Update no.1024

 Update from the Sunland

No.1024

23.8.21 – 29.8.21

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

 

            To all,

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- Monday morning, 23.August.2021, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) granted full, unqualified approval for the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine [987; 11.12.2020]. Some citizens, corporations, and organizations like schools have been waiting for full approval to issue vaccination requirements. That obstacle has now been removed. Full approval of the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines should follow shortly. Of course, the conspiracists went to work instantly, presenting numerous spurious nonsense opinions. These are the times in which we live.

-- On Tuesday President Biden decided to not extend the deadline (31.July.2021) for withdrawal from Afghanistan [0014]. That means, combat troops must be taking up capacity on evacuation aircraft and most certainly means Allied citizens and Afghan associates will be temporarily left behind. We will have to find different means to evacuate those remaining in Afghanistan.  As of Friday night, 109,000 have been evacuated.

I suppose we should have considered as inevitable, a suicide bomber got in among the refugees crowded around Abbey Gate to Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Thursday, 26.August.2021, and detonated his vest or backpack. Another near simultaneous explosion occurred at the Baron Hotel, not far away. The destruction was staggering with 11 Marines, 1 Navy Corpsman, one soldier killed and 18 other Americans wounded. Two British nationals plus a child were among the dead. At least 170 Afghanis were killed and 200 wounded in the attack. It was the deadliest attack on U.S. Forces in more than a decade. May God rest their immortal souls. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan (ISIS-K) claimed responsibility. Khorasan is an antiquated term that refers to region of Central Asia that includes parts of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kazakhstan. The Taliban denounced the attack. I suppose this is another instance that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We should hold no illusions that the Taliban is a friend or ally of the United States or the Western Allies, but we have worked with the Taliban before, and we apparently share common objectives and interests. With skilled diplomacy and negotiation, we can work collectively to common objectives.

A lot of the naysayers have been grinching and whining about the U.S. abandonment of Bagram Air Base. Bagram was certainly more secure, but it was not where the people are. We had insufficient troops to secure either air base. They had to choose one to focus on for the operation. For the mission, Kabul was far better than Bagram. The withdrawal/evacuation should have begun years ago. I suspect more than a few of our Afghani allies chose to wait until they needed to leave, somehow expecting the Afghan government to defend their national security. No one expected the government to simply evaporate, but it did, and now we have what we have. President Biden deserves criticism for the debacle we witness playing out before us and rightly so. However, the real blame should be distributed to the prior president’s all the way back to Bush43, who chose half-measures in both Iraq and Afghanistan. President Biden will take the hit, but he does not deserve it. Nonetheless, we should have left Afghanistan to their choice of tribal rivalry and warfare that has characterized the region for centuries. President Biden does deserve and will receive from me at least just credit for having the courage to finally do what should have been done many years ago.

 

On Tuesday, 24.August.2021, the Supremes denied an application for a stay of a district court injunction in the case of Biden v. Texas [594 U.S. 21A21 (2021)]. The SCOTUS action came five days after the 5^th Circuit’s ruling on Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”) in Texas v. Biden [5CCA No. 21-10806 (2021); USDC NDTX No. 2:21-cv-67]. The essence of these judicial actions is the reinstatement of Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) implemented under the [person who shall no longer be named]. In general, the MPP requires asylum and immigration seekers to remain in Mexico until their case is adjudicated and decided. In this instance, I agree with the previous administration’s implementation of the MPP. Releasing asylum seekers and potential immigrants into the interior of the United States while awaiting adjudication with such a dysfunctional immigration control system is simply not wise, and I respectfully submit, it is flat wrong. The Biden administration rescinded the MPP ostensibly because we do not have detention facilities for them and is just flat wrong. Congress is so bloody constipated they have not provided adequate funding for the current immigration system, and they refuse to reform the laws to improve our border protection and immigration control processes. By doing nothing, both tribes get to complain how bad the other side is. Those damn tribes throw shit-balls at each other while our immigration control system has remained marginally functional for decades—not just one but many administrations, going back to Reagan and probably Nixon.

The USG did not offer, or the Appeals Court did not review, the reason they rescinded the MPP; they apparently just did. We are left with the impression the USG just did it because it was a policy implemented by the previous administration. That reason is never sufficient for either or any tribe.

This is one of the few instances when I admit my agreement with the [person who shall no longer be named], who deserves credit for the MPP; he took action to minimize the damage caused by the failure of numerous Congresses to improve the immigration control laws. The Biden administration may have held good intentions, but the rescission of the MPP was simply wrong without the necessary immigration control reform to protect the Homeland. Whomever is in charge, regardless of what tribe, must do everything under the law to protect the Homeland. Releasing any non-citizen into the interior of the country without the means to keep track of them and to ensure compliance with the law is totally and absolutely unacceptable. At least the previous administration did something constructive. So now, based on the Court’s ruling, the Biden administration must reinstate the MPP and operate it properly.

 

I am seeing more and more nonsense about the pandemic guidelines being a direct assault on the general freedoms and rights of citizens. What I find really odd, disturbing and outright offensive is that bunch screams about freedom of choice when it is something they do not care about like wearing facial masks to break the chain of infection, but they make not even a peep about denying that very same freedom of choice to others who do not think like them, e.g., violently demanding that a woman has no choice whatsoever in what she does inside her body, or this damnable war on drugs that several generations have now grown up under its draconian oppression. Freedom of choice is freedom of choice and is indivisible; either it is or it is not. None of us gets to pick and choose what freedom another person enjoys. One day, many months from now, we will mature as a freedom loving people and become respectful of every citizen’s freedom of choice and inalienable rights. Until that day arrives, we must suffer the fools and ignorant among us.

 

The Biden administration suffered another set back at the hands of the Supremes, well, at least the conservative majority, on Thursday, 26.August.2021. The 6-3 Court vacated a lower court stay, rendering a district court judgment enforceable. Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services [594 U.S. 21A23 (2021)] The conservative majority rejected the Biden administration’s extension of the eviction moratorium beyond the expiration date established by Congress—31.July.2021. The original eviction moratorium was implemented by the [person who shall no longer be named] in §4024 (Title IV, Subtitle A) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (AKA CARES Act) [PL 116-136; 134 Stat. 281; 27.3.2020] [950]. The moratorium was extended several times, but Congress refused to extend it farther. The Biden administration through the Center of Disease Control (CDC) chose to invoke a 77-year-old law {§361(a), (Title III, Part G), Public Health Service Act [PL 78-410; 58 Stat. 682; 1.7.1944]} to extend the moratorium. While the wording of the salient section may be tedious, I think it is vital to the context of the Court’s ruling; §361(a) stated: 

 “The Surgeon General, with the approval of the [Secretary of Health and Human Services {originally: Federal Security Administrator}], is authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. For purposes of carrying out and enforcing such regulations, the Surgeon General may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.” [emphasis mine]

The ruling rather clearly illuminates the consequences of a conservative majority on the Court. The majority in their rejection interpreted the law in typically conservative fashion that if the action is not explicitly stated in the law, then it is not authorized. In essence, the “other measures” is irrelevant, which will seriously constrain the government in this and future health emergencies. Once again, the constipation of Congress inflicted pain on ordinary people in need, and the Supreme Court has aided and abetted that dysfunction.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1023:

Comment to the Blog:

“The central problem in Afghanistan is not the withdrawal. That's going poorly enough, but there's no way it was ever a good idea to be there. It's neocolonialism at its very worst, basically a profit center for the military-industrial complex and a prospect for lucrative mining. The outrage ought to be directed to George W Shrub and his henchmen.

“The difference between the Pearl Harbor attack and the others you mentioned is that we had legitimate leadership ability at the top.

“I am indeed leaving hospital beds for the vaccinated or whomever. I'm not capable of dealing with masked people or of wearing the masks.

“Let me simplify the Jeff Bezos point. People who make more money than 90% of Americans should pay taxes at a rate at least equal to what people who make the median income pay. Full stop.

“I will note again that the Declaration of Independence is not and has never been the law of the land. Citing it in legal argumentation is a fallacy.

“I'm a leftist. The Democratic National Committee is far to my right.”

My response to the Blog:

Of course not. As Sir Winston so precisely observed, “Wars are not won by evacuation.” I do not agree regarding our reason to be there. The reason for going into Afghanistan was much greater and worthy than Iraq. The Taliban were hosting and supporting Al Qa’ida active units. The bin Laden raid would have been monumentally more difficult without our bases in Afghanistan. A key milestone in this fiasco will be 31^st of August—a week away. The “neocolonialism” label is wrong and inappropriate. ‘Dub’ made a lot of mistakes but that was not one of them. To suggest we went into Afghanistan to feed the military-industrial complex or to exploit the mineral resources of the country is wrong; there is no evidence to support that claim. Let us not make this more than it is.

Well, that is certainly an opinion with more than a little evidence to support the notion. I will not argue that point.

I understand your point, but you are not (and I hope you never are) in respiratory distress. Whether you inadvertently and unknowingly carry and spread the virus to other unvaccinated individuals is unknown. If I read your words correctly, if you do show symptoms, you will not go to the hospital for treatment. Good luck to you, my friend. I hope your stance is not tested.

I’m with you on taxing the wealthy. This remains TDB for now.

Yes, of course, the Declaration is not part of our common law and thus cannot be cited in a legal argument. However, it is a definitive statement of the mindset of the Founders. I will confess to my what may well be wishful thinking that the Founders/Framers would not be so absentminded to overlook such a fundamental element of freedom. The Blackstone Commentaries are not legal documents of law either, but they do reflect the background mindset of English common law. Blackstone touches upon privacy in several places, e.g., §§1-1-139, 3-19-288, 4-13-169, & 4-16-223, but that is only background. Without privacy and governmental respect for our privacy, there is no freedom; without privacy, freedom is an illusion. So, I cite the Declaration because it is the most succinct statement regarding the genesis of our laws.

I am not a leftist or a right winger. Case in point, parts of the DNC are to my right, other parts are to my left. The former RNC is much too far to my right. I find nothing attractive in the fBICP. I like being a professed and demonstrable Independent.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“I have experienced considerable respiratory distress and roughly a dozen life-threatening events as a result of my ‘reactive’ asthma. That is the origin of my experience and opinions with masks. Some fool talking on TV will not change that, and I know very well that demonstrations need not be based on actual evidence.”

 . . . my follow-up contribution:

I learn more about you every day, my friend. I am sorry to hear of your reactive asthma affliction. You are certainly not alone, but your medical condition is not the norm for American society. I cannot claim I understand, but I do believe I appreciate your bias when it comes to facial masks. There have been many demonstrations and scientific studies of masks. I suppose the salient element is the threshold of acceptance. Jeanne and I went out to dinner last night, and we wore masks into and out of the restaurant. We were a minority at a nice upscale restaurant. Of particular note, all of the staff from the maître d’hôtel to our waiter were fully masked continuously. It is encouraging to see many people still trying to do their part, and yet, at the same time, it is disappointing how many are selfish and thumb their noses at the community. Such is life in a free society.

I wear a facial mask for you, my friend.

 . . . a short follow-up to the follow-up:

“If you must attribute your mask-wearing to me, make it an N95 or better. Also, I'm vaccinated, so according to some of the experts, I'm not likely to get a serious case.”

 . . . my response:

My chosen mask is not N95 grade or better, but it is better than a simple cloth mask.

I wear a mask for you and all citizens, vaccinated or not, conspiracist or not.

Like you, we are vaccinated and looking for our boosters. Yes, that is what the data show. However, your medical affliction makes you far more vulnerable than the average citizen. Please be careful. Stay safe. Take care and enjoy.

 . . . one more pass:

“Don't do that in my name. That whole guilt marketing campaign just annoys me, and I don't want credit/blame for any part of it.”

 . . . my response:

Very well, I rescind my courtesy. No guilt intended.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)