Update no.1145

 Update from the Sunland

No.1145

18.12.23 – 24.12.23

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- Erstwhile America’s Mayor turned penultimate villain Rudy Giuliani [982, 991, et al] filed for bankruptcy after the US$148M defamation judgment against him.

-- [The person who shall no longer be named] gained a big win on Friday. SCOTUS rejected the Special Counsel’s petition for an expedited ruling on presidential immunity in the federal interference case [1125] giving Tiny the very delay he sought. His strategy . . . delay, delay, delay. He is gambling that he will win the presidency again, and using the authority of the presidency, he would likely dismiss all the federal charges against him and probably pardon himself.

 

United States Steel (USS) has apparently agreed to be purchased by Nippon Steel for US$14.1B. I imagine they had good reason to sell the company, but I have mixed feelings about the move. Selling an essential manufacturing company to a foreign country, even a close ally, does not appear to be in the best interests of the United States. This sale still must be approved by the regulators, so it is not a done deal yet. Like our precious freedoms, capitalism can be used against us to ill-effect. Such is the nature of the beast.

 

Finally, one of the states has done what must be done by the U.S. Constitution. On Tuesday, the Colorado State Supreme Court issued its en banc ruling in the case of Anderson v Griswold [2023 CO 63; Case No. 23SA300]. The decision was a direct appeal of a district court ruling {DC CO Denver Case 2023CV32577]}. The Colorado Supreme Court decided 4-3 that [the person who shall no longer be named] is disqualified from running for and holding any office in government up to and including president of the United States. The ruling has poked the hornet’s nest to say the least.

The majority decided, “we conclude that because President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list President Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.” A key element of the majority’s hung upon their assessment that §3 of the 14^th Amendment is “self-executing,” meaning congressional implementing legislation is not required in the context of this application--qualification . Congress did decide to criminalize §3 with the passage the Crimes and Criminal Procedure [PL 80-772, 62 Stat. 683; Title 18 U.S.C.; (25.6.1948)] as set forth in 18 U.S.C. §2383. The majority stated, §3 “cannot be read to mean that only those charged and convicted of violating that law [18 U.S.C. §2383] are constitutionally disqualified from holding future office without assuming a great deal of meaning not present in the text of the law.” The dissent treats §3 as a crime and thus subject to due process of law, i.e., Tiny must be charged and convicted in a court of law of violating 18 U.S.C. §2383. For clarity and reference, the law in question is:

U.S. Constitution, 14^th Amendment, §3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Further, the law passed by Congress criminalizing §3 reads:

18 U.S. Code §2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Lawyers representing [the person who shall no longer be named] argued, among other things, that the president is not specifically listed in §3 as senators, representatives, and electors are, and thus the section does not apply to the president. None of the justices bought that argument. The dissent also rejected the majority’s rationale that §3 was self-executing.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has so far chosen not to charge Tiny under 18 U.S.C. 2383. Imposing §3 would be easier and simpler if Tiny had been convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383, but I agree with the majority in this case that is not required by the explicit words of §3. This case is sure to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but I doubt it will be decided in time to meet the Colorado secretary of state’s deadline of 5.January.2024, for inclusion on the primary ballot. SCOTUS could order extension of the stay and maintenance of the status quo ante, which would complicate primary vote counting.

For what it is worth, I agree with the majority in Anderson, §3 of the 14^th Amendment is not a crime. There is no punishment. It is only a qualification (or rather a disqualification) like the other elements Article II, §1, cl. 5, just another qualification. Due Process is associated with criminal law and prosecution does not apply. Further, no one has a right to run for president. It is a privilege with qualifications. Either you meet the qualifications to run, or you do not. The 14^thAmendment simply added another qualification. The majority affirmed the secretary of state’s authority to validate the qualifications to appear on an election ballot including the §3 disqualification.

As appears the case in Colorado, the political parties (here the Republican Party) want the secretaries of state to carry the burden of conducting an election and the state to foot the cost of conducting an election, but they want to hide behind the First Amendment that is their sole right to determine eligibility. Rightfully, so the Colorado Supreme Court rejected the Republican freedom of speech argument in determining eligibility for office.

Let us never forget, no one did any of this to [the person who shall no longer be named]. There is no conspiracy against him. He chose to do what he did all by himself, and in fact defied dozens of expert advisors to break the law to feed his ego. This is what happens when you break the law.

 

Former Attorney General Bill Barr interviewed with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Wednesday, 20.December.2023. During that interview Barr said, “I strongly oppose Donald Trump for the Republican nomination, but I think that this case [Anderson v Griswold] is legally wrong and untenable. And I think this kind of action of stretching the law, taking these hyper-aggressive positions to try to knock Trump out of the race are counterproductive. They backfire. He feeds on grievance just like a fire feeds on oxygen. And this is going to end up as a grievance that helps him.”

I agree with Barr’s observation that [the person who shall no longer be named] sustains his ‘brand’ on grievance. He has woven ‘his perceived persecution’ into his grift. That process has worked for him. Millions of citizens give him millions of dollars and almost rabid loyalty. Yet, I strongly disagree and condemn the implication of his words that Tiny should not be prosecuted because he benefits from the perceived persecution. He is not being prosecuted to ‘knock him out of the political race.’ He is being prosecuted and disqualified because he incited an insurrection to alter the constitutionally mandated presidential election process. At the root, I disagree with Barr’s coloring of the Anderson case as ‘wrong and untenable’ as noted above. Yes, the case is helping Tiny in his continuing grift of the American people but that must never be a rationale for avoiding prosecution. Tiny wants us to be afraid, to hesitate; we cannot!

 

Like my epiphany reported in Update no.1143, I have had another epiphany. It came in the form of a nightmare Wednesday night. The malignant narcissism and egocentricity of [the person who shall no longer be named] may have a far more sinister objective. He wants to go down in history for eternity as the man (singular) who ended representative democracy, tore up the two and a half century old Constitution of the United States, and joined the other dictators in our history books. Whether he achieves the infamy of his de facto model Adolf Hitler is yet to be determined. He claims to know nothing about Hitler, and he probably does not. Yet, I see history repeating itself.  As a self-professed conservative, he has taken us back to 1932. Just as there was in 1932 Germany, we have 74 million Americans (46.8%) who are enabling [the person who shall no longer be named] to achieve the historical prominence the man’s narcissism seeks—his name in gold shining lights. It only took 36.1% of German voters to end their democracy for 20 hard, murderous years. They eventually recovered. Will we?

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1144:

“‘morning mate. Just had a quick scan, could you kindly tell me just what Mr Biden is accused of? Why don’t politicians proceed in the tasks we expect them to accomplish, not ripping their equals into small pieces.”

My reply:

I wish I could answer your query definitively. The best we have is typical right-wing conspiracist accusations. The resolution (H.Res.918) passed by the House gives us none of the probable cause evidence common to an indictment. The resolution is only a procedural assignment to three House committees to go fishing. If you would like to read H.Res.918, here is the URL:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/918/text

The accusations are rather cynical and hypocritical extensions of the life troubles of the president’s son, Hunter. They extrapolate that Hunter was so bad that he must have been sustained and exploited by his father. To me, this is yet another example of the fBICP and MAGAts projecting onto their opponents the very things they are doing or would do if given an opportunity, i.e., the president must be skimming off his share because that is what they would do.

Hunter’s life has to be very painful to the president. Joe Biden’s greatest mistake, if we wish to look at him through a negative lens, is standing by his son as he was screwing up on multiple levels. There is no question Hunter has made monumental mistakes, but that does not translate to the father without hard evidence of malfeasance or some form of associated culpability beyond a father’s love for his son.

I will say in closing that the fBICP had better start presenting hard evidence beyond the accusations real soon, or this distraction will be added to the growing mountain of condemnations of the whole party and all their affiliates. This is a tragic vendetta demanded by one desperate man, and his lemming minions are following him off the cliff.

There ya go; that’s my short answer.

 . . . along with follow-up comment:

“Thanks for all that. It took some reading and understanding!

“What a waste of time for paid staff, for God’s sake get on with doing what your supporters elected you to do and stop this endless bickering. Or alternatively, get out find another job.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

Quite so. I wish our politicians would listen and heed. Alas, I doubt they will do so. We have so many other, more important issues to be dealing with today, not least of which is funding the federal government, already three months past due.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“The Biden impeachment has nothing to do with law.

“The circus with the college presidents over alleged calls for genocide doesn’t matter. Opposition to the Zionist (not broadly Jewish) government of Israel is seen as a threat by the military and commercial interests who rent a majority of the House of Representatives. Hence, the performative support for the killers of the Palestinians.

“Giving specific powerful nations veto power in the UN Security Council is itself a threat to world security. Did someone think those nations would be benevolent?

“Of Tiny’s minions, Giuliani has been appropriately judged, but Alex Jones of InfoWars notoriety has a bigger judgment at $1.4 billion. Jones is trying to negotiate his amount down to $55 million, but I wouldn’t bet on that.

“Whatever we call societal control of Internet activity, my point is that millions or billions of sources worldwide will be very difficult to keep in any kind of order. That’s orders of magnitude higher numbers than point source air or water pollution, for example, and the numbers of specific issues are very high as well.”

My response to the Blog:

Oh my, ya got that right! H.Res.918 is one man’s vendetta.

I do not think your assessment of the Palestinian-Israeli situation is quite that simple. One causal factor very close to the root cause is the ultra-right-wing religious zealots that dominate the Netanyahu administration. They refuse to even discuss or consider a two-state solution; that fact alone is a recipe for constant war.

The answer to your perhaps rhetorical question is yes, that is exactly what the founders of the United Nations thought. Such thinking may have been naïve or too narrow in view, but it is what it is. One thing for certain, if anyone invades another country to annex territory or dominate the victim, it is the antithesis of UN objectives and purposes.

Yes, you are quite correct. The baseless conspiracy rhetoric of Alex Jones is far more durable and pervasive. At the bottom line, they both spewed false accusations that injured others, i.e., they crossed the line of freedom of speech and should be muzzled.

OK. I would agree with you on that level. I never said it would be easy or devoid of mistakes. Yet, at the end the day, we cannot just throw our hands up and say oh well.

 . . . Round two:

“Those ‘ultra-right-wing religious zealots’ are exactly the Zionists so many of us focus on who the United States Government supports in defiance of the UN.

“I support removing veto power on the UN Security Council. Also, statements of ideals not supported by action mean nothing.

“I look forward to hearing your ideas for controlling the anarchy of the Internet. I haven’t found any I see as workable thus far.

“Robert Reich’s blog https://robertreich.substack.com/ this morning focuses on his experience of 1968. Many of the comments come from people close to my age and experience, and it’s a fascinating dialog.”

 . . . my response to round two:

Quite right and exactly so. The far-right in Israel are the ones who have destroyed all previous attempts at a two-state solution and a lasting peace. Like we must marginalize our far right, so too the Israeli people must marginalize their far right, religious or not. The far-right religious zealots in Israel have pushed the country very close to a theocracy like operates in the Islamic Republic of Iran. If we needed a living example of the wisdom of the separation of church and state, Israel would be an excellent such example.

When more than a few “nations” are led and controlled by dictators or autocrats, we cannot revert to simple majority rule. Further, the UN has very few checks and balances. I am reticent to abandon the Big Five veto authority. If we expel Russia, we may have no choice.

One more time, regulating the Internet, by its very definition and construction, is impossible. My advocacy is to apply guidelines or safeguards to sources (websites, applications, and such)

I do not see 1968 in the same light as Reich. The actual article is:

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/1968

I suppose I am disqualified from commenting since I was in the middle of my four years of undergraduate education at the U.S. Naval Academy, a different bias from Dartmouth. He offers an interesting perspective, nonetheless.

