. So why won't House Republicans just release 27 members from their caucus in order to save not just CIR, but also their own party?
Monday, April 14, 2014
Why Republicans Probably Won't Pick @LV2016
Every so often, a certain local journalist and media pundit (cough- Jon Ralston- cough) has been begging national Republicans to bring the 2016 Republican National Convention to Las Vegas. He's certainly tried his best to promote our region to Republicans and make a convincing case why "The Entertainment Capital of the World" should host what may be the most entertaining political party event ever. Unfortunately for Ralston, most Republicans don't want to listen to his case.
But why is that? Ralston has made many good points. The Strip has plenty of quality lodging, dining, and entertainment options. Nevada will likely be a key Swing State that cycle. And Southern Nevada has become a diverse society that would serve as the perfect backdrop for the Republicans' big party.
Unfortunately for Ralston (and all other @LV2016 boosters), the G-O-TEA Culture Warriors strongly object to this. And why's that? Oh, our lodging, dining, and entertainment options threaten their "Judeo-Christian values". In fact, our "entertainment" is so wicked & sinful that it corrupted poor Rep. Vance McAllister (R-Louisiana) from thousands of miles away! (/snark)
And it's not just our lack of "moral values" that will likely prevent "Sin City" from hosting the 2016 Republican National Convention. There's also the matter of the entire Nevada Republican Party's lack of common decency and common sense. Last week, state & local G-O-TEA politicians rushed to sing the praises of Cliven Bundy violating federal law at Gold Butte. They also tacitly endorsed outside G-O-TEA groups meddling in #BundyRanch to the point of encouraging armed conflict with federal public servants who were just attempting to enforce the law.
But wait, there's more. Republicans just concluded their convention... The 2014 Nevada Republican Party Convention, that is. And while most delegates decided to cast a few votes in favor of the 21st century, they nonetheless decided to spurn the Governor they just endorsed for reelection by rejecting nearly all his preferred candidates in other races up & down the ballot. And even after they endorsed a new platform, they're still fighting each other over it!
But hey, at least they agreed to endorse Sue Lowden for Lt. Governor.
Apparently, all of this finally weighed on Jon Ralston as he prepared to say farewell to his fantasy of the 2016 Republican National Convention playing out in his back yard...
Except that he forgot to mention Nevada Republicans' other great shining moment from last week.
Hillary Clinton may have had a shoe thrown at her, but Republicans are ultimately throwing away whatever chance they have left of defeating her in 2016 by embracing so much crazy. And this visual must be terrifying those in charge of the Republican National Committee.
This is why Republicans probably won't pick Las Vegas to host their 2016 national convention. While Southern Nevada is home to a diverse electorate who likely resembles the future of America, "Republican rebranding" has accomplished nothing but the repeat of the same old lame excuses of why the G-O-TEA base rejects 21st century America. And even though Nevada is a key state that Republicans need to win more often in order to remain a nationally relevant party, the Nevada Republican Party long ago lost interest in winning elections as it's pursued ideological "purity" to the point of endorsing "Chickens for Checkups" and armed anarchy. Southern Nevada can all too easily remind everyone of why the Republican Party has become radically out of touch with the mainstream electorate, and this is why the Republican National Committee will likely "rebrand" itself into a convention somewhere else.
(Sorry, Jon Ralston.)
But why is that? Ralston has made many good points. The Strip has plenty of quality lodging, dining, and entertainment options. Nevada will likely be a key Swing State that cycle. And Southern Nevada has become a diverse society that would serve as the perfect backdrop for the Republicans' big party.
Unfortunately for Ralston (and all other @LV2016 boosters), the G-O-TEA Culture Warriors strongly object to this. And why's that? Oh, our lodging, dining, and entertainment options threaten their "Judeo-Christian values". In fact, our "entertainment" is so wicked & sinful that it corrupted poor Rep. Vance McAllister (R-Louisiana) from thousands of miles away! (/snark)
And it's not just our lack of "moral values" that will likely prevent "Sin City" from hosting the 2016 Republican National Convention. There's also the matter of the entire Nevada Republican Party's lack of common decency and common sense. Last week, state & local G-O-TEA politicians rushed to sing the praises of Cliven Bundy violating federal law at Gold Butte. They also tacitly endorsed outside G-O-TEA groups meddling in #BundyRanch to the point of encouraging armed conflict with federal public servants who were just attempting to enforce the law.
But wait, there's more. Republicans just concluded their convention... The 2014 Nevada Republican Party Convention, that is. And while most delegates decided to cast a few votes in favor of the 21st century, they nonetheless decided to spurn the Governor they just endorsed for reelection by rejecting nearly all his preferred candidates in other races up & down the ballot. And even after they endorsed a new platform, they're still fighting each other over it!
But hey, at least they agreed to endorse Sue Lowden for Lt. Governor.
Apparently, all of this finally weighed on Jon Ralston as he prepared to say farewell to his fantasy of the 2016 Republican National Convention playing out in his back yard...
"Thanks to #BundyRanch and @NVGOP folks for providing great advertisement today why @LV2016 should happen. Thanks, geniuses."
Except that he forgot to mention Nevada Republicans' other great shining moment from last week.
Hillary Clinton may have had a shoe thrown at her, but Republicans are ultimately throwing away whatever chance they have left of defeating her in 2016 by embracing so much crazy. And this visual must be terrifying those in charge of the Republican National Committee.
This is why Republicans probably won't pick Las Vegas to host their 2016 national convention. While Southern Nevada is home to a diverse electorate who likely resembles the future of America, "Republican rebranding" has accomplished nothing but the repeat of the same old lame excuses of why the G-O-TEA base rejects 21st century America. And even though Nevada is a key state that Republicans need to win more often in order to remain a nationally relevant party, the Nevada Republican Party long ago lost interest in winning elections as it's pursued ideological "purity" to the point of endorsing "Chickens for Checkups" and armed anarchy. Southern Nevada can all too easily remind everyone of why the Republican Party has become radically out of touch with the mainstream electorate, and this is why the Republican National Committee will likely "rebrand" itself into a convention somewhere else.
(Sorry, Jon Ralston.)
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Lessons Learned?
Apparently, this is becoming the hot topic of this election cycle. We've already been discussing the reality behind the Koch Brothers' extreme ideological agenda, as well as the great lengths they're going to amass power on Capitol Hill.
However, they're not alone. They're not the only "TEA Party, Inc." aligned billionaires who spend tons of moneybuying candidates influencing elections. And now, a character who's rather familiar to us here in Nevada is preparing to reemerge.
Remember Sheldon Adelson? He's back! And this time, he's looking for a new candidate tobuy back.
This week, Adelson has summoned 4 likely 2016 Republican Presidential candidates tokiss his ring meet him at the Republican Jewish Coalition spring meeting here in Vegas. And so far, it looks like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R), New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R), Ohio Governor John Kasich (R), and Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) will be accepting Adelson's invitation. But why, why is Adelson courting these 4 Republicans?
According to Adelson BFF (& 2011 Las Vegas Mayoral candidate) Victor Chaltiel, "He doesn’t want a crazy extremist to be the nominee." Instead, he wants a less "crazy/extreme looking" G-O-TEA lackey to carry his water and do so competently. Apparently, Adelson learned his lesson after bankrolling Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in 2012.
And now, Adelson wants to teach his party a lesson. Not only is he afraid of Hillary Clinton, but he's also afraid of his own party's base. And more specifically, he's afraid ofRon Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) rallying the G-O-TEA base to take the Republican Party in a more "libertarian populist" (aka batsh*t crazy "TEA" flavored) direction.
Apparently, Sheldon Adelson hasn't really learned his lessons from 2012. He's still shopping for damaged goods. And he's still picking nasty fights with the Paulistas. And both of these big mistakes will likely return to bite him, just as they did in 2012.
But in the mean time, let's think about the ramifications of Adelson starting another political spending spree. Last we checked, Las Vegas Sands is still facing legal trouble over its shady business operations in China. Meanwhile here in the states, Adelson's newest front group is catching scrutiny over its curious campaign to kill legal online gaming. And now, he wants to buy another Presidential candidate? When did this become "normal politics"?
And when will we develop the courage necessary to change this new, dangerous reality? Perhaps there are still lessons we must learn about money in politics?
However, they're not alone. They're not the only "TEA Party, Inc." aligned billionaires who spend tons of money
Remember Sheldon Adelson? He's back! And this time, he's looking for a new candidate to
This week, Adelson has summoned 4 likely 2016 Republican Presidential candidates to
According to Adelson BFF (& 2011 Las Vegas Mayoral candidate) Victor Chaltiel, "He doesn’t want a crazy extremist to be the nominee." Instead, he wants a less "crazy/extreme looking" G-O-TEA lackey to carry his water and do so competently. Apparently, Adelson learned his lesson after bankrolling Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in 2012.
And now, Adelson wants to teach his party a lesson. Not only is he afraid of Hillary Clinton, but he's also afraid of his own party's base. And more specifically, he's afraid of
Apparently, Sheldon Adelson hasn't really learned his lessons from 2012. He's still shopping for damaged goods. And he's still picking nasty fights with the Paulistas. And both of these big mistakes will likely return to bite him, just as they did in 2012.
But in the mean time, let's think about the ramifications of Adelson starting another political spending spree. Last we checked, Las Vegas Sands is still facing legal trouble over its shady business operations in China. Meanwhile here in the states, Adelson's newest front group is catching scrutiny over its curious campaign to kill legal online gaming. And now, he wants to buy another Presidential candidate? When did this become "normal politics"?
And when will we develop the courage necessary to change this new, dangerous reality? Perhaps there are still lessons we must learn about money in politics?
