Trump issues blizzard of racist executive orders

Donald Trump has a long history of racism, from excusing the actions of Nazis to promoting the racist birther conspiracy theory. Trump also surrounds himself with racist advisers like Stephen Miller, who is currently formulating the administration’s harsh immigration policy.

Trump continued this approach in the first few days of his second presidency by issuing a series of executive orders meant to undo past actions by the U.S. government to address the harmful effects of racism.

Trump and his fellow Republicans have for years attacked programs meant to counter racism and encourage diversity, attacking diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. They have falsely claimed that these programs prioritize mediocrity over qualified individuals and decision making. But in reality, the anti-DEI crusade has been a smokescreen for rolling back civil rights.

In his executive order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” the Trump administration made this posture clear. The order explicitly rescinds Executive Order 11246, which President Lyndon Johnson signed in 1965—an order Johnson used to desegregate federal contracting.

As the Department of Labor website explains (for now, at least), the Johnson order “reinforced the requirement that federal contractors not discriminate in employment and take affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity based on race, color, religion, and national origin.” The department also notes that the Johnson order—now gone, thanks to Trump’s actions—were a “key landmark in a series of federal actions aimed at ending racial, religious and ethnic discrimination.”

Reversing an order meant to attack racism and pro-segregation policies was described by the Trump administration in a release as “protecting civil rights and expanding individual opportunity.”

In addition to undoing Johnson’s actions against segregation, Trump also blamed airline problems on diversity programs.

The administration issued an order instructing the Department of Transportation and the FAA to “immediately stop Biden DEI hiring programs and return to non-discriminatory, merit-based hiring.” The order claimed without evidence that increasing diversity in transportation programs somehow makes travel more dangerous for Americans.

As evidence, the administration pointed to a January 2023 FAA outage as “an illustration of the importance of FAA competence.” But in reality, as the FAA determined at the time of the outage, the cause was a corrupted database issue that occurred when files were deleted by mistake by a contractor. That’s not exactly a diversity issue.

Kash Patel

The Trump administration also issued a blanket order that fires all staff within the federal government tasked with addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion issues.

But even as decades of work to dismantle bigotry were being undone, new reporting revealed that Trump’s inner circle has benefitted from these supposedly problematic programs.

The New York Times reported that Kash Patel, Trump’s controversial pick to lead the FBI, benefitted from a DEI program. Patel participated in the American Bar Association’s Judicial Intern Opportunity Program in 2003. According to the association’s website, the program “provides opportunities to students who are members of groups that are traditionally underrepresented in the profession, including students from minority racial and ethnic groups.”

Patel benefitted from the same kind of programs that Trump is undermining for millions of Americans, but as part of the presidential inner circle, he gets a pass.

Campaign Action

Click here to see original article

I Lost My Home in the California Fires. The Same Politicians Responsible for LA’s Destruction Shouldn’t Oversee Its Rebuilding.

Virtually the entire town of Pacific Palisades, my home, has been destroyed by the recent fire. The fact that Pacific Palisades and so much of Los Angeles is in ruins is all one needs to know to conclude that Los Angeles’ and California’s leaders were grossly negligent. This simply cannot happen in a modern, wealthy, highly taxed, American city set to host the next Olympic Games.

Allowing Pacific Palisades’ sole reservoir to sit empty awaiting a minor repair for close to a year is but one of many examples of neglect already identified. A severely under-resourced Los Angeles Fire Department, with staffing at the same level as the 1960s yet subjected to additional budget cuts this year, is another.

The question now is whether these same negligent leaders should be trusted with the rebuilding of Pacific Palisades and the other fire-damaged parts of Los Angeles. The rebuilding will be extremely complex. How do you start reconstructing a single home when the entire block and those around it are gone?

In a desperate attempt to show leadership after obvious failure, city and state leaders are rushing to establish new rules governing such construction even as firefighters are still searching Los Angeles’ charred remains with cadaver dogs.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has declared a state of emergency and is using that power to go after developers seeking to profit from the tragedy by making “unsolicited offers” to those who lost their homes. But is cracking down on real estate developers the best way to ensure the redevelopment of the city’s real estate? Personally, I have never been offended by someone offering me money. Californians remember well the last time Newsom abused his state of emergency powers during COVID-19, violating his own orders by dining at the French Laundry.

Mayor Karen Bass has announced that she will streamline LA’s notoriously onerous building permit process for those looking to rebuild, but there is a catch. They cannot increase the size of their homes by more than 10%.

The cost of construction in LA was through the roof before the fire, thanks to supply chain problems brought on by the COVID-19 lockdown, followed by inflation caused by enormous COVID-19 and “Inflation Reduction Act” spending and California’s Green New Deal, which imposes onerous environmental restrictions and requirements on builders.

The cost to build before the fire was over $1,000 per square foot. After the fire, demand will drive those prices even higher. It likely will be far too costly to rebuild a 1,600-square-foot home, about the size of many of the homes that burned in Pacific Palisades’ downtown area, if the new home cannot exceed 1,760 square feet. The value simply will not justify the cost.

These rules are just the start. LA and California leaders will no doubt see the tragedy as an opportunity to “reimagine” the Palisades and “build back better.” They will likely encourage low-income and homeless housing development, despite the town being the among the city’s most affluent neighborhoods. After all, they have billions to spend on such housing thanks to new taxes LA residents recently voted to impose on themselves. City leaders told them the taxes were necessary to solve the out-of-control homeless problem, a problem those same leaders inflicted on the residents by eliminating the city’s ban on camping in public spaces.

In addition to an additional half-cent sales tax, residents approved a “mansion tax”—a misnomer, since the tax applies to all real estate in the city, including commercial, where the sale proceeds exceed a certain amount— to fund homeless housing and provide free legal representation for anyone evicted by a landlord regardless of the reason.

This tax will act as a major deterrent to the redevelopment of the Palisades. It imposes a tax of 4.0-5.5% on the gross sale proceeds of any property in LA over $5 million. This equates to a tax of about 25% of the net proceeds for any new development. Passed two years ago, the tax has resulted in LA being essentially redlined for any new commercial or high-end residential development. The Palisades primarily consists of high-end residential properties.

It is nonsensical to subject Palisades residents to rules created by the same politicians who caused their suffering. One option is to recall Bass and Newsom. Such efforts are already in the works. But this is not the best option. By law, Bass would simply be replaced by the City Council president, who is equally culpable for the fire along with the rest of the Council (consisting of 10 Democrats, five Democrat Socialists, and zero Republicans). Newsom would probably also be replaced by a like-minded politician.

A better solution is to allow the town of Pacific Palisades to break away from the morass that is LA. LA is the nation’s second largest city in the nation’s largest county and largest state. It is almost double the square miles of New York City. It is just too big to effectively manage. 

Consider this: Would an independent town set in the foothills and canyons of the Santa Monica Mountains whose homes have been rated by insurance companies as a high risk for fire have allowed its only reservoir to sit empty awaiting minor repairs for a year? Of course not. But a city the size of LA, with a hundred other priorities ahead of it, including ensuring “environmental equity,” DEI, and acquiring luxury apartments for the homeless, one relatively small reservoir in one of a hundred towns is simply not on its radar.

Consider the city of Santa Monica, which, unlike the Palisades to its immediate north, is not part of LA. Its home values are inflated because it maintains a good, local public school system. Palisades residents are stuck with the LA Unified School district, one of the worst public school systems in the country. And when one walks or bikes along the beach in Santa Monica, the paths are meticulously maintained because the beach is the centerpiece of the city. Naturally, its government focuses on those things central to the city.

As you continue along one of those same paths into Venice, a town within the city of LA, the path noticeably deteriorates, and the homeless abound. The beach simply cannot be a priority for a huge city like LA. It is but one minor component, and thus Venice’s beach community suffers compared to its neighbor to the north.

The town of Pacific Palisades must be given its freedom. It has suffered at the hands of distant and incompetent leaders. As America’s Founding Fathers said, “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another … they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

I welcome my fellow residents of the Palisades to further declare those causes, as I have done here, and declare their independence from LA.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

The post I Lost My Home in the California Fires. The Same Politicians Responsible for LA’s Destruction Shouldn’t Oversee Its Rebuilding. appeared first on The Daily Signal .

Click here to see original article

Raskin: Pardoned Jan. 6 rioters ‘a reserve army of political foot soldiers’

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) slammed President Trump’s decision to grant sweeping pardons to those convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot, suggesting they are “political foot soldiers” for Trump.

“Are they being released as a reserve army of political foot soldiers to act on behalf of MAGA and Donald Trump?” Raskin told CNN’s Erin Burnett during an appearance on the network Tuesday night.

“I think that’s what’s so profoundly troubling to a majority of the American people who rejected the idea of freeing at least the violent criminals and the ones who were convicted of seditious conspiracy, which means conspiracy to overthrow the government,” he added.

Leaders of the far-right groups the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were among those pardoned by Trump on his first day in office Monday.

Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was released from prison after receiving a full pardon from Trump. Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years after being convicted on seditious conspiracy and other charges connected to the 2021 riot.

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who was sentenced to 18 years in prison on similar charges, had his sentence commuted by Trump to time served.

Raskin argued Tuesday that those individuals and others have not committed to changed behavior and noted Trump has not publicly shared information about any private conversations urging defendants not to interrupt the “peaceful transfer of power.”

“Pardons in that case are reserved for people who are reformed, people who are rehabilitated and no longer constitute a threat to public safety, so that’s what’s missing in this conversation,” Raskin told CNN.

“If President Trump had come forth and said, ‘We’ve spoken to these people, they are not going to be attacking police officers in the future, the way that they bloodied and wounded and hospitalized 140 of them in Washington, D.C., they are not going to be attacking the rule of law and democratic institutions, they are not going to be interrupting the peaceful transfer of power and they’re not going to be a threat to their communities, but we haven’t heard anything like that. So then the question is, why are they being released?”

Raskin, who served on the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 riot, has condemned Trump’s pardons while seeking to distinguish between his own pardon he received from former President Biden on Biden’s way out of office.

Democratic lawmakers including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have broadly criticized Trump for his decision to pardon those charged in connection to the Capitol riot.

“The President’s actions are an outrageous insult to our justice system and the heroes who suffered physical scars and emotional trauma as they protected the Capitol, the Congress and the Constitution,” Pelosi wrote in a Monday post on X

“It is shameful that the President has decided to make one of his top priorities the abandonment and betrayal of police officers who put their lives on the line to stop an attempt to subvert the peaceful transfer of power.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) has also spoken out against the move to pardon those convicted of assaulting police officers, calling it a “bad idea ” while defending the move to pardon those who entered the Capitol illegally but didn’t destroy property or assault officers.

Click here to see original article