PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING PAUL RYAN

We all seem to have the same goal, which is to share prosperity, so how can our politics be decisive? The answer should be obvious; we have different ideas about what that means. However, within that context, when I look for a basis for the divisiveness that exists we find something interesting. We do not share a common sentiment about our feeling for other people. Of course, it is not a yes and no, or a black and white thing; it operates on a finely graded scale. To complicate the picture, some of having stronger or more intense feelings and emotions about things than others do regardless of what those feelings are, which is pervasive and seen almost wherever one cares to look. For example, I can read this disparity in ideas and the intensity of feeling about those ideas in nearly every Facebook post, ranging from the most trivial to the most important. Referring to the example of sharing the prosperity most of us feel we all should share in the prosperity of the United States but only if we work for it. At one end of the scale, Ayn Rand immediately comes to mind, which is of current interest because Paul Ryan is currently the Speaker of the House, which the third in the line for the presidency but also is in the most powerful financial position. He is a disciple of Ayn Rand. Obviously, he cannot be as intense as his feeling as was Ayn Rand, but the feelings are identical. To explain the intensity and impact of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is difficult even though it is extremely simple. The simplicity of it all reminded me of a time when my wife was arguing with an Australian couple who were facetiously disparaging the United States while packing all their newly purchased sheets and, pillowcases and other linens to return to their homeland after a year in the United States. They brought up the way we treat black people. My wife’s retort was, what about the way you treat Aborigines in Australia. Almost in unison, they dismissed her question, meaning it was an innate feeling that they could express without thinking, by declaring, “They are not people!” That is precisely the way Ayn Rand looks at people who do not work. They do not matter as if they are not people. There is not grading or attempt to evaluate their circumstances; collectively, they do not matter. Most of us have a different feeling in regards to people who cannot work based on the why not gainfully employed; a wounded war veteran, a mentally retard, or an old aged person, for example, compared to a lazy person. The Ayn Rand approach is to lump them all into one bunch, and that is it; no metal fatigue will develop establishing that position. Hogwash, you say, while take a moment and look at the Paul Ryan budget idea of privatizing everything including social security notwithstanding that Social Security all but wiped out old age poverty. His basis for his privatization scheme is the belief that everyone will save for his or her retirement. The fanciful Paul Ryan “group”, the one he has in his mind he bases on everyone having a job, is earning a living wage, and can afford to save. If they cannot save for retirement, they are like Aborigines, who are not people; therefore, they are of no concern. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

ECONOMIC DICTATORSHIPS

If I had to choose one person who did more to destroy American Democracy than anyone else did, I would choose Milton Friedman. His name is synonymous with the Chicago School of Economics. His focus was on reducing regulations on business and in advancing laissez faire competition. In a sense, he was Ronald Reagan’s mentor. Friedman was professor in that school from 1948 until 1979 but his shadow has darkened the economic world ever since and has led to dictatorship in small countries through out Central and South America and South East Asia. Military leaders in all these countries paraded their economist through that school. Nevertheless, Friedman’s biggest victory was destroying Democracy in America. Recent studies have shown a strong trend in our country toward plutocracy. Go to the internet, if you doubt this. Plutocracy is top down economics, which is Reaganomics. Congress is no longer responsive to the will of the working class of people including small farmers who are the people who vote for these politicians. This is clear to everyone who follows politics. We see subsidies going to corporate farms and big oil companies. Big oil is making more money than ever before but their greed is insatiable. The money paid for produce to small farmers fall while politicians vote pay subsidies to corporations to compensate for the low prices. Store prices do not reflect the fall in prices paid for produce. We see the stead fall in labor union membership, a decrease in wages, which happens in the face of an increase in productivity per worker. We hear a constant drum beat for more individual giving to charity to take care of the poor; echoes of Nancy Reagan. We hear a constant call for people to save more for retirement at the same time we see corporations cutting of pensions. The rich paid for the Citizen United decision by the corrupted Supreme Court. Is it so difficult to understand that if we do not have a strong democracy, the rich become the government? That is the goal of Reaganomics, which Milton Friedman modeled; he is the true devil in all of this as he is of every economic dictatorship in the current world. We have shifted from countries ruled by military strong men to countries ruled by unregulated bankers. This has happening in my life time. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

RYAN, CRUZ, RUBIO DRIVEN BY HATE

Representative Paul Ryan is speaker of the House of Representative, the third most powerful position in the United States government. He is a disciple of the now deceased Ayn Rand. She was a prolific author and political philosopher refuge from Soviet Russia driven by hate for the extreme communist form of government practiced in the early 1930’s. Rep. Ryan does not stand-alone in this regard in as much as other Tea Party members assume her philosophy. Two leading candidates for President of the United States are Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, both of whom are from families of refugees fleeing the extremes of Castro’s communist Cuba; thus, they base their politics on intense hate for communism. They represent a brand of politics championed by Fred Koch and the John Birch Society of the 1930’s. They are representatives of Ronald Reagan and Senator Joe McCarthy radical wing of the Republican Party. Most importantly, billionaires David and Charles Koch, the sons of the John Birch Society founder, Fred Koch, are financiers of the modern Republican Party. The point is that what we had considered radical thinking a few years ago has become more and more mainlined. I find their tendency to extreme radicalism in support of democracy, dangerous for Democracy. They want to get as far away from Communism as they can, which is the extreme right. I learned early in life that people blinded by hate tend to act irrationally in making important decisions. Capitalism becomes privatization of everything. All reasonable people know that public education, prisons, healthcare, and pensions, for example, the government in a democracy should never privatize these things. The can be the most dangerous example of what the government should never privatize is the police force. We do not have to search very far in our society to find egregious examples of wrongdoing in each of the areas. Even today, when we have not yet entered into a full-blown era of a right wing, profit making, privatization Ryan, Cruz, and Rubio, etc. are seeking, we can easily find criminal examples in privatized areas. Can you imagine what it will be like when those filled with hate take over the government? Student loan scandals abound in privatized colleges. We already have prisons full of minor offenders or “illegal” aliens. We can find people needlessly dying of a curable disease. In spite of social security, we can easily find old people who live in poverty. Among this group, I include those communist hating, radically conservative, small farmers, who can no longer plow their fields but who vote these folks into office because Rush Limbaugh tells them President Obama is going to send the Army to take away their squirrel rifle. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

CHRISTIAN HYPOCRITES KEEP OUT REFUGEES

The response of people to the Syrian refugee crisis has provided real proof of the religious sincerity of people's beliefs. Most of us abhor any suggestion of the need for a religious test for anything. Donald Trump’s call for proof of religious affiliation of all Muslims in America met with an outcry of disgust. People of all lifestyles likened it to requiring a yellow lapel star required of Jews in Nazi Germany as an object of hate and discrimination or the internment of Japanese citizens during the Second World War for fear of sabotage. I was born and raised in this country. As a result, I am sensitive to the nuances of politics. One such nuance is that a person has to believe in “God” if people are to vote them into political office. This has so much force that we refuse to believe it is a religious test, but it is. Not only do they have to believe in a Judeo-Christian God, but also they have to prove it by regular church attendance. As happened with President Obama, that wasn’t enough. The incident over President Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright proved that the people had to agree with what the politician heard in his church. However, the intensity of this belief system works both ways. Potential candidates for public office suddenly become believers in God, which happens about the time they decide on a political career. Their campaigns publish pictures of them standing on Church steps, often with their wives or husbands dutifully at their sides: the American image. Of course, they are often hypocrites. They will proclaim loudly and publically their beliefs in church doctrine such as “love thy neighbor” and forgiveness of sins. Many of them extend this to their politics when they claim they are constitutional fundamentalists and adapt Church dogma in legislation they propose such as denial of same-sex marriage or abortion rights etc. as being biblical based. This they deduce from the belief that you have the freedom to worship as you choose; however, you must worship a Christian God. This is especially true of New Testament Christians. Obviously, Christians exclude Muslims, as they do to Jews to a certain extent. People of the Jewish faith have learned not to lie about their faith but not to confess their faith too loudly. All of this has resulted in the politically awkward situation we have today. This cluster of beliefs has grouped many of these people into the Republican Party, which has created a situation where religious beliefs conflict with their political beliefs. The fundamental Republican tenet is that of greed; what is mine is mine; I earned it I should be able to keep it, or I will only share when I am sure I have all I need. Of course, some people never have all they think they need. We apply this feeling to the territory as well as money, economic values, or power which in turn creates a sense of belonging. This is the same idea as moral groups, which is what a church is. You can go to heaven only if you belong to the right church. If you do not believe this, ask them. This has created a terrible dilemma for the Republican Party Christians. They have a strong sense of belonging and do not want to jeopardize the trust their Party puts in them. They are Christians so because of their “love they neighbor” beliefs they feel an obligation to help people in need such as the Syrian refugees. However, the Republican Party believes American territory is for Americans and others should stay out. This is where the rubber hits the road. All of the hypocrites, those who became Christians for political gain, are all on Facebook explaining why it is OK to exclude all Syrians using the excuse that one of them might be terrorists. Isn’t it strange that all those so-called Christians are taking the position that just happens to be the way Republicans and not Christians think. Their position proves they are Republicans before they are Christians. I look with pride at the position President Obama has taken; he has taken the Christian position. He has a heart. Some Republicans, especially the religious hypocrites, have the audacity “to act” outraged that our president is saying Republicans are acting against widows and orphans when they deny entry to ten thousand refugees because one of them just might be a terrorist. They are not acting against terrorist, rather they are acting out of territorial greed, this is their country, and they don’t want Syrians here any more than they want Latinos of Haitians, or anyone else. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

A VETERAN'S VIEW ON VETERANS DAY

A few thought about being a veteran seems in order. I look at post after post, on Facebook, read the newspapers, and watch TV and see accolades showered on veterans thanking them for their service. As an individual, who is proud to be an American, apparently I feel a little different than most. I look at my four years in the Navy served and two tours of duty in Korea during and after the Korean War. No one has to thank me for serving or being on a ship people shot at in anger; in fact, I rather resent having someone say that to me. It was an honor for me to serve. Ask yourself, as Americans, what else can you do to show your gratitude for being born here or choose to live in this great country if that is the case? This country is the people who live here. I was not wounded or even suffered illness while in the service. The taxpayers owe me nothing; I owe them. Of course, veterans who were wounded or suffered severe anxiety due to enemy action, or otherwise paid a price associated with being in the service to deserve special attention. If they need medical care for service-related disabilities, they should get it. Most of us have no way of knowing who does and who does not deserve special attention. We should thank those who do for their service. I think it is terrible wrong for most of us to expect the taxpayers pay for medical care for us or to expect even special thanks for our service. In fact, I think those who do should be condemned for asking. Those who complain about the Veteran Administration not doing their job need special scrutiny in this regard. Obamacare is another matter, we as a rich nation deserve health care, but not because we were in the service. The GI bill of rights is another matter as well. For the government to pay for education is a privilege of living in a rich country. To have a well-educated population is a country building exercise and the government should direct such efforts, not just for men and women who served but should be for everyone. I include other social programs intended to help the poor and otherwise needy as well. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

ONE-ISSUE VOTERS PUTS KENTUCKY ON ROAD TO RUIN

The average of five polls was 5.3 points for the democrat winning. For of the five polls favored the Democrat and only one favored the Republican candidate for governor in the state of Kentucky. After election officials counted the vote the Republican won by 53% to 44% of the vote. In other words, there was a nine-point difference in the vote favoring the Republican candidate or a 12.3% point difference between the poll results and the vote. The question is, was there something in rotten in the way the votes were counted in the State of Kentucky or did the pollster fail? The real answer is neither of these two possibilities is correct. The polls would have been accurate if everyone had voted, but they didn’t. Political scientists know one-issue voters are the ones who go to the voting booth on “off year” elections. There is a clear message in this Kentucky election. We fell our fellow men will recognize and favor us if we stand upon issues in which we are emotionally involved. We all recognize the human emotions with driving force are love, hate, fear, and compassion. Republicans have learned to feed on and otherwise use these emotions to capture these voters via the media and the church pulpit and avoid the intellectual argument such as we need good government to advance as a society. Good government comes when the elected representatives come when everyone is equally represented in that government. We can preach all we want about, “we the people”, one man one vote, and fair elections but all of this falls on deaf ears if people fear someone is cheating at polling places, or if we are killing babies, or don’t want to or are incapable of protecting their nation from terrorist. We don’t have to prove people are cheating to pass voter ID laws, which are clearly designed to suppress minority voters. We can close Planned Parenthood Clinics and deny thousands of women health care for fear someone might have an abortion and kill a baby. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

DEBATE DEFINES GOP CHOAS

After the recent chaotic debate, the Republican candidates have met to decide how they want the debates structured. I cannot know for sure, but suspect each candidate wanted to meet to demand that they have said in making that decision. Again, I cannot know for sure but can almost guarantee each individual has a different idea that will favor themselves and will not want to compromise on what would be the proper debate format. The argument seems to relate to a fundamental trait in Republican philosophy; therefore, what makes sense is that what we expect is that they will meet and will not be able to decide what a proper debate format would be. It will be chaos. Classically, the public knows Republicans are reluctant to compromise with Democrats, which is why we have such dysfunction in Washington with a Democratic President and a Republican controlled Congress. The old trope applies, “it is their way or the highway”; therefore, the only way to have a functional government is to have only Republicans in government. Another obvious Republican trait is that they, as individuals and as a party, invariably say the exact opposite of what they believe. Just think of how many times you have heard a Republican candidate say they will work across the aisle or that they were successful as a Red governor in a blue state or something similar and then compare this to what is happening in Washington. How may time have you heard them say the government is too intrusive in their everyday lives. The proper interpretation of this is that someone else, not them, are making a decision they think they should make, which is most obvious when they talk about in things such as compassionate conservatism. Republicans are not heartless individuals, they have great compassion, yet they as a Congress cut food stamps that feed poor children and want to abolish old age poverty yet cut social security, for just two of many, many examples. The only way this makes sense to anyone is if you look at these things from their individualistic point of view. They seem quick to say people of old age should have a living income but they, and not the government, have to be the one to decide if this person or that person deserves it or not. No child should starve, but they as individuals have to be the ones, not the government, to decide which child gets food stamps. Of course, political operative buried all of this in rhetoric such as we cut food stamps because they want to stop liberals from cheating, etc. One of the big blurbs in the personal liberty sphere is that the government takes their hard-earned money; usually they say steal, and give it away to lazy people, which is how they describe liberal and all poor people. It is their money and “they” want to do with it as “they”, please. Everyone but Republicans seems to know how ridiculous this is in a country of three hundred and thirty million people. What we see in this “debate” over the “debate” format are Republicans fighting each other about the way Republican-controlled broadcast companies formatted their “debates”. I cannot wait to see what solution they will decide on short of having no debates. If they decide, it is sure to be a miracle with 15 non-compromising Republicans agreeing to disagree, not on the issues but on making sure, each one will be the leader in deciding what fair treatment of their individual rights is. For a starter, if I were a reporter, I would ask them as they come out of their private meetings, who led the discussion? Then I would ask then how would that be any different from what would happen with only Republicans were in Washington. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

PAUL RYAN IS BAD NEWS

Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House of Representatives is bad news for liberals like me. He is an avid and radical Ayn Rand disciple. Of course, as most people know, Ayn Rand was a very selfish person to the point that she is uncaring. Like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, she considers herself a refugee from the extremes of Stalin-style communism. Political scientists see social order as a spectrum ranging from communism to dictatorship. My mother, a very astute person, observed that when you go to the extreme right to end up with the extreme left, meaning Stalin was a dictator no different from Hitler. It is a political circle. Paul Ryan is a dictator driven by selfishness. Liberals see government as a way to prevent social extremes, poverty for example. Bleeding hearts recognize there are people who cannot work for a number of reason ranging from war wounds, through low IQ, to old age. Ayn Rand wrote the bottom line for the radical right, which is the line Paul Ryan dutifully follows, and which is if you cannot afford it, you should not have it. Austerity to Ryan means no more welfare, no more food stamps, no more unemployment insurance, no more public schools, and no subsidized health care. This is what they mean when they say we should get the government out of our lives. Of course, he realizes this is, cruel and unfeeling, so he “generously” softens it by adding, there will be government help for those for re-training. I wonder how he would retrain an 80-year old pipefitter or oil rigger. How would he provide an opportunity to a person with an IQ of 50? You wouldn’t and he wouldn’t. The old Darwinian inspired “survival of the fittest” kicks in; let them starve, who cares. Judging from public pronouncements, there is not one single Republican would be unhappy about. Think about what is important. Think about all the tax money they would save. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

CNN JOINS POMPEO WITCH HUNT

I thought the Benghazi hearings were over. It consisted of 10 hours of grilling of one witness. There never was a clearer display of why we have government dysfunction than that hearing. Seven republican congressional representatives disgraced themselves, not once, not twice but over and over again for hours on end. I could not believe what greeted me when I turned on CNN this morning; the commentators were continuing the hearing. Of course, right wing owners control the media. They do this by hiring radical right wing hosts who, in turn, invite radical right wing guests. By the way, they lie about that as well as everything else, as is typical of them, for years they claimed the left controls the media. This morning, Carol Costello’s guest on CNN News Room, was Representative. Mike Pompeo Kansas 4th district. His quote, which should be come famous, is as follows, “Four Americans were killed in Benghazi – that's what matters. We'll continue our work until we accomplish our mission to obtain the truth.” What is clear he views his work is to destroy Hillary Clinton. In other words, he is admitting he failed in the hearings but he is not going to give up. He wants someone fired for something. He don’t know for what or who, he just wants to be tough and fire someone. Isn’t that the Republican way? Isn’t that like Mitt Romney saying he likes to fire people. How about Trump’s famous patented saying, “Your fired”. Didn’t Ronald Reagan famously fire air-traffic controllers and jeopardize air traffic for many years to come. In fact, we still have over worked controllers sleeping in control towers. The truth about Benghazi is an anti American riot broke-out and four Americans were killed. Those directly responsible are the rioters. Pompeo’s hunt is like a witch hunt and he has chosen Clinton as his witch. The rioters were possessed by the devil because Hillary willed it so. As they did in Salam in 1692, he wants to hold her head underwater for 15 minutes and if she drowns, she is innocent. Actually I think they hanged the witches even without an 11-hour trial. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

PAUL RYAN A NEANDERTHAL SPEAKER

The House of Representatives is in complete disarray. They need a leader. Representative Paul Ryan has decided not to decide if he wants to be that leader. So who is Paul Ryan? Paul Ryan is a self-avowed radical Ayn Rand conservative. As we all remember, Ayn Rand is a right wing with a political philosophy that appeals to egocentric people. Her simplistic philosophy is if you don’t earn it you shouldn’t have it. This phrase has a ring to it that is appealing. Therefore, those who adhere to her philosophy are usually successful, self-supporting people or those who believe they can aspire to become that. Like so much in real life, that we tend to find appealing, is shortsighted. The truth is; society is composed of all kinds of people many of who are egocentric when they have no reason to be. Of course, there are many others. For example, a person with an IQ of 50 is not able to find a job or work productively. People with Down’s syndrome have an average IQ of about 50. Down’s syndrome is only an example. We have wounded veterans, automobile accident victims, a victim of gun violence, as well as those with low IQ. If Paul Ryan has enough money, he will be the first one willing to give to help care for a Down’s syndrome person. However, if he doesn’t have sufficient money for himself, that person is on his or her own. Of course, the question is who among us has sufficient money for everything they want. If they live or die is of no concern, because the onus is on someone else. If someone were to bother to ask Ayn or Paul who that someone else is, he would not have an answer. Paul Ryan has put forward a budget, which clearly shows his Ayn Rand egocentric philosophy. Now he wants to extend that philosophy to the entire government. No more welfare — period. If you cannot work for a living, you don’t deserve to live. Wouldn’t that be to live as the Neanderthal lived? Didn’t they become extinct between 41,000 and 39,000 years ago? To me, it is inconceivable that a rational person would throw away out humanization by even considering Paul Ryan as a Speaker of the House of Representative in 2015. However, the fact is he is ready and willing to serve in that capacity put there by people who are driving by their lust for all the money they think they need to have everything they want. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

AIM OF FREEDOM COALITON

In keeping with my objective in writing these blog posts, I hope to avoid “bumper sticker” rhetoric and logic and enlighten from a liberal point of view. Sometimes this leads to an explanation becoming complex and a little difficult to understand. This is one of those times. If it is more than you can cope with or seems especially silly or full of nonsense, simply stop reading. Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold (R-TX-27), a member of what he refers to as the “the Freedom Coalition,” was interviewed by Republican Chuck Todd on TV. What he revealed during the interview was disturbing at a very fundamental level. Perhaps because Todd is a known as a closet right wing radical was doing the interview, Farenthold was more revealing about his beliefs than he normally is. Regardless, what he said should be scary to the American people. He carefully explained that he is a member of the Tea Party but also a member of the Freedom Coalition. In spite of claiming membership, he went on to say the names of the members of the Freedom Coalitions are secret. Also, he went on to explain that the Freedom Coalition is a group of individual elected Representatives, within the House of Representatives, whose aim is to put America on the path they think, is the right path. That is what is so disturbing to me, and it is what I see as what wrong with American government. Let me explain. This group of representatives who have individually named himself or herself the Freedom Coalition, estimated to be around 40, is a group formed of people elected by the American people, mainly from the South and especially Texas, to represent a radical idea. In other words, they are a small group of like-minded individuals. The idea in the Constitution is to elect representatives of all of the people to one large deliberative body to decide what the people of this nation collectively want. The founding fathers expected that body to select a leader from among those elected by “we the people”. That person, the Speaker, would be third in line to the President. At a fundamental level, this is simple social order based on innate hierarchy dominance. It is characteristic of all organizations ranging in size from two friends to families, to nations, and finally to United Nations. The next step in understanding is something that has been happening lately, which is the deliberate move to interpret the meaning of words in the constitution to the advantage of the right wing, much as they do with the second amendment and gun ownership. This time, it has to do to with the leadership of the United States House of Representatives. The constitution does not specifically say the leader has to be an elected member of that body; however, normal logic implies that would be the case, therefore, is clearly what the Founding Fathers intended. The nature of the Constitution is that the authors avoided listing specifics, in this case, a list of who cannot be leaders of the House of Representatives. For example, we intuitive know who the ineligible would be for a host of reason. The list would include Justices of the Supreme Court, President of the Senate, or the President of the United States for that matter. Certainly, that list would exclude the Chair of the Democratic or Republican Parties. Which makes my point, Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold (R-TX-27) is demanding that the chairperson of the semisecret Freedom Coalition, who represent a radical element or subfraction of society, become Speaker of the House of Representatives, and that would be in violation of the premise on which the Founding Fathers grounded this great country. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

MARK MEADOWS SHAMES NORTH CAROLINA

The radical politcs of North Carolina Congressional Representative Mark Meadows makes me ashamed to be from North Carolina. Nonetheless, as he swore to do, he faithfully represents his district, which is the 11th district is the most western district in the states but he does not represent all the people. His district is a beautiful mountainous area, over half of it being rural. However, the truth is that he and his district represent the ugly price we pay for having a Republican controlled state government; Senate, House of Representative, and governor. The sad story does not stop there; it also tells the story of why we have a Republican controlled United States House of Representatives. A quick look at the district map on Wikipedia tells the ugly part of the story of redistricting by this government and his election in 2013. (https://en.wikipedia.org/.../North_Carolina's_11th_congressional) The map is truly bazaar with and obvious tennis racket shaped hole right in the center of the district. Asheville, a city of 83, 393 people is the 11th largest city in North Carolina, and our government has excluded that city from the district by gerrymandering. What they excluded was the home of the University of North Carolina Ashville with about 3,700 undergraduate students and about 330 full- and part-time faculty members. With all of the people in the district voting, it was a Democratic district before gerrymandering but has now elected the radical right wing Republican Meadows. He is the recognized leader of what the minority group the media calls the extreme right-wing caucus, the Tea Party, or the Freedom Caucus of the United States House of Representatives. He is the proud leader of the small group that has caused our government to be in chaos. He can be radical because he is in a safe district. He is in a safe district because he does not represent a cross section of the American people, a cross section of the 11th district, or of North Carolina. Before redistricting, the 2013 census bureau reports the families in his district have a medium income of $34,720 compared to a medium of $45,906 for the state as a whole. In terms of ethnicity, the population was 91.2% white with 4.6% black compared to the state as a whole with a total of 21.6% African American. North Carolina is a state that constantly elected the overt racist Jesse Helms to the Senate. The students and faculty of the University of North Carolina Ashville represent about 4 % of the district pollution. There are not data on percentages of numbers of voters in the district versus percentage of voters on the campus. However, we can assume the percentage of students and faculty members who would vote is by far higher than the general population. Like voter ID, the whole idea of redistricting is to bias elections. Gerrymandering is done to prevent honest representation, and the North Carolina government hit its mark in the 11th congressional district. Add this to voter ID and party control of election commissions, assures perpetual Republican control of the government. They have elected two of the most radical senators in the country by the names of Thom Tillis and Richard Burr. They even voted against approving the appointment of the attorney general who originated in North Carolina because she was black. My state has now contributed more to the dysfunction of the entire United States government by-election this Mark Meadows. I feel I have good reason to be ashamed of my state. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

MORAL GROUP BEHAVIOR IN POLTICS

What happens in Washington is important. One of the branches of government, the House of Representatives, is in serious jeopardy. The threat is is not because of something that happened yesterday when Kevin McCarthy withdrew his candidacy for the leadership post as Speaker of the House. Children learn the extreme importance of this position in civics classes in most public high schools; the holder of this position is the third from the presidency, which the most powerful position in the world. It is a matter of how our government functions or at least is supposed to function and not which political party is in charge. Something fundamental has gone terribly wrong with democracy. Still, few people seem excited about what has happened and why it happened. I listened to a parade of duly elected right-wing representatives, most from the uneducated district in the old plantation south where the church dominates life, and what I heard them explain their views was both shocking and interesting. They will destroy the entire government if Congress does not defund Planned Parenthood. The reason it doesn’t happen is that this right-wing group does not have sufficient numbers to accomplish their aims, which does not mean they will not fulfill their aims. If it not the Planned Parenthood issue, it would be some other equally narrow issue. We all remember the fight to destroy ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now that involved all kinds of nefarious activities by a minority. ACORN was an organization working to register minority voters. The group successfully destroyed ACORN. They slowly morphed their objective of suppressing votes, which is a majority view and installing their minority voters in the form of voter ID laws. These are seemingly small issues on the world stage, but they are fundamental and important to individuals. Their power does not make sense. However, the real question is what is it the causes them to remain as a tight, cohesive group. From the interviews, I mentioned above, they clearly know theirs is a minority view, they are equally sure they are correct, and they believe they are morally correct. Thinking about the sense of moral righteousness gave me the clue I think I needed to explain what is going on. In the above paragraph, I labeled this political group as right wing. They are not the usual greedy conservatives even if most of them lean in that direction enough to establish a home in the Republican Party. The truth is they are a small group of radicals driven by something other than conservatism. They use a sense of moral righteousness and use moral punishment to fear to leave the group but also to maintain their ranks. It is equivalent to the believing that if you do not believe in destroying Planned Parent Hood, you cannot go to heaven. What confused me at first is that did not make sense when it comes to voter suppression, which seems to a desire that has nothing to do with going to heaven or hell. For me, the uniting thought has to do with people belonging to a “moral group”. Authors have written about this as a broad category of groups ranging from all of society down to small families under such titles as, the Moral Arc written by Michael Shermer in 2015 and George Lakoff’s 1980 book Metaphors We Live By. What they missed is what should be an obvious fact; since the beginning of humankind, religious leaders base their entire teachings on this principle. Moral righteousness starts as a group agreement and has to with what is good for them. However, it soon proved to be a way to gain and hold power and convince people to do what some leader thinks is right. Most people in a group realize what the leaders tell them what to do may or may not be in their best interest. For two years in Belize, I watched as people living in abject poverty dutifully paraded miles over dirt roads to a “church” every Sunday. Once there, they gave their pennies to a minister who drove a nice truck and lived in a big house. He controlled them as a “moral group” by sermons with the reward of heaven for good church behavior or the punishment of hell if they did not behave. Only the minister knew how to read, but the minister told them and they sincerely believed they had to obey the nonsense in Bible. At the same time, it made sense to them judge and punished each other for not following the holy doctrine. Of course, good church behavior is regular attendance and, of course, the minister expects them to tithe if you are in the church. In House of Representatives, if you belong to the right “moral group”, the people in your district will reelect you. The moral group has gerrymandered the districts, and the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision has supplied the campaign money. Your tithe is your vote. You better behave, or else. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

TRUMP[ DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN

The fact that Donald Trump is leading in polls tells you something unexpected about the Republican mindset. The GOP spills a lot of ink in the media about them not wanting the government involved in their lives, but the truth is something else. The poll results indicate to me that the people want the government to do something. This Republican-controlled Congress is the laziest Congress ever, which is what a plutocracy wants, which is what the dispensers of the big money that are driving that the party wants. They want big business to run the country, but it is not what the Republican voters want. They want the government in their lives but in a way that helps them. Aside from the name-calling, Trump has built his entire campaign for president on the one simple idea that he will “make deals”. In his mind, as president, he will make “great” deals. He must realize that the president is part of the government. Also, he must know that the President has no power to make deals. If the Congress does not want the deals he makes it is dead; however, a Republican-controlled Congress would want the kind of deals he would make. Of course, we as voters must look at the nature of the deals he wants to make, which is where the real danger lies. They would suffer from them just as they are now suffering. They pick out what they see as faults in our economy and declare in the campaign that they will correct those faults. For example, they point out the failure of wages to increase with increased productivity. The lack of people having adequate pension funds even with Social Security upsets them. Also, they decry the lack of universal health care. They point out that most families cannot afford to send their children to college. Besides, they are upset over the national debt but are not willing to increase taxes. Likewise, they are willing to start a war in the Middle East without increasing taxes. The list seems endless. All of this is true, but my point is that everything on that list is the result of policies a Republican Congress put into place starting 35 yeas ago. Union busting Ronald Reagan and his trickle down economics and David Stockman’s voodoo economics did it. To elect of Donald Trump and allow him to use the Congress and the government as Reagan did to make deals would be a disaster. We learned the hard way about what kind of deals he would make. We know that they want the government in our lives but only on their terms. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

TV PROGRAMMING IN A PRESIDENTIAL YEAR

Saturday and Sunday mornings used to be special for me. I would get up early, shower, and make coffee so I would be ready to watch UP on MSNBC. This ritual started in a long time ago when Chris Hayes was the host of that show. Hayes is a bleeding-heart liberal, like me, so I did not expect the new show to be worth watching. What made the difference with this show was a balanced panel of experts, usually educators such as professors of politics, international policy, etc. The discussions were the most erudite on TV. I have to admit that this is a low bar because TV media has low standards. Nevertheless, UP was a good show, but now it is gone. Recently, MSNBC has replaced that show with more of the usual nonsense. While mauling this over while looking for something decent to watch this morning, I stumbled on to State of the Union hosted by Jake Tapper on CNN. In my judgment, this show is a new low in TV journalism. It was so bad it made Fox look liberal. Thinking about what is taking place in news programming on TV, I see something happening that is scaring me. We will soon be in a presidential election year. The Republican Party run by a few rich men, using the corrupted Supreme Court, has changed the voting pattern, state by state, in the Untied States. They have used voter ID laws, minority voter suppression, district gerrymandering, domination of state election commissions, and above all they are diverting attention of the voter from economic policy to social and religious issues by promoting one issue voters; same-sex marriage, abortion, right to practice religions, guns, immigration, etc. This practice has allowed them to take over Congress. I know it works because I live in North Carolina. My state now has two of the most radical Senators in the United States Congress; Thom Tillis and Richer Burr. Now the Republicans are focusing on taking over the White House. The way they can do this is to convince the majority of people who vote, to vote the same way the people in the states are voting, which is according to everything but economic issues. What I see is a move to take over all news programs with Republican hosts, Republican commentators, and Republican chairpersons of expert panels controlled by Republicans. My unhappiness with the Jake Tapper show was because it was back-to-back people with radical right wing views, and they invited Elizabeth Warren, but Jake tried to belittle her remarks. However, like happened at the Planned Parenthood hearing, Committee Chairman Chaffetz was belittled by the chairwoman of that organization, Senator Warren turned the tables on the host. Tapper was visibly embarrassed. Nevertheless, network after network is flooding the airways with a radical right-wing program after program. I can turn off the TV or look for something else to watch but cannot find any political program of value. Need I mention that Jake Tapper is on CNN. How can this be true in a free market? Why don’t the networks look at ratings? We expect the answer in this age of Citizen United is money; Republicans own and control the networks and where that fails, they buy control of the programming by buying all the advertisements. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

GOVERNMENT GOES IN WRONG DIRECTION

The message we read about in the media is clear. First, the majority of people in dislike Congress. Second, a firm majority of the same people believe the country is on the wrong track. Logically and correctly, in most organization, we blame the leader when any organization is failing. Therefore, President Obama is at fault for the direction the country is taking. It all sounds logical and factual, but it is not. I remember a football player who caught he ball and ran the wrong way for a touchdown. The rich in this country are asking you to be that football player. The founding fathers created a government of the people. That is they created a socialistic government, a government with the people in charge. For over 239 years, people have been trying to figure out how to get the power that is more power that is power for themselves and their group, including the President. The framers of the Constitution knew this and built in the famous system of checks and balances to counter this tendency. Each of the three branches of government has a check on the other branches. As it turns out, what the created was good but not perfect. The error appears to have been in the way they formulated the Supreme Court. Apparently, the system they created relates to their perception of justice. Our system of jurisprudence relies heavily on the integrity of judges. The check is simple and honest, the president appoints justices, and Congress approves of their judicial nominations. It is a rigorous and onerous process. What went wrong is obvious. The president and Congress, rather than serve as a check on one another, served as collaborators under the influence of money. The Koch brothers and other rich individuals, with the aid of several presidents including President George W. Bush, undermined the system. People have written multiple books about the nefarious doings of various parties involved in the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. What is remarkable, there is not one book written in support of that decision. That decision by four corrupt Supreme Court justices plus one has created a situation where the checks and balance system is no longer works. I have blogged several times, about how corporate money has bought congressional representatives, which in effect has put hem in charge of the legislative branch. We see a great shift in emphasis from fiscal responsibility of government to minority issue legislation. It should be obvious to all that we have a great national debt that we have to pay. For years, we have seen Congress fail to act on foreign policy issues requested by the president. We have government oversight committees in Congress that are a joke. They Benghazi investigation, the Planned Parenthood investigations, the Hillary Clinton e-mail issues under the leadership of Jason Chaffetz and Trey Gowdy are obvious partisan in nature and abject failures. The point of this blog is that Republican media is shifting the blame for a fail government onto the back of a Democratic President for the failure of a Republican Congress. The super rich have bought and paid for the media. They have bought and paid for Congress. Also, they bought the Supreme Court. They have bought and paid for your vote but only if you let them do it. The President of the United States if not responsible for the failure of “our” government, Republicans are, and it is time for every Democrat to recognize that fact. The message should go viral; the GOP, not President Obama, is where the blame belongs. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

POPE FRANCIS AND NETANYAHU FACING CONGRESS

The contrast between the two speakers that Boehner invited to speak before Congress is remarkable. Of course, one was a political leader and the other a religious leader. The only commonality was they both hoped to have a wide influence on people who listened which were our elected leaders. Pope Francis was preaching love and charity and poop Netanyahu was preaching hate. When I compare the number of people who are spreading the words of each, I find that those spreading words of Netanyahu are confined to a narrow band of hate mongers perhaps stimulated by Zionist hate for Palestinians, burkas, and Islam and extreme conservatives so wrapped up in their greed that they totally lack compassion for anything or anyone. People should reread the conservative press, I don not mean the usual new media own by conservatives but the truly right wing conservative press. It never ceases to amaze me at the depth of ignorance in what they write. What I am starting to realize is that a certain element of the radical right uses FACEBOOK to put their garbage in front of a segment of people who otherwise would never read what they bury in their “news”. People will have to start to realize that FACEBOOK should not be a portal for radical politics just as they realize that FACEBOOK should not be for vulgar language and pornography. Some may think my politics is radical left wing; however, of the several thousand articles I have written and posted, I defy anyone to point out something I have said that I have not accompanied with a logical argument for my saying it. I sometimes point this out by mocking those who say Obama is a bad President, yet they are unable to point out one single reason for them saying what they said. As I mentioned, I listened to both Netanyahu and Pope Francis, who want to influence people. Liberal Pope Frances wants people to do away with hate and for people to love everyone and Netanyahu wants to use hate with a conservative objective; he wants everyone to love Israel. Question for my readers; are you starting to understand the difference between a liberal and a conservative. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

POLITICAL POLLING TECHNIQUE BIAS

The Constitution makes is gloriously obvious, in our country we can worship the way we chose or not worship if that is the route we choose. There is not supposed to be a religious test for political office, but unfortunately, this is not the case. This subject comes to the front because of remarks by recent presidential candidates related to Muslims being eligible to be president. Those of us interested in politics from the policy perspective often forget the amount of social power non-governmental groups has. As readers of my blogs know, I am terribly concerned about the economic direction taken in this country since the time of Reagan. The top-down economics has ruined the middle class and all evidence suggests it is going to get worse. Perhaps the tremendously flawed Citizen United ruling of the Supreme Court put the last nail in the coffin of the middle class there. This sounds as sinister and pessimistic as I intended it to sound. I spend hours each day wondering why working people vote against their interests. We, including the working class, clearly know the results those votes have produced. We are no longer a government of the people; we are a plutocracy. In my most optimistic times, I don’t see this as meaning everything is lost forever. Because these few men have bought and paid off congress, I see unions as being the organization(s) that can lead us out of this morass. However, more and more it appears that we will have to have some catastrophic event to trigger that happening. The American Revolutions shed the Royalty of Europe. The Russian revolution shed them off the power of Czars. What can we look to shed us of the power of a moneyed plutocracy? No one wants a revolution. A few rich men control the congress and the Supreme Court. I hear that lament every day from the people who are disgusted with government. They did it in a clever way; first they divided the people on multiple single issues so we are no long a population interested in good government but rather we vote, at least those few who vote, based on our interest in abortion, same-sex marriage, segregated schools, voter suppression, government control of educations, religious affiliation, etc. For example, I had a fellow tell me that he did not like George W. Bush but the priest told him to cast his vote for him. The people who hate the government and do not want to become involved are the very people we need to become involve and vote. The recent so-called debate where 15 people stood and told us what they were for and against was a classic display of ignorance. As a result, I realized, poll results are false. What is missing is pollsters telling us how may calls they have to make to get one answer. For example, they tell us of those who responded, 35% favored Trump, etc. Even if the pollster asked, do you vote or will you vote etc. and then tell us those who responded are likely one issue voters. Only a small proportion of the electorate vote but if the people doing the poll have to call 100 people to get one answer and they base their poll on an unknown number of responses what can their poll mean? They can include all the standard deviations etc. they want but their result is so “technique” biased the results are meaningless unless the rich use their dollars to drive down the number of people who go to vote by preaching hate for government as you heard those 15 candidates do. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

HATE FOR PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS

If I found myself in the need of serious surgery, I would choose a professional. Knowing, the outcome of the surgery would affect me the rest of my life, in fact, the outcome might determine if I lived or died, I would be very careful in making my selection. Of course, I spend a great deal of time trying to find the best surgeon I could find, a steady, experienced hand, and a true professional. We are in the process of looking at presidential candidates. The stated theme of the search seems to be to find the person with the least amount of government experience. When we examine whom it is that is promoting this idea, we find it is the campaign organizations of the professional candidates. The experienced professional campaigners know the people do not want to vote for Washington insiders. Further, the driving force is money aimed at making the government look incompetent, ineffective, misguided, etc. The person with the most money to spend on the myriad news outlets convincing people their candidate is not a professional politician. The result is that the most incompetent person to vote for; the person you select to do your surgery, is the worst surgeon you can find. Only in politics does this seem to make sense to people. In conclusion, we are condemning professional politicians with a documentable record of success or failures in favor of not only an amateur but also one who hates government. This phenomenon of hating professional politicians is not new. Not only has this line of thinking been with us at least for as along as I can remember. Everyone seems to know this yet does nothing about it. In the end, a majority vote for an experienced politician because they are the ones who know how to get the votes. Therefore, I am embarrassed to write this as if it is a new revelation. It is trite. What is not trite is that this approach to the selection of officials tends to slant selection of elected officials toward those who want to diminish the power of government but also to those who want individual power for themselves. This anomalous combination of beliefs in individual legislators is now commonplace among elected official in our government. The more we think about it, the more sense it makes in the end. Our founding fathers built democracy on what they perceived as individual greed. In the Federalist Paper, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay personified this under the guise of individual states and not individual people. Each region, each state, each district, each city, each profession, and each wants to get the most they can out of the whole. A professional politician is diametrically opposite; he or she wants to get the most out of the system to benefit all of the people, which is not what the individual wants. Strangely, I can equate this to Republican and Democratic political orientations. I, as a bleeding heart liberal want the best for the people; on the other hand, conservatives want the best for the individual. Altruistic Democrats want good government while greedy Republicans want no government. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

EMPTY RHETORIC BRINGS PEOPLE TO THE POLLS

I do not understand the Republican Party or their candidates for the presidency. Nothing the Republican Congress does makes sense, just like nothing their candidates say on the campaign trail makes sense. They all seemed obsessed with their one idea; they do not want to pay taxes. Other than that, there is nothing one could look at as solid policy. For example, the news media is pressing Donald Trump to give his ideas of policies on how to solve the immigration crisis, on how to create jobs, and how on how to make America great again. These are all things he says he is going to do without the slightest hint of how he is going to do them. These things just happen to be problems that have American people’s attention now. These things also have something else in common; they are problems he identified as the ones he is going to solve, which imply he has a solution in mind. Obviously, this political nonsense is all based a search for issues on which to campaign. They are not ones he has a plan to solve. There are millions of undocumented workers in the United States. No politician would be foolish enough to suggest a practical solution but are willing to talk tough and say he will deport them all to satisfy the radicals in the Party; build a billion dollar fence and have Mexico pay for it; deport all 12 million of them; and protect all American jobs by preventing illegal entry. He will create American jobs by spending vast amounts of tax dollars to rebuild our failing infrastructure, which is precisely what Republican Congress is blocking. He is not willing to explain what he means by “making America great again” but talks of building a massive military. He means he is ashamed to admit that what he means is American will be great again, by a massive military to beat up small countries, on a regular basis, to show how tough we are. Did I mention each of these things cost many dollars that are not there is they cut taxes, which beg the question, how are they going to pay for it? Also left unexplained is why droves of people will vote for them. How can it be that empty rhetoric has so much meaning? URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated