The White Rabbit News

Friday, February 24, 2017

Trump’s Policies Are Authoritarian, Not Populist

I’m not new to writing about political issues. I spent pretty much the entirety of the Obama administration pointing out his disdain of transparency, his refusal to challenge the rich and powerful even after they inflicted significant harm on the American public, and his dangerous expansion of militarism across the globe. Over the course of those eight years, I solidified and refined my views on a wide variety of issues that are important to me. Though I’ve been extremely troubled by the people Trump has decided to surround himself with, and the fact he’s essentially outsourced his economic policy to the boys at vampire squid Goldman Sachs, I’ve held off on my harshest criticism while waiting to see where he comes down on a wider variety of issues. At this point, I think I’ve seen enough.

Trump and his spokespeople recently have made their opinions known on a variety of issues on which I hold strong beliefs. The three I will focus on today are: 1) Civil Asset Forfeiture. 2) Private Prisons. 3) Legalization of Recreational Marijuana. On all three of these issues, Trump has taken an authoritarian, unethical and quite unpopular position. Rather than challenge the oligarchs who’ve run this country into the ground, he’s appointed them to be his top advisors. Now he wants to make life increasingly unfree and miserable for average Americans. Not a very populist agenda.

I’m not a cheerleader for political figures and I find cult of personality worship to be an extraordinarily grotesque and destructive practice. We all have issues we care about. The things that matter to me may not be what matter to you, but it’s important that we remain consistent in whatever principles we hold dear, irrespective of who happens to be in power at any given moment. One of the reasons Obama was able to do so much harm is because he was given a pass by millions of phony liberals who suddenly didn’t care about war crimes once Mr. Hope & Change became President. If you’re a Trump supporter who wants to see him succeed, it’s your job to hold him to account on these issues, otherwise he will go down in flames.

I have a long history of writing on these three issues. My opinions aren’t new, and don’t change based on who gets elected. Let’s start with civil asset forfeiture, a topic I’ve written at least 10-20 articles on. I outlined my position quite clearly in my very first post on the topic all the way back in 2013. Here’s a brief excerpt from the piece, Why You Should Never, Ever Drive Through Tenaha, Texas.

In a nutshell, civil forfeiture is the practice of confiscating items from people, ranging from cash, cars, even homes based on no criminal conviction or charges, merely suspicion. This practice first became widespread for use against pirates, as a way to take possession of contraband goods despite the fact that the ships’ owners in many cases were located thousands of miles away and couldn’t easily be prosecuted. As is often the case, what starts out reasonable becomes a gigantic organized crime ring of criminality, particularly in a society where the rule of law no longer exists for the “elite,” yet anything goes when it comes to pillaging the average citizen.

One of the major reasons these programs have become so abused is that the police departments themselves are able to keep much of the confiscated money. So they actually have a perverse incentive to steal. As might be expected, a program that is often touted as being effective against going after major drug kingpins, actually targets the poor and disenfranchised more than anything else.

Obama was terrible on this issue, as I highlighted time and time again. It appears Trump wants to be even worse. As Reuters reported earlier this month:

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday there was “no reason” to curb law enforcement agencies that seize cash, vehicles and other assets of people suspected of crimes, a practice that some lawmakers and activists have criticized for denying legal rights.

The issue of civil asset forfeiture, created to disrupt the activities of organized crime groups, arose when sheriffs from around the United States told Trump at a White House meeting that they were under pressure to ease the practice.

“I’d like to look into that,” Trump said. “There’s no reason for that.”

In 2016, a group of Republican and Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill, which did not become law, that would have required the government to do more to show that seized property was connected to a crime. Critics have said suspects have few avenues to challenge the seizures and that forfeiture laws were sometimes abused. Police in some cases seize property from people who are never charged or convicted.

Trump, a Republican, asked acting U.S. Attorney General Dana Boente, who was at the gathering, whether executive orders or legislation were needed to support forfeiture. Boente said that was unnecessary but law enforcement agencies needed encouragement.

Trump voiced disagreement with lawmakers who want to change asset forfeiture laws, and some of the sheriffs laughed when Trump suggested he might want to “destroy” the career of one Texas legislator.

He said members of the U.S. Congress would “get beat up really badly by the voters” if they interfered with law enforcement’s activities.

Trump is completely delusional on this topic. Not only is the practice unethical, it’s extremely unpopular. As Cato demonstrated in a poll late last year:

Eighty-four percent (84%) of Americans oppose civil asset forfeiture–police “taking a person’s money or property that is suspected to have been involved in a drug crime before the person is convicted of a crime,” according to a new Cato Institute/YouGov survey of 2,000 Americans. Only 16% think police ought to be allowed to seize property before a person is convicted.

Civil asset forfeiture is a process by which police officers seize a person’s property (e.g. their car, home, or cash) if they suspect the individual or property is involved with criminal activity. The individual does not need to be charged with, or convicted of, any crime for police to seize assets. In most jurisdictions police departments may keep the property they seize or the proceeds from its sale. However, as these survey results demonstrate, most Americans oppose this practice.

Let’s now move on to the private prison industry, another topic I’ve written extensively about over the years. Here’s an excerpt from the 2013 post, A Deep Look into the Shady World of the Private Prison Industry:

Private prisons are antithetical to a free people. Of all the functions a civilized society should relegate to the public sector, it’s abundantly clear incarceration should be at the very top of the list. Jailing individuals is a public cost that a society takes on in order to ensure there are consequences to breaking certain rules that have been deemed dangerous to the happiness and quality of life within a given population. However, the end goal of any civilized culture must be to try to keep these cost as low possible. This should be achieved by having as few people as possible incarcerated, which is most optimally achieved by reducing incidents of criminality within the population. Given incarceration is an undesirable (albeit necessary) part of any society, the idea is certainly not to incentivize increased incarceration by making it extremely profitable. This is a perverse incentive, and one that is strongly encouraged by the private prison industry to the detriment of society.

Perhaps the only thing I applauded from Obama’s Justice Department over the entirety of his eight years was the announced phasing out of private prisons at the federal level. As such, it’s extremely troubling to me that reinstating such an idiotic policy became a priority for Trump.

Here’s what happened just yesterday as reported by USA Today:

WASHINGTON — Private prison companies, which stand to make big gains under President Trump’s tough new immigration orders, also have contributed big sums to pro-Trump groups, including the organization that raised a record $100 million for his inauguration last month.

GEO Group, one of the nation’s largest for-profit prison operators, donated $250,000 to support Trump’s inaugural festivities, Pablo Paez, the company’s vice president of corporate relations, told USA TODAY.

That’s on top of the $225,000 that a company subsidiary donated to a super PAC that spent some $22 million to help elect the real-estate magnate. Another prison operator, CoreCivic, gave $250,000 to support Trump’s inauguration, recently filed congressional reports show.

For-profit prison companies’ hopes for significant gains under the Trump administration already are coming to fruition. On Thursday, the Justice Department rescinded an Obama administration order to phase out the use of private-prison contracts in the federal Bureau of Prisons.

Smells a lot like swamp.

Finally, let’s discuss what will certainly be the most politically toxic of all Trump’s policies, if he’s actually stupid enough to pursue it. Namely, a crackdown on recreational marijuana in states where voters approved it.

I’m a proud resident of the wonderful state of Colorado, the first place in the nation to legalize cannabis for recreational use in 2012. Following that vote, I wrote an article titled, Colorado Legalizes Marijuana: Your Move Eric Holder. Here’s some of what I wrote:

I’m proud to say that my state of Colorado led the way nationally by becoming the first state to legalize marijuana (although Washington passed a similar measure shortly after). I supported this Amendment and voted yes on it for several reasons.

1) Based on personal experience as well as observations of others I believe that marijuana is a much more benign drug than alcohol, and in fact I think its benefits to society outweigh the negatives. Like with anything in life, moderation is key.

2) I philosophically do not believe the Federal government should have any say in what people put into their bodies. This is not to say that I believe the full legalization of all drugs is ideal. For example, I would vote against the legalization of harder drugs like cocaine or heroin in Colorado if that was on the ballot. That’s not to say I don’t think it has a right to be on the ballot, it’s just that I would vote against it. We have 50 states for a reason. These individual communities should be able to decide for themselves what they want to allow within their respective borders. The Federal government should have absolutely zero say on this matter.

3) It’s about time we had a little confrontation with the Federal government on the issue of States rights. As has been documented endlessly, civil liberties have been decimated since 9/11 and the overreaction to the endless “war on terror.” The Federal government has become bolder, more aggressive and increasingly tyrannical. While the degree is debatable the trend is not. Marijuana legalization provides the ideal battleground on the issue of States rights at the moment. The measure passed in a landslide in Colorado. 55% voted yes and 45% voted no (Obama only won the state 51% vs. 46%). The people have clearly spoken.

Since then, people have spoken in several other areas of the country, and 7 other states have legalized pot for recreational use (California, Washington, Oregon, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada and Alaska). The trend is clear and there’s no going back at this point.

Whether you like it or not, cannabis is now a part of American culture and the notion of criminalizing people for ingesting a relatively benign substance into their own bodies is simply absurd. This concept will become increasingly absurd as the years go by, which is why Trump would have to be the biggest fool on earth to pick this battle. It is a battle he cannot win, and any attempt to send federal agents into states to prevent people from legally doing something in peace that they themselves voted to make available, will be viewed very poorly by most Americans, including many Trump supporters. There is zero upside to such a policy, and a tremendous amount of downside. Naturally, this didn’t stop Sean Spicer from incoherently mouthing off yesterday.

As The Intercept reported:

WHITE HOUSE PRESS Secretary Sean Spicer cited “states’ rights” on Tuesday in defending the Trump administration’s decision to end the Obama administration’s federal protections for transgender students.

“The president has maintained for a long time that this is a states’ rights issue and not one for the federal government,” he said. “All you have to do is look at what the president’s view has been for a long time that this is not something that the federal government should be involved in. This is a states’ rights issue.”

But on Thursday, asked about federal marijuana enforcement, it was like the states had no rights at all. Arkansas-based reporter Roby Brock asked Spicer about the administration’s posture towards Arkansas’s new medical marijuana law.

Spicer suggested that the Trump administration would respect state laws related to medical marijuana — but not offer the same respect for recreational marijuana.

“There are two distinct issues here. Medical marijuana and recreational marijuana,” Spicer said. “Medical marijuana, I’ve said before that the president understands the pain and suffering that many people go through who are facing especially terminal diseases and the comfort that some of these drugs including medical marijuana can bring to them.”

But Spicer compared recreational marijuana use to deadly opioid addictions. “I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country the last thing that we should doing is encouraging people, there’s still a federal law that we need to abide by in terms of … when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.”

Actually, the exact opposite is true. See: The Real Reason Pharma Companies Hate Medical Marijuana (It Works)

“I think that’s a question for the Department of Justice. I do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement of it. Because again there’s a big difference between the medical use, which Congress has through an appropriations rider in 2014 made very clear what the intent, what their intent was in terms of how the Department of Justice would handle that issue,” he replied, referring to a 2014 law that directed the federal government to respect state medical marijuana laws.“That’s very different than the recreational use which is something the Department of Justice I think will be further looking into.”

Actually…The Real Reason Pharma Companies Hate Medical Marijuana (It Works)

Unfortunately for the Trump team, this position is definitely not popular. As Reason notes:

Yesterday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer suggested that the Justice Department under newly installed Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be more inclined to enforce the federal ban on marijuana in states that have legalized the drug for recreational use. A large majority of Americans, including most Republicans, think that’s a bad idea, according to poll numbers released the same day as Spicer’s comments.

While Spicer emphasized the difference between medical and recreational marijuana, he overlooked a more important distinction: between opposing state laws that allow recreational use of marijuana and supporting federal intervention aimed at overriding them. That distinction is clear in the latest Quinnipiac University poll, which finds that 71 percent of Americans “oppose the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana.” By comparison, 59 percent think marijuana “should be made legal in the United States.” That means many Americans who oppose legalization nevertheless think states should be free to adopt that policy. A disproportionate number of those people are members of Trump’s party: While only 35 percent of Republicans in the Quinnipiac poll supported marijuana legalization, 55 percent opposed federal interference with it.

A CBS News poll conducted last April found even stronger Republican opposition to the sort of meddling Spicer predicted. Asked if “laws regarding whether the use of marijuana is legal” should be “determined by the federal government” or “left to each individual state government to decide,” 70 percent of Republicans said the latter, compared to 55 percent of Democrats (who as usual were more likely to favor legalization). These results make sense to the extent that conservatives take seriously their avowed commitment to federalism, which Trump also claims to support. At the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said he favored medical marijuana but had concerns about broader legalization, a decision he nevertheless said should be left to the states. “If they vote for it, they vote for it,” he said. Trump confirmed that position at a 2015 rally in Nevada: “In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state by state.”

The poll results above are significant. Even those who don’t want it legal where they live, are in favor of leaving others alone. You know it’s bad when Roger Stone is out there pleading for these Trump admin nitwits to get a clue. Here are a few of his tweets.

If Trump wants his Presidency to become a heaping pile of rubble before the first 100 days are up, be my guest. If not, he better get his act together and start working on policies that will help Americans, as opposed to further criminalizing them.

DHS REPORT DISPUTES THREAT FROM BANNED NATIONS

Go to Original
BY VIVIAN SALAMA AND ALICIA A. CALDWELL

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Analysts at the Homeland Security Department's intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries included in President Donald Trump's travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.

A draft document obtained by The Associated Press concludes that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.

Trump cited terrorism concerns as the primary reason he signed the sweeping temporary travel ban in late January, which also halted the U.S. refugee program. A federal judge in Washington state blocked the government from carrying out the order earlier this month. Trump said Friday a new edict would be announced soon. The administration has been working on a new version that could withstand legal challenges.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Gillian Christensen on Friday did not dispute the report's authenticity, but said it was not a final comprehensive review of the government's intelligence.

"While DHS was asked to draft a comprehensive report on this issue, the document you're referencing was commentary from a single intelligence source versus an official, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing," Christensen said. "The ... report does not include data from other intelligence community sources. It is incomplete."

The Homeland Security report is based on unclassified information from Justice Department press releases on terrorism-related convictions and attackers killed in the act, State Department visa statistics, the 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment from the U.S. intelligence community and the State Department Country Reports on Terrorism 2015.

The three-page report challenges Trump's core claims. It said that of 82 people the government determined were inspired by a foreign terrorist group to carry out or try to carry out an attack in the United States, just over half were U.S. citizens born in the United States. The others were from 26 countries, led by Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq and Uzbekistan. Of these, only Somalia and Iraq were among the seven nations included in the ban.

Of the other five nations, one person each from Iran, Sudan and Yemen was also involved in those terrorism cases, but none from Syria. It did not say if any were Libyan.

The report also found that terrorist organizations in Iran, Libya, Somalia and Sudan are regionally focused, while groups in Iraq, Syria and Yemen do pose a threat to the U.S.

The seven countries were included in a law President Barack Obama signed in 2015 that updated visa requirements for foreigners who had traveled to those countries.

Christensen said the countries were also selected in part because they lacked the ability to properly vet their citizens and don't cooperate with U.S. efforts to screen people hoping to come to the U.S.

The report was prepared as part of an internal review Trump requested after his executive order was blocked by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It was drafted by staff of the Homeland Security

Department's Intelligence and Analysis branch at the direction of its acting leader, David Glawe.

White House spokesman Michael Short said this was not the full report that Trump had requested. He said he believes "the intel community is combining resources to put together a comprehensive report using all available sources, not just open sources, and which is driven by data, not politics."

The intelligence document was circulated beyond Homeland Security.

The draft document reflects the tensions between the president's political appointees and the civil servants tasked with carrying out Trump's ambitious and aggressive agenda. Trump has repeatedly complained about leaks meant to undercut his policies and suggested he does not trust holdovers from the Obama administration.

Trump originally said the ban was necessary to overhaul the vetting system for both refugees and would-be foreign visitors, saying that terrorists may try to exploit weaknesses to gain access to the United States. The order sparked chaos, outrage and widespread protests, with travelers detained at airports and panicked families searching for relatives.

But several courts quickly intervened and the 9th Circuit ultimately upheld a ruling blocking the ban and challenged the administration's claim that it was motivated by terrorism fears.

Trump's ban temporarily barred citizens from the seven countries from coming to the United States for three months. The order also temporarily shut down the U.S. refugee program for four months and indefinitely banned anyone from Syria.

A senior administration official told the AP on Sunday that a draft of the revised order will target those same seven countries. The official would not be named discussing the document before it is made public.

In a speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee Friday, Trump reiterated his claims on terrorism.

"We are going to keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country," Trump said.

He said he singled out the seven countries because they had already been deemed a security concern by the Obama administration.

---

Intelligence document available at http://apne.ws/2lSKNUo

Killing Kim Jong Nam With VX Nerve Agent Crossed a ‘Red Line’

Go to Original
By BRIAN BARRETT.

EARLY LAST WEEK, in an airport in Kuala Lumpur, two women approached Kim Jong Nam—estranged half-brother of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un—from behind. They swiped what the victim described to nearby customer service agents as a “wet cloth” across his face, and fled. Shortly after, he was dead.

Now, Malaysian authorities say they’ve identified the substance that took Jong Nam’s life: VX, a nerve agent that the United Nations classifies as a weapon of mass destruction. And while it’s not an entirely uncommon substance—or particularly difficult to produce—its apparent use marks a troubling break from international norms. And if officials manage to link it back to North Korea, it could have serious consequences.

