Update no.607

Update from the Heartland

No.607

29.7.13 – 4.8.13

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

To all,

The follow-up news items:

-- “Manning Acquitted!” . . . that was the headline (with the exclamation point), over a goodly number of Press, media and on-line news outlets on Tuesday.  My first impression, PFC Bradley Edward Manning, USA, 25, the erstwhile army intelligence clerk who betrayed his country by publicly releasing thousands of classified communications during the War on Islamic Fascism [450], walked out of court a free man after being confined for trial since in arrest in May 2010.  Then, in small print, almost like a footnote, they acknowledged his conviction on 19 other counts.  Colonel Denise R. Lind, USA, Chief Judge, 1st Judicial Circuit, U.S. Army Trial Judiciary, issued the verdicts.  The Judge found Manning not guilty of “aiding and abetting the enemy” – the most serious charge he faced.  I would love to hear her reasoning . . . out of curiosity; but, alas, that is not likely.  Frankly, I thought he committed treason as defined in the Constitution and should have faced capital punishment for his crimes.  Nonetheless, Manning’s trial is complete; now, his punishment will be determined and I trust it will be worthy of his crimes against this Grand Republic.

-- Unfortunately, Russia decided to grant temporary (1 year) asylum to the National Security Agency NSA leak, AKA Edward Snowden [599 & sub].  He was photographed reportedly leaving Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport, apparently into the welcoming arms of a few American ex-patriots and his WikiLeaks buddies [480].  I suspect the Russians will use the American fugitive as a large bargaining chip to get something they want.  If my premonition is correct, Snowden will eventually return to face the bar and the consequences of his actions.

-- A federal grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C., has issued subpoenas as part of its investigation into the conduct of Falls Church, Virginia-based, US Investigations Services LLC (USIS) [602] – the largest security background-check firm working for the U.S. government.  USIS carried out the last background security check on Snowden.

The Financial Times [of London] passed along an interesting little tidbit of history actually compiled and released by the Bank of England (BoE) Archive, from an internal document produced in 1950. 

            On 15.March.1939, Wehrmacht troops marched unopposed into Prague, Czechoslovakia, along with their Schutzstaffeln brethren in trail, after Reichskanzler Hitler intimidated Czech President Emil Hácha into giving up the rest of his country less than six months from the Munich Accord, when the German dictator hoodwinked Prime Ministers Chamberlain and Daladier into carving off part of Czechoslovakia [29.September.1938] to feed his megalomania.  That is old history. 

            The new history comes from the BoE document, which illuminated a message received on 21.March.1939, to the BoE Chief Cashier at Threadneedle Street in London, from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) based in Basel, Switzerland.  The simple message requested the transfer of about £5.6M worth of gold [≈ 23,300 kg of gold ≈ £736.4M {US$1.12B} (2013)] from the BIS No.2 Account to BIS No .17 Account.  The 1950 BoE document indicated the bank suspected but did not know for certain that BIS No.2 Account belonged to the National Bank of Czechoslovakia and BIS No.17 Account belonged to the Reichsbank; their suspicions were correct.  Nazi Germany did not waste time.  Once the looted Czech gold was safely in BIS No.17 Account, the Nazis liquidated the gold by 31.March.1939.  Another little historical tidbit, the BIS enabled the transfer of looted gold by Nazi Germany as late as 2.April.1945.  The BIS was created in 1930, to handle the massive fund transfers from reparations as a consequence of the Versailles Treaty and the Great War. Apparently, some international bankers have no conscience and live in a different dimension of morality & ethics.  I wonder how much more we are going to learn about that era 70+ years ago.

A friend, fellow traveler, and consistent contributor to the Update sent the URL to this essay:

“Ayn Rand And The Sociopathic Society or ‘How I Learned To Stop Loving My Neighbor And Despise Them Instead’”

by Justin “Filthy Liberal Scum” Rosario

Addicting Info.com

Published: March 24, 2013; 6:30 pm

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/24/sociopathic/

 . . . to which I replied:

            I guess I must be a liberal after all.  I am not a particular fan of broad label applications, and this is yet one more instance.  FLS seems to paint all rich folks as conservative, and vice versa . . . well, except for the lowly Tea Party fanatics, who blindly subscribe to the conservative political agenda with none of the financial benefit.

            I am an odd mixture of conservative and liberal views on many subjects.  I have been accused of being at the extremes of each . . . on different topics, thank goodness . . . as the same subject would seem schizophrenic.

            I have never been a fan of Ayn Rand, although my parents were devout believers.  I believe we must have taxes, and everyone should pay some tax – a contribution to good government.  The challenges, as always, is finding balance between wealth/poverty, conservative/liberal, little/big, et cetera.

            They say morality is what we do when no one is watching.  I also say, keep government at all levels out of our private lives.  This in turn presents a dichotomy of sorts relative to the law.  For me, it is simple.  Government and the law should be confined to public conduct, although the morality element demands some intrusion to preclude injury to person or property, i.e., a businessman’s private dealings should be regulated to the extent they cause or might cause injury to another person or his property.  The law and the Government are way too deep into our private affairs, and thus too big.

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

We heard the hue & cry regarding the demise of the Voting Rights Act at the hands of the wicked Supreme Court in the case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder [570 U.S. ___ (2013); no. 12-96].  This is one of those cases that could easily be argued either way.  I can see, understand and agree with the arguments on both sides.  When viewed along with Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District no.1 v. Holder [557 U.S. ___ (2009); no. 08-322; 22.June.2009] [397], the Shelby County ruling appears to be an implicit message to Congress and We, the People, that the 5-4 majority is becoming less tolerant of the extraordinary voting rights legislation at issue here:

• ·      Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) [PL 89-110; S.1564; House: 328-74-x-x(33); Senate: 79-18-x-x(3); 79 Stat. 437] – authorized for 5 years.
• ·      Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 [84 Stat. 315] – VRA reauthorized for another 5 years.
• ·      Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975 [89 Stat. 400] – VRA reauthorized for 7 more years.
• ·      Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982 [96 Stat. 131] -- VRA reauthorized for 25 years.
• ·      Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 [120 Stat. 577] – VRA again reauthorized for another 25 years.

Does anyone else here see the trend in this legislation?  Anyway . . .

            The Shelby County case is the latest, and undoubtedly not the last, challenge to VRA.  Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr. wrote for the majority and concluded, “Congress could have updated the coverage formula [as a result of Northwest Austin], but did not do so.  Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) [of VRA] unconstitutional.  The formula in that section can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.”  He continued, “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2.  We issue no holding on §5 itself, only on the coverage formula.”  Roberts closed with, “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”  The §4(b) coverage formula simply established the threshold for scrutiny under VRA as either less than 50% voting age residents registered, or less than 50% of voting age residents voting in a presidential election.  Associate Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg wrote for the dissenters, “The Court stops any application of §5 by holding that §4(b)'s coverage formula is unconstitutional.”  Ginsburg spent considerable effort defending VRA’s necessity for the last 48 years along with the continuing need for the extraordinary law.  Her argument treated §4(b) as a miniscule lynch pin in the VRA enforcement scheme.  She clearly saw the assault on §4(b) as effectively condemning the entirety of VRA as well as all of it historic accomplishments.  I must note the concurring opinion of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who said, “By leaving the inevitable conclusion unstated, the Court needlessly prolongs the demise of [the preclearance enforcement] provision.  For the reasons stated in the Court's opinion, I would find §5 unconstitutional” – essentially terminating VRA as an equal rights tool. 

            There are many elements of VRA that are compelling; yet, the 50% formula bothers me for a host a reasons.  The persistent jurisdictional efforts to “purify” the voter pool begs for federal regulatory enforcement to ensure we have fair and open elections as best flawed human beings are able to execute.  I do worry about fraudulent tampering with electoral results as we have seen historically in Cook County, Illinois, or the Tammany Hall era in New York City.  Last year’s redistricting fiasco in Texas remains a contemporary reminder – Perry v. Perez [565 U.S. ___ (2012); no 11-713; 20.January.2012] [528].  Whether we choose to acknowledge the fact, there are more than a few clever, little politicians eager to protect their place at the public trough that continue to dream up scheme after plot to isolate or marginalize minority voters, or more broadly those voters who do not support them.  On the flip side, I must confess my intellectual struggle with education & literacy, and a citizen’s obligation to vote.  If a citizen does not read or understand the English language, he will be far more susceptible to nefarious influence by unscrupulous characters, which will work to subvert our electoral system.  I appreciate the law’s and the Court’s arguments, but I have not seen my way through the balancing process.  How do we ensure the integrity of our election system without the considerable burdens of §5 of VRA, where applicable?  Nonetheless, no one has adequately explained why the 50% threshold in §4(b) of VRA is significant or even an appropriate criterion for assurance of non-discriminatory voter registration and voting qualification.  There are other electoral jurisdictions beyond the former CSA states that do not meet that threshold but are not under preclearance scrutiny.   I think the Supremes did what had to be done.  Conversely, I hope Congress rises to the challenge and devises a better, more appropriate coverage formula to achieve the ultimate objective that will pass judicial review.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution has been and remains one of the essential protections We, the People, have against intrusive government.  The Supreme Court recently added another opinion to its list of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence – Maryland v. King [570 U.S. ___ (2013); no. 12-207].  The issue at hand was a Maryland statute that allowed a cheek swab for DNA testing of anyone arrested for a crime of violence; burglary or an attempt to commit burglary, where a crime of violence includes murder, rape, first-degree assault, kidnapping, arson, sexual assault, and a variety of other serious crimes.  The point of contention in the King case was the conditions under which a DNA testing swab can be taken without a warrant. 

            Alonzo King was arrested in Wicomico County, Maryland, and charged with first- and second-degree assault for menacing a group of people with a shotgun.  Since he qualified under the Maryland law, the police took a DNA swab from the inside of his cheek during the normal booking process.  The laboratory processed the swab.  The result was entered into Maryland’s DNA database.  A direct match was discovered for a 2003 home invasion, burglary and rape in Salisbury, Maryland.  King was subsequently charged, tried and convicted for the 2003 crimes.  He claimed the DNA swab was taken without his consent and without a warrant, and thus violated his right “against unreasonable searches and seizures” without “probable cause.”

            The King ruling produced an odd 5-4 split among the justices. Associate Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in which Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito joined.  Associate Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.  Kennedy acknowledged that the Court must “balance the privacy-related and law enforcement-related concerns to determine if the intrusion was reasonable.”  The Court’s conclusion, “When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”  Justice Scalia questioned the purpose and timing of the warrantless DNA sampling.  He said, “All parties concede that it would have been entirely permissible, as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, for Maryland to take a sample of King's DNA as a consequence of his conviction for second-degree assault,” but not coincident with his arrest and booking for another crime.

            I appreciate Scalia’s concern.  Again, I could argue both sides of this case.  I worry about the enormous power of modern technology and the government’s use of that power for collateral or even unrelated purposes.  There are valid and appropriate arguments to both sides of this particular case.  The key for me is King’s arrest for what could have been a violent act.  Citizens who have such disrespect for other human beings to commit violent crimes are not likely to be deterred by the power of DNA technology to unequivocally link them to their crimes past and present.  Frankly, I find it reassuring.  You commit a crime against person or property, and we will find you and impose appropriate punishment for your crimes.  Unfortunately, as with all, powerful tools, we must remain vigilant to detect abuse of the information developed by these techniques.  The bottom line: I think the Court got it right in the King case, but we are at the misty threshold of acceptability.

News from the economic front:

-- The Commerce Department reported the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an annualized rate of 1.7% in 2Q2013, as robust consumer and investment spending offset the continuing contraction in public spending and a slowing global economy.

-- The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) rose to 55.4 in July from 50.9 in June, indicating that manufacturing activity is increasing as factory employment expands. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected the latest PMI to come in at 52.0.  A reading above 50 indicates expanding activity.

-- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission won a key civil trial against former Goldman Sachs trader Fabrice Tourre, who was found liable of defrauding investors in a pre-financial crisis derivatives deal.  The case against Tourre was closely watched as the government sought to demonstrate it was holding bankers to account for their alleged misdeeds ahead of the collapse in the mortgage market.

-- The Labor Department reported U.S. employers added 162,000 jobs in July. The unemployment rate decreased to 7.4%, its lowest level since December 2008.

No comments from Update no.606.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)