Update from the
Heartland
No.808
19.6.17 – 25.6.17
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To
all,
Republican
Karen Handel defeated Democrat Jon Ossoff in the special election to fill the House
Georgia 6th District seat vacated by Tom Price.
We
can see the obvious – the Republicans are winning the special elections; and,
the winners are crediting the master winner – The Donald – after all, he is omniscient
and omnipotent. There is no
dispute regarding the outcomes of these elections – the residents in the
affected districts have spoken.
Yet, I draw attention to these elections, including this latest one, for
a specific, related reason. Other
than Republicans winning, another consistency is the disgusting, political
advertizing that appears to have become quite prevalent among Republican
candidates. I tried to investigate
some of the more onerous Republican advertizing claims and could not find one
scintilla of fact . . . well other than the opponent’s name. Political advertizing that is outright
deceitful, distracting and deeply mean spirited should be rejected; and
further, any candidate who resorts to such gutter advertisements should be
rejected. And then, these same
Republican politicians are outraged when people do not support their opinions,
views and perspective. At least
Handel disavowed the disgusting attack ads associated with her campaign. The Democrat candidates have
steadfastly taken the high road and not stooped to the outright nastiness that
appears to be all too prevalent among Republican political candidates. I would strongly urge Democrat
candidates to resist the urge to jump in the gutter slop with Republicans.
Republicans
persist in using the mantra, “We must lower the cost of [health care insurance]
premiums.” Hey guys, that’s easy,
zero everything . . . won’t cost you a dime. I would see their politically motivated and biased effort
more favorably, if they were concerned about medical coverage, rather than
premiums. They have persistently
talked about access to health care . . . access having nothing to do with
proportional affordability.
Lastly, I am still struggling with how we rationalize requiring every citizen who
operates a vehicle to have accident insurance, and yet Republicans are so
singularly focused on not requiring medical insurance. Why on God’s little green earth do
Republicans seek to return to the status
quo ante? Also, for a
political party that professes such staunch commitment to life, how do they
justify their resistance to proper health care to support life? Or, is their life concern only for the
unborn and the wealthy? The image
is not pretty.
Now,
Trump is attempting to shift the focus in the Russia meddling investigation
from himself to President Obama.
Well, at least he is staying to form – quite predictable in that
sense. It is somewhat strange that
it took him so long to act.
The
Intelligence Community, all 17 separate agencies of it, illuminated [774, 783] the involvement of the Russians in the 2016 election process,
and the administration took action by expelling intelligence operatives and
unilaterally imposed sanctions [785]
on the Russian intelligence agencies.
I
was and still am critical of the Obama administration’s tepid response to
Russian meddling activities; yet, President Obama was between a rock & a
hard spot; no matter what he did or did not do with the information the
intelligence agencies provided [DNI letter dated: October 07, 2016], he would
be accused of interfering with the election process. Yet, at the bottom line, the president’s Article II, §2, responsibilities
to national security supersede virtually everything else. President Obama should have taken
aggressive action against anyone attempting to interfere with our election
process.
That
said, I expect the Special Prosecutor to illuminate the actions of President
Obama as well as whatever the Trump campaign did in association with the
Russian election meddling. I have
believed and continue to believe that collusion was a bit of a stretch, but the
potential for unwitting complicity is substantially greater. Whether there is legal probable cause is
questionable. This investigation
needs to be completed as quickly as can be accomplished with accuracy. Personally, I would like Mueller to
have a slightly wider charter to include Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of
election fraud (remember that one?).
Comments and contributions from Update no.807:
“The heart breaking tragedies that we the British people are
enduring is affecting us all. This
coupled with a disastrous and failed election campaign to make us stronger in
our ‘negotiations’ with Brussels has bought gloom and despondency. As I write I hear of another act of
insanity where a vehicle has been driven into a crowd of worshipers at a London
Mosque.
“Bad times my friend.”
My reply:
Yes,
the modern tragedies continue to mount.
The latest one appears to be a reprisal – a hate crime – rather than
terrorism; that does not alter the tragedy and its consequences.
The
election results were sad. I do
not envy Prime Minister May. The
voters gave her a weakened hand to play.
Brexit negotiations have begun.
I hope this separation can be accomplished with a minimum of pain and
discord.
Comment to the Blog:
“I’ll insert a disclaimer. Numerous people with far more expertise than
I possess have stated that Trump is probably mentally ill. In that case, making sense of his
actions cannot happen.
“The closest thing I have to a ‘rational’ hypothesis is
still the idea that he originally ran as a favor to his old friend (check the
records) Hillary Clinton, not to get elected but to make her look good by contrast.
That began to gel for me with his
comment about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. Making Hillary look good enough was not possible and his
campaign strategists outflanked the Democrats. His ego wouldn’t let him give up when he won, and it still won’t.
That is the only idea I can find
that matches his actions, other than mental illness. He still seems to have no idea of the gravity of his actions
and words.
“Trump’s offensive treatment of Cuba seems quite important
to me. Among other things, he
leaves open the chance they might seek allies elsewhere, such as Russia or
China.
“We shall see what comes of the Grenfell Tower
investigation. I see the
possibility of flammable cladding as horribly unethical but not impossible.
“Trump’s supporters seem uninterested in fact or logic. That is what makes him and them
dangerous. You and I have given both applause and criticism to the Presidents
we have watched. The Trump
supporters you and I have encountered have a simplistic black-and-white outlook
that stems from blind belief, not understanding.
“I stand sadly but firmly with your other contributor when
they say, ‘Earth has an interesting way of seeking balance, and if it means the
elimination of many people (cleansing), I have no doubt it can/will, and then
we are the losers . . .”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
mental illness. Well, now, perhaps
so; however, he is still POTUS with enormous authority vested in him by the
Constitution.
Re:
“‘rational’ hypothesis.” Quite
interesting supposition! I have
not heard that one before. It does
make sense, actually.
Unfortunately, we will most likely never know.
Re:
Cuba. Oh my, the collateral
effects are incalculable. This is
his penchant for and advocacy of an isolationist mentality – Make America Great
Again, AKA America First; unfortunately, I think he is so weak in international
relations, he succumbs easily to the far-right advisors around him. Reminds of the song lyric: “If you
don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.” We can only hope the Cubans take the
long view . . . this too shall pass . . . and we shall return to a more
progressive path to improved relations.
Re:
Grenfell Tower fire. Quite so.
Re:
Trump supporters. Hard to say. Thank you for your perspective. Some of his supporters are intelligent,
educated citizens who care about this Grand Republic. I wonder how long they will continue to support the man.
Re:
balance. Indeed.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I brought up the mental illness issue not because I don't respect
the man (although I don't), but because the mentally ill are, by definition,
irrational and usually unpredictable.
The issue with Trump's supporters is not intelligence or education but
how they use or misuse those assets.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
Quite
so! There is a huge difference
between the man and the office he holds.
I have detested the man for a lot longer than his brief political
dabbling; I have seen his character flaws in other men, and none of them worked
out well; and, I have never in my years of life seen a single man with so many
of those adverse character flaws.
Yet, that said, I am obligated to respect his position as POTUS.
Re:
“they
use or misuse those assets.”
Interesting observation. I
am still trying to understand that process. There is (are) very real reasons why so many citizens of
this Grand Republic support him. A
goodly portion may well just blindly support him because of political party loyalty
– anything Republican. Others
support him out of some form of protest or demonstration of their anger with
the status quo. Yet others are simply enamored with his
celebrity – similar process of being attracted to appearance. Many others see him as the Great White
Hope to bring deliverance from the quagmire we are in and have been in for many
years. Personally, I think
many of his supporters are going to be seriously disappointed. At the bottom line: I believe the
snake-oil salesman is spot on correct when he publicly claimed, “I
could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't
lose voters.” There are
very real reasons for such blind loyalty; we must understand why?
Another
contribution:
“‘indicting and prosecuting a sitting President would ‘prevent the
executive from accomplishing its constitutional functions’ and that this impact
cannot ‘be justified by an overriding need’ to promote countervailing and
legitimate government objectives.’
“Check your Facebook messages for the legal detail on this!
“And remember not to believe all the dumb blurbs the Looney left
chooses to place under pictures of Trump in the effort to attempt to make the
American public dislike our President!”
My reply:
Re:
“indicting
and prosecuting a sitting President.” So, let’s see, by that reasoning, it was wrong for the House
Judiciary Committee to pass articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon
(27.7.1974), or the House impeachment of William Clinton (19.12.1998)?
Re:
“cannot
‘be justified by an overriding need’ to promote countervailing and legitimate
government objectives.” What
happens when we disagree with those governmental objectives? Is dissent wrong, somehow un-American?
Re:
“not
to believe all the dumb blurbs.”
I do not believe any one source, including The Donald. “the effort to attempt to make the
American public dislike our President!” LOL. I’m afraid
The Donald is doing a primo-job of that task all by his lonesome. He needs no assistance in that from
me. Yet, he has garnered the
steadfast, unwavering loyalty of a goodly portion of the American people. You have repeatedly proven to be one of
The Donald’s staunchest supporters.
Why? What is it that you
see and so many other citizens do not see? How do you reconcile his public statements, e.g., “I could
stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose
voters,” or “Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” How do you rationalize support for a
man who publicly says such things?
Re:
FB. I did check your FB message;
the message said, “The attachment could not be loaded.”
. . . a follow-up comment:
************************************
************************************
“Rush is on right now ... humor me and just listen to this
station a bit once a day .. or at least today!!! I know you are convinced
that Trump supporters are stupid, koolaid drinking fools .. but if you listen
to this station you will experience news you don't get on the left controlled
mainstream channels ... it isn't necessarily the person Trump we love but what
he stands for and strives for ..”
. . . plus an added comment before I could reply:
“.@GovMikeHuckabee:
President Trump is like a doctor with a gruff bedside manner. But by golly,
he's keeping the patient alive!”
. . . my follow-up
reply:
I
was writing. I did not read your
message in time.
“I
know you are convinced that Trump supporters are stupid, koolaid drinking fools.” I am NOT and I must protest in the
strongest possible terms. Your
statement is a gross mischaracterization of my words. Yes, I am very critical of Trump, as he continues to act in
a very bizarre manner. Yes, I am
also baffled by why (or how) so many intelligent, informed citizens are able to
ignore so much of what he says and does?
I seek answers and understanding.
What is it that I am missing?
Help me understand.
I
understand and appreciate Huckabee’s opinion; that is his choice entirely. I choose NOT to be disrespected by a
doctor, or a lawyer, or any other professional. Gruff bedside manner is disrespect; I am a human being; I
choose NOT to accept being disrespected.
As a free, individual and independent citizen, you have every right to
accept his bad conduct. I respect
your right to do so. As a citizen
with equal rights, I choose not to accept such conduct in anyone, not a doctor,
not a lawyer, and definitely not our president of this Grand Republic.
I
took the time to read the 2000 OLC Memo.
I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the document. However, let us assume it is precisely
accurate. As I read the document,
it appears to be spot on correct.
The President, while in office, is immune from criminal prosecution,
unless or until he is removed from office by impeachment (Art. II § 4); once
removed, he is fully vulnerable to criminal prosecution, as any other
citizen. The key is impeachment by
the House and conviction by the Senate.
If the President commits a crime, the Constitution will only delay his
prosecution for that crime. The
principle of presidential immunity stems from the principle of sovereign
immunity [Blackstone I-7-237 – The King can do no wrong].
A different
contribution:
“I suppose it is useless to even imply that you might ‘give him a
break’ every now and then, so I'll just say I agree with just one of your
offerings regarding our POTUS:
‘The President publicly stated: “I am being investigated for
firing the FBI director.” No,
Donald, you are being investigated for obstruction of justice – huge
difference. As noted above,
Donald, you have done your cause no favors with your continuing conduct that
mounts and makes you look guilty as hell.
Especially in your case and conduct, I am constantly reminded of
Shakespeare’s prescient words: “Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.” I believe Director Comey when he told
you that you were not under investigation. Well, after all your yammering and suspect conduct, now you
are under investigation, Donald. Congratulations;
I hope you are happy.’
“And I agree with your summary of the other events and accept your
claim of life-long non-partisan efforts to keep informed those who care to
listen. Keep up the good work.
“But can you just give him a bre.... okay, okay.”
My response:
I
am not sure what you are suggesting I give him a break from? He is the one speaking, tweeting, and
doing all of the things he does.
I am not making them up. I
only respond to his bonehead actions. I would love to give him a break, the
benefit of the doubt, to wait and see how some of his initiatives work out, but
he cannot help himself. He has
become so accustomed to being the king of his domain that he apparently believes
he can and should act like that in the Oval Office, the White House, and all
other sites he deems to grace.
Or,
are you suggesting that I (we) should simply look the other way or ignore his
bonehead actions because he is a novice and has no idea what he is doing, or
the implications or consequences of his actions? If so, how far do we go . . . until he actually does shoot
an innocent person on Fifth Avenue, or launches a preemptive nuclear strike
against the DPRK?
I
would love to give him a break, but again, I must ask, from what or for what?
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
