This is America Now

From CBS News:

A 19-year-old U.S. citizen arrested by Customs and Border Protection agents earlier this month in Arizona and briefly prosecuted for illegal entry into the U.S. has intellectual disabilities, his family told CBS News.

Jose Hermosillo was arrested on April 8 by CBP in Tucson and detained for 10 days. His family provided documentation proving his American citizenship, days after being taken into custody, according to court records and Department of Homeland Security assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security argued his arrest, which has attracted national attention, was a "direct result of his own actions and statements." A DHS spokesperson said Hermosillo approached a Border Patrol agent, said he had entered the U.S. illegally and identified himself as a Mexican citizen.

The department also posted a copy of Hermosillo's sworn statement on X in which Hermosillo responded "yes" when asked if he had entered the U.S. illegally. The document shows a child-like signature that reads "Jose."

In a phone interview Tuesday, Hermosillo's parents told CBS News their son suffers from intellectual disabilities, cannot read or write and has trouble speaking. They said he could not have possibly known what he was signing when he was detained.   

"He's never been able to read and was always in special education classes in school," Guadalupe Hermosillo, Hermosillo's mother, said in Spanish. 

Then there's this completely unrelated story from the AP:

A U.S. citizen was arrested in Florida for allegedly being in the country illegally and held for pickup by immigration authorities even after his mother showed a judge her son’s birth certificate and the judge dismissed charges.

Juan Carlos Lopez Gomez, 20, was in a car that was stopped just past the Georgia state line by the Florida Highway Patrol on Wednesday, said Thomas Kennedy, a spokesperson at the Florida Immigrant Coalition.

Gomez and others in the car were arrested under a new Florida law, which is on hold, making it a crime for people who are in the country illegally to enter the state.

There's more about this story here:

The federal government is blaming a U.S. citizen for his arrest during a traffic stop in Leon County last week under a temporarily blocked state immigration law.

A senior official with the Department of Homeland Security said Monday that Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez, a 20-year-old born in Georgia, was detained Wednesday after he told a Florida Highway Patrol trooper that he was in the country illegally.

“Immediately after learning the individual was a United States citizen, he was released,” a DHS senior official said in a statement Monday. “When individuals admit to committing a crime, like entering the country illegally, they will of course be detained while officers investigate.”

"Immediately" must mean something different to DHS. Back to the AP:

The charge of illegal entry into Florida was dropped Thursday after his mother showed the judge his state identification card, birth certificate and Social Security card, said Kennedy, who attended the hearing.

Court records show Judge Lashawn Riggans found no basis for the charge.

Lopez Gomez briefly remained in custody after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement requested he remain there for 48 hours, a common practice when the agency wants to take custody of someone. ICE did not respond to a request for comment.

And did you miss the part that the law he was held under was "temporarily blocked" from being enforced? From CNN:

Lopez-Gomez, who speaks an indigenous language and is not fluent in English or Spanish, was arrested with two men under a Florida law that took effect in February and was temporarily blocked April 4 by a federal judge, who barred its enforcement until Friday, court records show. It was not immediately clear why the suspended law was in play.  

This is America now.

 

 

 

 

Fetterman Responds!

I've written to PA Senator John Fetterman three times so far.

The first one, posted on April 5,  circled around questions of Homeland Security. The most recent, posted on April 18, was a question about Harvard, Fetterman's Alma Mater.

On April 11, I asked  him about Senator Elizabeth Warren's call for an official investigation into whether "Trump or anyone in his administration manipulated the market to benefit their donors."

The first one has already been "answered" and I can't imagine getting a response on Monday for something I posted the previous Friday. That leaves Warren's call for an investigation into possible market manipulation.

Yesterday, I received an email from his office that started with this:

Thank you so much for reaching out to my office about the economy. I appreciate hearing from you.

And continued with:

I’m working hard to deliver an economy that truly works for every Pennsylvanian. Pennsylvania families are currently being squeezed from all sides while companies rake in massive profits and the White House causes chaos with it's indiscriminate trade war. In the 119th Congress, I will continue to push for policies that bring down costs for Pennsylvanians and help local economies thrive. 

And so on.

No mention of Senator Warren, or the tariffs, or her call for an investigation into possible administration financial corruption based on the timing of those tariffs' "pauses."

No. Just a boilerplate recitation of Sen Fetterman's legislative accomplishments as they apply to the economy.

Why even bother with such a response, Senator?

We live in a time where the administration may well have signaled to its mega-rich friends on an up-coming tariff-pause. If true, it's hugely corrupt. If not, then the administration deserves an "all clear" on the issue.

This is the sort of oversight the US Congress should be doing. 

I ask you about it and you send me a list of your accomplishments that, more or less, has nothing to do with what I asked.

Disappointing isn't the word, Senator.

Feel free to take another shot at it. 

Please.

The letter from Fetterman:

 

 

McCormick Monday

Next in an ongoing series.

I will be mailing letter to Senator McCormick.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

Sebastian Gorka, who is now a deputy assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism, has stated recently on Newsmax that those who oppose this Administration are aiding and abetting terrorism. He immediately stated that aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists is a federal crime.

I oppose this administration, Senator. Am I guilty of a federal crime? 

And if so, will you be turning me in? If you don't turn me in, won't you (at least in Gorka's view) be guilty of aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists?

And what sort of Constitutionally guaranteed due process can I expect from this administration if I do get arrested for aiding and abetting terrorist simply because I oppose the current administration? And what do I do if (as is the case with so many others) I don't get it?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As stated above, I will be mailing this letter to the Senator. I will post here on this blog any response to that letter that I get.

 

And Now On To Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia

From a recent court order:

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. 

And:

If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” would lose its meaning.

Of course, the gaslighting continues:

A renewed push to cast Kilmar Abrego Garcia as a violent member of MS-13 comes amid growing public outcry against his deportation, criticisms about the lack of due process afforded to him, and the US government’s resistance to facilitate his court-mandated return to the country – which could risk a constitutional crisis. Abrego Garcia’s family and lawyers have denied he’s a gang member.  

Back to the judge's order:

The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?

In a fully functioning just society, this would not even be a question.

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series.

 

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd you to answer a question or two.

I'd like to ask you about Harvard, your alma mater.

CBS News reported that:

The Department of Homeland Security is threatening to revoke Harvard University's ability to enroll foreign students and has canceled grants totaling more than $2.7 million.

The latest action from the Trump administration against Harvard comes on the heels of a $2.2 billion federal funding freeze because the university rejected a list of demands.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem is now demanding detailed records on Harvard's foreign student visa holders' "illegal and violent" activities, or the university will lose its' Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification. In a letter to the university, Noem demanded the records by April 30.

And, according to the statement released by DHS Noem accused your alma mater of "bending the knee to antisemitism" and its "Harvard’s foreign visa-holding rioters and faculty have spewed antisemitic hate, targeting Jewish students."

Whatever one thinks of whatever the pro-Palestinian protesters have said about Israel after the attacks of October 7, 2023, those statements are protected by the First Amendment, aren't they? Have any actual laws been broken? Of course, those accused of breaking the law should be given due process and prosecuted. But is that enough to threaten the independence of an entire university?

You voted to confirm Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security, didn't you?

Any comment on your vote? Any comment on this administration's attacks on Harvard?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

I'll be dropping a hard copy of this letter in the USPS and I will post the Senator's response here.

Rule of Law And Contempt

One judge has some ideas:

On the evening of Saturday, March 15, 2025, this Court issued a written Temporary Restraining Order barring the Government from transferring certain individuals into foreign custody pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act. At the time the Order issued, those individuals were on planes being flown overseas, having been spirited out of the United States by the Government before they could vindicate their due-process rights by contesting their removability in a federal court, as the law requires. Rather than comply with the Court’s Order, the Government continued the hurried removal operation. Early on Sunday morning — hours after the Order issued — it transferred two planeloads of passengers protected by the TRO into a Salvadoran mega-prison.

As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt. The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.

One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order.  That foundational “rule of law” answers not just how this compliance inquiry can proceed, but why it must. The rule “reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,” no matter how “exalted his station” or “righteous his motives.” 

The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely “annul the judgments of the courts of the United States” would not just “destroy the rights acquired under those judgments”; it would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.”  “So fatal a result must be deprecated by all.” [Emphasis added.]

The Court is fighting back.

Say It With Me

 

 I will not surrender my independence or relinquish any constitutional rights.

 

I stole that line from this.

This is America, Now.

From The New York Times:

Mohsen Mahdawi, an organizer of pro-Palestinian demonstrations last year at Columbia University, was detained by immigration officials on Monday after arriving for an appointment in Vermont that he thought was a step toward becoming a U.S. citizen, his lawyers said.

Hours later, Mr. Mahdawi’s mother, older sister and lawyers were scrambling to find him after his abrupt detention at an immigration center in Colchester, Vt. His lawyers requested a temporary restraining order to prevent federal officials from transferring him to a more conservative jurisdiction — a tactic used in the detention and attempted deportation of at least four other college demonstrators.

A Vermont federal judge, William K. Sessions III, swiftly granted that request, ordering that Mr. Mahdawi, an outspoken critic of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, not be removed from the United States or transferred out of Vermont until he orders otherwise. His lawyers said that as of Monday afternoon, they had confirmed that he was still in Vermont.

Oh yea, and there's this:

Mr. Mahdawi has not been accused of a crime. According to his lawyers, the Trump administration appears to be seeking his removal from the country under the same legal provision that it is using to detain another recent Columbia student and Palestinian, Mahmoud Khalil, contending that his presence is a threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States. Immigration officials have argued that pro-Palestinian demonstrators have enabled the spread of antisemitism, but they have not offered evidence to substantiate the claim.

And then there's this from Reuters:

President Donald Trump said on Monday he wants to deport some violent criminals who are U.S. citizens to Salvadoran prisons, a move that experts said would violate U.S. law.

 

Trump's comments marked the clearest signal yet that the U.S. president is serious about deporting naturalized and U.S.-born citizens, a proposal that has alarmed civil rights advocates and is viewed by many legal scholars as unconstitutional.

 

Trump said he would only go through with the idea if his administration determined it was legal. It was not clear what level of due process an American would receive before being deported to a country Washington has previously accused of serious human rights abuses, including harsh and arbitrary detentions. [Emphasis added.]

Yea, we all know what that means. Especially since:

President Donald Trump and his administration refuse to take action to get Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an immigrant wrongly rendered to the Salvadoran prison CECOT, out of El Salvador and back to the United States. In doing so, they are openly defying a Supreme Court order.

This is America now.

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

04/14/2025

Dear Senator McCormick;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd you to answer a question or two.

The New York Times reported a few days ago that:

The bedrock of the financial system trembled this week, with government bond yields rising sharply as the chaotic rollout of tariffs shook investors’ faith in the pivotal role played by the United States in the financial system.

And CNBC reported: 

“The market is re-assessing the structural attractiveness of the dollar as the world’s global reserve currency and is undergoing a process of rapid de-dollarization. Nowhere is this more evident than the continued and combined collapse in the currency and US bond market as this week comes to a close,” Deutsche Bank strategist George Saravelos said in a note to clients Friday.

So, as I understand it the administration's back and forth on tariffs has undermined the confidence in world markets over the stability of the US as "global reserve currency" and that's why Trump blinked on his tariffs.

Saravelos said in that note that "The damage has been done ... both in terms of relative economic growth outcomes and foreign investor willingness to fund the U.S. external deficit.

In light of all that, do you still think that the tariffs were a good idea? Did you ever? And if you've changed your mind on the utility of Trump's tariffs, what are you doing to fix the damage this administration has caused? 

I'll await your answer, Senator.

NOTE: As always, I'll post your response here.

Senator Fetterman Responds!

Perhaps "responds" is a touch too strong in this context.

Let me explain.

On April 5, I posted this - a blog-post where, after pointing out an example of a legal resident of the US being deported with no due process, I asked Senator Fetterman the following questions:

Senator, do legal residents of this country (permanent or otherwise) have the First Amendment right to protest Trump foreign policies? 

And then, after point out his confirmation votes of Trump's AG and Secretary of Homeland Security, I asked: 

Considering all of the above, do you now have any comment on your confirmation votes for AG Bondi or Secretary Noem?  

Fetterman "responded" with a letter touting his civil liberties bona fides but avoiding completely my two questions.

For example, he wrote:

As your senator, protecting and advancing civil rights are key priorities for me. For too many Pennsylvanians, the promise of true equality has not been met, and I am committed to strengthening and expanding protections that allow all Pennsylvanians to live healthy and productive lives free from discrimination. Part of that is recognizing our country’s history of discrimination against minority communities, from the original sin of slavery through the brutality of Jim Crow and the bigotry of preventing LGBTQ+ Americans from marrying the person they love, and taking meaningful steps to make it right.  

And so on. 

Lotsa boasts about how he's working to advance civil rights, blah blah blah. He even took a swipe at the filibuster, doncha know.

But not a word about Mahmoud Khalil's arrest. 

Take a look:

Unbelievably disappointing.

Senator McCormick Responds!

On Friday, I received an email from Pennsylvania's jr Senator, Dave McCormick: 

From the context, he's responding to this blog post from April 7 - a couple of questions about this administration's tariffs.

Let's note that he has yet to respond to a previous blog/letter to him - a blog post about Donald Trump's interest in an end run around the Constitution's 2-term Presidential limit.

Interesting. 

Anyway, back to Dave's response.

(Note: The name at the bottom of the letter is, in fact, "Dave." I'm just following Dave's lead here - no disrespect should be seen in my use of "Dave" at all.)

Anyway, anyway...

After pointing out the WSJ's description that the tariffs wiped out trillions of dollars in wealth and triggered fears of a recession and CNN's reporting that markets were plunging and how conservatives used to define tariffs as taxes - taxes in the American family, in fact, I asked:

Given all the short term damage (so far) to the economy, do you stand with this administration's tariffs?

Also, given all that damage, any comment on Donald Trump playing golf all weekend as the economy tanked? 

And this is how Senator McCormick answered: 

President Trump has used tariffs as a mechanism to advocate for reciprocal treatment with international trading partners. On April 2, 2025, the President imposed a minimum global tariff of 10 percent and elevated reciprocal tariffs on specific countries. The global 10 percent tariff went into effect on April 5, 2025. The elevated reciprocal tariffs were scheduled to go into effect on April 9, 2025, but the same day, President Trump announced they would be paused for 90 days as international negotiations continue. He also raised tariffs on the People’s Republic of China to 145 percent.

American businesses do not compete on a level playing field. They must contend with heavily subsidized competitors and distortive trade practices that are designed to disadvantage the United States. American exporters have also been deprived of fair access to foreign markets. 

I support President Trump’s goal of restoring fairness and reciprocity to our trade relationships and bringing countries to the table to negotiate a better deal for American businesses and workers. To accomplish that goal, I believe we must be very specific about the bad behavior from other countries that is unfair and that we would like to see changed.

I have also encouraged the President to use the leverage he has established to show the path to better trade agreements and economic certainty; lets seize this opportunity to get some early trade wins for American workers, businesses, and the economy. Finally, I think there should be a thoughtful exclusions process for certain imports that cannot be purchased in the United States in sufficient quantities or of adequate quality.  

I'll let the Tax Foundation define Trump's "reciprocal tariff" in order to foil what Dave is trying to assert in his letter:

However, despite the characterization of the tariffs as “reciprocal,” and despite the accompanying graphics referring to foreign “tariffs charged to the USA including currency manipulation and trade barriers,” the White House did not actually measure tariffs, currency manipulation, or trade barrier policies employed by other countries. Instead, it drew its estimates from something else entirely: bilateral trade deficits in goods.

Specifically, the White House documents appear to allege the “tariffs charged to the USA” are the greater of two different quantities: (a) 10 percent, and (b) the 2024 US trade deficit in goods with a given country, divided by the total quantity of US imports from that country.

And:

The method for calculating other countries’ so-called “tariffs” for reciprocal purposes is nonsense. Bilateral deficits are not tariffs, nor are they meaningful anyway; trade in services is relevant; and tariffs cannot be used to target overall trade deficits. The overall result is an extraordinary policy error that will severely damage the economy while failing to reduce the US trade deficit. [Emphasis added.]

And now go back and look at Dave's response. 

He supports the idea of fairness and reciprocity in trade deals and does not expressly criticize Trump's use of tariffs to achieve that end. He just wants it done, it seems, in a more thoughtful manner.

There is no mention in his letter of how the tariffs are a tax on the American People. No mention of how we would be paying the tariffs in this attempt to achieve any sort of "fairness and reciprocity" in international trade.

There's also no mention of Trump's golf playing while the economy burned.

Senator McCormick Responded.

 

 

Fetterman Friday

05/11/2025

Dear Senator Fetterman

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd you to answer a question or two. 

Fortune reported this:

Just hours before [President] Trump changed course, he proclaimed now was a great time to buy assets, a statement crypto scam sleuth Stephen Findeisen argued offered the “perfect plausible deniability” needed for insider trading.

It remains unclear whether, at the time he posted that on Truth Social, he was already planning a U-turn on tariffs. The White House did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

“Was that market manipulation? Was it corruption in plain sight?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said on the floor of Congress, calling for an official investigation. “Americans need to know whether President Trump or anyone in his administration manipulated the market to benefit their donors.”

Do you agree with your colleague, Senator?  And do you think this administration's Department of Justice will investigate?

Given all we know about this administration and how it's dissolving DOJ's independence, I think you'd have to answer that question with a no.

You voted to confirm Pam Bondi as Attorney General, didn't you? 

Any comment on any of this, Senator?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

I will be dropping this in the mail to your office shortly. 

Trump Tariffs "Paused"

From The New York Times:

President Trump on Wednesday abruptly reversed course on steep global tariffs that have roiled markets, upset members of his own party and raised fears of a recession. Just hours after he put punishing levies into place on nearly 60 countries, the president said he would pause them for 90 days.

But Mr. Trump did not extend that pause to China, opting instead to raise tariffs again on all Chinese imports, bringing those taxes to a whopping 125 percent. That decision came after Beijing raised its levies on American goods to 84 percent on Wednesday afternoon in an escalating tit-for-tat between the world’s largest economies.

