Update no.1214

 Update from the Sunland

No.1214

14.4.25 – 20.4.25

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

 

To all,

 

In October 2024, [no name] filed a civil suit against CBS Broadcasting, Inc., alleging “. . . partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference through malicious, deceptive, and substantial news distortion . . . .” He has asked for US$20B, that is billion with a ‘B,’ in compensatory damages. Trump v. CBS [Case 2:24-cv-00236-Z (2024)]

I will pause at this juncture to note that the plaintiff in this civil suit, who filed this complaint before the last election, identified himself as “President Donald J. Trump, an individual.” At the very best and farthest extension, he should have been listed as former president. Further, this is a civil suit, a private action, between him and CBS, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Office of the President. There should have been no title. From my perspective, the whole affair is intended to intimidate CBS and specifically “60 Minutes” into submission, to silence their voice.

Another side note here, are there any guesses as to why [no name] and his lawyers chose Amarillo, Texas, to file this suit between a Florida man and a New York corporation?

The media are awash in reports from one extreme that CBS may seek dismissal with prejudice and then to the other extreme that the company is considering settling the suit out of court. The suit is baseless, without merit, and should be dismissed outright. Attorney General Bondi has indicated that she intends to represent [no name] if the suit goes to a jury trial. We are left with the image . . . that this his promised retribution. The sad reality is, we have four more years of this despicable conduct.

I strongly urge CBS to take the high road, confront this frivolous civil suit, and defend freedom of the Press and our freedom of speech. To give into this blatant act of retribution, intimidation, and I will argue outright malfeasance would be a grievous injustice. The schoolyard bully must not succeed. He does not deserve a dime.

 

The religious thread opened in Update no.1213 continues this week. The thread resumes below with round two.

“I think we're off to a good start in this discussion. I'll keep my next reply short. Sometimes less is better. Biting off big chunks tends to cause the subject to go off on tangents.

“What do you think Genesis and Leviticus are about?

“That's it!”

My response to round two:

I shall strive to keep my response short.

To me, Genesis is the foundation, the background, for what is to follow. In simple terms, it is the statement of how we got here—the basis of the story.

In the same context, Leviticus is a framework of ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts.’ Guidelines for living as God intends.

Both books were written well before the time Jesus of Nazareth walked Galilee, thus as you noted previously, the word represent of thinking of that bygone era.

How is that for a brief reply?

 . . . Round three:

“It is indeed a short reply. However, I'm afraid you are under some misconceptions as to the subject of Genesis & Leviticus. The book itself is quite clear on the subject of those books as well as the entire OT. In John 5:39 Jesus said,

“‘Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.’ [Emphasis is the contributor’s.]

“The OT, all of it, is about Jesus. In Genesis 3:15 God promised a seed, a descendant, that would crush the serpent's head (No, it wasn't a walking, talking snake. A figure of speech Jews would have totally understood). That was the first mention of the coming Messiah and the rest of the book is all about that. Somehow, everything in the entire OT is about Jesus. Israel would never have seen Genesis as an explanation of how we got here, nor Leviticus as a bunch of dos and don'ts. Those ideas come from reading into the text something that simply isn't there. It's reading the text through our modern Western tradition, which is very much diametrically opposed to the ancient Israeli tradition.

“I would think reading it as about anything else would be akin to reading A Tale of Two Cities and thinking it was about London and Berlin in WW2. It wouldn't make much sense.

“I guess this wasn't too long. :)”

 . . . my response to round three:

I appreciate that you disagree with my opinion and interpretations. Such is life in a free society. I understand your interpretation, but I cannot make that jump with you. The words are fact; they exist and have existed for millennia. However, the interpretations of those words have varied substantially over that span of time. Your interpretation is different from mine. You asked for my opinion. I gave my opinion. I make no claim of being correct. I am not a theological scholar.

BTW, you are apparently using a different Bible edition than mine. From my perspective, Genesis 3:15 reads:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, 

and between thy seed and her Seed; 

It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel.”

To me, it has an entirely different meaning than you suggest. I am not capable to getting closer to the original text (Hebrew, Greek, Latin). I shall stick with the known text.

You can certainly attach whatever meaning you wish. That is your right—the magnificence of freedom of choice. However, your interpretation of the words does not make them “truth.”

One last relevant comment, if I may! Faith belongs in the private domain, i.e., what matters to you is how you interpret the words, what lessons you take from the words. The public domain must be based on facts [which is not to say our history has embraced that notion]. When faith (spirituality) enters the public domain, we are thrust into a debate about “truth,” which is reality in the interpretation of the words. As can be seen by this exchange, we disagree. That disagreement belongs in the private domain between you and me; it does not belong in the public domain (law).

“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

 . . . Round four:

“I'm not sure why you would say I'm voicing an opinion. So far, the gist of what I've said is:

“In John 17:17, Jesus, talking to his God said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."

“Is that a fact or an opinion? Is there some interpretation that would make it say anything other than Jesus said God's word is truth? 

“In John 5:39, Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

“Is there some way to interpret that in any other way that saying Jesus averred the scriptures were about him? Was Jesus stating a fact or an opinion?

“If Genesis 3:15 does not set up a drama between two different seeds, what does it do? Who are the two seeds? Well, God was talking to the serpent, so clearly that is one seed. Given that Jesus said the Bible is about him, I think it fair to see, he was the other seed. Genesis 3:15 sets up the protagonist and the antagonist. I admit it doesn't say that as clearly as the two verses I quoted in John, but all thing considered it'd be hard to see it any other way.

“I'd love to hear any specifics you might have on these three verses. I understand your general feelings, but so far you really haven't explained why you think I'm giving opinions as opposed to fact, nor are you saying anything as to what you think Jesus was saying in John, or what God was saying in Genesis 3:15. I'd think that would be essential to carry on further discussion. Or perhaps you are done with this. I'd understand.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Well, as I have publicly stated many times, you are entitled to believe what you wish for whatever reason you wish.

“Thy word is truth.” Interesting! John spoke those words, not God. That fact seems an awful lot like human observation. The words are not facts. We can call them John’s opinions, yes.

OK. We seem to be working our way to the root of this discussion. Was John speaking for God? Perhaps in his mind and thinking, but he was still a human being. We can debate whether Jesus of Nazareth was God on earth, but the fact remains, he was a human being. From my perspective, while the words of Jesus of Nazareth have considerable wisdom, value, and endurance, they are still words—not facts.

My words are not facts. I try to reflect upon facts, e.g., why did a transmission mount fail? My views of those facts are opinions and that is it. My words are not facts. As noted above, if you wish to view your words as facts, that is your right entirely. I have no objection. But, from my perspective, your words are still opinions, not facts. I am not going to get into a theological discussion or debate with anyone. It is truly an infinite endeavor since was not discussing facts. My opinion about Genesis 3:15 remains.

We can continue this exchange as you wish. 

 . . . Round five:

“I think we've pretty well wrung out the matter. It's a good stopping point.”

Thus ended this exchange.

 

The current administration was handed a couple of serious setbacks from the Judicial Branch in its on-going case regarding Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man legally in this country as a court-sanctioned refugee since 2019. The first decision came from the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling—Noem v. Garcia [604 U. S. ____ (2025)]. In October 2019, an immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia “withholding of removal” to El Salvador, which bars the government from deporting someone to a designed country, in this case El Salvador. The Court noted, “The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.” Although the Court chose not to observe that Abrego Garcia was not just removed to El Salvador, he was incarcerated without due process of law in Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) [Terrorism Confinement Center] is a maximum-security prison in Tecoluca, El Salvador. The Court concluded, “To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador.” While the Court did not explicitly affirm the district court’s order, they de facto did so. Of note is Justice Sotomayor opinion “respecting the Court’s disposition,” in which she concluded, “In the proceedings on remand, the District Court should continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law.” Amen!

After the Court’s decision, President [no name] claimed via the Press Secretary and Attorney General that the Court has no authority to interfere in the president’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy, meaning the Court cannot demand Abrego Garcia returned to the United States. It is as if he is intentionally trying to provoke the Judiciary at multiple levels. And, there is one teeny-weeny little problem; the Court is not concerned with foreign relations, only due process of law, which is emphatically the Judiciary’s domain. Further, [no name] cannot hide behind his dominion over foreign relations to deny due process of law to anyone. Abducting a legal resident and sending him to a maximum-security prison in another country is NOT deportation; it is a federal felonious crime! To be clear, Abrego Garcia entered this country without a visa or permission 15 years ago. The immigration judge’s withholding of removal order changed his status in this country, granting him protection of the law. Since he has been in this country, Abrego Garcia has committed no crime(s). He has violated no laws. He married an American citizen, who bore three children with him and is pregnant with their fourth child.

Expelling anyone from this country is one thing. Forcefully sending an individual to a maximum-security mega-prison in another country without due process of law is altogether a monumentally different thing. A judge had repeatedly asked the government to produce the evidence that he qualified for expulsion by his alleged membership in a violent gang. They have refused to do so. To me, this is the definition of contempt and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for those involved.

A week later, a three-judge panel of the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a scathing body slam to the Executive Branch in the persona of Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem—Garcia v. Noem [4CCA No. 25-1404 (2025); (8:25-cv-00951-PX)]. The government’s resistance of the various court orders to return Abrego Garcia to this country have centered on the Supreme Court’s use of the word ‘facilitation.

The circuit court noted, “’Facilitation’ does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. ‘Facilitation’ does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would ‘facilitate’ foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood.”

What the government did was NOT deportation. It was abduction and incarceration without due process of law—a felonious federal crime.

For the record, we are not at war (despite what [no name] says). The attempted invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in this instance is wrong in every possible way, not least of which is its unconstitutionality. I am NOT advocating for Abrego Garcia to be returned to the United States and granted citizenship. I am emphatically arguing that he be afforded due process of law in the adjudication of his asylum application. If he succeeds, he should be placed on the naturalized citizenship path. If he fails, he should be properly deported to his country of origin—not sent to a prison. This whole issue is about the law, not some emotional knee-jerk reaction or foreign policy.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1213:

Comment to the Blog:

“I share with your other commenter the absence of a distinction between the ‘natural’ and the ‘spiritual’ world. I get there via my love and respect for the whole Universe (as best I can). My faith is built on my experience.

“People like the other commenter need to understand that many of us don’t worship his God or the book attributed to Him. Thus, Bible-based arguments don’t persuade us. I see the Bible and the ‘sacred’ texts of other religions as attempts to pass down wisdom and priestly orders. Even if they were inspired directly by some god or other, they have passed through many imperfect human minds. I recommend Asimov’s Guide to the Bible as a good empirical study of that book. I find some bits of wisdom in the Bible, but also from many human sources. 

“RFK, Jr.’s legal career and his appointment as HHS Secretary rest on a single, long-discredited study published by then-Doctor Andrew Wakefield on vaccines and autism. Wakefield retracted the finding and lost his medical license. Others built careers on that same study, and RFK, Jr. continues cherry-picking dubious data about fluoride and whatever else builds his career.

“The Felon’s attempt to dispense with due process scares me. That would be the end of legal rights for anyone.”

My response:

Understood. I remained convinced there must be a distinction and a separation between the ‘natural’ and ‘spiritual’ spheres. Faith is a private matter. People can and often do share faith in multitudinous forms. The public should (I might also say ‘must’) confine itself to facts. Faith is meaning (interpretation) of words, and those interpretations are not facts. This assessment is precisely why I deeply believe that church and state must be separate, and each should confine themselves to the proper domain.

I find a lot of wisdom in the Bible as well as the Qu’ran, the Torah, and other religious texts, some bits are actually common to all those texts. That wisdom should govern our private lives. However, where I get crosswise with such endeavors is the imposition of those “interpretations” of faith into the public domain (law).

RFK Jr. is one of the prominent clowns in the current administration. He is a conspiracist who is apparently unable to assess fact from fiction. I find very little value in his opinions. ‘Nuf said.

[No name]’s action should scare all of us. He is intentionally and purposefully defying a direct U.S. Supreme Court directive. It does not get more serious than that. More ominous, I have no clue why he is so hardened against Abrego Garcia. That unfortunate man could be any one of us in a flash.

 . . . Round two:

“‘Faith,’ for me, is Merriam-Webster’s definition 2b(1), ‘firm belief in something for which there is no proof.’ For me, that has no direct relationship to the writings of humans, including their religions. I would like people to operate by something resembling scientific method (‘facts’), but evidence shows most of them working from feelings, often influenced by religious people’s interpretation of their beliefs or by politicians’ direct manipulation of their feelings.

“RFK, Jr. has an easy time believing conspiracy theories that further his career.

“The Felon is making an object lesson of Abrego Garcia. Garcia’s fate proves the Felon can attack anyone with no consequences to himself. Let’s hope someone disproves that.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I am not sure of your meaning with “no direct relationship to the writings of humans.” All religious texts are written by humans, and it is those texts that influence human beings to faith. Those texts have been used (interpreted) for many purposes, some good, some nefarious. Such is the nature of human beings.

I am not so sure this stint as SecHHS is furthering his “career,” but certainly possible. One thing for certain from my perspective is he is going to harm a lot of people and perhaps do irreparable damage.

I will definitely agree with your assessment of [no name]. He has not yet suffered any consequences for his crimes. And, he continues to commit crimes. There is always hope, until there isn’t.

 . . . Round three:

“Spirituality differs from religion. I arrived at faith by looking at my life history in a desperate moment and realizing that a “power greater than myself” had to have been keeping me alive. The odds against my living through my adventures by my wits and skill are impossibly long. I’ve never had to define and describe that power other than it’s greater than any one human. Religious writings and people mostly inhibited my process of finding faith by giving me pictures of mean/insecure Gods.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Yes, it does, but not by much, from my perspective. I have had my forms, and they still come. I refer to them as my “Good Lord” moments. Moments of disappointment (generally) when I feel the distinct sensation of the Good Lord reaching down and touching me on the shoulder with a gesture to take a different path despite my disappointment. We can call these moments by anyone of many names but they are spirituality, belief in something bigger than ourselves.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)