White House ‘strongly objects’ to anti-LGBT defense bill, new LGBT bill fed contractors energy department, GOP is ‘rigging’ system to discriminate against LGBT people, Homo's death bible verse

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2016 1:30 AM GMT
    White House ‘strongly objects’ to anti-LGBT defense bill
    https://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/05/17/white-house-strongly-objects-to-defense-bill-over-anti-lgbt-component/


    Ahead of an expected vote in the U.S. House on major defense spending legislation, the White House is making clear it “strongly objects” a provision in the bill that would undermine President Obama’s executive order against anti-LGBT workplace discrimination among federal contractors. The White House Office of Management & Budget unveiled on Monday its Statement of Administration Policy, a formal document outlining the administration’s position on legislation pending before Congress, on the fiscal year 2017 defense authorization bill, which could come to a floor on the House floor as soon as Wednesday. The 17-page document signals President Obama would veto the bill. The administration objects to numerous provisions in the $583 billion package, including an amendment inserted by Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.) last month during committee markup that would undercut Obama’s executive order against anti-LGBT discrimination.

    Under a heading titled, “Exemptions to Civil Rights Laws,” the statement elaborates on the White House opposition to the provision, known as Section 1094, and says the administration “strongly objects” to it. “This Administration is committed to promoting equal employment opportunities for all Americans regardless of who they are or who they love while at the same time preserving longstanding safeguards in the law for religious liberty, including the religious exemption codified in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” the statement says. “In authorizing certain Federal awardees to discriminate in Government-funded jobs, section 1094 represents a step in the wrong direction for our country that will keep qualified American workers from being able to hold jobs funded by the American people.”

    Under questioning from Washington Blade on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest declined to say explicitly whether Obama would veto the defense authorization bill over the anti-LGBT language alone, but indicated that was case, calling the provision seeking to enable discrimination “perverse.”

    Because the measure would have the force of law, it would overrule the executive order signed by President Obama in 2014 prohibiting contractors doing more than $10,000 a year in business with the U.S. government from engaging in anti-LGBT discrimination against employees. The president included no religious exemption in his order, although he left in place a Bush-era exemption allowing religious organizations contracting with the U.S. government to favor co-religionists in hiring practices.

    The amendment provides an exemption for “any religious corporation, religious association, religious educational institution or religious society” contracting with the U.S. government. All of those terms are undefined in the amendment, but the lack of definition for “religious corporation” could allow courts to construe the term broadly to any federal contractor — not just religious organizations — in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in the Hobby Lobby case.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2016 1:54 AM GMT
    STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
    H.R. 4909 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
    (Rep. Thornberry, R-TX, and Rep. Smith, D-WA)

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr4909r_20160516.pdf

    If the President were presented with H.R. 4909, his senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill.


    Non-applicability of Certain Executive Orders to DOD and NNSA: The Administration strongly objects to section 1095, which would roll back important safeguards established by the President to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not reward corporations that break labor laws and thereby jeopardize the performance and cost of Federal contracting. These safeguards give Federal contracting officers the information they need to assess a contractor's record of integrity and assist contractors with significant labor violations in improving their labor law compliance. In doing so, these protections help ensure that law-abiding contractors do not have to compete with those who offer lower bids based on savings from skirting the law. The Administration is committed to working with contractors who invest in their workers' safety and maintain a fair and equitable workplace, and section 1095 would impede efforts that will bring efficiencies and cost savings to the Federal Government.

