Update no.1059

Update from the Sunland

No.1059

25.4.22 – 1.5.22

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

 

To all,

 

Another celestial marvel was on display this week in the early morning before morning nautical twilight—Jupiter, Venus, Mars and Saturn were lined up in a magnificent line on the eastern horizon. Jupiter and Venus swapped places on the 30^th of April. Space never ceases to be so incredibly fascinating.

 

As the realities of contemporary politics play out before us every day in excruciating detail, I am left with one overwhelming and dominant thought. The fBICP should adopt a new proper motto – Nescientia super scientia (Ignorance over knowledge!). The reality of their actions should be the new motto for the fBICP.  So many legislative and personal actions by fBICP notables scream that reality—banning books, dictating to a woman what she does within her body, don’t say gay, homosexuality or rather non-heterosexuality does not exist, abstinence is preferred to education and knowledge, substance et al ad infinitum ad nauseum . . . it all boils down to ignorance over knowledge.

We taught our children to think for themselves, to be curious about their environment and surroundings, to question the basis of rules affecting them. They learned well. They have and are teaching our grandchildren to think critically. If we had been aware of Critical Race Theory when our children were growing, we would have insisted that they learn, understand, and judge for themselves. This notion espoused by the fBICP believers that ignorance is preferred to knowledge is the antithesis of a free, informed, critical society. The fBICP is ignorance personified.

 

I read an interesting article this week that sparked my curiosity and contemplation.

 “Woodward pushes 25^th Amendment, says a 'crazy' president could trigger nuclear war

by Michael Isikoff – Chief Investigative Correspondent

Yahoo!News

Published: Fri, April 29, 2022, 11:11 AM

https://www.yahoo.com/news/woodward-pushes-25th-amendment-says-a-crazy-president-could-trigger-nuclear-war-181154513.html

Renown journalist and author Bob Woodward observed, “I think many of — maybe all — these cases, lead nowhere. And if the Justice Department, the federal government, indicts [the person who shall no longer be named], they solidify Trump as the 2024 Republican candidate for president.” He went on to add, “It's less important that [the person who shall no longer be named] be prosecuted than that … we should perform the operation of the 25^th Amendment.” While I often agree with Woodward’s observations and opinions, I fundamentally disagree with his opinion here. On 8.September.1974, one month to the day after the only presidential resignation in the history of this republic, President Ford (the only president in history not elected president or vice president) pardoned Richard Nixon in advance of any criminal prosecution. He told us he issued the pardon to Nixon to heal the country after the debacle of Vietnam and the crimes of the Watergate scandal. I absolutely disagreed with President Ford in pardoning Nixon to avoid prosecution of a president, just as I disagree with Woodward now. Nixon should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and sent to prison. The constitutional process has failed twice with respect to the malfeasance of [the person who shall no longer be named], it is long past due for the Judiciary to pass judgment on the man’s conduct. There is plenty of time to indict, try, convict and sentence the man for the crimes he has committed, not least of which was conspiracy to commit insurrection as the sitting president against the constitutionally elected successor government. So, I say, indict the man and if that guarantees he will be the fBICP nominee for president in 2024, so be it. Let him face a judge and jury. Let his malignant narcissism suffer another national humiliation.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1058:

Comment to the Blog:

“Reagan said whatever he had to say about Iran-Contra. That’s how he got into office. Given the Alzheimer’s, it’s very hard to say what he knew.

“Marjory Taylor Greene is using that “I didn’t know” claim to avoid culpability for January 6.

“Regardless of the reasoning, the mask mandate is over. If the Administration wanted to keep it, they’d have sought an immediate injunction.

“Puerto Rico should be either a State or an independent nation. The time for colonies is long past.”

My response to the Blog:

You are not alone in that particular perspective. I suppose my view is a corollary. I appreciated many of his attributes, but I ultimately condemned his actions after the Beirut massacre and turning tail. He should have never sent those Marines in with hobbles. Iran-Contra made it worse.

We’ll see what the judge says, but “I don’t know” is quite akin to “I was only following orders.” There is amble evidence that she knew precisely what she was doing. She is the poster-child for the 14^th Amendment §3, and I would love to see it used as intended in 1868.

True, but I still wear my N95 mask on appropriate occasion. True. The USG (CDC) had asked for an extension of two weeks, so yes, the mandate is moot. However, the USG (CDC) is looking to the next epidemic/pandemic and rightly so. Judge Mizelle’s ruling was wrong and outright foolish; it begs to be struck down on appeal.

You stated it in starker terms, but I agree. The in-between of territories is no longer acceptable. What is different in this case is, Congress conferred citizenship on residents of the territories, well, citizenship (minus), they do not have representation in Congress, and they have conditional voting privileges. Statehood or independence applies to all of the territories.

 

Another contribution:

“Great discussion, especially your analysis of Modero. If I had not been too lazy to read it (after years of retirement from law practice and state trial court bench), I believe I would have emphasized the correctness of the majority. I am thankful they concluded that the still-flawed constitution of this experiment in representative democracy does not provide for rights of citizens of territories equal to those of states.

“I differ from your opinion in my applause for this, in contrast with your sincere compassionate ‘liberal’ view which apparently is that the majority should have, like the truly brilliant and articulate socialistic Sotomayor, found that it just ain't fair. She like all liberals tends to confuse the role of the USSC with that of the Congress or the People, which are responsible for amending the constitution when it needs it.”

My reply:

There is no question that Kavanaugh’s majority opinion was accurate and appropriate according to the law. However, as I wrote, it is typically conservative, i.e., authority versus the People. The error by omission in my opinion comes with Kavanaugh’s rather circumspect treatment of the Jones-Shafroth Act [PL 64-II-368; 39 Stat. 951; 2.3.1917] that conferred citizenship on residents of Puerto Rico. Further, Congress reinforced citizenship when they added jus solicitizenship via the Nationality Act of 1940 [PL 76-870; 54 Stat. 1137; 14.10.1940]. A citizen is a citizen. It is wrong to discriminate. The days of territories should be long past—statehood or independence.

Call me what you will. My interpretation of the Constitution, the law, and the opinions of the Supremes is based on the fundamental rights of all citizens—Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. The conservative wing of the Supremes have been wrong before. They are wrong in the Vaello Madero case.

I shall respectfully disagree regarding the role of the Supremes. My disagreement stems from perspective. The U.S. Constitution begins with “We, the People,” not “The federal government.” With the Bill of Rights, the Founders/Framers sought to protect We, the People. It is unfortunate they could not see sufficiently into the future to add amendments for the protection of privacy, choice, equality, sufferance, et al. So, the struggle continues. The oppression of a willful minority is not acceptable.

 . . . a follow-up comment:

“I am flabbergasted by your ‘perspective’ if you really mean that the Congress, when it gave citizenship without certain other rights, really meant to include something it did not, and most importantly, your ‘perspective’ gives the court legislative prerogative to expand the definition of citizenship beyond that apparently envisioned by the Congress.

“Once again, separation of powers is what liberals forget when they expect legislation from the courts.

“I am disappointed and must state that you, my respected friend, are, in my opinion as an attorney and former state court trial judge, flat wrong in this instance. Of course, again, I did not do the reading you did and rely only on your account of the decision.”

 . . . and my follow-up reply:

Thank you for your rebuttal.

I am sorry to have flummoxed you on this matter. That was not my intent. I failed to offer an exhaustive examination of the Vaello Madero decision. My bad!

I have read your words several times, and I am left with the impression that your words are quite typically conservative. What is different here apparently is once again what is in the definition. To me, freedom is freedom, just like citizenship is citizenship. If citizenship and freedom can be parsed at the whim of Congress, what is to stop Congress from returning to the bad ol’ days of Jim Crow and discriminating against citizens on any one or combination of the social factors. As I have acknowledged and Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, Congress has the authority to discriminate in just that way, but Congress should have done so before the Jones-Shafroth Act and especially before the Nationality Act of 1940. They did not, and now Vaello Madero is paying a heavy price with very little means to do so.

I am a firm believer in separation of powers. The Judiciary is near the last step in checking the Legislative branch. I do not and never have advocated for Judicial activism, to legislate from the bench. Where you and I apparently disagree is the degree and scope of Legislative power over Judicial pronouncement.

You may not have read the details of Vaello Madero case, and I did not delve into those details. Vaello Madero collected SSI benefits while he lived in New York. The case grew from the USG’s legal effort to recover US$28K that he continued to collect once he returned to Puerto Rico. He was a qualified individual in New York. Part of the argument against him claimed Puerto Rico did not pay some federal taxes, therefore they could discriminate against citizens residing in Puerto Rico. With the matter of SSI benefits, the purpose does not hinge upon or depend upon where a person lives. Either they are qualified, or they are not. I do not qualify for the SSI benefit, and I dare say neither do you.  But, Vaello Madero did qualify in New York and in Puerto Rico.

To me, the Vaello Madero decision portends a far darker tomorrow in the United States of America. But hey, that’s just me.

 

A different contribution:

“Good morning.. just know that no one is telling you that you are not allowed to use a mask nor telling you that you can’t be vaccinated.. do what you feel best but I do believe it has been proven that cloth masks are useless and used by the Government as a form of citizen control.

“On to the bully you always refer to .. I am attaching a letter from a Democrat .. not sure why you and Twitter users are so worried about Trump (or anyone similar to him with America First ideals) regaining his rightful position. Very baffling considering the state of the Union since Trump left. [redaction mine]

“If you are worried that gays and transgenders will lose status you shouldn’t be .. no one is going to bother them.

“The letter from a Democrat will follow in a separate email.”

My response:

I do believe you are missing the point. The issue has never been about masks or even vaccines. Those are matters of free choice. The issue has always been about the transmission of the virus to other people, which is NOT a right of anyone. I am an absolute believer, supporter, and advocate for freedom of choice. I have written books about that fundamental right. However, our freedom of choice does NOT include the right to injure anyone else in public or in private, or damage property, or even endanger anyone else, e.g., our traffic laws. Cloth masks have always been the choice of last resort. The prime mask has always been the N95 mask, even back in January 2020. The problem back then was, the USG had no stockpile of N95 masks and could not supply frontline medical personnel set aside the population, so they could hardly recommend N95 masks to the public (only making the supply deficiency far worse). The USG now has ample supply. Facial masks were never an attempt to control citizens, only give them the best protection possible in the midst of a global viral pandemic. I am truly sorry that you (and others) believe that facial masks could or would control anyone. I understand your dislike for and disapproval of facial masks; again, you are not alone. I do not like them either, but I see and accept the necessity in such times. If you choose not to wear a mask, how do you propose to protect other people around you in public and private?

I read the letter. As I responded, who wrote the letter? How do you know it was a Democrat? What is the point of the letter?

I am worried about the rights of everyone including you and even [the person who shall no longer be named]. The difference between the two of you is he was POTUS, the duly and properly elected president, and I am compelled to add properly defeated by the exact same electoral process that he benefited from four years prior. I understand his affliction prevents him from accepting defeat, but that is exactly what happened in 2020. He had a far higher responsibility. I have always seen him as exactly what he is, as I have written. I acknowledge and respect that you do not see him as I do. That is the magic of freedom and democracy. You are entitled to see him as you wish. So be it. You may well support what DeSantis and the fBICP is doing in Florida, but I do not. What they are doing is the antithesis of freedom. I shall continue to condemn such ignorance over knowledge thinking and action.

 . . . a follow-up comment:

“Cap .. masks are just like vaccines.. if you feel they work you use them .. if you feel you are safe wearing one then why do you care if someone chooses not to wear one ? I keep my distance from others in public and I’m getting back on my immune strengthening regimen.. by all means if you feel safe being vaccinated and wearing a mask then do it ! But don’t disparage those who believe differently.. I’m not a guinea pig and the vaccine is not tested or proven long enough thank you.  

“No way did Biden win 2020 .. have you ever seen a Trump rally ?  Think hard whether you want to or not !!” [redaction mine]

 . . . my follow-up response:

I recognize that my freedom of choice is just like your freedom of choice. I trust you and appreciate your extra effort. Unfortunately, too many citizens do not feel that societal/community responsibility.

I see citizenship quite differently than many Americans, apparently. I believe it is our responsibility to vote, our obligation to vote, and I think it is our responsibility to assist law enforcement in their duty to protect us. Likewise, that responsibility extends to all things that threaten the community. As I have written many times also, our pandemic response has NEVER EVER been about vaccines or masks or nano-bots or government mind control. It has always been about saturating our health care system. I believe freedom of choice gives each of us the right to die with dignity; that freedom does not give us the right to take others with us. The consequences of over-loading our health care system will likely never be known, but I strongly suspect that there were other people who were not infected with the COVID-19 virus that suffered lasting injury or death because they could not get the medical treatment they needed. Nobody, not the government, not your neighbor, forced you to get a vaccine or even to wear a mask; those were and still are your choices entirely. However, your choices do NOT give you free access to the public domain without respecting the rights and freedoms of other citizens. You chose isolation and distance to do your part. There were / are too many other citizens who did nothing; they believed it was their right to do whatever the hell they wanted. Such conduct is NOT community conduct. Lastly, I will continue to disparage those who threaten our community whether it is an armed foreign force or wanton disregard for a highly infectious and lethal virus.

I understand your desire to parrot [the person who shall no longer be named]; I truly do; you are not alone; millions believe. You are entitled to believe what you wish to believe for whatever reason(s) you believe. But, such beliefs do NOT alter the facts. All of the physical evidence (the facts) indicated he lost by exactly the same electoral system that elected him in 2016. He lost the popular vote by a substantial margin in both elections. There has been attempted fraudulent voting in every election of which I have any knowledge; and, I suspect the same is true in every election since the founding (1787); but, none of that fraud was sufficient to affect the outcome. [Just a little side FYI here: all of the known voting fraud attempts across multiple states have been Republican; not Democrat] Those are the facts. His ranting and raving will not alter those facts. More than 60+ court cases across the country failed before the certification. They failed because not one of his lawyers could offer a single scintilla of factual evidence to substantiate his claims to the threshold of probable cause, far short of beyond a reasonable doubt. The simple, plain fact is—he LOST. I am sorry it hurts. I know the feeling.

As far as any political rally, I have not and never will attend regardless of who is the featured speaker. I do not like crowds. I have seen too many of his political rallies to find, feel, or sense anything attractive or even curious.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)