Update from the Sunland
No.857
4.6.18 – 10.6.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
To my good buddy Donnie,
Thank you so very much for doing my heavy lifting. You are a genuine trooper and comrade. I have carried on the policies of Uncle Joe and his successors to separate the United States from Europe. I am so excited that our friendship has finally achieved what Uncle Joe sought to accomplish 75 years ago. Well done, Buddy. I eagerly await our next opportunity to meet, so I can show you my gratitude in a more personal and intimate manner.
Your great and everlasting friend,
Volodya.
My hats off to TIME magazine—their June 18, 2018, cover artwork captured the essence of the problem we face today in one simple graphic. Truth be told, I think he will be flattered by the cover graphic, since he envisions himself with the power, authority and lifetime tenure of a monarch from the pre-Renaissance era of human history—the divine right of kings—or, at least the authority of the modern day dictators.
I wonder what Sir Winston would think of the current occupant of the Oval Office?
My study of history renders a view, or at least an opinion, and it is not good. I know the man could not care less, but I do. Shaking things up is one thing; ignoring decades and centuries of history is altogether quite another thing and not an acceptable consequence of shaking up the established order.
Fact:
On Monday, the BIC tweeted:
“As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!”
5:35 AM - Jun 4, 2018 (sic, emphasis, spelling & grammar are his)
The Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1) mentions absolutely nothing about qualifications, constraints or restrictions, which in turn implies the president’s power to pardon is absolute with no boundaries. This particular Article II authority has not been tested before the Supreme Court. The only potential counter to the president’s authority is the power to impeach (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5).
Opinion:
The BIC is correct . . . at least in part. If the president’s authority to pardon is ever tested before the Supreme Court, I suspect the justices will establish that the Founders / Framers never intended for anyone, including the president, to have an unbridled power that could be used for personal advantage or gain. They assumed that anyone who achieved the Article II authority would exercise those powers with reverence, respect and care for the history and spirit of the Constitution. The intellectual part of me wants the BIC to force the constitutional crisis and the challenge before the Supreme Court, if for no other reason than to eliminate the untested qualifier on the president’s power to pardon. I do not believe the BIC’s Tweet statement is correct on a variety of levels; however, only the Supreme Court can determine that reality.
Fact:
The BIC publicly proclaimed, “Russia should be in [the G-7 Summit].”
Fact (related) :
Russia was expelled from the G-8 Summit after it illegally annexed Crimea [16.3.2014] and invaded Eastern Ukraine [20.2.2014].
Opinion:
The dichotomy in the BIC’s actions is enormous and incalculable. He dumps on our Allies and shows them unprecedented disrespect, and virtually in the same breath, he cuddles up to our enemies like bosom-buddies. What’s wrong with this picture?
Footnote:
The Russian people are not our enemies; they are far more like us and aligned with us than not. However, the government of Russia (in the name & face of Vladimir Putin) has repeatedly, consistently and aggressively opposed the United States. Since Putin has been in power, Russia has shown no interest in collaboration or cooperation.
Fact:
One of the myriad personal attorneys for D.J.T. (the citizen), Rudi Giuliani, happened to be in Tel Aviv, Israel, this week for a “working” holiday and attended the Globes’ Capital Market conference (ostensibly to pay for the trip). During a public interview, he decided he just had to spout off with very little prompting:
“[Melania] believes in her husband. She knows it’s not true. I don’t even think that there’s a slight suspicion that it’s true. Excuse me, when you look at Stormy Daniels, ah, I know Donald Trump, and look at his three wives, right. Beautiful women. Classy women. Women of great substance. Stormy Daniels? (sneer & shaking head). . . . I respect all human beings. I even actually respect, you know, criminals. I’m sorry I don’t respect a porn star the way I respect a career woman, or a woman of substance, or a woman who has great respect for herself, as a woman, as a person, and isn’t going to sell her body for sexual exploitation. So Stormy, you want to bring a case, let me cross-examine you. Because the business you were in entitles you to no degree of giving your credibility any weight.” He went on to declare: “Explain to me how she could be damaged. She has no reputation. If you are going to sell your body for money, you just don’t have a reputation.”
Fact (associated):
The Office of the First Lady immediately issued a public statement on behalf of Melania that announced:
“I don’t think Mrs. Trump has ever discussed her thoughts on anythingwith Mr. Giuliani.”
(emphasis added by me) Ouch!
Opinion:
Giuliani’s words, and worse his thoughts, are wrong on so many levels it would take far too much of my precious time, capacity and space to counter. Stormy Daniels may use her body to earn a living, as does a ballerina, a futbol player, or a waitress. She has not, at least to public knowledge, sold her body for money—prostitution. Even if she was a full-on prostitute, she does not deserve condemnation. Giuliani is a freakin’ lawyer and he has apparently sold his mind. Stephanie Clifford has her dignity and integrity. Giuliani has sold his. I see Clifford as far more respectable than Giuliani. Which is worse? Further, I find Stormy Daniels to be FARmore credible and truthful that Giuliani has become. Sex work is a noble profession, even if it offends Neanderthals like Giuliani. From my perspective, Clifford’s reputation is far more noble and untarnished than Giuliani’s after the series of his recent statements.
I was unable to read through and report on two important and relevant Supreme Court rulings issued this week—Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and Azar vs. Garza. My excuse: I was finishing up my To So Few Book 7 manuscript for the necessary critical review, and then completing the formatting of To So Few Book 6 for submittal to the publisher. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it. I will try to get to this Judiciary reading next week . . . I hope.
Comments and contributions from Update no.856:
“Rats! Your opinion was what I wanted to read! :)”
My reply:
Thank you for your message.
“Rats! Your opinion was what I wanted to read! :)”
My reply:
Thank you for your message.
I will gladly offer you (or anyone) my opinion on any topic. Which topic opinion were you seeking?
Another contribution:
Another contribution:
“I will use your gun argument re: not writing the Update as you intended due to a few people getting their feelings hurt.
“You are against ‘punishing’ the majority of good Americans by taking their guns just because a few bad people use them to harm. Well then I’d say don’t punish us ‘good’ readers/contributors just because a few people couldn’t handle it.
“I along with many others appreciate your take on current events (and I would assume you enjoy writing about them). Continue writing how you see fit and if people don’t like it they can leave the forum.
“And calling you a ‘pompous, arrogant asshole’ is about as mature as the man sitting in the Oval Office.”
My response:
Very well said and apropos. I suppose all of this is a process of introspection. There is a reason that person said what s/he did. It is important for me to understand why. I believe I am the antithesis of pompous, have never been arrogant, but I suppose I have been an asshole from time to time, but not by intention or purpose. Nonetheless, there is a reason s/he chose those words to describe me.
A different contribution:
“I am just now able to attempt a response to your most distressing Update.
“I can only hope that my own good faith disagreements with some of your unrelenting but well targeted criticisms of our POTUS did not contribute to the critical introspection that led to your 855th offering.
“Perhaps my early expressions of disagreement with your defenses of Hillary were too harsh, but it seemed that we understood each other's perspectives and respected our differences.
“I always took your consistent denigration of Trump's behavior as fair, if not balanced, so again I hope my own attitude had little to do with any tendency or decision to tone down your rhetoric.
“Please keep up the summaries of your choice of worthy news subjects, and when you feel the urge, I hope you will at least hint at the outrage we have become accustomed to and, indeed, need to hear.
“With continued admiration, I remain . . .”
My reply:
Oh my . . . my self-doubt was demonstrable. I did not expect yours.
I shall do my best to reassure you . . . most emphatically not, you were never the problem. Your contributions have always been cherished, given in the true spirit of this humble forum. A vigorous public debate is the essential ingredient to any viable democracy. You and a handful of others have fulfilled my expectations for this humble forum beyond my wildest expectations.
However, there are those who do not value disagreement, debate or intellectual intercourse. They only seek compliance to their values, their beliefs, the views, and their opinions. Any attempt at debate is seen as a direct and personal affront to everything they see in the world.
I must say, as I have stated more than a few times, I have always, and here I do literally mean always, wanted the President of the United States to be successful for the sake of this Grand Republic. My advocacy has been without qualification or bias toward any political party. For the longest time, I declared my personal opinion that Jimmy Carter was the worst president in our history for all of the incompetence his administration demonstrated—most notably his Secretary of Defense Harold Brown; however, I have always respected his humanity and big-heart-ed-ness as a person; he is a very good man. Likewise, I desperately want the current fellow to be successful. I freely admit and confess my revulsion to his myriad (seemingly boundless) character flaws that tell me there can be no good outcome—the end does not justify the means. I truly want to be wrong, but I deeply fear I am not; and worse, I fear what damage his tenure will do (perhaps irreparably) to his Grand Republic.
Thank you for your vote of confidence and reassurance. I am modifying my approach slightly, but I intend to continue for the time being.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment