Apologies to the people of Canada, especially Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.  I am very sorry about the way President Trump and some members of his administration have treated you and spoken disrespectfully about you.

I have always lived in the Northeast United States and think of Canada as a close neighbor who shares our values. I have Canadian friends. My spouse B has a French-Canadian surname and relatives in Canada.

It makes no sense for the Trump administration to violate current, ratified trade treaties with additional tariffs and I am disappointed that Congress has not stepped in to stop it. Many Americans have been speaking out and preparing for the Congressional election in hopes of electing representatives who will uphold our values and laws on both the national and international level.

While I am apologizing, I would also like to express regret about how the President is treating our allies in the G7, the European Union, and NATO. I also am appalled with how DT insults developing countries in both hemispheres. And how his announced withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement in November, 2020 has negatively impacted the world community. Many cities, states, companies, and individuals are continuing to work to keep our climate commitments despite the current administration.

I know I am just one voice and alone have little impact, but there are many others speaking out and together we will eventually reassert our best American values.

Author: Joanne Corey

Please come visit my eclectic blog, Top of JC's Mind. You can never be sure what you'll find!

19 thoughts on “apologies”

  1. I know and I think the world knows that he is not a true representative of the American people. I am sorry for the way he is dragging your country through the mud. Hopefully the damage that he is doing locally and globally will not be irreversible . thank you for your apology but you have nothing to apologize for, he does.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Thank you so much. It is distressing that DT is trashing our national integrity and I hope that we will make our way through it, although repairing the damage will take a long time. I think the guilt comes from my Catholic understanding of social sin. As a citizen and member of society, I feel responsible for actions taken by our government, even though I am not able to affect them as an individual. It does help to know that most Canadians – and most likely others around the world – separate Trump and his administration from Americans as people.


    1. Thanks, Linda. It seems that every day more and more alarming evidence of corruption emerges. The timeline of the investigations is long, though, and I don’t think it will be possible to press charges or force a resignation until next year at the earliest. I am very worried about possible tampering with the Congressional election in November, given what happened two years ago. We desperately need a Congress that is willing to take up their Constitutional duties and put the country above political party and self-interest.


      1. Indeed. My province of Ontario just elected a leader who is being compared to Trump. I, too, hope our MPPs (members of provincial parliament) follow the best interests of their constituents rather than blindly follow the leader. And that we can keep our Liberal federal government.


        1. Oh, dear. I hope your new leader in Ontario is more reasonable and not as much of a bully as Trump and that your Parliament will keep him in check and accountable to the people.


  2. What in God’s name are you apologizing for? Have you actually seen how badly the US has been taken in trade by our so-called allies (not to mentioned China and so many others? Or are you just yet another American who hates the president more than you love our country? It shouldn’t take much for your to see in Broome county just how much unbalanced trade has impacted us! What does manufacturing look like there?

    Here are some numbers for you to apologize about relative to how much Canada imposes on all Americans in the US for tariffs compared to what YOUR country (I hope) imposes on Canada since NAFTA began in 1993 to 2017:

    1. Cars: Canada imposes a 25% tariff, US 2.5%
    2. Steel: Canada 40%, US 0%
    3. Aluminum: Canada 40%, US 0%
    4. Copper: Canada 48%, US 0%
    5. HVAC equipment: Canada 45%, US 0%
    6. Vacuums: Canada 35%, US 3.5%
    7. Televisions: Canada 45%, US 5%

    Here’s a suggestion before you pontificate to the illinformed choir, how about spending more time researching why President Trump is doing what he’s doing (for the American worker) and less time apologizing for something you obviously know nothing about. Unbelievable!


    1. I was apologizing for the name calling and insults and the fact that Trump disrespected the gathering by arriving late, leaving early, and backing out of a joint statement after agreeing to it.

      NAFTA is a treaty that was duly ratified by our Congress. The executive branch does not have authority to change it. The national security excuse the President is using is unwarranted. That is not to say that NAFTA can’t be changed but it needs to be mutually agreed upon by all the countries and ratified by the appropriate government entities in each country before changes take effect.

      I care a lot about our country and have great respect for our Constitution and the balance of powers. I also respect the prominent place that the United States occupies in the world and want us to negotiate in good faith and keep our promises, treaties, and international agreements intact. Why should North Korea reach any agreements with the United States when the Trump administration has backed out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accord?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Got it. Thanks for that clarification. President Trump can be harsh in his spoken word, and that oftentimes is offensive to those whom he directs his insults. I can accept that. Trump tends to punch back when punched first. I actually like that. The last president was very weak and as a consequence, our friends didn’t seem to respect us and our enemies certainly didn’t fear us. How many times has Iran taunted our service men and women in the open sea since Trump has been president? None. Trump says publicly what we’ve heard many other presidents say quietly – and at times, they have unwittedly been caught on an open mic. I would much prefer a person who can speak his/her mind openly – good or bad. That way the receiver knows exactly where the sender stands. Trump does exactly that.

        Now, NAFTA is not as you would say “a treaty duly ratified by our Congress”. Although that sounds really nice and scholarly, NAFTA (North American Free Trade AGREEMENT) is not even technically a treaty. Note the word ‘Agreement’. It is actually what we in the US refer to as a Congressional-Executive Agreement (CEA). Even it if were a treaty, you must be aware that the Consitution is silent on which branch can actually terminate a treaty. Similarly, there is also glaring Constitutional silence on CEA termination. Where in the Constitution does it say ‘the Executive branch doesn’t have the authority to change it’ as you have asserted? There is no such language. (Additional note: The question on who can terminate a treaty has never even been addressed in American jurisprudence.). I just don’t know how you can say otherwise. Have you actually read the Constituation?

        Look, I could continue much deeper here to address your comments about the Iran deal the Paris Climate Accord, but will spare you the long diatribe other than to state an observation: Our country remains divided. When we as citizens assert halftruths, offer conjecture and utilize speculation as though it is fact, we as citizens exacerbate the deep divide rather than finding common ground for the good of our nation.

        This is your blog. I thank you for allowing me to participate. You have every right to state freely your thoughts, ideas and opinions. But if we do so inaccurately, what are we actually accomplishing?


        1. Thanks for your reply. The Constitution does give responsibility for commerce, other than within states, to the Congress. The executive branch is called on to execute what Congress ratified. The provision that the president is invoking to override the process -national security – is, in my opinion, unwarranted against an ally when the US is not dealing with wartime production issues such as we encountered in World War II.

          One of the great hallmarks of the United States is that we have over two centuries of peaceful transfer of power from president to president and Congress to Congress. That is what disturbs me so much about the current administration’s decisions to withdraw from prior international agreements. If Iran had violated terms, then the US should have withdrawn, but to do so when Iran was in compliance makes the United States seem untrustworthy as a negotiating partner. I believe Middle East security would have been better had the United States and the other countries involved entered into further negotiation on non-nuclear missiles and other issues to address the very real concerns involved.

          The announced withdrawal from the Paris accord is more puzzling from the standpoint that the targets which each country developed were voluntary. The administration could have announced that the United States intended not to honor that pledge or was changing it without withdrawing from the agreement, which will deny our government a voice in further negotiations. Given that the only two countries that did not sign originally now have, when the United States withdraws it will be alone in the world. I believe that this weakens our international stature, not strengthens it.

          I appreciate your comments and recognition of my right to state my opinion. I do take issue with your supposition that I am ill-informed when my opinions are well within the mainstream on matters of the extent of executive power.


          1. Yes, you’re correct. Constitution does give responsibility to congress for commerce. But which branch must execute same – you got it, the Executive branch. And when there is a disagreement between legislative & executive branches, enter judicial. That is the true ‘hallmark’ of our democracy. However, you raised NAFTA as the issue. My goal in the previous post was to help you better understand its structure. I hope that helped. Is there something specifically to my guidance rendered that you do not agree with? Would be happy to help you further understand by elaborating further.

            The Iran Deal: I do get your point that the US runs the risk of reducing its credibility when reversing a previous administration’s international or even domestic agreement, which why I suspect the current administration has opted to go it alone and not go through the U.N. to commence deeper sanctions against Iran. I’m good with that and even better that we pulled out of the deal. Under that horrific agreement, IAEA doesn’t even have the authority to inspect military installations! Can you imagine? Nuclear weapons aren’t built for anything but war. Why would Iran even have them anywhere but a military facility? I’ll let you contemplate that one. Further, as we continue to learn more about the secret Iran dealings from the previous administration, it looks like the current administration has it right yet again. Check this latest shocking report from liberal leaning The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-took-lying-to-new-heights-with-the-iran-deal/2018/06/07/b75f72d2-6a7c-11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html?utm_term=.a9d8a0aefbcd

            And the Paris Accord -oh Gosh! To me that’s yet another feel good initiative trying to get countries to take a position on the war on climate change. I think the intent is really good. However, in my view, where it falls way short is when you have each individual county having the ability to determine its own path (not an accepted global and universal standard), report on its own progress without independent verification on its individual contribution, and then try to improve upon that for the next report. Worse yet, there is no enforcement mechanism in place to hold the biggest contributors and violators to climate change accountable! What does a silly structure like that mean to the US? Well, we will continue to do our part, spend ungodly amounts of our treasury, impose highly suspect regulations, and if we’re lucky, maybe China and India will catch up to our climate control standards from 1985. Why would we ever want to be a part of that?

            Next issue?


            1. Yes, the NAFTA issue is likely to wind up in court, although I’m not sure if it will be challenged in the US courts or the WTO. Meanwhile, I’m concerned about the impacts of the retaliatory tariffs on our farmers and manufacturers. In my area, the yogurt tariffs may have a significant impact. It is often said that, in a trade war, there are no winners, only losers.

              The whole point of the Iran deal was to stop them from developing nuclear weapons, which they did not have before the agreement and still do not have, as has been verified by international inspection. There were no nuclear missiles at any military bases to subject to inspection. I hope that Iran will continue to abide by the agreement with the remaining signatories so that the world is not again on a countdown to yet another nation with nuclear weapons. (The piece you cite from the Washington Post is an opinion piece, not a report, and I won’t address it without access to more facts.)

              The reason the Paris accord was non-binding was in deference to a handful of countries, including the United States. It would have been better to have enforcement mechanisms in place, but it was not possible. I believe it was better to make an accord and begin working toward goals in each country than to continue to defer action, although I understand that you and others don’t see it that way. China and India are both taking big steps toward controlling emissions, and, like most developing economies, are bypassing high-carbon energy for renewables and instituting distributed generation rather than having to build large grid systems in undeveloped areas. One of the other advantages of the five-year review and recommitment system is that it can adapt easily to economic changes . For example, the cost of solar and wind energy in the United States has dropped much more rapidly than anticipated, although some of the US sanctions may slow solar growth. The availability of lower cost electricity may in turn spur more electric vehicles, which are cheaper to run and maintain even at today’s energy prices. I also understand your viewpoint that the United States should not be doing more than other nations, even though, over the course of the industrial age, we have been the largest carbon emitter. On this issue, my own viewpoint is informed by my commitment to the principles of Catholic social justice and integral ecology, which charges us to make amends for harms that we have done, to care for creation, and to care for all people with particular concern for the most vulnerable. I do understand that many do not share this perspective, but, for me, it is in important part of my faith life.


  3. Am exhausted reading those comments and clarifications.
    As an outsider, watching from Ireland, I am disappointed your countrymen chose such a man and at times cannot believe his conduct, not to mention tweets. His policies I believe, history will show to be ill advised. He reminds me of a bull in a china shop, yes the bull needs to leave the shop but it’s the manner in which it leaves, and the destruction it causes that is the problem.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It is complicated. Due to the structure of voting for president, Trump was elected even though Hillary Clinton had three million votes more than he did. It’s the second time in recent history that the president was elected due to the state-by-state electoral college, while losing the popular vote. There was also the outrageous interference of the Russian government and probably also the Saudis which put out targeted misinformation that swayed voters in key districts. One of the scariest things to me is that the people who believed those lies are now convinced that the press and the FBI and other investigators are the liars.

      The lack of civil discourse from the president and some of his administration and supporters is also difficult for me. While I may disagree with people, I always strive to be civil and to deal with the facts as I understand them. I am also afraid of the amount of long-term damage. I’m not sure if the Republican party will survive as Trump opposes so many of their traditional positions, such as free trade, even though he is ostensibly a Republican.


Any thoughts? Please share.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: