Update from the Sunland
No.860
25.6.18 – 1.7.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
My apologies for publishing a day late . . . family drama!
The follow-up news items:
-- The Supreme Court upheld the third attempt [730] of the BIC’s travel ban—Trump v. Hawaii [585 U. S. ____ (2018)] (see review below).
-- The BIC’s persistent blindness to and refusal to do anything about Russian meddling in the 2016 election was on full display this week.
“Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election! Where is the DNC Server, and why didn’t Shady James Comey and the now disgraced FBI agents take and closely examine it? Why isn’t Hillary/Russia being looked at? So many questions, so much corruption!”
4:25 AM - 28 Jun 2018
And, of course, we believe ol’ Volodya just like we believe the BIC.
-- The next meeting of the dictator admiration club [845, 854, 858] is now scheduled for 16.July.2018, in Helsinki, Finland. Given the BIC’s tweet noted above, I can only imagine what a gushy, passionate affair it will be.
-- On Wednesday, the House of Representatives rejected yet another immigration reform bill [785]—HR.6136 (Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2018)—by a demonstrative bipartisan vote: House: 121-301-0-6(7).
The picture is emerging with each new day. The BIC is not satisfied just isolating the United States with policies injurious to our friends and encouraging to our adversaries. The accumulating image appears to suggest he is alienating and pushing away every ally, every friendly nation, and at the same time, enthusiastically and unilaterally embracing the dictators who have carried out seriously adversarial activities against the United States. I suppose in his mind, he thinks he is joining the dictators and taking this Grand Republic with him, since he possesses enormous power as the temporary (at least for now) occupant of the Oval Office. He is not making the country stronger. He is also single-handedly corroding away our strength. We are not, never have been and never will be Imperial Rome, or Nazi Germany.
To all the supporters of the BIC remaining in this audience, in this nation, and throughout the world, is this really what you seek? . . . the marginalization of the United States? . . . the isolation of the United States? . . . . the separation of the United States from our historic allies? The destruction of the United States may not be enough, there are less definitive signs that isolation is not a sufficient objective, he appears to seek a phase of ethnic cleansing, to diminish anyone who is not a Caucasian Christian in ethnicity and religious affiliation. We will overcome this person, eventually. The only question is how much, potentially irreparable, damage will he do to this Grand Republic?
His loyal supporters choose not to see what he is doing, or perhaps it is wishful thinking, i.e., the outcome will eventually prove him to be an omniscient, omnipotent, extraordinarily wise man . . . just give the man a chance. For those who refuse to believe history can and does repeat itself, I strongly urge you to perform an in-depth study of the popular and pervasive support of the German citizenry in the 1930’s, and even when the bombs fell on them, and eventually armor and infantry showed up outside their communities, they still believed he was the savior of the German people. The accomplishments of Goebbels’ propaganda were profound, deeply influential and surprisingly enduring. The similarities to contemporary events are eerily familiar.
Bottom line: The BIC does NOT get a pass! I do not care a hoot in hell what he did in any previous phase of his life. He is President of the United States of America. He has been and continues to act in an historic, unprecedented and intolerably bad manner, and those negatives vastly overshadow the positives he has accomplished. His behavior is unacceptable and will continue to be subject to my criticism . . . not that he (or anyone else) cares a twit what I think.
As the Supreme Court ended its Spring Session, Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, 81, announced his retirement from the Court after 30 years of service on the Supreme Court alone. The BIC indicated he intends to choose his nominee to replace Justice Kennedy on Monday, 9.July.2018. Until we see his choice, we must hold our concerns . . . well, at least I will.
A friend and frequent contributor sent along the following article:
“This is a long and complex article, but it's a good and academically sound examination of a fundamental topic.”
“When Is American Democracy No Longer Democratic?”
The Interpreter
New York Times
Published: Friday, June 29, 2018
. . . to which I offered my opinion:
Well, you were spot on correct . . . that was a chockablock full article.
I understand the emphasis on one person – one vote, but the paucity of any reference to the significance of states in the election process is to deny the history of this Grand Republic.
To me, there are two primary corrosive elements eroding the foundation of this Grand Republic: 1.) the abandonment of any sense of compromise, and 2.) this disappearance of civility in our disagreements and debates.
Also, as I read the article, I sense selective presentation to justify the argument (which is their right). While they have ignored the place of the states in the electoral process, they also take a rather sterile view of voter dynamics. While they illuminate voter suppression efforts, they do not mention voter apathy, the paucity of due diligence in voting, and blind voting (party without regard to candidate).
They did a really good job of illuminating the abandonment of norms in legislative performance, e.g., the nuclear option, “democratic hardball” as they call it. History may well record McConnell’s unilateral obstruction of Obama’s appointment to replace Justice Scalia as the pivotal moment that irreparably transformed our system of governance.
Their definition of democratic seems to be rather narrow as if the eligible citizens should be the body legislative, and anything short of that is somehow undemocratic. Further, they ignore the purpose the Founders / Framers sought in creating our representative form of democratic governance. I see a broad underlying purpose of encouraging negotiation, horse-trading, and compromise to achieve some mutual position.
Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Our form of democracy was not perfect, never was, never will be. It is a constant work in progress.
The follow-up comment:
“Your response to this highlights some of our underlying differences. You seem to see the Constitution as sacred rather than human. I don't. The Founders were the best available people for the job, but they were doing something new to civilization and they had only their own understanding to go by. The article and I both see the role of the States, per se, as overstated. The reason for that error is self-interest on the part of Founders from rural states, who could exert leverage even then. It is by no means ignored in the article. It states, and I agree, that the writing of the Constitution in this way makes the entire process less democratic and sets the stage for our current loss of democracy. They and I attribute to this the voter apathy, party-line voting, and lack of diligence you said they ignore.
“Your reading of their definition of democracy baffles me. That is an academically correct definition and seems appropriate to me. In a democracy, the electorate ought to choose the direction of the nation via the voting booth. What is wrong with that?”
. . . along with my follow-up opinion:
Our differences may be more exaggerated than our agreements.
There were very real reasons the Founders / Framers chose to abandon the supremacy of the states reflected in the Articles of Confederation, and implement a federalist system of government without making it unitary. The dominance of the federal government was unequivocally established in 1865.
Well, damn it all to hell, I had a whole detailed response that got dumped. I am sorry I do not have the capacity to reconstruct it.
I shall fall back to the wisdom of the Declaration:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
I’m afraid I shall have to leave it there for now.
A concluding comment:
“I understand that the United States, even our name, derives from politically separate colonies. That changes nothing in regard to our degree of democracy. I agree that our Constitution and form of government should not be changed for ‘light and transient’ causes. Our current drift away from democracy is neither light nor transient.”
Another friend, colleague and occasional contributor sent along the following article for my opinion and our debate.
“Bladensburg WWI Veterans Memorial case appealed to the Supreme Court”
by MOTHAX
American Legion Burn Pit Blog
Published: June 27th, 2018
As requested . . . my opinion:
The case has taken on a profoundly different tint given this week’s announcement from the Supreme Court.
My opinion regarding the implied bias of government with respect to the Establishment Clause has been and I think remains consistent—government must remain neutral. This case, like others, boils down to one simple fact—state sponsorship, i.e., maintenance. The solution is not to amend the law to allow the state to sponsor a clearly Christian symbol, but rather to transfer the monument to a private foundation or commission, independent of any government entity and separately funded by private funds.
The advocates for this case must be frothing at the mouth given this week’s announcement. I highly doubt they will seek some solution. They will be emboldened in their intransigence by the prospect of a more conservative Court to validate the state’s sponsorship of a religious symbol in the form of a war memorial.
As a footnote, not all those who serve in combat during World War I were Christians. To imply they were is wrong. This is NOT a Christian nation; this Grand Republic is a nation of no religion and all religions. This memorial cannot remain under government auspices. I fear the Court will render another Citizens United decision.
I read the Supreme Court’s Trump v. Hawaii [585 U. S. ____ (2018); no. 17–965] released this week. The Court confined the decision to just the third of the President’s three attempts to invoke a Muslim travel ban. The very narrow 5-4 decision validated the travel ban as defined in presidential Proclamation No. 9645, dated: September 24, 2017.
There is zero debate from anyone I am aware of, regarding the President’s authority to restrict travel and entry to the United States based upon the interests of the United States. The question before the Court was never whether he had the authority to do what he did, but rather what was the motivation behind his action?
Interesting juxtaposition. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, did address the President’s conflicting public statements; however, it was barely a cursory treatment given the plethora of the defendant’s public statements. Oddly, he notes previous presidents speaking of support for Muslim Americans reaching back to President Washington (1790), as some kind of compensation for this president’s animus toward Muslims.
Wow! I am frankly disappointed at the cavalier manner that Roberts dismissed the President’s emphatic, explicit, public statements as they apply to this executive action. I cannot imagine how any discerning, intelligent, observant citizen, set aside the chief justice of the Supreme Court, can ignore the President’s and the administration’s clearly establish animus to Muslims . . . at least from the target countries. Roberts cites but a few of the President’s public statements of animus toward Muslims . . . not citizens of Yemen or Iran, or even terrorists or terrorist suspects . . . Muslims; and then, the Chief Justice ignores those statements. Incredible! The contrast between the Court’s reasoning and determination of “religious hostility” in Masterpiece Cakeshop [584 U. S. ____ (2018); 4.6.2018] [858] and this case is stark, profound, and extraordinarily myopic. In Cakeshop, they condemned the entire commission and judicial review process for the questionable statements of two of five commissioners, and then turned around less than a month later to conveniently overlook the repeated, public proclamations of the President and his minions. This reality does not speak well of the Court’s neutrality and impartiality. Just to be explicit here, I will quote the BIC’s original statement that was completely ignored by the majority in this ruling.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
- Donald J. Trump, 7.December.2015
- Donald J. Trump, 7.December.2015
Later that day, his campaign issued a press release titled: “Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration,” which reiterated the candidate’s public statement for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims from entering the U.S.” Regardless of his status as a novice, ill-informed, and unwise politician, once he made that statement, he contaminated and compromised any action he might take as president. He does not get a re-do. Presidents do not get re-do’s. The Court offers no rationale or justification for ignoring the body of clearly and explicitly stated animus toward Muslims and specifically all Muslims in select countries regardless of the paucity of any even remote sign of threatening behavior toward the United States.
The law assumes the executive lacks animus in the performance of his duties and that s/he is acting in good faith to uphold the law. The law at issue gives the President broad authority. Further, while the law prohibits discrimination in the execution of the law based on a person’s “race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence,” the law does not mention religion as one of those prohibited factors.
The President could have easily stayed square with the law, if he had chosen his words just a little more carefully. But no, he sought to incite the xenophobia of far too many of the staunchly loyal consumers of his snake-oil. The Court should have held his feet to the fire. His words matter. Alas, the majority chose to immunize his actions from his own well-recorded words. Instead of playing to the xenophobic segment of our population, he could have simply advocated for tightened vetting filters for people from countries that are state-sponsors of terrorist activities; but no, that is not dramatic enough. He had to say “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” That was bad enough by itself, as I wrote in Update no.730; after all, xenophobic pronouncements were and are consistent with the personality traits of the current fellow in the Oval Office; he was just being himself—no false advertising there. What is far worse from my perspective with the Trump decision was five of nine Supreme Court justices (highly educated, contemplative, deliberate men) signed up to taking a blind eye to the man’s consistent anti-Muslim public rhetoric.
Rather than a general broad ban with exemptions and waivers applied, why not craft the law or executive order to focus on the concerned filter criteria? The appearance of the law is dramatically different.
Apparently, Roberts wants to give us a bitter foretaste of what lays ahead of us with the Court moving farther to the conservative end of the spectrum—screw the rights of the individual, and protect the power of a rogue president, the wealthy and corporations
Comments and contributions from Update no.859:
“Thanks Cap, always appreciate your Update.
“I may be wrong, but I thought someone crossing the border has committed a misdemeanor, I was not aware it is a felony (unless person was deported previously and instructed not to return).
“In your opinion farther below:
"Melania sallied forth on a comparatively rare solo political journey to the southern border on Thursday. At the end of her trip, she prominently wore an olive-green, hooded parka with an unusual message apparently hand-painted and scrawled across the entire back of the parka.
“I REALLY DON’T CARE DO U?”
. . . in capital letters, no less. Was that a child’s prank, like the Post-It note stuck to her back saying, Kick me? For a woman who has been meticulous and highly selective about her attire in every public circumstance, that parka was extraordinarily out of character, in very poor taste, tone deaf and otherwise a really bad idea. I suppose she has now been infected by the same affliction and has become a sandwich-board advertisement girl to publicize her husband’s mindset."
“I REALLY DON’T CARE DO U?”
. . . in capital letters, no less. Was that a child’s prank, like the Post-It note stuck to her back saying, Kick me? For a woman who has been meticulous and highly selective about her attire in every public circumstance, that parka was extraordinarily out of character, in very poor taste, tone deaf and otherwise a really bad idea. I suppose she has now been infected by the same affliction and has become a sandwich-board advertisement girl to publicize her husband’s mindset."
“I too found that more than surreal, absolutely strange, right out of The Twilight Zone. Not sure what optics are being crafted, just like I am not sure if that is really Donald Trump tweeting in the wee hours. We live in strange and dangerous times and the full blown TRADE WARS have not even begun:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-harley-davidson-tariffs/trump-blasts-harley-plan-to-shift-us-production-to-avoid-eu-tariffs-idUSKBN1JL185.
“Creative destruction at work?”
My reply:
You are not wrong. You are in fact quite correct. I overstated the facts, and for that I apologize. Simply crossing the border outside a proper border station and without a proper valid visa for entry is considered a misdemeanor, not a felony—yet, a federal crime, nonetheless.
I cannot believe Melania had a massive Post-It note pasted to the back of her parka without her awareness, which in turn means she wore that parka and that precise message intentionally. The optics of it are terrible. She did not wear the parka going to or at the detention facilities. South Texas is hot this time of year; very few people don parkas in such heat. She wore that parka as she was leaving . . . after presumably showing empathy for the separated children. And, of all the words she might have chosen, she had to pick words that were callous, unfeeling and spiteful. While it might have been an attempt to show solidarity with her husband, such callousness is so out of character for her. Plus, imagine if she had not included one word—don’t.
. . . Round two:
“Thanks for the update on your Update. I was not sure on that issue myself.
“The message Melania was attempting to send was coarse and not well received by many. But what do they care, this is the operating style now, to throw off stupid stunts (just like the liberal do as well) and they get fanfare and lots of love in Twitter and Facebook.
“Much more than normal political discourse going now, it is polarized, dangerous, and childish. But, what can we do? But I saw it going on during Obama too, but just seems the volume levels have been turned way up since Trump.”
. . . my reply to round two:
Thank you so much for the catch. I should have done the re-check research before writing rather than rely upon my feeble memory. Thanks, again.
Melania’s sandwich-board message is still quite puzzling to me. We are unlikely to ever know what she intended to communicate. However, that particular message in that situation was rendered in extraordinary bad taste on her backside—very uncharacteristic for Melania.
I’m not sure any of us knows or would recognize what normal political intercourse is anymore. “what can we do?” Easy. Vote for the candidates in your district who demonstrates civility, the ability to disagree respectfully, and is most likely to work hard to find compromise solutions to complex, public, societal issues. If we continue to vote for same ol’ blokes, we will only get what we’ve always gotten. No matter what anyone thinks of Obama’s policies and executive decisions, he conducted himself with dignity, respect for others and civility. He took the high road. Despite the irrational bashing of him personally and his administration, Barack continues to maintain his dignity and refuses to jump in the sewer with his attackers. He acted like a president. The current fellow . . . not so much by any measure.
. . . Round three:
“I've asked is Melania actually real? I sort of get a The Stepford Wives trigger, don't know why? Perhaps robot/A.I.? I don't know. It sorta reminds me of Trump's early morning tweets.
“I agree with you, Obama kept some decorum lacking now (is that an understatement or what?).
“The leadership of America is dictating to the masses how we conduct ourselves (or at least influencing it). Today the polarization, highly charged emotions, and lack of civility is being fueled by the political arena and news agencies.
“Let's hope it gets a reset and trends back to something more civil and respectful, but I am nervous it may not for now.”
. . . my reply to round three:
There are many puzzling elements of Melania.
Gross understatement, my friend! Obama was orders of magnitude more respectful of those who disagreed with him. He conducted himself with dignity and respect for others. The BIC is the antithesis of good conduct, which is what his supporters seem relish.
Yes, indeed; we abandoned any semblance of a bygone ability to disagree with respect. Today, it is all about bludgeoning to death anyone who disagrees with our beliefs, opinions, concepts or statements. A viable democracy deeps upon vigorous debate and disagreement. The BIC relentlessly attacks the Press and anyone who disagrees with or challenges him is rapidly corroding the democracy that has sustained us.
I have and continue believe in the wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth as reflected in Matthew 5:38, and especially John 8:7 (among so many others). Unfortunately, too many people have rejected the wisdom of Jesus and subscribed to the BIC’s ad hominemattacks as a sign of strength, virility and dominance. I see such behavior in exactly the opposite light—shallow, ignorant and low class. I believe Jesus had it precisely correct when he walked among us two millennia ago, and his wisdom remains valid and worthy. Unfortunately, the BIC never learned those lessons in his childhood and now is incapable of maturing, and worse has sold his snake-oil to millions of American citizens.
There is always hope. I believe deeply in the resilience of this Grand Republic. However, I would be remiss if I did not confess my confidence has been seriously shaken. A year ago, I would have left my statement without qualification; today, I must add, but I could be wrong.
Another contribution:
“Having received no response to my submission via the blog, I'm assuming it didn't go through. The response follows.”
******
“The person who said ‘history does not always repeat itself’ has not studied history.
“As a historian and genealogist, I see immigration very differently. Immigration laws are a recent development, which is why my ancestors were able to come here. My name line fled Europe solely due to religious persecution. They would not have been admitted to a pre-United States already under internal stress over religion. At least half of my other ancestors came from Ireland and would not have been admitted at the time they came, the 1850s. ‘No Irish Need Apply’ was a sign of those times. It wouldn’t have mattered then any more than it does now that they would certainly have starved to death where they previously lived.
“The law-enforcement issue is a red herring. A first offense of unapproved border crossing is a misdemeanor. In any case, many of those imprisoned have applied for asylum here based on grounds for which it is usually granted. I can’t believe it’s illegal to apply for asylum. And, other than a token effort in New England in the past few days, Trump makes no effort to stop immigration, except from the south or from Muslim nations not doing business with his family. The usual bail is not possible within this context and those children do not have nearby relatives who can care for them, as usually happens with those accused of crimes in the U.S.
“I am very worried about the girls who are being held and to whom no reporters or politicians have access. I do not trust whoever is holding them not to abuse, sell, and/or traffic them. Even at the mercy of actual law enforcement people, some of that could happen. In private hands, it’s likely. History repeats itself.
“Also, I’ll call attention to your desire for immigrants to ‘assimilate.’ That word means to give up one’s culture, not merely be a productive citizen. More history lessons: the Native Americans have been forcibly assimilated, to their great harm. The survivors still resist. Black people, on the other hand, have typically not been allowed to assimilate. Some want to preserve blacks’ former slave status in function if not in name, and that does not allow for them to be seen as ‘like us.’
“This entire episode and the call for a ‘space force’ are distractions from the important threats in the budgets being passed. Our enormous military budget has been mightily increased rather than decreased, and everything of social benefit is once again under attack.
“Trump’s attacks on our allies are inexplicable unless he’s under someone’s control. The ZTE deal looks like exactly that.
“Press bias is another history lesson. That only lessened in the 1960s and 1970s, but I find it ironic that the outlets talking about it the most are also the most biased.”
My response:
I was prohibited from responding, but you are not. Yes, I do emphatically agree, history does unfortunately repeat itself, especially by people who do not know history.
I’m with you. My paternal ancestors arrived in New York City in 1686, also fleeing religious persecution. The first immigration law in this Grand Republic was An Act To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization[PL 1-II-003; 1 Stat. 103; 26.3.1790] [556]. An interesting fact with that law, § 1 [1 Stat. 103] stated that “any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years shall be considered a citizen.” The first law to regulate immigration was An Act Regulating passenger ships and vessels(AKA Steerage Act of 1819, or Manifest of Immigrants Act) [PL 15-II-046; 3 Stat. 488; 2.3.1819] [586]. There were many laws including the Constitution itself that discriminated and marginalized citizens, and people who were not male, Caucasian, free, Protestant, educated landowners. And, the Supreme Court validated that discrimination numerous times until comparatively recently. My point is, immigration law is not a recent phenomenon.
Another contributor picked up my erroneous reference to simple illegal entry being a felony. I have apologized for my mistake. No, it is not illegal to apply for asylum. There is a long established process for any foreign individual to apply for asylum. Crossing the border without an entry visa is not and never has been part of that process. No administration, Republican, or Democrat, or any other, can stop illegal immigration without a defense in depth. There is no sign Congress or anyone else is even attempting to create a defense in depth. Building a border wall will never serve its intended purpose; it will only serve as a symbol of isolation.
I share your concern for children.
Assimilation is a worthy topic. Assimilation to me does not mean abandoning or rejecting their cultural roots. To me, assimilation is acceptance, adoption and conformance to public conduct and behavior defined by this Grand Republic, e.g., honor killing may be acceptable under Sharia Law, it will never be accepted or tolerated under U.S. law. Past abuses of the law are multitudinous in our history. We are still struggling to mature as a society and culture. The issue is public conduct, not private beliefs. If an individual’s private beliefs preclude proper public conduct, then this is not the country for them—asylum or otherwise.
The BIC’s Space Force is not some visionary initiative; it is simply another excuse to spend money the government does not have—more national debt.
That would make sense to explain the BIC’s actions, after all he is doing Putin’s and Xi’s heavy lifting for them . . . single-handedly corroding NATO and breaking down an alliance that have withstood decades of trial. He could also be motivated by future business opportunities, i.e., one more high rise office / condo building or golf course with his name in big gold letters in Moscow and Beijing, set aside Pyongyang.
Good observation regarding alleged Press bias.
. . . follow up comment:
“I do not see immigrants, illegal or otherwise, as an important issue in the USA. The crime rate among them is lower, most of them work, and we get net income from the fact that they pay taxes (sometimes income, always sales, gasoline, etc.) but don’t or can’t collect many government benefits. We have issues ranging from sinkholes to election meddling. I hate to see our nation’s energy wasted on these diversions. Let him have his pointless wall if it can be built with minimal impact on wildlife. Drugs arrive here by sea; most illegal immigrants by truck or air. I don’t like wasting billions of dollars on it, but politicians always throw good money after bad.
“I looked up ‘assimilation’ and ‘assimilate’ at Merriam-Webster’s dictionary and thesaurus sites, but got little clarity. If assimilating means obedience to U.S. law (certainly including homicide) and non-disruptive public behavior, I’m all for it. If it means dropping important parts of religious beliefs, speaking only English to each other, and things like that, it goes too far and is not part of American history except extended over generations and by choice. I saw a factoid somewhere that the Chicago public school system was teaching in ten languages in 1910. I find that easy to believe, and it works for our nation in the long run. Investing in immigrants’ needs makes them more valuable people.
“The space force is more BS for Trump’s easily-led base. The weird trade attacks are a serious problem for the U.S.”
. . . my follow up response:
Yes, absolutely. I would say it far more strongly—immigration is vital, not just important. I share your dislike of senseless diversions. The BIC is a master of diversion, as I also accused Bill Clinton of being. The BIC has been presented with at least two, bipartisan efforts on immigration reform, but he rejected them because they did not give him ALL of his damn wall. I say, give it to him, all of it; I don’t care how much it costs. Let him gloat and carry on about how powerful he is, and then get some real reform done. Until we implement a defense in depth, we will not stop illegal entry by people seeking a better, safer life. Unfortunately, we will expend precious treasury funds on the ridiculous wall, and it will accomplish nothing—the definition of waste.
I would not use the word obedience, but compliance with and respect for our laws and standards of public conduct. Yes, there are beliefs in other cultures that are not consistent with American culture. I’m quite comfortable with immigrants retaining their cultural beliefs and conduct as long as they comply with public behavior and no one is injured in private. Honor killings or genital mutilation (clitoral circumcision), among many others, are not acceptable, period, full stop. If any individual feels he should retain those rights, then do not come to this Grand Republic; he will never be accepted. I do not care what language individuals speak in their private affairs. However, English is the language of public activity and commerce. No government or other entity should be compelled to adopt any language other than English. Competence with English is essential to assimilation. I took multiple languages in secondary and university schools—Latin, German, and Italian; I am proficient in none. In European schools, proficiency in another language beyond native is required; I’d be good with that requirement in this country.
We are agreed on Space Force, although perhaps not for the same reason. As I said, I think it is just an excuse to launder more money through the Defense Department, since the BIC’s base supporters apparent equate defense spending with military strength.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment