Monday, April 14, 2025

Illegal deportations to El Salvador

 Sent Via April 14, 2025  Email: dhssecretary@hq.dhs.gov

The Honorable Kristi Noem
Secretary of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
2707 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20528  USA

Dear Secretary Noem

It seems ironic to be addressing as Honorable someone whose office is located on a street named in Honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. and is connected to the illegal deportations to a brutish prison in El Salvador.  On March 15, 2025, President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, claiming that the Tren de Aragua (TdA) criminal group was attempting to invade the U.S. He ordered the removal of Venezuelans aged 14 and older who were allegedly linked to TdA, even if they had no criminal record.

The "Terrorist takeover of America” and “Enemy Alien” labels are blatant “Manufactured Crises” – such as those employed in Nazi Germany. The last time the “enemy alien” clause was invoked was during a declared war, interning  over 120,000 Japanese Americans in camps. Even then, thousands of innocent people lives were irrevocably harmed.   Invoking it now to target migrants unfairly and indiscriminately is an unprecedented misuse of power. For decades, the United States has been covertly undermining attempts at democracy in Latin America with money and force to smooth the path for American investors. Now comes a $6 Million dollar payment to an unsavory ally.

On the same day, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of five Venezuelans facing removal. A U.S. District Court quickly issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), stopping deportations and requiring the government to halt flights to El Salvador. The government appealed, but the D.C. Circuit upheld the order. The administration has now taken the case to the Supreme Court.

The expulsion of 238 individuals from the United States to El Salvador, despite a court order explicitly barring their removal represents not only a flagrant disregard of the United States’ human rights obligations, but also a dangerous step toward authoritarian practices as the Trump administration ignored and is now calling for the firing of a federal judge of the United States Judiciary. This is also a dangerous endorsement of President Bukele’s punitive security agenda
                                            -Ana Piquer, Americas director at Amnesty International

Cc  by Snail mail to Mrs. Marybeth Krumm Turner
Minister-Counsellor & Chargé d’affaires,
Embassy of the United States of America
490 Sussex Drive,  Ottawa, ON K1N 1G8

 Elinor Benjamin, Long time Member, Amnesty International

Friday, April 4, 2025

Our Historic Waterfront – saved by Citizens

While flipping through my copy of “FOUNDED UPON A ROCK - Historic Buildings in Halifax and Vicinity” published by The Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia in 1967, a yellowed newspaper clipping fell out. It was a Letter to the Editor written by L.B. Jensen, published by the Halifax Mail-Star on Jun 25, 1969, which I fortunately identified from the back of the clipping.

As a long time writer of Letters to the Editor, I appreciated 1) a shared concern for the common good, 2) important historic content  3) the writing and 4) the length.  Today, in our social media world, comment has so often been reduced to memes and slogans and maximum characters allowed. Jensen’s letter was part of a massive citizen outcry at proposed redevelopment of the downtown area to build a highway. I tried to scan the tiny yellow columns without attractive results so I have transcribed it and shared it below.

Anyone who has experienced Halifax’s lively Waterfront area will recognize its attraction for locals and visitors alike.  You might not know that the area was once designated to be demolished to make way for a multi-lane highway. The Cogswell Exchange, all that remains of the suspended project, is currently being removed and remediated to develop amenities suitable for the downtown community on the rescued acreage. Some of us will see what develops. Some of us may have left the room by then.

The goal was to reduce congestion. That's a promise we have heard recently, when our Premier removed the tolls from our bridges. It might have made a few things easier. Trucks leaving from the container port have a difficult exit through Water Street.  We would have ended up having as unpleasant a waterfront as many port cities. We still have many traffic  problems to solve, but our Historic Waterfront has proved its worth, especially the developers of high end real estate, and the rest of us who go there for Cow’s Ice Cream and occasional tony restaurants on our anniversaries and the Buskers Festival.

Harbour Drive was, for most of the 1960s, a given. The project itself was accepted by the City as the best option to improve traffic and foster development and everyone was doing it. Priorities that were trending in urban planning involved slum clearance programs across North America, and car prioritizing. I was living in New York and remember  "slum clearances" undertaken to build Lincoln Centre in Manhattan, which displaced 7,000 families from reasonably priced housing and forced them into crowed slums in Harlem and the Bronx with little or no assistance.

The  questions that remained were about specifics such as street lines, how many lanes Harbour Drive should be, where to put that second bridge, and where to connect the Northwest Arm Bridge on the mainland side. But ultimately, Harbour Drive was going to happen. 

But then, it didn’t. Read more about it on a Local History Blog published by the Halifax Public Libraries  Halifax Municipal Archives: The Cogswell Interchange and the Road to Nowhere  Written by guest blogger, Elena Cremonese, Archives Technician  

Of course, I had to find out more about L.B. Jensen writer of Letters to the Editor and many books. His obituary provides the most interesting reading. 

*****************************************************

 
 

 

 

 

Halifax Mail-Star  Jun 25, 1969

 "Historic Waterfront" To The Editor:

 Sir,
I believe that the decision made by Halifax city council on the evening of June 19, to the effect that the historic waterfront buildings be demolished, will be regarded by future generations as tantamount to vandalism.

