Update from the
Heartland
No.791
6.2.17 – 12.2.17
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals unanimously rejected the government’s argument with respect to the
Trump immigration ban executive order [789,
790]. Unfortunately, the court stretched too far in extending due
process and equal protection to people beyond the jurisdiction of the United
States. That aside, they were spot
on correct regarding those people who hold valid visas and green cards, and
were denied due process and equal protection by the President’s unilateral
action. As of this writing, it
remains uncertain what the President will do next.
A contributor offered:
“Here are some thoughts about topics that may be worthy of your
update. Please feel free to ignore
them or not.
“I noticed the term 'Muslim majority country' used instead of
'Muslim country' by news organizations when reporting on the recent travel ban
to the U.S. from 7 countries. Then
I remembered our discussion months ago about whether the U.S. was a Christian
country. We did not use the term
'Christian majority country'. You
and I disagreed on this topic. So
I thought maybe we disagreed because we did not define 'Christian country'. If you want to write more on this topic,
I request you do 3 things that might clear things up.
1. Define 'Christian country'.
2.
Define 'Muslim country'.
3.
Name 2 Christian countries.
Since this is your update, I say you get to define things.
“Next topic. Concerning the Electoral College and foreigners, such as
Brits, not seeing why the U.S. uses the Electoral College to vote for President
and Vice President. To use a
sports analogy, consider 3 sports, tennis, volleyball and golf. Tennis
and volleyball use scoring methods like the Electoral College. That is, winners may not win most of the
points played in a match, or in tennis, most of the games played. In a tennis match where the winner wins
6-4, 0-6, 6-4, 0-6, 6-4, he or she wins 3 sets to 5, but wins fewer games, 18
to 24. So he or she probably loses most of the points too. It is similar in volleyball, but not so
in golf. If 2 golfers play a
match, one of them may 'win' 10 of 18 holes but not the match since the winner
is the one who has the fewest strokes regardless of how many strokes were
played on a particular hole. The
Brits surely had an influence in coming up with the rules of tennis. So, they should have no problem with the
Electoral College.
“3rd topic. Some U.S.
folks said or wrote that they would leave the U.S. if Donald Trump became
President. Then there was rioting
in some U.S. cities because Donald won the election. I thought of 'The Sound of Music' when the Von Trapp family
left Austria in 1938, or maybe 1939, after Anschluss in March of 1938. They probably had similar feelings about
Nazis that some folks have about Donald. But they did not riot and break shop windows. I guess I thought of this since some folks,
including you, have discussed similarities between Adolf and Donald. I wonder if the Von Trapp family would
have been welcomed in Syria and been allowed to immigrate there legally. I presume fleeing Nazis is just as much
fun as fleeing ISIS.”
My response:
Definitions
. . . OK, I’ll take a stab at this.
“1. Define 'Christian
country'.” A Christian
country would be a theocracy based on and exclusively devoted to the Christian
faith.
“2. Define 'Muslim
country'.” In similar form,
this would be a theocracy based on and exclusively devoted to the Islamic
faith.
“3. Name 2 Christian
countries.” By my
definition, no, I cannot think of a ‘Christian country.’ That said, the closest I can think of
is Italy, but it is not a theocracy.
Israel self-proclaims itself as a Jewish state, but the
state tolerates other religions.
Even the self-avowed Islamic theocracy – the Islamic State of Iran –
tolerates other religions to my knowledge. Lastly, I am not sure what your point is here?
Re:
“they
should have no problem with the Electoral College.” As I am sure you are aware, there are
Americans who have a problem with the Electoral College. The British have nothing like the
Electoral College. Yet, the
British system is more like the Electoral College than not. Voters in Great Britain vote for their
representative within their respective constituencies. Those members gather and vote for their
prime minister, who in turn appoints other governmental ministers. British citizens do not elect the prime
minister directly.
