Update no.455

Update from the Heartland

No.455

30.8.10 – 5.9.10

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

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- OK; this whole tiff between the Federales and Arizona is rapidly going unstable and out of control as a consequence of the state’s SB1070 immigration enforcement law [436, 447]. Apparently, the Federales are quite content re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I believe in the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause, but this kerfuffle is rapidly morphing into a constitutional crisis comparable to the Missouri Enabling Act of March 6, 1820 (AKA Missouri Compromise) [PL 16-022; ch. 22, §8, 3 Stat. 548] [448]; Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856)] [322]; and the election of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President of the United States of America. The Feds have filed suit against Maricopa Community College for discriminating against 250 non-citizen job applicants by asking for proof of immigration status. They also filed another suit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. “Joe” Arpaio for not cooperating fully with a Federal discrimination investigation into the conduct of the Sheriff’s Office. This is what happens when a political system becomes un-balanced and unstable. I hope someone shows some chutzpah, soon, to address the central issue and return us to balance and stability, but I fear we have not reached the bottom of this pit yet.
-- The government moved quickly to appeal Judge Lambeth’s injunction in Sherley v. Sebelius [454] – the embryonic stem cell research case – and sought an immediate stay. I hope they move this issue through the courts quickly.
-- After the injunction by Hornbeck v. Salazar [445] of the government’s moratorium on deepwater oil exploration, we have an interesting twist. The New York Times reported that BP [442] is warning Congress that if lawmakers pass legislation that bars the company from getting new offshore drilling permits, it may not have the money to pay for all the damages caused by its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Retrenchment and withdrawal are NOT the answer to the risks of deepwater oil exploration or even the negligence of one company.

President Obama’s Tuesday evening address to the nation from the Oval Office announced the end of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and the end of combat operations in Iraq . . . well maybe. Although the President did not mention it, Operation NEW DAWN began as IRAQI FREEDOM ended. Some talking heads criticized the President for not giving his predecessor credit for the success of “The Surge.” What those particular commentators failed to recognize or acknowledge . . . “The Surge” would not have been required if the Battle for Iraq had been fought properly in the first place. Dubs & his bud Rummie tried to fight a major campaign on the cheap without sufficient resources to secure the ground or administer the country. Yes, “The Surge” finally did give the Iraqis some breathing room and enabled Barack to withdraw combat forces from Iraq. Whether the timing of the withdrawal works to preserve freedom in Iraq will be judged by history.

With all the talk of withdrawal and combat operations ending, the New York Times reported an ominous episode in Afghanistan. The World Health Organization [and hopefully Allied intelligence and law enforcement] is investigating 10 mass sickening events. The investigators confirmed by blood tests the presence of toxic but not fatal levels of organophosphates. By itself, the facts could reflect an unfortunate accident; after all, organophosphates are commonly used in the formulation of insecticides and herbicides. However, other facts suggest a nefarious and far more threatening root cause. Organophosphates are a primary ingredient in chemical weapons like nerve agents GB, VX, and Tabun and Sarin gases. The events occurred at schools for girls in Afghanistan . . . and we know how the Taliban and al-Qaeda feel about females. While this event was not widely reported, this is one we should all pay attention to for other signs, as it may expand or portend a dangerous escalation of terror tactics by our enemies.

I received this suggestion from a long-term contributor:
“Please think seriously about this and circulate your ideas concerning how our country might limit borrowing to only when truly necessary and only from ourselves instead of from our potential enemies. Send your ideas to your congressional delegation, news editors, etc.
“The proposed 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be enthusiastically supported by all Americans regardless of party affiliation, independent standing, or tea party sympathy. It basically provides that Congress shall make no law not fully applicable to its members and shall make any law applying to members also apply to all citizens. I'd like to see any Senator or Representative publicly oppose it.
“I am proposing a 29th amendment that should be equally acceptable to all (except a few who are not alarmed about the real cost of huge national debt) and might stand a better chance of passage than one designed to require a balanced federal budget:
“After the adoption of this amendment, no branch of the federal government shall borrow any funds for any purpose from any person or entity other than from a U. S. Citizen or a U. S. Corporation or other entity that is more than ninety percent owned and controlled by U. S. Citizens, except with the specific advance approval of ninety percent of the membership both houses of Congress.
“I know governments may have to borrow in emergencies, but our federal government has habitually sustained its operation and growth by borrowing, largely from other countries including some real or potential enemies, while forgiving debt owed us by other countries. An amendment forcing all except true emergency borrowing to be from U. S. citizens or institutions, through bonds similar to Savings Bonds or War Bonds, would naturally control our bad habit by making new debt subject to citizen support and faith in the government and its announced purposes.
“In my opinion, as a flaming Conserberal, this would lead toward a balanced budget, such as is required by the Mississippi constitution. Let's require that our future government debt, if any, be in favor of, not against, our children and grandchildren.”
My comment:
As much as I am an advocate for both congressional submission to the law and balancing the Federal budget, I cannot support either the proposed 28th or 29th amendments to the Constitution. We tried to impose moral dicta with the 18th Amendment; didn’t work then, won’t work now. Regardless of our political beliefs, values and affiliations, the Tea Party movement is the correct method to make changes in Washington – VOTE! The reason Congress is routinely exempted is separation of powers, i.e., the Legislature cannot be subjected to Executive prosecution, as that would inject politics into such actions. While the proposed 29th Amendment would constrain the government today, such a restriction could adversely affect our ability to conduct future wars successfully or respond to some massive emergency.

On Thursday, a shallow-water, oil and gas, transfer rig experienced a serious fire, causing the 13-man crew to abandon the rig. The fire appears to have been confined to the platform itself, and did not result in a leak. The accident will not help resolve the public apprehension regarding offshore oil exploration and production.

I would love to hope and comment on the renewal of talks between Palestinians and Israelis in Washington this week, but my hopes have been dashed too many times. I note that the talks happened but nothing else.

The notorious website Craigslist apparently succumbed to public and legal pressure over erotic (AKA adult) postings on their site by displaying a black bar with white lettering – “CENSORED.” This is not a great day for freedom. This faux-Band-Aid result does not help those oppressed and caught in prostitution or even children who are the object of human trafficking or sexual subjugation. This result may make us feel better, but it does not resolve the problem. I continue to contend and espouse legalization and regulation of the sexual services business. The best thing we can do it get that business into public view. We cannot impose our moral values on other citizens and still live in a free society.

Normally, most of the Judiciary’s decisions and pronouncements do not attract my attention, interest or capacity. I read cases that affect our freedoms whether we recognize it or not. Then, a decision percolates out that strikes me as odd, and curiosity takes over. Eight months after the collapse of energy company Enron (2001), Congress passed and the President signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 [AKA SOX] [PL 107-204; 116 Stat. 745; H.R.3763; Senate: 99-0-0-1(0); House: 423-3-0-8(1)] to improve accounting rules, ostensibly to prevent the corporate subterfuge that enabled Enron to destroy so much wealth. One element of SOX created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) as an independent professional standards organization under the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). A few years hence, the Nevada accounting firm Beckstead and Watts, LLP, registered with the PCAOB. The Board inspected the firm, released a report critical of its auditing procedures, and began a formal investigation. The Beckstead partners apparently did not like the outcome and sought the support of the Free Enterprise Fund (FEF) – a non-profit, 501(c)(4) organization focusing on limited government and tax relief – which in turn filed a claim that PCAOB and SOX were unconstitutional. The case made it to the Supremes – Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board [560 U.S. ___ (2010); no. 08-861]. The accounting issues that instigated this case were not discussed; my limited capacity did not allow me to dig through the lower court documents, which presumably contain such information as background or foundational material. The constitutional issue before the Supremes was separation of powers, specifically the imposition of multiple layers of “just cause” versus “at will” employment / tenure for certain Executive officers. Congress can and does impose certain restrictions on the Executive. Normally, Executive officers serve at the pleasure of the President; they can be discharged for reason whatsoever, quite like employees in the corporate world (at least in management); they serve “at the will” of the President. Congress occasionally imposes a “just cause” provision in an effort to remove the political dimension from critical Executive position like the commissioners of the SEC and the members of the PCAOB. The Supremes decided Congress overstepped its authority by placing several layers of “just cause” tenure restrictions on the Executive with this law, unconstitutionally imposing upon the President’s ability to supervise the government. Oddly, the United States Government did not support the FEF claim and indicated the President had no objection to the multiple “just cause” layers, thus the Executive did not agree with the Court’s position. On another plane, by this ruling in the wake of Citizens United [424], the Court has apparently decided to bestow citizenship upon inanimate corporations and harbors a desire to make the Executive more like corporations. Why not make the Federal Executive more like corporations? Answer: just two words – partisan politics; what goes around comes around. Based on the players and the essence of the decision, this case looks like a set-up intended to give the FEF a platform to stand before the Supremes, to argue their agenda, and they won; and I will say We, the People lost . . . again.

News from the economic front:
-- The Bank of Japan decided to take new steps to rein in the soaring yen and pump up the slumping Japanese economy, by expanding a special low-interest lending facility.
-- The Labor Department reported the U.S. economy lost a total of 54,000 jobs in August, which pushed the unemployment rate up slightly to 9.6%. The private sector added jobs, but the number was not enough to compensate for the reduction of government employees, principally temporary census workers.
-- The Washington Post reported that the Obama administration is considering another big dose of stimulus in the form of tax breaks for businesses -- potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Among the options are a temporary payroll tax holiday and a permanent extension of the research and development tax credit. Let us not forget, this is the silly season for this Fall’s mid-term elections.

Comments and contributions from Update no.454:
Comment to the Blog:
“The ‘War Against Islamic Fascism’ is bound to generate notable anti-Islamic sentiment. The simple fact that the terms ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islamic’ are coupled with ‘terrorist’ over and over by official US sources pretty much guarantees trouble for people perceived as ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islamic,’ including some Middle Easterners who are not Islamic. That is aggravated by the fact that few, if any, attempts are under way to pursue non-Islamic terrorists. That is part of war (or whatever we call this). A brief study of the treatment of Americans of Japanese and German ancestry during the World Wars will show you that nothing new is under way here. It’s the nature of the business of war.
“The stem cell researchers are caught up in the abortion debate. I expect irrational statements in that one, and I have not been disappointed.
“Charles Krauthammer does not deserve your attention.
“With respect to overseas adoptions, you could study domestic adoptions to better understand the motivations of those who seek children overseas.
“My take on the Stolen Valor Act is not that of a Constitutional scholar. It's simpler than that. Fraud is fraud. Is not elective office a valuable item? The fact that one achieves elective office by deceiving the people who choose the office holder ought to settle the case. If I lied about my education or experience to get a job at your company, I would be instantly dismissed upon exposure. Military experience is certainly experience pertaining to political office. Why is a political position less important than some other job? The only fly in the ointment that I can see is that politicians of all ideologies might be very nervous about laws concerning lying during political campaigns.”
My reply to the Blog:
The word association game will always present challenges. “Other” terrorists, like the IRA, FARC, ETA, Tamil Tigers, and such were generally not direct threats to the United States or our Allies (although I suspect the British, Columbians, Spaniards, Sri Lankans, et all, might have a different view; nonetheless, the “other” category was largely local. Until 9/11, even the United States saw the Islamic variants like the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Brotherhood, et cetera, as essentially local. We whined about the barbarity of the Taliban, but we did little to intervene; heck, groups like the Taliban and Islamic Brotherhood sought oppression of other Muslims, much like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard did in Iran. Al-Qaeda and 9/11 transformed those local contagions into a global threat to U.S. and Allied interests world-wide. Internment during WW2 was predominately confined but not limited to Americans of Japanese descent; some Americans of German and Italian descent were subjected to internment, but not the wholesale relocation and confinement to which Americans of Japanese descent were subjected. The current Islamo-phobic rhetoric of some among us is suggestive of those bygone days of ignorance, intolerance and bigotry. However, the point of my comments in Update no.454 was directly to oppose and thwart such irrational behavior.
The intransigence and I would like to say irrational stance of both poles have allowed the abortion issue to contaminate so many other questions – Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) being just one of those other questions. ESCR is one of those monumental scientific endeavors that can and will advance mankind, like the human genome project, space exploration, or deep ocean exploration; unfortunately, as noted earlier, ESCR is being hijacked, waylaid, and diverted because we cannot yet find a reasonable compromise solution to the abortion issue. Future generations will look back on these debates as we look back on past medical practices like leeching, bleeding, and such.
I appreciate your opinion about Krauthammer. I try to understand and appreciate all sides to any debate. It is important to listen to all sides.
Perhaps I should study domestic adoptions more. I am certainly no expert, and I am not even particularly well read on the topic. However, multitudinous anecdotal information leaves me with the impression that states do not share adoption candidates; bureaucracies put up a myriad of obstacles, ostensibly to protect children, and yet those hurdles become impediments to the child’s stability; we construct all these laws that make adults afraid of children. I imagine I have a very shallow view of the issue. Nonetheless, there are many reasons why Americans seek to adopt children from foreign countries rather than American children looking for a stable, caring family.
Very interesting, and I must say apropos, observations regarding the transgressions of Xavier Alvarez. Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit interpreted the law in a liberal, expansive and I must add inappropriate manner. I trust the Supremes will see Alvarez for what he is and his “speech” for what it is – a blatant violation of a very, narrowly defined, specific and limited law.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"The word association game will always present challenges."
“Cap, I expected better of you than that.
“Also, the harm to German- and Italian-named Americans during the World Wars (especially II) was mostly other than internment, and more resembled what is happening to Arabs and Moslems today. That is, they suffered random slights, name calling, and loss of jobs and opportunities based simply on their names. The Japanese Americans suffered more seriously; we have not yet reached that level of irrationality with Arabic or Moslem Americans.
“As far as the stem cell research "debate" (brawl), you said what I said except in many more words. I agree with you that future generations will probably see the irrationality of the current discussion, but I wish I knew how long it will take to get there. All of the current parties have been going at it hammer and tongs at least since the Roe v Wade decision came down, and nobody's out of energy or money.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
I’m not exactly certain of the cause for your admonition, but I’ll not argue the point.
To my understanding of history, the application of the internment order(s) was more selective with Americans of German and Italian descent when compared to the near universal application to Americans of Japanese descent. There were probably reasons for such discrimination, but they all pale under constitutional illumination. That episode was a sad moment in American history.
“Many more words” are not necessarily or even usually better; so my bad. Nonetheless, I do agree . . . the catalyst for the societal trauma we continue to endure was indeed Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)]. Every citizen who renders an opinion on abortion or related issues should read that ruling in its entirety. As I have claimed for many years, the ruling is about a woman’s fundamental right to privacy regarding her body and attempts to define boundaries upon the State’s authority to intrude upon that fundamental right. Regardless, as you note, neither side has shown any interest in meaningful compromise and a stable solution; so the convulsions and collateral damage continue.

Another contribution:
I will have to respectfully disagree with you on the mosque issue. It is not a question of islamophopia. The man behind the mosque has made statements in the past basically saying that it was the USA's fault terrorists decided to fly planes into our building and kill 3,000 people. The plan to build this mosque/cultural center on the place where our country was attacked is supported by Hamas. Hamas! A terrorist organization. Those two things alone set off alarm bells in my head. And hears another point. For years we keep getting told by politicians and others that we must be tolerant and understanding of the Islamic faith. Well, why haven't a number of those folks shown reciprocation? Where is their tolerance and understanding to the feelings of the families of those who lost loved ones in 9/11? There are even some Muslims who think a mosque on Ground Zero is not a good idea. Again, it's not the mosque itself. It's the people behind it who we should be concerned with. And Krauthammer has hit in on the head. Cap, people like me are sick and tired of being called racists and homophobes and hate-mongers just because we disagree with the current administration. My state in particular has been singled out by this President and his followers for vicious attacks because we just want to enforce the immigration laws the Federal Government doesn't care to. They even gave a document to the UN that says one of the ways the US has shown it respects human rights is by suing my state. What the hell is that about? Arizona is trampling human rights? What the hell sort of administration is this that shows this sort of hostility to one of its own states? Is it any wonder so many people in this country are angry?
Well, there's my two cents. At least I can take comfort in the knowledge you won't call me a racist or whatever.
Oh yeah, that Alvarez guy disgusts me. You know better than I do than a goodly number of people awarded the Medal of Honor died doing the thing that earned them the medal. Good analogy that there are laws about lying that you're a doctor or lawyer or cop. Those medals should mean something, and there should be some consequences to lying about earning a Medal of Honor or Purple Heart.
My response:
Ah, the beauty of freedom and this Grand Republic – our disagreements, our debates, our efforts to find compromise, balance and common ground.
If the civic question of the Ground Zero mosque was simply a zoning architecture or use issue, we would not be in the debate we find ourselves. Regrettably, we see and hear on television coverage, and read in the Press coverage, we are not simply embroiled in a zoning discussion. I think you will agree there are more than just a few isolated citizens spewing hatred and Islamo-phobic rhetoric (although that is probably not the most appropriate word descriptor). I have seen no evidence that Hamas is funding the Ground Zero mosque project; I would not be surprised; if true, I would also like to know the source of such information. I have long contended that Islam is roughly 600 years behind Christianity. We can argue that the separation of church and state did not begin until 17 centuries after Jesus of Nazareth shared his wisdom with us, and we are still struggling with that separation to this very day. Christianity was the antithesis of tolerance 600 years ago. I argue that we should engage Muslims; we should help and encourage them to assimilate into a society of freedom, tolerance and open public debate. We have Christian churches and congregations in this country that are far more parochial, intolerant, bigoted and anti-American than this imam, this mosque, this group of Americans of Islamic faith. Reverend Wright spouted out far more inciteful words than Imam Rauf.
Again, we shall disagree on Krauthammer’s opinion in many ways, not least of which I am not accusing anyone who disagrees with me of being racist, xenophobic, Islamo-phobic, or homophobic. For those who deserve the label, their words suffice as justification. I do shine a light on words that do not contribute to solutions, finding balance, and furthering American ideals. I have more often than not seen Chuck’s words as divisive rather than inquisitive or contributory.
We agree on the USG’s legal challenge of AZ SB1070. In part, I think the Feds had to sue to protect the Supremacy clause, and yet the Union is failing in its constitutional obligation to protect our borders and immigration. This confrontation is a long way from over.
We also agree on the Alvarez case and others. I suspect the Supremes will overturn the lower courts for the reasons Judge Bybee gave us in his dissent for Alvarez. I want the message to be very clear . . . you lie about such things, you pay the price.

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