tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9148918040072188862024-03-05T01:06:27.227-05:00Ready Writers"My tongue is the pen of a ready writer" --Psalm 45:1Patrick McNamarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10413398619171109012noreply@blogger.comBlogger324125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-15529281705486772832022-03-03T13:58:00.003-05:002022-03-03T13:58:13.852-05:00Made in USA<p><b>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica</b><br>
<b><i>Made in the USA</i>
<i>by David Trumbull -- February 18, 2022</i>
<p>In the summer of 1941, as World War II was devastating Europe and Asia, America watched, and hoped -- hoped that it would not be a repeat of World War I, where we were pulled into a foreign war. Hoping is one thing, planning is another. We could not have anticipated that by December we would be forced into the global conflict, but wise heads in Washington did see that it was a question of when, not if, young American men (practically still boys) would be called upon to defend Democracy and risk life and limb in a foreign conflict we neither initiated nor sought. Recognizing the looming threat, the U.S. took a sober look at what we would need to fight the war when it came to us. The conclusion was that we needed a reliable domestic source of steel, and textiles. Congress passed an act to require domestic U.S. sourcing of uniforms. Since then, requirement for domestic sourcing of textiles for the Department of Defense has been renewed several times and, finally, made a permanent part of U.S. law, known as the "Berry Amendment" for the member of congress who proposed it, in its current form, over 60 years ago.
<p>We now are facing a crisis. Due to COVID-19-related workforce and supply limitations, we are, for the first time since 1941, facing a situation where young women and men entering our armed services cannot be provided with uniforms. Back in December, the newspaper Stars and Stripes, reported that the sole domestic source for certain fabric for Air Force uniforms is unable to satisfy the need. That much is public, but the shortage goes beyond that, far beyond, and while I can't reveal details, I can tell you that the U.S. currently could not clothe enough warfighters were we to be forced into a major conflict.
<p>COVID-19 has precipitated this crisis, but it is not the root cause. For the past 30 years U.S. trade policy has incentivized brands and retailers to close U.S. textile facilities and relocate offshore, mostly to China. Leaving the few domestic producers of vital military textiles with few, if any, commercial customers. A law requiring U.S. textiles in tents and uniforms is of no value if there is no remaining U.S. textile industry to supply our armed services. And we certainly do not want to fall into a situation where we are dependent on a foreign nation -- a potential foe -- as the source of military clothing and tents.
<p>You can help! If more Americans would buy U.S.-made clothing we could help support that industrial base that we need for national defense.
<p>Here are a few sources for Made in U.S.A. products.
<p>For quality hats, including hats made in the U.S.A., visit these fine vendors:
<ul>
<li><a href='https://www.bollmanhats.com' target='_blank'>www.bollmanhats.com</a>,
<li><a href='https://www.resistol.com' target='_blank'>www.resistol.com</a>, and
<li><a href='https://www.stetson.com' target='_blank'>www.stetson.com</a>.
</ul>
<p>For computer cases, suitcases, and other travel goods go to <a href='https://toughtraveler.com/' target='_blank'>https://toughtraveler.com/</a>
<p>For bags, other travel goods, and ball caps go to https://unionwear.com
<p>For American-made linens go to <a href='https://thomastonmills.com/' target='_blank'>https://thomastonmills.com/</a>, or, <a href='https://www.matouk.com/' target='_blank'>https://www.matouk.com/</a> a company that makes their bed and bath linens right here in a Fall River, Massachusetts, factory.
<p>For sneakers, pass by the Nike, probably made with slave labor in China, and go to <a href='https://www.newbalance.com/' target='_blank'>https://www.newbalance.com/</a> who makes shoes in Massachusetts and Maine.
<p>Final note, even companies that are committed to U.S. manufacturing will sometime mix imports into their catalogue, so be sure to check the country of origin of any article before making a purchase.
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-66198503593062646472022-03-03T13:11:00.002-05:002022-03-03T13:11:09.267-05:00Tom Brady, You Are No Patriot, and I Ain’t Talking Football<p><b>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica </b><br>
<b><i>Tom Brady, You Are No Patriot, and I Ain’t Talking Football</i></b><br>
<p><i>by David Trumbull -- January 21, 2022</i>
<p><b>Tom Brady has launched a new athletic clothing brand, but if you thought that might mean new jobs for American textile and apparel workers, your hopes are about to get deflated.</b>
<p>According to his website (which I will not name, lest I give him free publicity), "We currently make our goods between New York, Mexico, Portugal, Lithuania, <b>Vietnam</b>, and <b>China</b>." As far as any products made in New York, it is impossible to tell from his website, because, in the case of individual articles, they all lack the federally mandated disclosure of whether they are domestic or imported. Given the current interest in America-made goods, it is fair to assume that were they made in America, he'd be highlighting that. So, it looks like little, if any is actually made in New York State. The site is also not in compliance with fiber content labeling law.
<p>It's not like these articles cannot be made in the U.S. It's athletic wear, of the same sort the <b>U.S. Department of Defense</b> acquires for our warfighters -- and does so using <b>100% American-made sourcing</b>. Using publicly available sources I confirmed that the U.S. Department of Defense, in one year alone, 2021, <b>acquired similar garments made</b> in <b>Alabama</b>, <b>California</b>, <b>Florida</b>, <b>Georgia</b>, <b>Michigan</b>, <b>Mississippi</b>, <b>New York</b>, <b>Tennessee</b>, <b>Texas</b>, and <b>Puerto Rico</b> (several manufacturers). Furthermore, nearly all, if not all, states have <b>sheltered workshops</b> for the blind or otherwise disabled that provide these articles. Even here in Massachusetts <b>JA Apparel Corp, New Bedford, gets military contracts for apparel</b> comparable to some of the Brady line.
<p>And at his prices -- <b>$75 for a T-Shirt and $175 for a hoodie</b> – he certainly cannot claim that living wages paid to Americans have forced him to go off-shore. This is pure greed, and disregard for American workers, and in the cases of China and Vietnam, disregard for the rights of the workers in other nations.
<p>According to Human Rights Watch:
<blockquote><i>
<p>"Vietnam’s human rights record remains dire in all areas. The Communist Party maintains a monopoly on political power and allows no challenge to its leadership. Basic rights, including freedom of speech, opinion, press, association, and religion, are restricted. Rights activists and bloggers face harassment, intimidation, physical assault, and imprisonment. … workers are not allowed to form independent unions. The police use torture and beatings to extract confessions. The criminal justice system lacks independence."
</blockquote></i>
<p>The same group ways of China:
<blockquote><i>
<p>"China’s one-party authoritarian state under the Chinese Communist Party systemically curbs fundamental rights. Under President Xi Jinping, in power since 2013, the government has deepened repression at home and sought to muzzle critics abroad. It has arbitrarily detained human rights defenders and lawyers, tightened control over civil society, media, and the internet, and deployed invasive mass surveillance technology. The government imposes particularly heavy-handed control in the ethnic minority regions of Xinjiang and Tibet. The government’s cultural persecution and arbitrary detention of a million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims since 2017 constitute crimes against humanity."
</blockquote></i>
<p>Brady is not the only celebrity athlete who needs to be called out. Several American professional ball players refuse to stand for the American National Anthem, because 150 years ago we tolerated slavery, yet they have multi-million-dollar promotional contracts with sneaker companies that use slave labor in the Xinjiang Region of China. I guess slavery is bad only when someone else is benefitting from it.
<p>Few are those in professional sports who will speak up about the human rights abuses in the factories where athletic wear is produced. One of those few is <b>Boston Celtics</b> player <b>Enes Kanter</b>, who has repeatedly excoriated both the NBA and Nike for not standing up to China over human rights abuses being perpetrated by the communist country. (See <a href='https://www.foxnews.com/media/enes-kanter-excoriates-nba-nike-china-hypocrite-companies' target='_blank'>https://www.foxnews.com/media/enes-kanter-excoriates-nba-nike-china-hypocrite-companies</a>)
<p>You and I don't have the platform that Enes Kanter has to call out the bad actors among apparel and footwear brands, but we have one thing -- we have our wallets. Buying sneakers? Take a look at Massachusetts-based <b>New Balance</b> -- they make sneakers in <b>factories in Massachusetts and Maine</b>.
<p>Tom Brady has abandoned New England and has abandoned American workers, but <b>YOU can be a PATRIOT. Look for the Made in U.S.A. label when you shop for apparel, textile articles, and footwear</b>. Next month I’ll give you some examples of everyday articles you can buy that provide manufacturing jobs for Americans.
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-20048084756218751982020-09-23T16:28:00.008-04:002020-09-23T16:34:18.687-04:00President Donald J. Trump Delivers for American Workers<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-lhn4Vj9nRBrRjE1hZE9F5NhW3VZY8pfIzf9vGu4A9oE7xDMVtYIymPPSHwnxtQaPhLo7ZiNaCLKF1HxoPwc6EdU1cogDobuB_LSAggNtddqKtLUb08kzqtW33hLi5q4vxe7lf07qNnmH/s1920/35949678806_3fa3a52da9_k-1920x720.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1920" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-lhn4Vj9nRBrRjE1hZE9F5NhW3VZY8pfIzf9vGu4A9oE7xDMVtYIymPPSHwnxtQaPhLo7ZiNaCLKF1HxoPwc6EdU1cogDobuB_LSAggNtddqKtLUb08kzqtW33hLi5q4vxe7lf07qNnmH/s400/35949678806_3fa3a52da9_k-1920x720.jpg"/></a></div>
<p><b>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica </b><br>
<b><i>President Donald J. Trump Delivers for American Workers</i></b><br>
<i>by David Trumbull -- September 18, 2020</i>
<p>Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That deal would have destroyed millions of U.S. jobs. I understand why Obama pursued it. The idea was that the loss of millions of Americans jobs was an acceptable cost of linking the U.S. and Vietnam to provide an offset to China's hegemony in East Asia. I didn't believe that it would work that way, and the fact that China was rapidly building new factories in Vietnam in anticipation of TPP is evidence, at least to me, that I was right. TPP was not going to re-balance power in East Asia and those millions of American jobs would have been lost with nothing gained.
<p>Trump vowed to re-negotiate NAFTA and there was outcry on the right and left than that was an outrageous thing. The fact is that we have renegotiated individual provisions in NAFTA hundreds of times (I wrote some of those proposals that ended up being accepted by the three nations), Trump merely set out to do a more thorough version of what we had been doing piece-meal all along. NAFTA is 25 years old, in our more recent agreements we learnt from the mistakes of NAFTA and created better agreements, Trump took the lessons learnt and went back to Canada and Mexico and got us a better agreement. Of course, the new agreement had to go to congress for approval, which it got, because it was evident to everyone that Trump got us a better deal.
<p>The old NAFTA had problems, but nothing in comparison to the damage that China was inflicting on the U.S. When China entered the WTO at the end of 2001 it got all the benefits of membership, and while it committed to observing the disciplines of membership, it has not. Year after year the U.S. government issued a written report on the many ways that China was not living up to its WTO commitments and how that was harming the U.S. economy. And year after year the U.S. did nothing about it. Trump bypassed congress and invoked Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to unilaterally impose a 25% tariff on most goods from China.
<p>Almost all my clients are paying that tariff. They have no choice. China's illegal trade practices have put out of business entire industries in all other countries. Almost all of these companies paying the tariff say that Trump is doing what must be done because just as all their suppliers outside of China have been put out of business by China, they believe that, without this strong action, they would be the next targeted by China for elimination. Now, during the pandemic, Trump is keeping these U.S. companies afloat by invoking the Defense Production Act.
<p>I also have clients in the New England lobster industry who were at a disadvantage relative to Canadian lobster men because Canadian lobster enter the EU duty-free while U.S. lobster are subject to import duty. Trump got the EU to give U.S. lobster's duty-free parity with Canadian, without the U.S. making any significant trade concessions to the EU. On September 14 the Trump administration published notice of a new $527 million seafood trade relief program that will pay licensed fishermen up to $250,000 to offset sales lost due to China's tariffs on U.S. seafood.
<p>Prior to the election I was skeptical about Trump. I liked what he said about trade, but I wasn't sure he had specific actions to put in place. As president he has far exceeded what I dreamed possible.
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-22174255358338793442020-07-10T17:11:00.001-04:002020-07-10T17:11:19.683-04:00Hurray for Trump Rallies<p><b>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica</b>
<br><b><i>Hurray for Trump Rallies</i></b>
<br><i>by David Trumbull -- June 19, 2020</i>
<p>When I was young, my family, like most American families, would gather around the television at least a few nights a week and enjoy entertainment that offered something for everyone. The marvelous variety shows -- Ed Sullivan of course the biggest shoe-- were where Americans were fist introduced to some of the rock bands whose music we still listen to six decades later. They also featured comedy, acrobatics, juggling, you name it. If you could put it on TV, it was there in an hour-long program, with the host as the center around which the entire circus revolved. In other words, they were in the 1960s what a Trump rally is in 2020.
<blockquote>
<p><i>"By the way, is there anything more fun than a Trump rally? Is there? Seriously. And we break every attendance record every single time, just about."</i> -- Donald J. Trump.
</blockquote>
<p>The Trump rallies are back! For the Saturday, June 20, 2020, rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the campaign reports they received 800,000 requests for tickets. Fox News is the top cable news network in large part because it shows every Trump rally. Each Trump rally brings Fox about 5 million viewers.
<p>It's the best TV on TV. You get music, lots of fun upbeat music, the sort of music that back in the day of network TV you would have gotten on those variety shows that filled our 23-inch screens. Some of the artists object to their music playing at Trump rallies. But as Mick Jagger found out when he tried to stop it, "You can't always get what you want." If the venue has a license to play your song, there isn't much you can do about it in most cases.
<p>The music at Trump rallies will go on, and the crowd will go wild. There will be clapping, dancing, jumping around. I have never seen people at a political event having so much fun. Sure, at both parties' national conventions the balloons will drop when the nomination becomes official, music will play, and people will cheer, but the whole thing is so choreographed and staged that it will be a bore -- nothing like the energy at a Trump rally.
<p>What is a TV variety show without a clown? At a Trump rally you can be sure to see some clown who waited outside in the heat or cold for many hours to get in and immediately get himself thrown out for an attempted disruption. Apparently, it never occurs to them that one voice in a backrow seat in a 20,000 person arena can't be heard, so no one will even know why you are protesting. Maybe they don't even know themselves why they are protesting. One thing is clear, the Trump supporters know why they are there. For a quarter of a century they saw America being taken away from ordinary Americans, and taken over by a small elite class that thinks the rest of us are deplorable.
<p>Trump wants to give America back to us deplorables. And, in the process, he's giving us the greatest show on TV.
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-20348820989477059652020-03-20T13:04:00.002-04:002020-03-20T13:04:44.036-04:00Trump Takes ACTION, not Meetings<p><b>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica </b><br>
<b><i>Trump Takes ACTION, not Meetings</i></b><br>
<i>by David Trumbull -- February 20, 2020</i>
<p><i>"To build on our incredible economic success, one priority is paramount -- reversing decades of calamitous trade policies."</i> -- President Donald J. Trump
<p>President Trump is turning back the failed trade policies of past administrations that closed more than 60,000 American factories and shipped millions of jobs overseas. In the decades following NAFTA's implementation and China's accession to the WTO, America lost 1 in 4 manufacturing jobs.
<p>No longer is America turning a blind eye towards the unfair trade policies that have harmed American companies and workers for far too long. President Trump has delivered for the American people -- negotiating new trade deals that put Americans first.
<p>President Trump signed USMCA into law, making good on his promise to terminate NAFTA, and replace it with a much better deal for the American people.
<p>The President confronted China's unfair trade policies head-on and imposed historic tariffs, resulting in a groundbreaking phase one trade agreement with China. This agreement will begin rebalancing our trade relations, protect American intellectual property, combat counterfeit trafficking, and expand markets for American businesses. In the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama I used to attend quarterly briefings in Washington on developments in trade. Each time, someone from the administration would present a fairly detailed report on all the illegal trade practices of China. We'd ask the administration spokesperson, "What are you doing about this?" The answer was always the same, "We had a meeting with the Chinese recently and we are planning for another meeting soon." Meetings, meetings, meetings -- that all. Trump takes action!
<p>Almost all my clients are getting hit by Trump's 25% tariff on Chinese goods. They can't easily move their sourcing out of China, because the unfair and illegal trade practices of China have destroyed entire industries in the U.S. and elsewhere. China is now the sole source for certain raw materials and intermediate goods needed by U.S. manufacturers. New factories could be built outside of China, but that will take years. So, these U.S. manufacturers are stuck with China and a 25% tariff as the only way to operate. And you know what? Almost every one of them says that Trump took the right action. Just as China put out of business all other sources for these U.S. manufacturers to buy from, they see that they could be the next ones put out of business by China if the U.S. does not act as Trump has.
<p>Thanks to the President’s efforts, we have signed two new trade agreements with Japan that will benefit American agricultural exports and grow our digital trade for the future. Japan will open its market to approximately $7 billion in American agricultural exports. The President’s efforts will help boost the already approximately $40 billion worth of digital trade between our two countries.
<p>The President has renegotiated our trade deal with South Korea, providing a boost to America’s auto industry.
<p>The President is working to negotiate even more new trade deals in the coming year.
<p>Manufacturers around the country are adding thousands of new, high-paying jobs for American workers. Since the President’s election, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been added to the American economy. Comparatively, 20,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the 12 months prior to the election. Blue collar workers, on average, are on track to see almost $2,500 more in annual wages.
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-54814456256369055992020-03-20T13:02:00.002-04:002020-03-20T13:02:26.726-04:00Trump Trade Agenda Results in Blue-Collar Boom<p><b>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica </b>
<br><b><i>Trump Trade Agenda Results in Blue-Collar Boom</i></b>
<br><i>by David Trumbull -- March 20, 2020</i>
<p>On February 28, 2020, United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer delivered President Trump's Trade Policy Agenda and Annual Report to Congress, highlighting how the Administration’s aggressive trade actions have resulted in a "blue-collar boom" with higher wages, more jobs and a stronger economy for all.
<p>Going forward, the report states that President Trump will continue to rebalance America's trade relationships to benefit American workers, aggressively enforce U.S. trade laws, and take prompt action in response to unfair trade practices by other nations.
<p>The President achieved more trade successes over the last 12 months than prior administrations achieved in a typical decade. The result is a stronger economy, rising wages and more jobs -- including more manufacturing jobs.
<p>While 15,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in the 12 months prior to President Trump's election, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been added to the American economy since then.
<p>Real median household income is now at the highest level ever recorded. Wages are growing faster for nearly all groups, but historically disadvantaged groups are seeing the fastest growth.
<p>Wealth inequality has finally declined, as the share of net worth held by the bottom 50 percent of households has increased while the share held by the top one percent of households has decreased.
<p>President Trump kept his promise and confronted China over its unfair trade practices, after years of little more than talk from Washington. The enforceable and historic Phase One Agreement he signed requires major structural changes by China relating to intellectual property protection, technology transfer, agricultural standards, financial services, and currency, while maintaining leverage with significant tariffs on $370 billion worth of imports from China.
<p>President Trump kept his promise to end NAFTA by replacing it with a far better agreement -- the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The USMCA is a 21th century agreement that will lead to fairer trade and robust economic growth in North America.
<p>The USMCA encourages U.S. manufacturing by requiring high-wage labor content for autos; strengthens supply chains to provide new market opportunities for the U.S. textile and apparel sector; provides strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights; includes the strongest labor provisions of any trade agreement; expands market access for American food and agricultural products; contains the strongest disciplines on digital trade of any international agreement; and makes environmental obligations fully enforceable.
<p>The Administration's goals for the next year include:
<p>New trade agreements with the United Kingdom, the European Union and Kenya, which would be the United States' first free trade agreement in sub-Saharan Africa.
<p>Enforcement of commitments by our trading partners in trade agreements, including the USMCA, the China Phase One Agreement and WTO agreements.
<p>Limiting the WTO to its original purpose of serving as a forum for nations to negotiate trade agreements, monitor compliance with agreements, and facilitate the member-driven resolution of international trade disputes.David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-80501743357185387842020-01-21T16:49:00.003-05:002020-09-09T08:44:14.844-04:00Trump Has Our Back<p>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
<br>by David Trumbull
<br>January 17, 2020
<p>A little more than a year into Trump’s presidency I had dinner with a friend who is the pastor of a church in the Reform tradition, but who came from the Evangelical tradition. I’m a Catholic, so our combined experiences cover most of the Christian experience in American. We were talking about how clueless the media are about Trump and his appeal. My friend noted that the media doesn’t understand why Evangelicals support Trump. I responded, “I can sum it up in one word, ‘Cy’” and my friend responded with, “rus.” We were referring to Cyrus the Great, the Sixth Century B.C. king of Persia who released the Jews from their Babylonian captivity, returned them to their homeland, decreed that the temple in Jerusalem be rebuilt, and provided the money to build it. You can read the account in the Bible, in verses one though eight of the first chapter of the Book of Ezra, as well as several favorable mentions in the Book of Isaiah.
<p>There is no record, not even a hint, that Cyrus became a worshipper of the God of the Jews. His policy of religious tolerance was applied across his empire to all religions. He took the golden temple vessels that the Babylonians had seized from the Jerusalem temple and returned them to the Jews, but there is also an account of his paying for the restoration of a Babylonia idol. In short, he seems to have understood that the best way to rule a multi-ethnic empire with many religions was to be the guarantor of freedom to any and all religions. He wasn't a Jew, but as we say, he had their back. In fact, according to the Bible, he was chosen by God.
<p>Fast forward about 850 years to the Year of Our Lord 313. That's when the persecuted Christians in the Roman Empire gained their freedom of religion. Emperor Constantine the Great issued the Edict of Milan which, like Cyrus' policy, established freedom of religion in the Empire for all faiths. In the Eastern Church Constantine is recognized as a saint. In the Western Church he is highly revered, but not officially recognized as a saint. His personal live was hardly saintly, he had his wife and child murdered, and was otherwise cruel when he believed the situation called for cruelty. Perhaps his knowledge that governing the Empire would require ruthless acts was why he delayed Christian Baptism until he was on his deathbed (Baptism washes away all sins). During his life, Constantine was favorable to Christians, but he was not one himself and -- he had their back.
<p>In 2012 President Obama pushed for an Obamacare mandate that if enforced in the way he wanted would have forced the closure of Catholic and many Protestant hospitals and schools. It was clearly unconstitutional, but the legal battles alone would likely have been crippling to faith institutions. In response, here in heavily Catholic Boston Cardinal O'Malley urged us to pray:
<p><blockquote><i>"Almighty God, Father of all nations, for freedom you have set us free in Christ Jesus. We praise and bless you for the gift of religious liberty, the foundation of human rights, justice and the common good. Grant to our leaders the wisdom to protect and promote our liberties; by your grace may we have the courage to defend them for ourselves and for all those who live in this blessed land. We ask this through the intercession of Mary Immaculate, our patroness, and in the name of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, with whom you live and reign, one God, for ever and ever. Amen."</i></blockquote>
<p>Many people of various religions in America believe that prayer may have been answered on November 8, 2016. Is President Trump my idea of a good example of Christian living? No. He doesn’t have to be one of us to have our back.
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-77814601600270050962019-07-07T13:19:00.000-04:002019-07-07T13:19:21.120-04:00Trump’s Tariffs Target China’s Unfair Trade Practices<p>I applaud President Trump’s use of tariffs in response to China’s intellectual property abuse. I especially welcome the proposal to add all finished apparel and home textile furnishings to a fourth list of retaliatory tariffs. The U.S. has imposed tariffs pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the President to take such action when a trading partner is found to have acts, policies, or practices that are unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. A seven-month-long investigation determined that China systematically engages in acts, policies or practices that are actionable under Section 301. The administration would be acting recklessly and with disregard of the facts documented in the 301 investigation if it failed to impose a traderemedy in the face of China’s unfair trade practices.
<p>What will be the effect of a 25% tariff on apparel and home textiles of Chinese origin? For the American consumer the effect will be negligible. Back-to-school shoppers will fi nd shops and online vendors fully stocked with the articles they need, and at a price they can afford. Take for example, a pair of children’s blue jeans. Currently, as imported from China, those jeans, that retail at around $20, are imported at an average cost of $4.61. A 25% tariff would add $1.15 to the importers’ cost. Even if the entire increase were passed on to the consumer, that’s just a 6% hike. More likely most, or all, would be absorbed at the various levels of the supply chain. That is, if the brands and retailers decide to stick with Chinese sourcing.
<p>Cost-sensitive brands and retailers might, however, decide that the increase is unacceptable. In that case, they can source elsewhere and avoid the 25% tariff. The U.S. has free trade agreements in place with 12 nations here in the Western Hemisphere. With a 25% tariff, in addition to the general duty, Chinese-origin jeans will cost $6.53. That makes sourcing from our regional FTA partners, at an average cost of $5.66, look very attractive. Additionally, when apparel is made in our regional partners, there is a good likelihood that it will contain U.S. inputs. Any shifting of sourcing away from China into our Western Hemisphere supply chain is certain to result in more U.S. textile production and more good-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs.
<p>It is well past the time to do something to counter against China’s unfair trade practices. Year after year, since China’s WTO accession in 2001, USTR has issued an annual Reports to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, and year after year, the report says the same thing — “Real progress was made, but much more work remains to be done” and “The Special 301 report again placed China on the Priority Watch List and the Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets featured Chinese markets prominently.” In our approach to China’s unfair trade practices we’ve been doing the same thing and expecting different results. That is why I appreciate this administration’s willingness to try a new, and I believe productive, approach to the China problem.
<p>I understand the difficult situation some manufacturers are in, when inputs not available from any source other than China are on a 301 retaliation list. I urge the administration to release a transparent and expeditious exclusion process that is effective and mitigates the impact on textile producers. I note that for the first two lists, which had exclusion provisions that process is moving forward and, where merited, exclusions are being granted to some U.S. manufacturers who have become collateral damage in this trade action. The fact that some inputs can be sourced only from China should itself be a concern. Years of unchecked unfair trade practices on the part of China have driven other sources out of the market entirely. These tariffs, if maintained, can lead to both more U.S. production and a diversification of our foreign sourcing.David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-66046738018024006742017-07-22T16:50:00.001-04:002017-07-22T16:50:19.673-04:00Foreign Intervention<p><b>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica</b>
<br><i><b>Foreign Intervention</i></b>
<br><i>by David Trumbull - July 21, 2017</i>
<p>Okay, I'll admit it. If it weren't for foreign intervention in America, Donald Trump would likely not be president.
<p>I mean that if the French had not intervened in the Revolutionary War, we likely would not have a president at all. We'd likely be one of the Commonwealth nations with a parliamentary system with a prime minister as head of the government and Queen Elizabeth II as titular head of state.
<p>The American Revolutionary War began April 19, 1775, here in Massachusetts. The war became a fight for independence with the July 1776 adoption by the Americans' Continental Congress of the Declaration of Independence. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, September 3, 1783.
<p>As a young schoolboy, I was taught how the Americans used unconventional fighting methods and had the advantage of fighting, on their own land, for their own land. It helped, too, that their cause was just. Washington's aide, the French aristocrat General Lafayette, was praised, and the contribution of the French mentioned, but just barely. In fact, it is not at all clear that the Americans could have defeated the British without the assistance of the Kingdom of France. We also had support from the Dutch Republic and the Kingdom of Spain.
<p>This year we commemorate the centennial of the United States' entry into World War I, on April 6, 1917. The war in Europe had been grinding on since the late summer of 1914. Just as French arms and men sent to America in the Revolutionary War may been the final necessary element of Patriot victory, so, too, the American Expeditionary Forces -- over a million strong -- under John Joseph "Black Jack" Pershing, broke the stalemate of the War to End All Wars.
<p>The popular song, "Good-Bye Broadway, Hello France," (composed by Billy Baskette, with lyrics written by C. Francis Reisner and Benny Davis) -- a huge musical hit exactly one hundred years ago this year -- made clear the connection between French assistance to the U.S. in our war of independence and America's assistance to France in The Great War.
<blockquote>
<p><i>'Vive Pershing' is the cry across the sea.
<br>We're united in this fight for liberty.
<br>France sent us a soldier, brave Lafayette
<br>Whose great deeds and fame we cannot forget.
<br>Now that we have the chance,
<br>We'll pay our debt to France.</i>
</blockquote>
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-7435138929135655322017-06-08T15:41:00.002-04:002017-06-08T15:41:27.553-04:00President Trump's Trade Policy AgendaPOST-GAZETTE
<br>President Trump's Trade Policy Agenda
<br>by David Trumbull
<br>June 9, 2017
<p>On March 1, 2017, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released President Trump's 2017 Trade Policy Agenda, I quote from the document:
<p>"In 2016, voters in both major parties called for a fundamental change in direction of U.S. trade policy. The American people grew frustrated with our prior trade policy not because they have ceased to believe in free trade and open markets, but because they did not all see clear benefits from international trade agreements. President Trump has called for a new approach, and the Trump Administration will deliver on that promise."
<p>President Trump wasted no time in implementing that "fundamental change in direction." On the Monday after the Friday he took office for his first term, he reversed what was supposed to be one of President Obama's most significant foreign policy and trade achievements. On January 23. 2017, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP"), the largest free trade agreement ever signed.
<p>Among the eleven countries other than the U.S. were six with whom we already had free trade agreements. Apparently, they were included to just to make the deal bigger. Among the other five: Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam, two, Japan and New Zealand, are modern, Western-style democracies with level of economic development comparable to the U.S. In other words, if a good bi-lateral free trade agreement can be negotiated with any nation, those two would be good candidates.
<p>As for the rest of the lot to whom President Obama wanted to give preferential access to our market. Well, according to the U.S. Department of State --
<p>The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is an authoritarian state ruled by a single party, the Communist Party of Vietnam. There are severe government restrictions of citizens' political rights, particularly their right to change their government through free and fair elections; limits on citizens' civil liberties, including freedom of assembly, association, and expression; and inadequate protection of citizens' due process rights, including protection against arbitrary detention. The government maintains limits on workers' rights to form and join independent unions and does not enforce safe and healthy working conditions adequately. Child labor persists, especially in agricultural occupations.
<p>The most significant human rights problems in Malaysia include government restrictions on freedoms of speech and expression, press and media, assembly, and association. Restrictions on freedom of religion are also a significant concern--including bans on religious groups, restrictions on proselytizing, and prohibitions on the freedom to change one's religion. Other human rights problems include deaths during police apprehension and while in custody; laws allowing detention without trial; caning as a form of punishment imposed by criminal and "sharia" (Islamic law) courts; restrictions on the rights of migrants, including migrant workers, refugees, and victims of human trafficking; official corruption; violence and discrimination against women; and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons. The government restricts union and collective-bargaining activity, and government policies created vulnerabilities for child labor and forced labor problems, especially for migrant workers.
<p>Brunei Darussalam is a monarchy governed since 1967 by Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah under emergency powers in place since 1962 that place few limits on his authority. The most serious human rights problems were the inability of citizens to choose their government through free and fair elections, restrictions on religious freedom, and exploitation of foreign workers. Other human rights problems include limitations on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association. The partial implementation of a sharia-based penal code continues to raise significant human rights concerns. The country did not ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which it signed in 2015.
<p>Do these sound like the governments we should be do favors for? Thank you President Trump for pulling us out of the swamp that is the TPP.David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-53840456110831893422017-05-01T17:35:00.002-04:002017-05-01T17:35:08.556-04:00Fake News and the Fake Clinton NarrativeSo now there is a book out (which I have not read) revealing problems within the Hillary Clinton campaign for the presidency that doomed the otherwise inevitable election of the most qualified candidate to every run for president. Losing campaigns are, invariably, followed by analyses that show that despite the outward appearance that everything was fine, there were problems known at the time to only the campaign insiders which explain the unexpected loss.
<p>I don't buy it. I was not so bold as to confidently predict a Trump victory, I did, however, throughout the campaign, tell friends that she was not, as our fake lying news said, a prohibitive front runner. I had no special insight into the inner workings of the Clinton campaign, I didn't need any to know that her campaign had trouble from the start.
<p>1. The ninth-year curse. Since WWII the history of the presidency has been eight years of a Republican in the White House (1953-1961), followed by eight years of a Democrat (1961-1969), followed by eight years of a Republican (1969-1977). The pattern was broken by Carter who served but one failed term and Reagan/Bush with 12 years of Republican presidency. After that we reverted to pattern with eight years of a Democrat (1993-2001) and eight years of a Republican (2001-2009). All other things being equal we should have expected eight years of Obama to be followed by a Republican. The lying mainstream press insisted that Clinton had the advantage because she was of the same party as the popular incumbent. They conveniently ignored that in 1960 Nixon, VP to popular incumbent Eisenhower, could not overcome the ninth-year curse any more than Gore in 2000 could turn Bill Clinton's popularity into a victory in the ninth year. Her party registration was, from the very beginning, a liability, not the asset that the press said it was.
<p>2. The lying mainstream press repeated that she was consistently ahead in the polls and had an insurmountable advantage. In fact, to my knowledge, there was no reputable poll that indicated that. The polls showed a slight lead, so small that a true account would have reported it as neck-and-neck. Further, there was one extremely telling number. Clinton never got above 49% in the polls, with Trump trailing slightly in the mid-40s. Clinton was not the incumbent, but she was running as if she were the incumbent seeking a third term. One rule of thumb, that anyone who follows political races knows, is that, in a two-way race, if the incumbent is polling at below 50%, the challenger will win. You learn this in "Campaign 101," undecideds break for the challenger.
<p>3. Related to #2 was the fact that Clinton, by one important measure, was one of the most qualified persons to run for president. As former first lady, senator, and secretary of state she had ample Washington experience and universal name recognition. Yet, with all that going for her she could not get above 49% in the polls in a race against someone who had never held public office and was prone to intemperate utterances not typical of someone seeking the most powerful job on the planet. It didn't take a tell-all-book after the fact to tell me that her candidacy was in trouble.David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-35277077664943597682016-12-24T13:41:00.002-05:002016-12-24T13:42:57.124-05:00What's Your Favorite Christmas Movie?<B>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica</b><br>
<I><b>What's Your Favorite Christmas Movie?</i></b><br>
<I>by David Trumbull -- December 23, 2016</i>
<blockquote><i>Democrats’ favorite Christmas movie is "Miracle on 34th Street."<br>
Republicans’ favorite Christmas movie is "It's a Wonderful Life."</i></blockquote>
<p>I first heard that aphorism at a holiday party nearly two decades ago. It’s been around longer than that and I haven’t been able to determine who first said it and when.
<p>On the face the saying makes sense. After all, what better movie for adults who still believe in Santa Claus than <b><i>Miracle on 34th Street</i></b>? Besides (watch out for plot spoiler) the picture’s crisis is resolved when a huge federal government agency —- the Post Office —- comes to the rescue. And with a divorced mother rearing a child alone, <i>Miracle</i> features a non-traditional family, surely a plus in the eyes of liberals.
<p><b><i>It’s a Wonderful Life</i></b>, on the other hand, celebrates the infinite worth of an individual human being, a worth that far exceeds even the biggest financial fortune. In <i>Wonderful Life</i> the hero’s crisis is resolved (another plot spoiler) by the spontaneous voluntary action of family, friends, and local community; emphatically <i>not</i> by the government. The film also shows people in fervent prayer, not to some generic higher power but to the God of the Bible as worshipped by the Protestant and Catholic believers shown in the picture. That alone must drive some liberals nuts when the film is broadcast over the <i>public</i> airwaves.
<p>But the game can be played the other way. <i>Wonderful Life</i> presents negative stereotypes of bankers, so much so that when it was released some Hollywood observers (but not, as is erroneously asserted on some liberal websites, the Federal Bureau of Investigations) <a href="http://www.trumbullofboston.org/writing/wonderful-life-fbi-memo.jpg" target="_blank">charged</a> that it was a vehicle for communist propaganda. The charge is easy to ridicule today, but in the 1940s communist infiltration of the motion picture industry was a real and serious threat to American values. Now look at the favorable treatment—not to mention free advertising—that <i>Miracle</i> gives to two large department stores! Main Street Republicans surely must find that refreshing compared to the negative views of business that Hollywood gives us today.
