Update no.676

Update from the Heartland

No.676

24.11.14 – 30.11.14

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

To all,

The follow-up news items:

-- With the President’s executive order on immigration enforcement [675], Representative Michael Richard Pompeo of Kansas, 4th District [USMA 1986], sent the following newsletter to his constituents, of which I am one:

            “This past Thursday, President Obama addressed the nation and committed an overreach of his Executive authority.  Instead of working with Congress to craft a true solution to the immigration crisis, as required under the Constitution, the President proposed we simply ignore current law and provide legal status for nearly five million illegal immigrants.

            “Immigration is a wonderful American tradition, which is why we have a thorough process in place for those who wish to enter America legally.  To ignore that system sets a dangerous precedent by placing politics ahead of the rule of law.

            “My office has assisted many Kansans who have patiently gone through the process of our immigration system, which can take years for some.  Is the message now that we are a country that promotes the lawlessness of bypassing the rules countless others had to follow?

            “President Obama’s action will only serve to exacerbate the underlying problem and drive more people to illegally cross our borders.  Instead of ignoring our laws, the White House should finally enforce them by ending the flood of illegal immigrants at our borders.

            “Thank you to those of you who have called into my office to share your concern about the Executive Order.  Rest assured I will do everything in my power to see the rule of law returned.  Kansans deserve better from Washington and the President.”

Sincerely,

Mike Pompeo

Member of Congress

An Open Letter to Representative Pompeo:

Re: your newsletter message dated: Mon, November 24, 2014; 5:05 am.

            I write to voice my disappointment in your reaction, as reflected in the reference message, to President Obama’s recent executive action regarding immigration enforcement.

            As a West Pointer and former Army Armor officer, you know quite well the old, time-proven adage: any action is better than no action.  You and your colleagues certainly have a right to publicly criticize the President or anyone else.  However, your implicit defense of inaction appears to be nothing more than parochial, partisan tripe.  Further, your claim that the President’s executive order is an overreach of his Article II authority fails to hold water in the light of historic precedent.  Every president since George Washington, except for William Henry Harrison, issued executive orders as part of his extra-legislative, constitutional authority.  Some presidents have taken far more impactful action by executive order (or equivalent).  Thus, I urge you to be careful and respectful of history in your criticism of President Obama.

            Additionally, if Congress does not like the President’s action, I strongly encourage the Legislative Branch to craft and pass the necessary legal reforms to our current immigration laws and fund the required resources to enforce those new laws.  Harping on defending the border without dealing with the underlying forces involved in the illegal immigration process is simply foolhardy and wasteful, quite like the tragic, so-called war on drugs.  Prohibition has never worked in a free society and it will not work now.  Continuing to screech at the President for doing something is simply wrong, counter-productive and otherwise quite unhelpful.

Respectfully submitted,

Cap Parlier

-- The continuing troubles centered in Ferguson, Missouri [661, 672], came to a boil again after the after-hours public announcement of the grand jury’s unanimous findings in the case of Police Office Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown.  This time, disruptive public protests and demonstrations sprang up in many cities across this Grand Republic, ala the Watts Riots (1965), Martin Luther King Jr. (1968), Rodney King (1991), Trayvon Martin (2012), et al.

You know, perhaps, just maybe . . . young Michael Brown was exactly as he appeared to be . . . a strong-arm robber, who resisted arrest, and paid for his actions with his life.  Some may argue, Brown was impaired, intoxicated, and did not know what he was doing.  I say . . . he made his choices.  He reaped the consequences of those choices.

            The violence we saw Monday night does not help the case presented by American citizens with dark skin pigmentation who seek justice.  From my perspective, that anarchic violence further drives the wedge into the chasm of racial injustice extant more than a century after freedom [1865].

            As a student of history, I recognize, acknowledge and quite frankly understand the general resentment of law enforcement by a substantial segment of our citizenry, especially those with dark skin pigmentation.  For centuries, they were enslaved, grotesquely abused, denied justice and equal treatment under the law, and what is far worse, their persecution often came at the hands of deeply flawed men in police uniforms.  They have reason to be angry.  However, the indictment, trial or mob persecution of a police officer who was doing his job to the best of his ability simply because the death of a young male at the hands of that police officer with near total disregard for the facts will NOT aid the professed objective of equal justice under the law.  Respectfully, such mindless, knee-jerk reaction will achieve just the opposite – broaden the chasm rather than bridge it.

            Law enforcement officers are members of our communities.  They need to feel apart of the community.  They deserve our respect, support, assistance and participation.  No police force is staffed to do their job without us.  We must overcome and eliminate the “don’t snitch” mentality that protects criminals and hinders law enforcement.  Treating law enforcement like they are an occupying enemy will never help ferret out bad officers or overcome the general distrust.  Lastly, if you dress like a criminal and act like a criminal, no one should be surprised if you are treated like a criminal.

            I wish just once the perpetrators of racial-based violence would find a reasonable example for their destructive indignation.  A strong-arm thug is NOT a worthy example.  Once violence and destruction begins, the message of any protest or demonstration is lost completely.  We simply must break this damnable cycle.

A friend and frequent contributor to this humble forum sent along the link to this article:

 “7 leading candidates for corporate rip-off of the year – Pharmaceutical companies are jacking up drug prices, while Wal-Mart is paying its employees with your money”

by Paul Buchheit, ALTERNET

salon.com

Published: Friday, NOV 28, 2014; 07:00 AM CST

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/28/7_leading_candidates_for_corporate_rip_off_of_the_year_partner/

As illuminated by Buchheit:

1. Selling Medication For Up To 100 Times More Than It’s Worth

2. Paying Their Employees With Our Tax Money

3. Giving Money to Executives Rather Than Investing in the Future

4. Making Money on Dirty Air and Water

5. Making the Highest Profit Margin in the Corporate World — And Demanding a Tax Cut

6. Skipping Out on the Country that Made Their Business Possible

7. Group Ripoff: $74 Billion in Profits…and a Tax Refund.

I cannot validate some of Buchheit’s observations / conclusions, yet my experience and knowledge suggest that he is spot on here.  With recent Supreme Court rulings strengthening the influence of corporations over the political process, unraveling the corporate welfare tax code will be nearly impossible.

News from the economic front:

-- U.S. imports of crude oil from OPEC nations is at its lowest level in almost 30 years, underlining the impact of the shale revolution on global trade flows.  These are interesting results in the post-embargo era of OPEC [1973].

-- The Commerce Department reported the nation’s GDP grew at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.9% in 3Q2014, indicating the U.S. economy is strengthening despite increasing global uncertainty.  Gains in the past two quarters represent the best six-month growth period since late 2003.

Comments and contributions from Update no.675:

Comment to the Blog:

“Regarding President Obama's executive action on immigration, I see this as a situation where Obama has given up having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. He chose one of several issues where the Republicans in Congress have essentially taken an ad hominem attack on Obama as an excuse for inaction or even for harming the public interest. He quit listening to their babbling and took action. The claim of illegality in Obama's executive order on immigration is the stuff of dystopian fiction. I think you will comprehend their actions if you understand that the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party has no interest in the public good. Underneath the bluster and BS, they are merely corrupted Libertarians, not staying true to those values because of their financing.

“The arrogance of religious leaders goes back at least to Biblical times. We know this because it arises in the synoptic Gospels. Those self-proclaimed Christians need to read their Bibles. Mark 15:22 says, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God's." Those owners' beliefs are a matter for their God; their employees' beliefs are protected by the modern "Caesar," the Constitution.

“That Constitution was written largely to protect the weak from the strong. Allowing corporations to have an unnatural personhood gives them power they can use against the rest of us. Corporations have more money and expertise than any given person, and they feel no obligation to loved ones, their nations, or to the God they may claim to worship. Some of my ancestors were Mennonites, fleeing Europe for reasons similar to your Hugenot ancestors'. I share your sense of diminishment. Because of my own small-minority religion, I have dread to go with it.

“To continue briefly on the EU economy topic, the "inordinate influence of bankers" is the point I was trying to make. The follow-up question, though, is, "What other experts can we consult in high-finance situations?" It seems to me that the only real course of action is to find ways to hold those bankers and their regulator puppets accountable for the corruption in their industry.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: Obama executive action.  The governing principle in this instance is, any action is better than no action.  The claims of illegality or even unconstitutionality are bogus and will not survive judicial review.  The historic precedent is far too deep and pervasive.  The President did what had to be done.  Tea Party = “corrupted Libertarians” I don’t think I can go quite that far.

            Re: arrogance of religious leaders.  Interesting perspective.

            Re: corporate personhood.  Unnatural indeed!  As I have tried feebly to argue, the corporate personhood notion has dramatically unbalanced our society.  I think I understand what the Court is (was) trying to do, but what they did was so wrong.  No court has noted the reality that corporate CEOs and Boards now have not only their vote, as you and I do, they have far greater access to resources they can use anonymously to amplify and multiply their opinion, their perspective.  These are not corporations talking, they are human beings – citizens – using the resources of corporations to extend their arguments.  And, what’s worse, they write off those expenditures as expenses, which means the rest of us pay for their actions by reduced corporate taxes excluded by the profit equation.  The Court has shown progressively less concern for the Liberty of citizens.  I still believe the Supremes will eventually see the fallacy of Citizens United and Hobby Lobby; it just might not come in my remaining lifetime.  It just appears the current Supremes are far more concerned with inanimate organizations than individual citizens.  I wish I knew why?

            Re: accountability of bankers.  Spot on!  That is precisely the point, but we are a very long way from that state.

 . . . a follow-up comment:

“Why would the Supreme Court be more concerned with inanimate organizations than with individual citizens? Let's follow the money. The Justices are appointed by Presidents with the consent of the Senate. They invariably choose people who agree with their contributors' philosophies.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            A rather pessimistic view, it seems to me . . . however, quite plausible.

Another contribution:

“Obama is ‘firing’ Hagel? Wow. Things may be worse than we had heard. I perceive Obama may feel he was sandbagged on the data that caused him to call ISIS ‘junior varsity’ last winter.”

My reply:

            There is much more to this story.  Perhaps we shall hear how this went down in time, but probably not for two years or more.

A different contribution:

“Yes, the GOP leadership is trapped again by our more clever POTUS. The Repandercrats will succeed again in offending that portion of the electorate that they have been foolishly wooing by trying to outpander the Democrats rather than by selling the true merits of private enterprise operating under limited government (limited social and/or corporate welfare, and reliance upon human nature's response to incentives for self improvement).  The Republican Party is incapable of saving our once great nation from the phenomena predicted by that great Frenchman and echoed in futile warnings ever since:  non-taxpaying voters will vote for more and more benefits until the money and credit runs out.”

My response:

            The best I can say is, I truly hope you are wrong.  This Grand Republic has demonstrated throughout history a propensity to self-correct when things go too far one direction or the other.  I continue to hold onto my faith that we shall continue that history into the future.

            We shall see.

Yet another contribution:

“Yes I find it difficult to associate with the actions of those rioters in Ferguson and our own quite recent events in Tottenham London very much for the same reason. Why? Is it because I was brought up in a country suffering from the deprivations and suffering of war? A country where nothing was wasted and everything was scarce. There was nothing to riot over, life was to damned hard.

“And now, do we have to toe the line in order to survive? If there is something to riot over let’s do just that and hell with the consequences.

“Are those who behave thus deprived of a sense of reason and natural justice? Or are they, as perhaps they the rioters, might want us to believe, a down trodden segment of our global society who believe natural justice will always evade them.

“One question I have been unable to conclude in my own mind. Would I or yourself, faced with the circumstances that both your policeman and ours faced on those darkest of days pulled the trigger?

“If we believed our own or our families lives were in mortal danger then we would.”

My response:

            I write more about the Ferguson riots in this week’s Update.  I recognize and even understand the historical frustration, but this misguided violence does nothing but broaden the racial divide, not bridge it.  Somehow, this damnable cycle of violence must be broken.

            At such times, I am reminded of a popular tactic used by Hitler’s SS and we now bear witness to Putin’s use in Eastern Ukraine – use violence to induce anarchy, then peaceful citizens turn to authoritarian / autocratic forces to stop the violence.

            In answer to your question, I sure hope so.  I think the point on debate is why Wilson allowed Brown to get so close.  Once the first strike was inflicted by Brown, there were only two outcomes remaining, to my thinking – submit to arrest or die.  Brown chose the latter.  Whether Brown was impaired by intoxication is irrelevant.  He chose to resist and reaped the consequences.  I believe all law enforcement are taught to eliminate the threat, and once a weapon is drawn, you must be prepared to kill.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)