Salem Political Snark

Trump's tariffs blocked by multi-state lawsuit led by Oregon Attorney General

Way to go Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. Yesterday the lawsuit brought by Oregon and eleven other states challenging the legal authority for Trump's tariffs got a win from the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Here's what Rayfield said in a media release.

Today, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down the tariffs imposed by President Trump’s executive orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision was made in a multi-state lawsuit led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield.

In reaction to the ruling, Attorney General Rayfield said:

“The court’s ruling is a victory not just for Oregon, but for working families, small businesses, and everyday Americans. President Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating. They triggered retaliatory measures, inflated prices on essential goods, and placed an unfair burden on American families, small businesses and manufacturers.

“We brought this case because the Constitution doesn’t give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy. This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim.”

The decision halts the existing IEEPA tariffs. It also stops President Trump from increasing tariffs, including the threatened 145 percent tariffs on imports from China and 50 percent tariffs on imports from the European Union.

The case is led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont.

An appeals court did impose a temporary stay on the lower court's decision. But this shouldn't be viewed as a clearcut victory for the Trump administration, according to a Washington Post story. 

The Court of International Trade dealt a blow to Trump’s aggressive trade policy Wednesday when it ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in imposing tariffs on all imported goods.

The law he used to impose the tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not allow for such sweeping levies, it said. The court noted that the IEEPA says the president may only use his emergency powers “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.”

The Trump administration quickly asked the federal appeals court to pause the decision. On Thursday, the court did just that, asking both the administration and the states and businesses who brought the suit to respond in early June.

The Liberty Justice Center, which filed one of the original suits challenging the tariffs that led to this decision, said in a statement Thursday that the pause is “merely a procedural step as the court considers the government's request for a longer stay pending appeal.”

Separately, a second federal court also ruled Thursday that many of Trump’s tariffs are unlawful. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the emergency economic powers law Trump invoked to impose many of the tariffs did not enable him to “unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy.”

...Legal experts have told The Washington Post that the lawsuits are likely to succeed if they make it to the Supreme Court. Tim Meyer, the co-director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at Duke University Law School, said the president is “overwriting” legislation that Congress passed to levy tariffs.

“When the White House is itself touting this as the largest tax increase in American history, I think that’s going to make the justices sit back and think the Constitution gives Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to levy duties, impose tariffs and to regulate foreign commerce,” said Meyer, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Trump-nominated Supreme Court justice, when he served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Until these lawsuits are resolved, they make it very difficult for the Trump administration to negotiate with the 90 or so countries that tariffs were imposed on. Why would any country want to make a deal with Trump since there's a good chance courts will rule that he doesn't have the legal authority to do what he did?

And even if this doesn't happen, Wall Street has given Trump a new nickname, TACO -- which stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. That's true. Whenever the Trump tariffs cause a marked decline in the stock market or threaten our country's economic vitality, Trump backs off on the tariffs. He's a terrible negotiator.

Trump has definitely become an authoritarian

There's good reason to argue that Donald Trump has always been an authoritarian.

He admires strongmen such as the dictators and quasi-dictators who run Russia, North Korea, China, Turkey, and Hungary. He demands absolute loyalty with no backtalk from people who work for him. He despises central tenets of democracy like free and fair elections unless he manages to win.

But after four months of his second term as president, now there's no doubt on which side of the authoritarian fence Trump is on. Just about every action he's taken has either pushed to the limit norms that have been recognized by every preceding president, or broken that limit.

Every morning when I wake up I keep thinking that there's no way the news is going to be filled with some outrageous act by Trump that surpasses the depravity of what he's already done. But many mornings I'm unpleasantly surprised by what my iPhone brings me.

Today it was...

Trump threatening 50% tariffs on the European Union for no reason other than negotiators for the EU are refusing to give in to Trump's crazy trade war demands.

Trump telling Apple that if the company doesn't produce all of the iPhones sold in the United States by factories within the United States, he'll slap a 25% tariff on iPhones -- ignoring the inconvenient fact that tariffs can't be imposed on individual companies.

Trump invalidating the visas of every student from a foreign country who is attending Harvard University just because he doesn't like Harvard refusing to let the federal government decide how the university is run.

There were other outrages, but these were at the top of my Authoritarianism List. 

Our nation truly is in dangerous territory. It seems clear that hardly any Republicans in Congress are willing to stand up to Trump. It also is increasingly evident that the Trump administration will ignore rulings by federal courts that it doesn't like, even Supreme Court decisions.

So there's a very good chance that we're going to suffer through a constitutional crisis like the United States has never seen before, because no president has been so willing to trash the Constitution like Trump is.

Today Michael Berman, a professor of law and of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, had an opinion piece in the Washington Post, "No, Trump can't force his agenda on U.S. entities. They have rights." Here's some excerpts:

Universities refuse to fully dismantle their DEI programs? The Trump administration withdraws billions of dollars in federal funding, and cancels visas for their foreign students. Law firms won’t donate their services to causes that President Donald Trump favors? Trump cancels their lawyers’ security clearances and refuses to deal with their clients. Journalists still call the Gulf of Mexico “the Gulf of Mexico”? Trump pulls their credentials for press briefings. The state of Maine allows some transgender athletes to compete on some girls’ and women’s sports teams? Trump threatens to cut off federal funding for its public schools.

Different targets, but one common tool: leverage. Trump uses federal funds and other government benefits to pressure individuals and institutions into exercising their constitutional rights as he prefers. This is extortionate. And therefore unconstitutional.

...If Trump can use threats over tariffs to pressure nations into opening their markets or strengthening their currencies or ordering more U.S. arms, why can’t he do the same with American institutions?

Because foreign nations have no constitutional rights, but American universities, lawyers, journalists and states do — rights protected by the First, Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Amendments. Trump’s efforts to leverage government benefits against them violate those rights by penalizing their exercise.

...Leverage is powerful. More than two millennia ago, Archimedes of Syracuse is reputed to have claimed that, given a long enough lever and a place to stand, he could move the Earth. The courts have long recognized that such power requires constitutional limits. The president may not withhold otherwise available funds, or deny access to government benefits, to make it costly for Americans to exercise their constitutional rights.

Salem area special election results looking good, especially to liberals

With Oregon allowing mailed ballots to be counted as long as they're postmarked on or before election day, more ballots will be received in the next few days. But the current results for key races in the Salem area likely will hold up, given the margin of victory (or defeat) in each of them.

The biggest news is the 56-44 passage of Measure 24-514, also known as the Livability Levy. Given that there was no organized opposition to an increase in Salem property taxes to fund the library, parks, and Center 50+, it wasn't a surprise that the measure passed. But 56% in favor testifies to the smart campaigning supporters of the measure put in.  

Liberals are pleased that Mai Vang, the candidate endorsed by Progressive Salem in the Ward 6 City Council race to choose a replacement for Julie Hoy after she was elected mayor, appears to have won fairly handily over the conservative candidate, Deanna Garcia, and Logan Lor. This restores the progressive/conservative split on the City Council to 6-3.

The four Salem-Keizer School Board seats up for election got some national attention from Taniel, a political observer who I follow on X, but will always think of as Twitter. Currently the progressive slate is leading in three of the four races.

In Zone 1 Harnisch, a progressive, has a 56-44 lead over Mitchell, a conservative.

In Zone 2 Parker, a conservative, has a 52-48 led over Arredondo Baca, a progressive.

In Zone 5 Guzman Ortiz, a progressive, has a 52-48 lead over Kroker, a conservative.

In Zone 7 Fuller, a progressive, has a 54-45 lead over Radka, a conservative.

Lastly, the Chemeketa Community College bond measure is passing by a 52-48 margin.

Conservatives up to dirty tricks in Ward 6 City Council race

Thanks to a Salem Reporter story by Joe Siess, "Newly formed PAC jumps into Salem council race as election winds down," I learned about the latest dirty trick that conservatives desperate to regain control of the Salem City Council are playing on voters.

In almost every local election cycle something like this occurs. The basic reason is that while liberals value playing fair (naturally with some exceptions), conservatives value doing whatever it takes to win.

Here's how the Salem Reporter story starts out.

Dru Draper says his days-old political action committee has jumped into Salem’s contested council race to make it more fair.

But the candidate supposedly benefitting from the late spending smells a political trick.

And so do others watching the three-way race for a seat on the Salem City Council representing northeast Salem.

The candidates include Deanna Garcia, Mai Vang and Logan Lor, and voters in Ward 6 will decide who will represent them come Election Day – Tuesday, May 20. 

Marion County Clerk Bill Burgess told Salem Reporter that so far 10.5% of ballots in Ward 6, or 1,241 out of 11,846 ballots, have been turned in. He said voter turnout is typically between 20-25% and that 30-40% of ballots come in on the final couple of days before the election.

Voters received the two-sided flyer in their mailboxes last week urging their support for Lor.  

The flyer was distributed by a political action committee called Citizens for a Better Salem.

State government records in the ORESTAR system show that the Citizens for a Better Salem PAC was formed on May 8, 2025. This political action committee shows a grand total of zero contributions, zero revenues, and zero expenses.

Yet it was able to send out a mailing supporting Logan Lor to residents of Ward 6, images of which were included in the Salem Reporter story.

Given that Draper is a Republican political strategist and former spokesman for the Republican caucus in the Oregon Senate, it seems clear that his newly formed PAC has only one purpose: to split the votes of Ward 6 residents between the two candidates who lean liberal, Logan Lor and Mai Vang (Vang is endorsed by Progressive Salem) to increase the chance that the more conservative candidate, Deanna Garcia, will come out on top.

Because this is a special election to fill the Ward 6 City Council vacancy created when Julie Hoy was elected Mayor, the candidate with the most votes wins outright, while generally it takes winning 50% of the votes plus 1 to win in May without going to a November election runoff between the top two candidates.

I take this last minute dirty trick by Dru Draper and his Citizens for a Better Salem PAC to be a sign that Mai Vang is running a strong campaign that has struck fear into the Chamber of Commerce and other conservative supporters of Deanna Garcia who desperately want to shrink the majority of progressives on the City Council to a slim 5-4.

Hopefully Mai Vang will still win. If Garcia does, and it's by a slim margin, we'll never know the role these last minute mailings had on the race. Dirty tricks shouldn't pay off with a victory, but sometimes sleazy tactics pay off in elections.

One thing that Salem Mayor Julie Hoy and President Trump have in common

Understand: I'm not equating Julie Hoy, the Mayor of Salem, Oregon, with Donald Trump, the President of the United States. Though they're each conservative, fortunately Hoy isn't nearly as obnoxious and dangerous as Trump.

But they do have this in common. Both Hoy and Trump benefit from the fact that doing something illegal or unethical can be done quickly, while holding someone to account for such an action can take months or years.

This relates to the adage, "Justice delayed is justice denied." Wikipedia explains:

"Justice delayed is justice denied" is a legal maxim. It means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all.

This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal system, because of the unfairness for the injured party who sustained the injury having little hope for timely and effective remedy and resolution. 

Today I phoned the Oregon Government Ethics Commission to check on the status of a complaint I filed against Mayor Hoy on March 12 of this year. My complaint alleges that Hoy engaged in prohibited private serial communications with a majority of the City Council, which led to the forced resignation of City Manager Keith Stahley.

As noted on its web site, the Ethics Commission has 60 days for its staff to conduct a Preliminary Review of the complaint. I was told that the 60 days has expired (which I already knew). The next step is for the Ethics Commission to decide at its June 13 meeting whether there is cause to move to the Investigation Phase, which can be 180 days. After that there can be a Contested Case Hearing and an Appeal to the Court of Appeals.

So the whole process can take the better part of a year, or even longer. Meanwhile, Hoy enjoys what I allege she was able to do: get rid of a City Manager she didn't like through an unethical action prohibited by state law. That happened quickly. Holding Hoy to account will require many more months, assuming the Oregon Government Ethics Commission agrees to investigate my complaint.

Also today, the United States Supreme Court held a hearing on Trump's executive order that he issued on his first day in office declaring that birthright citizenship isn't the law of the land, even though it is part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Trump issued the order because he wants to deport everyone who is in this country illegally. Doing away with the citizenship of children born to undocumented migrants would make that easier. However, the Supreme Court paid little attention to whether Trump's executive order is unconstitutional, because almost certainly it is.

The debate centered on whether district court judges could issue injunctions that apply to the entire country, in the case to forbid the Trump administration from not recognizing the citizenship of almost all children born in the United States (exceptions include children born to parents who work in a foreign embassy). A New York Times story says:

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday in a case related to President Trump’s executive order trying to end so-called birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented migrants. But the question before the justices was narrower: whether a single district court judge has the power to block a policy across the country.

...Shortly after being sworn in to his second term, Mr. Trump signed an order that reinterpreted the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to grant automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.

The order seeks to deny citizenship to babies born to undocumented migrants and visitors without green cards. As a practical matter, that would start with agencies in the executive branch refusing them citizenship-affirming documents like Social Security cards.

Multiple courts around the country have blocked the government from obeying that order, ruling that it is most likely illegal. They did so using universal injunctions, or orders that apply nationwide and cover people in similar situations who were not parties to the cases. At this stage, the Trump administration is challenging only the ability of courts to issue such orders.

...One of the major themes drawn out by lawyers for the plaintiffs was the practical effect of doing away with nationwide injunctions in a case that touched on an issue affecting all Americans. The lawyers worried that before the Supreme Court issued a final ruling on the question of birthright citizenship, there could be “chaos on the ground” if some states were allowed to keep the practice and others states did not.

Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, New Jersey’s solicitor general, pointed out that if Mr. Trump’s policy prevailed in certain states, children of immigrants born there might not be able to get Social Security numbers. That could become a problem, he suggested, if they later moved to states that did recognize them as citizens, particularly if they tried to apply for government benefits.

Mr. Feigenbaum also noted that if a person’s citizenship depended on what state they were in, there could be widespread confusion about their immigration status as well. He wondered aloud whether the children of immigrants might be subject to deportation in states that did not recognize birthright citizenship and yet be shielded from removal in states that did.

Some of the justices raised an important issue.

If the Trump administration never appeals adverse rulings by lower courts to the Supreme Court, then if a nationwide injunction isn't in effect, undocumented migrants who were born in the United States and live in the 28 states where courts haven't ruled against Trump could be deported for an indefinite period -- giving Trump what he wants by delaying justice, which means justice denied.

So this is why Mayor Hoy and President Trump have something in common. Each politician is benefitting from a legal system that moves much more slowly than it took for apparently illegal/unethical actions to be carried out by Hoy and Trump.

Oregon's Attorney General leading 12-state lawsuit challenging Trump tariffs

It warmed my Oregon heart to see my state prominently featured in a Politico story today, "'There is No Rational Basis Behind What the President is Trying to Accomplish': Oregon's Attorney General is suing to block Trump's tariffs -- and he might win." Excerpt:

Attorney General Dan Rayfield

Dan Rayfield, Oregon’s rookie attorney general, says he didn’t want to spend his first months in office fighting presidential edicts in court. But along with the consumer protection and law-and-order duties that more typically define his role, the Democrat is now a key combatant in Donald Trump’s trade war, leading a 12-state lawsuit challenging the president’s sweeping tariff regime.

Rayfield, 46, is among the newest in a band of Democratic state attorneys general that’s been strikingly coordinated in challenging and stalling Trump’s avalanche of executive orders slashing federal spending, restricting birthright citizenship, gutting diversity and inclusion programs and much more since Jan. 20.

The looming impact of the tariffs in his trade-dependent Pacific Northwest state made taking the lead on the lawsuit an easy call, says Rayfield, who served as speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives before winning the AG post in November.

“Right now, in Canada, they are literally pulling [Oregon] products off of shelves,” he told POLITICO Magazine last week as he attended meetings in New York.

Rayfield has worked closely with Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes in leading the suit, which challenges Trump’s invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, enacted in 1977 and now used for the first time to impose tariffs.

“It’s an unprecedented misuse of emergency powers,” said Rayfield.

California was the first state to file suit over the tariffs last month (perhaps unsurprisingly, given its economic heft and Gov. Gavin Newson’s political profile). But Rayfield’s suit — State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump — is expected to be taken up first, and will likely be cited in the U.S. Court of International Trade this week, where judges will consider a private company’s challenge to the tariffs.

Here's the Introduction to the State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump lawsuit.

1. The Constitution assigns to Congress, not the President, the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Art. I, § 8. Yet over the last three months, the President has imposed, modified, escalated, and suspended tariffs by executive order, memoranda, social media post, and agency decree. These edicts reflect a national trade policy that now hinges on the President’s whims rather than the sound exercise of his lawful authority. By claiming the authority to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs on whatever goods entering the United States he chooses, for whatever reason he finds convenient to declare an emergency, the President has upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy.

2. The President has no authority to arbitrarily impose tariffs as he has done here. The text and history of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—the statute the President has invoked for the most damaging of his tariffs—confirm that the President cannot impose such tariffs under that law. And even if it did, it would not allow the worldwide tariffs he has imposed, which were not a response to an emergency as IEEPA defines it and have no nexus to the circumstances that purported to justify them.

3. Because these tariffs are unlawful, this Court should declare that they are not in force, enjoin the Defendant agencies and officers from enforcing them, and vacate the agency actions implementing them.

The Oregon Department of Justice issued a May 7 media release about the lawsuit:

Attorney General Dan Rayfield today led a coalition of attorneys general in filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt implementation of President Trump’s illegal tariffs. The motion seeks a court order pausing the tariffs imposed under four of President Trump’s executive orders without congressional action.

“These tariffs are doing real damage to Oregonians and our small businesses. Families cannot be expected to pay more at the store at a time when they’re already struggling to afford the basics.” Rayfield said. “The President can’t just slap on tariffs that hurt working people without following the law. I don’t know many families who can afford an extra $3800 a year.”

The motion asks the U.S. Court of International Trade to order federal agencies to stop collecting illegal tariffs President Trump imposed on most products worldwide. These tariffs impose a 145 percent tariff on most products from China, a 25 percent tariff on most products from Canada and Mexico, and 10 percent tariffs on most products from the rest of the world. It also asks the Court to put on hold President Trump’s plan to raise tariffs on imports from 56 other trading partners on July 9.

One analysis found that the average household will pay $3800 extra annually due to the tariffs. Businesses say they are already struggling. Todd Nelson is the co-owner of Bountiful Farms in Woodburn, and said the relationships he has spent years building with Canada have been greatly damaged.

“Many Canadian nurseries now have ‘Buy Canadian First’ initiatives, and just in the last few months, I’ve had several long-standing orders canceled. It’s not just disappointing – it’s heartbreaking,” Nelson said.

Oregon state agencies and universities are also bracing for significant cost increases, with budgets set before tariffs were in place. This will ultimately result in reduced services or delayed investments.

Economic analysis submitted to the court shows that state and local governments in the 12 states joining the motion stand to pay at least $3.4 billion per year in additional costs due to the tariffs. The states also submitted a Federal Reserve report noting that businesses “expected elevated input cost growth resulting from tariffs” and that “Most businesses expected to pass through additional costs to customers.”

Under Article I of the Constitution, only Congress has the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The executive orders cite the powers granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but that law applies only when an emergency presents “unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad and does not give the President the power to impose tariffs. Congress enacted IEEPA in 1977. No President had imposed tariffs based on IEEPA until President Trump did so this year.

The case is entitled State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00077-GSK-TMR-JAR) and is pending before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade.

The case is led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont.

Vanessa Nordyke makes closing argument for Salem's livability levy

City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke is an attorney. Today she made a presentation to the Salem City Club that she called a closing argument for Measure 24-514 on the May ballot -- which is unofficially called the livability levy, being a property tax increase to fund the library, parks, and Center 50+.

Nordyke said that she chose her black suit because it's what she likes to wear to a closing argument. "Closing," because ballots need to be postmarked on or before May 20, or put in a drop box before 8 pm on the 20th. That's just eleven days away.

Here's a slide from her presentation that I consider to be one of the most persuasive reasons to vote for the measure, if someone hasn't already made up their mind about the livability levy.

In the top row on the very right is a logo of the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce. In the middle of the third row is the logo of the Marion County Democrats. It's rare that these organizations are on the same side of a major issue, especially one that involves a tax increase.

But there they are, strange bedfellows, united in their view that Salem is best served by having a properly funded library, parks, and senior center. Nordyke's next slide said, "And now, a few words from the organized opposition to the levy..." There weren't even a few words, because there's no organized opposition.

One reason is described in the following excerpt from a valuable Salem Reporter story about Measure 24-514 by Rachel Alexander that was published a few days ago, "Salem Reporter answers your questions about city tax levy and what comes next."
Download Salem Reporter answers your questions about city tax levy and what comes next - Salem Reporter

Why doesn’t the city just spend less?

City officials have taken some steps to cut costs, including freezing hiring on some vacant positions, eliminating an assistant city manager job and curtailing travel and supply spending.

But some rising expenses are outside the city’s control. Pension rates, a major driver of growing city expenses, are set by the state. Salem will spend about $11 million more this year paying those costs for already-retired workers.

An outside committee of business and nonprofit executives reviewed the city’s budget early this year. They concluded the city was already providing services more efficiently than other Oregon cities, and that the issues with the city’s budget were largely due to structural issues outside city control.

Erdmann said that review was what led the home builders to endorse the levy.

City officials say more cost-cutting would mean reducing services.

If the livability levy doesn't pass, cuts would be extreme. Here's a few examples: the library would only be open 20 hours per week, with over half of library staff laid off; all hard (permanent) restrooms in 70 neighborhood parks would be closed; Center 50+ would cut two part-time employees, reducing outreach, programming and volunteer recruitment.

So I urge you to vote YES on Measure 24-514. We've got to keep Salem livable.

If criticizing Israel is antisemitic, then I'm an antisemite

Antisemitism used to mean what it actually is: hostility toward Jews, including hatred, discrimination, and prejudice. But lately in some circles the meaning of the word has expanded to something that it isn't: criticism of Israel.

This is completely wrong. It conflates two separate things, the Jewish religion and the nation of Israel. There are lots of people in Israel who strongly oppose policies of the current right-wing Israeli government, which is headed up by Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Many, if not most, of those people are observant Jews. So are they antisemitic, somehow being prejudiced against themselves? Of course not. They simply disagree with what their government is doing. This includes how Netanyahu and his cronies are conducting the war against Hamas.

Yet in this country Trump and his acolytes have been trying to equate anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian protests with antisemitism. That's ridiculous. There's good reason to believe that the Israeli government is committing war crimes against the two million or so people who live in Gaza.

Protesting this deserves praise, or at least a recognition that everyone in the United States, citizen and non-citizen alike, are entitled to express their views about the war freely. 

My own viewpoint is in line with how most Americans seem to see the Israeli-Hamas conflict. Hamas was wrong to start the war on October 7, 2023. Israel was justified in striking back against Hamas. However, the rules of war require that civilian casualties be minimized and that civilians not be forced to leave their homes or denied humanitarian aid such as food, water, and shelter.

Israel has failed to comply with both of those requirements. Gaza has been almost completely destroyed, with the population continually forced to move from one area to another by Israeli forces. An estimated 15,000 children have been killed in Gaza, with over 25,000 injured. That infuriates me.

I'm also deeply angered by Israel severely limiting humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, most of whom have no connection with Hamas and the October 7 terror attacks. Amnesty International tells it like it is:

Israel must immediately end its devastating siege on the occupied Gaza Strip which constitutes a genocidal act, a blatant form of unlawful collective punishment, and the war crime of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, said Amnesty International, marking two months since Israel reimposed a ban on the entry of aid and commercial goods into the Strip on 2 March 2025.  

By blocking the entry of supplies critical for the survival of the population, Israel continues its policy of deliberately imposing conditions of life on Palestinians in Gaza calculated to bring about their physical destruction; this constitutes an act of genocide.  

Harrowing new testimonies gathered by Amnesty International throughout April reveal the catastrophic human cost of Israel’s two-month long total siege, where starvation and denial of life-saving essentials are being used as weapons of war in flagrant violation of international law. 

“The extent of human suffering in Gaza for the past 19 months has been unimaginable, and it is a direct consequence of Israel’s ongoing genocide. Apart from a brief respite during the temporary truce, Israel has relentlessly and mercilessly turned Gaza into an inferno of death and destruction,” Erika Guevara Rosas, Senior Director for Research, Advocacy, Policy, and Campaigns at Amnesty International. 

“For the past two months, Israel has completely cut off the supply of humanitarian aid and other items indispensable to the survival of civilians in a clear and calculated effort to collectively punish over two million civilians and to make Gaza unlivable. This is genocide in action.  

“The international community must not continue to stand by as Israel perpetrates these atrocities with impunity. States, especially Israel’s allies, must act now and take concrete measures to pressure Israel into immediately lifting its total siege and allowing the unhindered entry of humanitarian aid and its safe distribution across all of Gaza. A sustained ceasefire is essential to ensure that can happen.” 

This week in the Hague, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is holding public hearings to examine Israel’s obligations in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations (UN) and other international organizations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), including the provision of humanitarian assistance. Amnesty International reiterates the critical urgency of allowing UNRWA, other UN agencies and humanitarian organizations, to carry out their life-saving work across the OPT without obstructions.   

Israel’s refusal to allow aid into Gaza also flouts repeated ICJ orders to ensure Palestinians have access to sufficient humanitarian assistance and basic services. 

So, yes, if criticism of Israel is antisemitic, then I'm proud to be labeled an antisemite -- because I abhor how Israel is using starvation and forced displacement as a weapon of war against the people of Gaza.

Trump's first 100 days are a litany of failures

After a long stretch of having no problems with our Starlink satellite internet, the only high speed broadband option available to us out here in rural south Salem, Oregon, our router has developed a serious connection problem. 

Meaning, no wi-fi, despite my best efforts over the past four hours to figure out what the problem is. Of course, this being an Elon Musk company, it isn't possible to get any support via phone, so I'm waiting for a reply to the support request I sent via the Starlink iPhone app.

That request went out via a dreadfully slow cellular connection (our cell service is as bad as our broadband service, which is limited to 7 Mbps DSL, aside from Starlink, when it's working).

Since I'm addicted to writing a daily post for one of my three blogs, I figured that I'd keep my daily post habit fed in a simple fashion by sharing the end of a great piece by David Remnick in the May 5 issue of The New Yorker. It's titled "100 Days of Ineptitude." Naturally he's referring to Trump.