<p>The lesson? <i>It’s just a movie!</i> Enjoy them both, or whichever ones you choose to watch this holiday season. Santa’s list does <i>not</i> include your political affiliation, but he does have a lump of coal for those who would strip our public life of all sense of Wonder at the Love of God and thankfulness for all Miracles big and small.David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-68248714285760482292016-12-11T13:25:00.002-05:002016-12-11T13:25:28.317-05:00The Electoral College Trump Card<p><b>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica</b><br>
<i><b>The Electoral College Trump Card</i></b><br>
<i>by David Trumbull, December 9, 2016</i>
<p><b>If we went by the popular vote, Secretary Clinton would be the next president. FALSE.</b>
<p>We cannot know who would have been elected had the election been decided by the popular vote. Neither candidate campaigned to win the popular vote, they campaigned to win the electoral vote. Had it been a contest for the popular vote both candidates would have deployed their resources quite differently which would have resulted in a popular vote different from what happened.
<p><b>But Clinton can still win if the members of the Electoral College honors the popular vote. FALSE.</b>
<p>Mere stuff and nonsense. It's silly speculation on the part of persons with little understanding of how our republic works.
<p>1. The Trump electors are pledged to Trump. In many states that pledge is legally binding. In 1952 the Supreme Court ruled that electors are not entirely free and that states can require that they be pledged.
<p>2. The Trump electors were vetted by the Trump organization and/or the state Republican Party to assure that they would be loyal.
<p>3. The Trump electors are in states that Trump won, why would they vote contrary to their pledge and contrary the suffrages of those who made them electors?
<p>4. Trump won the electoral vote by a large margin, so even if, as has happened in the past, a very small number of electors were unfaithful, it wouldn't change the outcome. The only reason that past faithless electors were not charged under state law is that their acts did not change the outcome.
<p>5. Yes, the Constitution appears to assume that electors have discretion, but that reading only makes sense in the early elections, when not all states even took a popular vote (for the first nine presidential elections they didn't even record the popular vote). In this election, the names of the electors did not appear on the ballot. No voter can honestly state he thought he was voting for [fill in the name of some elector] rather than Trump. Everyone knows that the election was state-by-state for Trump v Clinton (and third party candidates). Since the time that all states choose electors by popular vote, no unfaithful elector has ever influenced an election. A large number of unfaithful electors would, rightly, be seen as an attempt to overthrow the constitution and those votes would be voided, with the faithless electors facing legal charges.
<p>The error is a result of reading the Constitution in a vacuum. The Constitution must be read in the context of laws written to enact its provisions, court decisions that clarify the meaning, and the actual practice of our democracy under the Constitution.
<p>I am reminded of this: "In a Lecture of mine I have illustrated this phenomenon by the supposed instance of a foreigner, who, after reading a commentary on the principles of English Law, does not get nearer to a real apprehension of them than to be led to accuse Englishmen of considering that the Queen is impeccable and infallible, and that the Parliament is omnipotent." Newman, <i>Apologia pro Vita Sua</i>, 1864.
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-72105654799799969652016-10-28T13:13:00.001-04:002016-10-28T13:13:17.620-04:00Presidential Mask Election Predictor<p><b>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica</b>
<br><b><i>Presidential Mask Election Predictor</i></b>
<br><i>by David Trumbull -- October 28, 2016</i>
<p>Fun fact: sales of Hallowe'en masks of presidential candidates have predicted the outcome of every election since 1980 when Reagan masks outsold Carter masks. In every presidential election through 2012, the candidate whose mask sold the most was also the candidate who won the election.
<p>It makes sense. People want to go with a winner. And for all the talk of evil, creepy, and scary things, Hallowe’en masks are at least as much about revealing as concealing. Once a year on October 31 we don fancy dress and walk "the road not taken" (to use a line from Robert Frost, whom we also celebrate this month, on October 23, (see Mass. General Laws, Chapter 6).
<p>Spirit Halloween, the world's largest Halloween retailer, announced on September 29, 2016, that the Trump Masks were outselling Clinton masks. Spirit's Index has accurately predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1996 based on their top selling candidate mask.
<p>Inspired by the polarizing candidates, Spirit Halloween teamed up with Harris Poll to survey more than 2,000 U.S. adults, asking why they would dress up as either candidate this Halloween, given the choice between Clinton and Trump (chosen by 45% vs. 55%, respectively). Key findings include the following:
<ul>
<p><li>The top reason Americans chose Donald Trump is to be funny (39%), whereas the top reason Americans choose Hillary Clinton is because they like her (31%).
<p><li>About 1 out of 4 Republicans (23%) and Democrats (27%) who indicated that they would dress up as the opposite party’s candidate would do so to frighten America.
<p><li>Twice as many Americans who would choose to dress up as Donald Trump say they would do so to mock him, compared to Americans who would choose to dress as Hillary Clinton to mock her (32% vs 16%).
</ul>
<p>The Washington Post, for an October 25th story, contacted Rubie's, the world's largest designer and manufacturer of Halloween costumes, and found out that the "Donald Latex Mask" is outselling the "Hillary Latex Mask" by a ratio of three-to-one.
<p>At <a href='hht://www.buycostumes.com' target='_blank'>www.buycostumes.com</a>, one of the largest online retailers of Hallowe'en costumes, Trump masks are outselling Clinton masks.
<p>What mask are you wearing this Hallowe'en? Personally, I'll go with something more traditional and keep politics out of it.
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-19306876291110998192016-09-30T14:55:00.002-04:002016-09-30T14:55:40.589-04:00The courage, perseverance and spiritual fervor of Christopher Columbus<b>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica</b>
<br><i><b>The courage, perseverance and spiritual fervor of Christopher Columbus</b></i>
<br><i>by David Trumbull - September 30, 2016</i>
<blockquote>
<p><i>"The governor shall annually issue a proclamation setting apart the month of October as Italian-American Heritage Month, in recognition of the significant contributions Italian-Americans have made to the commonwealth and to the United States and recommending that said month be observed in an appropriate manner by the people. After consultation with Italian-American groups, the governor may include in the proclamation such contributions as he shall see fit." </i>
--Mass. Gen. Laws, Chapter 6, Section 15EEEE.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><i>"The governor shall annually issue a proclamation setting apart the second Monday in October as Columbus Day and recommending that it be observed by the people, with appropriate exercises in the schools and otherwise, to the end that the memory of the <b>courage</b>, <b>perseverance</b> and <b>spiritual</b> fervor of Christopher Columbus, discoverer of America, may be perpetuated."</i> --Mass. Gen. Laws, Chapter 6, Section 12V. (Emphasis added.)
</blockquote>
<p>It is fitting that we celebrate Italian heritage during the month in which we commemorate Columbus. Columbus sailed under the Spanish flag, but he was a native of, and learned his craft in, the Italian peninsula. His historic voyages opened communication, commerce, and migration between the Old World of Europe and the New World of the Americas. Columbus' voyages of discovery led directly to Spanish settlements. The New World that became, with time, the many nations of South, Central and North America and the islands of the Caribbean began with Columbus. The United States, today a sea-to-sea continental nation with citizens and residents whose ancestors lived in every corner of the globe, likewise traces her beginnings to Columbus, a man of Italian birth and heritage.
<p>That America owes her very existence to Columbus was recognized early in the history of our republic. As early as 1738 "Columbia" had entered the English tongue as a name for the 13 British colonies in North America that became our original 13 States. When our Constitution went into effect in 1789 it provided that the seat of the federal government would be a "district" apart from any individual state or states. That district was named, appropriately, the District of Columbia and our national capitol remains Washington, D.C. However, over time, attitudes changed.
<p>By the 1820s, with the rise of immigration, especially German and Irish Catholics, native-born Americans --Protestant English, Scots and Ulstermen -- found Columbus an increasingly embarrassing hero. He was an Italian employed by the Spanish -- Southern Europeans considered "dirty" and "stupid" races in the thrall of a superstitious church. The drive to recognize Columbus with a national holiday was largely the effort of a Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus. The most organized and vocal opponent of the K of C was the Ku Klux Klan. The arguments around the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery -- that he enslaved and killed indigenous Americans when he wasn't busy forcing them to convert to the Catholic Church -- were the same charges we heard at the 500th anniversary in 1992 and continue to hear. When you hear them, consider the original source. David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-47392188815791242902016-05-15T11:39:00.000-04:002016-05-15T11:39:21.739-04:00Today is Straw Hat Day<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUEIF8_-eQUr4ocZQscCDnuM6_-J3nJGOLx0nFmk8LK5XUlT15HG6pj_u6cU7UjntE0jZLzUFjecIeQpbBiJ_mw3DLXT1HTbgxIZ0N2QJQ1Vkt4mDaQW6T4mqyVV94XNqCXi6zylfkFSIC/s1600/2000-08-20_a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" oea="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUEIF8_-eQUr4ocZQscCDnuM6_-J3nJGOLx0nFmk8LK5XUlT15HG6pj_u6cU7UjntE0jZLzUFjecIeQpbBiJ_mw3DLXT1HTbgxIZ0N2QJQ1Vkt4mDaQW6T4mqyVV94XNqCXi6zylfkFSIC/s200/2000-08-20_a.jpg" width="86" /></a></div>
May 15th is <span style="color: #cc0000;"><strong><em>Straw Hat Day</em></strong></span> the beginning of the season when men may wear their straw boaters and Panamas rather than the fur felt fedoras, porkpies, homburgs, and bowlers that we wear (You <em>do wear a hat</em>, don't you?) the rest of the year. For more information see <a href="http://www.thefedoralounge.com/">http://www.thefedoralounge.com</a>. Straw hats may be worn until <strong><em>Felt Hat Day</em></strong> which is September 15th.David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-33062344669599244292016-05-10T15:17:00.002-04:002016-05-10T17:05:02.601-04:00Romney for President?<b>Res Publica</b><br>
<b><i>Romney for President?</i></b><br>
<i>by David Trumbull, May 13, 2016</i>
<p>"He came pretty close to being elected president, so I thought he may consider doing it, especially since he has been very forthright in explaining why Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should not be president of the United States," said William Kristol in a phone interview with the Washington Post last Friday. In that interview he reportedly confirmed that he and Romney had a meeting in Washington to discuss Romney's potential run as an independent.
<p>Has the Republican establishment gone stark raving mad? Is Romney serious considering this? I thought Mormons didn't do drugs. Kristol must have given Mitt something stronger than a caffeine-free diet Pepsi if he got him to buy into this scheme.
<p>Let's, as they say, break down the numbers.
<p>1. Can Romney or any other independent win? No. No independent candidate has won a single State since 1968, when George Wallace won five States of the old Confederacy. He won't even be on the ballot in Texas (38 electoral votes) because the deadline to file was May 9th. Can he get nearly 90,000 signatures by June 9th to get on the ballot in North Carolina (15 electoral votes), unlikely. Say he gets on the ballot in California (55 electoral votes), where he has until early August to get the necessary 180,000 nomination signatures, then what? In 2012 Romney got 37% of the vote in the Golden State as a major party nominee. With current polls showing Clinton winning by comfortable margins over Trump, and that even without Romney pulling votes away from Trump, it doesn't take much analysis to see that Romney cannot win California. He has more time to get on the ballot in New York, and needs only 15,000 signatures, however he must get at least 100 from each of the state's congressional 27 districts. Even when he ran as a major party candidate Romney was weak on the sort of on-the-ground, precinct-by-precinct organization needed to pull that off. But say he does get on the ballot and competes for the Empire State's 29 electoral votes. Does he really believe that he can do better than New Yorker, Trump, and former New York Senator, Clinton? So there are four States that account for a quarter of the electoral vote total off the table. Romney would need to get two-thirds of all the remaining votes to win. In other words, the only way this late entry, non-major party candidate can win at all is if he wins in a landslide. The Las Vegas bookmakers have a name for betting on that happening, a sucker bet.
<p>2. Can Romney win enough votes to deny both of the other candidates the 270 necessary to win, thus throwing the election to the House of Representatives where each State delegation would have one vote? That seems unlikely. If Wallace, with a more coherent, but repugnant, basis for a third-party run (Wallace was a segregationist who won some of the States of the old Confederacy during a time when the battle for civil rights for African-American was one of the topics at the center of political discourse) couldn't do it, what makes Romney think he can. Can he win Massachusetts where he was Governor? Well, he couldn't when running head-to-head with a Democrat, now he'd need to do it while splitting the Republican vote. Ditto for his native State of Michigan and adopted State of New Hampshire, he lost both in 2012. Perhaps he pulls off a win in Mormon Utah and gets 6 electoral votes. Will that be enough to deny the others 270? Who knows. Could that make a difference in a close election. Well, in 2004 Bush could have lost those 6 votes and still have had 10 more than he needed. In 2000, had Bush lost the then 5 votes from Utah and everything else stayed the same, the election would have gone to the House of Representatives. In the 1960 election, the closest ever in popular vote, Kennedy would still have won, even with 33 fewer electoral votes. In the unlikely event that Romney got enough votes to send it to the House of Representatives, it looks good for him. Remember, each State gets one vote. In 33 States the delegation is majority Republican. Democrats are the majority in 14 delegations, while three are split evenly. Even though Trump is the Republican nominee, the Republican establishment does not like him and would likely vote for Romney. That would give us a President who most likely would have come in third place in both the popular and the electoral vote. Watch for a massive movement to change our voting system after that!
<p>3. The most likely scenario. Romney takes just enough votes away from Trump that Clinton wins. The Republican establishment has no problem with Clinton as she represents the Democratic establishment and the Republican and Democratic establishment have much more affinity for each other than they do with their own voters.
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-18200740052238110282016-04-17T08:04:00.002-04:002016-04-17T08:05:52.481-04:00The Last Trump<b>POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica</b>
<br><i><b>The Last Trump</i></b>
<br><i>by David Trumbull - April 15, 2016</i>
<blockquote>
<p><i>"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."</i> --1 Corinthians 15:52
</blockquote>
<p>I have the honor of serving as a lector at Saint Joseph's Parish in the West End. That means that, from time to time, I read aloud to the congregation the passages from the Holy Scriptures chosen for that Sunday's Mass. Recently I was speaking to my friend Jim, who also attends the Saturday vigil Mass, and he expressed his strong support for Mr. Donald Trump's candidacy for the presidency. My response was that, this being the season of the resurrection, perhaps I'll have the opportunity of gratifying him by reading 1 Corinthians 15:52 in church.
<p>Joking aside, none of the Republican candidates for president has won me over. Trump's pronouncements on international trade and immigration I agree with, but he seems wanting as to the details. However, I have greatly enjoyed watching the incompetence of the anti-Trump people.
<p>The Sunday, April 9, "2017", Boston Globe front page "Deportations to Begin" headline has to be about the most clueless thing a major newspaper ever did. How could they not have seen that it will help, not hurt, Trump's standing among the electorate. It's just as when Mitt Romney blasted Trump, causing Trump's ratings to rise. I cannot figure out what the Globe thought they would accomplish with a stunt more worthy of the Harvard Lampoon. As for Romney, it's clear he believes the GOP has a problem and he is the solution. Well, if Romney is the answer, it must have been a pretty dumb question.
<p>Yes, the GOP has a problem, but the problem is not Trump. Trump is the symptom, not the cause.
<p>I sum up the appeal of both Mr. Trump and Senator Sanders in three letters, CCC. Over the past three decades if you were clever, college-educated, and connected, you have most likely done very well. But if you are a non-CCC person, the past three decades have likely been fairly grim. The ABC television show "The Middle" is a humorous, yet with more than a little faithfulness, depiction of the difficulties faced by "middle" America. Or as someone recently said on Fox News (I paraphrase because I can't find the exact quotation) "The Democratic Party has abandoned the middle class and the Republican Party isn't sure it wants them."
<p>I am certain that Trump is more popular than the polls show. Almost daily I get in conversations with friends, acquaintances, and even strangers who ask, "Can they stop Trump?" It's always said in a way that implies that stopping Trump is a good thing. But once I reveal that I'm not strongly anti-Trump, they, in turn, slowly, over the course of the conversation, reveal that they are Trump supporters. When I ask them whether they would admit it to a pollster they always say no. The media and the political establishment think they have done a good job of turning Trump into an unelectable villain, but in the privacy of the voting booth, the people may just trump them all. David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-9753026544525037312016-04-01T15:48:00.000-04:002016-04-01T15:48:19.113-04:00It Ain't Necessarily So<b>POST-GAZETTE -- Res Publica</b>
<br><b><i>It Ain't Necessarily So</i></b>
<br><i>by David Trumbull </i>
<br><i>April 1, 2016</i>
<p><i>"The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never be sure they're authentic"</i> -- <b>Abraham Lincoln</b>
<p>As I write this column to be published on April Fools Day, I am thinking of my friends on social media, most of whom, in the frenzy of the current presidential nomination media circus, seem to have lost all common sense. My Facebook feed is full of false memes, fake quotations devised to support this or that political view. My friends, both Republican and Democrat, appear to have temporarily lost the ability to distinguish news from parody and truth from phony "quotes."
<blockquote><i>
"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington.
</blockquote></i>
<p>FAKE. There is no record that Washington ever said that. If you have read any of Washington's writings you know that in an age when "flowery" prose was in style, he was flowery even for his age. Had Washington ever expressed the sentiments above (which I somewhat doubt in view of his role in suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion), he would likely have done so in at least three times as many words. Often I've wanted to quote Washington in my columns, but I find it very difficult due to his prolix prose. A good rule of thumb is that any Washington "quote" brief enough to fit in a Facebook meme, is likely not a real Washington quote. The website <a href='http://www.mountvernon.org/' target='_blank'>http://www.mountvernon.org/</a> has a list of this and other spurious Washington quotes.
<blockquote><i>
"If I were to run, I'd run as a Republican. They're the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they'd still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific." -- Donald Trump, in People magazine, 1998.
</blockquote></i>
<p>FAKE. There is no record that Trump said that in People or anywhere else. One tipoff is that while Fox News existed in 1998, it had been around for just over a year and wasn't even available in all parts of the country, it was hardly, in 1998, the massive voter influencer that the meme suggests.
<blockquote><i>
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." -- Thomas Jefferson.
</blockquote></i>
<p>FAKE. While the quote is perfectly in tune with Jefferson's distrust of banks and of commerce, he did not say it, at least not in those words. The tipoff is "moneyed incorporations," While Jefferson would have known of what we now call not-for-profit corporations, such as colleges, churches, and municipalities, for profit business corporations, with few exceptions, did not exist until a quarter of a century or so after Jefferson's death. The website <a href='https://www.monticello.org/' target='_blank'>https://www.monticello.org/</a> has a list of this and other spurious Jefferson quotations.
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-46123293905874432442016-02-13T14:42:00.002-05:002016-02-13T14:42:30.345-05:00The Primary Concern<b>Res Publica</b><br>
<i><b>The Primary Concern</i></b><br>
<i>by David Trumbull</i>
<p>Well, the Iowa caucuses are behind us and the New Hampshire primary election was last Tuesday.
<p>My friend Jesse L. asked on Facebook, “Why do we let two very white, conservative states, Iowa and New Hampshire, to pick our presidential candidates? This seems wholly unfair and antiquated in a country as large and diverse as ours.” I expect he’s not the only one asking that.
<p>The short answer is that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party each want to nominate someone who can win in November and each has found that the current system yields a nominee who can win. Even in elections such as the re-election of Reagan, the re-election of Clinton, and the re-election of Obama, when the incumbent President was popular and the economy was good, the losing party nominated someone who, in another year might have won. So we keep the current system because it works.
<p>But, back to Jesse’s question, Why?
<p>I don’t know enough about Iowa to address that State’s role in choosing presidential nominees. I do know New Hampshire. I even campaigned there in the 1992 primary for President Bush, who was challenged by Pat Buchanan for the Republican nomination.
<p>1. Is New Hampshire too conservative to have such an important early role in choosing the nominees? No. New Hampshire is not conservative. Nor is it liberal. It is neither Republican or Democrat. New Hampshire is a swing state. In 17 presidential elections since WWII, the winner in New Hampshire was the national winner 13 times. Of the times when New Hampshire did not follow the national trend, three were extremely close elections, some of the closest in American history, 1948 (remember the “Dewey Defeats Truman” newspaper headline, 1960 (nationally is was 49.7% Kennedy and 49.6% Nixon), and 2004 (Bush's margin of victory in the popular vote was the smallest ever for a reelected incumbent president). New Hampshire went against the national trend one other time, that was in 1976 when she joined with Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont, “Yankee” States, in rejecting Southerner Jimmy Carter. New Hampshire is average.
<p>2. Is New Hampshire too White to have such an important early role in choosing the nominees? No. New Hampshire is White. But so is the voting population. If I am managing the campaign of a presidential candidate of either party, New Hampshire voters are a good proxy for the voting population as a whole. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 70% of eligible voters are White and 73% of voters are White, meaning Whites have a higher than average tendency to vote. Blacks are 12% of the eligible voters and 12% of actual voters. Hispanics are 11% of eligible voters, but only 7% of actual voters. In other words, not only are Hispanics a small percentage of eligible voters, the also are less likely to vote. Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics account for 92% of all voters. Whites account for almost three-quarters of the voters. So while the American voting population is diverse, it is not as diverse as Jesse’s Los Angeles neighborhood. If you take Los Angeles, Boston, and New Hampshire and ask, Which is the better predictor of a presidential election? the answer is clearly New Hampshire.
<p>The answer to Jesse’s question is that the parties’ primary concern is not to nominate someone who represents the diversity of America. Their primary concern is to nominate someone who can win. Winning the presidency is about winning undecided White voters. Blacks are 12% of the vote and they vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee, so it doesn’t matter who either party nominates, the Black vote is not, in any significant numbers, in question. The media makes much of the Hispanic vote, but the political reality that a campaign manager deals with dictates that the Hispanic vote, outside of Florida, is irrelevant. There is the rare Republican like George Bush who got about 40% of the Hispanic vote. More typically there is something in the range of 30% of the Hispanic vote that is not already locked into the Democratic Party. That means that both parties have a chance at persuading about a third of the Hispanic vote, but that’s only one-third of 7% of the total vote, that’s under 2.5% of the vote. Now that 2.5% could make the difference in a close election, that is it could in the popular vote. But not in the electoral college where, other than Florida, the Hispanic population is largely in states such as California, which will go Democratic no matter how much Republicans court the Hispanic vote, and Texas which will go Republican no matter how much Democrats court the Hispanic vote.
<p>Each party has “safe” states that its presidential nominee will carry, but they are not enough to win. They have to appeal to undecided voters in swing states, and the math tells us that the overwhelming majority of those undecided voter are White.David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-63500731339679209812015-09-05T09:25:00.002-04:002015-09-05T09:25:24.479-04:00The Summer of Market BasketJust in time for <b>Labor Day</b> the book <b><i>We Are Market Basket: The Story of the Unlikely Grassroots Movement That Saved a Beloved Business</b></i> arrived in the mail (the official release date was August 12th). A documentary film is supposed to come out soon, also.
<p>In some ways I think of last summer, the summer of 2014, as the summer of <b>Market Basket</b> (or, <b>Demoulas</b>, as we still call it in our household). The Market Basket workers' strike, which began as a protest rally at the Chelsea store on June 24, 2014, and ended on August 28, 2014, (the Thursday before the Labor Day 2014), was on everyone's lips that summer. We nearly lost friends over the issue of whether to continue to shop there or support the strikers (Mary and I joined the boycott). Here we are, a year later, the strike is part of history, recorded in book and movie, and we are at another long Labor Day weekend.
<p>Labor Day honors every working man and woman in America, but we all know that its origin lies in the recognition of the advances in employer-employee laws and practices wrought by organized labor, that is to say, labor <i>unions</i>. And, therein, lies two ironies. The summer of 2014 witnessed a successful organized labor action on a scale we haven't seen in decades. <i>Organized?</i> Yes. <i>Unionized?</i> No.
<p>With their livelihoods at stake, how, went conventional wisdom, could semi-skilled workers have any chance of prevailing over management without a union? Throughout the protests employees were quoted in the press saying, "We don't need a union, we have something stronger, we are a family." It's truly an inspiring story. But, also, an unusual, almost unique, story. Who needs a union when you have a boss, Arthur T., who gives you better pay, benefits, and sense of being stakeholders in the company than you are likely to get under a union contract?
<p>1. Don't discount how past union activity benefited the Market Basket employees. When the employees walked off, the new management threatened to fire them. Now, from a practical standpoint the board would have been sore pressed, even in a weak labor market, to quickly find qualified replacements for the entire workforce, Nevertheless, the threat of losing your job surely would have forced many protesting workers back to the job, at least one would expect. But they did not return. Why? Because <b><i>you cannot fire workers for striking</i></b>. Its a federal law. <b>The National Labor Relations Act of 1935</b> (commonly called the "Wagner Act"), guarantees the right to unionize and to strike without retaliation. When management threatened to fire the workers, the workers filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, using that pro-union law for protection.
<p>2. <b>The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947</b> (commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act) modified the Wagner Act. Specifically it placed some restrictions on striking, among other things, requiring an 80-day notice period before a union strike. Taft-Hartley placed no such restriction on non-unionized workforces. Therein lies the second irony. These <b><i>non-unionized workers successfully used a pro-union law, but had they been unionized, the strike would have been illegal, at least as it was conducted</b></i>.
<p>From the summer of Market Basket I take two lessons. (1) Labor still has power when organized, and when the laws protecting the rights of working women and men are enforced. (2) That labor laws written 70 or 80 years ago may not always reflect the realities of the current labor market, and to question whether they may need revision is not to be anti-union or anti-labor.David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-16894000757173015342015-08-05T17:12:00.000-04:002015-08-05T17:13:58.271-04:00From Hiroshima to TehranSeventy years ago tomorrow, on August 6,1945, the U.S. Army Air Forces detonated an atomic bomb, code named "Little Boy," over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on 9 August, the U.S. Army Air Forces detonated a second atom bomb, code named "Fat Man," over the Japanese city of Nagasaki.
<p>Seven decades later the strategic value and the morality of dropping atomic bombs on Japan continue to be subjects of debate, with strong opinions on both sides. In a sense, the decision to use the A-bomb was perhaps the logical outcome of another controversial decision made by the Allies. At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, President Roosevelt said that the Allies' goal was unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. The Conference adopted that goal, thus assuring that victory would be complete, but also messy, as no terms of surrender would be entertained.
<p>After defeating Germany (Germany surrendered unconditionally on May 8, 1945, the Allied occupation began, and the final peace treaty was not signed until September 12, 1990) the Allies met at the Cecilienhof palace in Potsdam (not far from Berlin, today it is an historic site well worth visiting). The Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, stated:
<p>"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
<p>Eleven days later we dropped the first atom bomb. On May 8 the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and on May 9 we dropped the second bomb. Even after the events of the 8th and 9th, Japan was still seeking surrender under certain conditions. After days of internal dissension within the government of Japan, including an attempted coup d'état, the Japanese authorities reluctantly accepted the reality that the Allies would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender.