Special VX

If you’re already familiar with VX agent, it’s likely because of seminal 90s action flick The Rock, in which a disgruntled Ed Harris brings over a dozen VX-laden warheads along with him to seize Alcatraz.

VX doesn’t work quite the way The Rock depicts it. Specifically, contact with it doesn’t cause human skin to bubble and sear. But it plays havoc with the human nervous system. Like other nerve agents, VX interferes with the signals that pass between your brain and your muscles. “If you have a nerve impulse that tells a muscle to contract, you have to turn off the impulse. Otherwise the muscle will stay contracted,” says Matthew Meselson, a geneticist at Harvard and member of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation national advisory board. “The one that primarily kills is a spasm of the diaphragm, so you can’t breathe. You die of asphyxiation.”

VX can work through skin contact or respiration, and while it’s part of a broader class of nerve agents that all accomplish roughly the same effect, experts consider it to be especially dangerous, even among banned substances. “It’s heavier than other nerve agents, so it settles on an environment and can be persistent on the ground. If it was used in larger quantities, it could make an area non-usable,” says Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security.

As the Kim Jong-nam incident showed, though, smaller quantities are also dangerous. “Even a tiny drop is lethal,” Inglesby says.

And while an antidote exists—atropine, which unlocks the muscles that VX causes to seize up—the nerve agent works so quickly that it’s no use unless there’s a hypodermic needle on scene.

So dangerous is the stuff, in fact, that all but a handful of countries agreed to destroy whatever stockpiles they had of VX as part of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. One of the handful of holdouts: North Korea.

The Red Line

In 1995, Japan’s Aum Shinrikyo cult turned the nerve agent on a small number of its members, whom leaders believed to be police informants. On a larger scale, VX was one of the chemical weapons deployed in the Iran-Iraq war. The Kim Jong Nam case, though, would be the first VX assassination on record, and the first time chemical weapons were used to that end since a ricin pellet—fired from an umbrella gun—took Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov’s life in 1978.

“That this particular chemical weapon would be used in a political assassination in a third country is very alarming. It’s a red line,” says Ingelsby. “It should be considered a new threshold that’s been crossed in terms of unconventional weapons.”

Those norms matter. After decades without any nation deploying chemical weapons, Syria used sarin and chlorine gas. If a nation-state such as North Korea uses VX once, they or other actors may well do it again.

‘It should be considered a new threshold that’s been crossed in terms of unconventional weapons.’DR. TOM INGLESBY, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR HEALTH SECURITY

That’s all conditional for a reason. While North Korea maintains a VX stockpile, and Kim Jong Un may well have considered his half-brother a threat to his rule, there’s no direct link between the VX airport incident and the hermit kingdom. And there may well never be, at least from the weapon of choice.

“It’s not very hard to produce, so it’s doubtful that the specific use can be chemical-traced back to North Korea,” says Sigmund Gartner, director of the Penn State School of International Affairs. Any decent organic chemist can make the stuff.

Meselson also says that it may not have been VX at all; if it was, it’s remarkable that the two women survived the attack as well.

All of which underscores how critical the next several days of investigation will be. If it turns out to be a random or untraceable act, it may at least prove to be an isolated incident. Should a direct link to North Korea exist, the world will find itself in potentially dangerous, uncharted waters.

“The political reaction should be very strong internationally, once all the facts are in,” says Ingelsby. “Responsible countries around the world should make it very clear that this kind of behavior is unacceptable.”

Unfortunately, that’s the thing about red lines. Once you cross them, there’s no going back.

AUTHOR: BRIAN BARRETT.

Leaked Draft of ACA Replacement Reveals Massive Cuts to Subsidies, Medicaid

Just as polls reveal Obamacare and Medicaid expansion are more popular than ever, GOP moves closer to slashing subsidies and raising taxpayer costs—adding fuel to brewing protests nationwide

Go to Original

Nika Knight

A leaked draft of a House bill to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was published Friday by Politico, and it reveals that Republicans are moving towards slashing subsidies and ending the Medicaid expansion—moves that are vastly out of step with the opinions of the American public.

The draft (pdf) reveals that Republicans are hoping to "take down the foundation of Obamacare, including the unpopular individual mandate, subsidies based on people's income, and all of the law’s taxes. It would significantly roll back Medicaid spending and give states money to create high risk pools for some people with pre-existing conditions. Some elements would be effective right away; others not until 2020," per Politico's Paul Demko.

The bill would also eradicate the Medicaid expansion that some states enacted when the ACA was first passed in 2010. This means that states that took advantage of federal funds to expand Medicaid would no longer have access to such funds.

Echoing state-level GOP attempts to withhold funds from Planned Parenthood, the law also appears to explicitly ban federal funding for the women's health organization, Business Insider notes: "Under the bill, no funding from the federal government given to the states could be given to any organization that 'provides abortions' except in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother."

Moreover, the legislation would help private insurance companies profit even more than they already do, as it gives in to insurers' desires to force elderly people to pay more for healthcare. It would "charge older customers up to five times as much as their younger counterparts," Demko notes.

"The proposal also includes penalties for individuals who fail to maintain coverage continuously," writes Demko. "If their coverage lapses and they decide to re-enroll, they would have to pay a 30 percent boost in premiums for a year."

And instead of subsidies based on income to help low-income people afford costly premiums, the law would give tax credits based on age. A person under 30 would receive a tax credit of $2,000, while someone over 60 would receive double that amount. "A related document notes that HHS Secretary Tom Price wants the subsidies to be slightly less generous for most age groups," Demko reports.

The subsidies will be funded by capping "the tax exemption for employer sponsored insurance at the 90th percentile of current premiums," Demko notes, a plan similar to the proposed "Cadillac tax" pushed by President Barack Obama and opposed by unions and progressives nationwide.

Overall, the plan would cover fewer people than Obamacare—contrary to President Donald Trump's promises. "We're going to have insurance for everybody," Trump told the Washington Post just last month. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."

In fact, the draft demonstrates that the Republican party is woefully out of step with public opinion when it comes to healthcare. The disparity was particularly noticeable as it was released on the same day as polls that showed support for the ACA has never been higher.

A Kaiser Family Foundation poll discovered that a stunning 84 percent of respondents want to keep the Medicaid expansion, and a Pew Research Center poll also revealed majority approval for the ACA for the first time in the law's history. Earlier this week, a Politico poll also found support for the ACA growing.

The swelling support for the ACA has coincided with the looming fulfillment of the Republican Party's long-touted promise to repeal and replace the law.

The disparities between the GOP's plans and public sentiment, which has fueled tensions at Republican politicians' town halls across the country, could also add urgency to "Hands Off Our Healthcare" rallies in support of publicly-funded healthcare happening nationwide Saturday.

Interested in fighting back against the GOP plan to dismantle health care? Find a rally near you here.

Hidden Consequences of Hiring 15,000 Border Patrol and Immigration Agents

Go to Original
by Clara Romeo

Within the next two years, the Trump administration wants to hire 15,000 new Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to help curtail illegal immigration. Hiring criteria may be relaxed to fill so many positions, according to NPR. Large increases in the number of Border Patrol and ICE agents under the Bush and Obama administrations raised similar concerns that the new agents were not qualified for their duties.

WATCH: Challenging Trump on Immigration

Critics worry that expanding immigration enforcement in such an extreme way could add to corruption or misconduct. A 2016 report on U.S. Customs and Border Protection, conducted by an independent task force, found that border agents and custom officers, per capita, currently are arrested more often than officers in any other law enforcement agencies, the Los Angeles Times reported.

In a recent NPR interview, James Tomsheck, former head of internal affairs for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, exposed the dangers of hiring Border Patrol officers using reduced vetting processes. In the past, applicants were “vulnerable to being compromised” or even worse, were “persons who already had an ongoing relationship with a criminal organization.”

Tomsheck explained:

It was what these applicants had done in their past that most concerned us. They included serious felony crimes, active involvement in smuggling activities and several confirmed infiltrators who actually were employed by drug trafficking organizations who had been directed to seek out positions within Customs and Border Protection to advance ongoing criminal conspiracies, essentially be spies in our midst.

Tomsheck forecast problems with the pending increases. “I don’t think there’s any question that if we hire people that are grossly unsuitable for the position and place them in critical, sensitive positions along the southwest border, not only would it not enhance security, it would likely compromise security,” he said.

Another part of the Trump administration’s plan is to allow local law enforcement officers to become ICE agents. This could lead to more potential trouble, according to John Sandweg, former acting director of ICE.

“Traditionally, ICE has been more sensitive to civil rights concerns and provided a higher degree of training about how to do operations and enforcement,” Sandweg told Politico. “The oversight will change … how these agencies conduct enforcement under the agreement. That’ll be the biggest change.”

What is Steve Bannon’s ‘economic nationalism’? And should we be scared?

Mr Bannon says the Trump Presidency will deliver 'an economic nationalist agenda'. But what does this mean? And should the rest of us be alarmed by its implications?

Go to Original
By Ben Chu

Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s chief strategist and former editor of the Breitbart website, spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday.

One of his central arguments was that the Trump Presidency would deliver “an economic nationalist agenda”. But what does this mean? And should the rest of us be alarmed by its implications?

What is economic nationalism?

It seems to have emerged from Mr Bannon’s mind, rather than being any kind of concept used in political science or economics.

Mr Bannon talks about economic nationalism as the antithesis of “globalism”, which he characterises as a governing creed which has put the economic interests of multinational firms and a wealthy international elite above those of ordinary working class Americans.

Assuming that the term reflects the kind of political and economic policies Mr Trump has been espousing, it seems to be a cocktail of trade protectionism, hostility to immigration (especially Muslim immigration), political pressure on domestic corporations and belligerent unilateralism.

Does that mean tariffs then?

Mr Bannon certainly seems keen on the idea of imposing taxes on imports to the US and Mr Trump has made threats to impose large levies on the goods of Mexico to China.

In his inaugural speech in January the President asserted that: “Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength”.

In policy terms there is nothing much yet. Mr Trump has cancelled US participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but this trade deal was not yet off the ground.

A Congressional tax plan under consideration by Mr Trump would involve a “border adjustment tax” on imports, but despite the name this would not really be a protectionist measure since the dollar would inevitably also rise cancelling out the competitiveness boosting effect.

The question is whether Mr Trump will ultimately follow through on his rhetoric and impose new tariffs on countries unilaterally, ignoring the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which forbid this.

If he does, what does it mean for the rest of the world?

Trouble. If the US does unilaterally impose tariffs other countries are likely to retaliate and the structure of the WTO could collapse.

Less trade would be the outcome, something every competent economist believes would lead to less prosperity.

This is especially dangerous for the UK as we seek to leave the EU and may need to rely on WTO rules if we cannot secure a free trade deal with the rest of the Continent.

The other major concern for other countries is that America could withdraw from its 70-year role in underwriting global security through Nato.

Mr Trump has called Nato “obsolete” and threatened to withdraw US protection unless other nations increase their expenditure contributions to mutual Western defence.

Does it mean higher government spending at home?

Unlike Republicans for the past thirty years, Mr Bannon seems keen on public infrastructure spending. Indeed, he sounds positively Keyensian in his ambitions.

“I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan,” he says.

“With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks.”

But there has been no infrastructure spending plan yet put forward. And the detail of a proposal put forward by two of Mr Trump’s other advisors last year proposed it should mainly take the form of tax cuts for firms, rather than direct government spending.

What about immigration?

Mr Bannon, when he hosted a radio show last year, made it clear that he blamed immigration for undermining American living standards, calling it “the beating heart of the problem”.

The ill-fated ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries was reportedly railroaded through personally by Mr Bannon, who overruled the objections of Homeland Security officials.

A new ban, after the previous one was struck down by the US courts, is promised. And further moves designed to restrict immigration to the US may follow.

So is economic nationalism racist?

Unlike Mr Trump, Mr Bannon himself has not talked in explicitly racist terms and he claims he is not a “white nationalist”.

Yet Mr Bannon plainly has a “nativist” view of America.

He has talked contemptuously of globalism creating a “middle class in Asia”.

Mr Bannon also seems to be Islamophobic. In 2010 he ranted that “Islam is not a religion of peace” and wrote a fear-mongering film script.

Most damningly, Mr Bannon once proudly described Breitbart as the “platform for the alt right”. Alt Right essentially refers to the online white supremacist movement.

Mr Bannon is also openly sympathetic to other bigots, including the Le Pen family in France, who head up the Front National.

Is there anything else about Bannon we should know?

He has an apocalyptic mentality. Mr Bannon has reportedly talked of the West being “at war” with Islam.

One of his favourite books is reported to be The Fourth Turning, a theory that history unfolds in 100-year cycles, ending in cataclysmic change in which the old order is destroyed and replaced.

“In Bannon’s view [this final stage] was sparked by the 2008 financial crisis and has now been manifested in part by the rise of Trump,” relate two journalists at Politico.

Did the Government Doctor Legal Documents in Order to Illegally Deport a Dreamer?

Lawyers in Washington state say Homeland Security is engaging in misconduct to remove a man from the U.S.

Go to Original
By Kali Holloway

As a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, Daniel Ramirez-Medina’s status as a legal resident of the U.S. should have been fully ensured. Despite that protection, Ramirez-Medina was arrested by federal agents during a raid of his home near Seattle, Washington, on February 10. Immigration and Customs Enforcement contends Ramirez-Medina is a “self-admitted” gang member who filled out documentation attesting to that fact. But his attorneys say the document upon which the government’s case rests has been doctored to intentionally create a gang affiliation, and grounds for deportation, where none exists.

Ramirez-Medina is currently being held at a facility in Tacoma. Last week, he petitioned to be removed from a unit that houses gang members. In the request, Ramirez-Medina wrote, “I came in and the officers said I have gang affiliation with gangs so I wear an orange uniform. I do not have a criminal history and I’m not affiliated with any gangs.” But according to his lawyers, when the document made its way back to Ramirez-Medina five days later, a key phrase had been deleted.

“I have gang affiliation with gangs so I wear an orange uniform,” the paperwork now read. “I do not have a criminal history and I’m not affiliated with any gangs.”

An image of the document shared by Washington-based news outlet The Stranger appears to show parts of the statement have been erased. Ramirez-Medina’s lawyers have filed a brief alleging the government tampered with the paper “in apparent attempt to cover up evidence that would, in fact, disprove their gang affiliation allegations.”

"Mr. Ramirez unequivocally denies being in a gang,” Mark Rosenbaum, one of Ramirez-Medina’s lawyers, told CNN. "While in custody, he was repeatedly pressured by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to falsely admit affiliation."

In court papers, the Department of Homeland Security cites a “gang tattoo” as additional evidence of Ramirez-Medina's criminal ties. The tattoo reads, “La Paz BCS.” As the Seattle Times notes, “La Paz means peace in Spanish, and is also the capital of Baja California Sur, the meaning behind the initials and the part of Mexico where Ramirez-Medina was born,” per his lawyers.

"What began, I thought, as a mistake in bringing Daniel in has turned into a bogus operation that is attempting to railroad him and violate the sacred program that the DACA represents," Mark Rosenbaum, another Ramirez-Medina attorney, told The Stranger. "It is one of the most serious examples of governmental misconduct that I have come across in my 40 years of practice."

Ramirez-Medina, who is 23 years old, arrived in the U.S. at age 7. He has reportedly received DACA protection twice, most recently in 2016, which should allow him legally to stay and work until 2018. According to Vox, he was stripped of his DACA legal protections following deportation proceedings on February 14. The outlet explains that the government’s case for deportation hinges on allegations of Ramirez-Medina’s gang involvement.

In theory, the government can take away an individual’s protection from deportation under DACA at any time, because DACA is officially a grant of “prosecutorial discretion” in an individual case rather than a formal grant of immigration status. Meanwhile, one of the reasons someone applying for DACA (for the first time, or for a two-year renewal) can be denied protection is if he’s deemed a threat to public safety—a category that includes gang affiliation.

A DHS statement regarding Ramirez-Medina’s case states that approximately 1,500 DACA recipients “have had their deferred action terminated due to a criminal conviction, gang affiliation, or a criminal conviction related to gang affiliation.” According to his lawyers, Ramirez-Medina has no criminal record.

Ramirez-Medina is the first DACA-authorized immigrant to face removal and deportation under Trump. Those on both sides of the immigration issue are closely watching his case, which may set a frightening precedent for how Dreamers and DACA recipients are treated under this administration. In typical fashion, Trump has been playing both sides of the fence—often within the same statement—when discussing the immigration issue for those who arrived here as children and know no other home than the U.S.

"We're gonna show great heart," Trump told journalists at a press conference last week. "DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me, I will tell you. To me, it's one of the most difficult subjects I have because you have these incredible kids, in many cases, not in all cases. And some of the cases, having DACA and they're gang members and they're drug dealers, too. But you have some absolutely, incredible kids, I would say mostly. They were brought here in such a way, it's a very, it's a very, very tough subject."

"The president made clear that they don't yet have a plan on DACA, and the guidance issued...doesn't add anything to that," Kamal Essaheb, of the National Immigration Law Center, told CNN. "But we know better than to take DHS at its word on the issue: last week, we saw a breathtaking disregard for the protections promised under DACA or for sensitive locations. We cannot at this time offer a confident assessment of whether anyone—including those with DACA—are protected from enforcement."