The record of failure after a hundred days is, at once, astonishing and predictable. With no evident purpose, Trump has alienated Europe, Japan, Mexico, and Canada, further undermined NATO, and made even more plain his affection for Vladimir Putin.

He has sanctioned his benefactor Elon Musk to hoist a chainsaw and commit mayhem against government agencies that save countless human lives. With evident pleasure, Trump has deported more than two hundred people (nearly all of whom have no criminal record) to a Salvadoran gulag. With his tariff proposals, he managed to destabilize the global economy in a flash, perhaps the worst own goal in history.

As part of his revenge campaign, he has waged a war of intimidation against dozens of scholarly, commercial, and legal institutions. Some, like Columbia University, Amazon, and Paul, Weiss, have caved, choosing the path of obedience over principle. Shari Redstone, of Paramount, would rather trash the independence of "60 Minutes," the most respected investigative outlet on television, than resist the absurd attacks of Trump and his lawyers.

The enduring emblem of this Administration and its duplicity is undoubtedly STRUMP, a meme-coin scheme that has brought many millions of dollars in profits to the President and his fellow-investors. Few seem to mind. Trump has normalized presidential corruption.

If one were forced to choose two representative events in the life of the Administration so far they would surely be the White House meetings with the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, and, six weeks later, with the Salvadoran President, Nayib Bukele.

In the first, Trump treated a moral hero as an ungrateful scoundrel. In the second, he treated a sadistic dictator as a soulmate. It is hard to recall a scene in the Oval Office more revolting than that of Trump's smiling request to Bukele to build five more prisons, because "the homegrowns are next."

In recent weeks, there have been encouraging signs of opposition to Trump, on the streets and in the courts. Cory Booker, Chris Murphy, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie Sanders are among the clearest voices of dissent on Capitol Hill. But accommodation and cowardice remain the norm.

"We are all afraid," the Republican senator Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, said to a gathering in Anchorage. No doubt. The threat of retaliation is no joke, but the Senator's plaintive cry does not exactly meet the demands of the moment. This is not primarily a matter of competence or a clash over policy.

The Trump Administration is carrying out a coordinated assault on first principles. "The limits of tyrants," Frederick Douglass said, "are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." The President will persist in his assault until he feels the resistance of a people who will tolerate it no longer.

Vote for the progressive candidates in the Salem-Keizer school board races

We live in polarized political times. School board elections are part of this dynamic. Sure, it'd be nice if candidates for the Salem-Keizer school board positions on the May 2025 ballot all could be judged individually.

But that's not the world we live in. As has been the case recently, there are two slates of candidates, progressive and conservative. A Salem Reporter story about the Zone 7 candidates for the upcoming school board election says:

As has become standard in Salem, two ideologically opposed slates of school board candidates are running in the nonpartisan races.

Mel Fuller is endorsed by Community for Salem-Keizer Schools, a coalition of union and progressive groups including the Salem-Keizer teacher union and farmworker union PCUN. The group says it’s endorsing “experienced leaders who know that students thrive when they get the support they need to meet high expectations,” and who will focus on protecting public education.

Jeremiah Radka is supported by Marion + Polk First, a conservative political action committee involved in school board and city council races. The group says its candidates focus on schools performing with “academic rigor, quality, and hands-on training” as well as bringing police back into local schools.

Here's the full slate of candidates endorsed by Community for Salem-Keizer Schools. They're the best candidates, in my opinion.

We've seen what happens when right-wing zealots take control of a school board.

Books are banned that don't fit with an extreme conservative purity test. Excessive top-down control prevents teachers from doing what they're good at, helping their students learn. Schools become fortresses, scaring students, rather than buildings with a common sense level of security.

So that's why voters should embrace the progressive slate of candidates and reject the conservative slate. We can't have the political party that wants to do away with the Department of Education and views "diversity" as a dirty word taking over the Salem-Keizer School Board.

Our students deserve better than that.