Update no.1047

 Update from the Sunland

No.1047

31.1.22 – 6.2.22

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

 

            To all,

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- As seems to be the norm these days, both sides, all sides, select slivers of fact and embellish them with nonsense to paint a picture they wish to paint. So it is with the fBICP and the BIG LIE [982 & sub]. The following article is germane to this issue and associated debate.

“Scottsdale woman pleads guilty to casting dead mother's ballot in 2020 election”

by Julie Luchetta

Arizona Republic

Published: 7:15 p.m. MT; Feb 1, 2022

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/scottsdale-breaking/2022/02/01/election-fraud-woman-admits-signing-and-casting-dead-moms-ballot/9306363002/?utm_source=azcentral-Law%20&%20Order&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=baseline&utm_term=hero&utm_content=1531AR-E-NLETTER38

As reported by the Arizona Republic, “Election fraud is exceedingly rare. Over the past decade, Arizona has prosecuted election crimes amounting to less than 0.0001% of votes cast here.” Is there attempted fraud in our elections? Yes, absolutely! To my knowledge, there has been attempted fraud in every election since the Founding. Should be implementing laws to make fraud more difficult? Yes, absolutely! What the fBICP is doing in legislatures they control, they are using a thermonuclear device to swat a fly. Their actions are wrong in every possible way for that reason. They are using a distortion of the facts to justify draconian voter suppression laws that place a significantly greater burden on the poor and underprivileged of our society. The fBICP ‘solution’ is grossly out of proportion to the size of the problem. Election fraud warrants action, but the fBICP solution is wrong, period, full stop. BTW, does anyone want to guess who the woman fraudulently voted for?

-- As the vice closing in on the former president continues to tighten, [the person who shall no longer be named] persists in his BIG LIE [982 & sub]. Former Vice President Mike Pence made his most forceful condemnation of the former president yet. He spoke at the Federalist Society's Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort at Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Pence stated, "I heard this week that President Trump said that I had the right to overturn the election. But President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone. And frankly, there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president. Under the Constitution, I had no right to change the outcome of the election.” And, Vice President Pence was spot on correct. I must also add that I did not agree with many other elements of his speech, but at least he got this one correct.

-- On Friday, in Salt Lake City at their annual meeting, the Republican National Committee voted by voice vote to censure Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. Beyond the same-o-same-o fBICP political drivel, the resolution states in part:

“WHEREAS, The Conference must not be sabotaged by Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger who have demonstrated, with actions and words, that they support Democrat efforts to destroy President Trump more than they support winning back a Republican majority in 2022;”

and they concluded:

“WHEREAS, Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes, therefore, be it

“RESOLVED, That the Republican National Committee hereby formally censures Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and shall immediately cease any and all support of them as members.” [emphasis mine]

This one resolution speaks volumes about the degeneration of the once-upon-a-time Grand Old Party into a mere minor remnant that is the fBICP under the spell of [the person who shall no longer be named]. Fortunately, for all the rest of us, Cheney and Kinzinger had the courage, commitment, and belief in the greater good to do the true patriotic thing, putting the Constitution and national interests above base party politics. This resolution shall serve as Exhibit Number 1 as to why I will not likely ever vote for a fBICP member at any level of government. They have forfeited their legitimacy at the altar of the orange one.

 

The race baiting by the fBICP [the former GOP] continues unabated and is likely to get much worse before it has a chance to get better. Further, the remedy is likely to take a very long time to a day I shall not live to see. Nonetheless, the fight must continue inexorably until we mature as a society or perish in the rubbish bin of history.

A number of related thoughts have been rumbling through my little pea-brain. I used to think conservatives stood for fiscal prudence, small government, and a strong military. I suppose that notion was true back in the days of Barry Goldwater. Today’s conservatives exhibit none of those traits. They are far more occupied and consumed by returning all of us to a bygone day of social conservatism, when predecessor social conservatives dictated the laws and morality for everyone. They are obsessed with rolling back the calendar to a day 50-60 years ago, if not farther back. They are banning books or history that makes them feel uncomfortable. And, of course, anything not to their liking makes them feel uncomfortable. Further, they want to ban books for everyone, because (they reason) if a book makes them uncomfortable, it will make everyone uncomfortable. Conservatives do not want to teach their children history, and thus, they want to prevent all other children from learning history. We saw the pseudo-outrage over Critical Race Theory, which is an intellectual examination of racism. What leads one race to enslave another? How is racism perpetuated long after slavery has been unconstitutional and illegal? The social conservatives seek to ban the Pulitzer Prize winning graphic novel about The Holocaust—Maus. Since they are in the mood to ban books that make them feel uncomfortable, some jurisdictions are adding books like To Kill a Mockingbird, A Clockwork Orange, The Confessions of Nat Turner, and of course, any book about abortion, non-heterosexuality, gender identity, or racism. I strongly object to what they are doing on many levels, not least of which is we should feel uncomfortable about The Holocaust, racism, and oppression in any form. Our children should feel uncomfortable because history is uncomfortable, and they must know history. If the social conservatives are uncomfortable with any book, movie, television program, or whatever, then do not read it, watch it, listen to it, or consider it. Book banning and denial of history is wrong on every possible level. The way we are going to break the grip of racism, xenophobia, and the myriad other social ills is to teach our children that hate is wrong. Yet, all of this oppression in the name of comfort just reinforces the general observation, the fBICP prefers ignorance over knowledge. Let the world recognize the fBICP for what they are—oppressors . . . unless you agree with them. Freedom and rights are theirs, not for the rest of us unanointed.

 

In a Monday ABC broadcast of The View, Whoopi Goldberg contended that The Holocaust was not about race. I understood what she was trying to say, however, her statement was ill informed and too narrowly viewed. The following day, she publicly apologized for her statement. As part of that apology, they interviewed Jonathan Greenblatt, National Director and CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). He rightly informed the listeners that the basis of Nazi ideology and the notion of Aryan supremacy took root from Adolf Hitler seminal book “Mein Kampf” [My Fight, or My Struggle], i.e., Aryans [Germans] were the superior race—the master race. That ideological foundation led the Nazis to persecute and murder on a massive scale all of those they considered sub-human, e.g., Jews, Roma (gypsies), Slavs, homosexuals, political dissenters, ad infinitum. Greenblatt went on to note more than a few anti-Semitic signs and sweatshirts with “Camp Auschwitz – 6MWE” [6MWE = Six Million Wasn’t Enough]. He properly noted that white supremacy and anti-Semitism are very much alive and now thanks to [the person who shall no longer be named] and his fBICP enablers, the movement is flourishing. While I agree and endorse Greenblatt’s statements, I have to quibble with one statement he spoke toward the end of his interview. He said, “When you demonize the Jewish people and demonize the Jewish state that is flat out wrong.” While the key word is ‘demonize,’ the implication is that Israel is above criticism because of the state religion. Israel does not get a free pass simply because it endorses a particular state religion. I would have been good if he had left the ‘Jewish state’ out of the argument, but he did not and thus my disagreement. Israel is a political entity and cannot hide from criticism behind their state religion. The nation deserves criticism and even condemnation for some past actions, e.g., the West Bank settlement campaign. And for all that, Whoopi was suspended for two weeks, which I think was wrong, excessive, and frankly unfair. But, these are the times in which we live.

[A related side note: if you believe the Holocaust did not occur, I strongly and emphatically urge you to read “Mein Kampf” from cover to cover; it was Hitler’s blueprint and ideological basis for what became The Holocaust; the book was published in 1925 (long before he became chancellor).]

 

Then, we have the spineless sycophant for [the person who shall no longer be named] known as Cruz, who chose to criticize President Biden’s nomination to SCOTUS before the man has even chosen his nominee. Why didn’t Cruz wait and criticize the qualifications of the president’s nominee after he made his choice? I laud the president’s commitment. President Biden stated explicitly he would pick a highly qualified person. So Cruz, how about let us all see who the president picks, and then you can unleash your epithets.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1046:

Comment to the Blog:

“I put a lot of effort into finding Blog Number 879 but still couldn’t find any statement from Stormy Daniels. Please clarify.

“I see Justice Breyer’s resignation as wise. Collegiality on the Supreme Court vanished like bipartisanship in Congress.

“My intense disagreements with the Libertarian Party are about seeing corporations as if they were individuals.”

My response to the Blog:

I am not sure how you assumed Update no.879 was a statement by Stormy Daniels. Nonetheless, I offer my apologies for your difficulty in finding Update no.879. I suppose I should create some kind of index beyond the integral one at the bottom of the left column. The cited reference noted a Wall Street Journal article and my reading of her book.

Perhaps so. the evidence is on your side. However, I hold a faint hope that the nobility of the law shall overcome the contemporary partisan ideological divide. Time shall tell the tale. Until then, we must endure.

As you noted, that is one of my major objections as well . . . among others. A corporation is not and never was an individual or a citizen; it is only a legal construct for business {despite Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. 310 (2010)] [424]}. Corporations should have never been imbued with the rights of citizenship. My central issue with the Libertarian Party is, how they might govern as a minority party? They have a far better shot at achieving the presidency, but it is Congress that makes the laws. Until they can obtain a majority in both chambers of Congress, I see their political position as just rhetoric. Yet, that said, I have more than once defaulted to a Libertarian vote as the best of the available candidates on election day.

 . . . follow-up comments:

“In this week’s post, you stated, ‘I stand with Ms. Stephanie Gregory Clifford (AKA Stormy Daniels) [879].’ I assumed this was a reference to something you or she had said in that post. I have read her book, but I would never assume the reader had and remembered its contents.

“The Libertarians are of interest to me most of all as another party that seeks ballot access and is thwarted by the two ‘major’ parties. Others, including the Green Party USA and a new People’s Party, do the same. This country would be healthier if more parties, of whatever policy beliefs, had access to the ballot.”

 . . . along with my follow-up comments:

It was just a thought at the moment regarding Ms. Clifford’s on-going legal action and trial against her one-time, now convicted felon, former attorney who allegedly bilked her of a lot of book sales money. I did not want to spend time musing about the trial. I apologize for my succinct comment causing a disturbance in the Force.

I would agree. I share your opinion regarding ‘other’ parties, but as with all such questions, it comes back to how will they govern in a largely binary Congress. We must elect ‘other’ party candidates to both chambers of Congress to break the paradigm.  One of the reasons we had to endure the insanity of the previous administration is a prevalent underlying dissatisfaction with the inability of Congress to work for the people.

 

Another contribution:

“A vastly inadequate summary of the 2022 Mississippi Libertarian Party Convention:

“Small number of impressively energetic attendees, much time spent necessarily on minor by-law changes, excellent chair performance regrettably including announcement of her retirement from leadership, well planned and arranged venue, much evidence of struggle for membership, remarkably small budget, absolutely brilliant beautiful inspirational keynote speaker Hannah Cox of Fee.org and Based-Politics.com, typically warm friendly ‘integrated’ Mississippi folks surprised at and receptive of my enthusiastic response and contribution as a non-member guest, and so on.

“Little info about current national candidates' plans.

“All in all, we are very impressed by the local state party members and the available national party literature, most of which I suspect would be more than acceptable by majority of thinking Americans, who unfortunately will probably still vote out of habit for candidates of the two major corrupt parties rather than bravely ‘wasting’ their vote as I intend to do.

“I remain a former Republican, present Flaming Conserviberal, seriously considering membership in this wonderful third party effort to return to the solid principles of individual freedom and limited government envisioned but not perfected by our Founders.”

My reply:

I am glad you were able to attend the Mississippi Libertarian Party Convention. Thank you for sharing your observations. Good on you that you were able to participate.

Yeah, way too much voting out of habit. The blind loyalty to a demagogue simply because of a label (misappropriate BTW) is the most disturbing, and frankly, not a good commentary on the American citizenry. To be fair, the blind loyalty of which I speak exists on both sides of the political divide. When I see the effects of this blind loyalty, I see the wisdom of the Founders / Framers. They recognized how important education and intellectual curiosity was to any viable democratic system of governance. While I could never support the other qualification factors implemented by the Founders / Framers, there was valuable wisdom in their starting point. Unfortunately, contemporary politics has demonstrated that even qualified (by the original criteria) individuals fail to consider the greater good beyond their perceived political power.

My military career, especially as my first major employment from adulthood and beyond, drove my non-partisanship. I took my oath of office quite seriously. I was never a Republican, never a Democrat, never a Libertarian, and I highly doubt I will ever join a political party. I used to think of my political ideology as conservative, then that thinking began to fracture. For most of my adult life, I referred to my thinking as fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Now, the ideological corruption and inhumanity of the so-called conservative movement coupled with the absolute hypocrisy of the fBICP (former GOP) have rendered me verging upon pragmatic socialism. Today, I find nothing, and I genuinely mean nothing, of value in anything associated with the fBICP. I cannot ignore them, as much as I might wish, because there are still far too many of those blind loyalists who sustain that pseudo-party.

The central question to the Libertarian Party remains, how do they propose to govern as a minority party?

 . . . with follow-comments:

“Thanks. I am impressed by the similarity of our respective ideological evolutions. It seems that our only recurring persistent disagreements occur with respect to the questions of (1) would Hillary have been better, and (2) whether Trump's several important kept promises outweigh the several failures of his agenda and the lasting dangers of the cult following resulting from his malignant narcissism (which you correctly evaluated before me).

“I'm still glad I voted for Dr. Carson, then reluctantly for Trump, and soon completely severed all sympathies for the GOP. My hope is that the best of Libertarian Party ideals can overcome the unfair isolationist reputation that makes it an easy target for the media and two-party loyalists. I harbor no hope for a turn back by the Democrats from their stated intentions to gently and cleverly enslave all but the richest of Americans.

“Keep smiling. I enjoy your ultimate optimism for our grand experiment in government.”

 . . . along with my follow-up comments:

Yes, and agreed. We share more in common than we have differences. To your “recurring persistent disagreements,” I offer my opinions.

1.) In the greater sense, yes, she would have been much better. She would have conducted herself in a presidential manner, and she most emphatically would have offered far greater humanity than the other guy. Although not part of my direct response to your query, I will say we are very long overdue for a female president. All that said, I am compelled to repeat my oft-stated observation that Ms. Clinton disqualified herself when she chose to selfishly place herself above logic, reason, and the law in using her private servers for her private and professional eMail. Such actions (by anyone) are a direct threat to national security and are extraordinarily selfish moves.

2.) I am not going to expend the inordinate amount to time it would take to argue the point. First, I fundamentally disagree with calling some of his “accomplishments” actually accomplishments. Case in point, the whole nonsense of a 2,000-mile border wall with the naïve notion that Mexico was going to pay for it, and that it would accomplish what he claimed. I have long written of my fundamental, broad disagreement with his ridiculous contention. Without comprehensive immigration reform and a defense in depth to back-up the physical obstacle of a border wall, there is no hope of a wall working. There are many other disagreements, e.g., the ludicrous tax cut, the unconstitutional ‘theft’ of one and arguably two Supreme Court nominations, and his deadly, laissez-faire, every man for himself pandemic response, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum. Nonetheless, his “accomplishments” pale to inconsequential levels in the face of his abhorrent conduct, e.g., 25.5.2017, inject disinfectant, and of course the BIG LIE. So, no, I cannot overcome my revulsion as a consequence of his conduct; I cannot think of one instance of his conduct being presidential. I have gone on too long; I must stop here.

The damage and destruction of his malignant narcissism affliction are incalculable and will be felt for long after he and we are gone.

I hope you can find affinity with the Libertarians. I eagerly await your explanation of how the “unfair isolationist reputation” is wrong. I look forward to learning more. I am neither media nor two-party loyalist. I am a critical observer and thinker.

Democrat intentions to “gently and cleverly enslave all” is an interesting, intriguing, and worthy accusation. Regrettably, it sounds like fBICP rhetoric rather than informed observation or opinion. Perhaps you can take the time to explain why you believe that position to be true. I have lived and worked in both England and Italy. Both have socialist elements, e.g., medical treatment, and I never felt “enslaved” or lacking freedom.

My optimism has been sorely and deeply shaken by the last administration from the BIG LIE to the incessant feeding of white supremacist attitudes. I have long been an optimist, but that natural trait has been severely corroded by the malignant narcissist in chief; and, he is still meting out his destruction, e.g., his multiple statements in Conroe, Texas. Worse, more than a few former Republicans (now fBICP members) persist in enabling him. What does that tell us?

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)