Update no.911

Update from the Sunland

No.911

24.6.19 – 30.6.19

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The OSGOO signed an executive order imposing “hard-hitting” sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) [143, 891] and specifically the IRI’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  There are reports from numerous independent sources that European nations, among others, are already establishing work-around paths to ignore U.S. unilateral sanctions.  This is what happens when you slap allies in the face in public and pee on their legs—we are diminished.

-- Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller [804, 890, 904, 908B] will testify in open session before two House committees on 17^thof July.  The Special Counsel may well attempt to stick to his earlier statement [908B] that his report is his testimony, or he might recognize that Congress (meaning Republicans) have not read the report and picked up the lance, and the task falls to him.  Perhaps his sense of duty and patriotism will override his profound desire to avoid the political arena.  We shall see in a few weeks time.

-- Numerous Press sources reported that Boeing and federal regulators stated they have identified a new software problem on the B737-MAX8 [878, 900], further delaying the process of returning the troubled jet to service.  The unfortunate reality enveloping Boeing’s situation stems from their original failure in the certification of the B737-MAX8 aircraft. These issues are a normal part of the development process.  The system is finally working.  I urge everyone to not get wrapped up about these latest revelations.  On the positive side of the ledger, the brilliant spotlight on Boeing’s certification of the corrective actions in the case of the B737-MAX8 has amplified all of these glitches.

-- Congress passed and sent to the President for approval the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019 [PL 116-xxx; H.R.3401; House: 305-102-0-25(3); Senate: 84-8-0-8(0); 132 Stat. xxx] to provide US$4.6B in humanitarian relief funding to reduce pressure on Customs & Border Protection (CBP) for support of refugees in their custody.  The legislation does nothing toward comprehensive immigration reform [156, 888].

            The BIC had a brain fart at the G-20 Summit in Osaka, Japan.  Since he was in the area, why not go say hello to his bosom buddy Kim Jung Un at Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone of the Korean peninsula.  So, he threw out decades, if not centuries, of presidential precedent to go meet with the bloody dictator of the DPRK with whom he sends love notes.  I sure hope the BIC’s highly unusual whim pays off in achieving a denuclearized Korean peninsula.  Maybe his abandonment of protocol and precedent will do the trick, but history is not on his side.  We have no choice but to be cautiously optimistic.

            The BIC being the BIC, he does not change his stripes on the international stage any more than he does (or can) on the national stage.  He is what he is. I can only say to readers all over the world that the BIC does not reflect the United States, or We, the People. He represents himself only and his time will pass.

            NBC News journalists moderated the first Democratic Party debate among 20 of 22 declared candidates, 10 each on consecutive nights at Knight Concert Hall of the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts of Miami-Dade County, Miami, Florida.  I listened carefully to all four hours worth, which was way too short to make any judgments; so, I shall hold for now. There was one overriding impression, however.  It is nice that some citizens could attend the debate and gain the added benefit of feeling the context.  However, for the rest of us not able to attend the Miami debates, the audience participation (cheering and clapping) was a terrible and unhelpful distraction, annoyance and waste of precious time when the Democratic Party has 20 candidates and so little of their time on camera.  Based on that experience, I would say one of two things must happen on all future debates: 1.) the audience must remain totally silent—not a peep, or 2.) there must be no audience allowed.  These debates are not entertainment for the locals; this is serious business for the whole of this Grand Republic.  Listening to the audience convey their feelings was extraordinarily aggravating.  The rest of us need to hear the candidates, NOT the audience.

            Wow!  When we read the atrocity of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. 310 (2010)] [424] and we think it could not get any worse, the Supremes give us a new slap in the face.  The latest rendition comes in the Court’s decision of a North Carolina gerrymandering case—Rucho v. Common Cause [588 U.S. ___ (2019); No. 18–422].  In this current example, the Court split 5-4 down the ideological divide.  The North Carolina 12^th District, as defined by the state legislature in 2013, was the subject of this decision.  Rather than go through the hassle of imbedding the image of the district boundaries, here is the URL for the image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause - /media/File:North_Carolina_US_Congressional_District_12_(since_2013).tif.

This is perhaps the best or worst, depending upon one’s perspective, of gerrymandering—the political manipulation of district boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.  I am in the group that believes this is the worst, most blatantly and politically discriminatory district definition since the founding of this Grand Republic.

            Due to other, more pressing priorities on my time at the moment, I have only been able to read the summary of the Rucho ruling, as yet.  This is one of those must-read SCOTUS decision on my to-do list; please stay tuned to this humble forum, if you care to read my review.  I shall have to reserve judgment on this decision until I read the whole ruling, especially Justice Kagan’s dissenting opinion.

            I will offer a couple of general opinions about gerrymandering I have held since I first learned about the practice in high school (a long time ago).  The process is intended to dilute opposition representation and reinforce the power of the party in power.  While gerrymandering carried out by both parties at least as far back as 1812, may be part of our history, it does not make it correct or proper.  To me, gerrymandering is just another form of voter suppression for political gain and is about anti- the founding principles as it gets.  I suspect the Rucho ruling will join Citizens United as yet another example of conservative justices hiding behind the strict interpretation of the words written 232 years ago, as if they were written in stone and not subject to the application of principles to contemporary life.  This is the essence of the current debate swirling around the strict constructionists in the sphere of late Associate Justice Scalia.

            I will also state, and probably repeat more than a few times, this is one example of why conservatives can ignore the BIC’s outrageous and un-American conduct; the end justifies the means.  This is also why I will never again refer to my political persuasion as conservative and quite likely will never vote for any Republican candidate who remained or remains silent about the BIC’s behavior and conduct, or supports these blatantly discriminatory legislative actions.  Some among us want to eliminate the Electoral College, but where is the outrage over these ridiculous gerrymandering actions.

            Another end of term Supreme Court decision worth my time to read was Department of Commerce v. New York [588 U.S. ___ (2019); No. 18–966]—a case that temporarily restricted the current administration from asking a citizenship question on next year’s constitutionally mandated decennial census.  This one is also on my to-do list because of the sensitivity and criticality of the issue at hand, and also because of the extraordinarily odd fragmentation among the Supremes.  The Court called it a unanimous opinion; however, there are an unusually high number of concurring in part, dissenting in part opinions.  Four justices wrote opinions and the other justices are scattered all over the place.

            I have mixed feelings on this one. If I trusted the BIC, or Republicans, or conservative politicians in general, or even the conservative justices, I might be inclined to agree with the need for a citizenship question, after all, this Grand Republic was established for citizens, not for the people of other countries.  At issue is Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution that originally stated, the census shall count people “according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”  The specific wording was amended by Section 2 of the 14^thAmendment, which states: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.” (emphasis mine) The current constitutional language directs the counting of people within the Union, not just citizens.  Chief Justice Roberts is apparently quite suspicious of the administrations justification and rationale for the citizenship questions.  I cannot tell from the summary whether the conservatives, or so-called strict constructionists, among the current allotment of Supremes are now arguing for a more restrictive interpretation.  I eagerly want to read their reasoning on this one.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.910:

Comment to the Blog:

“‘Proportionate response is warranted’ only if the circumstances are as Chump represented them.  This situation has more characters than a clunky spy novel, and we'd better not trust any of them.  Also, I agree that the USA ought not to try to police the entire world, particularly when the ‘victims’ are not calling the police.

“Tragic and horrifying as the potential war and the current border crisis are, Chump and his party are using them to distract us from important domestic policies and appointments affecting their fortunes.

“Your comment about Khashoggi's killing either is intended as a joke or should be.

“Much of Chump's maneuvering works in high-stakes real estate deals.”

My response to the Blog:

            Unfortunately, you are spot on correct; we cannot trust a single word spoken or written by the BIC.  Very sad!  I cannot validate either or any causal factors in the escalating Persian Gulf – Strait of Hormuz events.  My inclination is to suspect the IRI simply from past performance.

            Once again, I cannot argue against your hypothesis; it is most certainly plausible.  However, I have argued for decades that immigration law has been and remains in desperate need of reform and updating.

            My comment about Khashoggi’s murder was not a joke.

            Unfortunately, he is not currently employed in the real estate biz.  His behavior may work in that arena, but only because it is tolerated.  Nonetheless, IMHO, his conduct is wrong in any business, in any circumstance, and in any context.  His behavior is disrespectful of other human beings, period, full stop!

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)

-->