Update no.869

Update from the Sunland

No.869

27.8.18 – 2.9.18

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

            To all,

            Hey folks, the emperor has no clothes!

            Just when I tried to give the BIC credit for his simple kind words on the passing of John McCain, he has to go muck it all up and demonstrate for the world that he is a petty, small-minded, self-serving, insecure, weak man, who clearly has no feel for the responsibilities of the office he was duly elected to serve.  Nope, he just had to muck it all up!  There should be zero doubt in anyone’s mind why he deserves the moniker—Bully In Chief (BIC).  He has not, is not and probably will not ever act like a president. What a disappointment!  He is what he is.  We, the People, elected him.  We must endure our mistake and his employment, until we can move on, and do our best to respect the office he holds on our behalf.

            John McCain was always bigger than himself. The BIC is simply incapable of being beyond himself—even a smidgen.  Therein lies the measure of the two men.

            It is truly sad that the BIC has been so flowingly effusive in his praise of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jung Un, while so reluctant to recognize the service of a true American patriot.  That reality speaks volumes.

            John McCain’s life and farewell celebrations this week have to be really irritating the BIC, who is no longer the center of national attention.  And, of course, what did the BIC do during McCain national funeral ceremony . . . he went to one of his signature resorts to make more money from the Treasury of the U.S. government and played golf.  There is no doubt who he is.

            This week’s extraordinary celebration of the life and service of Senator John Sidney McCain III were so befitting . . . not just for the man, the son, the father, the grandfather, the senator, the aviator, the sailor, and the patriot, but for a life of dedicated service beyond himself and his family to We, the People, and the glory of this Grand Republic with liberty and justice for all.  On behalf of a grateful nation, Godspeed and following winds, John McCain.

            Here is a ‘what if’ for all those who worship at the altar of the BIC.  What if the Special Counsel presents definitive evidence that the BIC and his lackeys did in fact collaborate and collude with the Russians to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, would your loyalty to the fellow dissipate? Would you or could you ever admit that his snake-oil was worthless and bogus?

            In all fairness, the inverse ‘what if’ also applies.  As I have publicly stated more than a few times, I will acknowledge and recognize positive change, although I shall remain critical of the means to accomplish the objective. The end DOES NOT justify the means.  I want positive immigration reform to constructively reduce or eliminate illegal entry into this country; however, I am not supportive of sacrificing our humanity to do so. I am all in favor of establishing an equitable basis for international trade; however, I condemn the effort to insult and vilify our allies to do so.  This Grand Republic has endured periods of isolationism, but those times have never contributed to a safer, more secure nation.  I do not see the contemporary version of isolationism having any more success than previous versions.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.868:

“Well your latest to be expected Cap. Need to read it in the peace of a warm evening with a small beer in one hand.Where’s our next ‘Churchillian’ leader?”

My reply:

            “Where’s our next ‘Churchillian’ leader?” That is indeed the salient question.  As I have written, our generation has failed.  Our hope for a worthy leader must rest upon the next generation.  As a student of history, I must recognize and acknowledge that we may never see a leader of Churchill’s stature and accomplishment, again.

Comment to the Blog:

“As an American, I mourn the passing of Senator McCain.  While I often disagreed with him, I never once doubted that he placed his allegiance to the United States above party or personal loyalties.  He advocated his positions with forceful and sound reasoning, not the partisan, donor-serving nonsense that has become so common in our political life.  I'll miss his voice, and I'm running out of living people to cite as ‘reasonable Republicans.’

“As always with him, I imagine Trump refuses to address Russian (or any) election interference due to sinister motives.

“Rudy Giuliani's statement, ‘Truth isn't truth’ isn't the least bit reasonable.  It demonstrates a combination of desperation and insanity that ought to get him treatment for his mental condition.  There's certainly an argument about truth as absolute versus perceptual issues around it, but Giuliani didn't present that one.  You or I or any ordinary lawyer could make an argument if we wanted one that Trump ought not to testify in any legal proceeding, but we wouldn't attempt that by saying something as obviously false and clearly irrational as ‘truth isn't truth.’

“The assorted Trump investigations proceed apace.  The publisher of the National Enquirer almost certainly has a large collection of dirt on Trump and others, but the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization may provide more telling information in the legal sense.  I also want to call attention to the investigation of Trump's so-called charity operation, conducted by the New York State Attorney General.  Whatever occurs at the Federal level, Trump's Presidential power to pardon criminals doesn't apply to state convictions.

“Mike Pence worries me. He's far smoother than the rest of these offensive people, thinks on his feet, and has more capacity for sophisticated selling of their lies than any of the others.

“I will address one aspect of your ‘Black Hole’ concept.  Politicians' addiction, ultimately, is power over others.  If they cannot affect Americans, they will not rest until they do.”

My response to the Blog:

            I share your view of McCain and “reasonable Republicans.”

            “sinister motives” . . . indeed!  I do not know how the Special Counsel could establish the facts on that topic, but I suppose there is always hope . . . until there isn’t.

            Well said, re: Giuliani’s foolish “Truth isn't truth” statement.  Truth is the facts of any situation, event, circumstance or occurrence. Facts exist independent of perception; thus, truth exists independent of perceptions.

            You are, of course, quite correct re: presidential power to pardon.  It will be intellectually interesting, although culturally devastating, if he tries to pardon himself.

            I share your view of Pence.  I will also add he is the consummate moral projectionist, which attracts my condemnation by itself.

            I did not expand on my theoretical proposal, but TBH is a one-way ticket.  Once you go in, that is it.  Nothing comes out: no parole, no pardons, no commutations, no messages, nothing comes out except for the remains of the deceased (as the inmates may not wish to deal with decomposition).  The guards are to maintain the absolute boundary, i.e., nothing gets out. I must also add that TBH is the absolute end of the road—the terminus of multiple levels of governmental efforts to induce respect for other persons and property.

Postscript: Giuliani’s “truth isn’t truth” fits so perfectly with the BIC’s infamous “truthful hyperbole.”  To these men, truth is irrelevant and infinitely malleable, and truth is only what they dictate it to be.

 . . . Round two:

“I could wax academic/philosophical about ‘fact,’ ‘truth,’ etc., but I don't see the point and I lack the energy.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            If you should change your mind, I would encourage you to wax on; I would love to have your thoughts.

 . . . Round three:

“Facts are established by reasonable doubt or other standards in law, by the scientific method in science, and by witness statements, consensus, or even ‘sacred’ texts in other settings.  None of those standards is absolute in the sense of logic.  Likewise, even ‘obvious’ facts often cannot be established with certainty.  For example, I am currently finishing a book by a historian on the Andrews Raid that occurred during the U.S. Civil War.  Many of the facts of that raid remain in dispute despite the most careful and thorough efforts of well-trained historians studying a wealth of information.  That a given event happened or not or even something as simple as color (green, blue, aqua, yellow) is subject to observer perception and many other factors.

“The term ‘truth’ adds a level of difficulty because it typically assigns meaning to facts, and the meanings are filtered through each mind trying to find and state them.  Throw in communication styles and issues, different levels of factual knowledge, and varying priorities and values, and ‘truth’ is, at the very least, not universally agreed upon.  (However, Rudy Giuliani offered no shred of that understanding.)”

. . . my response to round three:

            I shall offer a contrarian perspective for the furtherance of this important discussion topic.

            We shall respectfully disagree.  Facts are facts.  Sunrise is a fact.  The eruption of Kilauea is a fact.  Those facts do not depend upon interpretation, laws, courtroom procedures, nothing—facts are facts.  In referring to the Andrews Raid during the Civil War [12.4.1862], I suspect you are referring to the interpretation of information.  The facts of that raid exist regardless of whether they were witnessed or recorded (properly or not).  We may not be aware of all of the relevant facts, and as a consequence, we try to make sense of the facts we have and the information we can collect that reflects upon the facts we do not have.  Yet, in all that, facts are still facts.  Again, I will respectfully say, it is the interpretation of the information we have that is in dispute.  Further, one historian may dispute another historian’s representation of fact and more specifically the interpretation of information we have collected about such events.  For an event 150 years ago, there are very few facts adequately recorded. Thus, historians must collect hearsay, rumor, 1st person (one-sided) accounts, reports, and such, to build the best picture they can of such an event.  Nonetheless, the facts of that event existed, i.e., the event happened, but our ability to record, review and assess those facts is as fleeting as the wind.

            Truth is the accurate recounting of facts. The reality that we may not recount those facts accurately does not alter the truth of facts.  In a court of law, lawyers argue and juries assess the information presented.  Juries must evaluate facts, information, conjecture and implication, but facts remain facts, and truth of those facts remains truth, regardless of our ability to see or understand them.

            I absolutely agree with your assessment of Giuliani’s very foolish words.  His apparent purpose is to create as much confusion, smoke, mirrors, subterfuge and misinformation to obscure or outright erase facts and the truth.  He is doing the bidding of his employer / client, who apparently wants the facts and truth of his conduct obfuscated, so that conduct cannot be judged beyond a reasonable doubt.

 . . . Round four:

“I suppose I ought to have added yet another qualifier.  ‘For the purposes of human discussion . . .’ facts are subject to knowledge and assessment. ‘Truth’ is a loaded word; it adds spin to ‘fact.’  Yes, Kilauea erupts with or without human observation, but we cannot discuss it without awareness, and our discussion is colored by our knowledge of volcanoes in general and Kilauea specifically and also by whether, as some Hawaiians do, we worship Kilauea as a goddess.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            At the risk of belaboring the point, facts and truth exist whether we are aware of them or not.  I do agree that the collection and interpretation of whatever facts are available is a unique human endeavor, and spin is an unavoidable political aspect of that human handling of facts.  I only want to separate the reality that facts exist regardless of awareness.  I do agree with you with respect to the human discussion of facts.  We will continue to discuss facts as we know them and seek truth in the facts we have.  We often label information as fact, but they may or may not be true facts.

 . . . Round five:

“For purposes of human discourse, the objective existence of facts is not really relevant. We can't discuss things that are unknown.  For example, Darwin never discussed DNA. It couldn't be done during his lifetime because nobody was aware of it.  Thus, the fact that DNA existed at the time has no bearing on his discussion.  That matters.  Treating a given matter as indisputable ‘fact’ changes the discussion.  So does the word ‘truth.’  ‘Truth’ adds an air of indisputability to the discussion and the use of the term is often an attempt to prevent evaluation of a premise.  After all, ‘sunrise’ is an indisputable fact, except that what we see is not the sun moving but the result of the earth's rotation.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            Man oh man, I do enjoy our philosophical exchanges.

            I certainly understand and appreciate the perspective you offer.  In reality, it was one of the reasons we have such convoluted and intricate judicial procedures; cases must be judged in the domain of human discourse, as the facts and truth are rarely known.  In his crude, inadequate, clumsy way, I think that is what Giuliani was attempting to explain, although he failed miserably.

            Just for point of reference, my training in aircraft accident investigations as well as in the intelligence biz have taught me to seek the facts until all reasonable efforts have been expended; and then, to assess the information collected on the basis of accuracy and reliability.  Case in point, we do not know what caused the TWA 800 event, because we are missing key or valuable facts.  So, the causal factors are assessed based on the image emerging from the facts we do have. Yes, precisely, we cannot know the “known-unknowns” or the “unknown-unknowns,” but we must still attempt a reasonable determination based on the “known-knowns” we have. Thus, in the case of TWA 800 we do not yet know the truth of what happened; we have only hypotheses, one of which might actually be the truth (or close to the truth).

Another contribution:

“God Speed... John McCain.

“My [heart] aches and tears flow down my face.  Selfishly, I wish I had the honor of standing in your presents.

“You were one of the greatest men this country, hell, this world has ever known.  The mold has been broken.  Your service and self sacrifice where unsurpassed.  Your grace and humility revered.  You spoke the truth plainly, taught us all wisely and showed us what our forefathers stood for and lived the life of a proud citizen.

“Words seem meaningless in regards to your endless contributions to this grand republic.  You spoke for me.  You stood, a man of few words, but precise.  Articulate, Courageous and Integrity come to mind.

“A dedicated father, no doubt a generous neighbor. A fine man one could never meet.  As my brother, Cap says: to one loved in passing.. God Speed …John McCain.

“You will be missed, but never ever forgotten.  You live forever, in history.”

A different contribution:

“Where have we seen that conduct in history?  Why Obama himself !  He did whatever he wanted and passed laws without approval.. if you are insinuating Hitler as you usually do ... no ... it’s the left that are the Communists feeding propaganda like the article from Esquire you linked.

“You and your cronies on the left have almost got me ready to say at this point in my life, however few years I may have left, let the leftist losers have their crybaby ways and relieve poor Trump from this miserable position we have put him in.  It would be interesting to watch you and the clueless of the left be terrified when you see what would happen next.

“Guaranteed the economy will tank if the left is back in control.. all taxes will go sky high .. poverty will be prevalent.. the Deep State can come out of hiding and the Mid East can be allowed to take over our ‘Grand Republic’ just as George Soros and Obama wanted.

“What Trump said about Manafort is right on .. he did not deserve to have a 12 year old tax case treated so severely.. they were after him for ANYTHING they could find on him .. and that’s the result of all they could find.  And you need to re read that sentence in chapter one of Killing the Deep State again.. they DID break into Manaforts house early morning .. and a day after Manafort had agreed to give them whatever they needed .. they barged in Gestapo style with nothing but the intent of intimidation. And this is from the direction of kingpin Bobby Mueller .

“And what about President Obama’s big campaign violation? Why was IT so easily swept under the rug?”

My reply:

            There is no hope in helping you see reality. You can and will say the exact same thing about me, although I feel such an accusation is the antithesis of the politics I have practiced over all of my adult life.  Nonetheless, it is what it is.  I still respect you as a person, at least I think of you as a friend, even though we seriously disagree on facts and truth.  You are entitled to your opinions.  I shall not argue.

            I have no cronies.

            “this miserable position we have put him in” . . . oh no, he has done that process all by himself . . . his words, his actions, no one has helped him achieve that miserable position.  I recognize and acknowledge your inviolate loyalty to your beloved Donald.  I hope you never feel the disappointment in him that I feel everyday in his conduct and performance.

            OK, so you see Manafort as the noble martyr being prosecuted by a vengeful Republican Justice Department.  If I understand your words, you see no crime in his US$60M of income without paying any taxes, as the rest of us must do.  The laws that apply to the rest of us do not apply to Manafort, or the Donald, or the Donald’s family, friends and supporters . . . correct?  I know this will be controversial, but I dare say what we have seen in federal court so far is most likely the tip of the iceberg.

            “they barged in Gestapo style with nothing but the intent of intimidation.”  Once again, the FBI had a proper, federal, search warrant, and Manafort thanked the FBI for their decorum and respect in executing that warrant. Where is this Gestapo nonsense coming from . . . Alex Jones?

            “what about President Obama’s big campaign violation?”  Well, I would say, based on the available evidence, the answer is intent. When the Obama campaign was confronted with the campaign law violation, they acknowledged their mistake and readily paid the assessed fine for their violation.  Manafort has done neither; he denied there was any violation; and now, the BIC has unilaterally declared the law is not the law, and his loyal buddy Manafort violated no law.  What are we supposed to take from all that?  “Why was IT so easily swept under the rug ?”  I believe you are factually incorrect; nothing was swept under the rug, as Manafort attempted to do.  As I said, the Obama campaign readily acknowledged their reporting mistake and also readily paid a hefty fine.  Manafort tried to defy the law; he shall suffer the consequences.

 . . . Round two:

“Obama (AIC-Appologizer in chief) offended more people in his two terms than Trump could ever do .. Perhaps some of the purported insults from Trump had fact in them? The only reason the left is pushing back is they dont like someone in office that can expose the corruption in the government all the way back to Bush Sr or further!! If they can sway the American people to not like Trump they can hopefully have him out of office so they can get a crooked Dem or Rino in there to resume the crooked government business as usual.”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            Yes, President Obama was a big enough man to apologize when warranted; one of the traits I find admirable.  We are an imperfect nation; always have been, always will be.  Yet, we strive to be better.

            Whether the BIC’s insults have fact in them or not, insults are like profanity, they just demonstrate your ignorance. He is what he is; he is not going to change.

            Corruption is a reality of politics.  Flawed men seek power over others, and they are not strong enough to resist the temptations.  There is corruption in the current administration, just as there was in every preceding administration that I am aware of, and probably every administration going back to the original no.1.  The laws, rules, regulations and guidelines we have are an attempt to minimize the inherent corruption of politics. Thumbing his nose at the existing regulations is NOT constructive to improvement.  If he did not want his tax returns exposed to public scrutiny, he should not have run for public office.  Full stop!

[NOTE: the book at issue here is:

“Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump”

by Jerome R. Corsi. Ph.D.]

https://books.google.com/books?id=IZhIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT6&source=kp_read_button

 . . . my supplemental reply to round two:

Just for the sake of clarity, let us just take page 1 for discussion.

            The execution of the search warrant against Manafort on July 26, 2017, is a fact and thus truth, i.e., not subject to interpretation.  The information comes from multiple, diverse sources all with high reliability.  However, when the author says “the FBI picked the lock of Manafort’s front door,” the statement is highly suspect for a variety of reasons: 1.) it is unusual, although not without precedent, for the FBI to pick locks (law enforcement usually either knock or breakdown the door); 2.) if the warrant was granted as a “no-knock” warrant, the judge authorized any means to breach the door quickly to protect evidence; if not, then the warrant constraints were violated and the gathered evidence becomes fruit from the poison tree; and 3.) there is no substantiating evidence to support the statement, i.e., were did this information come from?  All that leads me to assume the author sought to incite the reader into a political conclusion, i.e., Manafort was treated unfairly for political reasons.

            Just the first two paragraphs do not send a comprehensive tone for such a book, and make the remainder of the book suspect.

            That said, if a reader is predisposed to believe Manafort broke no laws, the “deep state” (whatever that is) acted illegally against an innocent American citizen, and Manafort is simply the sacrificial lamb at the altar of the “deep state,” then such tomes would be red meat and validation.

 . . . Round three:

“I imagine if there is anything in the book that is untrue, there should be some sort of rebuttal considering the book is a best seller .. It would be to the advantage of the FBI to publicly state the book is wrong and they did not pick the locks of Manafort’s home. That has not happened.

“What were they ‘searching’ for anyway when just a day before, Manafort had agreed to provide any documentation they needed?  You say breach quickly to protect evidence?? Evidence of WHAT???  These first two paragraphs definitely made me want to read more.  I can see the intense hate you have for Trump makes anything and anyone that has to do with him suspect in your mind..  Same as I feel about Obama, the Clintons and yes even the Bush family.  Trump is the first president that is not from that ‘30 year arrangement’ they had hoped would carry on with Hillary. 

“The FBI/CIA are not the honest departments we should be able to consider them to be .. The incident at Mandalay Bay in Vegas is a suspect example.  Strange that incident has been quickly forgotten .. Swept under the rug ..

“Go back 50+ years and you have the JFK shooting .. Another curious event ...”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            First, the FBI cannot answer, neither can the CIA or any other government agency.  The standard and normal process . . . we evaluate the available information; we form our opinions and decide with our vote.  There were too many suspicious presentations just on the first page.  I’ve read far too many conspiracy theories, not least of which was TWA 800, which I do know something about.  I recognize that a substantial portion of our citizenry do not trust government, see conspiracy in every shadow, and that is their choice.  I cannot live my remaining life with that negativity.

            Re: “Manafort had agreed to provide any documentation they needed?”  Clearly, the USG did not believe him.  Re: “Evidence of WHAT???”  In short, criminal conduct . . . for which he has been convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers.  And, I suspect he will soon be convicted of more crimes in his next trial. He is a convicted federal felon. Please do not make him out to be a martyr; he is not; he is a felon.

            For some reason you persist in accusing me of “intense hate . . . for Trump.”  First, I have never used that word with respect to the BIC, and I will likely never use that word.  I simply see him for what he is, period, full stop.  I confess to being frustrated and disappointed that so many good American citizens have swallowed his snake-oil . . . and love it.

            Re: “that ‘30 year arrangement.’” That’s a new term to me. Are you (and others) suggesting there was a cabal (another conspiracy) between the Bush & Clinton families to dominate American politics?

            OK.  I cannot devote more cerebral energy to the myriad conspiracy theories rumbling around out there.  So much of this nonsense has bloomed from the dishonesty of the USG in the Vietnam era—the Pentagon Papers opened the door wide open and Nixon jammed a stake in our heart.  So, for better or worse, I believe Oswald killed JFK, 9/11 was the result of radical Islamic jihadis, Americans landed & walked on the Moon (several times), TWA 800 did not spontaneously explode, ad infinitum ad nauseum.  I am not interested in more conjecture, accusations, and unsubstantiated theories.

Yet one more contribution:

“Yes Cap - this whole John McCain event grabs my heart.

“We used to live in Flagstaff, AZ.  Right close to Sedona.  I saw McCain's place when we were there.

“And McCain flew off of one of my great carriers that I flew from - the USS Intrepid.”

My reply:

            You are not alone.  He was a great American.  We should all aspire to be just a fraction as good.  May God rest his immortal soul.

            Beautiful country . . . Flagstaff and Sedona.

            I’ve done my share of carriers, but not the Intrepid, to my knowledge.  I’d have to go back to my logbook.

One last contribution:

“Are you a Democrat yet?”

My response:

LOL.  Nope, still an independent moderate.  I find little affinity with any current political party and I am progressively feeling the tribalism of the political parties is the very acid corroding the foundation of this Grand Republic.

 . . . Round two:

“I would agree, and add the ‘money is speech’ Supreme Court decision is facilitating the process.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Oh my, you got that right.  Dark money is a powerful catalyst for corruption and the amplification of tribalism.  As I wrote in my original review of the infamous Citizens United[ 558 U.S. 310 (2010)] [424] ruling, the enabling of dark money will be the bane of the very foundational principles of this Grand Republic.

 . . . Round three:

“... and looks like some of that money is rubles.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Indeed!  . . . and perhaps more rubles than our imaginations could ever contemplate, AND the Supremes have enabled such transactions.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)