Update no.895

Update from the Sunland

No.895

25.2.19 – 3.3.19

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- For three long days this week, former BIC attorney-fixer Michael Dean Cohen testified before Congress under oath.  The first day (Tuesday) was closed-door testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.  The second day (Wednesday) was his only public testimony so far before the House Oversight Committee. The last day was before the House Intelligence Committee and also behind closed doors.

            The BIC’s ardent supporters in Congress and the citizenry tell us emphatically Cohen’s testimony cannot and must not ever be believed in any aspect or form.  Yes, they are correct in that Cohen pled guilty to making false statements under oath to federal investigators and to Congress. What everyone seems to have ignored in all this brouhaha over Cohen’s testimony is why and who?  Why would Cohen lie in his previous testimony?  Who benefited from Cohen’s false statements?  Based on what I’ve seen so far, the answer is quite simple—the BIC and only the BIC.  Cohen’s false statements were his version of taking a bullet for the BIC.  Cohen will soon pay a terrible price for his seriously misplaced loyalty.

            So, having listened to Cohen’s testimony this week, I ask: who is more believable?  To me, the answer is also quite simple—Cohen.  The former fixer has offered evidence for his statements.  The BIC has only offered his usual drivel—not one scintilla of evidence.

-- After the BIC unilaterally declared a national emergency on the southern land border with Mexico [894], the House passed H.J.Res.46 - Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019 [House: 245-182-0-5(3)], to terminate the BIC’s Proclamation 9844 (84 Fed. Reg. 4949).  The resolution now goes to the Senate for action, which in itself is unlikely.  Senate Majority Leader McConnell will probably do what he does so often—stonewall any action he does not like or approve of in the Senate.  This is a largely symbolic move, since the BIC will undoubtedly veto the bill.  Even if passed by the Republican dominated Senate, it appears quite unlikely either chamber of Congress can gather up sufficient votes to override the expected veto.  The House action may have more effect in the Judiciary with the impending state challenges to the BIC’s emergency declaration.

-- Despite my guarded optimism from the first DPRK-USA Summit meeting in Singapore [845] and the paucity of any demonstrable progress in denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the BIC went ahead with a second summit with the DPRK dictator, this time in Hanoi, Vietnam.  Again, I must praise the BIC, in this instance, for having the presence of mind to walk out of the conference when the North Koreans demanded sanction relieve for disabling only one of the their several nuclear work sites.  At least he resisted the urge to push a disadvantageous agreement to offset the hammering he took with the Cohen testimony.  While I think he seriously underestimated the North Koreans and their history, the BIC deserves credit for the confidence to make a top-down attempt and the courage to walk out of failed negotiations.

            So, this is what it has come down to with the all mighty BIC setting the tone for his devout followers. Representative Matthew Louis ‘Matt’ Gaetz II of Florida has apparently picked up the new title of chief lieutenant of the thug in chief.  On Tuesday, the first day of Michael Cohen’s closed-door testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee and the day before he testifies in public before the House Oversight Committee, Gaetz tweeted:

Hey @MichaelCohen212 - Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends?  Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat.  I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison.  She’s about to learn a lot...

1:12 PM - 26 Feb 2019

This kind of rhetoric is reprehensible for any government official in any branch at any level for any reason, but this is quite typical conduct for the BIC; this is our new normal.  This is what we get with thugs in government—blatant public attempts by public servants for witness tampering and obstruction of justice.  Our persistent hope—this bloody nightmare will end one day . . . and our long recovery can begin.

            I note an odd conundrum.  I want men like Gaetz to speak out like this, so we can see them, hear them, know them.  Where my conflict comes, men like Gaetz do not belong in public office, wielding the instruments of state power.

            A frequent contributor sent along this article for debate:

Opinion

McCaughey: “The abortion lies Dems tell”

by Betsy McCaughey / Creators Syndicate

Herald Tribune (Sarasota, Florida)

Posted: Feb 26, 2019 at 12:01 AM

https://www.heraldtribune.com/opinion/20190226/mccaughey-abortion-lies-dems-tell

The opening sentence of her opinion article reads,

“Democrats fighting to expand a woman’s “right to choose,” no matter how far along her pregnancy, claim late-term abortions are rare and done only when the woman’s health or life is at stake or when the fetus has a fatal condition.”

I replied:

I'm struggling to find any Democrat statement or action to support the basis for this opinion article.  I cannot imagine any human being seeking to expand a woman's "right to choose" to that extreme.  I suspect the socially conservative among us are projecting, just as they do with gun rights.

I think the Supremes got it spot on correct in Roe v. Wade . . . balancing every human beings fundamental right to privacy, control of their bodies as the ultimate castle, and the viability of a late term fetus.

If you take this notion to the extreme, where is the terminus?  Is the demarcation emergence from the vagina?  Is it the first breath?  Is it the first day, the first week, the first year?   When does abortion end and murder begin?

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Some of us believe life begins not long after formation in the womb.  Though one might argue that life could be considered viable in a spent condom, then to be tossed away. I prefer to consider the former.  I also tend to value that God is one to create life just as He is to take life, thus why I have generally been against assisted suicide, though I have also been sympathetic to those who have used it, to end pain and suffering.  So I have a measured open mind, though am trying to abide by Biblical and moral principles, because I think mankind is on a slippery slope of situational morality and where it can lead to. Have you reviewed the topic of medical rationing?  It in itself is very interesting trying to balance effectiveness with efficiency.  I understand medical triage and having been in the air ambulance business or on-scene to multi-injury traffic collisions where triage is applied.  I suppose with limited resources and efficient economies in medicine, the idea of rationing sense, but what if the unemployed 50-year old guy with chronic diabetics and kidney failure, is one day denied care (due to the time/expen$e) in lieu of treating someone 25, just emerging in the workforce (thus paying taxes), who society deems is a more productive contributor, and thus denying the 50-year old is ‘for the greater good.’  My point is we can drift from the moral compass and True North (minus magnetic variation) when we rationalize and control everything, or apply situational ethics.  I am not one to judge, so I am not imposing my morality on you.  You and I are in total agreement about the absurdity of many of these busts (if not political take downs) regarding prostitution, nudity, or sex between consenting partners.  But I am sure someone (my own friends) might suggest I am not being moral by saying if a man or woman wants to buy sex services, let them, there are many other things the police should be doing than busting johns and prostitutes.  Sorry for the cornucopia of thought here.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

I suppose if I had to choose a label I would say I am a social liberal, fiscal conservative, state's rights, and individual freedom person.  As a personal point, I think abortion is a disgusting practice that only exists because individual's failed to practice basic commonsense behavior out of ignorance, complacency or disrespect.  Far too many people are literally ignorant regarding procreative responsibilities, and I say women and men share those responsibilities equally.  Men do NOT get a pass for any reason at any time in any circumstance.  Pregnancy is NOT a woman's responsibility.  That said, I understand the religious dogma, but I have a very hard time accepting that dogma in the brilliant light of science.  A single-cell ovum does not exist without a woman's body (at least not yet).

What separates my thinking from others is the sanctity of individual freedom, a citizen's fundamental right to privacy, and the rejection of governmental insertion into our private lives.  Therein lies my conundrum: where those conflicts exist, where is the proper boundary?  I thought the Supremes did a Solomon-esque judgment in Roe v. Wade.  If you have not read the ruling, I strongly recommend you do so.  To me, Roe is far more a privacy decision vs. the State than it is an abortion judgment.

Our morality laws--prostitution, drug use, sex, nudity, childhood sex education, and such--are the direct imposition of conservative moral-projectionist beliefs on every citizen and are an extraordinary intrusion of the State into private affairs. I recognize it is almost convulsive to social-conservatives to accept anything other than their beliefs. Those beliefs are very successfully indoctrinated that they believe those laws were handed down from the Mount.  I am not a subscriber to such thinking, and I have rebelled against that thinking all of my adult life.  The fact that I am not socially conservative does NOT suggest, hint or imply I do not have a moral compass.  Quite the contrary, actually.  I just believe government should confine its activities to the public domain, the common good and avoidance of actions that cause harm or injury to others.

            It is so telling when you see the BIC’s staunch defenders stammering and stuttering in their attempts to defend their beloved leader when their inner humanity exceeds their political loyalty.

            Another odd thought: Socialism and communism are both noble ideologies worthy of public debate just as capitalism is.  I fundamentally reject the boogieman construct used by both the left and the right is blindly condemning political ideas, concepts or proposals outright with such mindless epithets and generalities as wrong all the way around.  Let us debate the pluses and minuses, the benefits and costs, and find solutions for the common good that may well be a combination or amalgam of all of the above.  Let us not vilify the opposition simply because we may disagree with their views.

            What a refreshing sign from Republican Representative Jason A. Amash of Michigan in these hyper-partisan times, especially in contrast to Representative Gaetz’s foolish tweet noted above.

If you think my job is to support the president one hundred percent, then you don’t understand what it means to be a representative in Congress.  My job is to support the Constitution one hundred percent and to represent all the people of my district by protecting their rights.

1:35 PM - 28 Feb 2019

Now, if only . . . other Republican Members of Congress can learn from Representative Amash. Loyalty to the man is highly misguided and carries shades of a well-known fascist dictator [2.August.1934].  Well done, Mister Amash.  There is hope!

            A regular contributor from across the Great Waters offered another topic for this humble forum.

“One point I know we can agree on is that most of us ex-forces people do not, unless pushed, ‘do politics’.  Now I know you do, that’s rather obvious from the blog but many of us don’t.  We didn’t do politics while serving, we had other somewhat more important items in our lives to worry about. And I’m quite certain that our commanders would raise questions had we expressed an interest. This is why I personally do find politics a boring subject until things go wrong. And things are going wrong this side of the pond.

“What are politicians?  Perhaps you could tell me.  In my view they are elected by we the people to do our wishes and if they don’t they must go.  This BREZIT fiasco is a case of that.  We are planning to leave the EU not because of our joint trade, immigrants or working with Europeans but because of interference in our courts and our governmental decision-making.  Of course the so called leaders of the EU do not wish us to leave easily and smoothly because this may well encourage other EU states to follow. And so they are not making it ‘laid-back.’  Or as your characters in your WW2 books might say ‘a piece of cake’.  Of course we will still have an active border with the EU, the border between Northern and Southern Ireland-this has caused great confusion with contrary ideas of how this can be accomplished.

“In no way am I criticising our leader Mrs. May who has and continues to work endlessly to arrange and exit with a plan and not just a ‘walk-away’.  The deadline approaches however.  Are there any chinks of light shining through the cracks in the political ‘blackout’ between us-maybe, only maybe.

“But, if I may, back to politicians.  The British people voted to leave and so it is mandatory that the government of the day carry out those wishes-that’s what we put them in power for.  But NO-it now appears that many of our politicians did not vote to leave and have made life very difficult for our elected leader who is trying to carry out those wishes.  Currently I believe it’s seven of valued members of the government have left and joined members of the opposition to form another party altogether! Where did they learn English and in particular the word LOYALTY?

“However currently to take the pressure off BREXIT the current opposition, the Labour Party are tearing themselves apart with some very unpleasant accusations of rampant ‘anti-Semitic’ attitudes amongst the party.

“What of the future? Should we hand over power to the military, should we dismiss our elected bodies as a whole and call for an election? We shall see Cap.”

My response:

            You are quite correct.  Personnel in our military forces have a long tradition of remaining out of the political arena and bloodletting spectacle that is always on full display in that arena.  In uniform, we had to keep our political opinions out of the public domain.  That did not mean we did not have political opinions & views; those beliefs drove our choice of votes.  However, I am no longer in uniform or under orders from the commander-in-chief; I am a retired, private citizen who is seriously concerned about the health and welfare of We, the People.  I see the BIC’s conduct in very stark terms that challenge our definition of domestic enemies. Further, any and every democracy depends upon an active, expansive, public debate of issues.  I eagerly encourage that public debate, which inevitably takes me (us) into the political arena.  If we leave politics to the politicians, we will have nothing but corruption and self-aggrandizement.  At the bottom line, voting is politics.

            Good Q!  There are a wide variety of dictionary definitions.  To me, it seems, a politician can be defined as a person who holds political (elected) public office at any level of government, or participates in paid political party activities.

            Undoubtedly, we get only a smidgen of the whole Brexit politics and shenanigans.  I do not envy your situation.  Prime Minister May seems to have a balanced handle on the process, more so than any other politician I’ve heard speak on the matter.  In my mind, I’ve never seen her as a supporter, but she inherited the problem and is doing her level best to walk a very fine line and accomplish the will of the British people (at least those who voted {23.6.2016 [758]}).  I think Ms. May will accomplish that referendum mandate . . . but, not without pain.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.894:

“Finally a President is serious about the wall .. all others talked about doing it and the people approved .. but funds set aside went to other ‘projects’ and some not even beneficial to the American people, and some down right treasonous toward America in recent decades.

“Time to quit praying for impeachment and start trying to accept the Presidency and help move forward.. two years is a long time to waste on investigations and anger and angst and despair.. everyone needs to pull their big boy pants up and find constructive ways to spend their time..”

My reply:

            I doubt you can substantiate your statement with facts.  Somehow, you believe Congress appropriated funds for other purposes, and the BIC unilaterally has the knowledge, wisdom and clarity of view to defy Congress and redirect those funds for purposes that Congress specifically chose not to allocate funds to perform.  Could it be that Congress did not see sufficient justification for the spending the BIC sought?

            So, I suppose, you believe, since the BIC is all-knowing, verging upon omniscient, that he should singularly and unilaterally decide what deserves federal funding.  If so, then the Constitution is just a worthless piece of paper written in cursive a long time ago by long-dead men.

            I am not praying for impeachment.  In fact, I see impeachment quite like war—the choice of last resort, when all other means have failed. Impeachment should never be undertaken without a reasonable assurance of conviction in the Senate.  I think that threshold was quite likely in 1974, but Republicans failed miserably to reach that threshold in 1998.  So, please do not put me in the category of those “praying for impeachment.”  I think Nancy Pelosi and Gerry Nadler have been quite wise in voicing their reticence for encouraging talk of impeachment.

            Actually, I agree with you.  The threshold for investigations is probable cause. Without sufficient evidence of probable cause, investigations are just fishing expeditions and extraordinarily wasteful.  Far too many Democrats seek investigatory retribution for the Republicans stonewalling investigations where clear probable cause existed; that is just as wrong as stonewalling. That is not satisfactory reason for investigations.

Comment to the Blog:

“The National Emergencies Act is inexplicably naive.  Why would Congress ever fail to retain power to end or prevent the national emergency status?

“The investigations roll on.  I'll point out that prior impeachment proceedings brought lesser crises than other events such as closures of government sectors.  Also, the New York State authorities' convictions cannot be pardoned by the President.

"The 25^th Amendment action contemplated by Andrew McCabe and his team would have been part of their duty under the Constitution.  The phrase ‘bureaucratic coup’ is merely another ridiculous abuse of language.

"The North Carolina 9^th District election tampering stands out for its crude approach. Formal allegations of electronic vote tampering arose in 2016 in Michigan and more recently in Texas.  That kind of thing is harder to detect and may be impossible to prove. Any one of those allegations involves far more votes than any allegations of improper registration of ‘illegals’ that have entered the legal system.”

