Update no.1148

 Update from the Sunland

No.1148

8.1.24 – 14.1.24

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- On Thursday, in Tiny’s civil fraud trial {New York v. Trump [NYSCEF Index No. 452564/2022] [1133]}, closing arguments were delivered. [The person who shall no longer be named] chose to add his words to the proceeding. Of course, he had the audacity to mouth off as he so typically does, verbally assaulting the judge, the attorney general, and the judicial process. We could not listen to his words in court, but he reiterated those words in public after closing arguments were delivered. As he so often does, he lied. He stated publicly that he was denied a trial by jury. He was not; his lawyers (and presumably him) chose a bench trial rather than a jury trial when the time came to choose; he was denied nothing. Further, he publicly claimed he was denied his freedom of speech. He LIED! He was constrained to the same rules of evidence and judicial procedure that every single person within a court of law must respect. He LIED! In fact, I think Judge Engoron was far too tolerant of his antics in and out of court. But, no matter. The judgment is now up to Judge Engoron. We expect his decision in days to a week or so.

He likes to portray himself as the victim, so he can claim persecution by the president and the Justice Department. First, this trial was a state civil case totally separate from the federal government (the federal trials come later). Second, he was in court because he broke the law, period, full stop.

 

I watched and listened intently to an interview of Representative Elise Marie Stefanik of New York, by Kristen Welker of NBC’s Meet the Press program [S77 Ep1, 7.1.2024]. Stefanik is the Chair of the House Republican Conference, or more accurately, the fBICP or MAGAt Conference; she was chosen to replace former Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming who was ousted for her participation on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6^th Attack on the United States Capitol (HSCJ6) and her outspoken, public condemnation of [the person who shall no longer be named] for his instigation and encouragement of the J6 insurrection via his BIG LIE. Stefanik parroted her leader in calling the J6 convicts hostages. Let’s examine the language a bit, shall we?

To avoid having to list multiple dictionary definitions, I shall offer an amalgamation definition for the two critical words. A convict is a person who is tried and found guilty in a court of law. A hostage is a person seized or held as security for the fulfillment of an abductor’s demands. If anyone wishes to debate my amalgam definitions, then so be it; let’s do it. Definitions on the table, I ask readers of this humble forum, of the 1230 individuals arrested for their actions on Capitol Hill on January 6^th, 749 (so far) have been convicted in a court of law; more to come. What descriptive word should we use for those convicted of their crimes in a court law? The answer is readily apparent and blatantly obvious. [The person who shall no longer be named] and his mouthpiece sycophant minion Ms. Stefanik are flat wrong by any definition; they continue to spread lies as part of the BIG LIE. Shame on them and all the others! Just the thought of pardoning the J6 convicts is thumbing their nose at the Constitution, the rule of law, and any sense of justice.

Stefanik went on to whine about border security and election integrity, among other important topics. The hypocrisy of Stefanik (among so many others) mind-boggling and beyond description. First, every American is in favor and supportive of border security and election integrity. Second, the fBICP (of which Stefanik is an enthusiastic part) do not want either. NO! They want all of us to cave to their dicta. When she (and they) say border security, they mean that damnable wall across the entire 1,954 miles of the southern border with Mexico. They do not want immigration reform until they spend billions to get what they want. Now, for the record, I believe the wall makes sense in some areas of the border; however, a wall alone will never work. We have seen people overcoming the wall by cutting through it, tunneling under it, and climbing over it. A wall will never work without a defense in depth, which requires new legislation reforming the system. The fBICP wants a political hammer to use of their opponents; they do not want a solution, so they keep this wound open and festering.

The other hypocritical statement by Stefanik was parroting the party line that they want to ensure election integrity. She (they) tells us they want safe, fair, precise elections with no fraud or attempted manipulation. Sounds good, doesn’t it. We all want election integrity. What Stefanik and the other MAGAts do not say is how they want to ensure election integrity. They want to make it much harder for everyone to vote. They want to eliminate vote by mail, reduce official ballot drop off boxes to one per district, eliminate early voting, reduce the number of polling stations, and so much more. In essence, they want to make it so only wealthy, white, devout Christians can vote, because . . . well . . . because that is their kind, their tribe. They say they want zero fraud, another noble objective, but making the process so difficult that only the well-to-do can vote is NOT election integrity. It is election suppression akin to the Jim Crow laws of yore—Jim Crow v2.0. Despite the claims of the BIG LIE, the system works. Yes, there was attempted fraud. There has always been who attempt illegal things, but there has been zero evidence, or even hints, of election fraud of sufficient magnitude to influence the election outcome. Those who attempted to commit election fraud have been prosecuted and punished. The fraud that occurred did affect the outcome of the election, and what did happen is NOT a reason to restrict voting and make it more difficult for everyone to vote.

Again, I say, no thanks. I want none of that nonsense.

 

Wednesday evening, CNN hosted the latest Republican debate at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, the last debate before the Iowa Caucuses and the opening of primary voting on Monday evening. Three candidates qualified. Only two candidates chose to respect the residents of Iowa and show up—DeSantis and Haley. Chris Christie suspended his candidacy earlier in the week. The moderators were Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.

I confess to considerable frustration and struggle to listen to the incessant bickering and sniping among the two also-ran’s (so far). It was painful to watch and hear. But, in the silly season, we do what we must do.

One dominant take-away, they are fervent defenders of freedom, small government, and parental rights as long as everyone complies with their choices, their rules, their dicta. They have absolutely no interest in anyone else’s freedom of choice. They are only concerned about everyone’s absolute compliance with their rules. Such hypocrisy makes their statement ring hollow, devoid of substance. The best analogous example I can think of is the evolution versus creation imbroglio that came to a head in 1925 Tennessee with the so-called “Scopes-Monkey Trial”—The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes (21.July.1925). There are other examples like the Inquisition and the condemnation of Galileo. People are entitled to and have every right to teach their children as they wish, according to their beliefs. Science offers the best knowledge available at any particular time. Teachers should teach the best science has to offer. Parents can teach their children what they wish, including parents who choose to teach their children there is no God, only science. While our parental days are long past, the also-ran’s are not politicians who will respect my rights. If they ever gain control of the instruments of state, they will endeavor to impose their version of ‘proper,’ just as their antecedents did in 1925. They want ignorance over knowledge [Nescientia super Scientia]. No thank you.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1147:

Comment to the Blog:

“Your discussion concerning January 6 is beyond me. The January 6 mob attempted to overthrow Congress’s authority, live on my TV.

“My dictionary gives me the term Puritan for the people whose rule we both oppose. Besides other harm, many people evade those puritanical rules, making corruption popular.

“Speaking of Puritans, have you followed the story of Bridget Ziegler, the co-founder of Moms for Liberty? Her husband, Christian Ziegler, is the chair of the Florida Republican Party and is being investigated for raping the ‘third’ in a standing threesome he and Bridget had. There are a couple of graphic videos involved in this, too. I’m shocked by the rape and the hypocrisy, not by the threesome or the videos.

“You’d do well to focus on China with your fears. Putin is old and sick. His minions are restive and he keeps killing them publicly. Xi will have a successor in the same vein as him, and he’s far more intelligent than Putin.”

My response to the Blog:

I certainly agree with you. I read and heard Tiny’s words in the months prior to J6. I listened to his words on that day as well as the words of his sycophant minions on the stage that morning. I watched the whole sordid assault on the Capitol from multiple disparate sources. There is not even a sliver of doubt in my little pea-brain about what those words and actions meant. The question will be how far the strict constructionists on the Court will go. What happened on J6 was insurrection by any definition (1828, 1868, or 2024), and Tiny was the principal, paramount instigator.

You are, of course, quite correct. The Puritan ethos was NOT freedom of choice.

The Ziegler story is not unique. There are far too many examples among the social conservative, far-right, which is not to say that such behavior does not occur on the left. It is the hypocrisy of the right that truly galls me. Like you, I do not condemn their sexual practices and activity. What I emphatically condemn is first their efforts to impose conservative values on everyone else, to deny freedom of choice to everyone not like them, and second, the gross hypocrisy as you note.

Oh, I am plenty focused on the PRC. But, Putin has attacked a sovereign neighbor; Xi has not yet done that . . . although I continue to watch. Semper vigilantis!

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)