Update no.533

Update from the Heartland

No.533

27.2.12 – 4.3.12

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

Last weekend, we had one of our grand-puppies with us. Jeanne asked, “Where does a not-yet-fully-grown, 120 pound mastiff sit?” Answer: anywhere he wants to sit. Ain’t he cute! Our grand-puppy Archie is such a big sweetie.

Jeanne and Archie

[file: Jeanne_Archie 120226.jpg]

The follow-up news items:
-- Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland signed into law the state’s Civil Marriage Protection Act [House Bill 438], amending §§2–201 and 2–202 to allow same-sex marriage [532]. Maryland joins seven others and the District of Columbia in allowing same-sex marriages.

The Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama signed an executive order on 28.February.2012, that defies §1031, Subtitle D, Title X, Division A of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 [PL 112-081; 125 Stat. xxxx; 31.December.2011]. I have not found or read the order, yet. According to the WSJ report, the President’s order does not comply with the law signed a mere two months ago. The President has directly challenged Congress on the detention and potential prosecution of battlefield combatants in the War on Islamic Fascism. We have much to learn before we go too far with prognostications.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that the U.S. Treasury Department disrupted a Dubai-based banking operation, believed to be the primary conduit by which the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) evaded the international sanctions and processed its oil sales. The object of the operation was the Noor Islamic Bank, which is partly owned by the Dubai government. The bank’s chairman is Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, son of Dubai's ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Needless to say, the sensitivity and importance of the operations would be difficult to over state. The Journal article reported that the bank handled as much as 60% of the IRI’s foreign oil sales by late last year. The work of the War on Islamic Fascism continues.

The State Department announced a “deal” with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, AKA North Korea) to stop long-range missile launches, nuclear tests and uranium enrichment at its main facility, in exchange for U.S. food aid. We shall see soon enough whether Kim Jung Un will be different and more progressive than his father and grandfather.

Virtually every day during the silly season, we are bombarded by nonsense that is politically and intentionally biased in the grand scheme of Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels. A friend sent this video for my assessment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=HcBaSP31Be8&vg=medium
I receive a lot of these from both sides of the aisle. Rarely do the political antagonists give us enough of a thread to grab a hold of for examination. The video did not offer citations, so corroboration was not easy. I started with the very first statement:
Page 22: “MANDATES The Government WILL audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS who self insure.”
The subject of the video “exposé” is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148; 124 Stat. 119; 23.March.2010] [432]. The video did not offer associated citations, only implied references. My source is the United States Statutes at Large – Public Laws, Volume 124 (2010), the official public document of U.S. common law. I do not know what the authors of the video used. Doing the best I could, page 22 is actually 124 Stat. 141: Subtitle B – Immediate Actions to Preserve and Expand Coverage; §1101 – Immediate Access to Insurance for Uninsured Individuals with a Preexisting Condition (42 USC 18001). I am sure it cannot be a surprise that there is not one word about mandates, audits, self-insured, nothing that even remotely resembles the statement reported to be on page 22. So, I searched the entire document for the association of those words; no joy – not a good start. So, I moved to the second statement.
Page 29, Lines 4-16: “HEALTHCARE RATIONING – You can only receive so much ‘care’ per year, $5,000 per single, $10,000 per family.”
Page 29 is 124 Stat. 148: §1104. Administrative Simplification (pages 146-154 [pages 27-36]. On that page, there is not one mention of dollars or even numbers of any kind. So, I searched the entire document for $5,000. There were four (4) citations of $5,000; each one dealt with penalties for violations of the law, not rationing or allocation of health care. I imagine, as is often the case, the author took an unreasonably generous interpretation of some unspecified section of the PPACA law.
Two searches took enough of my time. My results are sufficient to portray the subject video for what it is, a clever, implied-authentic, little ditty crafted and intended to play to the emotions of those citizens who are not likely to check the facts. Goebbels would be proud. ‘Nuf said! Let the citizen beware.

1:
“God and Caesar in America – Why Mixing Religion and Politics Is Bad for Both”
by David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam
Foreign Affairs
Published: March/April 2012
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137100/david-e-campbell-and-robert-d-putnam/god-and-caesar-in-america
2:
“Failure to communicate across the God gap”
by Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services
Wichita Eagle
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012, at 5:23 p.m
http://www.kansas.com/2012/02/29/2234509/failure-to-communicate-across.html
3:
“The War on Fertility – The left's birth-control fixation is about more than sexual freedom”
by James Taranto
Wall Street Journal

Published: March 2, 2012 -- 8:24 p.m. EST
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203753704577257554162590884.html
The disgusting Rush Limbaugh fiasco swirling around his “slut” – “prostitute” broadcast condemnation of the congressional testimony of Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke along with the Thomas and Taranto opinions above, sparked my fat fingers to pound these little keys. As I have written previously and will continue to write, I appreciate the concerns and arguments. I also respect the opinions of others with whom I disagree. What I absolutely refuse to condone, accept or tolerate is the imposition upon all citizens by a willful, tyrannical majority or influential minority. This whole “God gap,” “war on religion,” “culture war” nonsense has nothing to do with the soul of America, or the sanctity of marriage and the American family. This is solely, purely and simply about power and control. They are desperately defending the walls of THE BOX of the American Dream – conform or else. The sanctimonious hypocrisy remains intellectually repulsive to me. They argue the social issues from what they perceive to be righteous high-ground, while they advocate diametrically opposite states; they want the government out of health care at the very same time they demand the government control a woman’s uterus and reproductive physiology. They emphatically believe anyone who does not believe that they do is immoral, anti-religious, anti-God atheists. To me, the only difference between the moral projectionists in this Grand Republic and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan is violence; they have not resorted to violence to enforce their moral values . . . oh wait, I guess they have – assassinations, bombings, terrorist intimidation; maybe they are not as different as I thought. We simply must get government and the moral projectionists out of our bodies, our bedrooms, our families, and out of our homes. The law should, nay must, focus on public conduct, and we must repeal all these damnable laws that attempt to regulate private behavior. There is no culture clash, or gap, or morality war. Let us all illuminate this nonsense for what it is – a frantic effort to impose their choices on everyone else.

Another court case from my Reading file . . . On 16.July.1944, defense plant worker Irene Morgan (Kirkaldy), then a 27-year-old woman, was arrested in Virginia for failure to comply with §4097 of the Virginia Code of 1942. Her crime you ask? She had dark skin pigmentation! On a crowded bus, while trying to return to her Baltimore home, she refused to give up her seat for a boarding couple with light skin pigmentation. Her conviction worked its way through the state courts up the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. Morgan appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court – Morgan v. Virginia [328 U.S. 373 (1946)] – not on Equal Protection grounds but rather under the Commerce Clause. Associate Justice Stanley Forman Reed wrote for the majority and concluded, “As there is no federal act dealing with the separation of races in interstate transportation, we must decide the validity of this Virginia statute on the challenge that it interferes with commerce, as a matter of balance between the exercise of the local police power and the need for national uniformity in the regulations for interstate travel. It seems clear to us that seating arrangements for the different races in interstate motor travel require a single, uniform rule to promote and protect national travel. Consequently, we hold the Virginia statute in controversy invalid.” I learned an interesting little factoid from my reading. The Court noted the ambiguity of an essential definition in the Virginia statute. How does one define “colored” under the law? Well, footnote 28 illuminated the answer. The Virginia Code of 1887, §49, defined “colored” as any person who had one-fourth or more Negro blood. The definition was amended in 1910 (Acts, 1910, p. 581) to read one-sixteenth or more, and amended again in 1930 (Acts, 1930, p. 97), to its form at the time of the case, to “any ascertainable Negro blood.” The Court was not particularly concerned about the ethics of the definition, only its relevance to the Virginia state statute. We look back today with embarrassed incredulity. Yet, I wonder, how did those learned men rationalize such arbitrariness and outright scientific nonsense? Negro blood? Really? “Ascertain” by what means? I defy anyone to quantitatively determine and ascertain “Negro blood,” even with today’s technology. There is no such substance. Serological blood typing cannot establish the race or ethnicity of the donor. Regardless, worse yet, Associate Justice Harold Hitz Burton wrote a dissenting opinion, in which he attempted to validate the Virginia statute on simple grounds that such laws were the sole domain of the state’s and that no constitutional footing had been established. While the Court arrived at the correct judgment – the Virginia “Jim Crow” law was unconstitutional – they arrived at their decision for the wrong reasons. Justice Burton was the only member of the Supremes to note the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection implications; and, he was correct to question the wisdom and validity of striking down the state law under the Commerce Clause. Despite the Court’s decision, segregated Southern states ignored the Court and the Federal Executive failed to enforce it. Taken in the main, the Morgan ruling graphically demonstrates the difficulty with the law or any grouping of words. The judicial ruminations focused on the relationship between the states and the Federal government. Irene Morgan is not mentioned by name in the entire pronouncement (except by her familial name in the title). The insult and violation of her dignity was immaterial, only the authority of the Federal Judiciary was in question. The Morgan case is an excellent example of why understanding the law and the interpretation of the law is so bloody important. There but for the Grace of God go I!

News from the economic front:
-- The European Central Bank (ECB) issued €529.5B (US$712.8B) in low interest, three-year loans to 800 lenders, in the bank’s effort to truncate the financial crisis now entering its third year, as banks struggle to pay off maturing debts, and also to mitigate a sharp pullback in bank lending to customers across the Euro Zone. This latest round comes behind €489B of similar loans dispersed to more than 500 banks in late December. We are not out of the woods, yet.

Comments and contributions from Update no.532:
Comment to the Blog:
“Just to emphasize an important point: if at any time in any situation the Constitution is ‘an instrument of convenience,’ then all Constitutional arguments, principles, etc., become meaningless and the US legal system collapses. I am still not a lawyer, but I think that overrides all details.
“I noted that the target deficit figure (not current number, the target figure) in the Greek tragedy is 120% of GDP, noticeably higher than the current US figure of 102%. (Be suspicious of all figures in this debate; mine comes from USDebtClock.org, of which I know nothing.) Of course, the US could still improve its position by dropping pointless waste such as marijuana enforcement and Defense Department programs that are opposed by the Defense Department. I noted gladly that private lenders to the Greeks are taking a hit; pain changes behavior.
“I cannot see extreme austerity as a solution to a crashed economy. That notion is usually based on Adam Smith’s work, but Smith opposed the limited liability that is the foundation of corporations; his ideas were never meant to be applied to the current world economy. If the owners (shareholders) of corporations were held personally liable for the actions of the corporations, that would change the economy beyond belief, probably in a harmful way. Smith’s theories worked well in the England of his time, the quintessential ‘nation of shopkeepers,’ but the scale and the limited liability factor of today’s economy defeat them.
“I think the correct common term for ‘moral projection’ is ‘theocracy.’ At least, that’s what I derived from the links in the follow-up contribution at the end of today’s blog. Santorum’s overstepping in even bringing up the concept of ‘theology’ as right or wrong in a politician is a clear clue, and it scares relatively legitimate Republicans to death. They are well aware that a majority of voters know better than to listen to the ravings of this lunatic. The Tea Party has become the tail wagging the GOP dog, as predicted by many.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: Constitution, an “instrument of convenience.” Exactly, which is precisely why I disagreed with Justice Grier’s dissenting opinion in Texas v. White.
Re: Greek debt. Your admonition to be wary of statistics is valid and appropriate, but also works both ways. The Debt-to-GDP ratio may actually understate the severity of the Greek tragedy. Greece has become the paramount example of the consequences of spending beyond your means. Greece was not invaded; this was a self-inflicted wound.
Re: austerity. Indeed! Crushing Greece, or other debt-ridden nations, into the Dark Ages serves no one. Conversely, borrowing money far beyond its means to fuel its socialist largesse and corruption may have been a suicidal bluff that is being called by the responsible nations who are expected to pay for such fiscal irresponsibility.
Re: moral projection vs. theocracy. If theocracy is defined as a system of government by clerics claiming a divine commission, then I would disagree. If we broaden the definition to say a willful majority of citizens claiming divine guidance enforcing their moral values by creating common law, then perhaps we can agree. To me, it is the projection of one set of moral values into the private lives of all citizens . . . by whatever name we wish to use to describe that process.
Side note: I find it most bizarre that Santorum (and other social conservatives) rails against the government getting into our private affairs vis-à-vis PPACA, and in virtually the same breadth he wants to prohibit birth control, abortion, divorce and a myriad of other private, personal choices for all citizens . . . well at least for female citizens. As our British cousins so eloquently say, I am gobsmacked! To me, Senator Santorum’s evangelism is not fundamentally different from Senator John Morris Sheppard of Texas, a century Santorum’s predecessor. He is no different, and to me, just as objectionable as Sheppard.
Bottom line: I cannot imagine Sanctorum garnering sufficient support to win the national presidential election.

Another contribution:
“There are a couple of targets that even we would have a hard time destroying, actually (we aren't going nuclear) .
“And the Busher reactor is essentially off limits- the Israelis have even alluded to that- as hitting an operating nuclear reactor could spread radiation throughout the region- to friendly countries (think Fukushima). That is why the Israelis were so concerned about it being loaded with fuel and going operational. Once it went operational, it became a non-target realistically
“Hoss Cartwright and Fox Fallon were both very negative on the chances to destroy the Iranian program- both in the meeting and chatting afterwards. Hoss emphasized the heavy costs of a strike- either Isreali or both US and Israeli. The economic costs would be staggering- even if the Iranians couldn't bottle up the Strait of Hormuz for an extended time.
“Also, we have just implemented a very strict action against Iran-- sanctions on the national bank. That had never been done before and already the effects are being painfully felt- the rial has dropped to half its value against the dollar. The Iranians are having tough times importing food and other necessities. Stay tuned, was the message from both Carter and Fallon.
“Below are a couple of other comments- the first from Tom Ricks' column.
-------------------------------------------------------
“The worst possible thing to do is go to war with Iran. The key is the people -- and they are sick of the mullahs. Right now the pressure is working to separate the people from the regime. A limited strike would undercut all that.
“Also, any attack would cause us to maintain a heightened, more expensive defense posture, and give them moral standing to retaliate.
“So an attack is counter to all our long-term objectives. We are having more effect right now through economic pressure than ever before
“There is no doubt [that there is a huge divergence between U.S. interests and those of Israel]. We want to stop Israel from attacking so the issue is how to persuade Israel that we are serious about stopping Iran from having a weapon -- like a congressional finding that we will take all steps necessary to stop Iran. It means we will define red lines that can't be crossed.
“But the bottom line is, I don't know a single person in government, civilian or in uniform, who thinks it is in our national interest to go to war with Iran now.
“If we do go to war, it will not be small. Iran could reconstitute its nuclear program in maybe five years, but if we go after its abilities to project military power, we'd open a 15-year window.”
-------------------------------------
“Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Israel’s secret intelligence service, Mossad, has rightly argued that toppling Assad and weakening Hizbullah is a far more important and strategic opportunity for Israel today than a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Hizbullah has 50,000 rockets aimed at Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. Syria has hundreds of SCUD missiles tipped with chemical warheads that could end up in Hizbullah’s hands.”

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)