My response to the Blog:

            I will not use those words “inexplicably naive” with respect to Congress’s intent in passing the National Emergencies Act.  Like so many of our laws, legislators assume the reasonable and considered application of the law by the Executive Branch and specifically prosecutors before the bar.  Again, like many laws, Congress took a wide definition in order to allow the President the maximum flexibility in application of the law.  To be blunt, the law has stood in good stead for 40 years, multiple presidents, and numerous invocations.  What Congress did not (and could not perhaps) anticipate is a president like the BIC.  The fault is not the law; the fault belongs entirely to the BIC—he abused the law.  I expect the Judiciary will find to that end as well.  Congress chose to enact the National Emergencies Act to expedite assistance to citizens in need during natural disasters and such; that is a worthy objective.  Just a related FYI: the declaration of war against Japan (and days later, against Germany and Italy) took mere hours (less than a day) to craft, vet, pass, present to the President, and get signed into law.  The days of that kind of swift, bipartisan, congressional action seem to be long gone.

            Good point on investigations.  The prevailing DoJ guidance regarding prosecution of a sitting president applies to only federal law.  To my knowledge, I am unaware of any president being charged with violations of state law or prosecuted for such violations. The BIC may well establish that precedent.  Regardless, we are headed into very rough constitutional waters thanks directly to the oh-so-great-snake-oil-salesman-in-chief.

            I absolutely agree.  Accusations of a bureaucratic coup d'état are indeed a gross abuse of language.  McCabe did everything by the book including informing bipartisan congressional leadership.  History will eventually record McCabe as a patriot and a scapegoat.  He has conducted himself with dignity and nobility in stark, dramatic contrast to the BIC and his henchmen.

            Again, I agree completely with your assessment of vote tampering.  Absentee ballots and voting by mail is a distinct vulnerability of our current systems.  Convenience = vulnerability.  However, since counting absentee ballots is generally manual, it often comes into play when the electronic voting on Election Day is close.

 . . . Round two:

“One fairly small quibble. I see computerized voting machines as a larger vulnerability of the system than any paper ballots. As we have seen in North Carolina, tampering with paper ballots is relatively obvious. Computer hacking, especially on Internet-connected voting systems, is harder to detect and prove.  Hence, in a statewide election, it has been alleged that the ballot-counting software was changed to count every n^th (I think sixth) vote for Candidate A to become a vote for Candidate B. That kind of thing is far more sophisticated and easier to cover up than the dimwit method of taking people's blank absentee paper ballots that was used in the North Carolina 9^th District.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Point taken!  And, I will say . . . valid.  To that end, every line of computer code—banks, stores, doctors, lawyers, courts, social media, restaurants, Press, every element of modern life—is equally suspect and vulnerable.  The only solution is to return to the Middle Ages before electricity.

 . . . Round three:

"Computer code, in general, is vulnerable, but not every line is equally vulnerable or the same value as a target.  Election code is a target for multiple predators, not only ordinary thieves.  I don't see ‘a return to the middle ages’ as a solution to that, but paper ballots or at least a solid paper trail could be returned to the process without undue stress.  Secured, monitored, and transparent software would be better than nothing."

 . . . my response to round three:

            A couple of additional thoughts on this topic . . . 

            First, there is no perfect security . . . for anything, not even the White House, or the Cheyenne Mountain Complex.  Any security system can be overcome with sufficient will, resources and perseverance.  This near axiom applies to any and all security systems. The best we can hope for is a defense in depth to buy time for security services to react to attempted breaches or compromises before they can do serious injury.

            Second, in Arizona, we actually mark a paper ballot that is in situ scanned, counted and recorded at the polling station.  In Kansas, we voted on a touch screen.  The counting was done electronically.  A paper tape of every vote by each voter was simultaneously created and preserved.  There are other electronic and paper voting means in other jurisdictions. The diversity, dispersal and composite means used across the nation does offer some degree of protection, in that any compromise would tend to be local and isolated.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)