<p>On August 15th, the Empire of Japan surrendered unconditionally to the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the other Allies. Victory Over Japan was widely celebrated throughout the U.S. until 1975. Rhode Island only retains that holiday, renamed "Victory Day," moved to the second Monday in August.
<p>Nuclear weapons are back in the news, now in the context of President Obama "deal" with Iran that will result in that deadly regime joining the nuclear club. Had the U.S. not used the atom bomb in 1945, some other nation probably would have used it in some other conflict. As horrific as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were, at least they showed the world that this is something we don't want to have to do again. I'm not so confident at Iran can be trusted to exercise the restraint that the over nuclear powers have.David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-76805860257703422882015-05-22T18:28:00.002-04:002015-05-22T18:28:33.828-04:00Not Machiavellian At All<b>Res Publica</b>
<br><b><i>Not Machiavellian At All</i></b>
<br><i>by David Trumbull -- May 15, 2015</i>
<p><b>Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli</b> (May 3, 1469 – June, 21 1527) was an Italian historian, politician, diplomat and philosopher. He was a high official in the government of the Republic of Florence during the times when the Medici family governed the republic.
<p>He wrote several books and it is from the content of one of his books, <i><b>The Prince</b></i>, that we get the adjective <b>Machiavellian</b>, which dictionary.com describes as "characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty." For example --
<p>In Chapter 5, he advises the conquering prince that a conquered republic must be utterly reduced, because history shows that more clement treatment fails to hold the territory.
<p>In Chapter 7, rather than condemning, he cites the notorious Cesare Borgia as one to be imitated.
<p>In Chapter 8 he says that a prince who rises through wickedness may, nevertheless, hold his principality securely if injuries are inflicted all together and not spread out over time.
<p>In Chapter 15 Machiavelli advices the prince to follow vice if so doing brings security and virtue would bring ruin.
<p>In Chapter 17 he says it is better to be clement than cruel, however, some cruelty is necessary and justified to maintain order and to withstand the violence that will break forth when there is not firm leadership.
<p>In Chapter 20 he says that sometimes it's a good idea to pick a fight with another prince, just so you can look good when you defeat him.
<p>If the only thing from Machiavelli you read is <i>The Prince</i>, then you might well conclude that his political philosophy is diabolical. That would be unfortunate, for Machiavelli's writings in support of republics and of freedom are much more extensive than his one, thin volume on how a prince may conquer and hold territory.
<p>The key to understanding Machiavelli's <i>The Prince</i> is in the final chapter. It's a call for a reunited Italy, free of oppression by foreign occupiers. Italy was cut up into several city-states that were constantly at war with each other. The French and the Spaniards seeing opportunity invaded and ruled extensive tracks of the peninsula. Machiavelli dedicated the book to Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici (September 12, 1492 – May 4, 1519) the ruler of Florence, and exhorted Lorenzo to raise an army, drive out the foreigners, even if that meant crushing some of the independent republics and principalities. To Machiavelli, the choice was clear, either the nominally independent states would be forever in peril from each other and from foreign invaders, or they could lose their independence but gain freedom. Lorenzo did not take up Machiavelli's cause of a united Italy, and Italian reunification had to wait until the 19th century.
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-4866466756043218312015-05-22T17:54:00.001-04:002015-05-22T17:54:20.376-04:00Charter of Liberty<b>Res Publica</b>
<br><b><i>Charter of Liberty</i></b>
<br><i>by David Trumbull -- May 8, 2015</i>
<p><i>"We hold here that the right to a speedy trial is as fundamental as any of the rights secured by the Sixth Amendment. That right has its roots at the very foundation of our English law heritage. Its first articulation in modern jurisprudence appears to have been made in Magna Carta..."</i> -- <b>Chief Justice Earl Warren</b> delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of <i>Klopper v. North Carolina</i>, March 13, 1967.
<p>Magna Carta (or, in English, "the Great Charter") was signed by King John (best remembered in the popular mind as "Bad King John" of the Robin Hood tales) on June 15, 1215. The document, which marks its 800th anniversary next month, is, in important ways, the foundation of the liberties of English and American law. The origin was a dispute between the king and the barons, and neither was wholly satisfied with the compromises contained in the Charter. At the request of John, Pope Innocent III annulled it. But the genie of liberty was out of the bottle and the Charter was amended and reaffirmed through the next few yeas and, in 1225, took the final form that makes it a foundational document in the English system of government and in every nation whose legal system owes something to English law.
<p>Magna Carta did not create <b>trial by jury</b>, but it did enshrine it as a right, as well as the concept of <b>due process</b>.
<p><i>"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."</i>
<p>Even though England, to this day, has a State Church, Magna Carta laid down the law that even the king must respect certain ancient liberties of the Church. In America this became the <b>religious establishment and free exercise clauses of the Constitution</b>.
<p>"The English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fullness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever."
<p><b>President Ronald Reagan</b> summed it up well in his April 16, 1986, <b>Law Day Proclamation</b> --
<p><i>"The foundations of freedom upon which our Nation was built included the Magna Carta of 1215, English common law, the Mayflower Compact, the Act of Parliament abolishing the Court of the Star Chamber, and numerous colonial charters."</i>
David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-914891804007218886.post-37392786093697075212014-11-02T14:34:00.001-05:002014-11-02T14:34:19.475-05:00Martha Coakley Has No Problem with Non-Citizens Voting<b>Res Publica</b><br>
<b><i>Martha Coakley Has No Problem with Non-Citizens Voting</i></b><br>
<i>by David Trumbull -- October 31, 2014</i>
<p>Recently Martha Coakley said she believes that allowing non-citizens to vote in local town and city elections should be an option for municipalities to choose for themselves, showing, once again, how out of touch she is with the citizens of Massachusetts.
<p>She has been roundly denounced. Some have even suggested that our Attorney General needs a refresher course in constitutional law because, they say, such a proposal is contrary to the U.S. Constitution. Here I must part with my fellow conservatives, for, no matter had bad the idea of aliens voting in our elections may be, it is, nevertheless, perfectly constitutional.
<p>The U.S. Constitution, as it went into force in 1787 said absolutely nothing about qualifications for voters, leaving it entirely in the hands of the states. At the time no state prohibited non-citizens from voting. There were other restrictions. In Massachusetts the electoral franchise was restricted to male inhabitants (not limited to citizens), 21 years of age and older, and owning a certain amount of property. Most states had similar requirements. Southern states further restricted the franchise to Whites only.
<p>Some states limited voting to citizens starting after the War of 1812, which generated an enhanced sense of patriotism. More banned it in the 1840s and 1850s. Two notable things were happening around then-- (1) the 1848 revolutions in Europe caused many Americans to regard foreigners with suspicion and (2) the beginning of the flood of Irish Catholic immigrants who threatened the political supremacy of English, Scots, and Scots-Irish Protestants. But the big wave of states banning voting by non-citizens was in the early twentieth century. Then a new wave of immigrants from Italy, the rest of Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe, again awaked nativist fears about "inferior races" and Catholics and Jews. It was not until the election of 1928 that all states had limited voting to citizens only.
<p>The Constitution has seven times been amended to regulate voting.
<p>(1) The 14th Amendment, ratified February 3, 1870, said that states could not deny the vote to African-Americans. In Massachusetts American-Americans had the vote since the 1780s.
<p>(2) The 17th Amendment, ratified April 8, 1913, provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators. The amendment stipulated that, "The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures," again, recognizing that qualification of voters is a state, not national, right.
<p>(3) The 19th Amendment, ratified August 18, 1920, said that states could not deny the vote to women. In Massachusetts women had been able to vote since 1879, but only for school committee, not for any other offices.
<p>(4) The 22nd Amendment, ratified, February 27, 1951, limited the President to two terms.
<p>(5) The 23rd Amendment, ratified March 29, 1961, gave the District of Columbia votes for President and Vice President. It did not specify whether D.C. voters had to be citizens.
<p>(6) The 24th Amendment, ratified January 23, 1964, said that states could no longer assess a "poll tax" for voting.
<p>(7) The 26th Amendment, ratified July 1, 1971, said that states could not limit voting based on age in the case of citizens who are 18 years of age or older. Interesting, there is nothing in the Constitution hindering states from choosing a lower age. In Maine 17-year-olds can vote in a primary election, as long at they will be 18 by the time of the general election. Maine is not the only state to allow voting by 17-year-olds.
<p>Clearly, nothing in the Constitution prohibits voting by non-citizens. In New York City non-citizens voted in elections for school board until 2002 (when the board was made an appointed rather than elected body). The reasoning behind this is that many non-citizens have children in the public schools and are taxed to support the schools. A few, very few, other municipalities allow non-citizens to vote in at least some local elections.
<p>Currently it is illegal for aliens to vote for President, Vice President, U.S. Senator, and U.S. Representative. That restriction is found not in the Constitution, but in a law [18 U.S.C. §611]. It was passed as a part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Given that the Constitution gives to the states, not Congress, the power to regulate qualifications for voting (except that the states cannot disenfranchise specific classes of voters under the provisions of the 14th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments) I question whether the federal prohibition on aliens voting in national elections is itself constitutional. Derek T. Muller, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine School of Law, also questions the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §611.David Trumbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11504334143040601039noreply@blogger.com0