    Exemptions to Civil Rights Laws: The Administration strongly objects to section 1094, which would undermine important protections put in place by the President to ensure that Federal contractors and subcontractors do not engage in discriminatory employment practices. This Administration is committed to promoting equal employment opportunities for all Americans regardless of who they are or who they love while at the same time preserving longstanding safeguards in the law for religious liberty, including the religious exemption codified in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In authorizing certain Federal awardees to discriminate in Government-funded jobs, section 1094 represents a step in the wrong direction for our country that will keep qualified American workers from being able to hold jobs funded by the American people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2016 2:26 AM GMT
    Republicans, trying to skirt both these executive orders should be enough to veto bill and hold up the defense budget icon_twisted.gif


    H. R. 4909

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

    https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr4909/BILLS-114hr4909rh.pdf

    Pages 450 and 451

    SEC. 1094. PROTECTIONS RELATING TO CIVIL RIGHTS AND
    4 DISABILITIES.
    5 Any branch or agency of the Federal Government shall,
    6 with respect to any religious corporation, religious
    7 association, religious educational institution, or religious society
    8 that is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal Government
    9 contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or cooperative
    10 agreement, provide protections and exemptions consistent
    11 with sections 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act
    12 of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(e)(2))
    13 and section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act
    14 of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113(d)).

    15 SEC. 1095. NONAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN EXECUTIVE
    16 ORDER TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND
    17 NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
    19 The provisions of Executive Order 13673 (Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces) and any
    20 implementing rules or regulations shall not apply to the
    21 acquisition, contracting, contract administration, source
    22 selection, or any other activities of the Department of Defense
    23 or the National Nuclear Security Administration. The
    24 Secretary of Defense and the Administrator for Nuclear
    25 Security may not issue, or be required to comply with, any
    1 policy, guidance, or rules to carry out such executive order or
    2 otherwise implement any provision of such executive order
    3 or any related implementation rules or regulations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2016 2:44 AM GMT

    Interesting, these two executive orders go hand in hand icon_idea.gif



    Understanding the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order
    http://www.directemployers.org/2015/11/18/understanding-the-fair-pay-and-safe-workplaces-executive-order-part-1/

    As simple and straightforward as the concepts and philosophy underlying E.O. 13673 may be, the obligations imposed by E.O. 13673 are anything but simple or straightforward. Essentially E.O. 13673 requires contractors, at the time of bidding and then periodically on a semi-annual basis, to self-report on any “administrative merits determinations”, “arbitral awards or decisions” or “civil judgments” rendered against them or their subcontractors for violations of any of the following 14 federal labor laws and their state counterparts:
    •Fair Labor Standards Act
    •Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
    •Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
    •National Labor Relations Act
    •Davis-Bacon Act
    •Service Contract Act
    •Executive Order 11246
    •Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
    •Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
    •Family Medical Leave Act
    •Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    •The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
    •Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
    •Executive Order 13658

    With this information, government contracting officers are tasked with seeking feedback from “labor compliance advisors,” which are new officials to be designated at each enforcement agency/division responsible for the fourteen laws cited above. Labor compliance advisors are expected to be responsible as the point person, coordinator and advisor interpreting what each contractor’s self-reported labor law compliance record means. They are expected to have significant input into whether what each contractor has self-reported represents “serious, repeated, willful or pervasive” violations and whether effective remedial steps to correct violations have been taken. In a nutshell, labor compliance advisors at each relevant agency will advise contracting officers on what each contractor’s self-reported record of labor law compliance should mean to that contractor’s eligibility for large federal government contractor awards.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 7:07 AM GMT

    Interesting, this bill will pass the House but prob not the Senate, another fiscal showdown icon_mad.gif


    House GOP Refuses To Budge On Anti-LGBT Amendment In Defense Budget Bill
    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/05/18/3779536/house-defense-lgbt-amendment/


    Republican leaders in Congress have quashed a bipartisan attempt to remove the so-called Russell Amendment — a sweeping “religious liberty” provision that would allow federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT employees — from this year’s National Defense Authorization Act.

    The defense budget bill now heads to the floor of the House with the anti-LGBT language attached, prompting furious backlash from lawmakers, civil rights groups, and the Obama Administration.

    “It is simply stunning that House Republicans have decided to make targeting LGBT Americans a priority in the Defense Authorization bill,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) said in a statement.

    Pelosi criticized Republican leaders for not allowing a vote on the bipartisan move to reverse the amendment. “Speaker Ryan’s pledges of regular order, transparency, and openness continue to ring more hollow each and every day,” she concluded.

    The amendment would effectively overturn President Obama’s executive order protecting LGBT workers in federal contracts — what the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus described in a statement as "a signature victory of the LGBT equality movement." That order protected LGBT employment rights for 28 million people.

    Members of the caucus criticized the amendment’s sweeping language, which makes every contract, subcontract, grant, cooperative agreement, and purchase order awarded by every federal agency eligible for a “religious exemption” from the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Rep. Richard Hanna (R) told the Republican Congressional leaders that the amendment’s vague language “could be exploited as a license to discriminate against LGBT Americans by almost any federal contractor” — not just defense contractors.

    The Senate Committee on Armed Services has passed its own version of the bill but considered no such amendment. Even on the core issue of military spending, the Senate bill ​differs significantly from the House bill, which means the two will have to be resolved in conference.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 1:18 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    It's curious to see how porous is the system, that hate and bigotry and discrimination can wiggle its way into legislation.

    When I consider that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty", I probably more often think of vigilance as an action against an outside enemy but likely more often the greatest threat resides within.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 8:37 PM GMT
    Dem Lawmakers Shout ‘Shame!’ As GOP Scrambles To Save Anti-LGBT Provision

    Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney had the votes to sink the discriminatory measure. He was overruled.

    Look at the video. That asshole kept the vote open until he got what he wanted.



    GOD.



    DAMN.



    REPUBLICANS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 8:55 PM GMT
    holy shit are they scum!

    GOP SCUM

    FUCK REPUBLICANS
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    May 19, 2016 9:35 PM GMT
    Republicans are the party of hate. And poor governance. And stupid. And war. And fiscal insanity. And truly are becoming the antithesis of everything America stands for. I agree. Let's make America great again by destroying the Republican Party at the polls.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 9:45 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidRepublicans are the party of hate. And poor governance. And stupid. And war. And fiscal insanity. And truly are becoming the antithesis of everything America stands for. I agree. Let's make America great again by destroying the Republican Party at the polls.



    Naturally, the republican House voted this way today, they are just evil. The Senate has a different version and does not include the anti LGBT Russell Amendment. This will set up a fight with 2017 defense budget, I think the Senate has final say and passing the budget, not the House

    They are shameful, but nothing new, like a casino gambler icon_redface.gif


    Amid shouts of 'shame,' House GOP defeats gay rights measure
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/amid-shouts-shame-house-gop-defeats-gay-rights-163000520--politics.html

    Democrats shouted "Shame! Shame!," but seven Republicans switched their votes under pressure from House leaders Thursday and defeated a measure to protect gay rights.

    The final vote was 213-212 after the chaos on the House floor. That was enough to defeat an amendment by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., aimed at upholding an executive order that bars discrimination against LGBT employees by federal contractors.

    Maloney and other Democrats were incensed. "They literally snatched discrimination from the jaws of equality," Maloney said.

    He said he had approached Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., as McCarthy worked on GOP colleagues to vote against the measure. McCarthy told Maloney to get back on his side of the aisle.

    The vote for Maloney's amendment peaked at 217, beyond the majority needed for passage, before it began a sporadic decline. Members of the Republican leadership whose job is to round up needed votes were stalking the House aisles where GOP lawmakers seat, and they openly pleaded for support.

    "Need two more votes," Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., said loudly as he prowled among Republicans.

    Democrats were outraged, loudly chanting as their leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, yelled up from near the well of the House at her members, shouting at them to vote down the underlying bill.

    In the end, 29 Republicans joined 183 Democrats backing the gay rights amendment, but it was not enough.

    Democrats were quick to publicize the name of the Republican vote-switchers: Reps. Darrell Issa, Jeff Denham, David Valadao and Mimi Walters of California; Greg Walden of Oregon; Bruce Poliquin of Maine; and David Young of Iowa.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/house-lgbt-amendment-discrimination-fight-223366

    Amendment author Maloney was furious with Republicans for how they handled the floor fight over his offering. He singled out Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in particular for criticism, saying the number two House Republican personally lobbied GOP members to change their votes when it looked like Maloney's proposal would pass.

    "The leader [McCarthy] went around and twisted their arms, and they voted for discrimination," Maloney said. When Maloney complained directly to McCarthy, he said the majority leader told him "to get back on your own side."



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 11:23 PM GMT
    This is an unfortunate drawback. If members of their (Republican) own party can call "Bull$hit" on the conniving tactics used, that says something.
  • Allen

    Posts: 341

    May 20, 2016 8:48 AM GMT
    I'm surprised that some of the low-life gay Republicans who frequent here haven't posted to defend their actions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2016 9:50 AM GMT
    Destinharbor saidRepublicans are the party of hate. And poor governance. And stupid. And war. And fiscal insanity. And truly are becoming the antithesis of everything America stands for. I agree. Let's make America great again by destroying the Republican Party at the polls.


    Republicans have chosen their form of suicide. TRUMP.
  • Allen

    Posts: 341

    May 21, 2016 12:40 AM GMT
    Kickstartering said
    Destinharbor saidRepublicans are the party of hate. And poor governance. And stupid. And war. And fiscal insanity. And truly are becoming the antithesis of everything America stands for. I agree. Let's make America great again by destroying the Republican Party at the polls.


    Republicans have chosen their form of suicide. TRUMP.


    Sadly, I'm afraid that Trump has a really good chance of winning in November.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2016 4:37 PM GMT
    ELNathB said
    Interesting, these two executive orders go hand in hand icon_idea.gif



    Understanding the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order
    http://www.directemployers.org/2015/11/18/understanding-the-fair-pay-and-safe-workplaces-executive-order-part-1/

    As simple and straightforward as the concepts and philosophy underlying E.O. 13673 may be, the obligations imposed by E.O. 13673 are anything but simple or straightforward. Essentially E.O. 13673 requires contractors, at the time of bidding and then periodically on a semi-annual basis, to self-report on any “administrative merits determinations”, “arbitral awards or decisions” or “civil judgments” rendered against them or their subcontractors for violations of any of the following 14 federal labor laws and their state counterparts:
    •Fair Labor Standards Act
    •Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
    •Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
    •National Labor Relations Act
    •Davis-Bacon Act
    •Service Contract Act
    •Executive Order 11246
    •Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
    •Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
    •Family Medical Leave Act
    •Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    •The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
    •Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
    •Executive Order 13658

    With this information, government contracting officers are tasked with seeking feedback from “labor compliance advisors,” which are new officials to be designated at each enforcement agency/division responsible for the fourteen laws cited above. Labor compliance advisors are expected to be responsible as the point person, coordinator and advisor interpreting what each contractor’s self-reported labor law compliance record means. They are expected to have significant input into whether what each contractor has self-reported represents “serious, repeated, willful or pervasive” violations and whether effective remedial steps to correct violations have been taken. In a nutshell, labor compliance advisors at each relevant agency will advise contracting officers on what each contractor’s self-reported record of labor law compliance should mean to that contractor’s eligibility for large federal government contractor awards.




    icon_rolleyes.gificon_redface.gificon_twisted.gif


    House GOP: Standing with wage thieves
    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/280519-house-gop-standing-with-wage-thieves


    While millions of Americans are struggling to get by and sustain their families, Republicans are trying to make it easier for employers to steal their wages.

    Last month during Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, Representative John Kline inserted an amendment to block the President’s Fair Pay Safe Workplaces Executive Order at the Department of Defense. This Executive Order is the result of years of advocacy by workers, labor rights activists and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It helps ensure companies with federal contracts are following federal labor laws, like protections against wage theft and unsafe working conditions, and protecting the right for workers to organize.

    There are reports of millions of dollars in stolen wages and penalties from government contractors. Now, the President’s Executive Order doesn’t punish contractors – it actually helps them follow the rules. Canceling the contract is the last resort for companies that refuse to correct their behavior. But Republicans don’t like it. Instead of helping companies who are fair to workers, they want to make it easier for companies that steal from their workers.

    This week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Raul Grijalva and I introduced an amendment to strike Rep. Kline’s language from the bill. But it’s no surprise that the Republican led Rules Committee rejected the amendment. They don’t want to have this debate in front of the American people. They don’t want to admit that they are standing with wage thieves and companies willing to step on working Americans and their families.

    Workers aren’t the only ones who should be outraged about this. This provision actually gives a leg up to the contractors that don’t play by the rules, putting companies doing right by their workers at a disadvantage. Think about it: you’re a law-abiding company that earned your contract – now Republicans want to reward your competitors that are willing to steal from their workers?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2016 5:23 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidRepublicans are the party of hate. And poor governance. And stupid. And war. And fiscal insanity. And truly are becoming the antithesis of everything America stands for. I agree. Let's make America great again by destroying the Republican Party at the polls.




    Besides paying our military troops, the defense budget most people don't realize is their tax dollars are the basis of these federal contracts. Unlike federal employment, like the Postal Service, most tax payers don't realize how these contracts work which hopefully we all know now, have their own worker employment policies in the form of Federal Acquisition Regulations, Code of Federal Regulations and of course presidential executive orders (because commander-in-chief of the armed forces is part of the executive branch of US government). These contracts fall under the heading of procurement.

    This is not manufacturing or selling dishwashers to the public. (unless the government wants a dishwasher made specifically for themselves, then it becomes much like the "$7,000 hammer everyone has heard about). The government says "I need this equipment", the contractor bids, design, engineers, creates process and manufacture or upgrade. The government 'hands out' the money (provided by the tax payer) in the form of contracts. There are many rules and one of those is employment.

    Its important to know how the tax payer money is used to pay certain workers in federal contracting. Its no wonder that the republicans have kept this process out of the spotlight because most of the contract(s) money goes to pay for 'the working class' of people such as union members and or anyone that is paid hourly wages. Theses federal contractor workers are the equivalent of the "auto assembly line worker", their pay comes from the tax payer in a contract

    If you know anything about "collective agreements and management relations", then you should understand how federal contracting works, as far as pay. Management does not get paid from the tax payer contracts. They get paid by the contractor (private business for the most part) that bids for the contract. All hourly employment (tax payer money) staffing needs are dependent on the contract itself. The management staffing needs are not dependent on the tax payer money or contract

    You can see that republic-cons already have the advantage in federal contracting because most of these people are in management positions and their employment is not affected by any one single contract or tax payer money. A private business who does federal contracting, can keep their, usually over paid, management as long as they like. Its very cut throat among management ranks when the time comes to layoffs or those forced to leave. The LGBT employment federal contractor executive order Obama amended, 11246, does not apply to management. It applies to the 28 million "auto assembly line workers" who get paid by the hour and or anyone included in collective bargaining.

    For the most part, that is what federal contracting is, a large scale collective bargaining agreement (thru laws, rules, regulation) between the private business (contractor/management) and the governments hired, usually hourly, workforce


    fiscal-year-2015-budget-request-13-638.j

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2016 7:05 PM GMT
    Hmmm, I wonder which party arranged a new House vote on this? Looks like LGBT will apply to the federal contractors @ Energy department
    Still doesn't change the Russell Amendment H R 4909, the president will still have to veto, holding up the 2017 dept O' defense budget


    House reverses course on LGBT rights for federal contractors
    The House has reversed itself and approved a measure aimed at upholding an executive order that bars discrimination against LGBT employees by federal contractors
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-reverses-course-lgbt-rights-030426254.html

    The House reversed itself late Wednesday and approved a measure aimed at upholding an executive order that bars discrimination against LGBT employees by federal contractors.

    More than 40 Republicans helped Democrats power the gay rights measure over the opposition of GOP conservatives who dominate the chamber.

    Conservatives did prevail in a separate vote designed to make sure federal funding isn't taken away from the state of North Carolina over its controversial bathroom law for transgender people.

    Wednesday night's 223-195 tally reverses a vote last week on the gay rights measure. Then, GOP leaders twisted arms to defeat the legislation, causing several supporters to switch their vote, leading Democrats to erupt in protest.

    Openly gay New York Democrat Sean Patrick Maloney returned to attach the measure to a funding bill for the Energy Department.

    This time, GOP leaders let members vote as they wished; about a dozen Republicans, including several from California, rethought their opposition and Maloney's amendment made it through fairly easily.

    It would prohibit agencies funded by the bill to award taxpayer dollars to federal contractors that violate President Barack Obama's executive order barring discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

    But GOP leaders prevailed on seven Republicans to switch their votes, including California GOP Reps. Jeff Denham, Darrell Issa, Mimi Walters and David Valadao. Swing-district freshmen David Young, R-Iowa, and Bruce Poliquin, R-Maine, also switched positions on last week's vote. Each of them switched back Wednesday, joined by several other Republicans who opposed Maloney's plan last week


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2016 7:20 PM GMT
    icon_rolleyes.gificon_redface.gif

    Fight Over LGBT Rights Scuttles Energy Spending Bill
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/fight-lgbt-rights-scuttles-energy-spending-bill-39398124


    A $37 billion bill to fund the Energy Department and water projects has crashed in the House, scuttled by a fight over LGBT rights.

    Many Republicans opposed the measure over a provision designed to bar discrimination against LGBT employees by federal contractors. And Democrats opposed language to make sure federal funding isn't yanked from North Carolina over its transgender bathroom law.

    The sweeping 305-112 vote to kill the bill casts a pall over GOP leaders' hope to pass the 12 annual spending bills for the upcoming budget year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2016 7:29 PM GMT
    icon_twisted.gificon_redface.gif

    GOP conservatives scuttle spending bill over LGBT rights
    Conservatives angered by the inclusion of LGBT protections in an otherwise routine spending bill scuttle the measure
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/reversal-house-backs-lgbt-rights-federal-contractors-134959551--finance.html


    That provision prompted more than half of House Republicans to vote against the bill's passage on Thursday. The revolt followed a closed-door GOP meeting featuring complaints by GOP conservatives. Outside groups like Heritage Action intensified their opposition to the bill as well.

    Meanwhile, Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the bill over a GOP provision they said defends North Carolina's transgender bathroom law, which also takes away a variety of federal protections for LGBT people.

    The Obama administration has filed suit against the law and has threatened to take away federal funding for the state, and Republicans muscled through a provision to ensure that federal dollars are not taken away.

    The hostility from both tea party lawmakers and Democrats could scuttle the entire appropriations process, just as a controversy over the Confederate flag sank the process last year.

    "House Republicans' thirst to discriminate against the LGBT community is so strong that they are willing to vote down their own appropriations bill in order to prevent progress over bigotry," said minority leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "In turning against a far-reaching funding bill simply because it affirms protections for LGBT Americans, Republicans have once again lain bare the depths of their bigotry."


    Key House spending bill fails over LGBT controversy
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/politics/paul-ryan-house-gop-lgbt-spending-bill/

    For the second week in a row, the House wrestled with an issue that exposed divisions inside the Republican Party about how to address discrimination against the LGBT community.

    Maloney told reporters that a Republican told him on the House floor that in a Thursday morning GOP meeting to discuss the upcoming vote on the spending bill, one House Republican cited the Bible and warned fellow GOP members who backed it were "going to hell."


    Two GOP sources told CNN that Georgia Rep. Rick Allen's comments during the opening prayer upset some Republicans who opted to walk out. One of these sources, who didn't hear a specific reference to "hell," emphasized the views expressed by Allen are "not reflective of the views of the conference."

    A spokeswoman for Allen told CNN, "the congressman led the prayer and pledge this morning in conference. He made no reference to the amendment or the bill."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2016 6:07 AM GMT

    I can now see why it was so important for republic-cons, the Bush clansmen and their evil right wing nut job partners, especially Texas,
    to keep executive order 11246 hidden for so long. I am out of words to describe the insidious agenda and nature of these elected people icon_twisted.gificon_redface.gif

    With their evil, theological agenda now exposed, there is no turning back, the fight is on and it looks like a long one icon_twisted.gificon_mad.gif

    Thank You, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney http://seanmaloney.house.gov/

    HRC+2014+Greater+New+York+Gala+YeO_HgL4M
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2016 7:44 AM GMT
    icon_rolleyes.gif

    Separation of church and state in the United States
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

    "Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    The intent of this clause was to limit the power of the Federal Government in regard to religion thus ensuring freedom of religion in the United States of America.

    The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

    “ "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State



    Bible verse prompts GOP walkout after LGBT vote labeled a sin
    http://www.thehill.com/homenews/house/281437-bible-verse-launches-gop-meeting-spurs-walkout

    A House conservative went after dozens of fellow Republicans on Thursday with suggestions that they'd sinned for backing an anti-discrimination proposal against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

    Rep. Rick Allen, a Georgia freshman, launched the GOP's regular policy meeting in the Capitol basement by reading a Bible passage condemning homosexuality and suggesting that supporters of the LGBT provision, which passed the House the night before, were defying Christian tenets, attendees said.

    Several Republicans walked out of the room in disgust.

    "It was f---ing ridiculous," said one GOP lawmaker, who was in the room and supported the LGBT provision.

    A GOP leadership aide offered a similar verdict.

    "A lot of members were clearly uncomfortable and upset," the aide said.

    Allen's office did not respond to a request for comment Thursday. A spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) declined to comment.

    The LGBT language has been a thorn in the side of Republican leaders this month as they've tried to move through a series of government spending bills

    tumblr_nanf91fx8F1rx3q30o1_500.gif
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3534

    May 28, 2016 1:40 AM GMT
    obama should threaten to impose gay QUOTAS on all contractors if they GOP dont stop. ie. must emply 5% gays or something minimum. fuckem.


    Why hasnt the US just broken up already. There are obviously many states that just revel in being hating religious assholes, and there are just too close in number that the vote is always really close to 50-50. Get a damn divorce already, you obviously hate each other. Why prolong the misery? At the very least get texas the hell out of the union, and then the rest of the country can continue on past the 18th century.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    May 28, 2016 4:21 AM GMT
    Allen saidI'm surprised that some of the low-life gay Republicans who frequent here haven't posted to defend their actions.


    I do not condone or endorse ANY bills that are discriminatory toward the LGBT community. Having said that, I also don't think it's fair that people who endorse Trump are lumped into anything anti-LGBT. I don't believe Trump is anti-LGBT, nor do I think he would be an anti-LGBT President. Sadly, there are still members of the GOP who are stuck in another century. I hope they are weeded out sooner rather than later so the party can move forward in a more progressive fashion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2016 5:04 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Allen saidI'm surprised that some of the low-life gay Republicans who frequent here haven't posted to defend their actions.


    I do not condone or endorse ANY bills that are discriminatory toward the LGBT community. Having said that, I also don't think it's fair that people who endorse Trump are lumped into anything anti-LGBT. I don't believe Trump is anti-LGBT, nor do I think he would be an anti-LGBT President. Sadly, there are still members of the GOP who are stuck in another century. I hope they are weeded out sooner rather than later so the party can move forward in a more progressive fashion.



    Lets not forget who shut the government down last time over appropriations and spending bills, my guess, the $582.7 billion defense budget request for 2017 by the president could very well be in jeopardy since the bill now contains republican fostered anti LGBT language, a evil and cheesy attempt to circumvent the presidents amended executive order, the president will be forced to veto the defense spending bill, republicans created a political volley on the blame game, the federal contractor worker bee (28 million people) and our men women in uniform will suffer.

    The GOOD thing though, if the two parties don't or cant agree or pass on the defense bill, it will not 'harm' the general public if the money never gets passed through. It will however, affect contractors procurements, forecasting, payments, manufacturing, operations in the middle east, our men women in uniform, military bases and of course, the federal contractor workers, some under union contracts, under the presidents executive order might not get paid, face job loss or furloughs. This would only hurt the business end of contractors (which they probably deserve anyway for not standing up and supporting LGBT executive order 11246), especially in republican districts like the state of Texas, many of their operations, workforce or delivery schedules would be impacted

    In the 'big picture', knowing how anti Obama and obstructionism the republican party is and has been since Obama's 2008 election, it would not surprise me at all that the party chooses to "shut down the military" (over LGBT issues) just like they "shut down the federal government" in 2013 (over Obamacare), Congress would then have to go into emergency, contingency mode in order to temporarily fund our troops, republicans like to play with fire, hope they burn themselves, again.

    This shut down would be worse than sequestration, at least their, a budget, smaller one, was passed. But not passing a budget at all?
    Crisis icon_rolleyes.gif

    United States federal government shutdown of 2013
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013

    The United States Constitution requires government spending be approved in bills passed by the United States Congress. Some government functions such as the Federal Reserve System are completely self-funded. Others, like Social Security and Medicare, are partially self-funded but may be subject to administrative shutdowns and failures if the government fails to meet its financial obligations. Some programs are fully or partially funded for multiple years and some are funded every year.

    The legislation that sets government spending is called appropriations legislation. Since the 1990s, Congress has often failed to pass the twelve to thirteen appropriation bills that set government-wide spending, often passing "continuing resolutions (CR)" to extend existing spending law at or near current levels, and "omnibus" bills that combine many appropriations bills into one. Budget negotiations can be difficult when the president is not of the party that controls one or both houses of Congress. The last budget was passed on April 29, 2009.[20]

    If the Congress fails to pass budgetary approval by the end of the fiscal year, a "funding gap" results. The Antideficiency Act requires government functions not excepted by the Act to begin shutting down immediately so that the Constitutional authority of Congress over spending is not breached. The Office of Management and Budget provides agencies with annual instructions on how to prepare for and operate during a funding gap according to the Antideficiency Act.[4] Technically, seventeen federal government shutdowns precede the October 2013 shutdown. Most were partial or for single days or weekends and involved few if any furloughs. The first was in 1976. Only the shutdowns of 1995–96 involved the whole federal government and were longer than four days

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2016 12:53 AM GMT

    Republicans, again and their form of "deregulation" icon_rolleyes.gificon_twisted.gif


    Analysis: Obama’s executive order protects workers from ‘outlaw’ contractors
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/analysis-obamas-executive-order-protects-workers-outlaw-contractors

    This week, corporate lobbyists are swarming Capitol Hill to persuade Republican U.S. Senators to gut one of President Obama’s most important achievements for American workers — the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order.

    The purpose of the order should be uncontroversial. The order requires that companies seeking publicly funded contracts report any record of violating workers’ rights on the job — so that ethical employers are not subject to unfair competition from those who cut corners by illegally cheating American workers. As Obama explained at the White House signing ceremony on July 31, 2014, “Taxpayer dollars should not reward companies that break the law.”

    However, the Professional Services Council — the lobby organization for major government contractors — finds this simple directive objectionable, arguing that the order is unnecessary because it “falsely presumes that there is little or no oversight of contractors’ compliance with labor laws

    In other words, these lobbyists claim that the U.S. procurement system already has enough safeguards in place to protect workers from unscrupulous contractors.

    The facts show the opposite. In fact, the largest federal contractor at the U.S. Capitol itself has been breaking the law literally under their noses of our elected officials

    A U.S. Senate report revealed that federal contractors were responsible for nearly one-third of the largest U.S. Department of Labor penalties for wage theft. In 2012, 42 workers died on the job as a result OSHA violations by federally-funded contractors. Furthermore, because of lax oversight and enforcement, a Government Accountability Office analysis showed that known violators have continued to receive lucrative federal contracts.

    Given this track record of corporate malfeasance and ineffective oversight, the lobbyists for big contractors should not be allowed to rewrite the National Defense Authorization Act to exempt Department of Defense contractors from the purview of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order.

    This action would effectively nullify the executive order, as Defense procurement makes up two-thirds of all federal purchasing.

    GOP senators know that the federal contractors they oversee are guilty of violating federal labor laws. It’s time they stand up for American workers and crack down on law-breakers by upholding the president’s order.