Started by EvadingGrid, Mar 23, 2017, 08:19:20 AM
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: EvadingGrid on May 09, 2017, 05:47:22 AMDavid IckeWhite House erases Trump's call for a Muslim ban from website 'minutes' after reporter brings it upBy Andrew Cheetham on 9 May 2017https://www.davidicke.com/category/275/political-manipulation
Quote from: Satyagraha on Feb 08, 2017, 09:23:28 AMI think it was a tweet... I'll see if I can find it.Ok, here's one reference... can't find the tweet...http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/03/donald-trumps-executive-order-muslim-ban/"While campaigning for president days after a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
Quote from: Geolibertarian on May 14, 2017, 01:49:38 PMOn the one hand I think Trump does deserve credit for stopping the TPP (which is corporate fascism on steroids), and for providing some much-needed resistance to the deindustrialization agenda of the man-made global warming cult. And I'm frankly disgusted beyond words with the Democratic Party's McCarthyite-obsession with screaming "Russia!" whenever Trump so much as belches or scratches his ass.
Quote from: Sparky on May 14, 2017, 02:34:49 PM . . . . . .When we talk marijuana, it's a whole different ballgame. Then, he has a God-given plant on his person, which is known to have profound medicinal benefits. At that point, you're talking about locking people up for being unable to deal with pain, for wanting to try and cure their cancers, etc. That's truly evil. Anyway, I'm ranting. Sorry.
Quote from: Geolibertarian on May 14, 2017, 01:49:38 PMIt seems a new either/or paradigm has emerged in recent months.I call it the anti-Trump-vs.-pro-Trump paradigm.Anti-Trumpers (e.g. Keith Olbermann) have made a virtual religion out of demonizing Trump all day.Pro-Trumpers have made a virtual religion out of erring in the opposite direction ("Trump has already over-delivered!" ... "I can't believe how good Trump is!").IMHO, the truth lies between those two extremes.On the one hand I think Trump does deserve credit for stopping the TPP (which is corporate fascism on steroids), and for providing some much-needed resistance to the deindustrialization agenda of the man-made global warming cult. And I'm frankly disgusted beyond words with the Democratic Party's McCarthyite-obsession with screaming "Russia!" whenever Trump so much as belches or scratches his ass.On the other hand I think Trump deserves to be criticized for being more of the same when it comes to (a) the phony "War on Terrorism," (b) the drug war, (c) the prison-industrial complex, (d) our anti-labor/pro-land speculation tax system, and the poverty-in-the-midst-of-plenty-inducing gap between high rents and low wages it generates, (e) allowing private bankers to create our entire money supply out of nothing as an interest-bearing debt to themselves, and (f) using the crimes of the parasitic super-rich as an excuse to impose austerity measures on the poor.Should he be demonized as though he were the anti-Christ?No.But he shouldn't be gushed or fawned over (or given more credit than he deserves), either.
Why is Trump, "No More Regime Change Wars," doing this to Venezuela?? https://t.co/bkpM8qGc9K— Cynthia McKinney PhD (@cynthiamckinney) May 26, 2017
Why is Trump, "No More Regime Change Wars," doing this to Venezuela?? https://t.co/bkpM8qGc9K
Quote from: Sparky on May 14, 2017, 02:34:49 PMI have to agree with GeoLib regarding Trump's positive accomplishments. Probably the main thing that disturbs me about the Trump administration right now is the willingness to reignite the drug war. During Trump's campaign, he said that he believes that marijuana is a "state's rights issue", which is a better stance than most republicans take on the issue. Then he wanted to appoint Sessions, and I became concerned. Now Sessions sent the memo out to condemn all the non-violent drug offenders to the harshest sentences available. Frankly, it just seems evil to sentence someone to several years behind bars just for having a substance -- ANY substance -- in his possession. It feels fundamentally wrong to me. I think that anyone using meth is making a terrible decision, but until they commit an act of violence while using that substance, it's really not my concern, and it's unfathomable to put him away just for having the stuff. When we talk marijuana, it's a whole different ballgame. Then, he has a God-given plant on his person, which is known to have profound medicinal benefits. At that point, you're talking about locking people up for being unable to deal with pain, for wanting to try and cure their cancers, etc. That's truly evil. Anyway, I'm ranting. Sorry.
QuoteToday, the Justice Department continues to withhold documents and stonewall Congress and press requests for information revealing how many crimes have been committed by criminals using Fast and Furious-trafficked weapons.
QuoteA Terror ShockRecent terror attacks in London, Manchester, and Paris provide some broad hints about how the administration would try to exploit a large-scale attack that took place on U.S. soil or against U.S. infrastructure abroad. After the horrific Manchester bombing last month, the governing Conservatives launched a fierce campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party for suggesting that the failed "war on terror" is part of what is fueling such acts, calling any such suggestion "monstrous" (a clear echo of the "with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric that descended after September 11, 2001). For his part, Trump rushed to link the attack to the "thousands and thousands of people pouring into our various countries" — never mind that the bomber, Salman Abedi, was born in the U.K.Similarly, in the immediate aftermath of the Westminster terror attacks in London in March 2017, when a driver plowed into a crowd of pedestrians, deliberately killing four people and injuring dozens more, the Conservative government wasted no time declaring that any expectation of privacy in digital communications was now a threat to national security. Home Secretary Amber Rudd went on the BBC and declared the end-to-end encryption provided by programs like WhatsApp to be "completely unacceptable." And she said that they were meeting with the large tech firms "to ask them to work with us" on providing backdoor access to these platforms. She made an even stronger call to crack down on internet privacy after the London Bridge attack.More worrying, in 2015, after the coordinated attacks in Paris that killed 130 people, the government of François Hollande declared a "state of emergency" that banned political protests. I was in France a week after those horrific events and it was striking that, although the attackers had targeted a concert, a football stadium, restaurants, and other emblems of daily Parisian life, it was only outdoor political activity that was not permitted. Large concerts, Christmas markets, and sporting events — the sorts of places that were likely targets for further attacks — were all free to carry on as usual. In the months that followed, the state-of-emergency decree was extended again and again until it had been in place for well over a year. It is currently set to remain in effect until at least July 2017. In France, state-of-emergency is the new normal.This took place under a center-left government in a country with a long tradition of disruptive strikes and protests. One would have to be naive to imagine that Donald Trump and Mike Pence wouldn't immediately seize on any attack in the United States to go much further down that same road. In all likelihood they would do it swiftly, by declaring protests and strikes that block roads and airports (the kind that responded to the Muslim travel ban) a threat to "national security." Protest organizers would be targeted with surveillance, arrests, and imprisonment.
QuoteA Tale of Two Nomineesby JIM BOULET JR.Why do Estrada opponents adore Acosta?July 8, 2003 11:00 AM Why do Estrada opponents adore Acosta? Two Hispanic men of achievement have been suggested for high office by the Bush administration. You have undoubtedly heard of Miguel Estrada, a Bush judicial nominee who is the victim of a filibuster by Senate Democrats. You may soon hear of R. Alexander Acosta, whose prospective nomination as assistant attorney general for civil rights has provoked praise from the same foes of official English who oppose Estrada.The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), while tepid regarding the Estrada nomination, is red hot in its support for Acosta because: During his tenure at DOJ, Mr. Acosta played a pivotal role in the Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) Guidance enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires recipients of federal financial assistance to provide language assistance to LEP persons. The Justice Department's own press release on Acosta also refers to an award to Acosta from the "Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund." The group's actual name, according to the Associated Press is the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). MALDEF is strongly opposed to the Estrada nomination. MALDEF gave Acosta its "Excellence in Government Service Award" this year "for his work on language minority issues, including initiatives on language access to government-funded services" (emphasis added). The language "initiatives" commended by MALDEF are all tied to Clinton Executive Order 13166. E.O. 13166 requires all recipients of federal funds to function in Spanish, or any other language in the world, upon demand. So-called "Hispanic-rights groups" see nothing wrong with making Spanish coequal with English in the United States, even if the people those groups claim to represent are busy learning English. Obviously, winning an endorsement from an anti-English group like the NCLR as well as an award from MALDEF does not constitute infallible proof that Acosta is himself anti-English. Friends of mine assure me that Acosta was personally opposed to many of the anti-English policies he acted to strengthen. Or they say that Acosta was merely doing the bidding of his superiors. All of those things could well be true. And therein lies the problem. As a rule, when a Democratic president makes a "historic first" nomination, his people ensure the nominee is firmly one of them ideologically. When Republican presidents pick people as the "first woman this" or "first Hispanic that," the nominee's ideology seems an afterthought at best. Accordingly, liberals get Janet Reno while conservatives get Sandra Day O'Connor. And the records of "stealth conservatives" like David Souter are not encouraging. If MALDEF and NCLR are proven right about Acosta — and their track record says they will be — he is the wrong choice on both political and policy grounds. To appoint a supporter of E.O. 13166 like Acosta as the chief law-enforcement officer for Clinton's misguided language policy will ensure that all the expensive fallout from Clinton's linguistic pandering lands at the doorstep of President George W. Bush. This is dreadful politics. E.O. 13166 is also simply awful policy. It says to every immigrant: "don't bother to learn English. We'll tell you everything you need to know." That is not the American way that, for over 200 years, turned millions of immigrants into proud, productive American citizens.If the Bush administration is determined to name the first Hispanic to the post of assistant attorney general for civil rights, there are undoubtedly plenty of distinguished Hispanic lawyers who agree with Linda Chavez's thinking about E.O. 13166. Such a nominee would ensure a sound language policy for the Bush administration. As Morton Blackwell has taught generations of conservatives, "sound doctrine is sound politics." He's right. — Jim Boulet Jr. is executive director of English First.
QuoteIn a recent event in Los Angeles with La Raza and MALDEF, the Republican Presidential candiadte, George W. Bush had indicated that he was not for no[/i] amnesty legislation for illegal immigrants.
QuoteHillary Clinton has spent more than three decades advocating on behalf of those who are invisible in America... Not only is she the most experienced and qualified candidate to be president, Senator Clinton has the ability to bring people together to get results and move this country forward.
QuoteWhatever law will be passed must apply to everyone equally... I think we're talking millions, otherwise I don't think we have something we would be interested in.
QuoteIn March , First Data/Western Union set up a $10 million "Empowerment Fund" to be used for Latino and pro-immigration causes. Raul Yzaguirre, president of the National Council of La Raza ("The Race"); Sal Gomez, Chairman the Denver Hispanic Chamber Gomez; and Robert de Posada, President of the Latino Coalition, were appointed by First Data to the Fund's Advisory Board. The Empowerment Fund is separate and in addition to charitable donations totaling about $5.5 million that First Data made as part of settlements of the class-action lawsuits.
QuoteLast month, La Raza President Raul Yzaguirre called on the Bush administration to order an end to the Border Patrol's arrest of illegals in several inland Southern California communities, saying sweeps by a 12-member task force were "a clear assault on civil rights in an area with a sizable Latino population.
Quote[The National Council of La Raza and others] allege that the Justice Department and the FBI have unlawfully entered information on civil immigration violations into a federal criminal database, the National Crime Information Center, which state and local police access millions of times each day to probe the background of everyone from individuals suspected of crimes to people caught violating traffic regulations... "Co-opting state and local police to make immigration arrests undermines public safety and encourages racial profiling," said Raul Yzaguirre, president of the National Council of La Raza.
Quote...The Republicans' sweep to victory in the presidential and congressional elections on November 2, creates an opportunity to repeal Clinton-era Executive Order 13166, which declared that all recipients of federal funds must provide translation services into any language anyone speaks at any time... Bush Administration appointee, Assistant Atty. Gen. Alex Acosta, has continued Clinton's language policy. Raul Yzaguirre, president of the National Council of La Raza has said that Acosta "played a pivotal role" in the continued enforcement of E.O. 13166.
QuoteThe list of groups supporting Mr. Acosta's nomination include the following: the National Council of La Raza, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, the Hispanic Bar Association, the Arab American Institute, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. That is a diverse group of entities and organizations, and indeed Mr. Acosta was recently awarded the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund 2003 Excellence in Government Award. The National Council of La Raza, one of the groups endorsing Mr. Acosta, calls him "a bridge-builder, not only with the Latino community but with other ethnic and racial groups." The endorsement goes on to say, "We may not agree with everything that Mr. Acosta has done or will do, but we are certain that he is someone who will listen and act in a fair manner." ...Similarly, the National Council of La Raza has stated, "Mr. Acosta has proven himself to be a bridge-builder, not only with the Latino community but with other ethnic and racial groups." That has been said before, but I thought it needed to be re-emphasized.
QuoteUh Oh, Nominee for Labor Secretary Alex Acosta Rings Amnesty Alarm BellsBy S. Noble - February 17, 2017R. Alexander Acosta supports amnesty, very easy immigration, cheap labor, federal laws mandating diversity.He became the second dean of the FIU Law in 2009. A native of Miami and first-generation lawyer, Dean Acosta earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard College and his law degree from Harvard Law School.After serving as law clerk to Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., then a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Dean Acosta practiced law at the firm of Kirkland & Ellis and taught law at the George Mason School of Law.Currently, he is the dean of the Florida International University College of Law.Dean Acosta has served in three presidentially-appointed, senate-confirmed positions. He was a member of the National Labor Relations Board, where he participated in or authored more than 125 opinions.He went on to be the first Hispanic to hold the rank of Assistant Attorney General. Dean Acosta served as the U.S. Attorney for Southern District of Florida, and was the longest serving U.S. Attorney in the District since the 1970s.Dean Acosta Advocated for Amnesty, Near-Open BordersAlexander Acosta, President Donald Trump's replacement choice to run the Department of Labor, advocated for easier immigration and amnesty for people who previously had come to the United States illegally.As Labor Secretary, his department would oversee workplace inspections and help set overall labor policies.Ira Mehlman, the FAIR spokesman, said Acosta seems to view immigration through the same lens as Puzder. "He seems to also advocate for an unlimited, or virtually unlimited, flow of immigrant labor," he said."He essentially advocates for amnesty for the basis for immigration reform. That kind of sounds like open borders," Mehlman warned.Advocates for Comprehensive Immigration Reform – AmnestyAcosta, who served on the National Labor Relations Board in the George W. Bush administration, expressed his views at a 2012 forum sponsored by the Hispanic Leadership Network Conference. He called for "comprehensive immigration solutions" and lamented the failure of previous legislative efforts."Part of that means figuring out what we do with all the individuals that are already in our nation," he said. "We need them here. They provide construction jobs. They provide agricultural jobs. We need to figure out a way to address that. We need to figure out a way to then have a pathway to further, future legal immigration. And if we don't take it all at once, we're not going to solve it. Because you can't solve part of it without solving the other part."During the 2012 forum, Acosta told the story of a Haitian women who paid smugglers to come into the country and endured repeated rapes during the journey."The cost of illegal immigration is not simply exclusion, but it's the abuse of those individuals that are looking to our nation as beacons of freedom, and so we need to take it on, we need to figure out a way to address illegal immigration and give everyone a pathway to get here legally, in a transparent way, and in a fair way," he said.View the video here. https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4657200/alexander-acosta-immigrationWilliam Gheen, founder of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, said the views Acosta expressed at the 2012 forum are disturbing."It's very clear that this guy is from the amnesty side of the aisle," he said. "It's very unfortunate that someone like that would ever be considered for any position in the Trump administration."[INSERT, LET ME GUESS, IT'S NOT TRUMPS FAULT RIGHT, YOU KNOW THE GUY DIRECTLY APPOINTED BY TRUMP? "PEOPLE KEEP GOING AGAINST TRUMPS AGENDA!" NO DUMBASSES, TRUMP'S AGENDA IS TO DESTROY AMERICA JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PUPPET PRESIDENT'S AGENDA WAS, DUH...]Under current rules, the federal government annually provides work permits to roughly 1 million contract workers and Green Cards to roughly one million immigrants each year, just as four million young Americans join the workforce. The high level of immigration has been supported by the GOP's business wing, including President George W. Bush, Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.Recognized by Radical GroupsThe very radical MALDEF, gave Acosta its "Excellence in Government Service Award" in 2003 "for his work on language minority issues, including initiatives on language access to government-funded services".That's – government-funded services.The language "initiatives" commended by MALDEF are all tied to Clinton Executive Order 13166. E.O. 13166 requires multilingual federal services. All recipients of federal funds must function in Spanish, or any other language in the world, upon demand.So-called "Hispanic-rights groups" see nothing wrong with making Spanish coequal with English in the United States, even if the people those groups claim to represent are busy learning English.In 2008, MALDEF joined the George Soros-funded Media Matters and Center for American Progress in supporting the National Council of La Raza's "We Can Stop the Hate" campaign, which was designed to silence critics who raised alarms about mass illegal immigration into the United States and who opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants.Acosta was endorsed in 2003 by the radical National Council of LaRaza when he was a prospective nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights. The group, in 2003 testimony supporting Acosta's bid to be an assistant attorney general, called him a "bridge-builder, not only with the Latino community but with other ethnic and racial groups."Acosta joined a bar association panel called the Commission on Hispanic Legal Rights & Responsibilities, which included the heads of the ACLU and of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The commission then produced a report which condemned public opposition to illegal immigration, saying:The role of elected officials in furthering a discourse of antipathy towards immigrants, including out-of-status immigrants, often underlies these state legislative efforts, and arguably provides legitimacy to the increased hostility towards Latinos, and the marginalization of Latino communities. Apparent public support for these legislative efforts have made Latinos feel vulnerable and has also significantly impacted Latinos' perceptions of fairness ... the [2012 DACA mini-amnesty] policy does not grant any substantive right, and does not provide a long-term solution to the immigration system problems, which can only be addressed through appropriate immigration reform.The report was titled "Latinos in the United States: Overcoming Legal Obstacles, Engaging in Civic Life." The report cited support from several Latino radicals, including the president of the National Council of La Raza ethnic advocacy group. Acosta currently chairs the 11-member panel, which also includes the president of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, a Latino advocacy group.Acosta Supported Feds Ordering Pro-Diversity LawsFrom 2003 to 2005, he was Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, where he supported lawsuits that imposed social diversity on cohesive American communities. His wins include a court decision ending a schoolroom ban on Islamic hijabs, and an anti-discrimination case which forced a community to permit housing for imported contract workers. His resume, posted at Harvard, explains.In 2016, he advocated for cops to give Miranda warnings in the home languages of immigrant suspects who don't speak English. He told NPR in August that there are many ways it can be done, such as through apps on iPhones, carry various translation cards and so on.In 2011, he testified at a Senate hearing for policies that would treat Islam as if it were a religion which separates church and state, as does Christiniary and Judaism. He also defended Bush's sympathetic outreach to Islamist political groups in the United States, Breitbart reported.
QuoteTrump announced the appointment with an unusually brief, vague comment[/i] at the start of a White House press conference Thursday afternoon. Acosta was not present."He has had a tremendous career," Trump said. "I've wished him the best, we just spoke. I think he'll be a tremendous secretary of labor."Trump wasted little time in announcing Acosta's appointment, which came less than 24 hours after the withdrawal of Puzder, who is chief executive of the parent company of Hardee's and Carl's Jr. His nomination, already looking troubled, collapsed Wednesday when it became clear that too many Republicans refused to support his nomination. Trump did not make so much as a statement about Puzder's departure.In a statement, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce called Acosta "an outstanding choice for this cabinet position."
