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.

This is another question about Secretary Noem's Department of Homeland Security - I ask because it's such a threat to our democracy and you voted to confirm her.

CNN is reporting: 

President Donald Trump announced his appointments to an advisory council inside the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday, with a list that includes a right-wing news commentator, former lawmakers, Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani and a top former campaign adviser.

The announcement by Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says the council, established first in 2002, will provide “real-time, real-world and independent advice on homeland security operations.”

The list includes right-wing political commentator Mark Levin, as well as Giuliani, who helped lead efforts to try and overturn the 2020 election results and was later sued for defamation by two Georgia election workers; a lawsuit he lost before a jury in Washington, DC. 

Didn't Rudy Giuliani lose $148 million in that defamation suit connected to Trump's 2020 election lies?

And wasn't he also  disbarred for telling those lies?

The answer to both questions is, of course, yes. 

CNN also reports:

The appointments also include Corey Lewandowski, a Trump campaign leader in 2016 who is currently a chief adviser to Noem. 

And wasn't Lewandowski removed from a MAGA PAC for (allegedly) sexually harrassing a Trump donor named Trashelle Odom?

Again, the answer is yes. 

Specifically, harassing this way: 

“On the evening of September 26 in Las Vegas, Nevada, I attended a dinner to support a charity and spend time with wonderful friends,” Odom said in a statement to POLITICO. “He repeatedly touched me inappropriately, said vile and disgusting things to me, stalked me, and made me feel violated and fearful,” she said, referring to Lewandowski.  

Giuliani and Lewandowski appointed to an advisory council? 

How is any of that a good idea? And do you still support Noem's appointment to head DHS?

I'll await your answer, Senator.

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

So, Which Is It?

Hours after unilaterally bombing Iran, President Donald J. Trump said this:

Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.

Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.

Like most everything the orange vulgarity says, it turns out that this isn't quite true. 

From The New York Times: 

A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran set back the country’s nuclear program by only a few months, according to officials familiar with the findings.

The strikes sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings, the officials said the early findings concluded.

And CNN:

The US military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by seven people briefed on it.

The assessment, which has not been previously reported, was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm. It is based on a battle damage assessment conducted by US Central Command in the aftermath of the US strikes, one of the sources said.

But The Dear Leader said "obliterated" as in "completely and totally"! 

More from the Times:

Officials cautioned that the five-page classified report was only an initial assessment, and that others would follow as more information was collected and as Iran examined the three sites. One official said that the reports people in the administration had been shown were “mixed” but that more assessments were yet to be done.

But the Defense Intelligence Agency report indicates that the sites were not damaged as much as some administration officials had hoped, and that Iran retains control of almost all of its nuclear material, meaning if it decides to make a nuclear weapon it might still be able to do so relatively quickly.

So, not so obliterated, I guess.

Of course the administration disagreed with the DIA:

President Trump pushed back Wednesday on the findings of a preliminary classified U.S. report, insisting again that Iran’s nuclear program was obliterated despite the early intelligence suggesting U.S. strikes had set the program back only by a few months.

The Trump administration has rebuked the media for reporting on that early assessment from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, which officials said found that U.S. strikes had sealed off entrances to two of three nuclear sites but not collapsed their underground buildings.

But again this administration is not known for its excessive transparency or honesty.

We report. You decide. 

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

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.

About Iran, Reuters reported:

"It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!" Trump wrote on his social media platform.

 

Trump's post came after officials in his administration, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, stressed they were not working to overthrow Iran's government.

 

"This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon, calling the mission "a precision operation" targeting Iran's nuclear program.

 

Vance, in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press with Kristen Welker," said "our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change."

So which is it? 

And PBS reported:

Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran’s nuclear program earlier this year.

The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels.

But President Donald Trump dismissed the assessment of U.S. spy agencies during an overnight flight back to Washington as he cut short his trip to the Group of Seven summit to focus on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters. In his view, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb.

So, which is it? 

President Trump just sent B-2 bombers halfway across the world (in what might be an illegal violation of either the War Powers Act or the Constitution itself) and yet the administration can't get its story straight.

And given that The War Powers Act begins with this:

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. 

Shouldn't Congress have been notified of this attack?  Or is the War Powers Act just another law that President Trump can ignore?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

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.

Bloomberg is reporting: 

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to prepare a memo on how to abolish itself and create a re-branded, radically smaller disaster response organization, according to a copy of the document reviewed by Bloomberg News.

As recently as last week, President Donald Trump and Noem said they wanted to wind down FEMA but offered few details publicly. The March 25 memo offers insight into how the administration has weighed which of its current functions to cut. Technically, only Congress can eliminate the agency.

Um. You voted to confirm Kristi Noem as DHS Secretary, right? Let's move on:

Titled “Abolishing FEMA,” the memo was addressed from then-acting FEMA head Cameron Hamilton to his bosses at the Department of Homeland Security and outlines a number of functions that “should be drastically reformed, transferred to another agency, or abolished in their entirety,” possibly as soon as late 2025. Potential changes included eliminating long-term housing assistance for disaster survivors, halting enrollments in the National Flood Insurance Program and providing smaller amounts of aid for fewer incidents — moves that by design would dramatically limit the federal government’s role in disaster response.

Is any of this a good idea, Senator? 

Then there's this:

The memo, meanwhile, outlines numerous ways to drive down federal disaster spending, largely by canceling long-running initiatives, revoking financial assistance altogether in some cases and pushing more disaster oversight and funding onto state and local governments. Many of these proposals appeared in the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025 report — though its authors recommended keeping FEMA intact. Disaster experts, including ex-FEMA officials, say the plans would overwhelm state budgets and lead to longer recoveries, especially if carried out on a fast timeline.

Good idea? Bad idea? Do you support any of this, Senator Fetterman? And if not, when will you be making a public comment on it?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

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

Alot of Americans Are Going To Die

From The New York Times:

In 13 years at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Fiona Havers crafted guidance for contending with Zika virus, helped China respond to outbreaks of bird flu and guided safe burial practices for Ebola deaths in Liberia.

More recently, she was a senior adviser on vaccine policy, leading a team that produced data on hospitalizations related to Covid-19 and respiratory syncytial virus. To the select group of scientists, federal officials and advocates who study who should get immunizations and when, Dr. Havers is well known, an embodiment of the C.D.C.’s intensive data-gathering operations.

On Monday, Dr. Havers resigned, saying she could no longer continue while the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dismantled the careful processes that help formulate vaccination standards in the United States.

You can find a list of her papers here. 

Including this one, which has as it's conclusion:

Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US adults hospitalized with COVID-19, unvaccinated adults were more likely to be hospitalized compared with vaccinated adults; hospitalization rates were lowest in those who had received a booster dose. Hospitalized vaccinated persons were older and more likely to have 3 or more underlying medical conditions and be long-term care facility residents compared with hospitalized unvaccinated persons. The study results suggest that clinicians and public health practitioners should continue to promote vaccination with all recommended doses for eligible persons. [Bolding in original.] 

Back to The Times:

“If it isn’t stopped, and some of this isn’t reversed, like, immediately, a lot of Americans are going to die as a result of vaccine-preventable diseases,” she said in an interview with The New York Times, the first since her resignation.

But hey, if this is one of the reasons you voted for the current regime and you get sick from some vaccine-preventable disease, congratulations. You're having the day you voted for.

The problem is, of course, that in the event you do get sick you could be passing on your preventable disease to someone whose immune system is suppressed and can't be vaccinated. You could be making someone else very sick.

Again congratulations. This is on you.

Let's not forget this science: 

Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study, an association was observed between political party affiliation and excess deaths in Ohio and Florida after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults. These findings suggest that differences in vaccination attitudes and reported uptake between Republican and Democratic voters may have been factors in the severity and trajectory of the pandemic in the US. [Bolding in original.] 

Good for you. 

 

McCormicck Monday

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 about what occurred immediately before US Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference.

The AP reported: 

Video shows a Secret Service agent on Noem’s security detail grabbing the California senator by his jacket and shoving him from the room as he tried to speak up during the DHS secretary’s event. Padilla interrupted the news conference after Noem delivered a particularly pointed line, saying federal authorities were not going away but planned to stay and increase operations to “liberate” the city from its “socialist” leadership.

Time has a little more:

The confrontation came shortly after Noem made a forceful declaration of the federal government's intentions in the city. “We are continuing to sustain and increase our operations in this city, we are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist and burdensome leadership that this governor and this mayor have placed into this city,” Noem said during the press conference.

Setting aside the assault on your Senate colleague, do you think that this is an appropriate use of the US military?  The removal of a duly elected mayor (and governor?) in order to enforce a political agenda?

Even if the threat does include the removal of either elected official from office, the main threat remains: the military will stay in LA in order to enforce this administration's political agenda - an agenda not supported by the people of the City of Los Angeles or of the State of California.

Is this OK with you, Senator?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post whatever response I get. 

No Kings - Pittsburgh, Yesterday

First the frame, from WESA:

With President Donald Trump poised to preside over a massive military parade this weekend, activists in Pittsburgh and around the country took to the streets themselves in a nationwide protest billed as "No Kings Day." Some 1,800 demonstrations are slated to take place nationwide, several in southwestern Pennsylvania alone, in an effort to oppose the authoritarian impulse organizers say the military display — and Trump’s own polices — represents.

Many of those demonstrators came with American flags, dozens of which were visible as a protest outside Pittsburgh's City-County Building got underway around lunchtime. Also in evidence were signs with a wide range of messages. They included such mottos as "Hate Will Not Make Us Great," "Poverty is a Policy Choice," and — in a message with a distinctly Pittsburgh accent — "No Crahn For A Clahn."

Take a look:

I was at the demonstration at The City County Building:

Huge crowd - I was dressed for a light rain but when the sun broke through the clouds, the air was hot and sticky and I had to tie the arms of my light rain raincoat in a knot and wear it like a sash.

Anyway, when the demonstration at that end of Grant Street was done, we marched to the other end:

There was lots of demonstration chanting going on during the march:

• Show me what democracy looks like! THIS is what democracy looks like!
• Hey, hey! Ho ho, Donald Trump has got to go!
• Trump's a jagoff!
• Fuck John Fetterman! 

Someone really should let Fetterman's office know that hundreds of people chanted that last one during the Anti-Trump march on Grant Street. I first heard it after the section of the march I was in passed by a guy holding up a "Where's Fetterman?" sign.

Where was Senator John Fetterman, anyway?

I don't know but wherever he was, by virtue of this tweet he completely missed (or was actively avoiding) the point of the "No Kings" demonstrations:

This parade is comprised of our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers—the very best of us.

Regardless of your politics, it’s appropriate to celebrate the 250 years of sacrifice, dedication and service. 🇺🇸 https://t.co/YghyZkK2JS

— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) June 14, 2025

Yes, it's appropriate to celebrate those things - no one is saying otherwise. But Senator, do you really think that was what was going on during the thousands of demonstrations across the country yesterday?

If you do, you missed the point, if you don't, you're avoiding the reason for all that First Amendment exercising.  Which is it?

Where is your "no kings" tweet?

And Senator, did you know you were booed in Philadelphia yesterday?

From Mediaite (with video from C-Span):

“Now, this is not a rally for one party,” Leah Greenberg, the cofounder of the progressive nonprofit Indivisible told the “No Kings” crowd. “We’ve got Democrats here today. We’ve got Republicans and independents here today. We are looking to the leaders who will fight for us because even today, there are folks among the Democratic Party who think we should roll over and play dead. Anyone seen John Fetterman here today?”

The mere mention of the senator’s name elicited a loud round of boos. 

That can't be good. 

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 DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, given that you voted to confirm her appointment to head of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Reuters reported:

Democratic U.S. Senator Alex Padilla was shoved, forced to the ground and handcuffed by security after attempting to ask a question at a press conference on Thursday held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about immigration raids.

 

"I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary," Padilla said during the press conference in Los Angeles, where Noem was discussing protests in the city over President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown.

 

"Hands off," Padilla, 52, said to security agents before he was ushered out of the room.  

It was then that her security forced to the ground and handcuffed a sitting member of the United States Senate.

The AP reported:

Padilla interrupted the news conference after Noem delivered a particularly pointed line, saying federal authorities were not going away but planned to stay and increase operations to “liberate” the city from its “socialist” leadership.

“I’m Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary,” he shouted in a halting voice.

So the plan is to stay in LA after the protests in order to "liberate" the city from "socialism?" 

In your response on X, you said you were said to see what happened to your colleague and that he deserved better. You also said that:

We collectively must turn the temperature down and find a better way forward for our nation.

Would that include The Administration lying and blaming Sen. Padilla for his being handcuffed? How about Secretary Noem's statement about the plans to use the military to enforce The Administration's political agenda?

And regarding your "both sides" solution, what should the left be doing to turn down the temperature in light of all that? 

Any comment on your vote to confirm Kristi Noem as head of DHS? Do you now regret it or are you still fine with it? 

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

I'll be dropping a copy of this letter in the mail soon and, as always, I'll post verbatim whatever response I get. 

That "Rally" At Fort Bragg

Here's an interesting take from Military.com:

It was supposed to be a routine appearance, a visit from the commander in chief to rally the troops, boost morale and celebrate the Army's 250th-birthday week, which culminates with a Washington, D.C., parade slated for Saturday.

Instead, what unfolded Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, bore little resemblance to the customary visit from a president and defense secretary. There, President Donald Trump unleashed a speech laced with partisan invective, goading jeers from a crowd of soldiers positioned behind his podium -- blurring the long-standing and sacrosanct line between the military and partisan politics.

As Trump viciously attacked his perceived political foes, he whipped up boos from the gathered troops directed at California leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom -- amid the president's controversial move to deploy the National Guard and Marines against protesters in Los Angeles -- as well as former President Joe Biden and the press. The soldiers roared with laughter and applauded Trump's diatribe in a shocking and rare public display of troops taking part in naked political partisanship.

Yea. But isn't this against the rules? Active duty personnel participating in an overtly political event?

Seems like it is. From a DOD FAQ on the subject: 

Q1. What rules and regulations govern political activities by members of the Armed
Forces?

A1. Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 1344.10 lays out the rules and policy concerning political activities by members of the Armed Forces.

Q2. What is DoD policy regarding participation in political activity by members of the
Armed Forces?

A2. It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces to carry out the obligations of citizenship such as voting. However, active duty members are specifically prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity, and all members of the Armed Forces should always avoid actions that could reasonably be perceived as implying DoD sponsorship, approval, or endorsement of partisan political activity.

And if there is any doubt, let's look go back to the article:

"We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again," he proclaimed to soldiers, adding that Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass are "incompetent" and falsely said they're aiding "insurrectionists" while goading troops into booing them.

"I bet none of those soldiers booing even know the mayor's name or could identify them in a lineup; they're nonexistent in the chain of command," an 82nd Airborne noncommissioned officer told Military.com. "So, any opinion they could possibly have can only be attributed to expressing a political view while in uniform."

And: 

Internal 82nd Airborne Division communications reviewed by Military.com reveal a tightly orchestrated effort to curate the optics of Trump's recent visit, including handpicking soldiers for the audience based on political leanings and physical appearance. The troops ultimately selected to be behind Trump and visible to the cameras were almost exclusively male.

One unit-level message bluntly said "no fat soldiers."

"If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don't want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out," another note to troops said.

They were screened for their political beliefs. And they expressed those beliefs while in uniform.

But hey, look what I found when they asked the Pentagon for a comment:

"Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media," Sean Parnell, a top Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement to Military.com. "Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers." 

That's right. That's our old buddy Sean Parnell.

In that blogpost I found this at The Washington Post:

[Sean] Parnell is in a tough primary battle for the nomination for an open seat in the U.S. Senate, a race crucial to Republicans’ hopes to take back the chamber.

A few years ago, the former Army captain was ordered by law enforcement to leave his home and give up his guns. He is in the process of a divorce as he runs for the Senate, and we’ve learned that Parnell’s wife had called 911 in relation to a domestic dispute and filed two protection-from-abuse orders against him that were lifted after a few days.

That's the guy who Pete Hegseth chose to be Pentagon Spokesman.

Oh, the joys of having an old blog... 

 

 

Deep Shit

Republicans and the Right have always claimed to be in favor of "small government." Their biggest argument for the Second Amendment of our Constitution has been that people need their guns in case government gets out of hand. And yet, we see that they have absolutely no problem with the President of the United States sending in not only the National Guard against a state's governor's wishes, but actual Marines into a state to stop protests by citizens. Protests, mind you, that only cover a few square blocks and that the police of that city were handling and did not request or need help dealing with.

Moreover, not a few, have expressed the desire for troops to actually kill the protesters. They actually revel in the thought of this. 

I have to say that I'm not surprised at this. Most now look back in horror at the shootings at Kent State. However, I was in 5th grade when Kent State happened and was going to school in Westmoreland County, which if you don't know, is in what is called The T in Pennsylvania, which is a red part of the state. I remember when we discussed the shootings in class, I was horrified to find out that the majority of my classmates expressed the belief that if the students were shot then they must have been doing something wrong. I am sure they got this from what they had heard their parents saying. 

In other words, not much has changed in their attitudes. 

But, we have to realize that a whole lot has changed in our political environment. 

For example, if Trump did a Watergate now, would he even be impeached over it? Trump's list of crimes as president make Nixon look like a novice in comparison. 

And now, we know that we couldn't, say, count on The Washington Post to hold him to account, nor much of the other mainstream media. Oh sure, there might be some headlines for a day or two, but there would be five or six other scandals that would quickly take its place. 

Worse still, perhaps the majority of Americans don't even trust the media anymore. And, Nixon did not have a Fox News pumping out propaganda in his favor on a 24/7 basis. He also didn't have media which were completely cowered by his threats.

And that I believe is Trump's biggest sin: Convincing the American public that they can't believe objective facts. Facts don't exist anymore. Anything can be "fake news." 

Vaccines? They're poison. Immigrants? There's 20 million of them who came into this country in the past four years and they're all murderers and rapists and gang members. A president who can sell meme coins and accept a $200 million golden airplane from a foreign country? This has nothing to do with grift.

We also now have social media and AI. Social media provides a place for the worst ideas to fester and amplify and for people to gather. We didn't have the richest man in the world egging it all on back then and algorithms pushing it all further. We didn't have AI providing even the most design and visually challenged Joe Schmo a way to create endless visually appealing propaganda. Propaganda that apparently the average person can't even tell is not real. We didn't even have endless video and photographs at everyone's fingertips where they can push visuals from years ago claiming that it happened today.

And on top of this, Nixon did not have a Supreme Court who said that anything he did while President was basically legal.

We are in deep shit, people.

All I know is that everyone who still cares about democracy must fight back in any way that they can. 

Protest? Yes! Call and write your representatives? Yes! Document the lies on social media? Yes! Hold the media to account? Yes! Talk to your friends and relatives? Yes! Use your privilege to stand up for those who can't? Yes, yes, yes!

Do whatever is in your power. Do whatever you can or we will be lost forever.

Um...No Kings

From The New York Times:

President Trump said on Tuesday that protesters who assembled during a military parade he planned in Washington on Saturday for the Army’s 250th birthday would be met with “very big force” — a dark warning that made no distinction between peaceful demonstrations and violent confrontations.

In remarks from the Oval Office before he left for North Carolina, where he was scheduled to participate in events at Fort Bragg related to the anniversary, Mr. Trump boasted about the “amazing day” he planned before saying that any demonstrators would be dealt with harshly.

“For those people that want to protest, they’re going to be met with very big force,” Mr. Trump said. “And I haven’t even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.” [Emphasis added.]

And from The Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [Emphasis added.]

No Kings. 

Feel free to join. 

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

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 was going to ask you about President Trump's plan to commandeer the Army's 250th birthday celebration to spend millions on a birthday parade for himself but other events took over.

Instead, this is about his commandeering the California National Guard in Los Angeles. 

This morning, The New York Times reported: 

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California accused President Trump on Sunday of fomenting trouble in Los Angeles by calling in the National Guard. “Local law enforcement didn’t need help,” Newsom said in a post on X, formerly Twitter. “Trump sent troops anyway — to manufacture chaos and violence,” Newsom said. “Now things are destabilized and we need to send in more law enforcement just to clean up Trump’s mess.”

Elsewhere, there was this analysis from the Times:

It is the fight President Trump had been waiting for, a showdown with a top political rival in a deep blue state over an issue core to his political agenda.

In bypassing the authority of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat, to call in the National Guard to quell protests in the Los Angeles area over his administration’s efforts to deport more migrants, Mr. Trump is now pushing the boundaries of presidential authority and stoking criticism that he is inflaming the situation for political gain.

Local and state authorities had not sought help in dealing with the scattered protests that erupted after an immigration raid on Friday in the garment district. But Mr. Trump and his top aides leaned into the confrontation with California leaders on Sunday, portraying the demonstrations as an existential threat to the country — setting in motion an aggressive federal response that in turn sparked new protests across the city.

California Governor Gavin Newsom issued this statement: 

In case you missed it, last night, President Trump – disregarding Governor Newsom – federalized California National Guard troops in Los Angeles at a time when there were no unmet law enforcement needs. In fact, local law enforcement efforts successfully de-escalated the situation in Los Angeles County prior to any of Trump’s commandeered troops being deployed on the ground. {Emphases added.]

And this from the guy who refused to immediately call for the National Guard to help out law enforcement on January 6, 2021.

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.

On the other hand, Trump pardoned all those convicted for attacking the Capitol on January 6.

Your thoughts? 

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll publish your response here. In full. 

Plus Ça Change - And So On

Well, this happened this week:

Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said in a since-deleted social media post on Friday it was “deeply troubling” that a Sikh man, whom she initially misidentified as Muslim, led a prayer on the floor of the House.

Miller wrote on X that the man, Giani Surinder Singh, “should never have been allowed” to lead the prayer and called for Congress to uphold the “truth” that “America was founded as a Christian nation.”

Miller’s original post incorrectly identified Singh as Muslim. She subsequently corrected the post before deleting it entirely.

Singh was invited to lead the prayer, a regular tradition ahead of House sessions being called to order, by Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.).

And:

Haris Tarin, vice president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, condemned Miller’s “Islamaphobia” and called on her to apologize while pushing back on Miller’s belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation.

“We were intentionally founded as a nation of all faiths,” Tarin told POLITICO. “Apparently she must have forgotten about the First Amendment in this country.”

And so on.

This sounded familiar to I took a dive into this blogs archives and found this:

The AP reported that today, the first time, a Hindu clergyman gave the opening prayer in the US Senate.

Rajan Zed, from the Indian Association of Northern Nevada, was obviously not a Christian and some Christians in the gallery were obviously not happy about that. 

Some details I reported then: 

Before he had a chance to speak, a Christian in the gallery piously intoned:

Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight!

According to TPMCafe:

Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately ordered them taken away — though they continued to yell at the Hindu cleric as they were headed out the door, shouting out phrases such as, "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!"

You can hear the protestor continue:

This is an abomination! We shall have no other Gods before You. You are the one true God.

Check the date on my blog post: 07/12/2007. (My God! Have I been blogging for that long?)

That's 17 years, 10 months and a little over 3 weeks ago. That's the age of one unruly High School junior.

As I blogged back then:

Maybe Hitchens is right: Religion Poisons Everything. Or maybe this is closer:

Americans United for Separation of Church and Stat's Executive Director Barry W. Lynn said that the protest "shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."

See? There's a reason for the separation of Church and State. 

See? 

[Note: All the links from my 2007 blogpost are broken. It was a long time ago.]

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 turn, again, to AG Pam Bondi - given that you voted to confirm her as head of the Justice Department.

The Miami Herald is reporting: 

During her Senate confirmation hearing for U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi tip-toed around whether she would stand up to President Donald Trump’s pressure on the Justice Department, promising only in a broad sense that “politics has to be taken out of this system.” 

Since her confirmation in February, Bondi has earned the praise of conservative Republicans for loyally following Trump’s agenda while drawing the wrath of critics on the Democratic spectrum who say she has politicized the Justice Department on issues ranging from illegal immigration to public corruption. 

Now, a liberal- and moderate-leaning coalition of about 70 law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices is attacking Bondi’s record in an ethics complaint filed on Thursday with the Florida Bar. They accuse Bondi of violating her ethical duties as U.S. Attorney General, saying she has committed “serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.”

Specifically:

According to the Florida Bar complaint, Bondi’s “principal ethical violation arises from her perversion of the concept of ‘zealous advocacy’ into an overriding campaign, individually and through Messrs. Blanche, Bove and Martin, to coerce and intimidate the lawyers they supervise into violating their ethical obligations.” 

In each of the three examples, Bondi and her senior team “ordered Department lawyers to do things those lawyers were ethically forbidden from doing, under threat of suspension or termination—or fired them for not having done so,” the complaint says.

In her confirmation hearings, The Herald adds, Bondi also refused "to say that Trump lost the 2020 election."

And yet you voted to confirm her.

Any comments on any of this?  Do you think AG Pam Bondi is guilty of any of the ethics violations outlined in that complaint?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post whatever response I get from Senator Fetterman

OF COURSE They Do This During Pride Month

From The New York Times:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the Navy to review the names of vessels honoring prominent civil rights leaders, including Harvey Milk, who was one of the country’s first openly gay elected officials and a Navy veteran.

News of Mr. Hegseth’s decision, reported earlier by Military.com, comes just days into Pride Month, which celebrates the contributions of luminaries in the L.G.B.T.Q. community.

Of course it was. 

This is what Military.com had to say:

A defense official confirmed that the Navy was making preparations to strip the ship of its name but noted that Navy Secretary John Phelan was ordered to do so by Hegseth. The official also said that the timing of the announcement -- occurring during Pride month -- was intentional.

Of course it was.  

CBS reported Tuesday that the Navy is also considering renaming other John Lewis-class oilers including the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and USNS Harriet Tubman. Both Marshall and Ginsburg were Supreme Court justices, and Tubman was a Black abolitionist who helped slaves escape the South via the Underground Railroad. 

Of course they're considering it. Of course.

CBS reported some background on what makes Harvey Milk such an important story:

Harvey Milk, the political trailblazer, emerged in the 1970s as one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States. After years of activism, he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, where he quickly became a national symbol of LGBTQ+ political empowerment. His life was cut short in 1978 when he was assassinated in City Hall, alongside Mayor George Moscone. 

The USNS Harvey Milk was christened in 2021 and represented a significant step toward inclusivity within the armed forces. 

Before he emerged as one of the most visible advocates for gay rights in American history, Milk served in the U.S. Navy. From 1952 to 1954, he held posts as an operations and dive officer aboard two submarine rescue ships — the USS Chanticleer and the USS Kittiwake — both active during the Korean War, according to the U.S. National Archives. 

But his sexual orientation carried profound consequences as Milk came under scrutiny. In December 1954, Milk, who was then a lieutenant junior grade, was facing a court martial for participating in a "homosexual act" a year earlier. 

Instead of facing trial, Milk was drummed out of the U.S. military, like so many other gay service members of his era. In January 1954, he resigned his commission and accepted an "Other Than Honorable" discharge. In 2021, the Navy approached Milk's nephew, Stuart Milk, to see if he wanted his uncle's discharge upgraded, according to NPR. Stuart decided against it as a reminder that not everyone was treated with honor. 

So of course they did this during Pride Month 

McCormick Monday

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.

The New York Times reported recently that:

President Trump shared an outlandish conspiracy theory on social media on Saturday night saying former President Joseph R. Biden had been “executed in 2020” and replaced by a robotic clone, the latest example of the president amplifying dark, false material to his millions of followers.

Do you really think that Donald Trump believes that former President Biden was executed 5 or so years ago and replaced by a robotic clone? Setting that troubling question aside for a moment let me as you, Senator McCormick, do you think that it's true? Or do you think the President is lying to the American People?

If you do not believe it's true (and I sincerely hope you do not), when will you be publicly correcting President Trump on his latest outlandish conspiracy theory?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

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

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 about the "weaponization" of Trump's DOJ.

The Independent published this recently:

Donald Trump campaigned on ending “weaponization” in government after accusing his political enemies of launching a legal war to derail his chances of winning the presidency a second time.

But the president, with an emboldened Department of Justice, led by staunch ally Pam Bondi, has launched apparent partisan lawfare of his own, with investigations underway against prominent Democratic officials and left-leaning pop superstars, dozens of legal threats aimed at his ideological opponents — and even the law firms representing them.

The Independent offers up some examples of this:

Within the last week, the Justice Department’s civil rights division opened an investigation into Chicago’s Democratic mayor after he boasted to a church congregation about hiring so many Black people to his administration, federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against a sitting member of Congress, and Andrew Cuomo — a prominent Trump antagonist while serving as New York’s governor and now the leading candidate for New York City mayor — has been accused of lying to Congress.

The president has also demanded a “major investigation” into his own allegations that Bruce Springsteen, Beyonce, Oprah Winfrey and Bono violated campaign finance laws by supporting Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign.

But this wasn't supposed to happen, was it? The Independent:

In her confirmation hearing, Attorney General Bondi promised to lawmakers that “the partisanship, the weaponization will be gone” from the Justice Department. “America will have one tier of justice for all,” she said.

You voted to confirm, AG Bondi, didn't you? When you voted for her, did you think that she was going to weaponize the DOJ as she has? Do you think she was planning on weaponizing the DOJ but lied to Congress?

Do you have any comment on Bondi's weaponization of Trump's DOJ? 

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post here with the Senator's response. 

TACO! TACO! TACO!

From The New York Times: 

Stock markets jumped on Tuesday, with the S&P 500 posting its biggest gain in weeks.

The index rose more than 2 percent, which analysts attributed to President Trump’s delaying a proposed 50 percent tariff on the European Union that he had threatened only a few days earlier.

They also talked about tacos.

Or rather, the “TACO” trade, which is short for Trump Always Chickens Out. The tongue-in-cheek term, coined by a Financial Times columnist, has been adopted by some to describe the pattern in which markets tumble after Mr. Trump makes tariff threats, only to rebound just as sharply when he relents and gives countries more time to negotiate deals.

Trump Always Chickens Out. 

The Hill:  

There’s a new trade on Wall Street: the TACO trade, standing for “Trump Always Chickens Out.”

The term was coined by Robert Armstrong, a writer for the Financial Times, and is intended to capture how markets have fallen on Trump’s vow to impose steep tariffs on imports to the United States and then jump back up when Trump announces pauses on those tariffs.

Trump Always Chickens Out.  

 

 

McCormick Monday

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 want to ask about the May 22, 2025 dinner hosted by President Trump at his golf club in Virginia.

The New York Times reported that:

President Trump gathered Thursday evening at his Virginia golf club with the highest-paying customers of his personal cryptocurrency, promising that he would promote the crypto industry from the White House as protesters outside condemned the event as a historic corruption of the presidency.

The gala dinner held at the Trump National Golf Club in suburban Washington, where Mr. Trump flew from the White House on a military helicopter, turned into an extraordinary spectacle as hundreds of guests arrived, many having flown to the United States from overseas.

The Times continues:

It was a spectacle that could only have happened in the era of Donald J. Trump. Several of the dinner guests, in interviews with The New York Times, said that they attended the event with the explicit intent of influencing Mr. Trump and U.S. financial regulations.

Then:

Mr. Trump and his business partners organized the dinner to promote sales of his $TRUMP cryptocurrency, a memecoin launched just days before Mr. Trump’s inauguration. A memecoin is a type of digital currency tied to an online joke or mascot; it typically has no function beyond speculation. But Mr. Trump’s coins have become a vehicle for investors, including many foreigners, to funnel money to his family.

As regards to how much money, let me add that Reuters reported:

A company controlled by the Trump family and a second firm together hold 80% of the remaining supply of $TRUMP coins, and have so far earned $320.19 million in fees, including at least $1.35 million after the dinner announcement, according to blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis. [Emphasis added]

So foreign investors could funnel money to the Trump family in order to gain access to him in order to influence U.S. financial regulations. Got it. Certainly looks like they were.

He also spoke from behind a podium bearing the Presidential Seal use of which is very carefully defined by18 U.S. Code § 713.

Here's my question, Senator: How are you OK with any of this? 

If so, please explain to your constituents why you're fine with this.

If not, please let your constituents know by speaking out against it.

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll be posting whatever the Senator sends back

The Times On John Fetterman This Weekend.

I supported John Fetterman for Senate. I voted for him. I even met him once - years ago at a rally down town. I introduced myself to him afterwards and gave him a 2PJ business card and everything. He seemed unimpressed.

That being said, let's take a look at this piece from The New York Times. It begins thusly:

When Senator John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, showed up at a hearing on May 8 with Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, his colleagues were surprised to see him. Until then, his chair on the dais of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee had sat empty all year.

But under intense scrutiny about his mental health and his ability to function in his job, Mr. Fetterman has been in damage control mode, attending hearings and votes that he had been routinely skipping over the past year. His colleagues, some of whom have privately described him as absent from the Senate and troubled when he is there, are trying to be supportive.

“Good thoughts, Senator Fetterman,” Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, said encouragingly after Mr. Fetterman finished his turn questioning Mr. Altman.

I am not sure whose idea it was for the piece but, in the words of an astute reader, he comes off as "an entitled, self-pitying jerk at this point hiding behind a diagnosis." 

You'll see what the AR meant by the next two paragraphs in the Times piece:

Mr. Fetterman does not enjoy participating in these hearings that he has sat through in recent weeks as he seeks to prove that he is capable of performing the job he was elected to do until 2028. In fact, at a critical moment for the country, he appears to have little interest in the day-to-day work of serving in the United States Senate.

In an interview, Mr. Fetterman, who represents 13 million people, said he felt he had been unfairly shamed into fulfilling senatorial duties, such as participating in committee work and casting procedural votes on the floor, dismissing them as a “performative” waste of time.

Senatorial duties "a performative waste of time," you said.

That's the job, my friend. If you don't like actually doing the job 2.75 million Pennsylvanians elected you to do, there's a simple solution to your dilemma.

The next paragraph does him no favors:

Instead, he said he was “showing up because people in the media have weaponized” his absenteeism on Capitol Hill to portray him as mentally unfit, when in fact it is a product of a decision to spend more time at home and less on the mundane tasks of being a senator.

Again, that's part of the job, Senator.  The job you were elected to do. 

And then he lies about the "weaponization."

He added: “It shook me that people are willing to weaponize that I got help.”

No, Senator. This issue is not that you got help - or indeed that you need help - but your reported refusal to continue to get help is effecting your job.

Then there's this:

Mr. Fetterman has also foregone events in his state. He has avoided hosting town halls with his constituents because he does not want to get heckled by protesters.

Um, did you ever wonder that maybe there's a reason there are protesters, Senator? Avoiding them won't make things better.

Remember that event you were supposed to co-host with MAGA/GOP Senator Dave McCormick?

I wrote about it here.

Some of the speakers had actually purchased tickets to the McCormick/Fetterman brofest and, evidently, had planned to read a statement to the Senators at the event. Each wondered why either Senator lacked the courage to face them.

Each speaker had an important story to tell and important grievances to bring to their Senators in Congress but because of whatever "unforeseen logistical issue" cancelled postponed the winery event, they didn't get to.

Avoiding your unhappy constituents is not a good look, Senator.

The job you were elected to do is the job you were elected to do.

Do it. Even the parts you don't like to do.

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.

Let me ask you again about DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, since you voted to confirm her.

A few days ago, The New York Times reported:

Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, bungled answers on Tuesday about habeas corpus, incorrectly asserting that the legal right of people to challenge their detention by the government was actually the president’s “constitutional right” to deport people.

She reportedly said that habeas corpus is "a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights."

This, of course, is untrue. The Cornell Law School states:

The habeas corpus first originated back in 1215, through the 39th clause of the Magna Carta signed by King John, which provided "No man shall be arrested or imprisoned...except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land." 

And in August, 1969 (about 5 months before you were born) the US Supreme Court wrote, in Harris v Nelson:

The writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action. Its preeminent role is recognized by the admonition in the Constitution that: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended. . . ."

Considering your vote to confirm her as DHS Secretary, do you still support Noem's appointment as head of that department, given her complete misunderstanding of habeas corpus?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post whatever the Senator sends me in response.

Pearl Clutching Hypocrisy

So the MAGA GOP is up in arms over this:

The Secret Service questioned James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, on Friday about a social media post he made that Mr. Trump’s cabinet officials and allies claimed amounted to a call for Mr. Trump’s assassination, according to a law enforcement official.

The Secret Service sought the interview after Mr. Comey posted a photo on Thursday of seashells on a beach forming the numbers “86 47,” a phrase used by Mr. Trump’s critics at protests, and on signs and clothing. “Eighty-six,” according to Merriam-Webster, is an old slang term meaning to dismiss or remove.

Shortly after Mr. Comey made the post, Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, said the Secret Service, which falls under her department, was investigating it. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said on Fox News that Mr. Comey should be jailed.

Specifically:

In an interview with Bret Baier of Fox News that was broadcast on Friday, Mr. Trump — the target of two assassination attempts last year — said he believed that Mr. Comey was calling for him to be killed.

You remember Psalm 109, right?

It was all over the right side of the political spectrum a few years ago: 

Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert received cheers and applause when quipped that she prays for President Joe Biden's demise while speaking at a Christian event. 

Boebert made the comments during a weekend event called the Family Camp Meeting at Charis Christian Center in Colorado Springs, which included a series of pastors and speakers "who have proven God's Word," according to the center's website. 

And:

"I do want you to know that I pray for our President. Psalm 109:8 says, 'May his days be few and another take his office.' Hallelujah! Glory to God," Boebert said with a laugh as the crowd clapped and cheered. 

You'll note that Rep. Boebert was very careful to say "Psalm 109.8" which reads:

 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Careful because take a look at Psalm 109.9: 

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

It's a biblically-supported call for the president's assassination.  

And even if it isn't it's certainly closer than "86.

 

 

 

 

 

Such A Dignified Man, Doncha Think?

Take a look:

"And then they rigged the election. And then I said, you know what I'll do? I'll run again, and I'll shove it up their ass. And that's what I did.”

pic.twitter.com/e6ta0tcFaC

— Steven Cheung (@StevenCheung47) May 20, 2025

Of course, the problem isn't only the vulgar crude dishonesty of the man currently occupying the Oval Office but all the people applauding the vulgarity.

For the record: "They" didn't rig the 2020 election. He lost.

McCormick Monday

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.

The AP reported:

President Donald Trump on Saturday ripped into Walmart, saying on social media that the retail giant should eat the additional costs created by his tariffs.

And:

Trump, in his Truth Social post, lashed out at the retailer, which employs 1.6 million people in the United States. He said the company, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, should sacrifice its profits for the sake of his economic agenda that he says will eventually lead to more domestic jobs in manufacturing.

But I thought other countries would be paying the tariffs, Senator - not other countries and private US companies.

Senator, as a conservative do you think that a president (any president) has the authority to dictate to a private company how it should set prices? Does a president really have the authority to tell a private company that it should "sacrifice their profits" for the sake some top-down defined common good?

This would seem to be at odds with any definition of a free market economy, don't you think?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

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

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 circle back to your vote to confirm AG Pamela Bondi.

Recently, The Hill reported:

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday over her decision to deem President Trump’s potential acceptance of a luxury Qatari jet as a “legally permissible” gift.

Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued Bondi should have recused herself from that decision due to her past lobbying work for the Qatari government and that Congress should be the entity deciding whether the U.S. will accept such a gift.

Senator, did you know she about her past lobbying work for Qatar when you voted for her? Do you think she should have recused herself in this decision?

Beyond that, did you know that Qatar has been funding Hamas for years? To the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars? 

After Hamas attacked Israel, you issued a statement on October 18, 2023 that said, in part:

Hamas does not want peace, they want to destroy Israel. We can talk about a ceasefire after Hamas is neutralized.

This is the same Hamas that has been supported by Qatar for years. AG Bondi once worked for a lobbying firm employed by Qatar. You voted to confirm Pamela Bondi as Attorney General.

Would you like to comment on any of this?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post verbatim whatever response I get from the Senator's office.