Update no.837

Update from the Sunland

No.837

8.1.18 – 14.1.18

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- Congressional Democrats want Vice President Mike Pence to testify under oath on Capitol Hill about what he knows about contacts between Trump transition aides and Russia [782 & sub].  Pence led the Trump transition team.  Democrats believe his role placed him in a position to know about former national security adviser Michael Flynn's dealings with Russia and other foreign governments.  According to an unspecified administration official, Pence is not likely to comply since they see no precedent for such an appearance.  There is no precedent for what happened during the last campaign and election either.  The Minority has little capacity to compel the Vice President’s testimony.

            Well, what is a calm, inquisitive, stable, caring, levelheaded citizen to do?

            After an immigration reform meeting on Thursday at the White House, to solve the DACA situation, Senator Richard Joseph ‘Dick’ Durbin of Illinois publicly stated that the fellow in the Oval Office repeatedly said, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?”  Several other Republican senators tried to avoid validating Senator Durbin’s disclosure of the statement.

            The following day, as is his penchant to do, the fellow in the Oval Office tweeted:

“The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used.  What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made - a big setback for DACA!"

So, who are we to believe—the venerable senator or the consummate snake-oil salesman who loves to use one of his primary tools—“truthful hyperbole”?

            Perhaps the best assessment actually came from the former president of Mexico Vicente Fox Quesada, who tweeted:

“.@realDonaldTrump, your mouth is the foulest shithole in the world.  With what authority do you proclaim who’s welcome in America and who’s not America’s greatness is built on diversity, or have you forgotten your immigrant background, Donald?”

Spot on, Vicente!  Then, perhaps the best graphic of this farce came in the form of the 12.January.2018 cover of the New York Daily News, which speaks volumes.

            There is zero doubt in my little pea-brain that he said precisely those words; they are equally and precisely consistent with his behavior and conduct.  He consistently and persistently fails to recognize or acknowledge that he is not in some corner pub having a pint with the lads; he is the President of the United States of America.  He works for us . . . all of us . . . not just some of us.  It is truly sad, disappointing and perhaps even disgusting that the former president of Mexico understands this Grand Republic better than the fellow in the Oval Office.  My next opportunity to vote cannot come soon enough.

            On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal broke a story that was immediately picked up by numerous national and international Press outlets.  The authors (and the editors accepted the authors’ substantiation) based their story simply on the infamous “people familiar with the matter.”  The authors allege that long-term Trump Organization lawyer Michael Cohen negotiated and made a US$130,000 hush-up payment to adult entertainment performer Stormy Daniels, née Stephanie Gregory Clifford.  Both the fellow in the Oval Office (or at least his minion talking heads) and Clifford have denied any affair, negotiations or payment; as such, the WSJ source(s) most likely came from outside the immediate parties.  Clifford acknowledges attending a celebrity golf event at Lake Tahoe with Trump a year after Trump’s marriage to his third wife Melania.  Apparently, the WSJ authors and editors were confident enough in the credibility of their source(s) and the veracity of the associated information to publish such a story.  Given the penchant of the fellow in the Oval Office for a snake-oil salesman’s “truthful hyperbole,” falsehoods and subterfuge, I am inclined to believe the Journal.  Further, “him” having a one-night-stand affair with an attractive, busty, clearly accomplished, sexual performer is quite consistent with his long established character traits.

            Aside from this revelation, this kerfuffle exhibits the signs and has the feel of an intentional and purposeful leak at the instigation of the fellow in the Oval Office to garner “him” the coveted headlines he craves—good, bad or ugly.  He does not care.  And, based on the publicly available facts, this whole episode may well be a brilliant propaganda event planned and executed to ensure his domination of the headlines.  This has plausible deniability written all over it and they have the Press source boxed in.  Their only risk of exposure is the Wall Street Journal’s code of journalistic conduct, and the gamble that the Journal cherishes its credibility as a Press source far more than the temptation of publicly exposing the Trump Organization complicity in the leak of this information.  Brilliant, I say, brilliant!

            At the bottom line, the allegations at the heart of this story are absolutely consistent with his conduct over a very long time.  He truly and genuinely believes he is entitled to royal prerogative, i.e., the inviolate right to do whatever he wants to whomever he wishes whenever he wants physical gratification.  This whole episode is entirely within character for the fellow in the Oval Office, and I suspect only the snowflake on top of the iceberg of similar events.  Full stop!

            But hey, as always, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

            Citizens in Hawaii suffered a cruel mistake.  At 08:07 [W] HST, Saturday morning, 13.January.2018, an emergency alert was broadcast to highway alert signs, to all mobile phones within range, and other warning systems.

"BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII.  SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER.  THIS IS NOT A DRILL."

The alert did not activate the air raid sirens.  Nonetheless, given the inflammatory public rhetoric from the fellow in the Oval Office and the general knowledge that ballistic missile flight times of 20 minutes or less from virtually anywhere on the planet, the alert understandably caused panic as citizens desperately sought shelter of some sort.  It took 38 precious minutes for the situation to be clarified.

"There is no missile threat or danger to the state of Hawaii.
Repeat false alarm."

Apparently, the state's Office of Emergency Management had been conducting a simulation or training exercise and the original alert message leaked out to the public by mistake.  The mistake is one thing.  The unacceptable delay in issuing the false alarm clarification is the really tragic element of the fiasco.  An investigation into the root cause(s) and potential preventative measures is underway.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.836:

“All I will say Cap is at least he responded with spunk and like mentality when KJU threatened immaturely he had a button on his desk ... at least Trump has wittiness ... instead of giving S Korea ‘hush’ money as Obama did .. and when someone first calls you stupid as many of the left persuasion do to Trump .. its admirable he fights back .. those who call him stupid are in fact the stupid ones ...”

My reply:

            Yes, we are agreed . . . the fellow in the Oval Office responded in kind to the DPRK dictator.  Is that the standard of performance we seek?

            It does not matter what we think; he is the duly and properly elected president, and will likely remain so until he is voted out or leaves office.  I suppose my curiosity brings me to the irrelevant and intellectual query: is this really how we want our president to act?  I have never been a fan or supporter of the strategic patience policy of previous presidents with respect to the DPRK, so in that I suppose the president’s general confrontation to draw the line is positive action.  What I absolutely do not support is his means and methods of confronting the DPRK.  He can and should take a strong position with the DPRK, but acting like an adolescent is regrettable and embarrassing, which is not how presidents should act.

            Frankly, tit-for-tat is hardly an admirable or intellectually sound trait.

. . . Round two:

“As I and a multitude of others feel, there is no set of instructions on what is the most presidential way of acting .. because it is different from your way of acting or any other previous presidents acting, doesn't make it wrong.  The main thing is he is doing or attempting to do the things we voted for him to do.  The Democrats are running frantic because banning DACA, building more wall and stopping Illegal immigration are a threat to their existence .... but most importantly it will save our country millions/billions not having these illegals to support and strain our school systems .. our economy is improving bottom line ..”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            Yes, you are quite right; there are no instructions—only precedent.  Further, what you expect and what I expect of a president may be two entirely different things.  For the record, previous presidents have not acted properly either; example names that come immediately to mind are Nixon and Clinton.

            “doing or attempting to do the things we voted for him to do.”  Therein lies the rub.  We clearly do not agree on process.  I will state that we do agree on the objective: we both want secure borders and purposeful immigration control and regulation.  From the objective, we apparently diverge rapidly in how to accomplish that objective.  We can argue / debate the details and the wisdom of specific actions to achieve the objective, but I suspect that would be fruitless; you are apparently convinced the fellow in the Oval Office is correct in that process—I do not, ‘nuf said.

            As a relevant example, I offer the latest Cannabis kerfuffle.  If the USG wanted to urge Congress to reform established law, then they should have sent proposed legislative changes to Capitol Hill for consideration.  Rescinding the Obama administration executive order regarding relaxed enforcement was simply and purely to punish those states that have legalized Cannabis consumption.  I do not believe for an instant the current administration seeks legal reform.  Their action is retribution, pure and simple.  That is precisely why I am so critical of process.

 . . . Round three:

“Yes they are trying to control a natural earth grown product which the government should stay out of .. some people abuse the psychoactive part of that product just as others abuse alcohol .. but Obama relaxed the rules on cannabis as well as drugs that are glaringly harmful to users and society around them .. he released prisoners that had been involved across our border in providing heroin etc to our youth .. where do they draw the line on which substances are harmful and which can be actually beneficial to our health ? If at least the local governments aren't involved in controlling the distribution of harmful substances how can we trust society to govern itself ?”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            On this, we are agreed.  The government does not belong in our private affairs, even if those private affairs involve self-destructive behavior.  I witnessed a video clip yesterday of young people intentionally biting into laundry detergent pods—Darwin’s Theory at work today.  I lost a school friend at 12 years old who abused model airplane glue—killed him in less than a year.  He tried to get several of us to join him; we did not.  The government’s proper place is to ensure stuff is properly labeled, with known quality and dosage, i.e., the public domain elements.  Unfortunately, we are a very long way from that proper state.

            You know, I wish someday, folks will let President Obama go to history.  His two-term presidency is over.  President Obama did what virtually every president in history has done.  Case in point, the Logan Act [PL 5-III-001; 1 Stat. 613; 30.1.1799] has been and remains valid law on the books, and no president since President Adams (2) [who signed the bill into law] has chosen to enforce that law.  It is what the Executive Branch does, so please let us not pretend selective enforcement is some diabolical invention of President Obama.

            “where do they draw the line on which substances are harmful and which can be actually beneficial to our health?”  To me, the answer is simple, although some citizens will condemn my opinion.  The government should regulate labeling, identification of ingredients and such.  This is laundry detergent, not for human consumption; it contains several substances toxic to human, if consumed.  This is model airplane glue; use only in a well ventilated space; it will destroy your liver if you inhale the fumes.  The same labeling and regulation should be done for heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, any psychotropic substance.  We have allowed the USG to violate our fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice.  It is NOT the government’s place to decide what people choose to consume or the reason they choose to consume it.  If they choose to bite into laundry detergent pods, they are making a free choice; so be it; let them suffer the consequences of their choices.  I could argue the benefit of any psychotropic substance (contrary to the definition of the CSA, Title II, Schedule I) in exactly the same manner; every one of those substances has benefit, if used properly.

            “If at least the local governments aren't involved in controlling the distribution of harmful substances how can we trust society to govern itself?”  First, it is state and local governments that regulate sales.  It should remain that way.  I do not see any difference between psychotropic substances, firearms, automobiles, and the myriad of other products offered for sale.  The USG should have never gotten into the sales aspect of business, and does not belong in that arena today.  Further, I will debate the “harmful” aspect of your query.  Harmful depends upon dosage, frequency and duration of use, and such.  I will argue that every substance listed on Schedule I, Title II, CSA has benefit, if used properly.  What is harmful in street drugs are: toxic additives, variable dosage, unknown concentration, poor quality, and such.  I take a very cold view of anyone who would intentionally bite into a laundry detergent pod—let them suffer the consequence; they made their choice—natural selection at work.  Those pods are properly labeled; they made their choice.

Comment to the Blog:

“I'm just going to write off Trump's ramblings unless they have tangible results.  Our ‘stable genius’ is clearly neither.

“That's a good milestone in aviation, a year without fatalities.  Do you see anything specific that might have led to that great outcome?

“I thought that lady whose breast was grabbed by that random aggressor handled the situation appropriately.  I see no point in reporting that incident to an authority figure who most likely would do nothing.  I watched the video twice.  What I thought I saw on her breasts was paint along with glitter.

“With respect to marijuana and mind- or mood-altering substances in general, we need to learn both from our own history of Prohibition and from other nations that have better results in dealing with drug use.  The ‘War on Drugs’ failed long ago in its stated objectives.  Let's get on with saner ways of coping with the social damage users create.  Much of that damage, as in Prohibition, comes not from the users but from the criminals who import and distribute the substances.”

My response to the Blog:

            “stable genius” is “clearly neither.”  Spot on!  Full stop!  My opinion precisely . . . and there is myriad evidence to support my opinion.

            Re: aviation milestone.  “Do you see anything specific that might have led to that great outcome?”  I believe it is the successful concomitance of improved design, critical manufacturing, relentless training and persistence in regulatory enforcement.

            “handled the situation appropriately.”  Given the general paternalistic misogynistic culture even in New Zealand, perhaps you are correct.  Yet, as a general rule, I favor the law and the Press to resorting to violence, even slapping an aggressor.  Whatever she had on her breasts is irrelevant to me.  Bare breasts are never a rationale for sexual assault & battery.  Full stop!

            Re: marijuana.  I believe we are in general agreement.  The so-called “war on drugs,” coined in the times of the Controlled Substances Act and the Nixon administration is directly equate-able to Prohibition, i.e., the USG erroneously violating a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice to impose the values & choices of the social conservatives and monied elite in this Grand Republic.  Yes, I absolutely agree, the real societal damage is not done by the consumers, but rather by the criminal sub-culture created by the government’s intrusion into a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.  It is the criminal sub-culture that demands State regulation.

Another contribution:

“[H]ow long has he left in charge then-surely he can be moved on.  He’s now turned down a visit to the U/K- he says because he doesn’t like your new embassy in London town, blaming Obama for selling the old one for ‘peanuts’.  However I’m certain if he came he would be ‘booed’ everywhere he went.  I haven’t met a single Brit this side who supports his inclement decisions.  However Cap, it’s your decision not ours.”

My reply:

            “how long has he left in charge?”  Three years . . . unless he resigns or is impeached by the House & convicted by the Senate prior to the next election.  If he makes it to the next election, I cannot and will not discount his prospects for re-election.  I thought he had no chance of making it through the primaries against accomplished Republican politicians, and yet he did; and, I believed he had little chance of winning the election against an accomplished female politician.  Surely the American electorate was more discriminating and discernible than stooping to the “truthful hyperbole” (as he calls it; more like exaggerated hyperbole verging upon falsehood) of a consummate snake-oil salesman; but nope, 62M American citizens bought his spiel, and those voters were distributed in sufficient states to win the Electoral College.  I will not underestimate the gullibility of the American electorate again.

            BTW, that gullibility is precisely what makes the Russian meddling in our elections so bloody dangerous and foreboding, and the denials by the fellow in the Oval Office of the Russian involvement so incredibly threatening.

            Re: U.S. Embassy opening in London.  That is the public statement by the fellow in the Oval Office, i.e., blame Obama for everything.  Truth be told, I think he was un-invited or at least discouraged from attending . . . ostensibly for what was likely called a security risk . . . given how unpopular he is.

            Nigel Farage was an early, vocal supporter.  I wonder how he feels now?

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)