QuoteWHY THE ACOSTA NOMINATION IS VERY BAD NEWS FOR CONSERVATIVESWhen the left sinks a Trump appointee, or the appointee sinks himself, the left doesn't necessarily win. The left wins only if the replacement is more appealing to it than the original guy.Unfortunately, Alex Acosta, the replacement for Andrew Puzder at the Department of Labor, is vastly more appealing to the left than Puzder was. The Acosta selection represents a win for the left and a defeat for conservatives.At first blush, this might seem an odd assertion. Acosta was a law clerk for the excellent Justice (then Judge) Alito. He was associated with two great conservative organizations — the Federalist Society and the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He has the endorsement of Sen. Cruz, with whom he attended Harvard law School.At the same time, though, Acosta has been praised by AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka and by several large unions. Of Acosta's selection, Trumka gushed, "In one day, we've gone from a fast-food CEO who routinely violates labor law to a public servant with experience enforcing it."I put more weight in the reaction of the unionists than I do in Acosta's conservative connections. Their enthusiasm is based on what Acosta did as a member of the National Labor Relations Board in the early 2000s. This seems more relevant than a clerkship years earlier, a friendship formed in law school, and organization memberships.But the most relevant consideration is Acosta's record in the Justice Department under President Bush, first as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division and then as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. Sources say his record is not conservative.They say that during his time at DOJ, Acosta's priority wasn't the advancement of the administration's policy goals. Rather, it was to stay on the good side of left-wing civil rights groups.Acosta sought to accomplish this primarily by meeting their demands to bring certain kinds of cases and by not bringing cases the left didn't like. But Acosta's appeasement of the left seems to have gone further than that. I'm told that in crunch time during the 2004 election, he was more accommodating to the Democrats than to the Republicans on voting issues with the potential to influence the outcome.Let's explore these charges.Acosta was in frequent contact with left-wing civil rights groups. If they complained that DOJ wasn't bringing enough of a certain kind of case — say, discrimination claims based on disparate impact — his typical response would be to order the bringing of two or three such cases. According to my information, the facts were not important. What mattered was raising the number of the particular category of cases that civil rights activists had expressed interest in.The Hispanic community had a strong interest in Executive Order 13166. Signed by President Clinton in August 2000, it requires federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those service.Acosta promised Latino organizations that he would issue favorable guidance for complying with the Order. When he encountered opposition in the Justice Department, Acosta said it was too late to oppose what he wanted because the White House had already signed off informally. Thus, the Justice Department signed off.According to my information, the White House had not signed off. It's possible that President Bush would have done so even without the Justice Department's concurrence. But Acosta successfully manipulated the situation to increase the likelihood of White House approval.Acosta was loath to bringing cases civil rights activists didn't like. The best example is the voting rights lawsuit against Ike Brown, the notorious African-American political boss of Noxubee County.Brown's blatant violations of the Voting Rights Act are set forth in detail by a federal judge in this opinion. But the case that gave rise to the opinion probably wouldn't have been brought if Acosta had had his way.I'm told that Acosta did not want to bring the case because he considered it too controversial. He insisted that no action against Brown be brought until after the 2004 election. After the election, he still opposed bringing the case, but was thwarted when Civil Rights Division attorneys went over his head.The result? A significant victory for DOJ and for voting rights.Now, let's turn to the 2004 election. Both sides in that bitter contest were deeply concerned about voting procedures. Republicans worried about voter fraud; Democrats worried about voter suppression.As the enforcer of the Voting Rights Act, the DOJ's Civil Rights Division received many phone calls from civil rights groups and Democratic legislators on the one hand, and Republican legislators on the other. The legal issues raised were of vital partisan interest.My information is that, as the election drew close, Acosta stopped taking calls from Republican Senators. However, he continued to take them from the likes of Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and John Conyers.The pressure appears to have paid off. I'm told that Acosta was not supportive