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Sharron's Siren Songs
At least he's trying. Even as the rest of the Nevada Republican Party drives quickly into Crazytown, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) continues to steer clear of the Sea of "TEA". And he continues trying to "soften" his party's image, even as other prominent Nevada G-O-TEA politicians continue drinking more hard "TEA" from their 21st Century Know Nothing base.
Today, Governor Sandoval wants to let the world know that he won't make life easy for 2016 Presidential Candidates campaigning in Nevada if they don't pledge to turn the proposed Interstate 11 (I-11) Freeway into a reality. For years, officials in Nevada and Arizona have discussed a potential freeway linking Reno, Las Vegas, and Phoenix. But when The Great Recession first hit, the proposal started collecting dust. But now, Governor Sandoval wants to use what he sees as his bully pulpit to turn I-11 from a few patches of road improvements into a fully developed multi-lane freeway.
Of course, there's a problem with Governor Sandoval's plan to add Southwestern infrastructure to the 2016 campaign narrative. That's problem just happens to be Sandoval's own Republican Party. While he's begging G-O-TEA 2016 contenders to talk about infrastructure, a leading G-O-TEA 2016 contender continues to obsess over Former President Bill Clinton's sex life during the 1990s. No, we're not kidding on this.
But wait, there's more! Two other leading G-O-TEA 2016 contenders (and sitting Governors) are bickering over whose scandal looks worse. And they'll all have to keep up with their G-O-TEA base on such important matters as banning abortions because of racial stereotypes, taking seriously a washed up D-List celebrity who keeps his name in the news by making even more outrageous accusations of President Obama, rewriting the history of The Civil War, and espousing long ago discredited theories of "nullifying federal law".
Unfortunately for Brian Sandoval, the above mentioned "SCANDALZZZ!!!!" full of crazy show far greater appeal to the G-O-TEA base than an interstate highway that millions of Americans in this region might actually put into good use. And since his party long ago decided to ditch sound economics for austerity laced voodoo, that just makes Sandoval's case to his own party for more federal investment that much tougher.
While a number of Nevada Republicans throw the "RINO" label around when describing Brian Sandoval, we prefer using this label: LINO, or "leader in name only". Why? Even though certain Republican consultants in DC and media pundits in DC & Las Vegas tout Sandoval as a "rising star & Republican leader", he can't lead his own party out of paper bag. Sure, he'd like to lead them out of a paper bag... But since the G-O-TEA base demands that they stay in the paper bag in order to remain "pure", they stay in the paper bag.
Try as he might, we doubt Governor Sandoval will go far in his effort to make the Nevada Republican Party seem relevant again. As long as they listen to Sharron Angle's siren songs, they'll keep tuning him out. And as long as national G-O-TEA politicians keep listening to her siren songs (which are heavily promoted by the voters they're competing for) as well, they'll also tune him out.
Today, Governor Sandoval wants to let the world know that he won't make life easy for 2016 Presidential Candidates campaigning in Nevada if they don't pledge to turn the proposed Interstate 11 (I-11) Freeway into a reality. For years, officials in Nevada and Arizona have discussed a potential freeway linking Reno, Las Vegas, and Phoenix. But when The Great Recession first hit, the proposal started collecting dust. But now, Governor Sandoval wants to use what he sees as his bully pulpit to turn I-11 from a few patches of road improvements into a fully developed multi-lane freeway.
Of course, there's a problem with Governor Sandoval's plan to add Southwestern infrastructure to the 2016 campaign narrative. That's problem just happens to be Sandoval's own Republican Party. While he's begging G-O-TEA 2016 contenders to talk about infrastructure, a leading G-O-TEA 2016 contender continues to obsess over Former President Bill Clinton's sex life during the 1990s. No, we're not kidding on this.
But wait, there's more! Two other leading G-O-TEA 2016 contenders (and sitting Governors) are bickering over whose scandal looks worse. And they'll all have to keep up with their G-O-TEA base on such important matters as banning abortions because of racial stereotypes, taking seriously a washed up D-List celebrity who keeps his name in the news by making even more outrageous accusations of President Obama, rewriting the history of The Civil War, and espousing long ago discredited theories of "nullifying federal law".
Unfortunately for Brian Sandoval, the above mentioned "SCANDALZZZ!!!!" full of crazy show far greater appeal to the G-O-TEA base than an interstate highway that millions of Americans in this region might actually put into good use. And since his party long ago decided to ditch sound economics for austerity laced voodoo, that just makes Sandoval's case to his own party for more federal investment that much tougher.
While a number of Nevada Republicans throw the "RINO" label around when describing Brian Sandoval, we prefer using this label: LINO, or "leader in name only". Why? Even though certain Republican consultants in DC and media pundits in DC & Las Vegas tout Sandoval as a "rising star & Republican leader", he can't lead his own party out of paper bag. Sure, he'd like to lead them out of a paper bag... But since the G-O-TEA base demands that they stay in the paper bag in order to remain "pure", they stay in the paper bag.
Try as he might, we doubt Governor Sandoval will go far in his effort to make the Nevada Republican Party seem relevant again. As long as they listen to Sharron Angle's siren songs, they'll keep tuning him out. And as long as national G-O-TEA politicians keep listening to her siren songs (which are heavily promoted by the voters they're competing for) as well, they'll also tune him out.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
No Means No
It isn't new, far from it. We've seen it happen time and time again. And we're seeing even more of it now.
We saw it happen to Assembly Member Lucy Flores (D-North Las Vegas) last year. We saw it happen to Sandra Fluke two years ago. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) went there last month. And Wall Street Journal columnist James Toranto is going there today.
Except that James Toranto does believe men should be treated differently. He obviously doesn't support efforts to "criminalize male sexuality". And as long as a woman is also drunk, a drunk man has free reign to "do what he wants" with those "blurred lines".
Once again, we're seeing how slut shaming is used to silence those who criticize Rape Culture and its pernicious infiltration into mainstream culture. "Oh, but she wanted it! She was drunk. And she was probably scantily clad as well. And she likely has sex with lots of men all the time. She wanted it, so how dare she complain!"
Here's an easy rule of thumb when it comes to determining rape: No means no. If someone has not provided consent, then forcing oneself onto that person is rape. It's really that simple.
This is why it's incredibly difficult to take seriously those G-O-TEA politicians when they claim there's no War on Women. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has even gone as far as claim Democrats have a "woman problem". And why's that? Oh, he's rehashing then President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. No, we're not even kidding.
Never mind the G-O-TEA's obsession with "legitimate rape". Never mind their campaign to kill the Violence Against Women Act. And never mind the ongoing G-O-TEA attacks on women's reproductive health care. No, the real threat to American women is Hillary Clinton, her husband, and the affair she drove him into committing nearly two decades ago. (Obviously, we're kidding here. #snark)
Today, James Toranto and Rand Paul reminded us that the War on Women still rages on. According to their army of G-O-TEA Culture Warriors, consensual extramarital sex threatens to destroy the world... But rape "isn't really rape" if both parties are drunk. They've yet to understand that at the end of the day, no means no.
We saw it happen to Assembly Member Lucy Flores (D-North Las Vegas) last year. We saw it happen to Sandra Fluke two years ago. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) went there last month. And Wall Street Journal columnist James Toranto is going there today.
Working off a piece in the New York Times, Taranto highlighted an incident last year at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where a young man named Matt Martel prevented his intoxicated male friend from sleeping with a drunk female student. The young woman thanked Martel the next day, which apparently left Taranto baffled.
Taranto just doesn't think men and women — physical disparities, be damned — should be treated differently in such cases if both parties are drunk.
Taranto is a reliable soldier in what he's called the "war on men." He wrote last June that Democrats such as Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) were trying to "criminalize male sexuality" in their efforts to eliminate sexual assault from the military. McCaskill promptly shot back at Taranto's "bizarre and deeply out of touch understanding of sexual assault."
Except that James Toranto does believe men should be treated differently. He obviously doesn't support efforts to "criminalize male sexuality". And as long as a woman is also drunk, a drunk man has free reign to "do what he wants" with those "blurred lines".
Once again, we're seeing how slut shaming is used to silence those who criticize Rape Culture and its pernicious infiltration into mainstream culture. "Oh, but she wanted it! She was drunk. And she was probably scantily clad as well. And she likely has sex with lots of men all the time. She wanted it, so how dare she complain!"
Here's an easy rule of thumb when it comes to determining rape: No means no. If someone has not provided consent, then forcing oneself onto that person is rape. It's really that simple.
This is why it's incredibly difficult to take seriously those G-O-TEA politicians when they claim there's no War on Women. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has even gone as far as claim Democrats have a "woman problem". And why's that? Oh, he's rehashing then President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. No, we're not even kidding.
Never mind the G-O-TEA's obsession with "legitimate rape". Never mind their campaign to kill the Violence Against Women Act. And never mind the ongoing G-O-TEA attacks on women's reproductive health care. No, the real threat to American women is Hillary Clinton, her husband, and the affair she drove him into committing nearly two decades ago. (Obviously, we're kidding here. #snark)
Today, James Toranto and Rand Paul reminded us that the War on Women still rages on. According to their army of G-O-TEA Culture Warriors, consensual extramarital sex threatens to destroy the world... But rape "isn't really rape" if both parties are drunk. They've yet to understand that at the end of the day, no means no.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Double Down?
Last week, it was thrust back into the spotlight. A state and a hospital were refusing to grant a woman her last wish. A former Governor declared that women must do better at "controlling their libidos". And a number of G-O-TEA pundits (including a couple former Members of Congress) have resorted to blaming women for everything from extramarital affairs to "bad parenting" (for daring to work outside the home).
Oh, yes. That's right. The G-O-TEA War on Women rages on, and it shows no signs of letting up any time soon.
Not only have they been sinking to new lows to attack progressives who dare to challenge their assertion that "family values" require devaluing women, but they're even resorting to attacking their own. Why? Even when they claim the War on Women is over, they keep fighting. Why is that? Why are they so determined to insult American women again and again and again and again?
Is this what we're to expect from the Republican Party going forward? Is this the inevitable conclusion of their "rebranding campaign"?
Believe it or not, Rand Paul now stands a real chance at becoming Republicans' 2016 Presidential Nominee. It remains to be seen whether his recent War on Women remarks will make more Republicans uncomfortable with his likely candidcacy... Or if this will only strengthen his appeal with the 21st Century Know Nothings who comprise the base of today's Republican Party.
And it remains to be seen how much longer these G-O-TEA politicians will continue their War on Women. Will they ever realize the folly of antagonizing over 50% of the nation? Or will they try doubling down (yet again) all the way to Las Vegas in 2016?
Oh, yes. That's right. The G-O-TEA War on Women rages on, and it shows no signs of letting up any time soon.
Not only have they been sinking to new lows to attack progressives who dare to challenge their assertion that "family values" require devaluing women, but they're even resorting to attacking their own. Why? Even when they claim the War on Women is over, they keep fighting. Why is that? Why are they so determined to insult American women again and again and again and again?
Is this what we're to expect from the Republican Party going forward? Is this the inevitable conclusion of their "rebranding campaign"?
But on the self-pitying right, you can never lose by blaming the media for coddling awful Democrats. [Senator Rand] Paul’s [R-Kentucky] brilliant declaration about women winning the war on women was likewise fact-challenged and paranoid. “I don’t see so much that women are downtrodden. I see women rising up and doing great things,” he told David Gregory. “In fact, I worry about our young men sometimes because I think the women are out-competing the men in our world.”
Never mind that women still make less than men and are more likely to live in poverty. Even more cruelly, the man who opposes legal abortion and the contraception-coverage mandate also suggested last Thursday that women who have “too many” children should lose welfare support. “Maybe we have to say, ‘Enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount,’” Paul said Thursday. He backed off a bit on CNN Sunday morning, telling Candy Crowley: “I mused about how you’d have a government policy, but I actually came down saying it would be very difficult to have a government policy,” Paul said.
Only last week reasonably smart people declared that Paul was the beneficiary of Chris Christie’s implosion. The Atlantic’s Peter Beinart called him the new “front-runner,” and Andrew Sullivan endorsed Beinart’s piece, tweeting, “Those who dismiss Rand Paul’s chances are missing something, I think — a revival of true small-gov’t conservatism.”
Believe it or not, Rand Paul now stands a real chance at becoming Republicans' 2016 Presidential Nominee. It remains to be seen whether his recent War on Women remarks will make more Republicans uncomfortable with his likely candidcacy... Or if this will only strengthen his appeal with the 21st Century Know Nothings who comprise the base of today's Republican Party.
And it remains to be seen how much longer these G-O-TEA politicians will continue their War on Women. Will they ever realize the folly of antagonizing over 50% of the nation? Or will they try doubling down (yet again) all the way to Las Vegas in 2016?
Friday, August 30, 2013
All Drama, No Responsibility
Round and round and round, we go. Where we'll land, nobody knows? Fall is fast approaching, so the G-O-TEA must manufacture a new crisis!
However, this manufactured crisis isn't actually new. Once again, the G-O-TEA gang are threatening a debt ceiling fiasco, federal government shutdown, and economic catastrophe all rolled into one. And now that the Senate Republicans who were thought to be interested in a budget deal are now walking away, we're likely in for another month of fiscal histrionics in September.
And of course, this also means House Republicans have a haute new excuse to kill comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). And so far, they look to be taking this path. And only that, but they're facing "TEA" tinged threats if they don't kill CIR.
Oh, yes. That's right. He went there.
And because Senator Rand Paul is also running for President in 2016, he is pandering hard to the 21st Century Know Nothings who comprise the contemporary Republican Party base. So of course, he has to set his hair on fire and threaten other Republicans who even utter any type of willingness to consider CIR. And of course, he has to condemn any attempt to pull his party away from his beloved cliff full of drama.
As we've discussed before, House Republicans are hoping to score a "two-fer"... No, make it a "three-fer". They're looking for an excuse to kill CIR, an excuse to force more austerity down Americans' throats, and something they can twist to embarrass President Obama. And right now, they think they found their hol(e)y three-fer with their latest and greatest manufactured crisis.
So much for Congressional Republicans demanding personal responsibility... (Why don't they ever take any?)
However, this manufactured crisis isn't actually new. Once again, the G-O-TEA gang are threatening a debt ceiling fiasco, federal government shutdown, and economic catastrophe all rolled into one. And now that the Senate Republicans who were thought to be interested in a budget deal are now walking away, we're likely in for another month of fiscal histrionics in September.
And of course, this also means House Republicans have a haute new excuse to kill comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). And so far, they look to be taking this path. And only that, but they're facing "TEA" tinged threats if they don't kill CIR.
"He has to hold the line. If he passes -- if he allows something to pass out of conference that looks anything like the Senate bill, and it is passed with a majority of Democrats, I think that will be the final thing he does as Speaker," [Senator Rand] Paul [R-Kentucky] told Laura Ingraham's radio show on Friday. "I think he knows that, and I think he's going to be very cautious." [...]
"I'm worried about conference," he said. "And what I would say is, the only way to avoid a problem with conference is for the Speaker of the House to say we are not going to conference and we will not allow a vote on anything coming out of conference that resembles a vote on the Senate bill."
Oh, yes. That's right. He went there.
And because Senator Rand Paul is also running for President in 2016, he is pandering hard to the 21st Century Know Nothings who comprise the contemporary Republican Party base. So of course, he has to set his hair on fire and threaten other Republicans who even utter any type of willingness to consider CIR. And of course, he has to condemn any attempt to pull his party away from his beloved cliff full of drama.
As we've discussed before, House Republicans are hoping to score a "two-fer"... No, make it a "three-fer". They're looking for an excuse to kill CIR, an excuse to force more austerity down Americans' throats, and something they can twist to embarrass President Obama. And right now, they think they found their hol(e)y three-fer with their latest and greatest manufactured crisis.
So much for Congressional Republicans demanding personal responsibility... (Why don't they ever take any?)
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
"Unbelievable Chutzpah"
Every so often, we're reminded (again) of the incredible sweetheart deal Apple now enjoys here in Nevada. Even as Apple (mis)uses Nevada to avoid paying (California) state and federal taxes, the tech giant has scored an $89 million shroud of legitimacy here. Yet while Apple basks in the glory of its Nevada sweetheart deal, the company faces increasing scrutiny from Members of Congress.
At that hearing earlier today, Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle were horrified... But one still wanted his daily Apple.
Now to be fair, Senator Paul has one valid point. Congress has allowed the corporate taxation regime to fall into a mound of Swiss Cheese as multinational corporations like Apple exploit countless loopholes to avoid paying taxes. But of course, from there Senator Paul's rant descended into pure nonsense. Yes, Apple's "legal" tax evasion truly is a problem.
And as we've discussed before, this is a serious problem. After all, taxes are the price we pay for civilization. So when corporations like Apple exploit numerous loopholes to stiff the feds (and the states), we can expect less civilization.
Across the nation, school districts are being forced to shut down schools "thanks" to recent state and federal budget cuts. And here in Nevada, the state faces a possible law suit for chronic underfunding of public education. Even Nevada State Board of Education President Elaine Wynn recently admitted, "We are grossly underfunded." Schools continue to fall apart, classrooms continue to overflow, teachers continue to face constant threats from administration, and students continue to suffer.
And why? So that Apple and other multinational corporations can engage in "legal" tax evasion? So that their executives can bask in the glory of slightly bigger profit margins? How is this helping any one? Think about it.
Congressional investigators found that some of Apple’s subsidiaries had no employees and were largely run by top officials from the company’s headquarters in Cupertino, Calif. But by officially locating them in places like Ireland, Apple was able to, in effect, make them stateless — exempt from taxes, record-keeping laws and the need for the subsidiaries to even file tax returns anywhere in the world.
“Apple wasn’t satisfied with shifting its profits to a low-tax offshore tax haven,” said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that is holding the public hearing Tuesday into Apple’s use of tax havens. “Apple successfully sought the holy grail of tax avoidance. It has created offshore entities holding tens of billions of dollars while claiming to be tax resident nowhere.”
Thanks to what lawmakers called “gimmicks” and “schemes,” Apple was able to largely sidestep taxes on tens of billions of dollars it earned outside the United States in recent years. Last year, international operations accounted for 61 percent of Apple’s total revenue.
At that hearing earlier today, Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle were horrified... But one still wanted his daily Apple.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
"If anyone should be on trial here, it should be Congress," [Senator Rand] Paul [R-Kentucky] declared. "I frankly think the committee should apologize to Apple.... I would say what we really need to do is to apologize to Apple, compliment them for the job creation they are doing, and get about doing our job.
Nearly three years ago, after much of the country -- and much of Congress -- was condemning BP for the massive Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) apologized to the oil giant, saying it was wrong for Washington to try to hold the company responsible for its failures.
And now, it's Rand Paul wanting to apologize to Apple for questioning its tax-avoidance schemes. Amazing.
Now to be fair, Senator Paul has one valid point. Congress has allowed the corporate taxation regime to fall into a mound of Swiss Cheese as multinational corporations like Apple exploit countless loopholes to avoid paying taxes. But of course, from there Senator Paul's rant descended into pure nonsense. Yes, Apple's "legal" tax evasion truly is a problem.
Paul aside, the bipartisan tone was one of assailing Apple for using Ireland-based shell companies to avoid U.S. corporate income tax. Said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the subcommittee: “The offshore tax-avoidance tactics spotlighted by the subcommittee do real harm. They disadvantage domestic U.S. companies that aren’t in a position to reduce their tax bills using offshore tax gimmicks. They offload Apple’s tax burden onto other taxpayers – in particular, onto working families and small businesses. The lost tax revenue feeds a budget deficit that has reached troubling proportions, and has helped lead to round after round of budget slashing and the ill-advised sequestration now threatening our economic recovery.”
And ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) added, “Apple’s corporate tax strategy reflects a flawed corporate tax system that allows large multinational corporations to shift profits offshore to low-tax jurisdictions. For years, Apple has opted to forgo fully contributing to the U.S. treasury and to American society by shifting profits and circumventing U.S. taxes. In the last four years alone, Apple has avoided paying taxes on $44 billion in income.”
And as we've discussed before, this is a serious problem. After all, taxes are the price we pay for civilization. So when corporations like Apple exploit numerous loopholes to stiff the feds (and the states), we can expect less civilization.
Stuffing revenue in some low-tax, high-privacy bank in the Caribbean? 'Bout as forward-thinking as a Blackberry. Apple, as the New York Times reported today, uses nothing less than the iPhone 5 of tax havens, exploiting the loopholes of the international tax system in such a way that billions of dollars in profits have not been listed in any tax filing anywhere.
At the center of the operation is an Ireland-based subsidiary called Apple Operations International, which collected $30 billion in income between 2009 and 2012. Over the last five years, Apple Operations International has not filed a tax return in any country.
As USC law professor Edward Kleinbard told the Times, "There is a technical term economists like to use for behavior like this: Unbelievable chutzpah."
The revelations about Apple's tax strategies emerged from a Congressional investigation into the company's finances. The examination found that Apple "shifted at least $74 billion from the reach of the Internal Revenue Service between 2009 and 2012," according to the Times. The most startling discovery, though, was in how Apple's tax plan was so effective. [...]
Every dollar Apple saves, of course, is a dollar that doesn't go into America's public bank account. Which means one less dollar to go into education or health care or some other government service; or one more dollar to be pulled from somebody's paycheck. While Apple's revenues make it among the country's largest tax-payers, the Congressional investigation reported that the Silicon Valley giant paid a tax rate of 20.1 percent, which is four to 12 percent lower than it lists in its disclosures.
Across the nation, school districts are being forced to shut down schools "thanks" to recent state and federal budget cuts. And here in Nevada, the state faces a possible law suit for chronic underfunding of public education. Even Nevada State Board of Education President Elaine Wynn recently admitted, "We are grossly underfunded." Schools continue to fall apart, classrooms continue to overflow, teachers continue to face constant threats from administration, and students continue to suffer.
And why? So that Apple and other multinational corporations can engage in "legal" tax evasion? So that their executives can bask in the glory of slightly bigger profit margins? How is this helping any one? Think about it.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
NV-Sen: "Extreme Makeover: Sharrontology Edition"? Don't Believe It!
(And btw, if you want to learn more about the radical right "laissez faire" philosophy driving Sharrontology and "her suitors" pulling the strings behind the scenes, Desert Beacon has more essential reading for us today.)
So Jon Ralston is now amazed by the transformation of Sharrontology Obtuse Angle. Is she suddenly now "mainstream"? Is she suddenly someone Nevada voters want to support?
This is what the national GOoP is hoping for. That's why they're trying to hide Tea Nut Queen Sharrontology, along with Tea Nut King "Ayn" Rand Paul, from public scrutiny.
Now this is what they're afraid of. The GOoPers are afraid of us learning about the truth of Sharrontology and what she really wants.
No wonder why the DC GOoPers are afraid of us "unwashed at home". They don't want us "unwashed masses" realizing the trick they're trying to pull on us with Sharrontology.
Whoops! Did they let it slip who's really running Tea Party, Inc.? Did they reveal, just for a moment, who's pulling the strings of the Sharrontology campaign marionette?
And remember, they're trying to make you, me, Ralston, and everyone else in Nevada forget about the real Sharrontology Obtuse Angle...
So she can slip in, and they can resume what they started under George Bush's Presidency, which was the redistribution of wealth and power from the working class majority to a few ultra-wealthy elitists. Yes, you heard me right. Tea Party, Inc., may claim to be "populist", but what they're really about is anything but. Tea Party, Inc., is really the "front group" for the very corporate powers that be that caused The Great Recession we're just starting to get out of.
Don't believe me? Follow the money trail. And see who's running it. Behind the smoke and mirrors of "the grassroots army" are corporate titans like Koch Industries (infamous for funding radical right groups, see Desert Beacon to learn about what they believe), GOoP operative (and former House Majority Leader) Dick Armey, corporate lobbyists, the Wall Street powers that be, the insurance industry, and so much more.
So this is what it's really all about... But shhh, the national GOoP doesn't want us to know. They think an "extreme makeover" of Tea Party, Inc., along with their preferred candidates like Sharrontology Obtuse Angle and "Ayn" Rand Paul, will be just enough to dupe us into letting them have their way. Let's prove them wrong!
So Jon Ralston is now amazed by the transformation of Sharrontology Obtuse Angle. Is she suddenly now "mainstream"? Is she suddenly someone Nevada voters want to support?
This is what the national GOoP is hoping for. That's why they're trying to hide Tea Nut Queen Sharrontology, along with Tea Nut King "Ayn" Rand Paul, from public scrutiny.
It's no accident or coincidence that Republicans in Washington are trying to shield Senate candidates Rand Paul and Sharron Angle from the national, and even local, press.
Remember the GOP establishment didn't want these far-right, insurgent candidates in the first place, and now Republicans fear that in the year of the tea party, Paul and Angle could become the face of the party for the midterm elections. That could present an image to voters that screams radical more than it does electable.
Each time Paul or Angle stray from party talking points by promoting Social Security privatization, abolishing the Department of Education or backtracking on the Civil Rights Act, more moderate Republican candidates have to field questions about whether they agree on those issues. And every day that the Republicans are having to defend themselves against those questions is a day they lose, rather than focusing it on the economy, Obama, and the Democrats' agenda.
Now this is what they're afraid of. The GOoPers are afraid of us learning about the truth of Sharrontology and what she really wants.
The Alliance for Retired Americans, an AFL-CIO-affiliated group, has been staging a series of events of senior citizens throughout the state. An event was held outside of an Angle campaign office late last week, and a demonstration also occurred at the state Republican headquarters this week. Another event was also held Wednesday, at the Cambridge Community Center in Las Vegas, and another event is set for Thursday in Sparks.
We asked Alliance spokesperson Laura Markwardt about the organization's push going forward. "It's definitely a big issue for Nevada and nationally, as the senior population grows in this country," said Markwardt. "Sharron Angle's stances are obviously -- she's come out and said some very abrasive things, has some dangerous plans and would like to dismantle Social Security and Medicare."
During the primary campaign, Angle said that she wanted to phase out the two programs, for something private -- which the Reid campaign has already made into a TV ad. She also said that while details would have to be worked out on the manner of implementation for privatization, "The idea of privatizing and getting out of Medicare and Social Security is not up for grabs." [Emphasis mine.]
No wonder why the DC GOoPers are afraid of us "unwashed at home". They don't want us "unwashed masses" realizing the trick they're trying to pull on us with Sharrontology.
Yesterday, Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle “introduced herself to a very curious Senate Republican Conference” at their weekly caucus lunch. Apparently, the “Republicans walked away impressed.” “I hadn’t met her. I was impressed by what she had to say, and she did interact with several of our Members,” Sen. John Thune (R-SD) told Roll Call. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) said she “did a good job” and gave the kind of speech she wouldn’t “give to the unwashed back home” [...]
According to the dictionary, referring to the masses as “unwashed” is “derogatory.” Wiktionary says it refers to “The collective group (‘mass’) of people who are considered by someone to be somehow uneducated, uninformed, or in some other way unqualified for inclusion in the speaker’s elite circles.”
Whoops! Did they let it slip who's really running Tea Party, Inc.? Did they reveal, just for a moment, who's pulling the strings of the Sharrontology campaign marionette?
And remember, they're trying to make you, me, Ralston, and everyone else in Nevada forget about the real Sharrontology Obtuse Angle...
So she can slip in, and they can resume what they started under George Bush's Presidency, which was the redistribution of wealth and power from the working class majority to a few ultra-wealthy elitists. Yes, you heard me right. Tea Party, Inc., may claim to be "populist", but what they're really about is anything but. Tea Party, Inc., is really the "front group" for the very corporate powers that be that caused The Great Recession we're just starting to get out of.
Don't believe me? Follow the money trail. And see who's running it. Behind the smoke and mirrors of "the grassroots army" are corporate titans like Koch Industries (infamous for funding radical right groups, see Desert Beacon to learn about what they believe), GOoP operative (and former House Majority Leader) Dick Armey, corporate lobbyists, the Wall Street powers that be, the insurance industry, and so much more.
So this is what it's really all about... But shhh, the national GOoP doesn't want us to know. They think an "extreme makeover" of Tea Party, Inc., along with their preferred candidates like Sharrontology Obtuse Angle and "Ayn" Rand Paul, will be just enough to dupe us into letting them have their way. Let's prove them wrong!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)