Update no.1067

 Update from the Sunland

No.1067

20.6.22 – 26.6.22

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

 

To all,

 

Mid-summer Night . . . the summer solstice has arrived and passed. In the Northern hemisphere of this Big Blue Marble, the days will shorten and the nights will lengthen until the perennial cycle begins anew. Summer is here.

 

Happy Juneteenth to everyone . . . well, at least to American citizens. Since more than Americans subscribe to this Blog, perhaps a short history lesson would be useful.

On Monday of this week, we celebrated the first federal holiday in recognition and celebration of Juneteenth. President Biden signed into law the legislation that created the federal holiday—Juneteenth National Independence Day Act [PL 117-017; S.475; House: 415-14-0-2(4); Senate: unanimous consent); 135 Stat. 287; 17.6.2021] [1014]. {The only members voting against the bill were hardcore House fBICP members.} The date of June 19^th is significant from 19.June.1865, when Military Commander of the District of Texas, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, with Union troops to complete the occupation of the former Confederate state. He was shocked to learn that freedom had not reached Galveston and Texas. He issued General Order no.3 that declared slaves were free in Texas—now considered the date of the end of slavery in the United States of America, or the real independence day. President Lincoln had signed the Emancipation Proclamation on 22.September.1862 and made it effective 1.January.1863. The president’s order freed the slaves throughout the United States, but that information had not made its way to South Texas.

After the election of Abraham Lincoln (6.November.1860), South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union (20.December.1860), six weeks after the election and three months before Lincoln would actually become president. Other southern states joined South Carolina. Leaders of the rebel states held their constitutional convention in Montgomery, Alabama, and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA) on 4.February.1861. A brutal civil war between the USA and the CSA took the lives of nearly half a million American men. On 9.April.1865, CSA General Lee surrendered the Confederate Army at Appomattox Courthouse outside of Richmond, Virginia. Congress passed the 13^thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution that codified Lincoln’s Proclamation. Slavery was finally unconstitutional. Yet, American citizens with dark skin pigmentation did not enjoy equality, and I will argue still do not to this very day despite the myriad laws and subsequent U.S. Supreme Court rulings to that effect. Racial and ethnic discrimination exists in the hearts and minds of far too many citizens, and such hatred is passed down from parents to their children.

A few thoughts of reflection on history . . . 

Most Americans point to the Declaration of Independence as the genesis of our liberty and freedoms, and the Constitution of the United States of America as the birth of our representative democracy. Frederick Douglass offered a cogent, contrarian “The meaning of July 4th for the Negro” speech to the Rochester Ladies' Anti-Slavery Society in Rochester, New York, on 5.July.1852. His thoughts that day remain valid to this very day. The Nescientia super Scientia (Ignorance over knowledge!) Party [AKA fBICP] wants their believers, and the rest of us for that matter, to remain ignorant of history. We need to understand, appreciate, and respect the realities Frederick Douglass articulated. I am one citizen who believes in the ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence. I believe the principles of the Declaration apply to all citizens (and in fact, all human beings). Unfortunately, citizens with dark skin pigmentation have yet to realize those ideals, e.g., driving while black. For those reasons, among many others, I believe Critical Race Theory (CRT) is essential to our future. We should all take Juneteenth to remember the suffering of former slaves, their descendants, and their contributions to this republic. I choose knowledge over ignorance, and I summarily reject the efforts of the fBICPand ihr Anführer. Knowledge is power.

 

The astronomers tell us that all of the planets from Mercury to Uranus are in the early morning sky before sunrise. For me, monsoon cloud cover foiled the grand planetary alignment on the 24^th. All of the planets in our solar system appeared in the early morning sky in a magnificent line. A good graphic can be seen at:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/see-a-rare-alignment-of-all-the-planets-in-the-night-sky?rid=396224520A2BF52DE30ECAA4009BBA54&cmpid=org=ngp::mc=crm-email::src=ngp::cmp=editorial::add=SubWeekly_20220623

I could see most of them with just my eyes. Mercury was the most difficult and fleeting. The astronomers say that the diminutive planet is there, but I have yet to see it, and I am afraid the moment may have passed.

 

The follow-up news items:

-- Contrary to the former president’s wild accusations without a shred of hard evidence, the HSCJ6 [1020] has presented hard evidence of their findings. What is not present (yet) is the challenge and testing of the evidence in a court of law. The 60+ court cases brought by the former president all failed to pass the probable cause threshold, so I do not envision the former president realizing any success whatsoever in any future court proceedings.

On Tuesday, 21.June.2022, the HSCJ6 Session Four hearing was held and focused on the pressure applied to state officials in Arizona and Georgia. The most representative testimony on the day came from Arizona State House of Representatives Speaker Russell ‘Rusty’ Bowers, who testified that Giuliani told him, “We’ve got lots of theories. We just don’t have the evidence.” That statement alone may well summarize the felonious conduct of [the person who shall no longer be named] in this whole sordid affair [991]. The post-hearing commentary by Attorney George Thomas Conway, Kellyanne’s husband, best summarized the day’s hearing when he stated, “Today, to me, is the ‘Have you no decency’ moment of these hearings,” referring to the famous confrontation with Senator Joe McCarthy on 9.June.1954, during the Red Scare days. Army counsel Joseph N. Welch reached the limit of his tolerance and chided McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?  At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

On Thursday, 23.June.2022, the HSCJ6 conducted the fifth session of the public hearings. Assistant Attorney General Donahue testified under oath that [the person who shall no longer be named] said directly to him, “. . . just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen.” That statement alone by the former president is criminal and may well become his epitaph. The testimony of the Justice Department attorneys made Garland’s decision not to prosecute Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino all the more disappointing. The leaders of the U.S. Justice Department resisted against the former president’s relentless pressure and also fingered 

Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania

Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona

Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona

The three representatives desperately sought to fulfill their oath of allegiant to der Führer in those final days. [The person who shall no longer be named] attempted his own Sunday Night Massacre, like his predecessor Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre [20.October.1973], to decapitate the Justice Department. The latest rendition was far more direct and blatant. Representative Adam Daniel Kinzinger of Illinois concluded his opening remarks with a question, “Imagine a future where the president can screen applicants to the Justice Department with one question: are you loyal to me or the Constitution?”

Representative Kinzinger’s not-so-hypothetical question reminds me of the deal the professional Wehrmacht made with the devil in 1934. The leadership of the Wehrmacht had been and remained concerned about the enormous growth of the NSDAP paramilitary organization “Strumabteilung” (SA) and its abrasive leader Ernst Julius Röhm. On 10.April.1934, Hitler went to Wilhelmshaven and boarded the pocket battleship DKM Deutschland for a meeting with the military chiefs. They agreed to a quid pro quo deal that entailed swearing allegiance to der Führer in exchange for the dismantling of the SA. For more reasons beyond just the deal, Hitler chose a far more aggressive move to satisfy his part of the deal. During the night of 29/30.June.1934, Hitler led special units of his trusted Schutzstaffel (Protective Echelon) to fulfill his part of the deal with the military chief—Nacht der Langen Messer (Night of the Long Knives). To honor their portion of the deal, the military chiefs required every military person regardless of rank to take this oath:

I swear to the leader, Adolf Hitler, as the supreme commander of the German armed forces, loyalty, and bravery. I pledge the leader and those superiors appointed by him, obedience until death. I will always respect the constitution and the laws of the Croatian people. I will lay down my life for this oath.

Compare the German Wehrmacht oath (1934) to the oath I gave numerous times throughout my service to this once grand republic (1966-1995).

I, Charles Allen Parlier, II, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. 

The differences should be obvious to even the most uneducated and unknowledgeable citizen. Those two oaths of office represent exactly what we face today.

Listening to the Tuesday testimony regarding the inordinate pressure, intimidation, and outright threats against legislators and election officials especially after the 2020 election [3.November.2020], we see and hear what malignant narcissism does to a man. [The person who shall no longer be named] remained true to form—do anything and everything regardless of the law, or whatever collateral damage to innocent people is done. That is how he ran his business; and, that is exactly how he tried desperately to subvert the free and fair election, incite an insurrection, and attempt to execute a coup d’état to overthrow the duly elected federal government of the United States of America. He simply did not care a twit who he slandered, maligned, disparaged, threatened, injured, or destroyed. Collateral damage was irrelevant to his ambitions.

[NOTE: He has convinced a small army of true believers to do his wet work. He does not, and most likely never has, gotten his hands dirty. Part of his expertise as a conman is convincing others to do his heavy lifting and wet work, and give him some modicum of plausible deniability, i.e., I did not ask them to do anything criminal.]

The HSCJ6 is not done yet. We have disgusting evidence of that man’s despicable conduct to absorb ahead.

Regrettably, the very citizens who should be listening to this testimony are not doing so, because they believe to their bones and soul that their messiah can do no wrong and the HSCJ6 is simply some political vendetta exercise. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

 

President Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act [PL 117-xxx; S.2938; House: 234-193-0-3(5); Senate: 65-33-0-2(0); 135 Stat. xxx], which was the byproduct of bipartisan negotiations between Senators Murphy of Connecticut and Cornyn of Texas. This was a rather convoluted legislative action, and the final wording was not available until late this week. I need to study the exact words of the new law. Regardless, this is the first significant firearms legislation in 30 years. Neither side seems satisfied—to the right, it has gone too far; to the left, it has not gone far enough. I put the new law in the category of something is better than nothing, but I worry.

 

I am not and never have been a fan of Senator Randal Howard ‘Rand’ Paul of Kentucky. However, during the Senate floor debate on the S.2938 (above), he spoke urging caution with respect to red flag laws. For those who may be interested, this URL offers a video of his speech.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=27&v=PPrQRX4GVPA&feature=emb_imp_woyt

Paul makes some good and valid points. He uses different words than I would choose, but the meaning is the same. In our rush to fix the problem, we may have created a far worse and more intrusive problem, e.g. the Controlled Substances Act (AKA CSA) [84 Stat. 1242]—Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 [PL 91-513; HR.18583; 84 Stat. 1236; 27.10.1970]. In these topics and debates, I am constantly reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s wisdom and insightful words—"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

All that said, I think red flag laws are logical and essential to improving our abysmal firearm homicide rate. The key is checks & balances to protect against governmental abuses; any unilateral action is generally bad. We had no checks & balances in the CSA, and we realized horrendous governmental abuses. We still do to this day with no signs of resolution 52 years hence. We do not need another CSA. I need to study the words with the critical filter of Senator Paul.

 

Among the many end-of-term rulings released by the U.S. Supreme Court this week are two particularly far-reaching decisions, both of which I have not yet read through myself. I note them here to mark their issuance. I expect to read and study both in next week’s Update.

On Thursday, the Court struck down a long-standing New York State firearms concealed carry law in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen [597 U. S. ____ (2022); No. 20–843]. I will need to read the whole ruling to appreciate the reasoning and limits. From the reaction of New York political officials, the decision is probably not constructive to firearms regulation.

In the other ruling, the Supremes finally issued their leaked decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization [597 U. S. ____ (2022)]. The social conservatives finally got their way. Because of the importance of this ruling, I have been sorely tempted to drop everything and carefully study the words and reasoning. Unfortunately, my reading will have to wait until next week. Also judging from the political and press reaction to Friday’s decision, this ruling will not likely be positive toward our individual rights and freedoms.

More to follow.

 

A friend and frequent contributor to this humble forum sent along the following message and link for an important, timely, and relevant article:

“Check out this article from The New York Times. Because I'm a subscriber, you can read it through this gift link without a subscription.

“Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’?”

“A review of 433 active shooter attacks reveals that most are over before the police arrive. Bystanders sometimes stop attackers, but seldom shoot them.”

The article and URL:

“Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’?”

by Larry Buchanan and Lauren Leatherby

New York Times

Published: June 22, 2022

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxfs9gGPzNiGeVTdcwqNPW9LavB-TIvA5IMYomC-bQ9hdMbkgX7lqyeteNEEoUQSzupyCg5lAPjs8rY6-G2kr0ZzEWbd-8SPvaiPxDtZD84CFnkDMNimsU7rCiSpncE0289Y-Mg233yBewfzHRe5qjoV5iOMmApEtWTYHZnOV6PLvD04va4rWbEzf-RB2D78CIUzbm9-f77kBeAVAWxmRHD4kvzFKuJ4LM8gXPa3_MxckZMH-5L0XAWdrJ4-ibIYjE8mWz_459O6Q9mHfjZa-1P40F65Lvb3bsW3cNFsnS7uePFWZTSWIC9hqdnrVbKIALqEBM4yx&smid=em-share

{My apologies for the mass of the URL, but it is an artifact of the New York Times. Cut & Paste if you wish. I would not attempt a transcription.}

To which I replied:

Thx mate. Interesting and illuminating analysis. I am struck by the suicide portion, e.g., suicide by cop  . . . and make a statement by taking others with him, e.g., Las Vegas. What is missing is the happenstance of facing a gunman without a weapon to defend yourself.

 . . . with a follow-up comment:

“I guess I'll have to take my chances on facing a gunman, especially since I probably wouldn't spot him before he shot me.”

 . . . with my follow-up reply:

Your choice, but it seems most of us are in that state these days. I do not carry either.

Further thoughts:

The analysis addresses 433 active shooter attacks in the United States from 2000 to 2021, in which one or more shooters killed or attempted to kill multiple unrelated people in a populated place. The country experienced an average of more than one attack per week in 2021 alone. The analysis does not consider the motivation of the assailants. I suspect suicide may well have been the motivation for those beyond just the ones documented to have been driven by suicide. While the analysis in the article dealt with those who interceded in an event, I see the data in a different light. I am far more interested in what drove those perpetrators to lash out at innocent people. We need to understand why. Nonetheless, this analysis is informative and enlightening.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1066:

Comment to the Blog:

“No doubt Mike Pence has learned how disposable sycophants are. Most of the other minions noticed that example, except Giuliani. The base continues to follow King Baby.

“We shall see whether prosecutions ensue. The latest twist is the January 6 Committee refusing to release documents to the Department of Justice so that they can prosecute.”

My response to the Blog:

Indeed! And, there appears to be a ready supply of men, and to a lesser extent women, who are willing to sing his song, to compromise their integrity, and ultimately, to be cast aside like consumed garbage. They chose to cast their lot with a conman who only cares about himself and his self-aggrandizement. They reap what they sow.

Yes, I’m afraid so. We do not control the prosecution decision. Just as we had to rely upon Mike Pence to defend the Constitution 18 months ago, now, we must rely on Attorney General Garland to defend the Constitution and rule of law. I was NOT impressed with Garland’s decision to forego prosecution of Mark Meadows and Dan Savino. Yes, they both initially cooperated but that does not justify their current defiance of the HSCJ6.

I need to research that document release matter a little more. I do not understand why the DoJ is demanding testimony transcripts from the HSCJ6. The DoJ has far greater investigative resources than all of Congress. Is the DoJ investigating the HSCJ6? This dust-up does not make sense to me. Separation of powers is just as important to the Legislative Branch as it is to the Executive Branch. Curiouser and curiouser!

 . . . Round two:

“I have noted that reluctance to lead in what we hear is a partisan atmosphere. I suspect some of that is ordinary psychology, but the entire Democratic Party suffers from spinelessness, including the ‘progressives’ on the Squad.”

 . . . my response to round two:

Perhaps so, but I cannot ascribe such a generalized accusation to the entire Democratic Party. I will agree that I wish some of them were doing more, but I must be careful as it is the practice of the FBI and Justice Department to avoid public comment or disclosure during the conduct of investigations. As I have stated before, Attorney General Garland owes us an explanation as to why he did not charge and prosecute Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino. He has many more of these decisions ahead, and he must ensure we walk the journey with him and his department.

 . . . Round three:

“The entire Democratic Party is operated by the DNC, which is the problem. The only legitimate reason I can imagine for not charging Meadows and Scavino would be a deal to convict the biggest big fish in the world.”

 . . . my response to round three:

I would think charging Meadows and Scavino would tighten the vice on the paramount perpetrator. Regardless, AG Garland still owes us an explanation. The publicly available evidence from multiple sources including the HSCJ6 indicate ample reasons well beyond probable cause and in my opinion beyond a reasonable doubt. Those two were culprits, enablers, and co-conspirators. Executive privilege must not and cannot protect criminal conduct. We are way past that threshold.

 . . . Round four:

“There's also the ‘good old boy’ factor. The Democrats try to be nice to the other insiders. The Republicans are smarter than that, but the DNC ignores their behaviors. Momentum and money have helped the Democrats get used to losing.”

 . . . my response to round four:

That seems like a rather cynical perspective to me, but nonetheless, I cannot argue with your view. We have discussed and agreed that dark money in politics is a grossly corrupting practice for both major parties; and, the Supremes have only made it worse, more corrupting, and more destructive outright. Yet, to me, especially in and around the January 6^th insurrection, the fBICP has disqualified itself as a viable political party. There are many factors that lead me to condemn the former so-called Republican Party; they have ceased to exist as a viable option. Anything is better than the fBICP. The only way we can overcome this abomination is to vote them into oblivion.

 . . . Round five:

“The Founders made no provisions for qualifying or disqualifying political parties, and they make their own rules. The only hope I can see is that another party will rise, as the Republicans themselves did, to replace one of our failing parties.”

 . . . my response to round five:

Oh so true. As you have noted previously, the Green Party has come the closest to rejecting the corrupting influence of dark money (at least to my knowledge). We can and should always hope for better, more ethically responsible, political parties. But, we are not there yet.

 . . . Round six:

“I am a Green Party member and supporter. However, the Democratic Party has kept the Green Party off the ballot in many states.”

 . . . my response to round six:

Your accusation is disturbing but difficult to believe. I do not know how that is possible. Political parties do not control access to the ballot. Are you suggesting Democrat controlled legislatures or secretaries of state are collectively conspiring to exclude the Green Party? Perhaps the Green Party in certain states have not done the work to qualify. Just a thought . . .

 . . . Round seven:

“I'm not referring to legislatures here (although they do their part sometimes), but to statewide Democratic parties that primarily use lawsuits as a tool to exclude Green (and other) Party ballot access. Of course, the media find those less newsworthy than whatever the D's and R's say about each other, but the other parties suffer. If all one knows is what's broadcast, there's a lot missing.”

 . . . my response to round seven:

I still do not understand. It seems harder to believe that courts would tolerate such blatant discrimination. With all due respect for your chosen political affiliation, I still suspect the Green Party in some states has not met the qualifications. Further, if the qualifications are discriminatory or the enforcement is arbitrary, such action should be challenged, and I think would be successful. There is more to this story.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)