of the Bush position on the casting of provisional ballots in Ohio, a key matter in that battle ground state.Naturally, Acosta's stance in the 2004 election caused plenty of resentment among the political appointees in the Justice Department and within the Bush team generally. But Acosta had a golden ticket out of Main Justice. Alberto Gonzalez secured his appointment as United States Attorney for the Southern Florida.Such was the bitterness among Bush loyalists that, according to my information, when Harriet Miers announced his appointment as U.S. attorney at a meeting of her White House counsel staff, some staffers protested vehemently. Miers had to tell them it was a done deal and that, in effect, they should cool it.Why did Acosta behave the way he did at DOJ? Is he a liberal on the issues he dealt with or, having established good conservative credentials early in his career, was he trying to curry favor with the other side, perhaps in anticipation of a "confirmation moment" like the one that now has arrived?It doesn't matter. Either way, his service as Secretary of Labor would pose a large and obvious risk for conservatives.The Department of Labor plays a key role in areas of major interest to conservatives, especially immigration, wage and hour law, and civil rights. The left had its way, and then some, under Tom Perez, President Obama's Labor Secretary.Conservatives were counting on the new Secretary to reverse the many excesses of the past eight years. Acosta's history of determination not to upset the left strongly suggests that our expectations will be dashed.On immigration, Acosta is a strong supporter of the kind of "comprehensive immigration reform" pushed by Sen. Marco Rubio and by Democrats. As PoliZette reports, he made this clear in remarks at a 2012 forum sponsored by the Hispanic Leadership Network Conference.Opponents of amnesty style reform are alarmed. Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation of American Immigration Reform, says that Acosta's preferred policy "kind of sounds like open borders." William Gheen, founder of the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, says:It's very clear that this guy is from the amnesty side of the aisle. It's very unfortunate that someone like that would ever be considered for any position in the Trump administration.Gheen noted that Acosta has been backed in the past by the National Council of La Raza, a left-wing civil rights group. It endorsed him to head up the Civil Rights Division under President Bush. As discussed above, Acosta rewarded them.Acosta's confirmation is virtually assured. Republicans won't block a Trump nominee, and Acosta's record guarantees him sufficient support from Democrats.It will be imperative that the White House watch Acosta carefully to make sure he undoes Tom Perez's mischief and does none of his own. Unchecked, the Labor Department can undermine key elements of the Trump agenda.It is also crucial that the new head of the Civil Rights Division be a strong conservative, one with demonstrably solid views on the entire range of issues the division deals with, and one who can be counted on to stand up to civil rights activists — both within and outside the department.
Quote from: Effie Trinket on Jun 12, 2017, 07:06:15 PMhttps://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/OFCCP-sign-on-letter-Acosta-Mulvaney.pdfMay 26, 2017Secretary Alexander AcostaUS Department of Labor2000 Constitution Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20210John M. Mulvaney, DirectorOffice of Management and Budget725 17th Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20503Dear Secretary Acosta and Director Mulvaney:
Quote from: #1 Trouble Maker on Jun 12, 2017, 07:53:53 PMTrump was long selected to destroy the liberty / sovereignty movement, while fueling the pro-globalist agenda under FAKE left cover.
QuoteIt appears the 23-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is safe—for now.Hearing pleas from the business lobby, as well as individual transportation companies such as UPS and FedEx, the Trump administration has backed off threats to unilaterally sever NAFTA.Trucking executives, transportation officials and shippers have enjoyed 400% growth in cross-border trade since NAFTA was implemented. But in late April, the tri-nation agreement appeared threatened by President Donald J. Trump, who at the time said he was "psyched" to sever the popular pact among the U.S., Canada and Mexico.As word spread among the business community, Trump backed down. Now administration officials are sending out signals that NAFTA needs to be tweaked, not trashed.
QuoteNAFTA appeared threatened earlier this year not only by Trump but by some of the isolationists in his administration, specifically aids Stephen Bannon and Peter Navarro, Trump's chief trade advisor.But it appears calmer heads have prevailed. Gary Cohn, the president's chief economic advisor, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin both went to bat for NAFTA. In addition, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis also expressed public support for more free trade agreements, not fewer.