McCormick Responds

So far, Republican US Senator Dave McCormick has responded to more of my letters than Democratic US Senator John Fetterman.

I hope Fetterman's office is paying attention - if so, now they know that I know this. 

Interestingly none of the responses are by USPS letter. All of them are via email.  I can't remember the break down, but when I was sending similar letters to then-Senator Pat Toomey's office, more than a few were postal mail responses.  I'm guessing it's just easier/cheaper to hit a "send" button than it is to print out a letter, stuff it into an envelope and then slap a stamp on it.

For the record, I post these letters and I send its link to the respective Senators' office via his official website and then I drop a hard copy to each in the mail. 

Anyway, yesterday I got another response from Sen McCormick.

Here is the opening sentence:

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the Rescissions Act of 2025 (H.R. 4). Your feedback is essential as we work together to shape policies that benefit Pennsylvania and our country. 

Hmm. I don't remember writing specifically about that act but that doesn't mean the Senator is wrong. A few paragraphs later, McCormick writes:

I supported the rescissions package because it represents a relatively small but necessary step toward addressing our $36 trillion national debt and nearly $2 trillion annual budget deficit. Over the past six months, the Trump Administration’s review of federal spending has uncovered far too many instances of expenditures that do not reflect the priorities or values of the vast majority of Americans.

I believe public broadcasting should serve all Americans, but NPR and PBS have demonstrated a consistent pattern of ideological bias. Taxpayer-funded media must adhere to high standards of balance, accountability, and public trust. Given their repeated failures to meet those standards, I support eliminating federal funding for CPB. 

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.  The Senator is responding to this letter, dated July 22 as it's the only one I could find that has both the words "rescission" and "broadcasting" in it. 

However, after the letter pointed out how eliminating federal funding for CPB could negatively impact how PBS stations deliver emergency information via the nation's emergency alert system, I asked:

Are you at all concerned that the cuts in CPB funding will adversely effect public safety? And if so, what are you doing in Pennsylvania to alleviate this situation? 

As nothing in McCormick's response addresses these questions I guess it's safe to assume that he's ok with the threat to public safety as long as there's no anti-Trump stuff on public television or radio.

That's the price of MAGA, my friends. 

But let's dig a little deeper into McCormick's own anti-CPB bias. How does it sit with public opinion?

Not very well, as it turns out. Take a look at this:

In a survey conducted last week by The Harris Poll on behalf of NPR, two-thirds of Americans (66%) agree that they support federal funding for public radio, and the same proportion (66%) agree that federal funding for public radio is a good value for taxpayer dollars.

Over half of Republicans (58%) and three-quarters of Democrats (77%) support federal funding for public radio. And, 59% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats agree it is a good value for taxpayer dollars. Reliance on public radio emergency alerts is bipartisan — over 7-in-10 Americans who identify as Republicans (77%) and Democrats (78%) agree "I rely on public radio emergency alerts and news for my public safety."

Uh-oh. There are also these two bullet points:

• About 7 in 10 Americans think public radio is a valuable service for their community (71%) [64% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats] and trust/would trust the news and information from public radio (69%) [62% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats].
• Nearly 3 in 4 Americans (73%) agree they rely on public radio emergency alerts and news for their public safety [77% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats].

Then there's this from the Knight/Gallup Foundation from 2018: 

Americans are most likely to rate PBS News, The Associated Press and National Public Radio as being “not biased at all” or “not very biased.” 

And so on. 

Then there's this from McCormick:

I supported the rescissions package because it represents a relatively small but necessary step toward addressing our $36 trillion national debt and nearly $2 trillion annual budget deficit. 

He leaves out the part about how roughly $8 trillion of that debt is from Trump's first administration and how that Big Beautiful Bill (that Senator McCormick supported) will add about $4 trillion more to the debt over the next decade.

But sure, let's eliminate federal funding for the CPB (an entity that most US Citizens support) even if that means that it might put the public safety at risk in order to make sure no non-existent "woke" ideology is broadcast over the airwaves.

The reality of MAGA, my friends.

The letter:

 

 

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator Fetterman;

I'd like to ask you again about AG Pam Bondi. And I am asking you for a comment since you voted to confirm her appointment to Attorney General.

Recently, your Democratic colleagues in Congress wrote a letter to AG Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel that started with this paragraph:

We write with serious concerns about recent reports indicating that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is shuttering its Public Integrity Section and dissolving a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) squad focused on public corruption. These moves follow the Trump Administration’s decisions to shut down or otherwise scale back enforcement of laws that prohibit corruption and white-collar crime. DOJ’s refusal to enforce anti-corruption laws betrays the public trust and will create lasting harm to Americans’ faith in the integrity of government officials.

NBC reported:

The Trump administration is gutting the Justice Department's unit that oversees prosecutions of public officials accused of corruption, three sources who spoke on condition of anonymity told NBC News.

The unit, the Public Integrity Section, has overseen some of the country’s most high-profile and sensitive prosecutions. Now, though, only a small fraction of its employees will remain, and the unit will no longer directly handle investigations or prosecutions, two sources said.

Later in the letter, there's this paragraph:

By shuttering the public corruption work of both the FBI and DOJ, you and President Trump are giving the green light to would-be lawbreakers. This is just part of the Trump Administration’s creation of a two-tiered system of justice—one for large corporations and President Trump’s wealthy friends, and another for everyone else.

Senator, do you agree with your Congressional colleagues? And did you think that AG Bondi was capable of this action when you voted to confirm her?

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from the Senator.

Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.

Everybody knows American isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. 

You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. 

It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." 

Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

- A fictional president, 30 years ago 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I'd like to ask you about some recent events.

The home of former National Security Advisor John Bolton was raided by the FBI this weekend. The New York Post reported that: 

FBI agents raided the Maryland home and Washington, DC office of President Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton Friday morning in a high-profile probe of allegations that he sent “highly sensitive” classified documents to his family from a private email server while working in the White House.

Federal investigators went to Bolton’s house in Bethesda, Md., at 7 a.m. in an investigation ordered by FBI Director Kash Patel, a Trump administration official told The Post. Agents later went to Bolton’s office in downtown DC, but did not enter until a judge signed a warrant for that location late Friday morning.

Axios reported:

Prior to being confirmed as FBI director, Patel wrote a book in 2023 that included a "not exhaustive" list of "deep state" officials in the executive branch.

• Trump endorsed the book, saying that he will "use this blueprint to help us take back the White House and remove these Gangsters from all of Government!"

John Bolton was on that list.

CNN reported:

Over and over again, the administration has not just probed Trump critics, but it’s made a show of it – often in ways that run afoul of legal ethics.

Those ethics rules hold that prosecutors and investigators should not seed unwarranted suspicion of people. They should instead speak through legal filings and keep their public comments to a minimum.

The idea is that the legal process is not used to impugn people whom the government doesn’t have the goods on.

But the Trump administration has obliterated that norm. That raises the prospect that these people are not necessarily being targeted for prosecution, but for a public shaming and to send a message to others. And a top DOJ official has even acknowledged publicly that could be the goal. [Italics in original.]

It should also be noted that Bolton endorsed you in April of 2024:

Former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Ambassador John R. Bolton, announced the John Bolton PAC’s endorsement of Dave McCormick for the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. Additionally, the John Bolton PAC will make a contribution of $10,000 to his election campaign.

So here's my question. Regardless of the reasons for it, wasn't the raid on Bolton's home and office solid evidence that the Trump Administration has, despite to it's own denials to the contrary, in fact politicized the DOJ?

Before we get into a discussion about how "no one is above the law" and how Bolton is accused of mishandling classified documents, we should go over how many boxes of classified documents were found at Mar-a-Lago and the outcome of that case.

I could send you pictures of the boxes in Trump's bathroom, if you'd like.

In any event, any comments on Trump's politicization of the DOJ? It's a rather serious threat to our Constitutional democracy, isn't it? You took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, didn't you?

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, whatever answer I get, I'll post it here.

McCormick Responds!

That's twice in two days!

Unless this was a scheduled response (which is a distinct possibility), this means that someone in McCormick's office hit the "send button" on my email on a Saturday. 

A Saturday!! 

Kudos to you, whoever you are!  Working for The Man on the weekend!

Anyway, back to the topic at hand - McCormick's response.

He begins:

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Your feedback is essential as we work together to shape policies that benefit Pennsylvania and our country. 

Ah, we're talking Epstein. 

Good.

I've written to Senator McCormick twice about Jeffrey Epstein. Most recently, on July 28, I asked about Ghislaine Maxwell - specifically whether the Senator thought it was a good idea for her to be questioned by deputy AG Todd Blanche - President Trump's one time personal lawyer.

Earlier, on July 14, I had asked something about the files.

So I am guessing McCormick is responding to that letter.

This is what I asked, way back then:

This past weekend, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social about "the Epstein files" asserting (without evidence) that they were written by, "Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration."

Do you believe that is true?

Also, after I pointed out that Trump asserted that the 2020 election was rigged, I asked Senator McCormick if he agreed. 

Then I asked about the disconnect between AG Bondi's assertion that the so-called "client list" was on her desk awaiting review and the later official assertion that there was no such list at all.

I asked the Senator which he thought was true. 

And so as part of the the obligatory Sensplain about the many crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, McCormick offered up this:

The Trump Administration, through the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), conducted a comprehensive review of all files related to the Epstein case to identify materials for public release. On July 7, 2025, the DOJ and FBI issued a memorandum stating that many files are subject to court-ordered sealing to protect victims and prevent the disclosure of child pornography. The memorandum also stated that, upon completing the review, neither agency possessed files resembling an incriminating “client-list.” Since issuing this memorandum, the Trump Administration and DOJ have taken additional steps to further illuminate the case by actively seeking information that can provide answers to the public.

As the father of six daughters, I find Epstein’s actions reprehensible. I support the President’s call for the grand jury to release all credible information, as the American people deserve full transparency in this matter. The DOJ must ensure that anyone credibly linked to Epstein’s criminal activities is thoroughly investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Our goal should be full accountability and transparency while following proper legal procedures to protect victims, preserve due process, and avoid compromising ongoing investigations. 

That first paragraph really didn't answer the question as to who is right: the FBI or the AG. All it did was to restate the she-said, they-said. Adding that the Trump admin and Trump's DOJ are taking another look at what the FBI already looked at.

No statement on the Senator's part about whether he thought the files were written by Obama, Biden, Clinton, et al.

And no statement about whether 2020 was rigged.

No real answer to any of my questions - not even an acknowledgment that I asked.

The letter: 

 

 

McCormick Responds!

On August 11, I sent Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick a second letter asking about the administration's tariffs. 

My first was back on April 7 and I got a response dated April 11.

My most recent letter had but one question in it:

So Senator let me ask you a simple question: In the end, who pays the tariffs? [emphasis in original.] 

After spending three rather hefty paragraphs outlining the recent history of those tariffs, the Senator gives me something of an answer:

I support the President’s desire to shake up U.S. trade policy. For too long, the United States has provided low trade barriers to foreign trading partners without receiving reciprocity in return. 

And so on.  It's not an answer to the question I asked, of course.  But at least it was an update on the near-response I got on April 11.

For example, in that letter in a paragraph that starts "I support President Trump's..." McCormick writes:

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. 

Here, the updated letter reads:

I support the President’s desire to shake up U.S. trade policy. For too long, the United States has provided low trade barriers to foreign trading partners without receiving reciprocity in return. Decades of misguided trade policies have devastated domestic manufacturing in Pennsylvania and across the country. Countries like China have exploited the openness of U.S. markets through steep deficits, state subsidies, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, and currency manipulation. Tariffs are a legitimate and necessary tool to hold these practices accountable and secure our domestic supply chains. When used strategically, tariffs can help level the playing field for American workers and businesses. During his first term, President Trump employed tariffs effectively to bring negotiators to the table and secure better deals for the United States. 

We are already seeing results from the reciprocal tariffs. Major deals have been reached with the European Union—which includes a 15% tariff alongside $750 billion in U.S. energy purchases and $600 billion in U.S. investment—Japan, with a $550 billion investment commitment, and South Korea, which agreed to a $350 billion investment and a shipbuilding partnership. These deals demonstrate how targeted pressure can yield meaningful benefits for American workers and businesses. While some short-term economic disruptions will have to occur, I believe these actions are already producing long-term gains for Pennsylvania and the nation. In total, the negotiated deals represent over $2 trillion in foreign investment commitments to the United States. 

But no answer to who's paying for all the tariffs. 

Who pays the tariffs, Senator? 

The BBC has a take on the trade deal with the EU. It says that while Trump himself is a "winner" for securing a trade deal with the UE, the losers are US Consumers:

Ordinary Americans are already aggrieved at the increased cost of living and this deal could add to the burden by hiking prices on EU goods.

While not as steep as it could have been, the hurdle represented by a 15% tariff rate is still significant, and it is far more pronounced than the obstacles that existed before Trump returned to office.

Tariffs are taxes charged on goods bought from other countries. Typically, they are a percentage of a product's value. So, a 15% tariff means that a $100 product imported to the US from the EU will have a $15 dollar tax added on top - taking the total cost to the importer to $115.

Companies who bring foreign goods into the US have to pay the tax to the government, and they often pass some or all of the extra cost on to customers. [Emphasis added.]

For good measure, the BBC also notes that US Energy corporations is also a "winner" due to increased European investments:

Trump said the EU will purchase $750bn (£558bn, €638bn) in US energy, in addition to increasing overall investment in the US by $600bn. 

Which is something entirely different from the issue of tariffs of course. Senator McCormick dutifully included it in his letter while not answering my question as to who pays the tariffs. 

US Consumers pay the tariffs. 

So good to know the US Energy corporations got a boost from the Trump Administration (with Senator Dave McCormick's support) with the same deal that will effectively tax US consumers.

Thanks, Dave. You're a pal.

The letter:

 

 

 

 

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator Fetterman;

I'd like to ask you again about Israel.  In early August you denied that there was genocide in Gaza, despite Amnesty International and other human rights groups saying otherwise.

This morning, The New York Times reported: 

Gaza City and the surrounding territory are officially suffering from famine, a global group of experts announced on Friday, nearly two years into an unrelenting war in which Israel has blocked most food and other aid from entering the Gaza Strip.

The group, which the United Nations and aid agencies rely on to monitor and classify global hunger crises, said that at least half a million people in Gaza Governorate were facing the most severe conditions it measures: starvation, acute malnutrition and death.

And:

The group said in a report published on Friday that a combination of several factors had tipped Gaza from a hunger crisis into famine: the intensifying conflict, stringent Israeli restrictions on aid, the collapse of health care and sanitation systems, the destruction of local agriculture and the growing number of times people have been forced to flee for new shelters. 

Are you willing to say that there's famine in Gaza?

You also voted against Senate Resolution 224, which pointed out the humanitarian crisis facing Palestinians in Gaza and called for a cease-fire and an end to the food blockade. You were the only Democrat in the Senate to vote against this resolution.

Can I ask why?  And given the above report designating famine in Gaza, do you regret this vote of yours? 

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from the Senator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

I've been meaning to ask you about rural hospitals and Donald Trump's Big Beautiful Bill.

Pennlive reported:

Things are about to get bleaker for rural hospitals.

The newly enacted federal tax and spending law calls for some of the deepest cuts to health care spending in U.S. history, with more than $1 trillion sliced from Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income Americans.

Health policy experts have sounded the alarm that the massive loss of funding to individuals and reimbursements to health care systems will decimate already struggling rural hospitals and nursing facilities.

While the Senate tacked on a $50 billion fund to help alleviate the cuts, KFF reported on some of the limitations of that fund:

• It's only a little more than one third of the bills loss of Medicare funding in rural areas
• The fund is temporary while many of the cuts in Trump's bill aren't

And so on.

So my first question to you is, how many rural Pennsylvania hospitals are estimated to close due to the bill you signed?  And given that, what will be the impact on Pennsylvania's rural communities given that closing hospitals won't change the numbers of people who need them? Presumably people will have to travel farther for health care, more people will be heading to the hospitals that are lucky enough to remain open, increasing the burden (and costs) of those hospitals.

Any comment on any of those questions, Senator?

I'll await your answer.

As always, whatever answer I get, I'll post here.

Fetterman Responds!

I got another letter from Senator Fetterman yesterday.

This appears to be a new email - in the sense that it's not one he's already sent to me - as he's done before.

Here's the first post-thanks sentence:

To me, this is a simple issue: every American should be represented by elected officials looking out for the people, not lining their own pockets.  

And then there's this from the next paragraph:

But it isn’t just about bribes and payouts. I’m committed to putting real teeth into our anti-corruption and ethics laws. Members of Congress shouldn’t be able to use the information we’re given as elected officials to get rich on stock trades or other investments – because we shouldn’t be able to hold individual stocks at all.  

OK, now we're getting somewhere.  Ethics, insider trading and so on.

As far as I can tell, maybe he's taking another shot at this letter from April 11. 

And you'll note that I've already written about a response to this blogpost from April 22. In it, I wrote how disappointed I was at his non-response to my concerns and I urged him to try again.

Perhaps this is that. Owe-Tea-Owe-Aitch, post hoc ergo propter hoc. 

In any case, the match isn't perfect.  In that original post, I ask for a comment on Senator Warren who asked, on the Senate floor, if President Trump's posting on Truth Social about it being a great time to buy assets - which he posted hours before changing course on tariffs - was insider trading info for his supporters.

Senator Fetterman is talking about members of Congress and insider trading. Close but no cigar.

But it's closer than some of Fetterman's responses, don't mistake me.

They still need to do better over there in Fetterman-ville. Real constituents have real questions and deserve real answers - not restatements of generalized policy positions.

The letter:

 

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator Fetterman;

I'd like to ask you again about AG Pam Bondi.

The New York Times reported:

The Justice Department this week abruptly escalated its pressure campaign on Letitia James, New York’s attorney general and one of President Trump’s longtime adversaries, opening a civil rights investigation into her office and appointing a special prosecutor to scrutinize her real estate dealings.

Taken together, the developments concerning Ms. James mark a stark escalation of Mr. Trump’s retribution campaign against one of his foremost nemeses and a remarkable use of Justice Department power to pursue a foe.

The civil rights investigation, which had not previously been reported, is examining whether Ms. James’s office violated Mr. Trump’s civil rights in its successful fraud suit against him, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

For the record, that fraud suit will cost Donald Trump close to half a billion dollars in fines. Also for the record, the attorney appointed as special prosecutor is Ed Martin, an attorney who has been accused of flagrant violations of ethics.

When you were the sole Democrat in the Senate to vote for her confirmation, did you think any of this was a possibility of happening? When she said she would not be "weaponizing" the DOJ, did you think that that's exactly what she'd end up doing?

Any comment on these actions, Senator? Any regret on your vote?

I'll await your answer.

As always, I'll post here whatever answer I get from the Senator.

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

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

I've asked you about tariffs before but now that Trump's latest round of tariffs have clicked in, there's a few left unanswered.

Given this 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 this from Oxford Economics:

Tariffs are taxes imposed by a government on goods and services imported from other countries. Think of tariff like an extra cost added to foreign products when they enter the country.  

And this from the National Retail Federation:

Tariffs are a tax on goods imported into the United States and are paid for by the U.S. importer. Tariffs are just one of several trade policy tools available for policymakers to achieve a successful diplomatic outcome. They are intended to raise the cost of imported goods, making them less competitive compared with domestically manufactured products.

When tariffs are enacted, retailers are forced to choose between raising their prices or relying on already slim profit margins to absorb the increased cost of inventory.

So Senator let me ask you a simple question: In the end, who pays the tariffs?

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, whatever answer I get.

THIS Is What Happens, Wendy

From The New York Times:

Law enforcement officials said that Patrick Joseph White, a 30-year-old from the suburbs of Atlanta, opened fire on the complex of buildings on Friday afternoon. He had become fixated with the coronavirus vaccine, believing that it was the cause of his own physical ailments, officials said, and he attacked the institution that has been at the center of rampant conspiracy theories and misinformation about the federal government’s response to the pandemic.

The COVID vaccines are safe.

PBS:

A Georgia man who had blamed the COVID-19 vaccine for making him depressed and suicidal has been identified as the shooter who opened fire late Friday on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters, killing a police officer.

The COVID vaccines are safe. 

The AP:

A Georgia man who had blamed the COVID-19 vaccine for making him depressed and suicidal has been identified as the shooter who opened fire late Friday on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters, killing a police officer.

The COVID vaccines are safe. 

It's been a while since I blogged about my good friend Wendy Bell.

I have no idea what's she's doing these days (perhaps she's publicly apologized for the massive misinformation, who knows?) but when I was blogging about her, these were among the things I wrote about:

• April 20, 2023 -  Wendy Bell spreads misinformation about the safety of the COVID vaccines.
• June 1, 2022 - Wendy Bell spreads misinformation about the safety of the COVID vaccines.
• April 29, 2022 - Wendy Bell spreads misinformation about the safety of the COVID vaccines. 

And so on.

I'm not saying that the CDC shooter ever even heard of Wendy Bell. Not saying that at all. But he certainly believed someone else who spewed the same BS Wendy spewed.

And now a police officer is dead.

THIS is what happens. 

McCormick Responds!

On August 6, the same day I received six emails from Senator Fettermans office, I received a video response from Senator Dave McCormick.

It's posted on youtube:

This is the senator's response to this blog post.

In that post, I asked: 

So my question: Were the President's actions appropriate or was it an opportunity to forward his political agenda?

Last time I checked the First Amendment was still in place - and of course anyone breaking the law must be held accountable in order to protect the rule of law.

I also pointed out in the next paragraph that Trump was also the guy who refused to call the National Guard when his mob stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. 

Senator McCormick did not address the attempted coup. He does, however, say this: 

With regard to the raids, President Trump campaigned very clearly on the fact that we needed to close our borders, and I supported this, and also repatriate illegal immigrants that had come into our country. Of course, the priority needs to be those that pose a risk to the health and well-being of Americans. So, the drug cartels—we had more than 10 million illegal immigrants come in. It's been documented and, well validated that we had many, many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of cartels of people on the terrorist watch list. That needs to be the first priority. And then the authorities will work their way down the list, and President Trump's already made some adjustments to that policy to make sure we do that thoughtfully and empathetically, and treat those people with respect, even as we put them back across the border because they entered this country illegally.

The LA riots were an example of something that is completely unacceptable in our society. Listen, I'm a strong supporter of free speech. The need and the ability—I fought for this as a soldier—to peacefully protest. But what happened in LA wasn't peaceful protest. It's the destruction of property. It's violence against law enforcement. It's a destruction of communities. It's—it cannot be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated in sanctuary cities, and it cannot be tolerated anywhere in our country.

I think President Trump was absolutely right to deploy the National Guard. He did that very specifically, not to enforce the immigration law, but to protect the federal agents and federal properties, that were under risk as a result of those violent riots in LA.

The only problem with McCormick's answer is what it left out. 

Take a look at this from The New York Times: 

Federal agents in tactical gear armed with military-style rifles threw flash-bang grenades to disperse an angry crowd near downtown Los Angeles on Friday as they conducted an immigration raid on a clothing wholesaler, the latest sign of tensions between protesters and law enforcement over raids carried out at stores, restaurants and court buildings.

The operation was one of at least three immigration sweeps conducted in Los Angeles on Friday. In another one, federal agents converged at a Home Depot where day laborers regularly gather in search of work.

The raid at the clothing wholesaler began about 9:15 a.m. in the Fashion District, less than two miles from Los Angeles City Hall.

Clothing wholesaler? Home Depot? 

But the senator said the raids were to protect the country from the drug cartels. He said that ICE's first priority was the drug cartels and people on the terrorist watch list. Perhaps he needs to explain how day laborers gathering at a Home Depot is a threat to the "health and well-being of Americans." 

How many of those were picked up in LA's fashion district, were existential threats to the homeland, Senator?  

Dave (can I call you Dave?) by failing to tell a more complete story, you're letting anyone who watched your video think that ICE was targeting terrorists or members of South American drug cartels in LA in June. That's is what's known as a lie of omission, Senator.

The violence that triggered the National Guard being called up was done in response to those ICE raids.

Then there's this part of the Senator's response:

Listen, this is a tough issue. The president's been very clear on it and I support these efforts to deal with the immigration crisis with a strong commitment to enforcing the law and in doing that in a way that protects all Americans.

Um, in this letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, California Governor Gavin Newsome's office wrote:

At present, law enforcement authorities from the City and County of Los Angeles are safeguarding public safety, and, as demonstrated by the robust law enforcement response yesterday evening to protect federal facilities, local law enforcement resources are sufficient to maintain order. In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, State and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property. Indeed, the decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation.

There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the State from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required. Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.

There was no need to send the National Guard as the local law enforcement were sufficient to safeguard public safety and federal facilities. So any reason President Trump used as an excuse to send them in is moot.

I thought the GOP was in heartily in favor of states' rights and state sovereignty.  

Not anymore, I guess. 

=====

My transcript:

A number of you have sent in questions or feedback by email or letter or phone call regarding the raids by the Immigration Customs and Enforcement agents across our country on illegal immigration and also the president's response to the LA riots.

Let me, let me start by saying thank you. Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it. I was elected to represent every single Pennsylvanian and so the way I can do that best is by engaging with you and hearing the questions that are on your mind and having the best chance possible to give my response and my answer and listen to your feedback.

With regard to the raids, President Trump campaigned very clearly on the fact that we needed to close our borders, and I supported this, and also repatriate illegal immigrants that had come into our country. Of course, the priority needs to be those that pose a risk to the health and well-being of Americans. So, the drug cartels—we had more than 10 million illegal immigrants come in. It's been documented and, well validated that we had many, many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of cartels of people on the terrorist watch list. That needs to be the first priority. And then the authorities will work their way down the list, and President Trump's already made some adjustments to that policy to make sure we do that thoughtfully and empathetically, and treat those people with respect, even as we put them back across the border because they entered this country illegally.

The LA riots were an example of something that is completely unacceptable in our society. Listen, I'm a strong supporter of free speech. The need and the ability—I fought for this as a soldier—to peacefully protest. But what happened in LA wasn't peaceful protest. It's the destruction of property. It's violence against law enforcement. It's a destruction of communities. It's—it cannot be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated in sanctuary cities, and it cannot be tolerated anywhere in our country.

I think President Trump was absolutely right to deploy the National Guard. He did that very specifically, not to enforce the immigration law, but to protect the federal agents and federal properties, that were under risk as a result of those violent riots in LA.

Listen, this is a tough issue. The president's been very clear on it and I support these efforts to deal with the immigration crisis with a strong commitment to enforcing the law and in doing that in a way that protects all Americans.

 

 

Fetterman Friday - Kinda, Sorta

Another Friday without a letter to Senator Fetterman but with a discussion of the letters from Senator Fetterman.

On August 5, I sent a link to this blog post to the Senator's office. 

While it's snark quotient wasn't that high, it's SQ wasn't zero, either. I simply pointed out that in the space of just under a dozen minutes I received two identical emails from the Senator's office. 

That was August 5. The next day - August 6 - in the space of just under twenty minutes, I received fully six emails from Fetterman's office.

The first two (received at 10:41AM and 10:48AM) both begin with this:

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

I believe that Pennsylvanians deserve a strong voice in Washington, so hearing from constituents like you about these critical issues is essential to my work. I’m here in D.C. 

And continue identically. It's the same email sent twice.

One minute later, at 10:49AM, I received an email that begins thusly:

Thank you for reaching out to my office. I appreciate hearing from you.

As your senator, I’ve been clear about my views on immigration. I’m unapologetically pro-immigration because I know that it’s what makes our country great, and I know that so much of our country was built on the backs, and by the hands, of immigrants. 

It was followed at 10:50AM, and twice at 10:58AM by the same letter.

Six emails but only two sets of texts and none of them even remotely addressing the questions I raised to the Senator.

I wasn't asking about immigration, I was asking for a comment about Kristi Noem. I wasn't asking about Civil Rights, I was asking for a comment about Pam Bondi. He voted to confirm both. 

Shouldn't our elected representatives be responsive to our questions and concerns? 

Pennsylvanians deserve better.  

 

Fetterman Responds! TWICE! Again!!

I got not one but two emails from US Senator John Fetterman yesterday.

Two.

The first arrived at 1:22PM and the second at 1:33PM - eleven minutes later.

After the usual "Thank you for reaching out to my office..." next paragraph of the first letter reads:

As Americans, we are committed to following our constitution and defending the freedom it guarantees all of us. Our civil rights protect our freedom to think for ourselves, to speak out, to be treated equally, to love who we love, to vote for the government of our choice, and so much more. These are values and protections that make America the great country it is. 

Same thing with the second letter - the one that arrived eleven minutes after the first:

As Americans, we are committed to following our constitution and defending the freedom it guarantees all of us. Our civil rights protect our freedom to think for ourselves, to speak out, to be treated equally, to love who we love, to vote for the government of our choice, and so much more. These are values and protections that make America the great country it is. 

Yep. They sent me the same letter twice.

But that's just the first problem with this pair.

You recall this blog post? 

You might not. It's from way back on April 25.

I was responding to a letter from Senator Fetterman. The second paragraph reads:

As Americans, we are committed to following our constitution and defending the freedom it guarantees all of us. Our civil rights protect our freedom to think for ourselves, to speak out, to be treated equally, to love who we love, to vote for the government of our choice, and so much more. These are values and protections that make America the great country it is. 

The same letter. 

And the purpose of that blog post was to point out how on April 5, I got the same letter from Fetterman's office.

So I've received the same letter four times.

And absolutely none of them specifically address any of the questions I've asked.

I'm sorry, but Pennsylvanians deserve better.

The letters:

1:22PM:

1:33PM:

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series:

Dear Senator McCormick;

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

A few days ago, The Hill reported this:

The U.S. added 258,000 fewer jobs in May and June than the Labor Department first reported, according to federal data released Friday.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued stunning revisions to its reports on May and June employment growth in an overall dismal July jobs report, drastically changing the picture of the U.S. economy.

The U.S. only added 19,000 jobs in May compared to an initial report of 144,000, and only 14,000 in June after an initial report of 147,000, according to the BLS. Those two paltry totals, plus a July jobs gain of 73,000, means the U.S. added just 106,000 jobs over the past three months.

And President Trump responded to the bad news badly.  From The New York Times:

President Trump unleashed his fury about weakness in the labor market on Friday, saying without evidence that the data were “rigged” and that he was firing the Senate-confirmed Department of Labor official responsible for pulling together the numbers each month.

And:

The president fired Dr. McEntarfer after the bureau released monthly jobs data showing surprisingly weak hiring in July and large downward revisions to job growth in the previous two months. Economists widely interpreted the report as evidence that Mr. Trump’s policies were beginning to take a toll on the economy, though the president insisted in a subsequent post that the country was “doing GREAT!” 

The president defended his actions, saying it was the right thing to do.

CNN posted an article describing the data BLS collects and how it constructs its monthly report if you want to see how supremely difficult it would be to "rig" the numbers.

So here are my questions. Is the president right? Do you agree that the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics was, in fact, rigged in order to embarrass Trump and the GOP? And, if this is all the case, just how were the numbers falsified?  

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, whatever answer I get from the Senator, I'll post it here.

Fetterman...Responds?

I got this in the email yestiddy:

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

I will also fight for a fairer tax code that cuts taxes for working Pennsylvanians and small businesses while ensuring the wealthiest Americans and big corporations finally pay their fair share. Deficit-busting tax cuts for big corporations and the ultra-wealthy do nothing for middle class earners and will add to inflation. I was proud to support the bipartisan Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024 last congress, and I will continue the fight for working families and small businesses no matter who is in the White House. The tax code should also encourage small businesses and manufacturers to invest here in the U.S., which is why I cosponsored the No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act in my first full month as a senator. 
  
Alleviating financial pressures on our seniors is also a critical part of strengthening our economy. I will work to protect hard-earned pensions and Social Security benefits–because American seniors should be able to retire with dignity, and no partisan games should get in the way of that. I was proud to vote for the bipartisan Social Security Fairness Act, which was signed into law last year. This law restored full Social Security benefits to millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public servants who had their benefits arbitrarily reduced. 
 
Pennsylvanians deserve a strong voice in Washington, so hearing from constituents like you about these critical issues is essential to my work. I’m here in D.C. fighting for solutions that deliver real results for Pennsylvanians and every corner of our commonwealth. As long as I’m your senator, that’s what I’ll always do. 
 
Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts. Please do not hesitate to reach out in the future about other issues of importance to you. If I can be of assistance, or if you’d like to learn more about my work on behalf of Pennsylvanians and our commonwealth, I encourage you to visit my website, https://www.fetterman.senate.gov/. 

There's a problem, however as I don't know which blog questions he's answering.

Here's my tally for my Fetterman letters. Indexed by topic:

• Gaza - August 1, July 25  
• AG Pam Bondi - July 18, July 4, May 30, May 16, May 2
• DHS Secretary Kristi Noem - July 11 , June 27, June 20, June 6, May 23, May 9
• US Senator Alex Padilla - June 13 
• Harvard - April 18 
• Trump Insider Trading - April 11 
• DOJ Civil Rights Division - April 5 

As far as I can tell, I've never posted to Senator Fetterman about the economy.

If someone in Fetterman's office is reading this, can they drop me a line to explain? 

The letter:

 

 

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series 

Dear Senator;

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

I'd like to ask you again about Gaza - specifically this from The Hill:

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) rejected Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s claim of a “genocide” in Gaza and also called the Georgia Republican “crazy pants.”

“Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene referred to what’s happening as effectively a genocide. I mean, Republicans seem to start —” a reporter with Scripps News said when talking to Fetterman in a clip posted to the social platform X Wednesday.

“I [honestly] don’t care what crazy pants thinks,” Fetterman replied. “And why is that news and her views on that right now?” 

“It’s not a genocide, you know, that’s just not the case. And she’s entitled to her opinion, but I’m entitled to not really care what her views on that is,” he added later.

Of course I completely agree, Senator, with your characterization of Representative Greene as "crazy pants" but I have to ask you about your characterization of Gaza.

Amnesty International, in December of 2024 concluded:

Amnesty International’s research has found sufficient basis to conclude that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, the organization said in a landmark new report published today.  

The report, ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza, documents how, during its military offensive launched in the wake of the deadly Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel on 7 October 2023, Israel has unleashed hell and destruction on Palestinians in Gaza brazenly, continuously and with total impunity.  

According to The Guardian:

Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies have a legal and moral duty to stop it.

In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian society.

The University Network of Human Rights has concluded:

After reviewing the facts established by independent human rights monitors, journalists, and United Nations agencies, we conclude that Israel’s actions in and regarding Gaza since October 7, 2023, violate the Genocide Convention. Specifically, Israel has committed genocidal acts of killing, causing serious harm to, and inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, a protected group that forms a substantial part of the Palestinian people. 

Given all the death and destruction and famine visited on Gaza by Israel, if this isn't genocide, then what is it? How do you justify it? Or defend it?

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, I'll post here whatever you send as a response.