Letter To President Donald Trump

January 30, 2017

The Honorable Donald J. Trump
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC  20500

Dear President Trump

I have taken notice of your executive order of 27 January 2017 regarding the admission of refugees from certain countries in the Middle East.  I am bound in conscience to state my opposition to this policy.

I feel that is it a wrong policy from the following three perspectives: political, humanitarian and historical.

From the political perspective, this policy gives aid and comfort to this country's enemies in that it gives them a propaganda victory of immeasurable value.  These enemies, both foreign and domestic, can now proclaim to the world that USA pays mere lip service to support of the oppressed and downtrodden.  These enemies can point to the USA and say “see how they have abandoned you”.  This propaganda victory will help radicalize and rally others to their cause because no viable alternative is available.  It will also embolden them to perpetrate even worst horrors than the world has already seen.  These enemies will point to the USA and say “see how they look after their own interests to the exclusion of all others”.  This policy will also weaken the resolve of our allies to assist these oppressed people.  They will say “if the USA won’t help, why should we?”  In addition, it will cause our allies to think twice with regards to giving the USA assistance in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism.  Finally, it will build resentment in the hearts of the very individuals and groups that we will need to support and aid us in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism.

Secondly, this action of yours is a policy error from a humanitarian perspective in that the USA is probably the last best hope for many of these individuals to escape the yoke of tyranny, oppression, and sectarian / ethic violence.  We as a nation must make a decision, a hard decision no doubt, but one that must be made, often when the very life of the nation is at stake and that is do we only want to "talk a good game" when it comes to support and aid for the oppressed.  We cannot make statements regarding the love of liberty and justice and then do nothing to back up those statements.  The more we refuse to make good on our stated principles of justice and freedom for all, the less weight this nation's voice will carry in the community of nations.  For good or ill, the United States is a world leader and cannot turn its back and wash its hands like Pontius Pilate and abandon these migrants to the tyrants and oppressors from whom they are trying to escape.

Finally, this action of yours is an error from a historical perspective and this constitutes the gravamen of my opposition to it.  I must draw your attention to the a particular historical parallel, namely the 1939 voyage of the MS St. Louis.  On 13 May 1939, this ship set sail from Hamburg, Germany with 937 passengers, mostly Jewish refugees seeking safety after the terrible assaults on the Jewish community in late 1938, the most infamous being remembered in history as Kristallnacht (9 - 10 November 1938).  This voyage is often called the "Voyage of the Damned".  That ship was denied entry into the USA under the express instructions of then Secretary of State Cordell Hull and was forced to return to Europe with 620 passengers.  Historical accounts state that only 365 of those 620 passengers survived the Second World War.  Most were killed in the death camps of Auschwitz and Sobibor, or died in verminous internment camps or died in hiding.  This policy you have chosen will resurrect that specter and cause this country and your administration to be marked with a mark of shame that will be long remembered by the peoples of the world.

Unlike many, I do not wish for the failure of your administration.  To do so would be akin to wanting a pilot to crash his airplane while you are a passenger.  Nor do I hold any personal animus to you or members of your administration.  I do implore you, for the sake of this nations reputation, for the sake of your administration, for the sake of the verdict of history, which will be swift and sure, and most importantly, for the sake of the individuals affected, that you reverse this policy and move toward making this nation truly a city on a hill.

Respectfully yours,
Eugene Michael Giudice

CC:
Senator Richard Durbin
Senator Tammy Duckworth
Congressman Mike Quigley
Mr. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. Publisher, The New York Times
Mr. R. Bruce Dold, Publisher, The Chicago Tribune
Hayley Romer, Publisher, The Atlantic Magazine

I'm no fan of Karen Lewis

Here is the letter to the editor that was published in Crain's Chicago Business on 19 August 2013

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130817/ISSUE07/308179988/strong-views-on-karen-lewis

Riots in London - A comentary

These two articles are worth reading. Are they a harbinger of what may happen in the USA?

http://online.wsj.com/article/​SB1000142405311190391810457650​4033881168802.html?KEYWORDS=da​lrymple

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0​/fac0b38e-c1d1-11e0-bc71-00144​feabdc0.html#axzz1V78VELDd

Texas Legislation Adds Conditions on Abortion

Below is the letter to the editor that I sent to the Wall Street Journal regarding the article found at this website http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576315350526209130.html?mod=ITP_pageone_1

Good Morning

I read with great interested the article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 11 May 2011 on page A4 entitled Texas Legislation Adds Conditions on Abortion.

I was most struck by the comments by Ms Kelly Rosati from the group Focus on the Family on how an ultrasound is capable of having a woman connect "with that child inside her".

It is interesting how she and others on the religious and political right are so anxious for a woman to connect with her unborn child but are not willing to devote the necessary resources so that relationship can grow and develope once the child is born. Ms Rosati and Focus on the Family are prime examples of the attitude that tells women we will do everything possible for you to keep your child, but once it is born, you are on your own.

Response to Randi Weingarten's Article

Here is a letter that I sent to the WSJ in response to the article found at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704071704576276673922731938.html

In her article, Ms Weingarten decries the use of market based solutions in education. What Ms Weingarten fails to understand that there is a de-facto market system in place already in that parents are choosing education alternatives that run the gamut from charter schools, private or parochial schools or simply moving to a location with better schools.

Ms Weingarten is already in the middle of a market based solutions and her refusal to embrace fundamental change such as pay for performance, and elimination of tenure with cause and increase in the flight of parents to alternative education choices.

How do we "suit up" for the game.

I read with interest the article by William McGurn that appeared in the WSJ on 19 May 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269063343832561.html.

Mr McGurn is right on target when he says " When Notre Dame doesn't dress for the game, the field is left to those like Randall Terry who create a spectacle and declare their contempt for civil and respectful witness". The question becomes how do we as thoughtful Catholics suit up?

I am convinced that the Priests for Life crowd or even my brother knights in the Knights of Columbus have grasped that you not only have to give a prohibition to abortion but to give pregnant women better options and that frankly, will take money. I would love to get Fr. Frank Pavone and Randall Terry in one room and say "OK.....let's say abortion gets prohibited like you want...then what? What are people in the pro life movement willing to give up so that women won't abort their babies. I want to know in dollars and cents how much they are willing to pay in terms of taxes for public services, health care, education and reliable day care to ensure that those babies who are not aborted will grow to their full potential.

I hear scant little from the pro life quarter on these issues. They are quite ready to say no to abortions but what are they going to do about it when abortion is no longer legal.

These sentiments are not only applicable to the pro life crowd but to institutions like Notre Dame. They are absolutely tone deaf on this issue. They talk a good game about honoring church teaching but what do the DO about it. Are they really willing to have an open dialog about abortion or devote resources to this cause?

Sometimes, it seems that the Catholic centers of higher education want it both ways. They want to seem as progressive and acceptable to the great population but still want a veneer of Catholicity.

Photos That Could Cost Lives? Maybe We Should Look At The Policies Instead

I just finished reading the article written by David Rebhein that appeared in the May 8 2009 Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124174121748398901.html.

While I believe that the American Legion does great work, I feel that the views expressed by Mr Rebhein are not in line what I believe a free society should be about.

Mr. Rebhein thinks that releasing more photos of detainee abuse will only inflame America's enemies, but I am convinced that in the long run, openness is better for this country. I am convinced that people like Mr. Rebhein and other on the political right would rather have the pictures suppresses so that they can continue to perpetuate the myth that Abu Ghraib was just "an aberration" or the work of a "few bad apples".

Until the full evidence is shown to the American people, we will never be freed of the ghosts of Abu Ghraib. In addition, we have got to get real about making the people whose policy decisions that lead to detainee abuse accountable in some way. It could very well be that this government does not have the stomach or political capital to bring these people to the bar of justice there is always the court of public opinion.

How many generals were allowed to retire quietly and pick up their nice pension and go on the right wing rubber chicken dinner circuit? How many DOJ attorneys who signed off on torture were allowed to go into places like the Heritage Foundation some other sympathetic think tank?

I am all in favor of making life for these politicians and generals at least somewhat uncomfortable and make them think about what they have done.

I would like to draw a parallel with the recent flap over the flight of Air Force One over the Statute of Liberty that was kept under wraps. If the folks had been open about the flight, there would not have been any panic and people would not have thought about the expense of the flight. Now, the administration has had to deal with people's anger (however muted and short term) and the hew and cry over the expense.

I keep thinking that our government does not trust us. It seems that Mr. Rehbein does not either. He would rather keep the photos under wraps on the chance it will inflame our enemies.

Maybe Mr. Rehbein needs to think about the larger policies of the present and past administrations that put troops at risk and not just photos of detainee abuse.