Update no.1099

 Update from the Sunland

No.1099

30.1.23 – 5.2.23

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

 

To all,

 

Another excellent and poignant article from former Labor Secretary Robert Bernard Reich:

“The biggest story you've never heard about today's federal debt – America's wealthy used to pay taxes to support the nation. Now, they lend it money and collect interest from the rest of us.”

by Robert Reich

Published: JAN 31 [2023]

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-biggest-story-youve-never-heard?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=365422&post_id=99638597&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

As usual, Reich offers some very good and appropriate observations and thoughts. The House fBICP (former GOP) have thrown down the gauntlet now that they have some modicum of power. They intend to use the nation’s credit rating to impose their minority will on the whole of this Republic and the majority of its citizens. They had no problem whatsoever spending Treasury dollars they did not have. They want the rest of us to pay for their spending. The essential issue is the effective tax rate as Warren Buffet has so succinctly and clearly articulated. The problem I see ahead is the debate over taxes and spending. The former GOP is using a common tactic to choke off funding for laws they passed in a de factoattempt to kill programs without repealing the enabling law. The former GOP wants to spend money on their stuff, no one else’s priorities. We simply must vote, and vote those former GOP members out of office. If anyone thought the House Speaker vote was ugly, it will pale in comparison to what lays ahead with this impending debt limit debate and vote. Oh well, this is just another trial we must endure and overcome . . . and overcome we shall.

 

On Thursday, 2.February.2023, the House of Representatives voted on and passed two resolutions that are most indicative of the new, very slim, tenuous fBICP majority. I usually avoid re-printing legislative language, but I simply cannot resist the urge for myriad reasons with respect to these two resolutions.

The first resolution was House Resolution number 76 (H.Res.76) - Removing a certain Member from a certain standing committee of the House [House: 218-211-1-4(1)]. The only one who did not vote along party lines was Representative David P. Joyce of Ohio. The resolution read in its entirety:

Removing a certain Member from a certain standing committee of the House.

Whereas clause 1 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House”;

Whereas on February 10, 2019, Representative Ilhan Omar suggested that Jewish people and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) were buying political support, saying, “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby,” leading to condemnation from Republicans and Democrats alike for her use of an anti-Semitic trope;

Whereas on February 11, 2019, Congressional Democratic Leadership issued a joint statement in response to Representative Omar, saying, “Anti-Semitism must be called out, confronted and condemned whenever it is encountered, without exception”;

Whereas on February 27, 2019, Representative Omar doubled down on her stance at a forum in Washington, DC, by saying, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country”;

Whereas then-Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs Eliot Engel condemned Representative Omar’s comments by stating “It’s unacceptable and deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens because of their political views, including support for the U.S.-Israel relationship. We all take the same oath. Worse, Representative Omar’s comments leveled that charge by invoking a vile anti-Semitic slur”;

Whereas Chairman Engel went on to say that such comments have “no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee or the House of Representatives”;

Whereas in March 2019, Representative Omar trivialized the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that killed 2,977 people by describing it as “some people did something”;

Whereas on May 16, 2021, Representative Omar referred to Israel as “an apartheid state,” and went on to say that those who refused such a characterization needed to, “get on the right side of history”;

Whereas on June 7, 2021, Representative Omar equated the United States and Israel with Hamas and the Taliban by stating “We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban”, establishing a false equivalency between Israel—which has the right and responsibility to protect itself and its citizens from all forms of terrorism—and Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization actively engaged in committing war crimes, including using civilians as human shields, which is banned under customary international humanitarian law;

Whereas twelve Democratic members decried Representative Omar’s newest round of statements, saying: “Equating the United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban is as offensive as it is misguided”;

Whereas when asked by the media whether she regretted her comments, Representative Omar responded, “I don't”;

Whereas all Members—both Republicans and Democrats alike—who seek to serve on the Committee on Foreign Affairs should be held to an equal standard of conduct due to the international sensitivities and national security concerns under the jurisdiction of this committee;

Whereas any Member reserves the right to bring a case before the Committee on Ethics as grounds for an appeal to the Speaker of the House for reconsideration of any committee removal decision;

Whereas Representative Omar, by her own words, has disqualified herself from serving on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, a panel that is viewed by nations around the world as speaking for Congress on matters of international importance and national security; and

Whereas Representative Omar’s comments have brought dishonor to the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, removed from the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:

Committee On Foreign Affairs:

Ms. Omar.

This is a juvenile revenge effort on the part of Kevin McCarthy to please the MAGA minority. Representative Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota was born in Somalia. Her family sought asylum and immigrated to the United States in 1995. She became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2000. I may not like or agree with Omar’s choice of words in her criticism of Israel, but I certainly understand. I share her criticism, although I would not choose the same words. To remove her from the Foreign Affairs Committee is just flat wrong, and I condemn McCarthy, the MAGA faction, and the fBICP in general for this action.

The second resolution—House Concurring Resolution number 9 (H.Con.Res.9) - Denouncing the horrors of socialism—was passed a mere nine (9) minutes after H.Res.76 [House: 328-86-14-6(1)]. The full text of H.Con.Res.9 is:

Denouncing the horrors of socialism.

Whereas socialist ideology necessitates a concentration of power that has time and time again collapsed into Communist regimes, totalitarian rule, and brutal dictatorships;

Whereas socialism has repeatedly led to famine and mass murders, and the killing of over 100,000,000 people worldwide;

Whereas many of the greatest crimes in history were committed by socialist ideologues, including Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and Nicolás Maduro;

Whereas tens of millions died in the Bolshevik Revolution, at least 10,000,000 people were sent to the gulags in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), and millions more starved in the Terror-Famine (Holodomor) in Ukraine;

Whereas between 15,000,000 and 55,000,000 people starved to death in the wake of famine and devastation caused by the Great Leap Forward in China;

Whereas the socialist experiment in Cambodia led to the killing fields in which over a million people were gruesomely murdered;

Whereas up to 3,500,000 people have starved in North Korea, dividing a land of freedom from a land of destitution;

Whereas the Castro regime in Cuba expropriated the land of Cuban farmers and the businesses of Cuban entrepreneurs, stealing their possessions and their livelihoods, and exiling millions with nothing but the clothes on their backs;

Whereas the implementation of socialism in Venezuela has turned a once-prosperous nation into a failed State with the world’s highest rate of inflation;

Whereas the author of the Declaration of Independence, President Thomas Jefferson, wrote, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.”;

Whereas the “Father of the Constitution”, President James Madison, wrote that it “is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest”; and

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the belief in the sanctity of the individual, to which the collectivistic system of socialism in all of its forms is fundamentally and necessarily opposed: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress denounces socialism in all its forms, and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America.

Of Arizona’s nine congressional representatives, all but one voted for H.Con.Res.9. Three Republicans and three Democrats chose not to vote, while 14 Democrats chose to vote Present. This resolution is actually tragic. The fallacy of reasoning and the outright false statements in a congressional resolution are shocking. Perhaps even worse, 109 Democrats voted for the resolution. This is a pointless, superfluous statement not grounded in reality. The issue is not and never has been the ideology. It is and has always been the men who operate the ideologies. Religion is no different. Let us not blame the thinking and turn our ire at the men who become despots, dictators, and murderers—the ideologies do not kill anyone.

These two resolutions speak volumes about the tone and direction of the current House majority. It is going to be a very bumpy two years until we have our next opportunity to vote these yayhoos out of office. I include my representative for the 1^st District of Arizona—Representative David S. Schweikert.

 

Beyond the horrendous disappointment of the U.S. House of Representatives this week (above), we have the People’s Republic of China (PRC) spy balloon drifting over North America and “hovering” over the InterContinental Ballistic Missile field at Malmstrom Air Force Base near Great Falls, Montana. First, balloons do not “hover”; they float and drift with the wind. The Department of Defense will not precisely describe the balloon other than to state that it is the size of three buses and at an altitude of 24 to 37 kilometers (balloons change altitude as they heat and cool with the sun). It has a long sensor array suspended beneath the balloon.

Balloons as instruments of war are not new. They have been utilized since they were proven operationally in the 18^th Century. They were used in the U.S. Civil War, World Wars I & II. The Japanese sent 350 balloon bombs across the Pacific Ocean from October 1944 to May 1945.  One of the last of the Japanese balloon bombs exploded on Gearhart Mountain in Oregon, killing a minister’s pregnant wife and mother of five children on 5.May.1945, as the Germans were preparing to surrender.

I would say, shoot it down. It does not belong there. It is our sovereign airspace. It is no different from a bomber or reconnaissance aircraft, other than slower. I believe the meteorologists and physicists can predict where it would come down and Montana has some very wide-open spaces. The president gave the order, and the Air Force waited until the balloon was off the coast of South Carolina, near Myrtle Beach. A section of F-22 Raptors intercepted the balloon, and the lead fighter fired a single AIM-9X Sidewinder missile that shredded the balloon and dropped the payload into the ocean. The Coast Guard and Navy are searching for the sensor array and the remnants of the balloon. Of course, the Chinese are whining about the excessive action against a “civilian” balloon and claimed their right to take appropriate action in similar circumstances.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1098:

Comment to the Blog:

“Re Tyre Nichols, I don’t know Tennessee’s definition of second-degree murder. That would be necessary to debate the charges against the officers. Also, defining intent is a dubious thing in law at best. Their intent to punish someone or avenge their perceived disrespect could include a disinterest in whether they die.

“I don’t see where extreme courtesy and meekness should be required of the citizen involved, and I don’t believe it would necessarily help based on experience. Also, I myself have usually had trouble understanding police commands due to the barked tone of voice. They don’t enunciate well.

“Nobody in the world can be prepared for an ‘all-out’ war. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons make that impossible.”

My response to the Blog:

Indeed! I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV. I am only a citizen with an opinion—informed or not. My opinion does not matter a twit. Intention in the law is defined by the jury. The prosecution works to paint the picture of a perpetrator’s intent, and the defense strives to counter with reasonable doubt. But it is the jury that decides. I only offered my opinion based on what we know so far. Nichols did not help his situation by resisting and defying instructions by the officers. However, that reality does not absolve the police of violating the law in their failure to render aid to Nichols once he was in handcuffs. All of them deserve prosecution and punishment. I just worry that over-charging diminishes the likelihood of conviction. Further, I have seen no justification for the first officer forcefully removing Nichols from his car. We need the dash cam video of events prior to that moment. If the officers failed to turn on their dashboard camera, shame on them, and that failure becomes a constraint to their claim of reckless driving. It would have to be some VERY reckless driving to justify that aggressive initial interaction.

I am not suggesting meekness, only compliance. Many years ago, we used to get out of the car when stopped. I always thought that was a good idea since it was neutral ground and demonstrated respect for the officer since he must get out of his car. But, decades ago, officers changed and insisted on individuals remaining in their cars. The instructions from police officers are intended to protect the individual and the officer. Arguing with a police officer during a stop is never a positive action. The place to argue the validity of any stop is in court, not on the roadside. If you believe an officer acted irresponsibly, file a complaint with the department. If you have the resources, file suit in court. The rules on the roadside favor the officer. The rules in court swing the scale back toward a neutral position. Maintaining a calm, non-confrontational position and asking for clarification of instructions is a better stance. I have seen more than one, not many, videos of people shouting, “I can’t breathe,” with no physical interaction whatsoever. Tolerance can go too far the other way as well.

I have seen far too many police videos of citizens arguing with and defying police officers. Many of those have shown far too much deference to the individual. Some individuals should have been arrested and prosecuted for failure to comply. Arguing and defying police is NOT a right or even a privilege; it is just wrong.

The U.S. military, at least the combat units, are trained to deal with nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) warfare. U.S. units are capable of operating in such environments. NBC warfare is nasty business, but it is not Armageddon. War of any scale up to an including world or “all-out” warfare requires mobilization. War is a societal action, not a military one. The military is simply the pointy end of the sword. The potential of NBC warfare is just another form of threat that must be dealt with, not submitted to.

 . . . Round two:

“I chose the word ‘meekness’ for life-saving behavior in police situations based on my parental training, personal experience, and first-person observations. My father taught me, based on his own experience, to be as passive as humanly possible, including tone of voice, and to ask no questions. He also trained me to obey police instructions even if I knew they were illegal and harmful. I have managed to do those behaviors in all police situations and have only suffered minor theft and damage to a few of my possessions. Well, except for being jailed and fined (off the record) once for “public intoxication” that occurred on private property. Others, (in my circle of white people) have incurred dire threats and other penalties essentially for being easy targets (visibly poor and sometimes out-of-state drivers). I have no idea why anyone being stopped would leave their car without being ordered to do so; that will be seen as aggression. I’m 65 years old and never dreamed of doing that. There are reasonable and decent officers in my history, but none has ever shown too much deference to anyone.

“Train anyone as much as you like in nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Any use of any of those things will cause too many casualties and too much other harm to society to ever believe anyone can deal with them effectively.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I suppose the word choice is one of perspective. I do not see compliance as “meekness” but rather respect for the difficult work the police are called upon to perform. Your choice entirely; no argument.

Your father taught you well. Non-compliance, resistance, defiance, or confrontation with police are not a wise choice in the public domain (or the private domain, but there are other protections in private).

I used to get out the car all the time. As I said, I saw it back then as a sign of respect and to meet them on neutral ground. I only had to be told once over the police cruiser loudspeaker, “Stay in your car.” That moment was roughly four decades ago. My most recent encounter with police on a traffic stop was over ten years ago. The officer’s stated reason for the stop was really quite chicken-shit and bogus, but I knew better than to argue with him. I complied with his instructions and accepted my ticket. There are very few exceptions in my life where I have felt a police officer was wrong or being unreasonable. The majority have been very courteous and respectful.

But, it only takes a few bad men to taint the collective.

My deference comment was only an observation of watching more than a few police encounter videos. I do not know if those police involved acted with over-deference because they knew their actions were being recorded, or because that is how they felt. As I said, just an observation.

Please, I am not even remotely suggesting NBC warfare is justifiable or even warranted. I was only stating that the militaries of most modern countries train and prepare to fight NBC battles. As with all weapons of mass destruction, it is always the civilian populous that pays the dreadful price for such usage. My implicit point is, NBC events are not the end of the world as we know it; they are simply severe events that must be endured and overcome.

 . . . Round three:

“Maintaining a completely deferential tone of voice, asking no questions, and passively accepting ‘chicken-shit and bogus’ behavior and tickets is beyond compliant to me and is a bit much to expect of an ordinary human being already under stress. Also, that ‘a few bad apples’ idea doesn’t apply even if it was true. The in-group protects them in policing. Think of it as a heavily-armed cult. Perhaps that doesn’t apply in other places, but it does in the USA.

“Nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare (the acronym lessens the impact) might not be the ‘end of the world’ but would be the end of the world as we know it, on the scale of the fall of Rome.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Simply put, I do not see the police in the same light as you do apparently. I suppose my bias is clear. Our youngest son has served in law enforcement since he left active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps and is now the Chief of Police of a small community in Kansas. I try (but I suppose my paucity of dark skin pigmentation precludes my capacity) to see police interaction in the same light as other citizens.

I do not see NBC warfare in such apocalyptic terms. I suppose that is because I have received such training as a former Marine officer. One thing is certain, we cannot allow anyone to threaten us or our allies with weapons of mass destruction.

 . . . Round four:

“I don't need dark skin to see the rough side of the police, although I suspect that would make it worse. I merely have the visible signs of poverty; that's quite enough assurance that I can't fight back legally.

“One of my deeper fears is that someone will eventually use nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Feel free to ask Japanese people about the weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those would be weak and primitive today.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Are you suggesting that police violence is an artifact of poverty or economic condition, or that poverty is a dependent variable?

I share your fear. My great-uncle was seriously wounded by chlorine gas on the battlefield in the Great War. Yes, NBC weapons are fearsome devices, but I was trying to make the point that as frightening as they are, they can and will be overcome. The damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been well documented and studied.

 . . . Round five:

“I don't understand your question. I am stating that poverty and race are major factors in police targeting. We are the ‘them’ in ‘us versus them.’”

 . . . my reply to round five:

Then, you believe poverty and race are dependent variables with respect to police targeting and violence. While I must acknowledge that fact for some police and even some jurisdictions, I cannot make it a generalization. Thus, I cannot agree.

 

Another contribution:

“Thanks again young man. Yes some moving comments there. How much longer are the Russian people going to tolerate Putin’s appalling domination? Will it happen overnight or perhaps may never happen. I often wonder if we ‘Humans’ are fit to run this blue planet which is slowly becoming destroyed by ‘Human’ activity across the board.”

My reply:

“How much longer are the Russian people going to tolerate Putin’s appalling domination?” Very good and germane query. I wish I knew the answer. We see resistance. We also see the internal propaganda. The Russian people are broadly prohibited from outside information sources, and they are fed a constant stream of nationalistic gruel. A significant portion of the population swallows that stuff. We have the same problem in this country. A viable, aggressive Press is critical to any democracy. Like all dictators, Putin was worked hard to suppress and sliver of free Press. The Russian people have a very deep hole to climb out of to reach sunlight.

You have very good reason for such doubts. Conservatives looking backward are not helping us deal with the future, but these are the crosses we must bear. I am preparing to write the third book of Anod, which will be an opportunity to contemplate and articulate the future of our little blue marble. I still have hope and faith.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“What a world we live in! We can only hope and trust that our descendants manage to turn our societies and our blue planet into a comfortable and social world. Currently this only a distant dream, but it must transpire, for the future of our existence on our home chunk of rock. If this cannot ever become a reality those science fiction movies will become a fact. ‘All passengers for Mars please go forward to the launch pad.’”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

I’m with you on that sentiment, my friend. Our generation has failed in our duty and obligation to carry the torch. We must hope our children and grandchildren (and their offspring) do a much better job of governance of our Republic and your Kingdom.

The Moon, Mars, and other worlds will eventually be inhabited by human beings. We must hope and pray we solve these emotions of conflict before attempting such expansion, or we will export our current discordance elsewhere (contaminating other worlds with our infection).

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)