Update from the Sunland
No.881
19.11.18 – 25.11.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- In the aftermath of the Khashoggi assassination [876], the BIC publicly stated: “It could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event—maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!" Hard to argue with that juvenile reasoning, huh? The BIC also declared that the U.S. would remain a “steadfast partner” of Saudi Arabia and expressed skepticism of the Central Intelligence Agency’s determination that the Saudi crown prince likely and directly ordered the killing of a dissident journalist last month. Wow, the OSGOO actually, publicly stated what we all have believed for years—for the BIC, it is all about money—money, money, money and only money . . . for his pockets primarily. If you spend enough money and present value to the fellow in the Oval Office, you can murder, dismember and dispose of anyone you wish. He has set the going price for murdering and dismembering a U.S. resident and journalist at US$400M. There are no principles, values, beliefs, or policies that cannot be overcome with sufficient money. I think we all have known this, but for it to be so graphically portrayed by the POTUS is actually shocking, even for him. This is exactly what the BIC means by America First.
-- More than two years after Britons voted to break from the European Union [758], Prime Minister Theresa May and the leaders of the remaining EU members approved a hard-fought, 585-page treaty, setting the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU to satisfy the voter approved referendum. May now faces what portends to be a raucous, volatile effort to gain approval of divided Parliament. The opposition in Commons appears to be so strong that some pundits are suggesting a second referendum vote is called for—a tempting but highly ill advised initiative. I am not a fan of Brexit. I believe the British voters were wrong; but, the voters spoke, for better or worse. Their will must be done, and I applause May’s incredible effort to fulfill that commitment to the voters.
They say, never lead with an apology, but I am compelled to violate that rule of public speaking. I try to avoid lengthy transcripts that take up so much space, especially when the subject is the drivel spewing from the mouth of the BIC. A week ago Sunday (18.November.2018), FoxNews journalist Chris Wallace interviewed the OSGOO. This is the verbatim transcript of just a portion of that interview. I will also temporarily suspend my aversion to speak the BIC’s family name for the singular purpose of the historical record, and I acknowledge that I have not taken the time and effort to insert quotation marks for this transcript; the words by WALLACE belong to journalist Chris Wallace, and the words by TRUMP below to President Donald J. Trump. So, here we go:
WALLACE: But, sir leaders in authoritarian countries like Russia, China, Venezuela, now repress the media using your words.
TRUMP: I can’t talk for other people, I can only talk for me. I will tell you –
WALLACE: But you’re -- but you’re seen around the world as a beacon for repression, not for –
TRUMP: The news -- Chris -- Chris, I’m not talking about you, but you sometimes maybe. But I’m not talking about you.
The news about me is largely phony. It’s false. Even sometimes they’ll say, uh, “Sources say.” There is no source, in many cases – in many cases there is –
WALLACE: But -- I understand you don’t like your coverage –
TRUMP: No, no, no. It’s not a question –
WALLACE: Can I just bring the -- can I just bring the bigger issue –
TRUMP: Ninety-four percent negative.
WALLACE: Can I bring the -- the bigger issue up –
TRUMP: Yeah.
WALLACE: Bill McRaven, Retired Admiral, Navy Seal, 37 years, former head of U.S. Special Operations –
TRUMP: Hillary Clinton fan.
WALLACE: Special Operations –
TRUMP: Excuse me, Hillary Clinton fan.
WALLACE: Who led the operations, commanded the operations that took down Saddam Hussein and that killed Osama bin Laden says that your sentiment is the greatest threat to democracy in his lifetime.
TRUMP: OK, he’s a Hilary Clinton, uh, backer and an Obama-backer and frankly –
WALLACE: He was a Navy Seal 37 years –
TRUMP: Wouldn’t it have been nice if we got Osama Bin Laden a lot sooner than that, wouldn’t it have been nice? You know, living – think of this – living in Pakistan, beautifully in Pakistan in what I guess they considered a nice mansion, I don’t know, I’ve seen nicer. But living in Pakistan right next to the military academy, everybody in Pakistan knew he was there. And we give Pakistan $1.3 billion a year and they don’t tell him, they don’t tell him –
WALLACE: You’re not even going to give them credit –
TRUMP: For years –
WALLACE: for taking down Bin Laden?
TRUMP: They took him down but – look, look, there’s news right there, he lived in Pakistan, we’re supporting Pakistan, we’re giving them $1.3 billion a year, which we don’t give them anymore, by the way, I ended it because they don’t do anything for us, they don’t do a damn thing for us.
TRUMP: I’m totally in favor of the media, I’m totally in favor of free press, got to be fair press. When it’s fake –
WALLACE: But but the President [doesn’t] get to decide what’s fair and what’s not.
TRUMP: I can tell what’s fair and not and so can my people and so can a lot of other people.
TRUMP: I can tell what’s fair and not and so can my people and so can a lot of other people.
WALLACE: I understand that but but –
TRUMP: When you do something very good and they write it badly and this is consistently when you – as an example, rarely do they talk about –
WALLACE: Barack Obama whined about Fox News all the time but he never said we were the enemy of the people.
TRUMP: Well, no, he didn’t talk about the news, he didn’t talk about anything, I’m only saying it very differently than anyone’s ever said it before, I’m saying fake news, false reporting, dishonest reporting, of which there is a lot, and I know it. See, I know it because I’m a subject of it. A lot of people don’t know it. But when I explain it to them, they understand it.
And, Chris, you know that better, you don’t have to sit here and act like a perfect little, wonderful, innocent angel, I know you too well, I knew your father too well, that’s not your gene. But let me tell you –
WALLACE: I – look – I think –
TRUMP: Fake news –
WALLACE: I think some of the coverage of you, sir – and I’ve said it on the record – is bias, but I don’t think that there is –
TRUMP: Most of it is bias, most of it is bias.
WALLACE: I don’t know, but the idea that you call us the enemy of the people.
TRUMP: I’m not calling you that.
WALLACE: I’m talking about, we’re all together.
TRUMP: I’m not calling you – you don’t understand it.
WALLACE: We’re all together.
TRUMP: No, no, no, I’m not calling you –
WALLACE: It doesn’t matter whether you call, but when you call CNN and the New York Times and – we, we’re in solidarity, sir.
TRUMP: I am calling fake news, fake reporting, is what’s tearing this country apart because people know, people like things that are happening and they’re not hearing about it.
As supplemental background, to the best of my ability, I believe Wallace opened the McRaven exchange by referring to the public words of Admiral William Harry ‘Bill’ McRaven, USN (Ret.) from February 2017, when the admiral was speaking at the University of Texas. On 23.February.2017, McRaven said:
“Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to speak with a great group of students and faculty from my alma mater, the Moody College of Communication at UT Austin. I shared with them some of the lessons I learned when I was an undergrad, how I have tried to carry those lessons with me throughout my career, and how I hoped they would carry them forward as well.
“Among the group were some bright aspiring young journalists who – I am sure – were troubled by the President’s recent Tweet describing the news media as “the enemy of the American people.” I told them that not only did I disagree with that sentiment; I viewed it as perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.”
The BIC took the bait whole and sunk the hook, since he has virtually no self-control or restraint.
Going after Admiral McRaven is despicable, contemptible and revolting on incalculable levels. His belittling McRaven is really, REALLY rich coming from a draft-dodger, who did everything his daddy’s money could afford him to avoid service to this Grand Republic. McRaven spoke the truth when he criticized the BIC for attacking the Press and his public statement that the BIC’s attacks on the Press were “the greatest threat to our democracy.” Spot on, Bill!
One of the many associated articles seriously criticizing the BIC was quite appropriate.
“Threefer! Donald Trump insults decorated Navy SEAL, congressman and ... the Constitution – Opinion: Crude, crabby and uninformed.”
by EJ Montini
Arizona Republic
Published: 11:05 p.m. MT Nov. 18, 2018 / Updated 6:16 a.m. MT Nov. 19, 2018
Threefer, indeed! Spot on, I’d say!
The BIC's combination of boastful claims about how devoted he is to the military coupled with his regular displays of contempt for those who have served or are still serving remains a graphic demonstration of his paucity of any practical knowledge of the military or awareness of what the professional military does. He continues to display his profound ignorance of special operations in his ridiculous statements.
I am beginning to change my views of his diehard, anything goes, he can do no wrong supporters among
So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!
10:01 AM - 18 Nov 2018
I am absolutely certain the Bully-in-Chief thought he was oh so clever with his intentional misspelling of Representative Schiff’s name. Nothing quite like antagonizing and trying to intimidate the likely next chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) with such patently adolescent (actually below juvenile) behavior.
The BIC is depending upon the comparable ignorance of his loyal supporters. He can say whatever ridiculous thing he wishes regardless of the facts, decorum or even morality. Pathetic is too kind of a word for what he said. His supporters erroneous point to his support of the military. He does NOT support the military. To him, our professional military is a stage prop to enhance his profitability.
The BIC is NOT a Republican. He was NEVER a Republican. He will NEVER EVER be a Republican. True Republicans have allowed him to abscond with their party. And, it is truly sad that so many good citizens have willingly and openly compromised their moral values, their conservative principles, and now apparently have turned their back on the very essence of this Grand Republic because of political party loyalty to a man who has embraced a self-professed label for personal gain.
The persistent question just will not go away: where is the threshold of tolerance for the BIC’s bad behavior? When will they reach the limit and cast aside this charlatan and banish him to the rubbish heap of history, where he belongs?
Just a supplemental footnote:
Can you imagine the BIC’s reaction to the questions above if it had been CNN’s Jim Acosta asking the exact same questions rather than FoxNews’ Chris Wallace? The blatant hypocrisy leaves little doubt about his purpose.
The BIC went on another tirade this week, this time against the Judiciary and specifically the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case that lit up the BIC was actually a district court ruling—East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump [USDC CA ND case 3:18-cv-06810 (18.11.2019)]. U.S. District Judge Jon Steven Tigar issued the ruling on Monday in San Francisco, California, with respect to a proclamation signed by the BIC on the 9th of November. Of course, the BIC was personally offended and went after the judge and the 9th Circuit in general (the district court is within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit), labeling the judge as an Obama judge, as if that somehow taints his jurisprudence.
In response to an inquiry from the Associated Press and a rare step into the political fray, Chief Justice John Roberts responded, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” The statement of the Chief is quite unusual and a measure of how concerned he is with the persistent attacks by the BIC on the Judiciary.
Surprise, surprise, the BIC could not stand the indirect criticism and he jumped onto Twitter.
“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have “Obama judges,” and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an “independent judiciary,” but if it is why......”
12:51 PM - 21 Nov 2018
. . . continuing:
“.....are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security - these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!”
1:09 PM - 21 Nov 2018
. . . and adding:
“‘79% of these decisions have been overturned in the 9th Circuit.’ @FoxNewsA terrible, costly and dangerous disgrace. It has become a dumping ground for certain lawyers looking for easy wins and delays. Much talk over dividing up the 9th Circuit into 2 or 3 Circuits. Too big!”
2:17 PM - 21 Nov 2018
Once again, the OSGOO is wrong, flat out wrong, on many levels. I highly doubt the BIC even bothered to read the judge’s 20-page ruling. Rather than understanding the judge’s concerns and reasoning, he is driven simply by his strong objection to anyone who challenges his perceived dictatorial powers. Chief Justice Roberts was spot on the money. He did not say it, but he implied it, the BIC is attempting to undermine one of the three pillars of governance that have sustained this Grand Republic. Does it strike anyone as odd that the President of the United States (POTUS) is citing FoxNews rather than the multitudinous sources of such information within the federal government?
A friend and frequent contributor sent along the following link and article for discussion.
“Mental health treatment won't stop most gun violence”
by Sarah Desmarais
The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Published: March 13, 2018 11:41 AM / Updated March 13, 2018 01:52 PM
My response:
I agree 100% with Desmaris. The gun violence issue is not and can never be laid at the feet of the mental health profession. Certainly, mental health screening and treatment is an element of any solution, but it is not the answer. Like most large societal matters, e.g., immigration, trade, crime, and in this instance, gun violence, only a holistic approach and solution has any hope of success. We, the People, have a major contribution to make as part of our societal participation. And yes, we need new, more comprehensive laws to enable government to properly intervene in the cases of citizens with certain mental health problems and violent tendencies to include preemptive confiscation; however, as noted many times previously, any law must provide for protection of regular citizens from the improper overreach of government at any level. A solution without the mental health profession will be incomplete virtually by definition. I still contend there are far too many examples of clearly disturbed people who offered repeated red flag signs being perpetrators.
. . . with a follow-up comment:
“I'll note one issue: a history of violence and/or threats is not diagnostic for any particular mental illness.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Just for the record, I do not believe I ever even suggested there was a dependency.
The hits just keep coming! The short term, interim senator filling John McCain’s seat, Senator Jon Kyl publicly stated, “For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the United States is at risk of losing a future war against peer or near-peer competitors, mainly due to budget instability and insufficient funding provided by Congress.” War! Really? As a standalone statement, Kyl is quite correct with the first part. Heck, our military was not prepared to fight Islmaofascist terrorism in a third-world country, but we went to war anyway; we sure as hell are not prepared to fight a hot war with Russia, or China, or worse both. Where I part strongly with Kyl’s statement rests on the last part of his statement. President Bush (43) failed to mobilize this Grand Republic for war [235]. The military paid a terrible price for that failure. The implication of Kyl’s statement is this is a simple matter of spending more money. No, Jon! If we are to be prepared for war with anyone, the President must lead and mobilize the nation for that task. The last president to properly mobilize the country was Franklin Roosevelt—80 years ago! No president since Roosevelt, including the OSGOO, has properly mobilized the nation for the myriad wars our military has been ordered to fight . . . often with one hand tied behind our back and with outmoded weapons. In World War II, the United States has 91 Army divisions plus six Marine divisions. Today, we have barely 10 Army divisions and three Marine divisions. Instead of consuming our precious few active duty military forces on foolish political stunts and parades, perhaps our proper national defense interests would be better served by allowing combat personnel adequate rest and relaxation, followed by training and preparation time before taking on another combat deployment.
For those who have read this Blog more than once, or more than a few times, especially since the OSGOO jumped into the political arena, I have consistently and persistently asked the question: why do good citizens believe in and support the BIC despite and regardless of his bad behavior?
My evolving hypothesis: as long as the BIC’s actions, rantings and other shenanigans do not immediately touch their day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives, his foolishness is literally of no concern to them, i.e., the BIC can do whatever he wants, including shoot someone on Fifth Avenue (in Manhattan, New York City), and their support will not be shaken or diminished. National politics, foreign policy, international trade, or even the standing of this Grand Republic in the eyes of our allies and neighbors do not affect their lives directly, so they irrelevant to them. Plus, the antics of the OSGOO that send the Press and his non-supporters into convulsions is intriguing entertainment—nice to shake things up in life. And, as long as the BIC is not stealing money out of my pocket, so what if he steals from others; after all, he is a great businessman and that is what businessmen do.
Comments and contributions from Update no.880:
Comment to the Blog:
“Thank you for pointing out Pope Francis's action to prevent the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops from acting on the sex-abuse crisis. That’s wrong.
“Acosta’s press credential will be upheld. A reporter for The Nationset that precedent in the 1960s.
“Brexit was always a dumb idea based on nationalism. One more complication is that Scotland may finally break away from the UK over that.
“Mr. Avenatti, Stormy Daniels' attorney and a potential political foe of Chump, faces probably-false accusations of domestic violence. Avenatti has produced testimonials to his non-violent character from two ex-wives. Were he a violent partner, that would be unlikely indeed.
“The CIA conclusion that Prince Salman ordered that execution doesn't surprise me, but the fact that it became public does.
“Chump is running out of time to shut down Mueller's investigation. Hence, another Twitter storm. Meanwhile, the New York State investigation continues and the odds of a motion to impeach rose dramatically in the last election.
“The courts are not treating Chump as a second-class President. The courts are simply doing their job, making the same decisions they would if he were Lincoln. Also, I have noticed some Republicans have changed sides completely on the character issue since Bill Clinton's trials, as have some religious ‘leaders.’
“Chump, blaming the victim as usual, has a small clue. Very likely someone used the term ‘forest floor’ in his presence, which led to his ridiculous notion of raking it. California's forests do indeed have a great deal of fuel for wildfires. Drought brought on by climate change has weakened millions of trees, making them easier prey for bark beetles. The trees are dying faster than California and the under-funded National Forest Service can remove them.
“I see you have another commentator from close to my viewpoint. Welcome!”
My response to the Blog:
Quite so. The Vatican had better have a broad, comprehensive plan, process and procedures for dealing with the clergy sex-abuse incidents coming very soon after this action.
Indeed! Robert Glenn Sherrill was the reporter and his case was decided by a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit 11 years after Sherill’s credential was revoked (1966)—Sherrill v. Knight [CCA DC: 569 F.2d 124 (1977)]. Apparently, today, the White House finally backed down and Acosta’s credential is fully restored without conditions.
Brexit was decided by national referendum of British voters—a very ill-advised and ill-informed vote, I must say. In fact, the vote brought down the government. But, the people spoke; HMG is obligated to comply. I laud PM May for trying to make lemonade from the bag of lemons she was handed.
Agreed. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. I am surprised, verging on shocked, that Avenatti’s accuser has not yet been publicly identified. It was not either of his ex-wives. This smells like a set-up, very much like the Stormy Daniel’s arrest in Columbus.
Partial content disclosed to the public, not the CIA report. The disclosure has political motivation, apparently.
Certainly, the potential of impeachment rose when Democrats regained control of the House, but that does not make it a good idea or a wise action.
I suspect Whitacker will attempt to suppress the report (bury it), if he is not successful in terminating the investigation. I also suspect we are in for a constitutional crisis in excess of the Nixon-Watergate crisis [1972/74]. It is hard to tell the scope of any of the investigations; we need the reports and findings. At least Nixon had the wisdom to resign. The BIC is incapable of such action.
Good observations on the OSGOO.
Valid observations regarding the California forest management issue, but there is much more to it, of course.
. . . along with follow-up comment:
“I imagine the accusation against Avenatti will disappear without anyone revealing any evidence. It’s not working for Chump.
“I'll say it again. Compared to Trump, Nixon’s offenses were minor.
“I intended the link about blog comments mostly as a note about common practice. In the case of your blog, you cover so many different issues in a given post that you're bound to have long comments. Maybe not as long as most of mine, but long.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
True; however, as with accusations of this type, I suspect the damage has been done and cannot be undone. The accuser(s) (and instigators, if applicable) has accomplished their objective; his political prospects instantly went to zero—check, mission accomplished, adversary eliminated.
I will have to wait to fully appreciate the consequences of the BIC’s bad conduct before I could agree to the worse than Nixon position. Nixon conduct was a major contributor to the inherent and deep-seated distrust of government that haunts so many important issues like gun control, health care, et al.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
The voters have indeed spoken on Brexit. They were ill-advised in the most literal sense of that term, and they might wish to speak again after learning more. What’s wrong with that?
I only skimmed the transcribed interview with Chump. Higher doses of him induce nausea in me. I read enough to horrify and enrage my Critical Thinking instructor. I have come to believe that Critical Thinking ought to be taught beginning in about fourth grade to all students, not reserved for those privileged to attend college. That would create an important resource for this nation.
Attacks on names are an ancient tactic of the non-rational. A person’s or group’s name is literally their identity. Chump does that regularly (and so do I, but only on the most nauseating targets). In general, that’s why I’m one of the more thoroughly “politically correct” people.
You are correct that Chump does not support the military; he sees them as a handy tool to forward his personal (not our national) agenda.
I agree with your assessment of the military readiness situation, at least to a degree. What we need to look at in relation to the military budget is how it is allocated for different purposes. Readiness and even manpower have lost their priority. Stunts, stupidity, and parades waste money, but other uses blow even more. We have, by far, the largest military budget in the world, but we’re not getting our money’s worth. Even beyond that, the advent of cyber warfare and other means of conquest have lessened the likelihood of a traditional military war.
I will go beyond your assessment of why people support Chump. It’s not just that he’s not attacking them. He soothes their (irrational) fears of “the others,” (by attacking the others) whether that means other races, the other gender, or whatever ways people do not fit into the same in-group as those voters.
We shall see whether Chump has destroyed Michael Avenatti as an opponent. Avenatti’s business is in accusations and defenses against them, and he’s very skilled at it.
Good morning to you, Calvin,
Damn! This one slipped by me, AGAIN! My apologies. I do appreciate all your contributions, even if I appear addled from time to time.
The voters of the United Kingdom can do as they wish. I suppose we can take the long view that nothing is irreparable. After all, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today. Also, the Confederates States seceded from the Union, fought a terrible civil war, and yet returned to the Union as states in good standing today. My point is, reversal at the moment of divorce will have serious negative consequences; thus, I feel it is better to put this behind them and move on, as I would advise in any personal divorce. I think the original Brexit vote was emotional rather than logical or rational, quite akin the mob action in the heat of the moment. But, as you imply, nothing is irreversible other than death.
I’m with you. I am tended toward ignoring him. We cannot trust a word he utters in any form. There is nothing I can do to affect his behavior. I shall have to trust others to hold him accountable. I can only say I am highly unlikely to ever vote for him. Good point on Critical Thinking; I agree, full stop.
The BIC’s name-calling is juvenile . . . well . . . wait, I guess I just did it, didn’t I? Just speaking, hearing or seeing his family name, or any version of his given names is nauseating to me. He is such a despicable human being. That said, I must recognize and acknowledge that he is the consummate, if not the ultimate, con man snake-oil salesman, who has successfully seduced millions of good American citizens into believing his elixir is the cure-all for all that ails us. I just cannot bring myself to speak his name anymore.
The BIC & the military—spot on! He has no understanding, set aside empathy, for the sacrifices they make to fill his pockets.
I can accept your assessment of the military readiness situation. I will add, like modern aircraft cockpit operations, our attraction to technology over basic skills appears to be misguided and induces unintended calamities.
The politics of fear is not a new phenomenon. The technique has been used for millennia to affect human conduct. I suppose what is most disappointing is the advent of pervasive and expansive communications, and information availability have not lessened the effectiveness and irrationality of the politics of fear. Case in point, without Twitter, the BIC would have been far less effective in selling his snake-oil.
Yes, we shall see. As you say, Avenatti will likely remain effective as a defense attorney, but I suspect he is done as a potential political candidate. Chalk one up for the BIC.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment