Update no.412

Update from the Heartland
No.412
2.11.09 – 8.11.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Last May, Governor John Baldacci of Maine signed into law a bill allowing gender-neutral marriage [386] within his state. The law in question was Maine Public Law 2009, Chapter 82 - An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom (6.May.2009), but suspended implementation in deference to a pending public referendum. A sufficient number of state residents sought to challenge the statute by referendum – Maine Referendum Question 1 – People’s Veto - An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom: “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?” The final tally was 53% in favor. It remains absolutely and fundamentally amazing to me how easy it is to discriminate against a minority and deny them equal rights, simply because they do not approve of the choices of other citizens. As Kurt Vonnegut so succinctly said, “And so it goes.”
Side note:
In the same election, the residents of Maine approved Question 5 - Citizen Initiative: “Do you want to change the medical marijuana laws to allow treatment of more medical conditions and to create a regulated system of distribution?”
-- Late Saturday night, the House of Representatives passed another hurdle regarding health care reform [396-411]. A few hours before the vote, President Obama made an unusual, direct, closing argument before the chamber. The House passed the landmark H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, health-care reform bill [House: 220-215-0-0(0)]. I am still collecting information about the bill; so, I will hold my comments and opinion for the time being.
-- The Washington Post reported that Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Grand Ayatollah Sayed Ali Hoseini Khamenei, [229, 240, 392] rejected several personal overtures from President Obama. The Shiite Muslim cleric went on to warn his government that negotiating with the United States would be “naive and perverted” and that Iranian politicians should not be “deceived” into starting such talks. Well now, so much for diplomatic initiatives. The Great Satan lives. I could make a snide remark about clerics and politics, however, I shall refrain.

At 13:30 [S] CST Thursday, a shooter opened fire with two, semi-automatic, hand guns in the Fort Hood Soldier Readiness Processing Center, killing 12 soldiers and 1 civilian, and wounding 30 others. Considering the number of killed and injured, there were either multiple hit shots or the shooter reloaded several times; the latter suggests a deliberate, pre-meditated, act of violence. Fort Hood Police Sergeant Kimberly Denise Munley, 34, and her partner, Sergeant Mark Todd, rushed to the scene, arrived within three minutes, and entered the building to aggressively confront the situation. Despite being shot herself, Sergeant Munley dropped the shooter and undoubtedly saved many lives. The shooter has been identified as Major Nidal Malik Hasan, USA, MC, 39. He is a natural-born American citizen, of Jordanian (or Palestinian, depending on your point of view) heritage, who entered the Army in 1995, and became a service psychiatrist. Hasan was about to deploy for the first time to Iraq. He is reportedly alive, unconscious, on a ventilator, but expected to survive his wounds. It appears he will enjoy a lengthy opportunity to chat with a passel of FBI and CID agents, and Texas Rangers; the investigators will figure out this one. Based on what we know so far, I believe there is much more to this tragedy than what we know to date, and I suspect it is much worse than the deaths of so many patriots. One of the Army wives was reported to have remarked, “I wish his name had been Smith” – the implication, of course, that there is a huge difference between an incident act of violence and an attack by an imbedded al-Qaeda operative.
Postscript:
The American Muslim community was quick to condemn the tragedy, and regrettably they felt the need to caution their believers to watch for backlash. We can hope the caution does not become reality.
Historic note:
Fort Hood is a massive, 339 square mile, military base located near Killeen, Texas, and home to the headquarters of the III Corps. The post became operational in September 1942, and was named for General John Bell Hood, Confederate States Army, who commanded renown units [4th Texas Infantry, the Texas Brigade, the Army of Tennessee] in key battles [Bull Run, Antietam, Gettysburg] during the Civil War [or War Between the States, for the Confederates] – an unusual recognition for a rebel.

On Wednesday, a court in Milan, Italy, convicted 22 CIA operatives and one USAF colonel in absentia for the 2003 rendition of Egyptian Islamist cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (AKA Abu Omar). Three American and two Italian higher-ranking officers were given diplomatic immunity and not prosecuted. Nasr is reportedly a member of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya – an Islamic fascist organization dedicated to overthrowing the Egyptian government. I can understand folks like Judge Oscar Magi being angry about the policies and actions of George W. Bush, but this was not a good thing to do. What little satisfaction some folks may enjoy will be paled to inconsequentiality when compared to the damage done to international intelligence operations in the War on Islamic Fascism. Yet, it is what it is; the reality being the Americans involved will no longer be able to travel outside the United States – sad commentary for patriotic and loyal agents who carried out the orders of their country. Curiously, why did the Italians even allow Abu Omar into their country? Even worse, why did they allow him to stay? This be-nice-to-our-enemies mentality in the middle of a freakin’ war is just beyond the comprehension capacity of my little pea-brain.

We have discussed the challenges of intelligence versus law enforcement operations in the context of modern terrorism and the current War on Islamic Fascism. The following essay is one of the best presentations I have seen regarding what the authors refer to as “protective intelligence.” In the light of the Italian convictions noted above, this essay is quite timely and apropos.
“Counterterrorism: Shifting from ‘Who’ to ‘How’”
by Scott Stewart and Fred Burton
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: November 4, 2009; 19:18 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091104_counterterrorism_shifting_who_how?utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091104&utm_content=readmore
The difficulties of intelligence versus law enforcement the middle of a war bring to a fine point precisely why we must sort this out and find a reasonable balance that protects our freedoms and ferrets out the bad guys before they can execute their heinous plans.

Beyond the horrific tragedy of so many lives lost at the hand of rapist-murderer Anthony Sowell in Cleveland, Ohio, we must bear witness to yet one more case of what happens when any community does not care enough about itself and its neighbors . . . one more case of citizens who knew something was wrong and did nothing, or at least not enough. Until we can overcome this “Don’t Snitch” or “Don’t Get Involved” mentality, I have virtually no interest in talking about more morality laws to punish hundreds of people in some lame attempt to find the Anthony Sowell’s and Phillip Garrido’s of this world. Don’t even bother trying to convince me we need gun control, or more metal detectors in schools, or stronger, more intrusive laws. Being an eternal optimist, I believe someday we will care enough about each other to take action when we know something is not right and hopefully save lives in doing so – when we see the litterer, the turnstile jumper, the school yard bully, the animal abuser. Until then, I shall continue to write and lament the failures of our society.

An exchange from a regular contributor to this humble forum:
“Obama said during his candidacy that no earmarks (pork) would get by him. That he not only would veto the bill, even if we needed it badly, such as the defense authorization bill he just signed the other day amongst much pomp and flourish. He also said that he would name by name those who had floated that amendment, and those who had signed on to it.
“That did not happen! There are literally millions and millions of earmarked pork included in the bill, having nothing at all to do with defense appropriations, thus taking away from $$$ for our troops. NO media reported on it. No reporter there at the signing spoke up about it.”
. . . to which I added my opinion:
If I'm feeling generous, I'd say he's got bigger fish to fry at the moment. In my cynical moments, I would say he's just another bloody [expletive] politician who lies to our faces and tells us what we want to hear to get elected. However, even worse, we fall for the same old crap time after time; we tell ourselves, this one is going to be different; this one is actually going to do what he says and clean things up. The reality is, POTUS would simply have to publish the list of earmarks along with sponsors, and the brilliant light of public scrutiny would do the rest. I'm fairly adept at working the Library of Congress database, but I've tried numerous times to search out these earmark offenders. Fortunately, there is a Press in Washington who can ferret out some of this graft. On the unfortunate side of the ledger, I think the Press just gets tired dealing with the massive volume of these damnable earmarks.

I finally got around to reading one of the Supreme Court cases on my “to do” list – Reynolds v. United States [98 U.S. 145 (1878)] – a church & State case that established the State’s preeminence henceforth. George Reynolds was charged with violation of the polygamy statute in the Territory of Utah, having married Amelia Jane Schofield, while his first wife, Mary Ann Tuddenham, was still alive. He argued that he was compelled to violate the law by his religious belief, dictum and duty; George was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Chief Justice Morrison Remick “Mott” Waite writing for the Court said, “The inquiry is not as to the power of Congress to prescribe criminal laws for the Territories, but as to the guilt of one who knowingly violates a law which has been properly enacted, if he entertains a religious belief that the law is wrong.” He went on to say, “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society” – punishable by death in the 17th Century, I might add. The Chief Justice oddly refers to Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” and Jefferson’s “Danbury Baptists Letter,” and then failed to recognize the consequence on the issue at hand. While Reynolds was a pivotal case for several generations, it now lies with Plessy v. Ferguson [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] in the mound of poor jurisprudence. Waite concluded, “Congress, in 1862 (12 Stat. 501), saw fit to make bigamy a crime in the Territories. This was done because of the evil consequences that were supposed to flow from plural marriages.” The Court upheld the rulings of the lower courts and made religious beliefs submissive to the will of the State.
In “Memorial and Remonstrance” [20.June.1785], James Madison observed, “Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, ‘that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.’ (Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16 [12.June.1776]) The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. Right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men.” Madison went on to say, “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” We conveniently choose to ignore or discount Madison’s wisdom and caution, it seems to me.
Perhaps it is equally appropriate to reprint the full salient paragraph from Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists Association” [1.January.1802]: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” Jefferson’s amplifies Madison’s observations.
The leaders of the Danbury Baptists responded ten months later [no electronic media back then]. One sentence best summarizes their opinion, “It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.” In their response, we see the very struggle we endure to this very day regarding the primacy of the church or the State.
Since I am on a history bent with this topic, I would like to add a couple of quotations from Associate Justice Joseph Story’s magnum opus “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” [January.1833]. In his analysis of the Federal oath of office, he observed, “[The oath] had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government.” [Vol.3, §1838] Story went on to note, “It is easy to foresee, that without some prohibition of religious tests, a successful sect, in our country, might, by once possessing power, pass test-laws, which would secure to themselves a monopoly of all the offices of trust and profit, under the national government.” [Vol.3, §1843] Story’s constitutional analysis validates and punctuates the necessity to keep religion out of the political arena and specifically excluded from secular governance.
In the light of the history noted above, Reynolds represents a classic example of blind faith in the State and the Court’s inability to see the relationship to a citizen’s Liberty as envisioned and codified by the Founders and Framers, and contrary to the separation the Founders sought, to avoid the sectarian entanglements and violence their forefathers endured. Sadly, the same mentality exists to this very day.
Polygamy remains a touching subject, although I am gambling that it is not as sensitive as abortion, child pornography, or homosexual marriage. The practice does represent the intersection of public and private, and thus attracts my attention in the debate regarding my so-called “front door” criterion.
The Court in Reynolds refers to polygamy as “an offence against society,” and yet presents no rationale or evidence to support such a statement. I suppose they just expect everyone to trust their lofty judgment. Unfortunately, I do not; I seek logic and reason for things that affect my life.
The roots of the polygamy prohibition in Judeo-Christian practice and common law appear to go back to the Reformation. Some can argue the Christian religion’s focus on monogamy began with interpretation of biblical scripture by Augustine of Hippo (5th Century) or Thomas of Aquin (13th Century). According to Chief Justice Waite, the English common law prohibition dates back to King James I (circa 1605) and was largely based on the religious dicta of the day. Regardless of its genesis, I continue to return to my root question – why? Why is polygamy “an offence against society”? What harm is caused, especially in the context of modern society? Why are we so afraid of how some other citizens choose to live their lives? Regardless of my philosophical questions, the fact remains Western culture has retained its taught and learned aversion to polygamy. Yet, when placed in the context of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” such mindless adherence to tradition seems as antithetical as slavery, women & children as property, landed male voting rights, and other such practices. Certainly, the Court drove the nail in the coffin of sanctioned polygamy with its Reynolds ruling. Perhaps it is time to add polygamy to the list of reforms that are long overdue and might help us return to the Freedom articulated by the Founders. I do NOT argue for polygamy; the issue here is freedom of choice and the fundamental right to privacy. My objective is removal of the State from private matters that do not cause injury or affect the public domain. Chief Justice Waite and the Court were wrong. Congress was wrong. The issue before the Court was precisely whether Congress held the authority under the Constitution to enact a prohibition against polygamy, as there is NO demonstrable justification for the State to intrude on a private matter between consenting adults. Just because the English did it 400 years ago does not offer sustainable or supportable rationale – no more so than slavery did in those days.
The argument of the so-called strict constructionists most likely will be that only legislation should overturn tradition. The Judiciary should stay out of the debate. Unfortunately and undoubtedly, they will also gloat that such legislation has little chance of passing, so don’t waste our time. The sad reality is such laws should have never been passed in the first place. Congress had no authority to do so. Thus, standing behind legislation-is-the-only-true-path argument rings quite hollow. Taken to its logical conclusion, such argument essentially proclaims the enactment of law(s) by a willful group (regardless of whether they are a majority or minority) is quite alright as long as it is for purposes they support or believe, but not acceptable in the reverse. We do not need to pass more laws. We need to repeal the laws we already have that are so corrosive to our Freedom and Liberty.
To me, these arguments are simple. Are we equal or not? Do all of us have the same rights or not? If we are truly a nation that believes “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” then we must walk the walk, not simply babble on about meaningless, unilateralist tripe. By what right does any government or person have to tell me or anyone else how I must live my private life? By what right!
Side note:
In doing research for this topic, I discovered more than a few, fundamentalist, Christian sects (excluding LDS & FLDS) that advocate for circumvention of the polygamy laws and procreation to the greatest extent possible as a duty to their faith, ostensibly to populate their communities with believers. Ain’t life grand!

A generous contributor to this humble forum sent along this article-link:
“Sexual freedom as a fundamental human right”
by Gaylen Moore
Cleveland Open Relationships Examiner
Posted: October 29, 2009; 7:35 PM
http://www.examiner.com/x-17712-Cleveland-Open-Relationships-Examiner~y2009m10d29-Sexual-freedom-as-a-fundamental-human-right?cid=email-this-article
An odd thought struck me as I read the article. Socially and politically conservative citizens argue vehemently for a genuine free market devoid of meddlesome government regulations, and in virtually the same breath, argue equally as vehemently that government must have oppressive morality laws and the strictest enforcement of those laws that dictate how citizens must live and act in the privacy of their homes, their relationship(s), and even their bodies. So, free markets – yes, but free homes – no! What an odd dichotomy, doncha think?

News from the economic front:
-- Ford Motor Company reported 3rd Quarter net income of US$997M, or 29 cents per share, and a return to profitability – the first for the company’s North America unit since 2005. The company expects to be “solidly profitable” in 2011.
-- The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Manufacturing Index for October rose to 55.7 from 52.6 – its third consecutive month of growth. A reading over 50 indicates expansion. The report also showed growth in the employment subcategory for the first time in 15 months.
-- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed antitrust charges against Intel, accusing the company of threatening computer makers – Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Dell, among others – and paying billions of dollars in kickbacks to convince them against using competitors' chips. Intel is being investigated on multiple continents and by numerous regulators, including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
-- The U.S. Federal Reserve left interest rates near zero, reduced its purchases of agency debt to US$175B from US$200B, and reiterated plans to complete US$1.25T in mortgage-backed securities purchases by the end of March 2010. The Fed slightly upgraded its assessment of the nation’s economic health and indicated they plan to keep rates at record low levels for an extended period in the current environment of high unemployment and low inflation.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee left interest rates at 0.5% and expanded its eight-month-old bond-buying program by £25B (US$41B) to £200B. The WSJ also observed that growth prospects are more remote for Great Britain than nations such as France, Germany and the U.S., since the British economy is heavily dependent on the financial-services industry and fueled by high levels of consumer debt.

L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- On Tuesday, Bernie Madoff’s longtime accountant, David G. Friehling [379], pleaded guilty to three counts of obstructing the administration of the federal tax laws. He is scheduled for sentencing on 26.February, and remains free on bail. He has been cooperating with investigators and prosecutors. Friehling was responsible for preparing 20 years of tax returns that protected Madoff’s enormous Ponzi scheme.

No comments from Update no.411.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)