Update no.844

Update from the Sunland

No.844

26.2.18 – 4.3.18

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

            To all,

           The follow-up news items:

-- The Supreme Court denied the administration's early appeal of a ruling that blocked the president’s dictum canceling the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program [837], intended to be effective on Monday, 5.March.2018.  The provisions of the DACA program will remain in place for the near term while additional legal proceedings and discussions in Congress continue.

-- At a public, recorded roundtable with congressional leaders two weeks after the Parkland incident [842], the fellow in the Oval Office actually said:

“Bump stocks, we're writing them out--I'm writing that out myself.  I don't care if Congress does it or not.”

He went on to pronounce regarding the possible granting of authority for law enforcement to confiscate firearms from mentally ill citizens:

“Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Does he even know what the Constitution is . . . set aside knowing what it says?  He clearly does not know the meaning of the words in the Constitution.  The ignorance demonstrated by such a statement is absolutely incredible.  There have been no indications, however so slight, he has ever read the founding document.

            Worse, his supporters love to shout about President Obama’s supposed unconstitutional executive actions.  President Obama never made such outrageous statements, and if he had, the clamor for his immediate impeachment would have been deafening.  Some folks accused President Obama of wanting to take their firearms because that is what they wanted to believe . . . to vilify him.  The current fellow in the Oval Office has persistently been so disgraceful, chaotic, mercurial and undignified . . . oh, and I must say disrespectful of the office he occupies . . . We, the People, have become numb to his bad behavior.  These are the times in which we live.

-- The Wall Street Journal obtained a copy of a confidential United Nations report detailing the activity of a PRC trading firm working on behalf of the DPRK, making five shipments in late 2016 and early 2017 of high-heat, acid-resistant tiles, stainless-steel pipes and valves to Damascus, Syria.  According to the report, the DPRK shipped 50 tons of supplies to Syria via the PRC company for use in Assad’s chemical munitions program [545, 581, 611, 614].  This is what happens when a president publicly draws a red line [28.8.2012] and fails to enforce that red line.

-- White House chief of staff John Kelly followed through and downgraded the security clearance access [843] of White House senior adviser and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner from TS-SCI to Secret based on his failure to complete a proper background check.  President daughter Ivanka is likely next on that action list.  He is now excluded from the President's Daily Brief, a top-secret intelligence report.

-- White House Communications Director Hope Hicks joined the steady stream of administration notables leaving the administration after she partially told the truth in congressional testimony and was berated by the fellow in the Oval Office.  Mis-applied loyalty, it seems to me.

            The fellow in the Oval Office decided to add to his massive portfolio of chaos-is-good actions by announcing his intention of imposing 10% tariff on imported aluminum and a 25% tariff on imported steel.  Then, early the following morning, he tweeted:

“When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win.  Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big.  It’s easy!”  [emphasis mine]

I have only one question: Is he out of his freakin’ mind?  Seriously, trade wars have NEVER EVER been good for anyone beyond a very narrow set of businesses.  This is classic isolationist activity—alienate everyone . . . allies, adversaries, competitors and every consumer of steel and aluminum products.  He claims he is just fulfilling a campaign promise, which is really rich and a perfect demonstration of his inability to understand the difference between a political election campaign and governing the entire country.  He just does not get it and he clearly could not care less about his ignorance . . . or severe myopia if I felt generous.

            As if all of that was not enough, the fellow in the Oval Office thought he would attempt a few apparent jokes at a GOP fundraiser:

“Don’t forget China’s great and Xi is a great gentlemen.  He’s now president for life.  President for life.  [laughter and applause]  No he’s great.  And look he was able to do that.  I think its great.  Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day. [more laughter and applause]”

He has consistently proclaimed his profound admiration for dictators.  After all, the dictators can do whatever they want and are not answerable to anyone.  The joke might have worked, if he had not been so persistent in attempting to do exactly the same thing in this Grand Republic.

            He also tried a little self-deprecating humor:

“I like chaos.  It really is good.  Now the question everyone keeps asking is, ‘Who is going to be the next to leave?  Steve Miller or Melania?’”

It might have worked for a normal person, but we all know the fellow in the Oval Office is most assuredly not normal.  Unfortunately, we know his dalliances have made the question all too real.  And, he truly must love chaos, because he has done virtually nothing to quell the chaos he has created.  His attempts at humor were not funny; they were deeply chilling.  At the bottom line, his consistent behavior from the campaign to his presidency tells us that he actually believes those things; it was no joke!

            I recognize and acknowledge that many, if not most or even all, of the steadfast, staunch, loyal supporters of the current occupant of the Oval Office believe in him because they feel he speaks like them and calls ‘em like he sees ‘em.  I often laud frankness and plain speaking.  However, there is a huge difference between fellows like me and an uneducated, redneck moonshiner in the backwoods of Appalachia, and the President of the United States of America.  His choice of words, as demonstrated this week alone, represents a rather undignified and actually disrespectful conduct with respect to the history of the Office of the President.  No matter what the fellow’s background is, he chose to run for and was elected to the office; he does not get a pass.  Disgraceful, I say.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.843:

“I understand you enjoy a good debate but having an exchange with your alt-right contributor is an exercise in futility.  He clearly chooses to ignore when you're critical of both parties.  He clearly chooses to conveniently ignore the grotesque and narcissistic flaws of Trump.  I'm sure he ‘justifies’ Trump's objectification of women or the extramarital affairs or the lack of tact he portrays on a daily basis.  But if Barack HUSSEIN Obama mirrored any of these qualities he'd be calling for his head.  The guy probably has his browser homepage set to infowars.com.

“You asked him for his 5 actions.  I suspect he can't do this with any substance or articulation.

“‘That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.’ (Oh, and I am sure he chooses to ignore you're paying homage to a right-wing conservative comic when you use that phrase).”

My reply:

            Perhaps so, but I am compelled to listen and counter such parochial arguments, as I did when the shoes were flipped around.  I seek open debate on contemporary topics and it is important to listen to all sides.  Oh, I think the alt-right was far less tolerant of Obama than the left is of Trump.  Oh you were spot on correct . . . they would have been clamoring for his head on a pike.  That parochial mindlessness, as I call it, intrigues me and exists on both the left and right, which is precisely what contributes so strongly to the division and intransigence of our current political situation.  I am trying to be the proper independent moderate and soften both extremes.  To that end, the alt-right opinions are necessary.  At least the contributor is participating.  We must find a way to build bridges rather than tear everything down.

            You are the first to recognize and acknowledge the perfect sign-off line of Dennis Michael Miller—a perfect expression of humility.

Another contribution:

“Any news you are getting re pornography is not to ban it .. This is just a distraction created by the left..dont worry.. If there was any talk about pornography by the right it would have been in relation to pedophilia and child abuse/trafficking .. Mark my word if the left ever quits with their incessant distractions Saul Alynsky style, there will be a sting you will never believe involving way more than Weiner.. Think Podesta and many more including hollywood celebrities ..”

My response:

            Wow!  For the record, FL HR.157 was introduced by Representative Ross Spano (a Republican) in a Republican controlled legislature—both chambers.  The pornography bill is a Republican legislative initiative.  Have you read the bill?  I am afraid you have jumped into the realm of wishful thinking rather than factual reality.

            In the sphere of incessant distractions, the messiah is the ultimate master, as is every snake-oil salesman.  Deflection will not alter reality . . . by either side.

 . . . Round two:

“No in a nutshell what does the bill propose??”

 . . . my response to round two:

            In short, FL HR.157 says:

“WHEREAS, pornography is creating a public health risk and contributing to the hypersexualization of children and teens . . .”

“That the State of Florida recognizes the public health risk created by pornography and acknowledges the need for education, prevention, research, and policy change to protect the citizens of this state.”

You can read the whole bill for yourself at:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2018/157/BillText/c1/PDF

            The whole bill is the opinion of the creator and offers no source citation to substantiate his statements.  He is entitled to his opinion, as we all are; however, he is not entitled to impose his opinions, his beliefs, his values or anything else on all residents of Florida.

 . . . Round three:

“It's a tough subject .. I know the only pornography I saw as a kid was when my brother and I would go through my dad's Playboy magazines he kept hidden in his closet.  The internet has a much broader array ..”

 . . . my response to round three:

            There are many sensitive, tough, thorny issues that deserve public discussion and debate; pornography is but one.

            Like you, my first exposure as a child was my BFF’s Dad’s collection of past issues of Playboy—rather benign by today’s Internet standard.

            I also recognize and acknowledge that many citizens believe strongly that pornography, like any topic involving anything sexual, as disgusting, contemptible, nasty and unworthy of any social or public discussion.  To that segment of our population, pornography of any kind is reprehensible.

            My point is and has always been that pornography is an individual, personal and private choice, and further, that is NOT the domain of government, which should confine itself to the public domain.  Every citizen should have the fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice in their private lives.  These legislators in Florida seek to declare pornography a public health hazard to give themselves coverage for additional actions to affect access by all individuals and thus intruding upon an individual citizens freedom of choice.  Whether I want my children to see pornography (rather than sneak viewing) and talk about what it represents should be my choice entirely, not the government’s prerogative.

            Beyond the topic du jure, the incident in the Florida legislature is so bloody typical of Republican legislative activities—avoid the genuine public safety issue (firearm violence) to debate a false & inappropriate matter (pornography).  Republicans are quite comfortable imposing their morality on everyone.  I object to such conduct.

Comment to the Blog:

“Thank you for your paragraphs on firearms and public safety. Rights are not granted as absolutes. The classic example of that is shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.

“Robert Mueller prosecuted the (other) ‘Teflon Don,’ the organized crime boss John Gotti.  His process feels slow to me, but the Nixon process felt that way, too.  Any legal proceeding this important and large requires careful and thorough work, as Mueller knows well.  The part of the current round of charges that most interests me is the conspiracy counts.  The exposition of those counts offers the best chance of showing criminal conduct by the Resident.

“I cannot tell whether Trump has begun to respect someone with better sense, but his position on bump stocks follows.  He, as with most Americans, is caught up in the notion of mental illness as a cause of mass shootings.  In fact, few of the shooters have been diagnosed with any mental illness or shown direct evidence of such.  What most of them have in common is a history of some form of violence, which is not in itself a mental health issue.

“The current crisis with North Korea, among other facets, provides an example of the USA's inability to stay back on the world stage.  We just cannot wait to see if others, specifically South Korea at this moment, might be able to calm and work with North Korea.

“We shall see where, if anywhere, the Trump family's disregard for security clearance issues leads.  If this surprises anyone, they have not paid attention to Trump’s approach to pretty much everything.

“I am past discussing Hillary Clinton.

“I will say again that one ought not to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.  A formal debate, per Merriam Webster, is ‘a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.’  That can be a productive and persuasive activity.  On the other hand, trying to explain reality to people who are not interested in it is a waste of energy at best.

“Your other commenter who proposes that Putin would be more interested in electing Hillary is at least using fact and logic to make his or her argument.  However, I share your opinion that Trump looked more malleable.  Trump's mental state, in the event, turns out to be divorced from reality, making him actually less useful than he must have seemed to Putin when he began his project.”

My response to the Blog:

            Thank you for your continuing regular contributions to this humble forum.  Yes, all rights have limits and are not absolute.  Even the “unalienable rights” articulated by the Founders have limits, e.g., you violate the law, your liberty can be rightfully curtailed for a period of time.

            Re: Mueller.  Quite so.  He is and has always been a methodical prosecutor.  What we have seen so far is classic investigation technique—work the edges toward the center.  It is by design a slow process, precisely because it has the potential to become prosecutions, rather than just findings of probable cause(s).  I will disagree slightly with your sentence.  The objective is not to show criminal conduct by the fellow in the Oval Office.  To me, the objective is to thoroughly investigate, establish the facts, and prosecute where violations of law that attain the probable cause threshold and with sufficient substance to prove those violations beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  The evidentiary threshold for investigations of this type is far more stringent than fact-finding commissions.

            Re: potential guilt of the fellow in the Oval Office.  As I have written many times, I have seen no evidence that reaches even the probable cause threshold implicating the fellow in the Oval Office of criminal conduct; however, his behavior, words, and conduct sure do make him appear guilty.  I continue to struggle with why he is so insistent upon repeatedly and consistently demonstrating his appearance of guilt.  My guess is his guilt lays outside collusion and possibly in the financial realm.

            Re: mental illness.  I believe we are agreed.  The mental illness is a far broader (unacceptably broad) term of reference.  We should be focused on a small fraction of people who exhibit signs of violent potential toward others (including animals, I must say) and the slightly smaller fraction of those who have demonstrated violence toward others.  Mental illness is a societal issue we should deal with, but it is not the root cause, i.e., we have perpetrators who have exhibited no known or diagnosed mental illness.  Conversely, there are a few perpetrators who did not qualify even under the violence threshold.  Yes, we need to focus on those with a penchant for violence, not mental illness.

            Re: DPRK.  Diplomacy is far preferable to war.  However, when does diplomacy become appeasement?  When do we reach the farthest limit of diplomacy?  The DPRK does not have a history for diplomatic solutions.  When forced, they give enough to keep the diplomats hanging on, just a sliver of hope, to keep attention off their deeply threatening behavior.

            The fellow in the Oval Office (and his family) has consistently thumbed his nose at the rules associated with the conduct of public employees.  After all he is entitled to such conduct because he thinks he is wealthy, and we all know the rules do not apply to the wealthy . . . only to the common folk like us.

            Re: HRC.  Agreed . . . way past.  I have that nauseating sensation that she will never be prosecuted for her transgressions.

            As you will see in this week’s Update, you are not alone regarding the public debate as I am attempting to practice.  I shall persist; public debate/intercourse is too important.  Talking is far better than not talking.

            I continue to search for reconciliation of why the fellow in the Oval Office continues to act the way he does toward Russia and Putin specifically.  Putin has most assuredly not shown the same deference toward his buddy.  Why?  Certainly it is not simple ignorance.  Time shall tell the tale.

 . . . Round two:

“Regardless of motivation, the result of the Mueller investigation may be to show criminal conduct by the occupant of the Oval Office.  His behaviors indicate to me that he either does not know how to avoid seeming guilty or cannot understand that his behaviors have consequences.  Having lived through prior impeachment proceedings, I see no reason not to pursue that course today.

“People who commit violent acts can be limited by society.  People who ‘exhibit signs of violent potential’ cannot, at least until they commit some crime.  There are, and should be, severe limits on society's ability to take action on the expectation that an individual may/will commit a crime in the future.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            My experience tells me there is far too much smoke for there not to be fire.  Yet, that threshold may be sufficient for public opinion, but it is woefully inadequate to bring articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives and achieve conviction in the Senate, which is the only avenue open to prosecute the President of the United States . . . at least until he leaves office by one means or another.  If the Special Prosecutor does develop sufficient evidence to establish probable cause and especially if the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold is likely to be achieved, I would strongly recommend charges be filed pending his leaving office . . . like in cases of extradition or in absentia.

            We are agreed on people who commit violent acts.  We are not agreed on people who exhibit the potential for violent acts.  Case in point, a person who makes a bomb threat can be and usually is prosecuted under federal law.  The issue in the arena of potential is threshold.  In the case of Cruz, I believe the threshold was crossed and he presented a credible threat to public safety.  Law enforcement and the judicial system should have acted within established law.  I think we should at least discuss lowering that threshold to identify and intercede with those people who make threats or act in a threatening manner.

 . . . Round three:

“The point remains about ‘potential’ violence.  Making a bomb threat is itself a crime, inciting panic.  I have no issue with that.  What concerns me is the potential for punishment without a crime having been committed.  The internment camps of World War II come to mind.  People of Japanese origin were imprisoned simply because of their ancestry. Similar incidents could easily occur on a local level.  In the county where I grew up, schoolteachers and law enforcement officers still act against young people who have my last name.  That is due to the actions of my father and my generation of my family, as well as some (not all) of our now-grown children.  Our actions ought not to be visited on our children.  That ‘logic’ would lead to limitations and mandatory ‘therapy’ or whatever was the chosen action against our innocent and non-violent grandchildren who have nothing to do with it.  Having lived in other rural and urban places, I have no doubt it would happen to many.  These ‘preventive detention’ actions or whatever they'd be called this time are never appropriate.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            I share your concern.  Likewise, I am not interested in punishing or even stigmatizing innocent people.  The constitutional and common law process we have to protect citizens is due process of law.

            You cite perhaps the broadest violation of the due process provisions of the constitution in our history.  President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 [19.2.1942] that began the process.  The EO was followed up by congressional action [PL 77-503; 56 Stat. 173; 21.3.1942].  Even worse, the Supreme Court sustained the program with their ruling in Korematsu v. United States [323 U.S. 214 (1944)] the day after President Roosevelt terminated the program [17.12.1944].  Through that whole sequence, American citizens were not given due process of law.  It happened; hopefully it will never happen again.

            No one should ever be punished, penalized, or stigmatized for the sins of the father.

            I think “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” qualifies on the level of a bomb threat, IMHO.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)