Donald Trump and maga Republicans do harm to children's development cutting health and food programs

Echo opinion published in the Boston Globe:  As a clinical psychologist with my career working in medical settings and, specifically, with adolescents and their families, I am troubled by the news that Donald Trump is reviving the Presidential Fitness Test for America’s schoolchildren.

The test will have no meaning in a vacuum. In the past, such tests were either scorned by the fit or feared by the not so fit. 

Yet, I wonder how children, who may have lost their nutrition programs, and their health care are expected to become healthier. Even their after-school programs, which often provide safe physical activities, are under threat.

More important than tests are available adult role models. So it was horrifying to see former New York Giants linebacker Lawrence Taylor, a registered sex offender, at the White House event❗ ⚠️

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who will oversee the test’s administration, commented that his documented, long-term heroin addiction, which began in his teens, was finally conquered by a spiritual awakening years later. (❓Maine Writer- Did RFKjr's "awakening" happen before or after he was stricken with brain worms❓)

Perhaps these men are now fit, but they are certainly not role models for adolescent health. And the president? Apart from his criminal record, here is an overweight man who complains about the correct type of sugar in his soft drinks and who has greeted collegiate athletes at the White House with literal towers of highly processed fast food. His exercise❓ Driving around in a golf cart.

From Carol Landau in Providence, Rhode Island

The writer is a clinical professor emerita of psychiatry and human behavior and medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and a psychological consultant on higher education.

Double Horror: Migrants illegally hunted like animals by ICE and exploited by people who take advantage of them

NEW BEDFORD, Massachusetts opinion published in the Boston Globe by Marcela Garcia:

New Bedford reels from ICE crackdown

Adrian Ventura sees federal immigration agents hanging around Acushnet Avenue, the heart of New Bedford’s Latino and Spanish-speaking community, almost every day — always in dark, unmarked SUVs with tinted windows.

Ventura, a former undocumented immigrant from Guatemala who now leads New Bedford’s Centro Comunitario de Trabajadores, a labor advocacy group, said it seems like the city has been singled out for aggressive enforcement under the Trump administration.

“We haven’t seen the same type of enforcement activity in Providence, Rhode Island, for instance,” Ventura told me in Spanish.

Ventura said he’s even witnessed the agents parked in front of St. Anthony of Padua, the Roman Catholic church on Acushnet.

The federal presence has cast a chill on the avenue, which is lined with check cashing stores and establishments with Spanish names adorned with Guatemalan and Honduran flags selling tortillas and other Latino foods.

While there is no up-to-date official count, Ventura told me that his organization has recorded 27 immigration-related arrests in New Bedford since the new administration took office on Jan. 20. “There has to be more, those are only the arrests we know of.”

While there is no up-to-date official count, Ventura told me that his organization has recorded 27 immigration-related arrests in New Bedford since the new administration took office on Jan. 20. “There has to be more, those are only the arrests we know of.”

“We’re very stressed out,” he said.

Last month, the wider public caught a glimpse of the atmosphere in the port city, where roughly 20,000 residents, or 1 in 5, are foreign born.

In a jarring video that went viral, heavily armed, unidentified federal agents surround a car they had just pulled over on a quiet New Bedford street. Inside, Juan Francisco Mendez, a 29-year-old Guatemalan father, sat with his wife, calmly telling the men outside that his lawyer was on the way.

Moments later, one agent retrieved an axe-like tool and shattered the rear window; glass exploded everywhere and Mendez was pulled from the car and arrested. The whole time his wife had been filming the incident, her voice trembling.

Mendez did not have a criminal record and appeared to be in the country legally. Last week, a judge ordered him released.

But the footage has become a visceral symbol of what many advocates believe is a campaign of intimidation targeting New Bedford’s immigrants, especially the roughly 10,000 people who lack work authorization. They now have to weigh the risks of their every move.

Ventura is worried the workplace raids, much like the notorious 2007 operation at the Michael Bianco Inc. textile factory, could be next. That raid resulted in the arrest of 361 undocumented immigrants.

There’s a more subtle impact of the federal crackdown: It may lead to more wage theft and harassment because victims will probably be too scared to come forward.

It’s a well-documented issue: Unauthorized workers fuel New Bedford’s fishing industry, the city’s major economic engine. It’s often referred to as the country’s most lucrative fishing port based on the market value of its product.

The industry has also been a hotspot for labor violations, as reported by my Globe colleague Katie Johnston, who found in 2023, that migrant children were working grueling shifts in the city’s fish plants. Many used fake IDs to secure jobs through staffing agencies, while employers and agencies evaded responsibility, citing difficulties in verifying age and identity.

Ventura is now working on a wage-theft complaint he received from Mariana, a Guatemalan unauthorized immigrant who lives in Providence. Mariana is an alias; she agreed to talk to me if I didn’t use her real name because she is afraid of the repercussions of going public.

Mariana just turned 18 last month but has been working full time at a seafood-processing plant in New Bedford for more than a year. She does everything: cleaning fish, packing boxes, labeling product. Mariana told me that she got the job through a staffing agency. She works varying hours every week — sometimes it’s 8-hour days, sometimes 11-hour days — but, on average, the weekly check she gets from the agency is in the $500-$600 range.

But out of that check, she has to pay around $160 “to the boss who gives us a ride every week,” she told me in Spanish. That would be a third-party transportation provider, a Guatemalan man who provides roundtrip transportation for the workers — around 15 to 18 people each ride — from Providence to New Bedford, she said.

“It’s not fair. He tells us, ‘if you don’t pay, there is no job.’ People are afraid of speaking up. They don’t want to lose their jobs,” Mariana said. Or worse — they don’t want to be reported to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and be arrested.

She’s always afraid during the 40-minute ride in the van “because we can be stopped at any moment” by federal immigration authorities.

On Sunday — Mother’s Day — Acushnet Avenue looked a little deserted, with only a few families venturing out to celebrate with their mothers in the area’s restaurants. 

A grocery store was pretty much empty, an employee telling me that there would normally be a line at the register. A flier from a local advocacy group posted by the cash register advertised services to immigrants: Call us and we’ll shop for you; need to cash a check? We’ll do it for you.

The chill in the air may be the whole point of Trump’s crackdown. But the real winners will be exploitative employers, unscrupulous staffing agencies, and everyone else who stands to profit when immigrants recede back into the shadows. 😞😟😢

Marcela García is a Boston Globe columnist.

What would George Washington Do?

George Washington Letter to the Jews of Newport Rhode Island

Has Donald Trump ever read this letter?  Just askin'?

This is how an enlightened American George Washington showed inspired leadership. 

This information is found on the website Touro Synagogue:

Another site is George Washington and the Jews link here:https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/george-washington-and-the-jews/

The original of Washington’s Letter to the Hebrew Congregations of Newport, Rhode Island is small in size, but its impact on American life is immense.

In 340 well-chosen words, the Letter reassures those who had fled religious tyranny that life in their new nation would be different, that religious “toleration” would give way to religious liberty, and that the government would not interfere with individuals in matters of conscience and belief. Quoting the Bible’s Old Testament,

Washington writes,
“every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

He continues:

For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.1

When he wrote this particular letter in August of 1790, the new President must have been aware of the effect it would have on the fledgling nation. He could not have known the extent of its influence today. The history behind Washington’s Letter not only gives us an understanding of the values of the early colonists and our Founding Fathers, but also insight into two fundamental tenets of American democracy: the separation of church and state, and the right of individuals to believe in and practice their religion.
Washington comes to Newport, Rhode Island

On the morning of August 17th, 1790 George Washington arrived in Newport, Rhode Island. He was accompanied by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Governor George Clinton of New York, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Blair of Virginia, and U.S. Congressman William Loughton Smith of South Carolina.

The President had visited the New England states the previous fall “to acquire knowledge of the face of the Country the growth and Agriculture thereof and the temper and disposition of the Inhabitants towards the new government.” He deliberately bypassed Rhode Island, which had refused to call a state convention to ratify the federal Constitution at that time. He decided to make a public trip to the state only after May 1790 when Rhode Island ratified the Constitution. Such a special visit would not only focus the goodwill that Rhode Islanders felt toward him as the hero of the Revolution, it would lend his personal prestige to the state’s leaders.2

Washington, Jefferson, and the others had a second agenda as well. Twelve amendments to the Constitution had been proposed in the Congress. The third amendment addressed the issue of freedom of religion and of the press.

Congress passed and sent all twelve amendments to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789.

State legislatures were required to consider the amendments one by one and ratify them individually. Over a period of months, the state legislatures sent the amendments back to Congress, ratifying some and disapproving others. On December 15, 1791, Virginia approved ten of the twelve proposed amendments and became the tenth and last state required to do so before the amendments became law. The first two proposed amendments were not ratified and therefore, the original Third Amendment, prohibiting the establishment of a state religion and ensuring freedom of the press, became the newly ratified First Amendment. Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Georgia were still debating the amendments in August of 1790 when the President visited Newport.

Citizens of Newport address their new President:
We now behold a government, erected by the Majesty of the People …
Washington and his group were greeted by Newport’s leading citizens and representatives from the many religious denominations present in the city, including the Jews. Included in the throng that greeted Washington may have been some of Newport's slaves, for individuals of African descent made up one-quarter to one-third of Newport's population during the colonial period.


Politicians, businessmen, and clergy read letters of welcome to the President. Among them was Moses Seixas, one of the officials of Yeshuat Israel, the first Jewish congregation in Newport. The address read by Seixas was an elegant expression of the Jewish community’s delight in Washington as leader and in a democratic government.

Seixas wrote:
Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now (with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People—a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance—but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental Machine…3

A few days after leaving Newport, the President wrote to the citizen groups who had addressed him at Newport, thanking them for their hospitality and graciousness. First among them was his letter to the Jews. More than simple courtesy, the letter reflected the policy of the new government toward those whose religious beliefs were perceived as different. Washington echoed Seixas’ phrase “which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance,” thus confirming the sentiments expressed in the Seixas letter. The President’s words also helped to define the role of the Federal government in matters of conscience.

Religion and Ratification

The Government’s role in issues of religion was a particular sticking point in the debate over ratification. In Europe and in England, state-sponsored religion was the norm. If one’s beliefs were different from those of the official Church, the consequences could be severe. While there was no “official” religion in the original states, their colonial charters often did not make a distinction between religion and government. It was understood that a just government was built on “Christian” principles and that non-Christians were to be “tolerated” for their beliefs (frequently with the hope that “Jews, Turks, and Infidels” would become Christian). A few states taxed their citizens to support religious organizations; in others, the rights of minority groups such as Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics and Quakers were restricted. In most states, non-Christians were denied the rights of full citizenship, such as holding public office. Even in religiously liberal Rhode Island, Jews were not allowed to vote, although their status as merchants and economic contributors protected them from overt discrimination.

The clause in the First Amendment that reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” did little to erase these injustices. Its intent was to prevent the government from creating an official “state” religion and to guarantee the absolute right to a free exercise of religion – at least at the Federal level of government.

However, to get this and the other amendments passed by the required majority of the states, Washington sought help from both politicians and clergy. Following his inauguration in April of 1789, Washington received many letters of congratulation from religious organizations (particularly those that had experienced discrimination in this country) each praising his leadership in the fight to maintain religious liberty in the new country. Washington responded to these letters, clearly expressing his desire to see religious freedom as the law of the land. He wrote to the United Baptist churches in Virginia, the General Assembly of Presbyterian churches, the Methodists, the Congregational ministers, and in March of 1790, wrote to the Roman Catholics.

Each letter stressed the principle of religious liberty and, as in his address to the annual meeting of the Quakers, pledged that the new country would preserve the right to worship “each according to his conscious and to his God.”

American Jewish congregations were also eager to send greetings to the new President. In June of 1790, the leaders of New York’s Shearith Israel (following up on a proposal offered by Manuel Josephson of Mikve Israel in Philadelphia), circulated a letter to the Hebrew congregations of Newport, Philadelphia, Richmond and Charleston, asking that the congregations join together in writing to Washington. This effort was apparently prompted, in part, by the address sent in May 1790 to President Washington by the Mikveh Israel congregation of Savannah, Georgia, acting alone. Writing on behalf of the Hebrew congregation in Newport, Moses Seixas replied on July 2, 1790 that his congregation, while sympathetic with the idea of a joint address, was reluctant to give offense to the state legislature by addressing the president before that body had done so. Consequently, his congregation waited until the President visited Newport in August of 1790 to address him separately. The remaining congregations in New York, Richmond, Philadelphia and Charleston prepared a joint letter that was not sent until December, 1790.

Washington’s response to the Newport group’s address, the Letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, was sent August 21, 1790. As in other letters to Jewish congregations, the President explicitly acknowledges Jewish participation in the new nation. However, the Newport letter stands out for its clear and unequivocal language. Washington writes, “May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants.” He goes on to oppose the mere “toleration” of religious differences and instead emphasizes religious liberty in “the exercise of inherent natural rights,” echoing the Declaration of Independence.

American historian Melvin Urofsky has written:

Although this letter carries with it a unique and cherished significance for American Jewry, in many ways it is a treasure of the entire nation. America, as de Tocqueville [a French political thinker and historian who visited America in the early 1800s] famously wrote, had been “born free,” unfettered by the religious and social bigotries of medieval Europe. The United States, although initially founded by people from the British Isles, had well before the Revolution become a haven of many peoples from continental Europe seeking political and religious freedom and economic opportunity. The new nation recognized this diversity for what it was, one of the country’s greatest assets, and took as its motto E Pluribus Unum—Out of Many, One…. The separation of church and state, and with it the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, has made the United States a beacon of hope to oppressed peoples everywhere.4

Washington’s commitment to religious liberty, the involvement of all people in the new democracy and the campaign for passage of the Bill of Rights combined on that August day in Newport, Rhode Island. The result is the Letter to the Hebrew Congregations of Newport, a profound statement of the values that make America an example to the world.

Gentlemen:

While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced on my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security.

If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people.

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity.

May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.G. Washington

Endnotes and citations to Religious Liberties

1 “Letter to the Jews of Newport”, 18 August 1790, Washington Papers, 6:284-85

2 The Papers of George Washington Digital Edition, ed. Theodore J. Crackel.
Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, Rotunda, 2007. Accessed (24 Nov 2007) in
http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/pgwde/search-Pre06d132

3 “Moses Seixas on behalf of Congregation Yeshuat Israel, to George Washington, 17 August 1790,” in Dorothy Twohig, et. al., eds. The Papers of George Washington: Presidential Series. University Press of Virginia, 1986, 6:286n.1.

4 Newport Jewry and The Touro Synagogue. Melvin Urofsky, unpublished Manuscript, 2003, p.98.