In a post on Truth Social, the president said that he had authorized “a 90 day PAUSE” in which countries would face “a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff” of 10 percent. As a result, nearly every U.S. trading partner now faces a 10 percent blanket tariff, on top of 25 percent tariffs that Mr.  Trump has imposed on cars, steel and aluminum.

A kinda sorta pause. 

The Trump administration blinked. 

But from CNBC, we learn that:

A wider, macro economic impact has also already unfolded, despite Trump’s move signaling that the U.S. administration is at least somewhat reactive to pressure from businesses and markets, George Saravelos, global head of FX research at Deutsche Bank said in a Wednesday note.

″Even if the tariffs are permanently suspended, damage has been done to the economy via a permanent sense of unpredictability in policy,” he said.

“More structurally, the events of the last few weeks will resonate amongst global economic partners during the upcoming negotiations on trade and indeed for many years to come. The desire to build greater strategic independence from the US across all fronts will be here to stay.”

Oopsie. 

 

 

 

Of Course They Did

From The New York Times:

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday night that the Trump administration could continue to deport Venezuelan migrants using a wartime powers act for now, overturning a lower court that had put a temporary stop to the deportations.

The decision marks a victory for the Trump administration, although the ruling did not address the constitutionality of using the Alien Enemies Act to send the migrants to a prison in El Salvador. The justices instead issued a narrow procedural ruling, saying that the migrants’ lawyers had filed their lawsuit in the wrong court.

The justices said it should have been filed in Texas, where the Venezuelans are being held, rather than a court in Washington.

Of course.  Something this important that could go against Trump so they punted. 

Of course they did.

You can read the ruling and the dissents here.

From the Sotomayor dissent:

In light of this agreement, the Court's decision to intervene in this litigation is as inexplicable as it is dangerous. Recall that, when the District Court issued its temporary restraining order on March 15, 2025, the Government was engaged in a covert operation to deport dozens of immigrants without notice or an opportunity for hearings. The Court's ruling today means that those deportations violated the Due Process Clause's most fundamental protections. The District Court rightly intervened to prohibit temporarily the Government from deporting more individuals in this manner, based on its correct assessment that the plaintiffs were likely entitled to more process.  

Against the backdrop of the U. S. Government's unprecedented deportation of dozens of immigrants to a foreign prison without due process, a majority of this Court sees fit to vacate the District Court's order. The reason, apparently, is that the majority thinks plaintiffs' claims should have been styled as habeas actions and filed in the districts of their detention. In reaching that result, the majority flouts well-established limits on its jurisdiction, creates new law on the emergency docket, and elides the serious threat our intervention poses to the lives of individual detainees. [Emphasis added.]

And from the Jackson dissent:

The President of the United States has invoked a centuries-old wartime statute to whisk people away to a notoriously brutal, foreign- run prison. For lovers of liberty, this should be quite concerning. Surely, the question whether such Government action is consistent with our Constitution and laws warrants considerable thought and attention from the Judiciary. That was why the District Court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent immediate harm to the targeted individuals while the court considered the lawfulness of the Government's conduct. But this Court now sees fit to intervene, hastily dashing off a four-paragraph per curiam opinion discarding the District Court's order based solely on a new legal pronouncement that, one might have thought, would require significant deliberation. 

If you're wondering why the majority did what it did, just look at who it benefits. That's why.

 

 

McCormick Monday

04/07/2025

Dear Senator McCormick ;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd you to answer a question or two.

I'd like to ask you about the administrations tariffs. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that the tariffs wiped out trillions of dollars and have triggered fears of a recession, adding that it was the worst week since 2020.

CNN is reporting that, because of the tariffs, global markets are plunging.

It used to be dogma amongst conservatives that tariffs are taxes. The Tax Foundation went a little further: 

Tariffs are taxes imposed by one country on goods imported from another country. Tariffs are trade barriers that raise prices, reduce available quantities of goods and services for US businesses and consumers, and create an economic burden on foreign exporters.

The Republican Liberty Caucus stated recently that 

Americans should have the liberty to purchase and exchange goods with minimal government interference. Tariffs violate these principles and are essentially a tax paid for by American families.

Given all the short term damage (so far) to the economy, do you stand with this administration's tariffs?

Also, given all that damage, any comment on Donald Trump playing golf all weekend as the economy tanked?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

Second of a series.

I will be sending this letter to the Senator's office via the United States Postal Service and any response I get I'll post here verbatim.

 

The Protest.

Let's start with the general picture.

From The New York Times: 

They came out in defense of national parks and small businesses, public education and health care for veterans, abortion rights and fair elections. They marched against tariffs and oligarchs, dark money and fascism, the deportation of legal immigrants and the Department of Government Efficiency.

Demonstrators had no shortage of causes as they gathered in towns and cities across the country on Saturday to protest President Trump’s agenda. 

And:

Mr. Trump, who was playing golf in Florida on Saturday, appeared to be largely ignoring the protests. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Of course he was. And of course they didn't respond.

Hundreds of thousands gathered to protest.

Locally, The Trib had this to say: 

Maureen Pastorius became one of an estimated more than 6,000 people who gathered in downtown Pittsburgh on Saturday for a protest and march that was part of a nationwide call to action against President Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

Pastorius, 72, of Pleasant Hills came to the “Hands Off!” rally carrying a sign that read, “No sign is big enough to list why I’m here.”

“I disagree with absolutely everything that Trump and Musk are doing, and I believe they are a true threat to our democracy,” she said. “If we don’t act now, we won’t have a democracy in four years.”

Her friend, Linda Grusch, 73, of Oakdale, agreed.

And:

The Pittsburgh rally was co-hosted by Indivisible Pittsburgh and a coalition of grassroots partners. The estimated turnout was better than double the 2,500 organizers knew had registered.

“We are deeply grateful to the thousands of people who turned out today to stand up for democracy and our neighbors,” said Dana Kellerman, an organizer for Indivisible Pittsburgh. “We are building a movement too big to ignore, and we are just getting started.”

WPXI reported a longer list of organizers:

The Downtown protest was organized by a group of organizations including The Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers, the League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh, Casa San Jose, Indivisible Grassroots Pittsburgh, Progress PA, Partners for Progress SWPA, Mondays with(OUT) McCormick, Steel City Stonewall Democrats, the 14th Ward Independent Democratic Club, the SWPA Coalition of Labor Union Women, and other community partners.

Kudos to all of them! 

An astute reader from the North Side texted me her first person reaction to the protest dahn-tahn:

I’m short, so it’s hard for me to get a sense of crowd size, but when we started marching, oh my God! The parade looped around blocks and blocks! It was exciting and moving to see so many thousands of people come out in the rain to protest the attacks on our parks, safety nets, veterans, judiciary, allies, economy, democracy, and the rule of law. We the people are truly pissed off!

This is what it looked like:

This picture from Pittsburgh’s #HandsOff protest is incredible pic.twitter.com/Vv3NZCZo13

— Mike Mikus (@MikeMikusPA) April 5, 2025

Wow. Pittsburgh. pic.twitter.com/kNMWInMgQp

— Conor Lamb (@ConorLambPA) April 5, 2025

Note: If anyone has any other photos of or personal reactions to the protest that they'd like to see posted here, just email them in.

I'll update this blog post with them.The address is in the upper right.

I'm David. 

Donald Trump is still a convicted felon. 

UPDATE: The OPJ let me know that the picture Mike Mokus posted came from Corey Buckner's Facebook page:

Letter to Fetterman (A Day Late)

First of a series.

I will be sending this letter to the Senator's office via the United States Postal Service and any response I get I'll post here verbatim.

Dear Senator Fetterman;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd you to answer a question or two. 

The New Republic reported that:

The Department of Homeland Security shut down its office in charge of investigating civil rights complaints on Friday.

DHS closed its Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which was created along with the department in 2002 to advise leadership on civil rights and liberties and to investigate agency complaints on everything from disaster response to immigration enforcement. Its 90 employees were told they will be paid through May 23.

And PBS reported on the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a legal resident who was arrested and shipped to Louisiana, there was this exchange as part of the reporting:

Immigration agents arrested Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil in New York on March 8. They quickly moved him to New Jersey and then to Louisiana, where he remains detained. His lawyers are fighting the Trump administration's attempt to deport him over his pro-Palestinian activism. Yesterday, a federal judge made an important ruling about where his case will be heard. NPR's Adrian Florido reports.

ADRIAN FLORIDO, BYLINE: The night ICE agents followed Khalil and his wife into the lobby of their New York apartment building, Khalil got his lawyer, Amy Greer, on the phone. She told one of the agents, you can't arrest him. He's got a green card.

AMY GREER: And he said, oh, he'll go in front of an immigration judge. And then I started demanding for a warrant. I was like, you cannot take him until you show us a warrant. And the agent hung up on me.

The NYTimes reported that he has not been charged with any crime.

The arrest of this permanent legal resident has raised First Amendment issues for immigrants.

Senator, do legal residents of this country (permanent or otherwise) have the First Amendment right to protest Trump foreign policies? 

You voted to confirm Pamela Bondi to be Attorney General of the United States of America (the only Democrat to do so) and Kristi Noem to be Secretary of Homeland Security of the United States of America (only one of seven Democrats to do so).

Considering all of the above, do you now have any comment on your confirmation votes for AG Bondi or Secretary Noem?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

(Note: This should have gone out yesterday - Friday's with Fetterman - but life got in the way.)

Some Feedback Regarding Trump's Tax/Tariffs

First, The Financial Times:

Trade economists have poured scorn on the crude methodology used by Donald Trump to calculate the list of “reciprocal” global tariffs imposed by his administration. 

Under the US president’s plan set out on Wednesday night, a baseline tariff of 10 per cent will be levied on all imports from all countries excluding Canada and Mexico, while countries with larger trade deficits with the US were hit with much higher numbers. 

The formula used to calculate the tariffs, released by the US trade representative, took the US’s trade deficit in goods with each country as a proxy for alleged unfair practices, then divided it by the amount of goods imported into the US from that country.

That last part is what doesn't make sense to actual economist, the article goes on to say.

Then there's The Wall Street Journal:

Capital Economics estimated that the import taxes outlined by President Trump Wednesday afternoon are likely to annually generate about that much in customs duties.

The tariffs will raise a maximum of $835 billion, the firm's economists calculate. But “assuming such high tariffs lead to a marked decline in imports, the increase in revenues will probably end up closer to $700 billion,” they wrote in a note to clients. That is equivalent to 2.3% of the country's gross domestic product, they wrote.

Meanwhile, the economists say that since imports account for about 10% of consumption, the roughly 25% effective tariff rate that they calculate will add about 2.5% to consumer prices, lifting inflation to above 4% by the end of the year.

And remember, as we said yesterday, conservative economists have insisted for years that consumers pay the tariffs.  So we will be paying the $700 billion - and what will we gain from it?

Inflation above 4% by the end of the year.

"Liberation" Day

Yep - that's today:

President Trump is set to unveil his most expansive tariffs to date on Wednesday afternoon, when he will detail potentially punishing levies on countries around the globe, including America’s largest trading partners.

Mr. Trump has promised for months to impose what he calls “reciprocal” tariffs, which the president says will correct years of “unfair” trade in which other countries have been “ripping off” America.

“We helped everybody, and they don’t help us,” Mr. Trump said on Monday.

The details haven't been announced as of yet, but let's take a look at what our formerly economically conservative friends once had to say about the topic.

First, a definition from the Tax Foundation:

Tariffs are taxes imposed by one country on goods imported from another country. Tariffs are trade barriers that raise prices, reduce available quantities of goods and services for US businesses and consumers, and create an economic burden on foreign exporters.

And they work this way:

Tariffs are paid when a good or services is imported into a country. If a car manufacturer imports engines that are then used in vehicles, then tariffs on those imported engines will increase the production cost and the cost to the consumer. The costs of tariffs result in higher burdens on international trade which can harm production.

Many businesses have supply chains that cross multiple borders, and each border that is crossed could result in higher costs due to tariffs.

Huh. 

But let's delve deeper into the conservative hive mind.

What does the conservative Club for Growth have to say about tariffs?

Take a look. In 2019 they had this to say: 

Tariffs are taxes that hurt U.S. consumers and key pillars of our economy, including manufacturing and agriculture. Tariffs slow economic productivity and decrease the impact of the many other successes within your economic agenda, like tax cuts and deregulation. 

Huh.

How 'bout Heritage?

Well, back in 2019, this was posted at The Heritage Foundation: 

A tariff is a government-imposed tax on goods imported into a country. Imposing a tax on imports makes them more expensive. The government’s goal is to increase revenue—but another aim is to reduce the amount of goods people import.

Many people believe that when tariffs are imposed on a country, that country bears the costs. However, this is not the case. Tariffs are paid by an individual or business importing the subjected good. When a government collects revenue from tariffs, it is collecting it from its own citizens—not from the citizens of the country upon whose goods tariffs were imposed.

Huh.

And what are some economists saying about the oncoming Trump Tariffs?

Take a look:

One of the nation’s most prominent investment banks is warning its clients that the United States could soon be in the throes of a recession. CNN reports that Goldman Sachs has raised its internal probability metrics to reflect a growing possibility for a recession:

The Wall Street bank warned clients Sunday night that it now sees a 35% chance of a recession in the next 12 months, up from 20% previously. Goldman Sachs also increased its inflation estimate, slashed its 2025 GDP forecast to just 1% and bumped up its year-end unemployment rate outlook by 0.3 percentage points to 4.5%. The bank explained its reasoning in a report, citing, in part, “statements from White House officials indicating greater willingness to tolerate near-term economic weakness in pursuit of their policies.”[Italics in original.]

 And at this:

J.P. Morgan Research has lowered its estimate for 2025 real GDP growth due to heightened trade policy uncertainty, the effect of existing tariffs and retaliatory measures by foreign trading partners. Real GDP growth is now expected to be 1.6% for the year, down 0.3% from previous estimates.

“Heightened trade policy uncertainty should weigh on activity growth, particularly for capital spending,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. Economist at J.P. Morgan. “Plus, tariffs that have already been imposed will create a bump to headline inflation, pushing up consumer prices by 0.2 percentage points. Retaliatory tariffs would also serve to drag on gross export growth.”

So when/if this all goes south, no one can say we haven't been warned.

 

 

 

20 Lessons - Snyder, By Way of Lithgow

Day 71

The text:

1. Do not obey in advance.  Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked.  A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do. 

2.  Defend institutions.  It is institutions that help us to preserve decency.  They need our help as well.  Do not speak of "our institutions" unless you make them yours by acting on their behalf.  Institutions do not protect themselves.  They fall one after the other unless each is defended from the beginning.  So choose an institution you care about -- a court, a newspaper, a law, a labor union -- and take its side.

3. Beware the one-party state.  The parties that remade states and suppressed rivals were not omnipotent from the start.  They exploited a historic moment to make political life impossible for their opponents.  So support the multiple-party system and defend the rules of democratic elections.  Vote in local and state elections while you can.  Consider running for office.

4. Take responsibility for the face of the world.  The symbols of today enable the reality of tomorrow.  Notice the swastikas and the other signs of hate.  Do not look away, and do not get used to them.  Remove them yourself and set an example for others to do so.

5. Remember professional ethics.  When political leaders set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become more important. It is hard to subvert a rule-of-law state without lawyers, or to hold show trials without judges.  Authoritarians need obedient civil servants, and concentration camp directors seek businessmen interested in cheap labor.

6. Be wary of paramilitaries.  When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching with torches and pictures of a leader, the end is nigh.  When the pro-leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the end has come.

7. Be reflective if you must be armed.  If you carry a weapon in public service, may God bless you and keep you.  But know that evils of the past involved policemen and soldiers finding themselves, one day, doing irregular things.  Be ready to say no.

8. Stand out.  Someone has to.  It is easy to follow along.  It can feel strange to do or say something different.  But without that unease, there is no freedom.  Remember Rosa Parks.  The moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.

9. Be kind to our language.  Avoid pronouncing the phrases everyone else does.  Think up your own way of speaking, even if only to convey that thing you think everyone is saying.  Make an effort to separate yourself from the internet.  Read books.

10. Believe in truth.  To abandon facts is to abandon freedom.  If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so.  If nothing is true, then all is spectacle.  The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.

11. Investigate.  Figure things out for yourself.  Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media.  Realize that some of what is on the internet is there to harm you.  Learn about sites that investigate propaganda campaigns (some of which come from abroad).  Take responsibility for what you communicate with others.

12. Make eye contact and small talk.  This is not just polite.  It is part of being a citizen and a responsible member of society.  It is also a way to stay in touch with your surroundings, break down social barriers, and understand whom you should and should not trust.  If we enter a culture of denunciation, you will want to know the psychological landscape of your daily life.

13. Practice corporeal politics.  Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen.  Get outside.  Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people.  Make new friends and march with them.

14. Establish a private life.  Nastier rulers will use what they know about you to push you around.  Scrub your computer of malware on a regular basis.  Remember that email is skywriting.  Consider using alternative forms of the internet, or simply using it less.  Have personal exchanges in person.  For the same reason, resolve any legal trouble.  Tyrants seek the hook on which to hang you.  Try not to have hooks.

15. Contribute to good causes.  Be active in organizations, political or not, that express your own view of life.  Pick a charity or two and set up autopay.  Then you will have made a free choice that supports civil society and helps others to do good.

16. Learn from peers in other countries.  Keep up your friendships abroad, or make new friends in other countries.  The present difficulties in the United States are an element of a larger trend.  And no country is going to find a solution by itself.  Make sure you and your family have passports.

17. Listen for dangerous words.  Be alert to use of the words "extremism" and "terrorism."  Be alive to the fatal notions of "emergency" and "exception."  Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary.

18. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.  Modern tyranny is terror management.  When the terrorist attack comes, remember that authoritarians exploit such events in order to consolidate power.  The sudden disaster that requires the end of checks and balances, the dissolution of opposition parties, the suspension of freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, and so on, is the oldest trick in the Hitlerian book.  Do not fall for it.

19. Be a patriot.  Set a good example of what America means for the generations to come.  They will need it.

20. Be as courageous as you can.  If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny. [Bolding and italics in original]

Donald Trump is still a felon. He's still a criminal.