I believe that the decision was unworthy of a city council that has been noteworthy for its wise and far-sighted leadership; a council under whose direction the face of Halifax has been transformed. It was a decision of which we all will be ashamed and which we will bitterly regret for many years to come.

It seemed to me as an observer that the decision was made without knowledge of several important factors, for example:

  1. Exactly what are the plans for Harbor Drive from the post office to the south? What is envisaged and when will council and the citizens of Halifax be informed? Are we all in the grip of vast impersonal forces beyond our control?
  2. Why were the planned demolitions to the west of the new Court House a surprise to city council? What other surprises are in store?
  3. What are the plans for the harbor front by the demolished historic buildings? Should they not be examined before the buildings are demolished?
  4. What will be the cost of the demolition of these uildings, plus the cost of retaining walls, fill and so on and what other implications are there to this action?
  5. The firm constructing Harbor Drive is situated outside of the Maritimes and its officers have no interest in the city of Halifax. Why should the views of these people take precedence over the opinions of a substantial number of the citizens of Halifax as well as the most highly qualified representatives of the federal government? Is there any public demand that the buildings should be demolished?
  6. What effect will this decision have on possible requests by the city of Halifax for federal assistance in creating historic attractions at some time in the future?
  7. What would be the effect if, failing all else, the historic buildings were allow¬ed to remain for a certain period beyond the opening of the interchange?
  8. What exactly what sort of future city does the city council envisage; is it to be like most. of the other cities of Canada or is it to be something unique with a special character and with attractions impossible for other cities to emulate?

The principle or hiring a highly qualified staff and seeking their advice is well understood. In a ship, the captain is advised by his specialist officers and then in the light of all considerations, makes his policy decision, sometimes in conflict with his specialist advice.

Similarly one would expect such a relationship between council and staff. The fact that a policy decision sometimes conflicts with specialist advice does not seem to me to suggest or necessitate a lack of confidence by either party. If such were the case then there would be no requirement for council as it would simply rubber stamp staff decisions.

I do not believe it is fair to label the people who have worked long and hard for waterfront restoration as hobbyists. No more would it be fair to say that the dedicated men of city council are hobbyists.

Both groups receive little return for their efforts which are each in their way designed for the good of the city.

Nor do I believe that waterfront restoration would deprive a single adult or child of housing or cause families to suffer in any way. This surely is a different question which is being dealt with separately.

I wish to say in conclusion that if the waterfront restoration had been permitted, it was the intention of some of us to next devote our efforts to obtaining and restoring by public fund across Canada a wartime RCN corvette. This would be a living historic memorial in Halifax which would further enhance the interest and importance of the waterfront area.

I believe that difficulties are meant to be overcome and that no man should give up a point of principle, especially when future generations are concerned. This is an opportunity which never will occur again.

City council so many times in the past has agreed to the value of these buildings and has made valiant efforts to save them. You should take heart and not give up the struggle at the eleventh hour.

L. B. JENSON 1185 South Park Street, Halifax

 

 



 












Thursday, March 27, 2025

Income tax cut promises

 

Happy Grumpy Thursday - Election underway
 
Some Fact checking behind those Income tax cut promises. They won't help low income people. If you don't make enough money to have to pay income tax, it won't help you AT ALL, and it is going to cost a lot. 
 
Costly promises per The Tyee
"Both Conservative and Liberal policies will be expensive. In 2025, the Liberal version would cost $5.4 billion and the Conservative version would cost $12.2 billion (although the Conservative version won’t be fully implemented until 2027, I’m simulating them both in 2025 for a fair comparison; the Conservative plan will cost over $14 billion in 2027 when fully implemented)....
In case you were wondering, those are incredible amounts of money. For comparison, you could cut child poverty in half for about $6 billion a year. 
 
I'm sure there will be other media weighing in on this nonsense. I"ll keep my eyes open. Spoiler Alert. A promise of tax cuts will NEVER win my vote. Ask what are you willing to give up for them? More cuts to education and health care. Have you noticed the private health care options sneaking in all around us - for those who are willing to pay big bucks.

Wednesday, March 19, 2025

Mr. Orwell. They're erasing history

Orwellian moments abound faster than we can absorb. Trump continues his attack on history. Do recent DEI purges show the USA has fallen as low as it can go? I fear not. Pages about Native American Code Talkers who helped US and allies win two world wars have been removed from Pentagon websites, as well as a page about Jackie Robinson's war contributions.

Alina Habba, as special counsel to the orange one, will be pulling in over $420 thousand a year from US taxpayers, and has a networth $35 million earned defending Trump from miscellaneous crimes. Her baffle-gab comments on steroids appeared in the Military Times and elsewhere.

“Well as you know we care about veterans tremendously. That’s something the president has always cared about,” Habba responded. “But at the same time, we have taxpayer dollars, we have a fiscal responsibility to use taxpayer dollars to pay people that actually work. That doesn’t mean that we forget our veterans by any means. We are going to care for them in the right way, but perhaps they’re not fit to have a job at this moment or [are] not willing to come to work.”

Are you happy your taxes are paying her salary? I suspect if you are reading this little rant you pay more taxes than this public leech. Now is a good time to support or increase support for the Internet Archive. Besides backing up websites on their Wayback Machine, there is astonishing stuff there. I give them $7.00 a month and will top that up a bit shortly.