Update from the
Heartland
No.813
24.7.17 – 30.7.17
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To
all,
The follow-up news items:
-- By the end of 2021, the U.K. intends to phase out the
London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR) [550
& sub] after the scandal-plagued benchmark was fraudulently manipulated by
currency traders at numerous banks, nudging it up or down by submitting false
data. LIBOR is used to set the
price of trillions of dollars of loans around the world.
You
know, frankly, I would not be surprised if the Donald is intentionally
directing the leaks from the White House to give himself plenty of fodder to
rail against and condemn the Press as the magnetic field attracting those
leaks.
Further,
as a student of history, a common and near universal technique of dictators is to
create chaos by direct, overt means or surreptitious activities, so that they
can appear strong in resolving the conflict they created.
I
am becoming more and more suspicious.
Yet,
Trump has resolved nothing. The
chaos just keeps getting worse.
Trump has actually made it worse by his actions alone, set aside the leaks
and turmoil around him. Are we
headed toward a contemporary attempt at an “Enabling Act” in the United States?
In
rather dramatic fashion, Senator John McCain of Arizona cast the deciding vote
against the so-called ‘Skinny’ Repeal of PPACA – actually S.Amdt.667 to S.Amdt.267
of H.R.1628 (American Health Care Act of 2017). The flurry of Republican activity in the Senate to repeal
(and replace sometime) has once again fallen short. President Trump was none too happy and lashed out at anyone
and everyone. Democrats had damn
well better not gloat in all this failure. I continue to wonder how much more of this nonsense will be
necessary before someone (or group of someones) figures out that cooperation,
collaboration, compromise and a sense of greater purpose are required to
improve and enhance the gains of the PPACA. This is NOT some ideological battle. We are touching the lives of real
American citizens. The individual
and employee mandates are necessary to compel coverage for all citizens, just
as mandatory automobile insurance is required in every state.
I
will never even attempt to argue that PPACA was the end state. It was a rather lame effort toward
universal health care for all citizens.
The PPACA had more than a few serious (if not fatal) flaws; however, it
was a valiant attempt to achieve a noble purpose. Let’s drop the misplaced aversion to President Obama and
move on to a more enlightened state to fix the weaknesses of the PPACA and
abandon this archaic notion of repealing the PPACA. I say, thank you Senator McCain for your courage to stand up
for the American People.
Now,
let us move on to improve the PPACA and help ALL Americans, whether they know
or not they need that help.
I found the following Wall
Street Journal editorial illuminating.
“Trump’s Sessions Abuse – His demand that his AG prosecute
Clinton crosses a red line.”
by The Editorial Board
Wall
Street Journal
Published: July 25, 2017; 7:54 p.m. ET
They observed:
“If Mr. Trump wants someone to
blame for the existence of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, he can pick up a
mirror. That open-ended probe is
the direct result of Mr. Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey
months into his Russia investigation and then tweet that Mr. Comey should hope
there are no Oval Office tapes of their meeting. That threat forced Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to
appoint a special counsel.”
I simply add . . . spot on correct! Someone please hand the man the
necessary mirror.
Jared
Corey Kushner testified in private to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and
then publicly proclaimed, “I did not collude with Russia, nor do I know of
anyone else on the campaign who did so.”
Whew! I feel so much
better. Of course, I believe him .
. . explicitly, without question.
He said it. I heard him say
it. He has never spoken an untruth
or omitted a relevant fact . . . ever.
Yes, I feel so much better.
Thank you, Jared.
President
Trump tweeted Wednesday morning . . . yes, tweeted:
"Our military must be focused on decisive and
overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs
and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."
He claims “my generals” strongly requested the President’s
intervention in the matter of transgender members of the military
services. Well, apparently, he has
his own imaginary army, now. The
Joint Chiefs of Staff (the real generals & admirals) and the Secretary of
Defense publicly claimed no knowledge of the initiative and vowed to take no
action until the President clarifies his directions (in proper form, I might
add).
I
agree with the President. Our
military services must be focused on decisive operations, and when necessary,
upon achieving overwhelming victory.
The military is a combat force, a fighting force, not a tool of social
change. I am not sure what
“tremendous medical costs” he is referring to in his Tweet. If the military is paying for gender
reassignment surgery, I will again stand with the President – that is NOT a reasonable expense for the
military services. That said, I
doubt the veracity of the President’s statement; I just do not believe him or
his Tweet. Over the years, I freely
admit I have modified my position regarding eligibility and retention in the
military services, including the combat arms (infantry, armor, artillery &
aviation); I have learned. The
issue of eligibility and retention should be based solely upon performance at
or above the standards required for any particular position, i.e., not all citizens
are capable of being combat pilots.
The social factors (age, gender, religion, skin pigmentation, ethnicity,
political affiliation, sexual orientation, and [to a certain extent]
disability) should not be allowed to affect military service for any citizen
who wishes to serve in defense of this Grand Republic. Regarding the service of transgender
citizens, the President is wrong, again!
Congress
slapped the President in the face rather hard this week when they
overwhelmingly passed An Act To provide congressional
review and to counter aggression by the Governments of Iran, the Russian
Federation, and North Korea, and for other purposes (AKA Countering America's Adversaries Through
Sanctions Act) [PL 115-xxx; H.R.3364; Senate:
98-2-0-0(0); House: 419-3-0-11(2); 131
Stat. xxxx]. Interestingly, the two senators who voted against the
sanctions bill were Ron Paul of Kentucky (Republican) and Bernie Sanders of
Vermont (Independent).
After
the President’s consistent and persistent lovey-dovey with Putin and Russia,
this sanctions bill has to really hurt, since it applies significant
congressional oversight of the execution of these new sanctions. The White House indicated the President
is likely to veto the bill. If he
does, it will be a symbolic rather than an effectual action. He will undoubtedly pick up a few representatives
and senators who are staunch supporters, but the congressional override of his
veto would appear to be inevitable.
Apparently,
Putin has had enough and decided that Trump will not be able to overcome
Congress and the U.S. Intelligence Community with his force of
personality. This week, Russia
began the process of reciprocal retaliatory actions to expel double the number
of American diplomats in Russia that the United States expelled in January by
direction of President Obama. They
also intend to seize U.S. government property in Russia in similar fashion as
the Obama administration did.
As
a footnote: I could not find any imbedded pork-barrel legislation in my
read-through of the subject bill.
It appears Congress really wants to make a precise point with this
president. I anxiously await the
President’s action.
The
first axiom of public speaking is never lead with an apology. [Side note: at least the Donald NEVER
has to worry about violating that axiom.]
I am a far more humble and insignificant citizen than our illustrious
president, so I choose to violate the first axiom.
I
offer my sincere and heartfelt apologies to all my friends and subscribers who
remain stalwart loyalists and supporters of President Trump. I simply cannot resist yet another
striking similarity between our current president and past dictators.
One
of Hitler’s infamous traits was pitting one faction against another . . . part
of his chaos theory of governance.
I am sorry that I keep harping on the similarities between Trump and
Hitler, but the comparisons are simply unavoidable. The latest chaos comes in the form of the resignation of
White House Chief of Staff Reinhold Richard ‘Reince’ Priebus in the wake of a
profanity-laced, blistering, vitriolic rant against his colleagues in the White
House staff by new Communications Director Anthony ‘the Mooch’ Scaramucci. Whether American citizens choose to
ignore the realities and implications of the instability in the White House,
the facts are unalterable and the similarities to past dictators are
inescapable. I’m just sayin’.
I
must acknowledge the dignified, professional and respectable conduct of Priebus
in his first public interview after his resignation. His conduct in the light of surrounding events speaks
volumes for the man’s character, self-confidence and strength. I wish him well as he moves onto his
next challenge.
President
Trump chose Secretary of Homeland Security General John Kelly to replace
Priebus as White House Chief of Staff, and surprisingly, Kelly accepted the new
assignment. I have a lot of
respect for and faith in General Kelly.
He is no yes-man or lackey of anyone. It will be interesting to see if he can instill some sense
of discipline and stability in what appears to be a rather dysfunctional White
House staff, especially with the reality of ‘hit man’ ‘Mooch’ lurking about the
halls.
Further,
rumor has it, President Trump is considering whether to move Attorney General
Sessions to replace Kelly at Homeland Security, which would then free him up to
replace Sessions at Justice and appear to solve his current dilemma, at least
in part – how to rein in or quash the special counsel investigation.
The
DPRK fired off another long-range ballistic missile on Friday. Although the Defense Department is
still assessing the data collected from the launch, the preliminary
calculations suggest the latest missile has the range potential to reach most
of the United States. The actual
range would depend upon the payload weight the missile carried.
President
Trump threw more red meat to his supporters during a campaign-like pep rally in
Youngstown Ohio, on Wednesday evening. Among his many self-aggrandizing remarks, he said (and I
quote):
“Political correctness for me is easy.
Sometimes they say he [Trump] doesn't act presidential. And I say, hey look,
great schools, smart guy, it's so easy to act presidential but that's not gonna
get it done. In fact, I said it's
much easier, by the way, to act presidential than what we're doing here
tonight, believe me. And I said --
and I said with the exception of the late great Abraham Lincoln, I can
be more presidential than any president that's ever held this office. That I can tell you. It's real
easy. But sadly, we have to move a
little faster than that.”
[emphasis added by me]
[emphasis added by me]
First, the audacity of such a statement is
mind-boggling. Second, I can only
surmise that he truly believes the majority of American citizens, or at least
those citizens who vote, are ignorant of history. Third, he consistently returns to comparable forms of his
“shoot someone” pronouncement [755, 23.January.2016],
i.e., his supporters will accept anything and everything he says or does as
gospel-fact. As of this moment, he
is spot-on correct on all counts.
The stark cold reality may well be, he knows us better than we know
ourselves. I have to give him
credit; he has garnered unwavering loyalty from a substantial number of American
citizens. They believe in him as
if he was the messiah.
Disrupt
Washington, upset the ruling class elite . . . I’m all in favor of that. What I cannot support is his manner of
doing it. He is depending upon our
ignorance . . . that the majority of voting American citizens does not know or
care about history . . . that his self-aggrandizing, self-promoting, unilateral
declarations will not (never) be challenged.
Oh,
yes, I do believe you, Donald. You
said it with your own words in front of a public audience, so it must be true.
The
mid-term elections will offer us all another look-see, but judgment day will be
Tuesday, 3.November.2020.
Comments and contributions from Update no.812:
“I’ve been somewhat
appalled over the years we have communicated that your country does not seem to
have a proper organised health care system for all. Yes our system has its
problems with overloaded hospitals but we can and do when needed ring our
surgery and obtain free treatment no matter what our financial state is, with
or without health care insurance. Of course we, but not all, pay for it in our
national insurance tax. I really do completely fail to understand why the USA
does not adopt a similar system to over here. Can you explain that one?”
My reply:
Re:
U.S. universal health care. “Can
you explain that one?”
Actually, I am nearly speechless.
It is a true societal shame.
From my perspective, the reality and disgrace of which you speak is
caught up in the politics of division in this Grand Republic. The fear and revulsion of communism and
by inference socialism runs deep and broad across this country. Since the inception of this Grand
Republic, there have been a persistent tension between government and
taxes. What you witness today is
that tension. I find the
inhumanity of that tension the most troubling. That is the best I can do. I will also note that the election of our current president
is a direct reflection of that tension as well.
A different contribution:
“Oh, come on! Where
to start...
“Well, let's start at the end. You query, with little room for charity:
‘For
ALL the believers and supporters of Donald John Trump: Is there a limit to your
tolerance of his behavior, conduct, ethics (or paucity
thereof)? Will you in fact vote
for him and worship him even if he has committed a felony, or he does commit a
felony like stand ‘in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody.’ Where is the limit?”
“My answer: I am a believer and supporter of the person who was by
far the best choice we had for POTUS, but I never did and never will worship
the very human chauvinistic spoiled bully business man elected by the heartland
of America in spite of the leftist and lefter coasts. The limit? As to criminal allegations, how about innocent until proven
guilty? As to the rest, give him a
chance to at least start draining the swamp. Maybe even help by
advocating constitutional amendment(s) to limit U.S. senators to one term and
representatives to two terms and eliminating their power to pass any
legislation that does not app[y equally to them as to us.
My response:
Re:
“the
best choice we had for POTUS.”
On that, we shall respectfully disagree.
Re:
“man
elected by the heartland of America in spite of the leftist and lefter coasts.” Quite so. That is the reality of 2016.
Re:
“innocent
until proven guilty?” No
credible person has accused him of a crime, or presented evidence sufficient
for probable cause of a crime. So,
why is the President so curious about the limits of his constitutional pardon
authority? Why is he obstructing
the investigation rather than encouraging a speedy conclusion? Why is he acting so bloody guilty? Nonetheless, if our standard of conduct
for POTUS is felonious criminal conduct, then yes, you are quite correct. He is innocent until proven guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.
I
truly hope and trust that when we look back on this time frame we will
collectively say, he did it. I
would love to say I was wrong.
That said, the signs to date have not been positive toward that
end. Nonetheless, you and others
have consistently requested to give the man a chance. I respect your wishes.
I shall do my best, but I cannot avoid illuminating his transgressions
that detract, detour and diverge from that objective you state.
Re:
“constitutional
amendment(s).” Yep, I could
support all of those. Plus, I
would add other amendments:
1. Balanced budget with mandatory enactment before the first day of the subject fiscal year;
2. Election campaign reform to eliminate dark money as inconsistent with the First Amendment; and
3. After the experience of this administration, an ethics enforcement amendment.
1. Balanced budget with mandatory enactment before the first day of the subject fiscal year;
2. Election campaign reform to eliminate dark money as inconsistent with the First Amendment; and
3. After the experience of this administration, an ethics enforcement amendment.
. . . follow-up
comment:
“We are in agreement, as usual in principle with few attitudinal
exceptions. I accept that you ‘cannot avoid illuminating his
transgressions...’, and I trust that you and all patriots will continue to do
so. Maybe he will listen.
“Thanks for adding the other hugely important amendments. I keep hearing that some balanced budget
amendment is about to be considered by Congress, but I am not encouraged
because RINOs are RINOs and Dems are Dems and always the twain shall meet on
this subject or, indeed, terms limits. I have asked my senators and representative repeatedly to
support these, and I get polite agreement but no action.”
. . . and my follow-up
response:
Re:
“Maybe
he will listen.” That would
truly be a good thing. However,
frankly, I doubt he has the capacity to listen . . . after all, he alone can
solve any problem. He needs no
counsel. Therefore, why should he
listen to anyone, since by definition we are all of lesser wisdom, intellect,
experience or imagination than himself.
By
design, constitutional amendments are not easy to accomplish . . . of that I am
a realist. Yeah, I cannot imagine
Congress supporting a balanced budget amendment, since it would constrain their
ability to spend money on their favorite largesse, and spend beyond their
means. There would have to be
specific exceptions, e.g., declared state of war.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
