Update no.892

Update from the Sunland

No.892

4.2.19 – 10.2.19

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

            To all,

            I watched and listened to the President’s State of the Union speech before a joint session of Congress, as well as the Opposition’s response afterward.

            First and foremost, I want to acknowledge and enthusiastically praise the choice of female representatives to wear white in tribute to the women’s suffrage movement of a century ago.  It was magnificent to see all that white attire and remember how far we have come on the road to true equality (not yet attained and further to go).  Well done and nice touch.

            I must say the BIC has a markedly different tone when he uses a qualified speechwriter, a teleprompter, and stays on script (for the most part).  He made the best attempt so far to stimulate bipartisan cooperation to accomplish the nation’s business (as long the Opposition agrees with him and does what he wants).  It was a good speech—not the best presidential SOTU speech, but it was certainly not the worst either—but, not without a few very informative statements.  The most blatant had to be when the BIC cheerily and clearly stated, “An economic miracle is taking place in the United States and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous, partisan investigations.  If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigations.  It just does not work that way.”  Loud echoes of ‘Tricky Dick’ Nixon, I must say.  Unfortunately, the BIC and his administration have presented far too many signs of illegal, unethical or inappropriate conduct and behavior to be ignored, discounted or casually dismissed.  If I chose to be generous, I would say the BIC is correct. While I laud the President’s effort, I unfortunately feel we must wait to see how he acts, since we cannot trust a word he says.  His most likely first substantive test will come in a week or two, when Congress is expected to present a border security bill along with a proper appropriations bill (or another continuing resolution) by the 15^th of February.

            Teleprompter BIC is not the real BIC.  The real BIC appears in his unedited Twitter posts and impromptu public statements.  The original thought is not mine and must be attributed to a variety of talking head commentators that I agree with.

            I must also say I was disappointed in the Opposition response delivered by former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Yvonne Abrams.  She did an excellent job with her delivery; however, the ridiculous partisan finger pointing in her words stood in stark contrast to the President’s attempt at bipartisan, cooperative efforts for the common good.

            Unfortunately and regrettably, the BIC’s words cannot be trusted, so the whole affair Tuesday evening was absolutely worthless.

            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

            The bizarre just got dramatically more bizarre this week.  Amazon founder and CEO Jeffrey Preston ‘Jeff’ Bezos took a bold, courageous action to preempt an extortion and blackmail attempt by American Media (AMI) [and media pit bull for the BIC] CEO David Jay Pecker.  The written communications between their respective lawyers is too voluminous to recreate the entire picture.  However, one particular message appears to be the most informative.  My awareness of this issue began with Press reporting on a Bezos tweet:

“I’ve written a post about developments with the National Enquirer and its parent company, AMI. You can find it here:

“https://www.ccn.com/jeff-bezos-shocking-blackmail-letter-national-enquirer-publisher-david-pecker”

2:51 PM - 7 Feb 2019

The link took me to a further Bezos’ message to Pecker:

“No thank you, Mr. Pecker

“Something unusual happened to me yesterday. Actually, for me it wasn’t just unusual — it was a first. I was made an offer I couldn’t refuse. Or at least that’s what the top people at the National Enquirer thought. I’m glad they thought that, because it emboldened them to put it all in writing. Rather than capitulate to extortion and blackmail, I’ve decided to publish exactly what they sent me, despite the personal cost and embarrassment they threaten.”

What made this situation so important are three key elements:

1.  Bezos is the owner of the Washington Post—a newspaper critical of presidents—all presidents.

2.  Pecker is the CEO of American Media and publishes the National Enquirer (the ragmag that has been blatantly and aggressively pro-BIC.

3.  The BIC has been persistently denigrating of the Washington Postand other Press sources that dared to be critical of him.

The above information led me to the object of this section, the letter between lawyers (printed exactly as published with misspelling):

“From: Howard, Dylan [dhoward@amilink.com] (Chief Content Officer, AMI)

“Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:33 PM

“To: Martin Singer (litigation counsel for Mr. de Becker)

“Subject:. Jeff Bezos & Ms. Lauren Sanchez Photos

“CONFIDENTIAL & NOT FOR DISTRIBIUTION

“Marty:

“I am leaving the office for the night. I will be available on my cell — 917 XXX-XXXX.

“However, in the interests of expediating this situation, and with The Washington Post poised to publish unsubstantiated rumors of The National Enquirer’s initial report, I wanted to describe to you the photos obtained during our newsgathering.

“In addition to the “below the belt selfie — otherwise colloquially known as a ‘d*ck pick’” — The Enquirer obtained a further nine images. These include:

· Mr. Bezos face selfie at what appears to be a business meeting.

· Ms. Sanchez response — a photograph of her smoking a cigar in what appears to be a simulated oral sex scene.

· A shirtless Mr. Bezos holding his phone in his left hand — while wearing his wedding ring. He’s wearing either tight black cargo pants or shorts — and his semi-erect manhood is penetrating the zipper of said garment.

· A full-length body selfie of Mr. Bezos wearing just a pair of tight black boxer-briefs or trunks, with his phone in his left hand — while wearing his wedding ring.

· A selfie of Mr. Bezos fully clothed.

· A full-length scantily-clad body shot with short trunks.

· A naked selfie in a bathroom — while wearing his wedding ring. Mr. Bezos is wearing nothing but a white towel — and the top of his pubic region can be seen.

· Ms. Sanchez wearing a plunging red neckline dress revealing her cleavage and a glimpse of her nether region.

· Ms. Sanchez wearing a two-piece red bikini with gold detail dress revealing her cleavage.

“It would give no editor pleasure to send this email. I hope common sense can prevail — and quickly.

“Dylan.”

“d*ck pick”: really; is the Chief Content Officer, AMI, still in grade school?  “fully clothed” that’s terrible.  “naked . . . wearing nothing but a white towel”: I’m not sure how that works—naked is naked; wearing a towel in not naked.  “revealing her cleavage”: oh heaven forbid such transgressions.  Now, I understand real lawyers are interested in the potentially criminal conduct carried out by Pecker’s AMI; he may have violated his immunity deal with the SDNY, exposing him to even more felony charges.  Pecker’s possible misfortune may well be bad news for the BIC, since it was Pecker who squashed the MacDougal affair during the presidential campaign.  This is the kind of behavior the so damn typical of the infamous tabloid National Enquirer.  They have gotten away with such conduct for many years until they picked on the wrong dude.  I hope Pecker and his minions get exactly what is coming to them.

            On Thursday, we gained a little more insight into the new panel of the Supreme Court, specifically with regard to established precedent in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973); 22.1.1973] [319].  The Court issued a stay of enforcement {June Medical Services v. Gee [586 U.S. ___ (2019); No. 18A774]} with respect to a Louisiana law that would require doctors performing abortions in the state to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.  The District court heard the request for the stay and agreed with plaintiffs.  The 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the lower court’s stay order.  In this ruling, the Supremes sided with the District court in a narrow split—5-4 with Chief Justice Roberts making the majority.  So, the stay will be enforced, and the law suspended until the thorough judicial review can be completed—ripening of the case, as the Court likes to say.

            Of particular note, Roe is not mentioned once in the four-page ruling.  The precedent at issue in this ruling is Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt [579 U. S. ___ (2016)].  In Whole Woman’s Health, the Court struck down a Texas law quite similar to the Louisiana law currently at issue and established the undue burden standard for review.  It is that fact alone that casts a dark cloud over Roe with the current panel of Supremes. The Court issued similar enforcement stay in the Whole Women’s Health case, so this particular ruling is consistent with the Court’s prior positions.

            It is the fact that the court is even involving itself in the June Medical Services case three years after its Whole Woman’s Health ruling that leaves a disturbing impression, as if this is a setup for a substantial change to establish Supreme Court precedent and potentially the negation of Roe.  And if that happens, it will be a terrible 50-year setback to women’s rights . . . and in my humble opinion, a corrosion of the fundamental right to privacy of every single citizen—female or male.

            This is why elections are so bloody freakin’ important—every single election.  To me, abstention is an outright abdication of a citizen’s most basic responsibility and obligation—every single citizen who is eligible to vote.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.891:

“Cap, good day to you both over there. (only one spelling mistake- their not there-the first I have ever seen!)

“92.9 FM- yes had a look, it does do as your blogger says-I believe it’s Canadian possibly Toronto area. And yes, we can receive it this side of the pond. Bloody internet.”

My reply:

            I do believe the misspelling you noted was actually the BIC’s words, not mine.  He is notorious for misspelling all manner of words in his tweets.  I feel honor bound to present his tweets as he writes them.

            You are far more curious than me.  Yes, indeed, the Internet is an interesting medium . . . full of surprises.

. . . follow-up comment:

“I might have known it! Well there you are, teach him the language someone. Keep ‘em coming.

“I’ve been invited to attend meetings of the Bentwaters aviation group- I remember flying into there in a USAF provided single rotary engined high winged monoplane to plan a detachment of our Lightnings. Can’t think what the aircraft was called but was quite an experience! We were made very welcome too.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            The BIC has proven and repeatedly re-affirmed his inability to learn even simple life lessons and skills the rest of us were taught as children.

            Interesting. My guess: it might have been a Cessna O-1 Birddog.  I’m so glad you were treated well.

Comment to the Blog:

“So, between the disastrous government shutdown and the potential next disastrous government shutdown, Chump gets to make a high-status speech.  I'm underwhelmed, and I see no point in paying close attention to his words.  What Chump says doesn't correlate to his actions or much of anything else.  His statements are pure marketing.  See also the academic definition of ‘to bullshit.’

“I agree that the spy chiefs wanted their statements to be public record for the reason you gave.  I’m not sure why you’re still putting so much emotion into the ongoing issue of Chump’s insanity.

“With some reluctance, I agree that leaving the INF treaty is probably a constructive choice in the long term, for the reason you gave (China) rather than the reason Chump gives (Russian non-compliance, which could be addressed otherwise).  A better leader would have proposed talks toward a new treaty altogether including all the nuclear-armed nations, but we don’t have one of those leaders.

“I'll remind you of my skepticism of labor statistics in general and note, as the Federal Reserve has implied, that even the numbers we have may mask the threat of trouble ahead.

“There's also a radio station here that uses that slogan ‘We play what WE want!’ I only listen to stations that play what I want.  I don't care what they want.”

My response to the Blog:

            You are far more generous to the BIC than I am with respect to his words being “pure marketing.”  It is a crime to falsely mislead the public regarding the performance of any product.

            Well, now, that is a good point.  He is what he is.  I suppose I still feel the tinges of my oath of office . . . “against all enemies foreign or domestic.”

            Unfortunately, none of us knows the negotiating activities regarding INF Treaty compliance.  I cannot discount Russia, as your words suggest.

            Yes, I am keenly aware of your view of labor statistics.  All I can say is, flawed as they may be, they are the best metrics we have, and they are largely consistent with history.

            Good point.  I listen to the music I want, not necessarily what others wish to play.

 . . . Round two:

“My use of ‘marketing’ in reference to Chump's claims is not intended generously, as indicated by the reference to bullshit.

“I do not need to put emotional expression into the necessity of standing against Chump's insanity.  A calm determination is more productive than allowing ourselves to be provoked to anger over and over.

“I would not suggest negotiation as a means of seeking Russian compliance with the INF.  Russia shows no interest in compliance, and secrecy would only aggravate that.

“My point about labor statistics, in this instance, is that the Fed and other indicators show less optimism in regard to the larger economy.  That will affect employment as well as other factors.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Understood.

            Bless you for that strength.

            Then, how would you have suggested the U.S. & Europe deal with Russia’s blatant non-compliance with the provisions of the INF Treaty?

            Point taken and valid, as it is applied.

 . . . Round three:

“Europe has no part in the INF treaty.  They're just poor saps with a lot to lose and no power.

“The U.S. might have tried to bring in the UN or some other large international organization, but negotiation is not plausible if your initial complaints have not resulted in compliance.  Even if the other side negotiates, the problem isn't what they agree to, it's what they actually do.  We'd be ahead to start over and include the rest of the world, partly to make more pressure for any given nation to comply.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Correct, Europe was not a signatory to the now defunct INF Treaty.  However, I believe you will find the INF Treaty was largely sought to assuage the concerns of our European allies (well, at least former allies, thx to the BIC).  Intermediate-range weapons do not affect us, other than our deployed forces.

            Putin’s Russia unilaterally decided not to comply . . . kind like Hitler unilaterally chose not to comply with the Versailles Treaty.  The UN has no leverage with Russia.  Even a coalition of allies, or even all nations on the planet, has little leverage with Russia, who under Putin appears to be hellbent on hegemonic reconstitution of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

Another contribution:

“Again ... the people who voted for Trump want the wall .. one of the big reasons we voted for him .. he is the first President in a very long time that is fighting for what his voters want .. the rest who didn’t vote for him may have thought the wall was necessary years ago when it was discussed by other presidents but because their stubborn childish brains can’t get past their hate for Trump, they are fighting it .. why not unite instead of fight ?  It’s not like he’s asking us to allow a war .. just a border that would prevent easy entry like many other countries have .

"Speaking of spending large sums of money with no plan you might look into the Clintons and Obama’s U.S. funds given to countries harboring our enemies.. would much rather get a wall ..

My reply:

            What the BIC has failed to recognize is he is president of the United States, not the president of the citizens who voted for him.  His campaign political rhetoric is not the policy of this Grand Republic.  The BIC cannot be given US$5.7B with “I want my wall” rationale.  If you have seen the plan for the wall, please let me know where I can find it.  If you have seen the plan for what happens on this side of the wall, please let me know where I can find it.  The BIC’s incessant mantra of “I want my wall” simply does not cut it.

            What makes the citizens who voted for the BIC any smarter or wiser than the BIC on proper immigration control measures?

            The BIC’s simplistic “I want my wall” seriously diminishes the importance and need for proper immigration control. What his foolish “I want my wall” does, it seriously distracts from the whole issue.  We could build a 1,000-foot wall across all 1,954 miles of the southern land border and I respectfully submit that it will do nothing to address proper immigration control.  It will only be a vanity monument to the BIC’s foolishness and our acquiescence to his juvenile demands.

            The BIC’s talking head sycophants like to tell us past presidents built sections of walls on the southern border, so what is wrong with spending more Treasury funds to repair, replace and build new sections.  Good point, actually. So, where is the plan?  What exactly is US$5.7B (or more likely US$25B) going to be spent for?  And, if his “I want my wall” rhetoric is so bloody important, what happened to “and Mexico will pay for the wall”?  I heard former Senator Rick Santorum publicly state there is a detailed plan.  Where is it?  If that detailed plan does in fact exist, the BIC would be far better served by referring specifically to that plan by name or document number, so the rest of us can join him.  “I want my wall” simply does not cut it, period, full stop!   And, all of his supporters chanting “we want his wall” does not cut it either.  As long as the BIC persists in his foolish “I want my wall” nonsense, not one dime should be allocated from Treasury funds.

            Lastly, you appear to be conflating foreign aid with “I want my wall.”  I respectfully say that is quite inappropriate.  Further, foreign aid goes back to at least President Truman and the Marshall Plan {Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 [PL 80-472; 62 Stat. 137; 3.April.1948]}, and every president since, including the BIC. That said, I will not defend the foreign aid spending of any president after Truman, and including the BIC. We have numerous examples of past presidents allowing wasteful and inappropriate expenditures, e.g., Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco, and Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal (there are, of course, multitudinous others).

 . . . Round two:

“His detailed plan is most likely somewhere by the Nancy Pelosi’s ‘sign the Health Care Bill so you can see what’s in it .’.  As I said before a wall is not rocket science ... $ x linear feet = cost .. why beat it to death just let’s build it .. Just like the polls were rigged before the 2016 election you are also getting fake news on how many people support Trump STILL ... a lot ...”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            It does not matter what I think about the BIC’s popularity with We, the People.  The truth will be told in the next election (2020).

            You make the wall sound so simple. Apparently, you trust the BIC implicitly and are perfectly willing to give him a blank check for US$5.7B, to do with as he wishes for his vanity wall or other things he chooses. Unfortunately, I do not trust him with Treasury funds.  Congress appropriates; POTUS does not.  I am perfectly willing to support proper, appropriate barriers at specific locations defined by the experts (the BIC is not one of those) with CBP & Homeland Security.  I do not care for his “truthful hyperbole” and his words are NOT sufficient justification, period, full stop!  Further, I’ve seen nothing of how they intend to deal with Eminent Domain, where private property is involved.  I eagerly await the product of the joint conference committee still working on hacking out some compromise that will pass Congress, and if necessary, override the BIC’s threatened veto.

            We shall see.  The deadline looms.

 . . . Round three:

“Yes as long as the Democrats don’t continue to try to rig the polls .. Trump should have no problem winning .  We unknowingly gave prior administrations plenty of blank checks at least this one we know in advance the cost and where it’s going .. more transparency than previous Presidents and their crooked Sec of States!  .. plenty of online donation sites have already raised millions.  You don’t trust Trump but you trusted Mr Bypass Congress and spend taxpayer funds as he chose to???  You know who I am referring to .. after him I don’t care if Trump bypasses Congress and gets the wall built ..what’s fine for one administration will be fine for another! Especially when it’s for something that will benefit the people .. prior bypass expenditures only benefited foreign entities..

“Geeze Cap you’d make a great stall happy government worker .. private property?? Haven’t you seen the farmers/ranchers with property on the borders whole heartedly inviting the wall ?   it’s not an ugly wall and doesn’t impede views with its steel panels !  Those ranchers are sick of trespassers passing over their land !!

“Sit and wait and stall ..”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            Rigging elections . . . interesting . . . your accusation is a double-edged sword—cuts both ways.  You accuse Democrats of vote rigging, as if Republicans are a pure as a new driven snow.  If you had accused all politicians of attempting to rig votes, I would have agreed with you.

            So, if I read your opinion correctly, you are perfectly comfortable with the USG freely spending money as long as they are spending it on your projects, but heaven forbid anyone trying to spend a dime on any project you don’t approve of.  If my read is correct, then we shall respectively disagree.  I truly and literally do not care what political party advocates for spending Treasury funds; I criticize spending on foolish, wasteful or corrupt purposes; and, both parties do it and will continue to do it until We, the People, stop it.  One more time, I am all in favor of proper, appropriate, border barriers, as long as the professionals have presented a proper plan and justification.  The requirement is exactly the same for all spending—defense, intelligence, health, infrastructure, anything the USG seeks to spend money on, even the cockroach museum in Podunk, Mississippi.  If you go back through nearly 20 yrs of my opinion Blog, you will see my criticism of all kinds of nebulous spending by any political party.  My reluctance to accept the “I want my wall” rationale has nothing to do with the BIC—only the proper justification for expenditures.

            Of course you do not care if the BIC is bypassing Congress and you condemn President Obama for doing the same thing. Party loyalty is a very powerful force for conformance.  This persistent tit-for-tat, political parochialism by one administration undoing everything the previous administration did is exactly why Allies no longer trust the United States and it is one of the most powerful tools our adversaries use to drive a wedge between the United States and all other nations of interest.

            There are those who do and those who don’t want a wall on their private property.  I am just citing the law, not variable public opinion.  I simply do not trust the BIC with any amount of money based on his “I want my wall” rationale.  He has had years to develop a plan and help us understand what he wants to spend money on.  His believers truly believe his campaign tripe about Mexico paying for the wall.  I was never one of those.  I want to see facts . . . his words are worthless.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)