Update no.813

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

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-sessions-abuse-1501026895?mod=djemMER&mg=prod/accounts-wsj

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]

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.

. . . 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                        :-)