Update from the Sunland
No.907
20.5.19 – 26.5.19
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Notice
I will be pleasantly incommunicado for the first week of June. Thus, the Update will be suspended, likely for the next two weeks due to timing. All will be explained on the other side. This humble forum should return at the latest by Monday, 17.June.2019, and perhaps earlier. Thank you for your patience. My very best wishes to all.
The follow-up news items:
-- The BIC lost a few court rulings this week. In the first one, a federal judge rejected the BIC’s argument to block the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena [903] for his financial records.
The thought came to my little pea-brain, if the BIC was as wealthy or successful as he has always claimed to be, you would think he would want We, the People, to see and be impressed by his wealth. His unusual reluctance to puff himself up suggests he is not what he has always claimed to be. We are another step closer to seeing the truth. Unfortunately, I suspect the truth will reveal his greed has lead to serious compromise by multiple foreign governments, organizations and people.
-- Attorney General William Barr [889] claimed he is acting to protect the presidency rather than the current officeholder. Unfortunately and regrettably, Barr advocated and still advocates for the closest thing to an imperial presidency of any national leader I am aware of in history. Barr’s version of the presidency appears to be distinctly different from mine.
-- House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff announced at least a partial deal has been reached with the Justice Department to receive some foreign intelligence and counterintelligence documents underlying the Special Council’s Report [898, 902]—a rare positive move in these troubled times of tribal confrontation. This should leave only the grand jury data inaccessible to Congress. Progress by jerks, as the physicists say.
-- In a carefully staged tantrum, the BIC [705] called Democratic leaders to the White House, abruptly walked out of the meeting before it started, and publicly declared that he will not work with Democratic lawmakers until they stop investigating him. The BIC’s declaration is really . . . really . . . rich coming from a deeply flawed man, who claims to be the greatest president in history, or who will ever serve in the Oval Office. The only other presidents in my lifetime to face impeachment continued to work with Congress to get the People’s work done—not the BIC; he has broken the mold. Both Nixon and Clinton separated their looming impeachment from the People’s business. In the middle of Clinton’s impeachment process, Slick Willie managed to muster up sufficient magnanimity and pronounced:
So let it be said of us then that we were thinking not only of our time, but of their time; that we reached as high as our ideals; that we put aside our divisions and found a new hour of healing and hopefulness; that we joined together to serve and strengthen the land we love.
If only the BIC could grow as a man. Sigh! Oh well, life goes on. We are not so blessed, I suppose.
-- The hits just keep coming! The BIC’s administration announced a US$16B aid package for the U.S. farm sector. The direct cost of the BIC’s trade war with the PRC (el al) [844] continues to mount. We, the People, will now pay twice for the BIC’s bully conduct—higher prices (we pay, not the PRC), and now support to farmers (we pay, not the PRC). I am seeing less and less benefit to the BIC’s trade war. I truly hope he is successful in resetting our trade, commercial and economic relationship with the PRC, but I am becoming less optimistic every day.
-- The U.S. Justice Department filed 17 new charges against Julian Assange [480]. We still have not heard from Sweden regarding their charges against Assange. I suspect the United States is maneuvering to be the next to prosecute Assange. Further, forces on both the right and the left are jockeying to defend Assange on 1st Amendment grounds. I do not see it, but let’s see how this plays out.
-- Prime Minister Theresa May announced will step down as Conservative leader on June 7, and she would remain prime minister until her successor had been chosen. The decision sets off a race to succeed her and one likely to be won by a supporter of a sharper break from the EU, which in turn portends more trauma for Great Britain, Europe and the World. Brexit [758] has now consumed two consecutive British prime ministers. The Conservative Party will select her successor.
-- The BIC [705] just cannot help himself. His egomaniacal narcissism compels him to spew these absurdities.
I always got a lot of publicity. Even as a private builder or whatever I was doing at the time, I would get a lot of publicity. Without a lot of trying... I haven't changed very much. Been very consistent. I'm an extremely stable genius." (my emphasis)
“Extremely stable genius” . . . really? Is he serious? I guess so, although he had to ask his loyal minions to affirm his self-anointed descriptor. Unfortunately, despite his self-image and adulation of his gushing sycophants, the BIC is none of those descriptors—not ‘stable,’ nor a ‘genius.’
Speaker Pelosi, being the experienced politician she is, as well as a mother and grandmother, tweeted:
When the “extremely stable genius” starts acting more presidential, I’ll be happy to work with him on infrastructure, trade and other issues.
She knows precisely just how to push his buttons. And, he is incapable of self-restraint. These are the times in which we live.
-- In yet another judicial setback for the BIC, a federal judge blocked the BIC from using his emergency declaration regarding southern border security [888] and using appropriated Defense Department funds for his foolish Wall. Of course, true to character, what does the BIC do, he accuses the judge and the Democrats of being for drugs, crime, and lawlessness—interesting argument, no?
I listened and watched the CNN Town Hall with Beto O’Rourke at Drake University with Dana Bash moderating. I do not have much to say beyond it was a very disappointing performance. He was repeatedly asked what he would do, and all he could offer was his criticism of the BIC. Attacking the BIC’s actions and behavior is easy—low hanging fruit. He offered nothing new. And worse, he did not actually talk about current issues, rather than the BIC, he offered platitudes instead of substance. We have had too much fluff. I was not impressed.
A friend and frequent contributor offered the following contribution:
“I forward this to you primarily for the main story. We have had repeated discussions about individual responsibility and morality. I rarely see the issue as isolated to a given person, and here's a good discussion of that. Consider in addition such entities as Enron and almost any law enforcement agency.
“Also, I imagine this one is above the heads of a general audience, but I believe the authors would be comfortable with you citing it on the blog if you wish.”
The article:
“Atrocities. Norms. Bicycles. See Where We’re Going With This?”
by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub
New York Times– The Interpreter newsletter
Published: Thursday, May 23, 2019
To which, I replied:
Very good observations and quite appropriate it seems to me. However, like Gallagher’s team members, some among us have the moral fiber to stand up for what is right, against the group. Jim Mattis was one of those, as well.
I note one particular sentence of interest:
“We like to think that morality is a matter of individual moral fiber, but studies have found that information from fellow group members actually affects perception.”
IMHO FWIW: I tend to consider the effect of the group as groupthink, or the compromise of individual morality, i.e., individuals who know better succumb to the dictumof the group.
As the abortion issue has been returned to the salient of public intercourse, the following article seems particularly relevant.
“‘Fetal Heartbeat’ vs. ‘Forced Pregnancy’: The Language Wars of the Abortion Debate”
by Amy Harmon
New York Times
Published: May 22, 2019
Regardless of your particular opinion or position regarding abortion, I strongly and emphatically urge everyone, who wishes to offer an opinion on this matter, to read the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319]. Do not blindly follow tribal dictain any form. Read the decision—the words, the reasoning, the essence of the decision. I recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic and stated: At its most basic level, the Court’s [Roe] decision is an affirmation of every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, as well as the equality of women in our society. Unfortunately, Gabriel failed to recognize that reality, but rather chose to focus on the peripheral and emotionally volatile aspects of the issue. Let us not lose sight of reality—women are equal citizens of this Grand Republic, period, full stop. Of course, many among us will respond, I don’t care; I don’t need to ready any Supreme Court decision; I know what is right, and that is that, period. So, at the end of the day, we are relegated to tribal intransigence. I shall stand on the side of female citizens and equal rights for all citizens.
Republicans appear to be universally consistent . . . well, at least those who are talking in public . . . in daring the House to impeach the BIC. Speaker Pelosi has remained the wise one in all this taunting. She knows that impeachment is incredibly divisive, especially in an already hyper-charged tribal environment, and will be a total waste of time since the Republicans control the Senate. At least 18 Republican senators would have to split with their tribe to make impeachment a worthy endeavor. So, Republicans sit back on their sanctimonious haunches, thumb their noses, and shout “Nanny, nanny, poo, poo,” daring the House to impeach the BIC. I say, don’t succumb to the Siren’s Song. Keep your powder dry until sufficient evidence can be presented to the public that will apply insurmountable pressure on Senate Republicans that the BIC must go before the 2020 election. The likelihood in the time remaining is low, not non-existent, just low.
With the boiling contemporary debate regarding the authority of the House of Representatives to enforce subpoenas and contempt charges, I read a relevant Supreme Court decision—Anderson v. Dunn [19 U.S. {6 Wheat.}204 (1819)]. The authority is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. By the Anderson decision, the Court defined the implied power of Congress to enforce its orders. The long established precedent and stable law is susceptible to revised interpretation by the current Court—stare decisis be damned!
During my reading, I did note a particularly relevant sentence:
The unreasonable murmurs of individuals against the restraints of society, have a direct tendency to produce that worst of all despotisms, which makes every individual the tyrant over his neighbour's rights.
Oh my, how descriptive and poignant for today’s moral projectionists among us.
Comments and contributions from Update no.906:
Comment to the Blog:
“Nope, I’m not going to look up any TV show whatsoever. However, your first Comey quote makes a point often overlooked. Accomplished people often lack principles or set them aside in order to make their accomplishments. That may be the biggest difference between prominent people and ordinary unknowns. I recognized that fact long ago, but many vocal people seem to miss it. Comey has kept at least some of his principles, and I’ll point out that it got him fired. I have no confidence in the next presidential election removing Chump, and he’s not the moving force behind our society’s losses. If Comey’s ‘sleeping giant’ is awakening, he better get his coffee and get going. The people making decisions that affect the fate of this nation are not part of that giant, and their agenda proceeds apace. Chump is a symptom of that, not a cause.
“Wouldn’t we be better advised to address drug smuggling across our borders (and shores) than immigration? That would address a major issue and catch most of the actual criminals coming in.
“Unfortunately, the falling birth rate is not shaping immigration policy, at least not in a constructive way. We need people.”
My response to the Blog:
Re: Comey interview. Your choice entirely; I was simply illuminating the event for those who may not have seen it, or been aware of it. The text is also available on-line (FYI).
Thank you for offering your perspective on things. I’m not quite as pessimistic as you appear to be. Comey’s words struck resonance with me. To be fired by the BIC for standing up to him is a badge of honor in my view.
Re: symptom rather than cause. Oh my, you got that right. He is most emphatically a symptom. There are many elements underlying his appeal to millions of American citizens.
Re: drug smuggling. As long as there is demand and those substances remain illegal, smuggling will find a way to supply the demand no matter what we do at the border. The criminal sub-culture is very efficient and relentless—a persistent game of whack-a-mole. The only answer to drug smuggling (like alcohol & prohibition) is legalization and regulation—satisfy demand with control for the public good.
Re: immigration policy. I do believe I said “indirectly.” Yes, we need immigrants to grow.
Another contribution:
“Sigh!
“So (don't all statements these days have to begin with this unnecessary interjection??), my dear Cap, I reluctantly admit I have ignored most of your tirades for well over a month because they are consistently obsessed primarily with hatred of our President, when criticism alone would be adequate for the original purposes that attracted me to your writings after learning of the respectful relationship you had with my fellow patriot brother.
“This latest 906 is no different in its unrelenting bias, although one can truly benefit by some of the quotations and other content if not turned off completely by the hateful commentary and tiresomely disrespectful labels.
“Thank you for keeping your readers informed of our President's latest foibles (as though the media misses any such chance). However, your undeniable communicative skills would be better spent, IMHO, giving objective suggestions for solutions to the problems our President seeks to address or unfortunately misaddresses. This would require some benefit of the doubt, of course, so I suppose that is out of the question. Too bad.
“Cap, I hope you will continue to try to enlighten your loyal listeners. I will tune in periodically, but I cannot stand a steady diet of the overriding tone of your disrespectful names for and condemnations of our duly elected President. My recommendation for restraint is wasted, I realize, because I accept your many declarations of absolute lack of respect for the man, but I do respect you enough to plead for a more useful approach to education of us in the masses. Perhaps more frequent admissions of Mr. Trump's correct or at least good faith decisions would partially offset the damage to credibility caused by your unrestrained hatred.
“I would like to see see your justifications for not urging impeachment. Meanwhile, keep smiling, my friend!”
My reply:
I appreciate your patience and accept your admonishment. I am truly sorry you feel that way. I shall make no attempt to defend my opinion(s). You are entitled to your opinions, and I truly value your willingness to express them.
I will answer your query below, but I would sincerely like to hear your answer to Jim Comey’s question to all of us:
Is [the BIC’s] behavior consistent with what we should expect from the president of the United States?
If so, why?
Re: “I would like to see your justifications for not urging impeachment.” You may have missed my answer in earlier Updates. Nonetheless, as the Supremes often cite as rationale for not hearing arguments in a case, the case against the BIC is not yet ripe enough for impeachment. As long as there are not at least 18+ Republican senators who are convinced impeachment is necessary and conviction is likely, then impeachment is far more injurious than it would ever be helpful. Impeachment without conviction is wasteful, distracting, and an extraordinarily destructive endeavor. So, the relevant question is: what crimes are serious enough to impeach and removed a president from their own tribe (political party)? Apparently, a blowjob was serious enough the last time. As long as the Republican senators remain blindly loyal despite the evidence, then I say do not attempt impeachment. It was the Republican senators 45 years ago who convinced Nixon to resign. It will again be Republican senators who convince the BIC to resign; however, the BIC’s monumental ego and paucity of grace will not allow him to do the right thing.
From my perspective, I would rather see Congress pass (over the BIC’s undoubted veto) a suspension of the statute of limitations, so that the BIC can be properly indicted, charged and face his judgment before a jury of his peers in court. Are 800+ attorneys general across this Grand Republic wrong? If he is found not guilty, so be it; we move on. After all, a jury found OJ not guilty and the fabric of the country did not unravel. Even that is not likely, so the BIC may well get away with his myriad alleged crimes. He is presumed innocent, and the burden rests upon the State to prove his guilt. I continue to return to Comey’s question to all of us.
Lastly, I ask you directly, have you read the Special Counsel’s Report? If so, what was your legal opinion, as a lawyer and a judge?
If the BIC abided the law, did his job, and kept his mouth shut and fingers immobile, I would have nothing to write about. I respond with my observations of what is presented to us daily. To not respond is joining the “silent circle of assent,” as Comey so eloquently and succinctly stated. I will not look the other way, as disgusting as it gets. I confront that which deserves confrontation.
. . . follow-up comment:
“Some of the points of my initial comment remain unaddressed as usual, but that is your prerogative, again exercised. I will, however, respond to your requests.
“I offer my answer to the largely discredited but truly eloquent Comey:
Neither our President's behavior nor his rhetoric are what we habitually expect from the POTUS, but this is the essence of the strength that appealed to the electorate, including me, after more skillful politicians took our country down decades of decline. Your implied suggestion that Hillary would have been a better choice, even in retrospect, is laughable.
“What we "should expect from the president of the United States" (at last, a title of respect, thank you) is the subject of the lesson we are going through now as the world's generous but foolish city on the hill. We learned nothing from our habit of electing the most political politicians in the past 100 years. Now we are learning, I hope, to deal with a leader who dares to not be guided by the norm of party politics or habitual expectations of a POTUS.
“Mr. Trump's personality and vicious business acumen were well known for years before his declaration of candidacy. No other candidate broke the mold we Americans were so tired of, so we are now in the process of taking a chance on a non-politician, whose ethics may prove to be reprehensible but whose record in office is not yet proven in fairness. Of course, the left has calculated that fueling hatred for the individual in the Oval Office is their best political strategy, and many have joined the mob. My primary message to you, perhaps largely missed, was that thinking citizens would do better to stick to constructive criticism, especially when they can be influential.
“My answer, then, is that we should not have adopted the habit of expecting certain behavior from a strong independent leader who surprises us. Comey's question, which fits so well with your tirades, is itself a political assumption, outdated by Mr. Trump's election. Hatred interferes with logic and foresight, unfortunately, so the eloquent Mr. Comey gets kudos for joining the chorus led by the left and much of the GOP and harmonized by even thinking commenters. I am not surprised; just very disappointed.
“Again, in the face of your unequivocal and apparently unretractable total disrespect of Donald J. Trump I expect no agreement. I only repeat my urging for constructive criticism and apolitical proposals along with tempering of sincerely disrespectful sentiments in your offerings.
“And finally, if you would kindly direct me to a dependable source, I would like to read the unredacted Special Counsel's report. The truncated version available in the media has had ample analysis, I suspect, so I do not plan to do more of my own. Thank you for your opinions, anyway.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
I took your original missive as a statement of your opinions on a number of matters. I did not see a query to me until the end. I do believe I responded to your query. I have learned (the hard way) in these highly tribal (partisan) times that debate has diminished substantially as a means to achieve compromise and solutions. I accept your opinions as you stated them regardless of my agreement or disagreement. If you wish to know my opinion, please, simply ask what you wish to know.
Re: “largely discredited but truly eloquent Comey.” We shall respectfully disagree. IMHO, Comey is infinitely more credible than the BIC. Full stop! I presume you did not listen to Comey’s Town Hall. Oh well; opportunity lost.
Oh, I do understand the attraction of so many in this Grand Republic to the BIC’s Siren Song [he is the consummate snake-oil salesman after all; I do give him credit for that reality.] In fact, I am with you in the desire to break the mold of the politician elite who have contaminated our democratic processes and created the extraordinary dysfunction in DC. I am also with you in seeking a worthy leader to help us breakdown the intransigence of the tribal politics we have descended into in the last few decades. Where we part ways is the choice of a deeply flawed individual, whom I believe is breaking the mold AND breaking the country as well. He was (is) the wrong man for that task. I am not willing to break the country to resolve the dysfunction. Apparently, from your words, that tradeoff is acceptable. If so, that is your choice, and we shall respectfully disagree. He was not and never was the man to break the mold. Conversely, none of the candidates in the last election were that leader. Again, IMHO, we were presented with the least of two evils, plus two marginal candidates, who showed no signs of their ability to overcome the tribal intransigence in Congress; so, I voted for the candidate who I thought would do the least damage until a worthy leader appeared.
There is no hatred (at least on my part). I recognize him to be exactly what he is. I saw that reality long before he declared his candidacy. I wrote about his monumental flaws well before he became the Republican nominee. He has not changed; thus, my criticism of his significant behavioral deficiencies continues. I will not (cannot) become part of the “silent circle of assent.” I believe he is a very bad man, and if my suspicions are born out in evidence, he is a felonious criminal man. To be frank and direct, I see his conduct in the context as a “domestic enemy,” as in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” But, hey, that’s just me.
The BIC has shown total disdain for the office he holds and for the constitutional system our Founders & Framers created for us 231 years ago. Thus, I cannot give him the dignity of even mentioning his familial name. I have considerable respect, if not reverence, for the President of the United States; thus, my lofty expectations for anyone who holds that office. Unfortunately, the person We, the People, elected to fulfill that employment and job assignment is and always has been a despicable human being, and emphatically has not performed to the expectations.
Re: “urging for constructive criticism and apolitical proposals.” Apparently, you missed those editions of the Update, and that’s OK. I realize my words are difficult to read. I learned quite early in my service under arms to this Grand Republic that we do not present problems without offering solutions. I try very hard to offer solutions. Most of my proposals passed by unchallenged or countered with better solutions. I shall continue to practice that axiom of service.
Re: “unredacted Special Counsel's report.” I took your request as rhetorical, as I believe you know perfectly well that very few Department of Justice personnel have seen the “un-redacted” version of the Special Counsel’s Report. Not even Congress, or even the Gang of Eight, has seen the un-redacted version. I shall respectfully beg to differ. The Press cannot possibly give you the flavor of the Special Counsel’s findings, for the exact same reason the Attorney General’s summary is extraordinarily misleading, verging upon false. I strongly urge you to take the time to actually read the Special Counsel’s words in toto. I believe it is impossible to read the Special Counsel’s findings regarding both collusion and obstruction and not see the BIC’s culpability. Regardless of whether you choose to read the Report, I have faith the truth will eventually be graphically displayed for We, the People, to judge. The BIC and his minions are counting on the majority of American citizens not reading the Report, so they can control the narrative. Once again, I cannot be in the “silent circle of assent.”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
-->