 . . . Round three:

“The Internet is essentially a web--nodes connected by energy, in this case. I reiterate my point that there are too many nodes and they’re too easy to create to effectively control them.

“I doubt you’re ‘disqualified’ from commenting on Reich’s blog, but you’d get many responses from others who comment there. The point of the military is to defend the Establishment; many of us would rather change the Establishment.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Agreed. The Internet cannot be controlled.

Disqualified by my bias. I do not see the events of 1968 in the same light as Robert Reich. Those are very broad words and terms. The government is also the Establishment. What do you want to change the Establishment to?

The forecast says we have a major dose of rain coming tomorrow. We shall see. Still moderate temps.

My days and thoughts have been darker of late; I am writing in this week’s Update.

 . . . Round four:

“The grammarian in me says your viewpoint wouldn’t ‘disqualify’ you but might make you unpopular in that particular context.

“The government is the operative heart of the Establishment. I’d change it to something less corrupt, less a servant to wealth, and less subject to manipulation via the Electoral College and other means.

“Our weather outlook here is winter ‘light’; the current climate gives us easier winters.

“I’m sad that your thoughts are darker. Despite the attitudes that come out in this blog, I’ve learned to ‘argue’ with my depression, and it’s one of my more successful enterprises.”

 . . . my response to round four:

All in the perspective . . . I only acknowledge the potential.

Nice ideals & objectives . . . much more difficult to translate into practical reality.

High stratocirrus moving in, the leading edge of a big storm drenching California. The wet should be here later today and out your way in the couple of days.

Yeah, me too, but these are the times in which we live. I try to confront the black dog, but I am not always so successful. My success rate seems to be falling with age, but that could just be the nature of the beast.

 . . . Round five:

“It's always been difficult to make ‘nice ideals and objectives’ into reality. Even the less ‘nice’ ones (avoiding taxation) took the American Revolution to achieve.

“I wish you well with the black dog. My version of the holiday season is over, which always helps.”

 . . . my response to round five:

Agreed. No argument.

I am OK today, but the frequency of visits seems to be increasing as I age. Perhaps that observation is natural, or it could be that we have mounting stimulants.

 . . . Round six:

“I have been blessed in ways that would be difficult to explain concerning my depression. I wish that on you.

“The gray days seem to add to the depression, even though it's very warm here for December. I'll get out in it just the same; sitting idle is the worst thing for my mood and my health.”

 . . . my response to round six:

I am not sure I have a process other than wait it out; the episodes pass without professional or medicinal intervention. Thank you for your well wishes.

Yesterday was a good rainy day plus. Sunshine today and moderate temperatures. I am very rarely sitting idle. If I am not writing, I am reading in one form or another.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1144

 Update from the Sunland

No.1144

11.12.23 – 17.12.23

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

 

To all,

 

The United States House of Representatives passed H.Res.918 - Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Joseph Biden, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes. The vote was along strict party lines—House: 221-212-0-1(1). The threshold used to be probable cause. The fBICP has offered no probable cause. They pushed the House to pass H.Res.918 to satisfy [the person who shall no longer be named]. This is an impeachment inquiry to find out what the MAGA bunch and their fBICP enablers need to know to impeach President Biden. This is pure and simple retribution for the two impeachments of the [the person who shall no longer be named]. He demanded his little minions in the House do this to Biden because it was done twice to him. The only difference I can see is Tiny committed actual crimes; Biden has not.

This is equivalent of prosecutors digging through our lives to see what they can find in order to prosecute each of us, otherwise called a fishing expedition. Not only has the fBICP not shown any proof of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” they have failed to even give us a modicum of probable cause. At present, this looks like a fishing expedition for retribution at the behest of [the person who shall no longer be named]. From what I have seen, the MAGA bunch & fBICP are accusing the father for what the son has done. The son screwed up, got millions of dollars for his familial name, therefore the father must have been part of the crimes. To the MAGAt bunch, this is blood in the water. To the rest of us, this is as it appears, a distraction to help Tiny’s presidential campaign, the very thing he likes to accuse his opponents of doing.

 

The House also passed H.Res.927 - Condemning antisemitism on University campuses and the testimony of University Presidents in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The vote was: 303-126-3-2(1). This was primarily a fBICP initiative, although one Republican voted no, but 84 Democrats voted yes, for reasons I do not know. The language of the resolution is critical to the debate. The meat & potatoes of H.Res.927 reads:

Whereas to hold universities accountable, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on December 5, 2023;

Whereas, when the Presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology were asked if calling for the genocide of Jews violates university policies on bullying and harassment, Presidents Elizabeth Magill, Claudine Gay, and Sally Kornbluth were evasive and dismissive, failing to simply condemn such action;

Whereas President Magill stated, “It is a context-dependent decision”;

Whereas President Gay insisted that it “depends on the context”;

Whereas President Kornbluth responded it would only constitute harassment if it were “targeted at individuals”;

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) strongly condemns the rise of antisemitism on university campuses around the country; and

(2) strongly condemns the testimony of University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill, Harvard University President Claudine Gay, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth and their failure to clearly state that calls for the genocide of Jews constitute harassment and violate their institutions’ codes of conduct in front of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on December 5, 2023.

The salient element of H.Res.927 is paragraph (2). President Magill resigned under pressure for her remarks before the committee, especially as noted in the resolution. The university presidents did not condemn outright the antisemitic conduct on their campuses and elsewhere.

From my perspective, if the House had left the resolution at part (1), they would have been OK, but they did not; they went after university presidents who are struggling to find a balance between freedom of speech and assembly with the security of students including those who practice the Jewish faith. To me, paragraph (2) is just wrong. As I have written previously, freedom of speech, like all our freedoms and rights, have limits—boundaries. The committee condemned the remarks of the university presidents based on a hypothetical of inflammatory words that have no context. The conduct of the committee was intended as entrapment; they succeeded. Fortunately, 600+ professors at Harvard stood up for their president. This nonsense has got to stop. If the House wants to condemn something, they should denounce actual conduct, not generalized hypotheticals.

 

On 14.December.1939, the League of Nations expelled the Soviet Union for their unprovoked invasion of Finland. Here, history should repeat itself. Russia should be expelled permanently from the United Nations Security Council and probably from the United Nations General Assembly for their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. There is no rationale or justification—ZERO—for Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s Russia is the antithesis of the principles of the United Nations. They do not deserve to belong to the international organization created to maintain peace among the nations of the world. If at some time in the future, the Russians shed themselves of the right-wing grip on the country’s governance, return all of the illegally occupied Ukrainian territory including Crimea, and commit to live peacefully with its neighbors, then perhaps they can be readmitted to the General Assembly but never again as a permanent member of the Security Council.

 

Rudolph William Louis ‘Rudy’ Giuliani has been ordered by a jury to pay US$148M in punitive damages for his defaming of two Georgia election workers, a mother and daughter. From my perspective, he is getting off easy for what he did. True to form, like sein Anführer, he double down on his blatantly false accusations. When a reporter challenged him, he answered, “It’s the truth. Stay tuned.” The election deniers in all their forms and all levels have persistently stuck to the ‘stay tuned’ mantra for three plus years without offering a shred of evidence. They give us torrent of accusations but not one scintilla of evidence. We cannot stay tuned to nothing.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1143:

Comment to the Blog:

“Thanks for recognizing Justice O’Connor’s contributions.

“One benefit of having survived dangers is learning to recognize them. I and others knew who Tiny was on first sight. For numerous reasons, no dictator gives up power after one day.

“I support freedom of speech with the limitations that have long been in place concerning libel/slander, insurrection, and causing panic. My puzzle is how to enforce those limits when, in less than a lifetime, the number of public voices has increased by several orders of magnitude. We cannot separate fact from opinion or fiction, and we are unable to suppress even the clearly insane and the seditious, to say nothing of the libels and threats promulgated against nearly everyone in public life.”

My response to the Blog:

You are most welcome, my friend. I have always been a fan of Justice O’Connor. I enjoyed her writing and appreciated her constitutional reasoning.

Quite so! We have lived our share of years, and we are not done yet. Like you, I have seen the personality traits repeatedly and consistently displayed by [the person who shall no longer be named] too many times in my life. I did not need, nor did I seek yet another demonstration of the consequences of those traits. The effects are all too common, although in case of Tiny, the consequences of those effects are far more corrosive, divisive, and destructive to society, culture, and our community. His personality traits should have disqualified him from any public office, and especially from the presidency with its incumbent instruments of State. Unfortunately, we have a very desperate minority all too willing to abandon democracy, the Constitution, and embrace a dictator. These are the times in which we live; we must deal with it.

FYI: I am not aware of any dictator in history peacefully and willfully giving up power they have attained. We are flirting with that abysmal history.

The thin, misty line between freedom and security has been and always will be a difficult boundary to enforce and defend. One person’s freedom is another person’s offense or injury. To me, incitement of others to commit crimes is crossing that line. Threatening a judge is such an incitement regardless of the intent of the instigator’s objectives. I think taking the megaphone away from Tiny, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, et al, was appropriate and justified. Access to social media is a privilege, not a constitutional right. That bunch can stand on their soapbox at Debater’s Corner like all the rest of us; they have no right to the platforms they have been allowed to use. Of course, the judicial system is always a method by which to seek restitution for libel and other such crimes of speech.

 . . . Round two:

“Mass communication in the past was limited by the owners of the media--publishers and broadcast companies via laws they assented to. Those laws covered libel and other harmful ‘speech.’ With the advent of the Internet, those limits have all but vanished. Calling access to the Internet a ‘privilege’ is not relevant because it’s a requirement for ordinary life today. Given the sheer volume of people using the Internet, I can’t imagine how to put the limits back in place without restricting freedom to the point of losing ‘business functions.’”

 . . . my response to round two:

In general, I agree with you.

I will add that the Internet has no owner, no operator, no controller. The Internet is like air; we all use it, but no one supervises it. I thought about including electricity in that generality, but there are regulators. Applications and websites are owned and operated by human beings. I decided long ago to open my blog as a public debate site, a Debater’s Corner per se. As the owner, controller, and regulator of that Blog, I have edited or rejected hateful speech. On websites the size of Facebook, X, Instagram, and such, they need algorithms to scan the massive volume of communications. We must find a way. Freedom is too bloody important to abandon it to chaos.

 . . . Round three:

“Attempting to regulate the Internet without unreasonable restrictions on freedom will be a major quandary. Algorithms can be beaten; it happens regularly. They also mistakenly limit ‘acceptable’ speech often. ‘Artificial intelligence’ is artificial indeed but not intelligent in the human sense. As always, we shall see.”

 . . . my response to round three:

My earlier point was air is air; we cannot regulate air. The Internet is the Internet, like air, there is no way to regulate the Internet without destroying the Internet.

I am somewhat confused with the second half of your contribution. it sounds like you are advocating for no controls, no regulations, no boundaries, anything goes . . . you are on your own, People.

I am all for freedom of speech, including speech I do not agree with. What I am not in favor of is anyone, including Tiny, using that precious freedom to swindle or grift innocent people.

 . . . Round four:

“I'm not advocating for an uncontrolled Internet. I just don't see the means of controlling it effectively.”

 . . . my response to round four:

The Internet is not the point of control since it is like air. The apps & websites are the point of control; they are the polluters so to speak. Also, control is a misnomer per se. Government should set standards. Today, there are none. Whatever regulation exists is self-imposed, and then we criticize those sites for “censorship.” We need standards of conduct for applications like we have for the public domain. We simply cannot stand back and do nothing.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1143

 Update from the Sunland

No.1143

4.12.23 – 10.12.23

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

 

To all,

          My congratulations to the Corps of Cadets. Army won 17-11, and they deserved to win. So close and yet so far. Navy finally decided to get serious late in the 4^th quarter. Close but no cigar. Army played the better game. On to next year, 

Go Navy, Beat Army!

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor passed away on Friday, 1.December.2023, at 93 years of age. She lived a good and bountiful life. Tributes have poured in for the trailblazing pioneer woman who grew up on a cattle ranch in Arizona. One of those tributes was a top of the fold, front page headline that caught my attention.

“Sandra Day O'Connor's abortion rights rulings still reverberate in Arizona, nation”

by Ronald J. Hansen

Arizona Republic

Published 5:04 a.m. MT Dec. 3, 2023 | Updated 5:04 a.m. MT Dec. 3, 2023

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2023/12/03/oconnor-and-abortion-rights-her-court-rulings-still-hotly-debated/71782397007/

The fallacy in the headline was, Justice O’Connor was so much more than that issue. Plus, the medical procedure was never the question. Contrary to notion offered in the Press, as noted above, and popular opinion, Justice O’Connor stood for the civil rights of ALL American citizens, not just a chosen few or some willfully minority. That issue was never about abortion; it was always about every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy in making very personal, private, medical decisions. Quite a number of rulings in Justice O’Connor’s portfolio dealt with every citizen’s civil rights in various forms. She defied the strict constructionist conservative justices on the court bench at the time. Thanks to the Good Lord above for the time we had Justice O’Connor with us.

 

During a broadcast interview with Univision’s Enrique Acevedo on Thursday, 9.November.2023, [the person who shall no longer be named] plainly stated, “If I happen to be president, and I see somebody who is doing well and beating me very badly, I’ll say, ‘go down and indict them.’” This statement is quite akin to his “shoot somebody” proclamation {23.1.2016 [1112]}. In the same interview, [the person who shall no longer be named] also boldly declared that he could very well embark on a revenge tour against his political enemies. He has gone far beyond Nixon’s paranoia and enemies list. The man has repeatedly referred to the insurrectionist who invaded the Capitol Building in an attempt to disrupt the constitutional election process as the “J6 hostages”—hostages! His choice of words give us a direct, solid clue as to what is in store for us should he be elected to a second term. Seven years ago, as a candidate, [the person who shall no longer be named] declared, “I am your voice.” Today, he says, “I am your retribution.” As Maya Angelou so elegantly and succinctly observe, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Too many of us failed to do so the first time, and here we are again.

In a different interview, when Sean Hannity asked, “You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?” [The person who shall no longer be named] answered, “No, no, no. Other than Day One. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.” Dictator for a day or for life is still a dictator, period, full stop.

Just a teeny-weeny historical reminder . . . in 1787, Lord Woodhouselee, born Alexander Fraser Tytler, gave a lecture on a study he had performed. In that report, he observed that democracies only last 200 years as governance transition through the cycle that became known at the Tytler Cycle, which is:

From Bondage to spiritual faith,

From spiritual faith to great courage,

From courage to liberty,

From liberty to abundance,

From abundance to complacency,

From complacency to apathy,

From apathy to dependence,

From dependence back into bondage.”

Let us never forget. Only We, the People, can break the Tytler Cycle and defend this once grand republic against those who seek to break down democracy and return us to bondage under their dicta.

[The person who shall no longer be named] is telling us boldly and loudly what he will do with a second term should he become president again, just as Hitler told the world what he would do when his dicta manifesto Mein Kampfthat was published in 1925. Very few outside of Germany seemed to have read it . . . except for one marginalized Conservative Party member of Parliament in the United Kingdom by name of Winston Churchill. A mere eight years later, Hitler was duly elected and became chancellor of Germany by their constitutional process. Just three months after becoming chancellor, Hitler was Der Führer – The Leader, i.e., dictator for life. Shortly after that, the Germans got the Gestapo, the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Schutzstaffel (SS), and the other security instruments of the Party (NSDAP)—the Party was the State. No other political parties were allowed. Oppression of dissent became a religious passion vigorously pursued by the instruments of State; dissent of any magnitude or any source was not tolerated.

I will note here and in history, Churchill tried desperately to warn His Majesty’s Government (HMG), the British people, and freedom-loving citizens of the world of the rapidly evolving danger in 1930s Germany. For his Herculean efforts, he was ostracized, condemn, sidelined, accused of being a warmonger, along with myriad other derogatory epithets. The party leaders and elite laughed at him until events in and around Germany began happening exactly as Churchill had warned and as Hitler laid out in his plan. History is repeating itself and millions of American citizens are so bloody desperate to hold onto what they perceive as their dominant position as a minority. They refuse to adapt, to evolve, to advance, and to mature. They would rather abandon democracy and embrace a dictator as long as he is their dictator . . . quite like 1933 Germany.

Like any addiction, the MAGAts are addicted to the snake-oil elixir [the person who shall no longer be named] is peddling. Also like all other forms of dependence, the addict will only change his addictive behavior when he convinces himself that he must change. Until that point arrives, there is absolutely nothing the rest of us can do to break the grip of dependency. There is always hope until there isn’t.

 

I am learning! If we take what [the person who shall no longer be named] says as he accuses the Democrats of doing, that is exactly what the fBICP, MAGAts, and their myriad legislators and sycophants are doing today. It is true for virtually everything. We can take what he and others say in their accusations against Democrats as precisely what they are doing themselves, e.g., election suppression, weaponization of the Justice Department, destroying democracy, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum. 

 

Let us also never forget, [the person who shall no longer be named] is NOT being persecuted as he likes to claim. The Justice Department and two states’ attorneys general have followed the law to four grand jury indictments totaling 91 counts. He is being prosecuted as a common citizen who broke the law in many forms. So far, he has used every legal tool available to his money to thwart the trials and charges. If he had not broken the law (many times over) he would not find himself in court as a defendant. He has only himself to blame—no one else. He deserves the maximum punishment prescribed for his crimes, and I trust justice will prevail.

 

A friend and occasional contributor to this humble forum sent along an article indicating that Elon Musk had reinstated the ‘X’ [formerly Twitter] account of rabble-rouser Alex Jones.

 . . . to which I replied:

Freedom of speech has boundaries, and Elon Musk (and others) have repeatedly crossed those boundaries.

 . . . and the contributor responded:

“You may feel free to share this in your Weekly Update. I am one for as much freedom of speech as possible, to let individuals have their opinions. 

“Who sets the boundaries, and why (agenda??), for what purpose are boundaries restricted? National security? Greater good? Group safety and security? Public health?

“I learned, as so many, during the COVID lockdowns and mandatory experimental vaccines, that the concept of Free Speech was trampled on, by an elite, powers-that-be, people in high places, FEDERAL agencies that pressured social tech-platforms, into blatant CENSORSHIP. [author’s emphasis]

“This is a slippery slope Cap. One from which we may never recover. [author’s emphasis]

“When a president, like Trump, is silenced on the social platforms, for me, whether I agree or disagree with Trump, the message for [the contrbutor] was ‘you too will be, and can be, silenced!’ [redaction mine]

“Perhaps the blowback we see now represented as support for Trump, is partly caused by the opinion many have, that the Deep State is against the average Joe Sixpack, who is not a criminal or treasonous, as the mainstream media may try to have too many believe. 

“Just because I did not agree with the mask mandates, or agree in mass firings of good people who refused the experimental VAX-JAB, did not, does not, and should not make me a criminal or marginalized so I cannot have my opinion in Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Gmail, etc., etc.. My opinions, of personal nature, posted in my private accounts, should not keep me from employment, which it is doing to millions of good Americans daily!”

 . . . along with my thoughts:

Thank you for allowing me to add this exchange to this week’s Update. This is a very important and contemporary topic.

There is a monumental difference between you & me, and [the person who shall no longer be named] & the likes of Alex Jones. To my knowledge, neither you nor I have incited anyone to violence. We debate and disagree on a wide variety of topics without causing others to damage property, or injure or threaten anyone. That is the boundary. Far too many people are threatening judges, election officials, and other public individuals because of the words of the former president, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, and many others. Threatening people is not tolerable behavior. Those threats are meant to intimidate individuals the perpetrators do not agree with or act out on accusations by prominent leaders. Allowing such conduct will corrode and breakdown societal structure. If you and I threaten other people or urge others to violence, we should have our speech restricted because we could not control ourselves in civil society. At the bottom line, I do not agree that such restriction is censorship. The speech of [the person who shall no longer be named] was restricted, not censored, because his BIG LIE was fraudulent. He, nor anyone else, is entitled to free speech that incites others to violence or illegal conduct; such speech is WRONG and not acceptable in civilized society.

I will acknowledge a conundrum question. Hitler employed thugs, brown shirts, i.e., SA, before 1933, and black shirts, i.e., SS, after 1933, to suppress anyone, including the German state, from restricting his speech. Which was worse? Are we to allow speech to the point of dictatorship that removes speech for most and unboundedly protects speech for the rulers?

I still do not agree with the reinstatement of speech that advocates for anyone to “take action.” We are trying to be a civilized society, not a cesspool.

“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1142:

“Good day young man..thanks for the update. A lot of reading there but worth the effort. I fear the worse for the subsequent national outcomes of the impending court cases against he who shall not be named.”

My reply:

Yes, indeed . . . a lot of reading, and I just scratched the surface.

Fear not, my friend. Have faith in the process of governance. Like President James Madison noted in Federalist no.51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” We are dealing with some distinctly bad men, but they will be dealt with in due process. Remember, there is always hope, until there isn’t.” Tiny is a slick character, well practiced in the art of grifting. I have confidence he shall eventually feel the weight of the law.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“Tiny fares poorly in environments focused on reason. That’s no surprise.

“I’m this ‘peace and love’ hippie. I’d like to stop people from killing people, especially noncombatants. Israel has killed far more of them than anyone in recent history.

“In the light of history, I’m less sanguine about the military than you are. Any number of examples give me doubts.

“You have a real point about medical care. I support a national right to reproductive healthcare. However, I’ll point out that in states where people have voted on referendums, even when improperly worded they usually pass. That’s making the Right sweat.

“Good riddance to Henry Kissinger. I share Robert Reich’s view of his career, and it’s not limited to the evil in Chile. Except for the opening to China, every move he made caused mass casualties.”

My response to the Blog:

To your first sentence, I must add that I used to be concerned, perplexed, and disturbed by ignorance. Far too many citizens did not know the most basic facts about our history, our form of governance, and the instruments of state. Such ignorance made them susceptible to demagogues, charlatans, and grifters like Tiny. Today, in the era of Tiny, we are not dealing with just ignorant citizens, some in portion certainly, but many are well educated people who have made a conscious decision to embrace a grifter snake-oil salesman who has led them to abandon history, the U.S. Constitution, and reason itself. I suppose that degree of illogical abandon is a metric of how fearful they are of the evolving majority. That bunch are embracing ignorance to further their conservatism.

I am all for peace and love, but I cannot embrace the hippie. Like you, I would prefer a world in Rodney King’s image, “C-c-c-can’t we all just get along!” Unfortunately, there are bad men set upon criminal conduct in any one of myriad forms from Tiny’s grifting to outright mass murder. All too often, violence is required to deal with bad men. We must not hesitate when necessary. There is plenty to criticize Israel for with the various forms of their heavy-handed-ness induced by the hard right in their midst. The moderates have come close to genuine peace so many times, only to have it unraveled by the hard right. We see a similar phenomenon at work in this once grand republic.

To be clear, my comment was generalized; there are bad men within the military as well . . . and yes, any number of examples.

Quite so. Yet, I fear the popular referendum process having the potential to go too far left or right. I think the U.S. Supreme Court got it precisely correct in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319]. Freedom of choice, our fundamental right to privacy, and other rights, like speech and assembly, are not unbounded. The Supremes of the day saw that boundary in the abortion question as quickening, i.e., when the fetus was survivable outside the womb. That boundary has existed since 1973, until Dobbs v. Jackson [597 U. S. ____ (2022)] [1068].

OK. That’s the beauty of freedom. We can respectfully disagree.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“There’s that ‘bad men’ statement, again used to excuse society from any and all responsibility.”

 . . . along with my follow-up response:

Yep, the term keeps coming up and into our public dialogue and debate. Yes, as a society, we will get what we deserve, and We, the People, bear responsibility for what is to come. Many people have said, “We are in great danger.” “Democracy is in great danger” in this once grand republic. Bad men, like all criminals, do things to suit their whims whether the motivation is money, notoriety, and aggrandizement. That grifter cannot get to the White House unless he gains 270 electoral votes, full stop!

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1142

Update from the Sunland

No.1142

27.11.23 – 3.12.23

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- A four-judge panel of the First Judicial Department, Appellate Division, Supreme Court of the State of New York, reinstated the gag order issued by Judge Engoron against [the person who shall no longer be named] in the New York civil business fraud case— New York v. Trump, et al [NYSCEF Index No. 452564/2022] [1080]. The appellate judges’ ruling was Case No. 2023-05859; Motion No. 2023-05088, dated: 30.November.2023. Just after the ruling was issued, Judge Engoron publicly stated, “I intend to enforce the gag orders rigorously and vigorously.” The October gag orders cover the judge’s and the court’s staff—not his family. And, surprise, surprise, what does the “Orange Jesus” do? He attacks the judge’s wife with made-up stuff either he created or he found on the World Wide Web, but false nonetheless. Apparently, the judge has scheduled closing arguments and final motions for early January, and indicated he would issue his decision two weeks after that. Whether he will expand the gag orders during the hiatus or enforce the existing gag orders is yet to be seen. Tiny has already been fined twice for a total of US$15,000 (a spit in the ocean for him) so far. 

-- The presiding judge in the federal election interference case—United States v. Trump [USDC DC Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC (2023)] [1125]—Judge Tanya S. Chutkan dismissed a multi-part motion of dismissal filed by [the person who shall no longer be named]. Judge Chutkan dissected and disproved every element of the former president’s claims in a 48-page ruling. Judge Chutkan noted, “Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”  She went on, Tiny “is the only former President in United States history to face criminal charges for acts committed while in office.” (emphasis mine ) “Against the weight of that history, Defendant argues in essence that because no other former Presidents have been criminally prosecuted, it would be unconstitutional to start now. But while a former President’s prosecution is unprecedented, so too are the allegations that a President committed the crimes with which Defendant is charged.” Most importantly, “Defendant’s four-year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. ‘No man in this country,’ not even the former President, ‘is so high that he is above the law.’” Judge Chutkan rejected all of Tiny’s argument; the trial will proceed and is scheduled to begin in January. 

The U.S. Constitution and election law provide for a month after an election for any candidate to contest the results administratively and in court. POTUS45 availed himself fully of those provisions. He lost 61 of 61 court cases and exhausted his legal options. From that point, [the person who shall no longer be named] knowingly entered into illegal, criminal conduct and began interfering with the defined constitutional process that culminated with the forceful insurrection on the 6^th of January, for which he is now criminally charged. He must be held accountable and suffer the consequences of his actions. The bill is due!

 

There has been considerable criticism of Israel’s response to the 7^th October incursion by Hamas from the Gaza Strip, mostly that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) has not conducted a proportional response. One question: what is proportional to murder, butchery, rape, kidnapping, hostage-taking, and indiscriminate area rocket attacks on innocent people?

 

A friend and contributor to this humble forum sent a message:

“Thought something like this may get your mind ticking over again!” with this link:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tanks-rolling-down-main-street-experts-alarmed-at-trump-s-plans-for-military/ar-AA1kAYtr?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=95b53e9cca4c45d7c0b45c42a8d8da93&ei=53&rc=1, which was the URL for this article:

“‘Tanks rolling down Main Street’': Experts alarmed at Trump's plans for military”

Story by Brad Reed

Microsoft Start

Published: 27.11.2023

 . . . to which I replied:

It is difficult to judge the veracity of that article. However, such an action by [the person who shall no longer be named] is certainly plausible given his past and current public statements, his past conduct, and his blatantly obvious personality flaws. Regardless of his inclinations should he be re-elected, I have more faith in the military establishment. Every officer and especially every flag officer knows the law and the U.S. Constitution. There are always a few exceptions that slip through the filtration process of long service, e.g. Michael Flynn, but most are well grounded in proficiency with constitutional law with respect to the military’s place in American culture. [The person who shall no longer be named] may well attempt invocation of the Insurrection Act [PL 9-II-039; 2 Stat. 443 (3.3.1807)] to override the Posse Comitatus Act {§15 of PL 45-II-263; 20 Stat. 145 (1878)], [20 Stat. 152] [199]}, but I expect he will find considerable resistance from the professional military, even if he was elected and attempted such an action. Contrary to his demented imaginings, he cannot order officers to violate the law and the Constitution.

Based on his past performance with the Justice Department, he may well try to do the same with the Defense Department, i.e., dismiss those who do not comply to his will and shop for a flag officer who will succumb and comply. While such an event would be a major challenge to our republic and representative democracy, I expect our professional military to weather the storm and stand strong in defense of the Constitution.

I hope we never face that trial, but that man’s potential re-election will bring us closer to that challenge—too close for my liking.

“That is just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

 

Are or should our civil rights be at the mercy of local or state elections? Is it acceptable for our freedoms and liberty to be at the whim of any willful local majority?

GOP candidate Chris Christie said, “We fought for 50 years to put the issue of abortion in the hands of the people.” In other words, let the states decide how they want to deal with abortion. The statement is exactly the problem when politicians improperly frame a referendum question placed before the people. We have seen the exact same phenomenon in multiple social questions—abortion, non-heterosexual relationships, even firearms control, and immigration control. I argue that U.S citizens are Americans first, and then they are residents of states. Thus, individual civil rights should not be parsed by any state.

 

Prior to 2015, I would have said it was highly unlikely that we might ever experience an abandonment of representative democracy like they experienced in 1933 Germany. I am no longer that naïve. The former GOP, fBICP, MAGAts are so desperate to hold onto their dwindling power and influence that they have apparently reconciled themselves with the abandonment of the U.S. Constitution and the implementation of an autocracy (dictatorship) where they control all levels and forms of governance (1933 Germany redux). If we allow it to happen or enable that shift in governance, we will fail in our defense of the centuries of history and the U.S. Constitution.

 

Finally, on the third try, the House of Representative expelled the liar, wannabe conman George Santos (if that is actually his real name) of New York after the House Ethics Committee issued a scathing report on their investigation of the New York representative. Of course, his supporters yammered on about due process and waiting until the felonious criminal trial is decided. The usual suspects of the Freedom Caucus voted against H.Res.878 - Providing for the expulsion of Representative George Santos from the United States House of Representatives [House: 311-114-2-8(0)]. One hundred twelve Republicans including Santos himself and two Democrats voted against the resolution. The threshold for passage was 290 (2/3), so they had a substantial margin this time. Santos left the chamber and Capitol Hill before the vote was concluded. I say good riddance . . . long, long overdue.

The fallacy of the Santos due process argument in this instance is the House of Representatives is not a court of law. Santos was not on trial. In this instance, he was not entitled to the rigors of judicial proceedings in a court of law. He was a representative of the people of the 3^rd District of New York and the House of Representatives. Further, Santos did receive the process due him as a member of that organization. The Ethics Committee clearly and emphatically documented his conduct unbecoming of a member of the House of Representatives. Santos will have his day in court, but not as a member of Congress. And, based on the evidence, I suspect he will be convicted in a court of law in due course and enjoy several years as a guest of the federal government.

 

Henry Alfred Kissinger passed away on Wednesday. He was born in Fürth, Bavaria, Germany, adjacent to Nürnberg, in 1923. He was 10 years old when Hitler became chancellor—old enough to understand what was happening around him. Henry fled Germany with this family ahead of Kristallnacht in 1938, at 14 years of age and became a naturalized citizen of the United States of America in 1943, at 20 years of age. Henry served with the U.S. Army in Europe late in World War II. He rose to national and international prominence when he was chosen by President Richard Nixon to be his national security advisor. Kissinger was very much a product of the man he served as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State—President Nixon. The president gave him the gravitas to voice his views of geopolitics and relations. He had significant accomplishments like the rapproche mal with the People’s Republic of China and the peace negotiations with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) to end U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He shared the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize with his counterpart, Le Duc Tho. For all his accomplishments, he was a very impactful man.

Former U.S. secretary of labor Robert Reich was not impressed by Kissinger’s accomplishments. He wrote an opinion piece:

“Henry Kissinger, 1923-2023. War criminal”

by Robert Reich

Published: Nov 30 [2023]

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/henry-kissinger-1923-2023#:~:text=In%20my%20humble%20opinion%2C%20Kissinger,of%20hundreds%20of%20innocent%20Chileans.

Reich focused on one very controversial event that the right sees as an accomplishment and the left (and I will add here many moderates like me) see as a distinct failure—the instigation of and support for the 11.September.1973 coup d’état in Chile. What the U.S. (and Kissinger) did in that episode was wrong in that they overthrew the will of the people. The genesis of that action goes back decades, and we can argue that examples like Venezuela and Nicaragua tend to validate Kissinger’s counsel in hindsight, but what the U.S. did in Chile joins the Bay of Pigs debacle of mindless anti-Communist actions to which Kissinger was an essential supporter and advocate. Taking that advocacy to the war criminal level is patently wrong. 

Kissinger’s service to the nation along with his boss Nixon paint a very serious and real societal question: Is communism the issue, or the implementation of communism by flawed men the problem? Kissinger and others foretold many evils should Salvador Guillermo Allende Gossens be allowed to continue. The bottom line was that choice was not Kissinger’s or Nixon’s choice to make. What they did was wrong, but war crime . . . no! So many of those similar interventions including Vietnam were wrong. And Henry Kissinger was a little too quick on the trigger for my liking. Chile was an excellent example. In his passing, I would like to have his accomplishments remembered as much as his failures.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1141:

“I wish you a happy holiday season as well. For those who follow nature’s cycles, this is the time between harvest/endings and the Solstice that brings new conception. Unlike the commercial mainstream, it’s a good time to rest ahead of the next cycle.

“The New York Times DealBook column for this morning addresses the economic and political importance of the winter shopping season. I share with my friends who take Christianity seriously a revulsion at that commercial phenomenon. The corporate world uses a very distorted version of a pagan holiday with a Christian label on it to sell us a lot of ‘gifts,’ many of which we’d rather not receive. It’s social psychology in action.”

My response to the Blog:

Excellent words of wise counsel. Thank you.

I certainly understand the significance of the holiday shopping season. We are a consumer culture. Where my understanding butts up against my tolerance is the commercialization of important holidays, especially Christmas, but every holiday is affected (or perhaps I should say ‘infected’.) Social psychology in action . . . indeed!

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)