Update no.1112

 Update from the Sunland

No.1112

1.5.23 – 7.5.23

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

 

To all,

 

Congratulations to the British People on the coronation of King Charles III on Saturday, 6.May.2023, eight months after the passing of his mother. A low overcast and light rain all day limited the military flyover to helicopters and the Red Arrows. It was unfortunate that the weather was not better; I always enjoy a good airshow. The ceremony was steeped in history and symbology. A new era of history has begun. While we rejected our affiliation with the British monarchy 247 years ago, we can still appreciate the history and the pageantry. Well done, let the party continue.

 

Just when I thought I might get away with a weekly Update without the mention of the Oh So Great Orange One (thick sarcasm), he drags me back into the muck of his gutter of a life. In just one of the myriad legal cases against [the person who shall no longer be named], the video and transcript of the man’s deposition in the case of Carroll v. Trump[USDC NY SD case no. 20-cv-7311 (LAK)] was released to the public. And, Senior District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued a public deadline to the man that he had until Sunday night to decide whether he would testify in his own defense. Closing statements are scheduled for Monday. Elizabeth Jean Carroll, AKA E. Jean, filed a civil suit against [the person who shall no longer be named] for rape (the statute of limitations expired for criminal charges) and defamation of character. A verdict is expected next week.

Other than the reality of the facts in this case, the graphic audacity his words and body language in the deposition that give us a very clear view of who the man is. Tiny was shown a photograph of the back of his head conversing with a smiling blond woman. He was asked to identify the woman. He answered, “That’s Marla. My wife.” It was actually E. Jean Carroll. Later in the deposition, when asked to explain his position that he could not have raped Ms. Carroll, he answered, “She’s not my type… it’s not politically correct to say it. I know that, but I’ll say it anyway.” I found the statement interesting in that he married the woman he identified in the photograph as his second wife. His claim of “not my type” rings very hallow and lame. I suspect any reasonable person would come to exactly the same conclusion. In 2005, the man was interviewed and recorded for an Access Hollywood program in which he said, “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything, Grab ’em by the pussy.” The tape recording, originally not broadcast, was publicly released in 2016. At the time, Tiny claimed that the recording was just “locker room talk.”  When Ms. Carroll’s attorney asked about his statement on the Access Hollywood video, [the person who shall no longer be named] stated under oath, “Historically that’s true with stars. If you look over the last million years, that’s largely true, not always, unfortunately—or fortunately.” The attorney asked, “Do you consider yourself a star?” He answered, “I think you could say that.” Carroll’s attorney wisely chose not to press him on his answer, presumably to avoid giving him an opportunity to soften the impact of what he had just declared. What is inferred by his words that Tiny believes that raping women under the divine right of kings was tolerated a millennia ago, it is acceptable for him to do so.

As Maya Angelou once said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” We failed to do so in 2016. We can only hope the jury in the Carroll v. Trump case does not fail in their judgment. Of course, this is only one of many still pending cases, but “Long journeys begin with small steps.” [The person who shall no longer be named] belongs in prison for the rest of his natural life. He has told us exactly who he is. There is always hope . . . until there is not. No man is above the law. He is not a star—never has been, never will be.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1111:

Comment to the Blog:

“Didn’t Mr. Justice Scalia die suddenly in a remote place? One of those true-crime shows ought to do a series on the Supreme Court, and maybe someone could make a series on the Jeffrey Epstein mess.

“I noted the current Equal Rights Amendment upon its introduction in 1972, read the text and have vocally supported it ever since.

“We know what the Republicans represent with few exceptions. I realized some time ago that I wouldn’t ever vote for Senator Schumer, and I wish Feinstein would go ahead and resign. Even Adam Schiff would be better than “absent”. I’ll point out that the DNC Democrats don’t act to remove procedural tools invented by the Republicans for their partisan benefit.

“I share your admiration for that quote from President Washington. We must find a way to heed his warning.”

My response to the Blog:

Yes, he did—Cibolo Creek Ranch, Marfa, Presidio County, Texas, in the Big Bend region of the state. He apparently died in his sleep, which is not uncommon; an autopsy was never performed; his cause of death was officially listed as “natural causes.” His death could have been as official recorded, or by some far more nefarious cause(s). We will never know. As the New York Times noted at the time, “But some people argue that in the case of a prominent government official, the public has a right to know.” I am one of those people. Epstein was not in the same category, but the connections to so many prominent people and government officials should have triggered that precise examination.

After so many years under the legal oppression of the “Doctrine of Coverture” [458, 571], the Equal Rights Amendment should have been ratified unanimously in months after it went to the states [30.3.1972]. The social conservatives want us all to go back to those days of coverture and “head & master.” I was wrong to have ever called this republic great or even once great. Until all citizens have and feel equality regardless of the social factors, we cannot be great. At best, we are a work in progress. The Senate vote on S.J.Res.4 last week reminds us we have so bloody far to go. There is always hope . . . until there isn’t.

I have been sorely disappointed by Schumer. He is woefully inadequate, especially in comparison to Minority Leader McConnell. Schumer’s vote against S.J.Res.4 was inexcusable and his self-administered coup de grâce. I suspect Feinstein is into her end of days. It is one thing for a king, a pope, or Supreme Court justice to remain until death, but for a U.S. senator to do so is disrespectful to her constituents. For me, she has exceeded my tolerance of respect and propriety. If she was still functional, she could have voted remotely like they did during the pandemic. Yes, she should resign . . . as I now think Schumer should as well.

Far too many citizens have swallowed the pill and not read (or understood) President Washington’s immortal words of wisdom. I fear there is little hope of shedding the grip of political tribalism until following generations have time to mature and grow out of this damnable tribalism.

 . . . Round two:

“I’ll note that Justice Scalia died in exactly the place I’d choose for a mystery novel—remote, few witnesses, with local officials who might play along. Such is remote Texas. McConnell benefitted.

“I see no excuse in law or morality why equal rights have not been enshrined into the Constitution.

“I’ve given up on the Democratic Party as a whole. There are decent and ethical people there, but they can’t or won’t change the DNC. Electoral reform would help.”

 . . . my response to round two:

There is insufficient evidence to substantiate any of these hypotheses. Thus, Scalia’s death shall remain a mystery and raw meat for conspiracy theorists. I will note here that McConnell’s unilateral stonewalling of President Obama’s constitutional nomination of a replacement for Justice Scalia was not explicitly authorized or allowed by the U.S. Constitution or common laws, only by a distorted interpretation of Senate rules. It was the Republican majority in the Senate that allowed him to “ignore” the president’s constitutional nomination for nine freakin’ months, gambling that the GOP candidate would win the presidency and override the nomination on the table. They did, and that minority won.

You are quite correct. To me, the mentality and process behind such resistance is the same as the thinking used by many political and social conservatives, who seek to regress our society to a bygone era with all its inequalities and oppression. White males dominated the landscape back then. Those days are slipping away. That bunch must grow up and adapt or be rendered to shadowy irrelevance. I stand for equality and freedom, and thus against the social and political conservatives. Their time has passed.

I am not quite so negative, but I do share your skepticism. Yes, electoral reform would help. If we want to amend the U.S. Constitution, I can support that, but let us make the changes properly.

 . . . Round three:

“Brief digression on Republican abuse of the Constitution: the 14^th Amendment, Section 4, disallows not honoring national debt. The ‘debt ceiling’ is therefore unconstitutional.”

 . . . my response to round three:

To my knowledge, section 4 of the 14^th Amendment [9.July.1868] has never been tested before the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, the law is not “settled.” The strict constructionists might well argue that section 4 applied to federal debt incurred and the irrelevance (or voiding) of Confederate debt during the Civil War. Extending section 4 to the contemporary national debt limit shenanigans by fBICP members in the House is not inferred by the words.

In fact, the national debt limit was created by Congress in §1 of the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 [PL 65-I-043; 40 Stat. 288; 31 USC §3101; 24.9.1917]. {Just an FYI: the original debt limit was set at US$7.539B, quite a bit below our current US$31.4T.}

The perennial use of the national debt limit by the Republican Party and now the fBICP as a bludgeon to impose their dicta on everyone has negated whatever usefulness it may have offered once upon a time. I cannot agree that the debt limit is unconstitutional, but I do agree that the debt limit since it has vastly exceeded its useful value. Further, I agree with President Biden; the fBICP is flat wrong and off-the-charts hypocritical.

 . . . Round four:

“If the Supreme Court can deliberately ignore the first clause of the Second Amendment, they can recognize Section 4 of the 14^th Amendment as applying to Federal debt in general.

“The debt limit and the filibuster, among others, are tactics that allow the Democrats to claim the Republicans overwhelmed them again. The Democrats don’t get rid of those when they could. DC isn’t as hyper-partisan on the Democrat side of things as it looks.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Good point. Instead of interpretation machinations by the Supremes, I would rather see the repeal of §1 of 40 Stat. 288; 31 USC §3101. The national debt limit has not been used for its intended purpose in many decades . . . if ever.

Another good point. In recent decades, those tools to induce compromise have been used by the GOP / fBICP to obstruct progress, which in reality is simply the efforts of a declining minority to hold onto power. We are long past due the time to correct this egregious abuse. Yeah, the GOP / fBICP have proven themselves far more aggressive in using the obstruction tools to their political advantage.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)