Update no.808

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 6^th 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:

Subject:  're: Trump

From:  "Ginger Hokeness"

Date:  Tue, June 20, 2017 2:57 pm

To:  "cap@parlier.com"

************************************

https://www.iheart.com/live/news-talk-995-wrno-1033/

************************************

“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                        :-)