Trees

[Introductory music plays.  Then the host of The Cuppa Travis Tea Podcast (i.e., me) says:  “Welcome to The Cuppa Travis Tea Podcast.  I am your host:  Travis Ray Garner.  This episode is the first episode of the first season of The Cuppa Travis Tea Podcast, entitled ‘Trees’.  So:  Let’s begin, shall we?”  And then I read what follows.  Enjoy.]

Trees

Part I:  Saplings Are for Saps

Not too long ago, I read a story about the death of a life form on planet Earth.  It was a creature of terra firma, which shuffled off its mortal coil in my native land:  the United States of America.

The life form was a stranger to this constitutional republic.  It was a foreigner to this representative form of human governance.  It was an alien to this democratic nation.  And now, it is dead, and I say good riddance to bad rubbish.

The terrestrial life form was nothing more than an oak tree.  It was a sapling, to be precise; and, in a way, the sapling was not unlike the Statue of Liberty, for it too was a gift from the most senior of allies to the American people:  the citizenry of the French Republic.  The little oak tree came courtesy of the current president of France, Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron, and his significant other, Brigitte Marie-Claude Trogneux-Macron, during their state visit to the United States of America in April of 2018.

On Monday, 10 June 2019, a journalist, Kim Willsher, dispatched from the French capital of Paris, no less, a piece for The Guardian, which is a British daily newspaper of some renown.  The dispatch read, in part, as follows:

[The French oak] sapling came from Belleau Wood, north-east of Paris, the location of a ferocious but pivotal battle in which 1,811 Americans died in June [of] 1918 during the first world war. . . .

[President] Macron and [Donald John Trump, of Trump University], wielding gold-coloured spades, shovelled dirt around [the French oak sapling], [while being] watched by . . . Brigitte Macron and Melania Trump [the third wife of Donald John Trump, of Trump University] and [by] the world’s press during the April [of] 2018 state visit. . . .

Once the cameras had departed, the tree was uprooted and placed into quarantine to avoid the spread of non-native diseases and invasive insects. . . .

Gérard Araud, the then French Ambassador to the [United States of America], explained [that] the quarantine was “mandatory for any living organism imported into America” and said [that] the tree would be replanted later.  Images showed only a yellow patch of grass . . . on the White House . . . [grounds] where the tree had [once] been planted. . . .

Now it appears that the oak did not survive its time in quarantine.  Its death was confirmed by a diplomatic source to Agence France-Presse. . . .

When word of the death of that little French oak tree came into the light of the public consciousness,  word soon spread that another little French oak tree would eventually be en route to the United States of America.  On Wednesday, 12 June 2019, folks at the British Broadcasting Corporation (or, the BBC) filed a report.  In part, it read, as follows:

French President Emmanuel Macron says he will send . . . a new “friendship tree” after the original [one had] died. . . .

[President] Macron told Swiss public broadcaster [Radio télévision suisse (or, RTS)]:  “We will send another [one], it is not a tragedy.  It turns out that this oak was put in quarantine for American sanitary reasons and the poor thing did not survive.  I’ll send another oak because I think the [U.S.] Marines and the friendship for freedom between our peoples is well worth it.”

Of course, to this day, the most important question in the case of the death of that little French oak tree remains unspoken.  On both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, journalists have yet to ask that question; on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, government officials have yet to answer that question.

Today, however, I shall ask and answer that question.  After all, someone must respond to the complex questions which define our era—the Age of the Anthropocene.  Besides, it is probably for the best that someone, like me, should assume, voluntarily, the role of the intrepid muckraker, if for no other reason than as a matter of public service to the Republic, for which it stands.

And so, in this case, the question which surrounds the death of that little French oak tree is not whether some human beings in the United States of America decided not to promote the growth of an oak sapling of foreign extraction in the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Instead, the question which encircles the death of that little French oak tree is whether some human beings in the United States of America chose to defend the American people from an alien life form which sought to plant its roots into the soil of the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Simply put:  Trees are nothing more than a threat to the human race.

This statement is self-evident.  It is also incontrovertible.  And the evidence which supports it is beyond reproach.

* * *

Part II:  Usurpers of Progress Are in Our Midst

Sadly, more than a few of my fellow Americans disagree with the truth about trees—namely, the folks from the Arbor Day Foundation.  Together, they purport to represent a “nonprofit conservation and education organization” which basically acts as a front for a radical, activist group of lovers of trees.  Why, they even have the temerity to claim that the Arbor Day Foundation is the “largest nonprofit membership organization dedicated to planting trees, with over one million members, supporters, and valued partners.”  They are simply without shame in how they describe the symbiotic relationship between the flora and the fauna of planet Earth.  Nevertheless, if one were to study the Arbor Day Foundation website, then one would soon discover that these so-called “members, supporters, and valued partners” from the Arbor Day Foundation merely publish information on a website which serves but for one purpose:  to disseminate misinformation about trees.

A case in point:  Take the Arbor Day Foundation web page entitled “Tree Facts”.  Here, one may read a list of twenty-five bullet points, with each one referencing—respectively—various reports:  federal, state, university, or some other type of organizational entity.  While the citations are somewhat problematic, it is only because they support what the folks from the Arbor Day Foundation allege as being true:  that trees are a benefit, and not a detriment, to life on planet Earth.

For example, according to the folks from the Arbor Day Foundation, trees “clean our air”.  Trees “contribute to our health” and “provide us with oxygen”.  Trees “help clean our drinking water” and “provide much-needed cooling”.  Trees “help reduce the effects of climate change” and “help us save energy”.  Trees “benefit wildlife” and even “reduce crime”.  And trees not only “are a good investment of our public dollars” but also “increase our property values”.   

But do trees, in fact, really achieve these things?

Because I beg to differ.

After all, as everybody knows, in this universe, there are facts, and then there are “alternative facts”.  At least, that is what Ms. Kellyanne Conway, Esq., once taught me on Sunday, 22 January 2017.  And she is someone who knows what she is talking about because she is a lawyer, which therefore means that she is an important person in American society, and because sometimes she speaks on behalf of Donald John Trump, of Trump University.

Moreover, as everybody knows, in this universe, the axiom which states that “Truth isn’t truth” is the opposite of the axiom which states that “Truth is truth”.  At least, that is what Mr. Rudy Giuliani, Esq., once taught me on Sunday, 19 August 2018.  And he is someone who knows what he is talking about because he is a lawyer, which therefore means that he is an important person in American society, and because sometimes he speaks on behalf of Donald John Trump, of Trump University.

Nevertheless, some of the best advice that I ever received in this universe came from a man who once said to an assemblage gathered at a Veterans of Foreign Wars (or, VFW) event in Kansas City, Missouri, on Tuesday, 24 July 2018, the following:

Just stick with us.  Don’t believe the crap you see from these people—the fake news.

I mean, I saw a piece on NBC today.  NBC—not just CNN.  CNN is the worst.  But I saw a piece on NBC; it was heart-throbbing.  They were interviewing people—they probably go through [twenty], and then they pick the one that sounds like the worst.  But they went through a group of people.  In fact, I wanted to say, “I got to do something about this Trump.”  Terrible.

And that piece was done by the lobbyists and by the people that they hire.  It was a total setup.  This country is doing better than it’s ever done before, economically.  This is the time to take off the rip-off of tariff [sic].  We have to do it.

You know, other countries have tariffs on us.  So when I say, “Well, I’m going to put tariffs on them, they all start screaming, ‘He’s using tariffs.’”  [sic]  China charges us, when we make a car, a [twenty-five] percent tariff.  We charge them [two and a half] percent.  Other than that, it’s a fair deal.  Okay?

Similar things with other countries, like the European Union.  They’re a big abuser.  But it’s all working out.  And just remember:  What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what is happening. . . .

That sage counsel at that 119th Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in 2018 was from a man, Donald John Trump, of Trump University, who has been married not once, not twice, but thrice, while serving as the father of five children.  Of course, his decision to stay monogamous is not necessarily an easy stance to maintain, even more so when the legal rights and obligations of a state law contract of marriage stipulates the actual terms of the monogamous relationship under which the parties shall abide.

Thankfully, in the United States of America, divorce (and sometimes an annulment) is an option for individuals who give the monogamous marriage cultural construct a spin.  Then obtain a divorce.  Then get married again.  Then seek another divorce.  Then get married on a whim all over again.  And so on and so forth.

It is a choice—a certain lifestyle, if you will—and it is the kind of lifestyle-choice that I simply refuse to condone.  My position on multiple heterosexual marriages (and any intermittent, subsequent annulments or divorces) is almost like the perspective that some of my fellow Americans hold within the reactionary community, in how they judge the lifestyle of the bisexual, the homosexual, and the transsexual.

The fact is:

Numerous marital unions over the course of a single lifetime merely denigrates the institution of monogamous heterosexual marriage, and I am quite sure that my friends in the American reactionary community agree with me.

Then again, some folks, like Anthony Richard Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, might give a mulligan to a man with three successive trips down the matrimonial aisle.

Whereas other folks, like William Franklin Graham III, an honorary doctorate of Liberty University, a dear, sweet friend of Donald John Trump, of Trump University, might even parse words to create an exception on the space-time continuum for periodic moments of marital infidelity.

And anyone who dares to suggest that any recent executive order which permits members of any federally recognized, federally tax-exempt religious organization to participate even more so within the political arena of the United States of America, without a fear of reprisal from employees of the Internal Revenue Service, even though that recent executive order runs contrary to federal statutory law and is yet another example of the deep administrative state, is nothing more than a blasphemer.

After all, as a man once said:  “True love is an act of the will – a conscious decision to do what is best for the other person instead of ourselves.”  That man, of course, was the late William Franklin Graham Jr. (or, the Reverend Billy Graham), the father of Franklin Graham, the honorary doctorate of Liberty University and the bosom chum of Donald John Trump, of Trump University, who, as everybody knows, is beyond well-versed with the text of the Bible.

However, to be fair, the late Reverend Billy Graham once encouraged former President Richard Milhous Nixon to continue the act of genocide against the people of Vietnam in a memorandum on Tuesday, 15 April 1969; moreover, he also once offered, during a 1972 visit to the White House, in the Oval Office, with former President Richard Milhous Nixon and former White House Chief of Staff Harry Robbins “Bob” Haldeman to share his anti-Semitic thoughts regarding some of his fellow American citizens of Jewish descent.  And, yes, of course, while it is true that the late Reverend Billy Graham made an apology, his remorse only came once several decades had elapsed, after a secret tape recording by his dear, sweet friend, the late Richard Milhous Nixon, had surfaced, which begs the question:

Has God forgiven the late Reverend Billy Graham, not only for that memorandum which advocated the genocide of Vietnamese citizens but also for that American strain of anti-Semitism; furthermore, has God forgiven the late Richard Milhous Nixon, not only for his crimes against peace but also for his crimes against humanity, and, for that matter, will God forgive Henry Alfred Kissinger when he finally kicks the bucket?

But away from any prior inconsistent statements by those within the American reactionary community about monogamous marriages of heterosexuality with their bouts of attendant marital infidelity and back to some of the best advice that I ever received in this universe.

That wise recommendation at that 119th Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in 2018 was from a man, Donald John Trump, of Trump University, who may likely have lost more money over a ten-year period than any other human being in the United States of America.  And, not to be outdone, before, during, and after that same time period, numerous other ventures of his crashed and burned.  Also, there were six bankruptcies—to date—filed under Chapter 11.  All of which is to say that some may cite such examples as evidence of a man possessed with a keen business acumen (or, as nothing more than a carpetbagger who hired competent accountants and retained the services of scrupulous attorneys).

Of course, perhaps the actual wherewithal of Donald John Trump, of Trump University, has nothing whatsoever to do with his mathematical prowess and has everything to do with his late father, Frederick Christ Trump, who once had a “youthful indiscretion” in 1927 which resulted in his arrest at a Ku Klux Klan rally in the borough of Queens, New York.

And while I am on the subject of members of the Trump family, may I take but a moment to congratulate the eldest sibling of Donald John Trump, of Trump University, the Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry, on her recent retirement as that of a federal appellate judge, where, as she and I both know, the rule of law in the United States of America makes no distinction between the rich and the poor.  In fact, right now, I would imagine that every single member of the American Bar Association appreciates the Honorable Barry for her service to the Republic, for which it stands.  Furthermore, I see no reason why her federal retirement compensation—courtesy of her employer:  the American people—should cease to end.  After all, she earned it.

But no more about any of these allegations of Trump family fraudulent inheritance and tax avoidance schemes to the tune of millions of American dollars because it is time to return to some of the best advice that I ever received in this universe.

That prudent guidance at that 119th Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in 2018 was from a man, Donald John Trump, of Trump University, whose love for the service members of the United States military simply knows no boundaries, so much so that he once sought five deferments to avoid the Vietnam War because he thought it best to serve the United States of America at home, as a civilian, rather than as a service member of the United States military in yet another human conflict, this time over a theory about dominoes and communism, where more than a few of his fellow Americans (and millions of men, women, and children in several Asian nations) demonstrated genuine acts of courage and sacrifice through volunteerism, through self-preservation, and through federally mandated conscription.

In fact, the love that Donald John Trump, of Trump University, held then for the service members of the United States military of yesterday transcends to the service members of the United States military of today, some of whom are in yet another human conflict, this time over psychological techniques of enhanced interrogation, a deck of baseball cards for periodic assassination, and vocational opportunities in circles of federal adjudication (so never you mind any of the slipshod types of legal or medical justifications used to conduct rampant international acts of American kinds of homegrown terrorism), where the love of Donald John Trump, of Trump University, overflows with acts of gallantry and forbearance, and where the zeal of his patriotism toward the Republic, for which it stands, is second to none, and above all others—in particular, during those tense, fraught moments when he wants to show the whole wide world just how much he loves the United States of America in song.

Indeed, it is not that unreasonable to suggest that the fearlessness and self-restraint with which Donald John Trump, of Trump University, exhibits under pressure, these days, is not so different from that which those 1,811 American citizens once demonstrated during the First World War, while serving in a United States military along unjust lines of segregation, far from home, apart from family and friends and neighbors and coworkers, only to fall in the Battle of Belleau Wood, throughout June of 1918, under the canopy of a forest, on the terrain of an alien and hostile nation:  the European Union.

* * *

Part III:  Manage the Forests Anew

Although I understand the reluctance on the part of many of my fellow Americans to agree with my supposition which calls for the eradication of the trees, I contend that, after I debunk the Arbor Day Foundation facts about trees, more and more of my fellow Americans will accept my argument on the basis of its merits.

To begin, I admit that the public service announcements of Smokey Bear have done a tremendous service to the American people.  And yet, when has anyone from the U.S. Forest Service—that federal agency tucked within the U.S. Department of Agriculture—ever been a reliable source of information to validate any statement about trees?

Moreover, why must the American people regard the arbitrary demarcation of the lawyer and the judge who declare, together, that American governmental sources (i.e., federal, state, and local—in that specific, hierarchical order) shall receive primary status for citation purposes, whereas, say, the lumber reports of private commercial enterprises shall receive a secondary status for citation purposes?

Who on planet Earth is more trustworthy, I ask you:

Federal, state, or local employees of the American people, or the directors, officers, agents, employees, and independent contractors under the control of corporations or pass-through entities, whose organizational right to exist depends entirely upon what appears on the pages of each one of the statutory codes of the fifty states of the United States of America—respectively—and has nothing to do with what appears on the pages of the Constitution of the United States of America, a legal document—a contract, if you will—which not only stipulates the inalienable rights of human beings within the Republic, for which it stands, but also delineates the at-will terms of employment for the men and women on the three branches of the federal government of the United States of America who work on behalf of and receive compensation from their employer:  the American people?

Next, clean air is a misnomer.  Studies now show that trace amounts of unpleasant industrial airborne particulates fortify the human body over an indeterminate period of time.  Although I am uncertain which studies demonstrate that to be the case, I am almost positive that I read about it once, somewhere, on the World Wide Web.

Next, human health is overrated.  The human body contains a finite amount of energy, from the cradle to the grave, much like a battery—only the non-rechargeable kind.  And I know it is true, too, because Donald John Trump, of Trump University, said it was true.

Next, oxygen comes in tanks.  Therefore, whatever benefits trees may have once provided with oxygen, in exchange for our carbon dioxide, is now in much better (human) hands in the for-profit American health care industry, where, for a nominal fee, hopefully, some health care insurance will help to defray any costs for the necessity of oxygen.

Next, I buy my water in plastic bottles from the grocery store.  It is clear; it is crisp; and it is fresh—unlike the water which has been flowing recently from my taps and which sometimes is opaque and stinks.

Furthermore, after I polish off the water in one of those plastic bottles, I simply toss the empty plastic bottle into my plastic trash can, the one that I line with a plastic trash bag.  Eventually, I know that all of that plastic that I ship to my neighborhood municipal waste facility will dissolve my conspicuous consumption of plastic.

Next, if I need a change in room temperature, then I simply turn on my air conditioner.  The source of the electricity comes from a steady source, too:  the nearby nuclear fission reactor, up there on the hill, watching over my town like a sentinel.  That nuclear reactor is the cleanest, safest generator of power ever known to the human race, except if it explodes.

Next, climate change is always in a constant state of flux on planet Earth.  But even if the planetary biosphere is in a tailspin because of a few centuries of human industrialism, compounded by an overpopulation of our species at this present moment in time, then it is not like anyone from any particular industry ever had any scientific knowledge about the harm that any products from that same industry would one day do to the planetary biosphere.

And even if that were true, then it is not like some American judges, some American lawyers, or some American politicians would ever let such an intentional act of ecocide happen on their watch because, aside from the breach of the public trust doctrine, that would demonstrate that they aided and abetted certain individual human beings within the  private commercial sphere of human activity so as to facilitate an environmental calamity.

And even if some American citizens who serve as employees of the American people at the federal, state, or local level of government conspired with folks from American corporations and American pass-through entities who purposefully and willfully destroyed the planetary biosphere in the long term for profits in the short term (i.e., to enrich themselves and their descendants), then the statute of limitations has already expired on any present or future prosecutorial action.  Besides, it is not like the human race has ever established a precedent which punishes the perpetrators of “Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity.”

Next, the best way that I save energy, these days, is whenever I purchase appliances online with one of those energy-saver labels affixed to the machines.  They usually come from somewhere overseas, too, in less than desirable working conditions.  Or so I have heard.

I make it a point in life never to dwell on the plight of the men, women, and children of planet Earth who work under inhospitable circumstances in subsidiary branches of corporations or pass-through entities, where past and present public employees on the three branches of the American government, federal and state, over several decades, under the guise of two political parties, fashioned laws, in exchange for campaign contributions or independent expenditures, so as to reward the entrepreneurs of the Republic, for which it stands.

Next, why should I show any concern toward the symbiotic relationship between the trees and the human race—let alone between the trees and the other forms of wildlife on planet Earth?

Recently, a colony of honey bees who lived in a beehive, which hung quite low to the ground from the limb of an oak tree, stung the living daylights out of me.  A few weeks later, after I had recovered from the battery by honey bees (and after I had removed the stingers with a pair of tweezers), I filed a complaint in my county courthouse.

Standing before the judge, my face still swollen, I argued that the landlord—in this case, the oak tree—and the tenant—in this case, the colony of honey bees—were negligent.  I told the judge how the oak tree and the colony of honey bees had not met the county height requirements for a beehive.  As such, I said, at the time when I lay at the base of that oak tree, taking a nice, lovely nap on a warm, sunny day, enjoying the shade provided by that oak tree, safe and secure on my property, that colony of honey bees stung me, repeatedly, and thus harmed me.  It was clear, I said, that the oak tree and the colony of honey bees had breached their duty to me when they had failed to meet the county height requirements for a beehive.

The judge, meanwhile, listened with both ears.  And I noticed, while speaking, that she wrote something down with a pen onto a piece of paper, and then she gave that slip of paper to the bailiff.  Then she looked at me.

Furthermore, I said, the actual harm which came to me was in the form of hundreds, possibly thousands, of honey bee stings.  To make matters worse, I said, but for the low height of that beehive, I would never have been stung in the first place and in such an excessive and redundant manner; therefore, it was beyond foreseeable, I said, that my harm would occur with a beehive hanging so close to the ground and right above my head.

At the end of my opening statement, for some inexplicable reason, the judge ordered the bailiff to escort me from her courtroom, but only after she told me that, at present, civil actions do not extend to non-humans, like that oak tree and that colony of honey bees.

But I digress.

Next, I am uncertain as to whether I should comment on the assertion that trees “reduce crime”.  Instead, I shall leave that to my fellow Americans to decide.  As it is, I have a particular axe to grind with an oak tree and a colony of honey bees, and I would rather not venture anything else on that subject-matter, except to say that I shall resolve my predicament with a wood chipper and a can of bug spray.  Besides, the last I checked, self-defense against oak trees and honey bees is still a valid defense against the charge of inter-species homicide.

Finally, investing American tax dollars into trees is simply ludicrous.  Under the American legal system, the notion of real estate is one which is unique.  Land never depreciates, even when industrial pollution or nuclear fission radiation permeates the topography, making the soil uninhabitable and the water undrinkable for hundreds, if not for thousands, of years, but by then the human beings who were responsible for such purposeful and willful ecological destruction, so as to turn a quick buck, will no longer be amongst the living, and will likely have evaded justice anyway.

After all, whatever will happen to the men and the women of the United States of America who work in the lumber industry when they have removed the last of the forests?  Must we place these men and women into a line of work which plants trees on a federal governmental salary which keeps pace with the cost of living, provides a comprehensive federal single-payer health care insurance plan, offers a complete federal child care service, grants a federal right to form a union, and gives the guarantee of federal retirement benefits beyond that of just Social Security?

Who better than the lumberjack to know exactly where to plant the trees—aside from perhaps any members of local Native American nations, who live near the forests, who also would receive a federal governmental salary which keeps pace with the cost of living, a comprehensive federal single-payer health care insurance plan, a complete federal child care service, the federal right to form a union, and the guarantee of federal retirement benefits beyond that of just Social Security.  Together, these two groups of American citizens could even combine forces with members of the scientific community, especially the ones with an extensive knowledge of trees.  In fact, studies now show that the more trees which live within the planetary biosphere, the healthier it is for everyone and everything under the Sun.

However, I disagree with this course of action because it smacks of socialism.

Recall the last of the Arbor Day Foundation “tree facts” which references the boon that trees provide to the value of property.  This quintessential American notion of private possessory interests—both in real estate and in chattel—has worked out just fine (to date) for the Pence brothers, Greg and Mike, throughout the states of Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky.

For example, the Pence family business, the Kiel Bros. Oil Co., passed the costs of environmental pollution (with the help of some lawyers) onto the American taxpayers; and now, today, the Pence brothers, Greg and Mike, receive compensation as federal public employees of the American people, with Greg as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and with Mike as the 48th Vice President of the United States of America.

And that is how it should be because to say that the Pence brothers, Greg and Mike, have never taken responsibility for the acts of the Pence family business is simply not true.  In fact, I wager that it is only a matter of time before the Pence brothers, Greg and Mike, drink the water and eat the crops on specific plots of land in the states of Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky so as to prove that the Pence family business never once poisoned parts of the planetary biosphere.

Besides, as men of God, the Pence brothers, Greg and Mike, have a faith which is steadfast.  They know that their faith shall protect them from any harm because the proprietary chemicals of the fossil fuel industry are the handiwork of God.  Furthermore, they know that when that deleterious concoction moves throughout their bloodstream that God will be there for them in their hour of need to show the entire world that the Pence family business caused no harm to the environment whatsoever in the states of Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky.  To act otherwise, of course, would demonstrate that the faith of the Pence brothers, Greg and Mike, is not as resolute as they would have others believe, and it might even raise the possibility that they are not at all what they claim to be.

Most important, though, as two staunch fiscal conservatives from the American reactionary community, the Pence brothers, Greg and Mike, will one day soon commit themselves to the task to recompense the citizenry of Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky for the cost of the environmental cleanup from the Pence family business.  The reason is self-explanatory:  They are American citizens, who, like me, oppose the mere idea of any type of governmental bailout because it cuts against the philosophical stance of the late Abraham Lincoln and because it is nothing less than socialism.

* * *

Part IV:  Rakers of the World:  Unite!

Somewhere on the pages of the Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume Three, the late American author (and journalist), Mark Twain, notes the following:

In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.

As I approach the half-century mark, I have concluded that, if I should live for another half century, I shall bear witness to the collapse of the planetary biosphere.  And that is not an opinion.  It is a fact.  Because I have already been observing its demise over the course of my life.

Planet Earth is my home, and, for several decades, I have watched as some of my fellow Americans have lead the way, purposefully and willfully, to destroy my home—for money.  Because money, in their eyes, brings respect, power, and notoriety.  Because money, in their eyes, permits them to orbit the mass of billions of human beings that they keep mired in abject poverty.  Because money, in their eyes, gives them the justification to quantify and to commodify every living creature on planet Earth.  However, I know something else about money:  It will not save the descendants of tomorrow whose antecedents of today continue to ruin the planetary biosphere for nothing more than profit.

Then again, what do I know?  I only read what the scientific community shares with me, and listen carefully to what my fellow members of the human race say courageously.

 

Maybe the trees are not at all one of the most fundamental components to the web of life on planet Earth.  And maybe every other single species of flora and fauna in existence today is no longer essential to life as our species has evolved to spot it, to avoid it, to fight it, to burn it, to name it, to domesticate it, and, yes, even to eat it.

The fact is:

Lately, I have begun to question the sanity of some of my fellow Americans, especially the ones who have children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, unlike me, who time after time act against the best future interests for their families—not their best future financial interests, although they serve some importance in life, but their best future environmental interests, without which there are zero economic interests.

Perhaps it is for the best, then, that a man like Donald John Trump, of Trump University, is the current president of the United States of America, even though he is the unindicted co-conspirator to a felony because he conspired with others to increase his electoral chances in 2016 to become the president of the United States of America in 2017.  And perhaps that is what the phrase “rule of law” means today whenever I hear an American politician or read the case law decision of an American judge who waxes poetic with that phrase—repeatedly—in the Republic, for which it stands.

Maybe the unindicted co-conspirator to a felony, Donald John Trump, of Trump University, should occupy the White House, a home which belongs to his employer:  the American people.  And maybe the unindicted co-conspirator to a felony, Donald John Trump, of Trump University, should nominate members of the American Bar Association to serve on the tiers of the American federal judiciary, from the inferior courts to the Supreme Court.  And maybe, just maybe, United States Senators should confirm the judicial nominations of members of the American Bar Association to serve on the tiers of the American federal judiciary, from the inferior courts to the Supreme Court, all of which came from the unindicted co-conspirator to a felony, Donald John Trump, of Trump University.  After all, it is not like the criminal side of the courts in the United States of America ever delves into the past human conduct of defendants who face American governmental allegations of criminality.

Indeed, I can think of no better example which exists today—one which carries the stamp of constitutional legitimacy upon an entire American presidential administration—than that of the unindicted co-conspirator to a felony, Donald John Trump, of Trump University, who serves the American people as the president of the United States of America and who nominates American citizens to become judges so as to serve the American people on the tiers of the American federal judiciary, from the inferior courts to the Supreme Court, but only with the confirmation of dozens of confederates in the United States Senate.  And the fact that the majority of the members of the American Bar Association, at present, does not motion to disbar the lawyers and the judges who are the accomplices to a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States of America (i.e., the American people) is merely additional proof that, when it concerns the majority of the members of the American Bar Association, that multitude remains the greatest self-policing force ever created for a profession throughout the entirety of human history.  Besides, it is not like the formation or deletion of laws in the United States of America, on the three branches of government, originates from an act of bribery, for a campaign contribution or an independent expenditure by any other name is still an act of bribery.

Which brings me back to the trees.

During November of 2018, the unindicted co-conspirator to a felony, Donald John Trump, of Trump University, decreed that the American people should consider the difference that a rake could make on the floors of the American forests.  He cited his supposition as he stood on the devastation of the Camp Fire, a deadly conflagration which burned through Butte County, California.  (And never you mind that the fire was not because of forest mismanagement but because of some of the folks who work for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company who were (and are) responsible for that fire.)

 

Shortly after his decree, the unindicted co-conspirator to a felony, Donald John Trump, of Trump University, told of the destruction that he had witnessed in southern California, while mentioning the remnants of the town of Pleasure—Paradise—Pleasure—Paradise, California, in Butte County.

 

As a result, in summation, my fellow Americans:

Now is the time to act.  So:  Grab a rake, and clear out some space on the floors of our forests.

With our inheritance, with our heritage as our guide—the Constitution of the United States of America, and, in particular, the final inalienable right stipulated under the First Amendment, the one which guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”—we must take our rakes onto our streets, surround our public buildings of government, and demand of our public servants to act in a manner as we command (for we are their employer, you see).  As such, let not what you see or read from the unindicted co-conspirator to a felony, Donald John Trump, of Trump University, or his partners in crime ever attempt to dissuade us from the task at hand:

To create a future on planet Earth with what remains of the flora and the fauna.

Or not.

The choice is ours to make, with or without the need for any rakes.

I say these things today because I suspect that the lives of those 1,811 American citizens who once fell in the Battle of Belleau Wood on the soil of the French Republic during the month of June 0f 1918 would very much want for us to work alongside our fellow members of the human race, around this whole irreplaceable world, so as to nurture, rather than to harm, our planetary biosphere, or else the memory of the sacrifice of those 1,811 American citizens will stand for naught.

 

[At the conclusion of this podcast episode, I say the following, after the introductory music begins to play, softly, at first:  “And that concludes the first episode of the first season of The Cuppa Travis Tea Podcast, with your host, me, Travis Ray Garner.  I thank you very much, dear listener, both for your time and for your consideration.  See you next month.  Take care.”  Note:  The Postscript, which follows, does not appear in the first episode of the first season of The Cuppa Travis Tea Podcast.]

Postscript

If you would like to share your thoughts with me, then please visit my Contact Me web page.

As always, I thank you very much, both for your time and for your consideration.

Yours in service,

Travis Ray Garner

Thursday, 1 August 2019