Update no.791

Update from the Heartland

No.791

6.2.17 – 12.2.17

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

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- A three-judge panel of the 9^th 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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adolf-hitler-donald-trump-mein-kampf-bluffed-way-to-power-nazi-leader-germany-fuhrer-us-president-a7568506.html

            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

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-1133177.html - ref=nl-international

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.

By JEFFREY GOLDBERG

The Atlantic

APRIL 2016 ISSUE

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

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

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

            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”

https://www.c-span.org/video/?

c4351026/c

 . . . 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                        :-)