I
am not sure what your point is with the Von Trapp family analogy. Lacking a clear topic, I will say there
are always rather foolish people who profess to leave the country when the
other guy wins the election. That
is their choice. My previous words
of similarity between Trump and other fascist dictators like Hitler are simply
my observations of these men. Yet,
just because there are similarities does not mean the same outcome; those
similarities only suggest we are moving closer to that threshold. We do not have an Enabling Act . . .
yet . . . but we have a man in the presidency who is far closer to a dictator
than I am comfortable with. That
is my espoused position.
Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (Republican) invoked Rule 19 to
silence Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts during the floor debate
regarding President Trump’s nomination for Attorney General – Senator Jeff
Sessions of Alabama. The monstrous
fallacy in McConnell’s chilling action rests upon the reality that Sessions was
not the subject of the floor debate as a senator, he was there as the
President’s nominee for a vital Executive Branch post; he was just another ‘joe’
in that instance. Silencing Warren
was flat-assed WRONG! We may not
like or appreciate what she has to say, but she has every right to speak. Plus, the imagery is not good; take a
seat and be quiet, woman. McConnell’s
action does NOT bode well for the future.
Of course, now, we add his behavior to his nonsensical obstructionist
declaration against newly elected President Obama eight years ago and his
unconstitutional refusal to bring the President’s Supreme Court nominee to a
vote; they had the votes to reject the nomination, why take such an ugly
stance? The appearance alone
suggests he has joined President Trump in the march toward a fascist
dictatorship, just as judges and legislators joined Hitler in their march. No one should feel good about what
happened on the floor of the Senate yesterday (8.Feb.), regardless of whether
any of us agrees with Warren.
Another
contributor sent along the link to this article:
“Donald Trump using Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' playbook, says
world expert on Nazi leader – President's 'views come out of a playbook written
in German' says author — 'the playbook is Mein Kampf'”
by Charlotte England
The
Independent [UK]
Published: Wednesday 8 February 2017; 15:06 GMT
I
have read “Mein Kampf” [My Fight, or My Struggle] in its
entirety. It was not an easy read
for a myriad of reasons. Charlotte England’s reporting on
author Ron Rosenbaum’s contention adds additional voices to the unease seen by
many. “Mein Kampf” was
published on 18.July.1925 – 7.5 years before he became Empire Chancellor. There was ample forewarning of Hitler’s
intentions and game plan.
Unfortunately for history, far too many Germans did not take the
National Socialist firebrand seriously, until it was far too late to deal with
his professed Judeophobia, general xenophobia, homophobia, and his
explicit autocratic and dictatorial intentions. As noted in the England article, National Socialist thugs
ransacked the offices of the Munich Post in 1923, to communicate the
displeasure of the National Socialist hierarchy to the investigative reporting
of the newspaper. The Münchener Post (Munich Post) had been the leading journalistic agency
reporting on the violent behavior of the National Socialists. The newspaper published an
investigative report [12.December.1931] on a secret, written, National
Socialist plan referred to as der Endlösung (the
Final Solution), to use Jews as slave labor once they achieved power and
permanently resolve the Jewish question.
The newspaper ceased publication on 1.January.1933, on the eve of Hitler
coming to power. Many of the newspaper's
journalists just disappeared or were sent to Dachau concentration camp under
Nazi rule; to my knowledge, none survived the war. So, when Trump carries on with his chilling assault on the
Press, this is exactly what I am reminded of in history.
Another
illuminating newspaper article:
“Trump as Nero – Europe Must Defend Itself Against A Dangerous
President – The United States president is becoming a danger to the world. It
is time for Germany and Europe to prepare their political and economic
defenses.”
Editorial by Klaus Brinkbäumer
Der Spiegel
Published: February 05, 2017; 11:14 AM
The article opened with an image of the backside of the Statue
of Liberty. The caption read: “Is
the United States turning its back on liberty?” That is the essential question before us all. Or, is liberty only to be accorded to
those who agree totally with Trump and/or are comfortable feeding his ego?
Continuation from Update no.789:
“Thanks Cap... for your considerate response and for correcting me
on the book. Although, I do recall a similar book written around
the time I mentioned, when the then younger baby boomer generation had
discovered the adventures of travelling, especially through Europe--in the
sixties and seventies.
“The book seemed to accompany the one titled ‘Europe on a dollar a
day.’ Anyway, at the time I met a
number of Americans, all of them tourists, (I was about 16 to about 20, on my
own travels and not an American citizen at the time.) I found the
show-offs and boors among them, were those who were rich or bragged about their
riches—wholly uninteresting to me, as exploring Europe’s Greco-Roman
antiquities and amazing museums, its islands and beaches were my
interests. But Americans were certainly not exceptional in those ugly
points mentioned. They come from all nationalities. I
recall keeping a wide berth between them and myself, no matter where they came
from.
“On your second point, yes, I wholly agreed with you about Obama
as the antithesis of Trump in his more adult attitude and foreign policies, but
only in his first term as mentioned. After that he fell for the
neo-CON's rabid anti-Russia rhetoric, insults, scolding and inflammatory NATO
instigations right on Russia's borders, and that ugly curse of superpower vain
pride of mythical exceptionalism, etc. Very unwise, if not downright foolish and dangerous!
“The reason he did not initially succeed with his weak Russia
reset, is because, as with all previous administrations since the fall of the
Soviet Union, he refused to consider ANY of Russia's concerns and
interests--Russia was/is treated like a failed power and mocked and insulted
continuously. Not a wise foreign
policy at all, with any power, let alone a major nuclear power. It's not a matter of liking Russia or
not or agreeing with many of her concerns or not. It's a matter of exercising adult behavior to achieve at
least fair practices among powers and to cooperate where their interests
meet--and to avoid collisions or catastrophic miscalculations!
“Obama was in the end no different than his hubris incapacitated
previous counterparts; he ignored all of Russia's concerns and unwisely made
small of them and even scorned Russia with maddening contempt, in his last term
to the point of calamity in relations. His Atlantic Monthly long interview with Goldberg was quite
enlightening, two or three months ago
“I can only hope and pray Trump can maintain his more realistic
and pragmatic attitude towards Russia and hope he sees fit to treat the other
big power, China, more maturely and with less condescending public noise.
“And that's my opinion and like you, I too could be wrong.”
My
response:
I
am no help. That book does not
ring a bell for me.
Like
you, I have seen many good, decent Americans overseas. I would like to think I have been and
remain one of those. I would
also say there were probably many Americans whom I came in contact with but
never recognized their nationality, i.e., they blended in quite well. Perhaps it was the rich folks that were
the predominant number of ugly Americans, but I have no way to know. I suspect many were not as wealthy as
they pretended to be, since they were traveling on trains, buses and eating in
ordinary restaurants. Yes, I
absolutely agree. I’ve also seen
ugly behaving citizens of all nationalities. Also, like you, I take a wide berth. I have even been known to apologize to
my colleague for the obnoxious and ridiculous conduct of my countrymen.
Perhaps
I was asleep during Obama’s second term.
I do not see the facts I have in the same light. Could it be the ending of the winter
rebellion and ouster of President Yanukovych [21.Feb.2014] that precipitated
the Russian intervention and belligerence? Or, could it be we misinterpreted the Russian invasion of
Georgia [8.Aug.2008]?
I
was invited to the Soviet Union in 1991.
I know more than a few Russian citizens in both the aviation and medical
professions. They are good,
decent, respectful people. But,
like ugly Americans, there are also more than a few ugly Russians.
Re:
“he
[Obama] refused to consider ANY of Russia's concerns and interests.” I would be interested to know the facts
you have for this statement. What
concerns and interests? What U.S.
or NATO action suggests this to be true?
I
am with you in that mutual respect is essential to international
relations. However, unilateral
respect can be very dangerous and ultimately counter-productive, e.g.,
appeasement era (1936-1939).
I
had not read the Goldberg interview.
Thanks to your heads-up, I have now read the article. The article begins in a rather
inauspicious manner with the very first sentence.
“Friday,
August 30, 2013, the day the feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end
America’s reign as the world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively,
the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and
stepped back from the consuming void—began with a thundering speech given on
Obama’s behalf by his secretary of state, John Kerry, in Washington, D.C.”
That sentence certainly sets the tone for the rest of the
article. I also found it keenly
focused as he stated later on:
“He [Obama]
would not end up like the second President Bush—a president who became
tragically overextended in the Middle East, whose decisions filled the wards of
Walter Reed with grievously wounded soldiers, who was helpless to stop the
obliteration of his reputation, even when he recalibrated his policies in his
second term.”
I am on record as being seriously critical of Bush 43, for
his grotesque failure to mobilize the nation for war. Bush committed and exceeded the capacity of the U.S. Armed
Forces to carry out and sustain combat operations in the Middle East. I suppose Bush’s decisions to go after
the bad guys, including Hussein, but I stood with General Shinseki, Rumsfeld
beat down all voices to the contrary and convinced the President to fight the
war on the cheap. I give President
Obama credit for at least extracting U.S. combat forces to operate in a more
reasonable level within the capacity of the current force structure, but that
withdrawal left a clear vacuum rapidly filled and inflated by ISIL. We have a force structure reduced to
peacetime levels. You either
mobilize for war, or you should not fight a war without mobilization. You break it you own it. The last President to properly mobilize
the nation for war was Franklin Roosevelt. Just an FYI:
“The Iraq
invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like
Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid
shit.”
This is where I deeply disagree with the former President. I think Iraq was the proper action for
a host of reasons. Where my strong
objections comes to what actually happened is as noted above. Bush / Rumsfeld committed grossly
inadequate forces to Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. They won the battle but lost the peace by not securing and
governing the country in the aftermath of the battle. Frankly, I think Shinseki under estimated the troops
required at 500K; the number should have been more like 1-2M troops. The anarchy and chaos after the fall of
Hussein is living testament to that reality. Another adjunct FYI: I rather like and appreciate Obama’s “Don’t
do stupid shit.” What Bush
/ Rumsfeld did was definitely “stupid shit” – not fighting the battle, but
throwing away the peace. If we
were not prepared to do it properly, we should NOT have done it.
I
also happen to agree with former Vice President Biden, “big nations don’t bluff.” In hindsight, Obama’s “red line” was a
bluff that failed.
All
that said, Goldberg focuses on what I believe was Obama’s biggest foreign
policy failure and rightly so, I must say. Where I differ is stretching that failure to his entire
foreign policy.
I
like the former President’s statement, “One of the reasons I am so focused
on taking action multilaterally where our direct interests are not at stake is
that multilateralism regulates hubris.” Spot on, I’d say.
We
have a real penchant to intervene and an abysmal history of follow-through. The last time were successful in the
aftermath was the Marshall Plan in Europe and Japan. South Korea was also a success, but that was with less
direct support from the U.S. I
suppose if I feel generous, I would say Kuwait was a proven success.
I
am with you, we can only hope and pray Trump can find some more realistic
position regarding Russia and China; they both deserved to be treated with
respect, but with firm rejection of their hegemonic actions.
“That’s
just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Have a great day. Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
The Obama Doctrine
The U.S. president
talks through his hardest decisions about America’s role in the world.
The Atlantic
APRIL 2016 ISSUE
Postscript: The Goldberg article mentioned above is:
“The Obama Doctrine – The U.S. president talks through his hardest
decisions about America’s role in the world.”
by Jeffrey Goldberg
The
Atlantic
Published: APRIL 2016 ISSUE
Comments and contributions from Update no.790:
“It's very hard to get to the typically meaty discussions in 790 because of your habitual but now
even more Trump-like anti-Trump hyperbole (to put it kindly), like your
scandalous "This man has no dignity . . . or any other admirable trait in
a human being." Maybe you (and I) are just getting old and looser of
tongue...”
My reply:
I
do not know about you, but as for me, I am most definitely “getting
old,” whether I like it or not.
“looser of tongue” . . . perhaps, but others shall be the
judge of that.
Re:
“anti-Trump
hyperbole.” OK, for the
sake of argument, let us take your statement as fact. The inverse suggests that you approve of his innumerable,
outrageous, public statements, e.g., “The Press are the most dishonest people on the planet” [emphasis: mine], “I
alone can fix it,” et at ad infinitum ad
nauseum. In a free society,
the choice to accept or tacitly condone such nonsense is yours entirely, as it
is mine. The comment had to do
with his very inappropriate belittling of Schwarzenegger at the National Prayer
Breakfast. Do you really believe
that was a dignified and proper public statement for the President of the
United States of America to make at a National Prayer Breakfast . . . of all
places? He is NOT a private citizen! Concomitantly, apparently, you believe
that was an apropos statement. Would such a statement be appropriate for a
judge on the bench? If so, then we shall respectfully disagree . . . full stop!
. . . to which the contributor added:
“What has changed, other than it is much worse now?”
. . . to which was
attached:
“Very short video - about 84 seconds”
. . . along with my comment to the video:
Illegal
border crossings (for whatever reason) have been a significant federal problem
since at least the Eisenhower administration . . . to my knowledge. Illegal immigration is not new. So, “What has changed, other than it is
much worse now?” Answer:
nothing! Congress has failed for
many years to seek and find the necessary compromise for the common good. We have been paralyzed by one foolish
ideology versus another. The
political parties no longer care about the common good, only domination of
their beliefs. By inference,
perhaps you are suggesting President Obama made the border situation
worse. If so, how? Since you chose to focus on the Clinton
administration, I must presume you believe Trump’s magic wall will stop all
illegal immigration and border crossings?
If so, pray tell us all how that will work?
. . . Round three:
“I agree with your disdain for our President's obscene comments.
“Your conclusion regarding the inverse suggestion is wrong.
“I just wanted to point out your error regarding his lack of
admirable traits.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Whew! I am happy to be wrong in this
instance. My presumption from your
words led me down the wrong path.
Thank you for the correction.
. . . Round four:
“Bless you, brother. Even the most level-headed among us can
misinterpret words and motives. Good thing the press is not interested in
our friendly discourse--they spend hours of air time on such minutia when it
involves Mr. Trump.”
. . . my reply to round four:
We all make mistakes. I am not excluded from that category.
Trump
brings that scrutiny upon himself . . . and, I believe his efforts are
intentional and calculated. He
needs a villain – an enemy – to deflect attention from his other actions and
behavior.
Another contribution:
“Unfortunately, we have elected (sort of) a President who has a
clear and serious clinical mental condition. Why people keep expecting him to
suddenly become rational is beyond my comprehension. His performance at the
Prayer Breakfast is only the latest addition to a long history of demonstrating
his condition.
“The Republican Congress stopped Obama's Supreme Court nominee
from consideration. I would see it as appropriate if the Democrats could block
Trump's candidate until after the impeachment.
“Trump's gift to Wall Street is horrendous, but no surprise.
“I see little that Trump does as ‘deliberate strategy’ due to his
mental illness. However, Steve
Bannon and probably others are making hay while the sun shines. They are as
free of conscience as rattlesnakes.
“The need to decode Trump arises from the elements in the last
paragraph and from ‘alternative’ media that see Fox News as part of a left-wing
conspiracy.
“I still do not understand how elections by popular vote make one
voter less important than another. They make each voter equal, unlike the
current system. The Electoral College makes a Wyoming voter more important than
a New York voter. Why do this?”
My response:
Re:
“we
have elected (sort of) a President.” No, emphatically no!
No one, not left nor right, nor Green Party recount, has identified any
illegality or even impropriety.
Trump was elected fair and square by the People who chose to vote, in
accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
There is NO “sort of” in the 2016 presidential election. He is the President for the next four
years . . . unless he is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. If the People naively and ignorantly
fell victim to the Russian disinformation and felonious conduct campaign to
influence voters in this country, we have only ourselves to blame.
Re:
“Why
people keep expecting him to suddenly become rational.” I gave up that hope completely after
the silly season debates began.
His parents formed his character by the time he was five years old. He has proven himself incapable of
positive change. The sycophants
around him from his childhood to this very day have reinforced and amplified
his character flaws. I hold no
illusions as to who this man is.
Yes, exactly, his performance at the 2017 National Prayer Breakfast is
just the latest demonstration of that reality.
Re:
“Democrats
could block Trump's candidate.”
What the Republicans did with the Garland nomination was reprehensible
and the anti-thesis of the spirit embodied in all of our historic national
documents. However, two wrongs do
not make a right. There will be a
correction, of that I am certain.
Thus, we shall respectfully disagree.
Re:
“Trump's
gift to Wall Street.” It is
not law, yet. There is no
directive in that executive order, only a statement of intent.
Re:
Bannon et al. Perhaps. We shall see. None of them make law.
Re:
alternative facts. Agreed. Very troubling, to say the least.
Re:
“one
voter less important than another.” You persist in chanting that mantra. It is not true, no matter how many
times you say it. You choose to
disregard history and the Constitution; I do not. I shall maintain my resistance to your supposition.
. . . follow-up comment:
“The parenthetical in my comment was a reference to the Electoral
College process. You have not
explained how I'm ignoring history; nothing has changed. That never was a ‘one
voter, one vote’ process. As far as any other election irregularities, believe
whatever you believe. You may focus only on the Russians, but plenty of other
issues have been raised. Nobody has shown trial-worthy evidence for or against
any of the various allegations back to the primaries.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Re:
“a
"one voter, one vote" process.” That is the process within each state. I would suggest you focus on the
electoral process within your state.
Perhaps you can convince Ohio to abdicate to the national popular vote
as Maryland has done.
Re:
“plenty
of other issues have been raised.”
Yes, absolutely, we are far from perfect. There are many issues that disturb me about the purity of
our system of elections, e.g., inaccurate, unclean registration roles, multiple
state registrations, loose voter identification, voter intimidation /
suppression, big money influence, et cetera. There is plenty to improve.
Re:
“Nobody
has shown trial-worthy evidence.”
Yes, most probably because nobody wants to hear the answer. We just pretend everything is
hunky-dorry. One of the things
that seemed like a ray of sunlight was actually The Donald’s claim of election
fraud and demands for a thorough investigation. Unfortunately, he likes bluster and smoke rather than
solutions.
A different
contribution:
“The turmoil
created by your misguided man at the top has like a rotten apple eaten its way
into our U/K politics.
“As you know early
on in his ‘reign’, I believe that’s an adequate description, we have welcomed
him on a State Visit. But now our speaker (Chair) in the house has very plainly
stated that he will not be welcome to address both houses as other of your
presidents have had the honour of doing. We had uproar in the house with the
opposition cheering the decision and the conservatives, well a good number of
them, criticising the decision and demanded the resignation of the speaker.
“I like the word
turmoil but it is not the due process by which any leader should function.”
My reply:
Unfortunately,
difficult times are in store for us all.
I
saw the Speaker’s statement . . . quite understandable, and historically tragic,
considering the contemporary history we share. He has cast a chill everywhere, including among a
significant majority of Americans.
This should be a lesson to us all.
Voting is an obligation of citizenship. Abstention is a valid option, but it is ultimately
harmful. Angry folks seems to vote
in greater portions than happy voters . . . really sad for me to observe. Hopefully, the pain and anguish of
whatever years he is in the office will serve as motivation for every eligible
citizen to vote in 2020; but, that seems like a long way off at present. Hopefully, the Speaker will weather the
storm.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
