From bedlam to turmoil, a wrap-up from Trump Turbulence

A majority of Republicans think the economic status of black Americans is mostly their fault. The General Social Survey, a wide-ranging study of cultural and political attitudes done annually by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, reports that 55% of white Republicans agree with this concept while only 26% of white Democrats do. This 55% feel black Americans experience more poverty due to their lack of motivation and willpower. This sounds to me like the general population of the South I grew up in. Apparently little has changed.

Not exactly last week, but recent and on-going. The Democrats have a way of getting the issues they are interested in done amongst a Republican White House supported by a Republican Congress. The GOP needs the Dems to avoid a government shutdown at the end of this month. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), said...

"Republicans are going to need our help putting together the budget, and that help means we can avoid some of the outrageous Trump proposals and advance some of our own proposals.”

Trump, himself, seems to have mellowed since the repeal of Obamacare was shoved down his throat, or elsewhere. I keep saying it but just wait until 2018.

 It was Tuesday of last week that Sean Spicer effectively erased the Holocaust from history with his statement that, "... even Adolf Hitler did not sink to that level of warfare and was not using the gas on his own people in the same way that Assad is doing.” This was followed by the typical controversy that seems to go along with most everything the man says. He realized, of course, what he had said, but it is always too late and the damage has already been done. During the 2016 campaign Trump attacked Hillary Clinton using a Star of David on top of piles of money.

A week of Trump flip-flops. First, I hate NATO, then I love it. Then, China is a currency manipulator during his candidacy, in the Oval Office, China is not a currency manipulator. During the 2016 campaign, he didn't like Janet Yellen, said, she "should be ashamed of herself.” Once in the White House, “I like her, I respect her.” Conservatives don't like the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Neither did Donald John in 2016. Then he found it helped small companies so he would let it exist. It was several flip-flops that tanked John Kerry's 2004 Presidential campaign but DT seems oblivious.

A ranking of least and most popular U.S. Senators comes up regularly in the media and it makes one wonder if the purpose is to get rid of assholes like Mitch McConnell. McConnell is always at the top of the least liked, and it comes straight from a poll of his constituents. So why the hell was he reelected? Stupid voters or a weak Democrat running against him? McConnell also happens to be one of the most powerful members of Congress, and that is dangerous when it is a person who thinks only of himself and the Republican Party. But Bernie Sanders is first, because he's always for his country.

Wealth without charity is obscene

While the United States holds the most private wealth in the world, over $60 trillion, it still has the widest inequity gap of 55 countries that were studied. That is because those with the money have no charity. Okay, maybe they give here and there to organizations like United Way, The Salvation Army, YMCA, St Jude Hospital, Goodwill Industries, among a few, plus their favorite animal shelter or rescue. But I am talking about real charity, sharing of the wealth. Sound Socialistic? Well it is, I am talking about Democratic Socialism of the Berne Sanders kind.

2015 was America's most generous year of giving ever, with donations from America’s individuals, estates, foundations and corporations reaching an estimated $373.25 billion. But here's the shocker. Individuals gave over 14 times as much as corporations did. And from my experience in junk mail fund raising, the single giver is often those who can only afford small amounts. All fingers point to a corporate world where CEOs are pushed for maximum profits and paid generously to get the job done. In many cases a lot of these reach the obscene level of common sense.

Corporate participation is one of the kinds of charities I am talking about and with profits over $6. One such individual is Warren Buffett, the head of Berkshire Hathaway and a legendary investor, who in 2013 complained that he was paying a lower rate of tax than his secretary. But this is offset by the fact that he gave $2.86 billion to charities in 2016. He had given $2.84 billion in 2014.

Bill, Melinda Gates in Africa

trillion annually, you'd think they might have a couple of bucks to spare. The other is wealthy individuals, that 1% that Bernie Sanders talks about.

Bill Gates of Microsoft is another billionaire who is a giver, especially with his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It occurred to Gates in 1997, that rather than making sure the world had computers, make sure the world is healthy enough to use them first; that's when he saw the impoverished living conditions of Africa. Back in 2013, Gates said, "I have no use for money. This is God’s work." He was referring to his intentions to eradicate polio. At the time he had already given away $28 billion to charity, and this would continue through the foundation in years to come.

There are others you can see here. But as long as there are 564,708 homeless on the streets of the United States, and over 43 million people are living in poverty, we're doing a lousy job. It seems to me that the corporations of this country should concentrate on these two issues as a goal to bring the U.S. to where it should be. New York and Los Angeles rank in the top five of homelessness worldwide. And the U.S. poverty rate is the highest in the developed world. C'mon America, we can do better than that, and it all starts with wealthy Americans and rich U.S. corporations.

We need more "healthy" wealthy people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

Democratic Party last dinosaur of politics

The Democratic Party still does not understand that it is a has-been. Like John McCain. They are so far out of touch that they don't even realize that they almost won a recent election in a heavily red section of Kansas...and with a Progressive candidate. It was "Berniecrat," James Thompson, a guy who was formerly homeless, joined the army and went to college on the GI Bill and got his law degree. Thompson was inspired to run by Bernie Sanders and "... talked about 'progressive values' like universal healthcare, education, and a $15/hour minimum wage."

He beat an establishment Democrat in the primary to run against the seat vacated by Trump's new CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, against the GOP candidate, Ron Estes. When it became obvious that Thompson was gaining in the race, the National Republican Congressional Committee poured in money as did big business. Thompson struggled on his own to raise $292,000 without the Party's help, 95% from individuals. The Democratic National Committee finally kicked in a measly $3,000. "His campaign requested $20,000 from the state Democratic Party and was denied."

Tom Perez did as many flip-flops as Donald Trump has lately, first stating that the Kansas race was one that they could win, then refusing to back Thompson until the last minute, and then with a miniscule amount of money. And then there was the laughable statement from the DNC that, "...giving Thompson money would have actually hurt his chances of winning, because then everyone would have known he’s a Democrat, and Kansans hate Democrats." I thought the double-digit IQs were all in the Republican Party. Thompson lost by 7 percentage points.

Bernie Sanders and DNC chairman Tom Perez are on a multi-city tour to "...rally Democrats around building a stronger party." Maybe I am overreacting but that appears out of line with the Bern's earlier statements on the DNC, especially since Perez was selected on Progressive Keith Ellison. Here's what Sanders told The Hill about his hopes for the DNC and a new Party...

"The best formula, in my opinion, is an updated version of the Kennedys. Jack, Bobby and Ted all combined an insurgent style of mobilizing grassroots workers and voters behind a progressive agenda that appealed to both minority voters and white ethnic and working-class voters."

I did a post earlier to indicate a need to get rid of the Democratic Party: "We need to say goodbye to the Democratic Party." It pointed out that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democratic Socialist, like Bernie Sanders and he is considered at the top of the list of great Presidents. I believe that Bernie Sanders should snub the Democratic Party, and make Our Revolution a movement that can't be ignored.

Republicans running North Carolina in double-digit IQs

In April of 2015 the Supreme Court made its decision to legalize marriages between same-sex couples. According to ProCon.org, it was...

"Obergefell v. Hodges" over whether or not gay marriage is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution, and whether or not gay marriages performed in states where it has been legalized must be recognized in states which ban the practice."

The Court ruled 5-4 "...that gay marriage is a constitutional right, meaning that all 50 states must allow it and that all existing bans are invalid. The decision concluded a decades-long battle over whether gay marriage should be legalized."

Pretty conclusive, I would say, from a conservative Court, with a decision that you would think even the double-digit Republican lawmakers in North Carolina could understand. But what stands in their way is a bigoted atmosphere within the state legislature that won't let go of the discrimination of anything that isn't just like them. Rednecks. The N.C, law called  “Uphold Historical Marriage Act,” is a bill arguing that the Supreme Court ruling “exceeds the authority of the court relative to the decree of Almighty God.” Now we're back to 'God made me do it.'

There are many right-thinking people in North Carolina who oppose the bill, realizing that they have already been through this crap once and don't need a repeat. Their even-minded reasoning chastised the bill...

"...as an unnecessary step that will stoke division in a state still reeling from the fallout of a controversial bill regulating which bathrooms transgender people can use."

"It was Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper who criticized the bill on Twitter, labeling it 'wrong' for North Carolina. 'We need more LGBT protections, not fewer.'” Obviously it takes a Democrat to understand the rights of individuals, no matter their race, color, gender or sexual preference. Stephen Griffin, a professor of constitutional law at Tulane University, agreeing with other Constitutional law experts, said it reminded him of "tactics" used in the 1950s and 1960s. If you recall, the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1968. N.C. Republican legislators should have had time to read it by now.

The bigotry against the LGBT community goes hand-in-hand with the racism that has existed in North Carolina for decades. The state is consistently listed in the top five racist states with PEI MAG most recently placing it at number five. But what is much worse is Southern Poverty Law Center's statement in Feb. 2017, "Organized hate is alive and well in North Carolina..." The SPLC has a "Hate Map" that shows 31 hate entities operating in North Carolina including "...the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Confederates, Skinheads, and anti-Muslim groups." These groups attack...

"...entire classes of people based on things like race, religion, and more."

Fortunately the number 31 puts the state just outside the top ten offenders, but what is more significant is the fact that the number 31 is 3.6% of all nationwide hate groups. North Carolina's population is only .33 of the total U.S. population, completely out of proportion when ranked with other states. I am picking on North Carolina because it is beyond me how lawmakers could be so stupid to beat a dead issue like this. At least Arizona learned from their Immigration Bill 1070; it is not going to fly so they left it alone.

Finally, in 2012, I did a post on VR Phipps, a Command member of the North Carolina Tea Party from Faison, NC, just east of Fayetteville. Phipps drove his "Hanging Truck," with Barack Obama hung in effigy around the country all the way to New York City. I had a couple of conversations with Phipps that were off the charts since he denied everything, including being himself. Finally ended the conversations with him continuing to deny he was a Tea Party member, but did admit he was a Republican. You can see the dialogue and Obama hung in effigy on my post here.

And North Carolina isn't the only state to challenge the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage. Arkansas did the same, but after strong resistance shot it down. "Legal experts said the legislation didn’t stand a chance." And the good news is that, "North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore, a Republican, released a statement Wednesday saying the bill would not receive a hearing this session." It's great that the thinking people prevailed...this time.

The blatant hypocrisy of white evangelicals

81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump for President of the United States. That is the most powerful position in the world and these poor souls helped put someone in it who represents racism, all kinds of bigotry, is an admitted womanizer, and collects people around him as advisers with close connections to white nationalists organizations. If this is Christianity, I am glad I broke with it years ago. On the other hand, those who don't profess any particular religious (68%) voted for Hillary Clinton. My bet is Trump is 1/10 the religious person that Clinton is.

But in my book, religion doesn't make a damn bit of difference when running this country. There is, of course, the separation of church and state, which has been trampled over in recent years, but the values a President needs don't stem from the Bible, they come from the realization of what is right for this country and its people. Bernie Sanders had what it takes to do what is right for all the people, evening up the injustices bestowed on the poor and needy, even up to the middle class, by the wealthy and the Republican administration. Even some Democrats helped out.

Here's how Paul Djupe, of the Washington Post explains it...

"How did we get here? One answer is sorting. That is, people may reevaluate their religious membership when they sense political (or other) disagreement, leaving their houses of worship more homogeneous organizations. While this happens across the religious spectrum, here we highlight new evidence that disagreement over Trump’s candidacy actually led some evangelicals to leave their church."

In the latter, above, it was around 15% who felt that politics had become too divisive and left their houses of worship in the study done. Agreed, Donald Trump is the most divisive issue to drive politics in many years and the results weren't really that conclusive with Trump's support on a scale of 0-100, coming in at an average of 48. But then Clinton's was only 25, indicating once again that the wrong Democrat was nominated to run. But the big question is, what in the world could have driven that 81% to vote for a man that is so non-Christian in his values?

According to several surveys, Trump attracted the white, uneducated vote, which must have included at least some of those white evangelicals, perhaps like many others who voted Republican and were highly uninformed. The WP report also found that the evangelical clergy had very little to say about Trump in church, perhaps to keep from alienating the believers. And this no doubt is a rebuilding effort for the liberal and moderate church-goers who are fed up with the religious right. They come to church for the God experience, not the Donald John show.

Pew Research says that one-third of those who attend evangelical churches have less than a high school education and although this includes blacks, the latter is still a small amount of this population. I do not remember a hell of a lot about the specifics of my college education, but the one thing that higher learning taught me was how to find what I wished to know. Even before the Internet, I spent time in libraries when I was curious about something, not realizing at the time that I was actually doing research. And there is nothing more important than research in blogging

The downside of all this is that if we continue to have uninformed people going to the polls in each election, we will end up with results like a Donald Trump. A Mitch McConnell. A Paul Ryan. A Trey Gowdy. A Sarah Palin. A Ted Cruz. A John McCain. A John Boehner. A Jan Brewer. A Marco Rubio. A Newt Gingrich. A Darrell Isssa. A Steve King. A Michele Bachmann. A Joni Ernst. A Jeff Flake. I could go on all day but would just end up talking about a Republican Congress that has been a stumbling block to the good of this country since it took office. We need a change in 2018.

How the hell do we keep explaining these gun deaths

There is no way. But at the same time, we still do nothing about it. In January of 2017, Trump made a series of stupid comments on guns and the 2nd Amendment, sounding almost as dumb as the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, about the sanctity of the 2nd, and bullshit like, "...the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away." If he is implying that guns were around before the U.S. was a country, and before there was a Constitution, of course they were. They were used in a war.

But it was the Founding Fathers that felt the need for a 2nd Amendment at a time they still required protection from the British and there was basically no real police force to enforce the laws. People needed to protect themselves and having weapons in the home made sense. It doesn't now. We have a federal armed forces and law enforcement on the local, county and state levels. Sure, people are killed with guns on the street but that is because there are so many guns on the street. Get rid of all the guns and you get rid of the problem. But we know that will never happen. Is there an answer?

Here's an excerpt from a post I did about what the Founding Fathers really meant...

"It occurred to me recently that enough hasn't been said recently about the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution for the rights and restrictions of gun owners. With individual and mass killings by guns a regular daily occurrence, and the fact that even in light of the horrific number of deaths, including many children, the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) headed up by Wayne LaPierre, still maintain that the right to have a gun is more important than human life. LaPierre bases that right on the 2nd Amendment, given to us by the Founding Fathers. He claims it is inviolable."

And more on the same subject...

"Here's an incident of the typical thinking of a gun nut: In a tirade against CNN’s Piers Morgan, Alex Jones argued, 'The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.' Like this government could ever come together long enough to start anything, much less tyranny. It's a laughable argument and there's much in history to disprove the gun nuts. Truth-Out.org also reports first-hand documents from 1789 detail the First Congress' debate on arms and militia detail a constant theme: "the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government."

In one of the most egregious acts in the field of journalism, Jan Larson McLaughlin, the Editor of the Bowling Green Sentinel-Tribune in Ohio, was fired for insubordination by the Publisher, Karmen Concannon. The reason, McLaughlin wrote an article about the NRA that was unfavorable but true, re. James Evans, a geology professor, for his email to State Rep. Tim Brown in which he called the NRA a “terrorist organization." McLaughlin found no problem with that and neither do I. But she was fired and the Publisher refused any comments on the matter. Read the editorial!

I am writing this post as a reaction to the most recent murder of, Karen Smith, a school teacher from San Bernardino, California, by her husband, also killing an eight-year-old student standing behind her. He too was was struck by gunfire. Apparently the eight-year-old that was killed, plus the other student who was shot, were simply innocent bystanders. The NRA and its gun nuts will now scream for arming every teacher in the country; guns are already legal with students in many classrooms nationwide. I can just see it now; OK Corral goes to school.

God forbid I would agree with Donald Trump

Thanks to President Bashar al-Assad

If President Bashar al-Assad gassed his people in Syria, there is no doubt that he deserves to be drawn and quartered. IF. Then President Barack Obama in 2013, was in the same position as was Trump recently when he called the strike on the Syrian government. Obama backed off because of intelligence from James Clapper, of his national security team, that indicated the Assad government did not cause the attacks. Trump acted once again on visuals that portrayed the gassing, but did not wait for the follow-up intelligence to corroborate the strikes. The kind of thing that could start war.

The Huffington Post criticizes the general media, particularly CNN for relying on handouts from government sources for confirmations and not digging deeper to uncover sidebars that could change the direction of the investigation. Like the fact that where the gas was released, Khan Sheikhoun, was "...ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011." The catch here is...

"Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda’s arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population."

The question arises, was Donald Trump, in his quick reaction, duped by Al Qaeda? It seems to be Donald John's MO to make his decisions based on visuals, and not always those that can be verified. And the experts are asking why would Assad "...risk everything by using chemical weapons against a target of zero military value, at a time when the strategic balance of power had shifted strongly in his favor." But there have been so many instances of gas attacks in the past, that it is hard for one to determine where to place the blame. Particularly including ISIS, Al Qaeda and all their factions.

The U.S. so far has placed the blame clearly on the Syrian government, along with Russia and Iran. During the Syrian War that has been going for about six years, the Syrian government has used chlorine gas regularly and along with chemical attacks some 1,100 Syrians have been killed. There are reports that ISIS has used mustard gas in the country. So, with so many different political coalitions at work, at the same time, in the same place, is there any way to determine who is responsible? Or is this exactly what Bashar al-Assad wants? The perfect cover.

So, what should be the strategy? Iraq had a dictator and George W. Bush captured him and later he was executed for similar atrocities. Russia was also involved in that country, and the U.S. still proceeded. If anyone could pull off another GWB in Syria, it would be Donald Trump. The big question is, would he do it right? To do that would require getting some sound advice, and to do that would probably mean going outside the current administration advisers. That wouldn't happen, but no problem, DT would just order satellite photos and take it from there.

HP's opinion of general media reportage...

"...outlets like CNN embrace at face value anything they are told by official American sources, including a particularly preposterous insinuation that Russia actually colluded in the chemical weapons attack; the aforementioned presence of Russian officers at Al Shayrat air base has been cited as evidence that Russia had to have known about Syria’s chemical warfare capability, and yet did nothing to prevent the attack."

And where does the final blame lie?...

"The real culprits here are the Trump administration, and President Trump himself. The president’s record of placing more weight on what he sees on television than the intelligence briefings he may or may not be getting, and his lack of intellectual curiosity and unfamiliarity with the nuances and complexities of both foreign and national security policy, created the conditions where the imagery of the Khan Sheikhoun victims that had been disseminated by pro-Al Nusra (i.e., Al Qaeda) outlets could influence critical life-or-death decisions."

Just how far are we from WWIII?