A Reasonable Doubt Exists About President's Birthplace

One should give a reasonable doubt to President Obama's place or nation of. O.J. Simpson was acquitted for a reasonable doubt of his guilt in the double homicide. Reasonable people would have to say, or at least once did, without need for racism pro or con, that they were not absolutely sure if Barack Hussein Obama was born in Jakarta or Honolulu.

To believe the President was born in Honolulu one would need to trust a birth certificate from a deceased physician written in an era when physicians would actually, for a fee,  bake not only their place of birth but the birth parents too for adopted children. My birth certificate says that my adopted parents are my natural parents-that is their is no mention made at all of my natural parents. I am sure that merely fudging that nation of birth for an American's progeny born abroad is less troubling. Sanctuary cities in California probably have many physicians that would do so today.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-birther-no-apologies-228289

The President's mother's return to Hawaii from Indonesia simply isn't in government records-that was before computerization. It is known the future President was raised in Indonesia until age 7 or so-at least that is the data that was put out in 2008-9. Hence a reasonable doubt exists. If Indonesians had a fundamentalist government that wanted to convict him for treason to Indonesia and Islam, and he still lived their, he might have a difficult time disproving his citizenship as a natural born Indonesian.

Americans don't have to have their heads up their butts though Democrat leadership prefers it so.

The Moral Authority of Hitler and Kaine

Some contemporary politicians effectively wish to dispense with morality. 

In a recent interview vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine said that 'people can make their own moral decisions-so did Adolph Hitler on his own moral authority. The idea that evil actions are moral decisions rather than immoral decisions require an oxymoronic regard negating the moral paradigm lest one assume that every decision is a moral one. Moral decisions are bracketed by universe of immoral decisions.

Morality is not set individually any more than language is created individually. It is a social phenomena. Morality is a description of what people of a society actually do. If their ethics are fundamentally, preponderantly immoral then the society can be said to be an immoral one. People have the choice of obeying or not social morality and moral norms.

Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote a treatise on natural law. He believed that nature itself has an implicit morality to wherein moral people must cohere. Cicero provided an example of the unnatural death of youth being wrong. He might have cited child sacrifice to Moloch as naturally wrong, whereas to Tim Kaine and Adolph Hitler that would be a personal moral choice.

It might be argued that personal moral decisions that do not involve others are in a realm wherein an individual has absolute moral authority. However decisions that do not involve other people in society at all-and even suicide involves others-would not be moral questions.

The Ten Commandments are not set individually. One may choose to follow or break the ten commandments yet one cannot create or uncreate the moral authority that provided them. Christians and Jews believe God provided the ten moral commandments. Tim Kaine might think that the ten commandments have no more moral authority than his own and that he and each individual should write in effect, their own commandments, disregard those of God and decide if they will or will not break them. If Tim Kaine and society did follow the course of creating and structuring their own moral authority exclusively it might be said that society was in a state of moral anarchy. When the Bible says 'thou shalt not kill', one cannot make a moral judgment of the commandment with personal authority. It is only possible to make an ethical decision to obey or disregard the commandment.

Moral norms are empirical facts describing concatenated mass social behavior. Individuals may use their own ethics that are decisive in following or breaking moral norms for whatever reason, however the moral paradigm is socially constructed or evolved, provided by divine providence etc.

I believe that in this age of fracture the destruction of conventional moral norms by democrat and Corporate party leadership is basically motivated to provide no resistance to the accumulation of wealth and power by one percent of the populous globally. With a doped up and immoral social order corrupt leadership would be more at home. When the environment breaks down too far and overpopulation or rebellion challenges the elite's position an immoral social order would provide less resistance to their mass destruction by elite that would a priori be a logical goal of a post-apocalyptic new world order.

The Democratic Party's New World Order

It was something of an amazing transition when the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. accepted homosexual marriage transforming itself into Another Church of Abomination. For secularists churches are social conveniences more suitable to supporting political correctness than Godliness following the ways of God given in the Holy Bible. Wall Street and President Obama want homosexual hegemony. Cultural decadence isn't new of course. That's what this blog post is about.

Some elitist Democrat-supporting-economists suggest that though the median wage for men hasn't improved in 40 years it doesn't matter. They say that even though fewer people are employed in the U.S.A. now than in about 40 years, the economy is healthy.

National economic growth averaged about 1% the past year as economic growth for the rich increased more. It also increased for the top middle class skilled workers that support a corrupt economic infrastructure. In 2013 economic growth was actually higher in the U.S.A. at 1.6%. The broadcast media have circled their wagons in support of corrupt Democrat party economic policy spinning the economic narrative as if most of the public have amnesia. I wrote an article on the near recession economy in 2013 that I will reprint before continuing the present essay.

U.S. Economic Growth Just 1.6% in 2013
17 Dec. 2013
Enriching the Wall Street Banks with zero interest Fed loans has enabled in part global investments enriching Saudi Arabia, China, India, Argentina and other economies with hot economic expansion rates of G.D.P. On October 19 The Economist reported the U.S. G.D.P. rate at 1.6% for 2013, China’s at 7.5%, India’s at 4.4%,Argentina’s at 8.3% and Saudi Arabia’s at 5.1%. And the U.S. rate may be puffed up by the Wall Street bank and investor profits on investments in foreign economies.

Even a zero-quantitative rate of economic growth is o.k. if qualitative growth increases, public debt is reduced, the environment restored and the quality of living of the poor and middle class increases. Such right-thinking policy goals are perhaps considered in some collegiate ecological economic colloquia yet definitely not in the U.S. Government or on Wall Street.

Since the Obama administration generally followed Bush II economic policy with permanent Bush II tax cuts the economic interests of the poor and middle class have continued to be stagnant if not downward. Nothing in administration policy seems designed to counter that. The big question is; will the President get in his 200th round of golf before January 1st?

Money supply the past decade increased 400% while national public debt is nearing 20 trillion dollars. The Federal Reserve simply bought U.S. bonds with fiction money so the U.S. government could have trillions to pay out in part to support the vast number of people-almost 50% of Americans, receiving Federal payments of some kind. That all follows traditionally corrupt economic practices common even in late Republican Rome when bread and circuses were given to pacify masses of poor Roman plebeians.

The rich are concentrating wealth and franchising the world so far as possible. Every economic act trickles up a percent of profit to ultimate insiders of Wall Street that would rule the world given the chance. Zero and fractional interest loans from the Federal Reserve allowed big banks the power to leverage free Federal Reserve sourced money to loan out five times more to people that repay real money. In practical effect the Federal Reserve let the rich produce free money themselves -trillions…

Increasing inflated money supply to the richest who invest overseas while enriching skilled workers serving them and transforming more than a quarter of the economy into financial workers serving the money flow systems of a wealth concentration establishment-and the entire phenomena greased with free money, public debt and foreign investment-is a classic recipe for financial disaster. The convenience of a corrupt economic system of tremendous advantage to an establishment draws millions of mindless minions to the most common and onerous of classic large-scale economic corruptions.

Democrat party politics from the slave era to the present wasn't not been reluctant to exploit non-party members (and even those too on occasion). The 20th century wars led by Democrat Presidents were advanced with death greasing party cadre skids. Did President Roosevelt-F.D.R.-really need to get America involved in the second world war? Might not a different President have found a way to stop the war from ever starting? Didn't the U.S. Army Air Force have a few wings to station in England before the battle of Britain that a different President might have sent to stop that action before it started?

F.D.R. having traveled to Europe more than 20 times while a youth and must have had some inkling that a vast war was imminent and might have been nipped in the bud with a proactive policy.

W.W. I era French Prime Minister Clemenceau said that World War II was guaranteed when the U.S.A. signed a separate treaty with Germany wherein the U.S.A. wouldn't  act as guarantor of the peace. Even in the late 1930s it is probable that F.D.R. could have guaranteed the peace with adequate force disposition to England and France if he had been interested in stopping the conflict from starting. Couldn't Roosevelt have based a large naval force in Britain and the U.S. Army on the continent preventing Hitler from ever taking the French coast? Might not it have been possible for some other President to get on better with Soviet Russia at least so far as to prevent the Soviet-Nazi treaty that secured Hitler's eastern frontier until he commenced operation Barbarossa? Why would FDR actual want to let the war start?

With the late entry in W.W. II Roosevelt could accomplish all of his U.S. Democrat party promotion agenda such as full employment, movement of Negroes into military service and social and education acceleration, women into industrial jobs and even military increases. FDR also go near dictatorial war powers (again like an ancient Roman dictator appointed during time of war).  Earlier he had tried to expand and pack the Supreme Court with sympathetic judges. Failing in that the war was a pragmatic opportunity for politics by his decree.

With the second world war F.D.R. was able to accomplish the great increase in Federal power that was the foundation of the modern Orwellian state seeking in a corporatist union to advance to a new world order.

Comparatively Harry S. Truman accomplished not so much consolidation of the Democrat Party power agenda. He did drop a pair of nuclear bombs in Japan-yet that only demonstrated nuclear power to the world as the first shock and awe episode (it was effective) bringing about the immediate end of the war with Japan. Though the well known stories of an immanent attack on Pearl Harbor and of disregard of the messages from the White House have been given a certain interpretation, from another one can surmise that if the Japanese naval forces had been intercepted and defeated in a timely way that might have foreshortened a war that F.D.R. was confident of winning after a few years of full industrial production and scientific development under his near dictatorial authority. Democrats regarded virtually F.D.R. as god-like.

J.F.K. brought Americans into Vietnam though it was his Vice President L.B.J. who turned it into a quagmire providing forerunners of Halliburton (via Kellogg, Brown and Root) with contracts to build most of the U.S. military bases in Vietnam. A new form and era of kickback to corporate establishment was founded continuing through the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts with no-bid Halliburton contracts. G.W. Bush was the first Democrat-like President of the modern era-minus the anti-Christian element though. Some believe that his father's press Sect. Marlin Fitzwater was that administration's Monica Lewinsky and that a both ways former C.I.A. chief. Vice-President and President ( G.H.W. Bush) was the point source of perversion for the deformation of post-Cold War U.S. political developments taken to extremes by following administrations. I don't know if the G.H.W. Bush perversion story is true, nor if the Florida Marlins as an expansion team that won the World Series following the G.H.W. Bush administration was an honest fluke or one designed by insider martinets as a p.r. obfuscation device.

L.B.J was a great war expander throwing all branches of service and contractors into the conflict creating full employment. He was yet the inventor of the great society program to relieve poverty in the U.S.  bringing innumerable social changes. Barack Obama stimulated Muslim conflict in the Middle East and regime change in Libya, Syria and even Egypt cautiously. Growing up in a Sunni nation-Indonesia-the President seemed too willing to support Sunni rebels to overthrow a Christian-friendly Alawite (Shi'a derivative) government led by a British trained dentist Bashar Assad. Hundreds of thousands of refugees including Muslim fled to Europe and America enabling a new Muslim infrastructure for support of terror where none had existed before. The U.S.A. took in 10,000 Syrian refugees the last year alone. Though none or some may be terrorists today they comprise future contacts and possible support for emergent Muslim terrorists globally. Needless to say, the Obama approach to the Middle East and support for the Syrian war an accelerant on the deaths and wounding of more than a million souls though if his objective was to send Muslims to the Christian world-that was accomplished.

ences more suitable to supporting political correctness rather than Godliness following the ways of God given in the Holy Bible. Wall Street and President Obama want homosexual hegemony. Cultural decadence isn't new of course. That's what this blog post is about.

Some elitist Democrat supporting economists suggest that though the median wage for men hasn't improved in 40 years that doesn't matter. They say that even though fewer people are employed in the U.S.A. now then, again, in about 40 years, the economy is healthy.

National economic growth average about 1% the past year though the economic growth for the rich increases. It also increases for the top middle class skilled workers that support a corrupt economic infrastructure. In 2013 economic growth was actually higher in the U.S.A. at 1.6%. The broadcast media have circled their wagons in support of the corrupt Democrat party economic policy spinning the economic narrative as if most of the public have amnesia.I wrote an article on the near recession economy in 2013 I will reprint before continuing on with the present essay.

U.S. Economic Growth Just 1.6% in 2013
17 Dec. 2013
Enriching the Wall Street Banks with zero interest Fed loans has enabled in part global investments to enrich Saudi Arabia, China, India, Argentina and other economies with hot economic expansion rates of G.D.P. In October 19th The Economist reported the U.S. G.D.P. rate with a 1.6% rate for 2013, China’s at 7.5%, India’s at 4.4%,Argentina’s at 8.3% and Saudi Arabia’s at 5.1%. The U.S. rate is probably puffed up by the Wall Street bank and investor profits on investments in foreign economies.

Even a zero-quantitative rate of economic growth is o.k. if qualitative growth increases, public debt is reduced, the environment restored and the quality of living of the poor and middle class increasing. Such right-thinking policy are perhaps considered in some collegiate ecological economic colloquia yet definitely not in the U.S. Government or on Wall Street.

Since the Obama administration generally followed Bush II economic policy with permanent Bush II tax cuts the economic interests of the poor and middle class have continued to be stagnant if not downward. Nothing in the administration policy seems designed to counter that. The big question is; will the President get in his 200th round of golf before January 1st?

Money supply the past decade increased 400% while national public debt is nearing 20 trillion dollars. The Federal Reserve simply bought U.S. bonds with fiction money so the U.S. government could have trillions to pay out in part to support the vast number of people-almost 50% of Americans, receiving Federal payments of some kind. That all follows traditionally corrupt economic practices common even in late Republican Rome when bread and circuses were given to pacify the masses of poor Roman plebeians.

The rich are concentrating wealth and franchising the world so far as possible. Every economic act trickles up a percent of profit to the ultimate insiders of Wall Street that would rule the world given the chance. Zero and fractional interest loans from the Federal Reserve allowed big banks the power to leverage that free money to loan out five times more to people that must repay real money. In practical effect the Federal Reserve let the rich produce free money themselves -billions and billions…

Increasing inflated money supply the richest use to invest overseas while enriching skilled workers serving them and transforming more than a quarter of the economy into financial workers serving the money flow systems of a wealth concentration establishment-and the entire phenomena greased with free money, public debt and foreign investment-is a classic recipe for financial disaster. The convenience of a corrupt economic system of tremendous advantage to an establishment draws minions of mindless followers to the most common and onerous of classic large-scale economic corruptions.

Democrat party politics from the slave era where it led to the present has not been reluctant to exploit non-party members (and even those too on occasion) to the 20th century wars led by Democrat Presidents may be advanced with exploitation. Did President Roosevelt-F.D.R.-really need to get America involved in the second world war? Might not a different President have found a way to stop the war from ever starting? Didn't the U.S. Army Air Force have a few wings to station in England before the battle of Britain that a different President might have sent to stop that action before it started? F.D.R. having traveled to Europe more than 20 times while a youth must have had some inkling that a vast war was imminent and might have been nipped in the bud with a proactive policy?

W.W. I era French Prime Minister Clemenceau said that World War Ii was guaranteed when the U.S.A. signed a separate treaty with Germany wherein the U.S.A> wouldn't need to act as guarantor of the peace; even in the late 30s it is probable that F.D.R. could have guaranteed the peace with adequate force disposition to England and France if he had been interested in stopping the conflict. Couldn't Roosevelt have based a large naval force in Britain and the U.S. Army on the continent preventing Hitler from ever taking the French coast? Might not it have been possible for some other President to get on better with Soviet Russia at least so far as to prevent the Soviet-Nazi treaty that secured Hitler's eastern frontier until he commenced operation Barbarossa? Why would FDR actual want to let the war start?

With the late entry in W.W. II Roosevelt could accomplish all of his U.S. Democrat party promotion agenda such as full employment, movement of Negroes into military service and social and education acceleration, women into industrial jobs and even military increases. FDR also go near dictatorial war powers (again like an ancient Roman dictator appointed during time of war).  Earlier he had tried to expand and pack the Supreme Court with sympathetic judges. Failing in that the war was a pragmatic opportunity for politics by his decree.

With the second world war F.D.R. was able to accomplish the great increase in Federal power that was the foundation of the modern Orwellian state seeking in a corporatist union to advance to a new world order.

Comparatively Harry S. Truman accomplished not so much consolidation of the Democrat Party power agenda. He did drop a pair of nuclear bombs in Japan-yet that only demonstrated nuclear power to the world as the first shock and awe episode (it was effective) bringing about the immediate end of the war with Japan. Though the well known stories of an immanent attack on Pearl Harbor and of disregard of the messages from the White House have been given a certain interpretation, from another one can surmise that if the Japanese naval forces had been intercepted and defeated in a timely way that might have foreshortened a war that F.D.R. was confident of winning after a few years of full industrial production and scientific development under his near dictatorial authority. Democrats regarded virtually F.D.R. as god-like.

J.F.K. brought Americans into Vietnam though it was his Vice President L.B.J. who turned it into a quagmire providing forerunners of Halliburton with contracts to build all the U.S. military bases in Vietnam. A new form and era of kickback to corporate establishment was founded then continuing through the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts. G.W. Bush was the first Democrat-like President of the modern era-minus the anti-Christian element though. L.B.J was a great war expander throwing all branches of service and contractors into the conflict creating full employment. He was yet the inventor of the great society program to relieve poverty in the U.S.  bringing innumerable social changes. Barack Obama stimulated Muslim conflict in the Middle East and regime change in Libya, Syria and even Egypt cautiously. Growing up in a Sunni nation-Indonesia-the President seemed too willing to support Sunni rebels to overthrow a Christian-friendly Alawite (Shi'a derivative) government led by a British trained dentist Bashar Assad. Hundreds of thousands of refugees including Muslim fled to Europe and America enabling a new Muslim infrastructure for support of terror where none had existed before. The U.S.A. took in 10,000 Syrian refugees the last year alone. Though none or some may be terrorists today they comprise future contacts and possible support for emergent Muslim terrorists globally. Needless to say, the Obama approach to the Middle East and support for the Syrian war an accelerant on the deaths and wounding of more than a million souls though if his objective was to send Muslims to the Christian world-that was accomplished.

Renormalization of Ontology

Some time around the middle of the 20^th century the field of philosophy called ontology began to experience a change. Ontology is the study of being in the largest sense. More than a scientific analysis such as Aristotle got started, ontology is a way of considering the entire phenomenon of existing and being aware of existing.

For millennia a philosophy of existence-an ontology-was necessarily phenomenal. The 20^th century philosopher Jean Paul Sartre wrote an epic tome named 'Being and Nothingness' during the Second World War that epitomizes a conscious phenomenal epistemology inclusive of ontology. Descartes' cogito ergo sum-I think therefore I am- is simultaneously an ontological and epistemological phenomenality.

In ancient Sumer atop the Ziggurats there were great dressed up dolls portraying Babylonian gods (ref. Rosenberg's Abraham-The First Biography) that were moved around by a priesthood for the benefit of the masses below who could look up and observe a great play explaining the mechanics of ontology. That mechanics differed from that of ontological phenomenalism. A mechanics for being is today named physics rather than philosophy. Cosmology around the time of Sartre's composition of 'Being and Nothingness' was moving towards its modern phase though not quite there yet. From Lemaitre's interpretation of Einstein's General theory of Relativity the concept of the Big Bang or inflation of a Universe from a singularity arose. Late in the 20^th century physical cosmology surpassed ontological phenomenalism as the fundamental theory of being.

Not that Sartre's subjectivist approach to ontology is wrong, it is simply limited to a place within cosmological ontology. People and science regard the mind and its place in nature as fitting within a steady state field (not one like Fred Hoyle's) wherein exists everything in the Universe. That field is often thought to be the Higgs field named for Peter Higgs-a field that provides every particle-wave with mass. Where the perturbations flowing through the field arose from to start with is challenging to say. The field itself is, I think, though to be expansionist itself from a singularity. With all the great physical theory based on and often confirmed by observation a phenomenalist epistemology is severely challenged to get attention. Some physicists believe philosophy and ontology hasn't kept up with cosmology and science. Of course some neurologists and psychiatrist also believe their study of the brain and human behavior have transcended a phenomenal epistemology like that of Sartre. Reductionism explaining away the holistic experience of mind and being within a Universal Higgs field.

For some time in history spanning a few thousand years theological approaches to ontology were preeminent over physical and cosmological approaches. With evolution theory and later Big Bang cosmology and even later the Hubble Space telescope and microwave telescopes able to observe the pattern of the background radiation of the Universe left over from the era less than 400,000 years after the Big bang when the Universe cooled down enough to let electrons escape, there were two great theories that seem to oppose, at least initially, theological paradigms about the Universe. So at the end of the 20th century theology and ontology were to some prima facie obsolete. While work had gone into science, less so did modernization after reflection arise in theology and philosophical ontology based on phenomenal approaches.

Obviously some ontologies like that of Bishop Berkeley's Ideaism were not able to be refuted technically. Berkeley's arguments remained valid as did Sartre's even as reductionists challenged each part simply because of the recursive nature of arguments and responses. In fact entire scientific cosmologies arose that took up a phenomenal approach to mechanics with the innovation of cosmological holography theory and higher dimensional spaces.

The Bible book of Genesis itself may be taken in more than one way and is amenable to modern interpretations permissive of relativistic time paradigms even as theologians may interpret God's omnipotent and omniscient potential as encompassing a level 4 Multiverse (re: M. Tegmark) wherein everything is actually static and pre-existing while human minds journey through and infinite number of them branching and switching to different Universes with each individual new thought though unaware. Assumptions about the Bible and the nature of God tend to restrict the possible ways of interpreting the book of Genesis though theologians readily stipulate the absolute, omnipotent power of God. Jesus Christ's reference to God having many mansions could refer as well to an infinite Multiverse as well as apartments or buildings in one metaphysical realm.

As philosophy and science were apparently briefly surpassed by modern scientific cosmology in the field of ontology at least, remarkably within a generation science itself provided the tools to renormalize each as fields of study consistent with the Bible and or ontological phenomenalism (with all due respect to Edmund Husserl though I am not above referring preponderantly to his works such as 'Logical Investigations').

Hillary Regards Millions of Americans as Trailer Trash

Hillary Clinton apparently shares her husband Bill's elitist contempt for millions of Americans as 'trailer trash'. She named half of Donald Trump's supporters 'deplorables'. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat Party face of the one-party global imperial-oligarch-corporatist system. The Bushes, Ryans, Romneys and McCains being the other side.

It is not a coincidence that billionaire Mark Cuban has made such hateful remarks about Donald trump as a supporter of Hillary. The billionaires know who butters their Wall Street bread, and it isn't billionaire Donald Trump.

Trump is the American placeholder trying to keep the people from reduction to a status as politically impotent bugs scurrying about under the rock of globalism. Clinton calls Trumps supporters racists, homophobes and sexists yet she is the candidate that relies on just those points for her own support. The Clinton Democrat party deregulated Wall Street enabling the concentration of wealth and 2008 financial collapse. The Democrat Party and her corporatist internet supporters repress or censor free speech indirectly taking down websites where dissent to the creeping tide of corporatism might be effectively opposed. The Democrat party today is a tool for promotion of globalism and eventually, oligarchy.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-jump-on-clintons-deplorables-remark/2016/09/10/91a3c148-775c-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html

Hillary Clinton does not want to talk about economic classes in the U.S.A. and ways to directly benefit the poor and middle class. Instead she relies on diving economic classes into racial groups, sexes and perversion preferences in order to polarize and neutralize internal support for nationalism and positive economics.

Hillary Clinton does not understand the Trump's primary support is from people seeking economic progress for all Americans rather than globalists and oligarchs. It is her constituency treated as dumb jackasses fed a diet of polemical manure that she has the most contempt for, treating them as intellectually brain dead.

Issues With Alaska Governor Walker's Gas Pipeline Plan

I wasn't going to write on Governor Walker's plan to build a gas pipeline at at all believing that Alaska's followers of oil and gas simply aren't going to change until a desert reaches from the Cascades to Chicago and north to Alberta. I too feel the governor is wrong with the pipeline error-and I too have written in the past for a state gas pipeline.

http://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2016/07/01/walker-administration-continues-brawl-with-oil-producers-for-gas-marketing-details/

One exception though. China is the world's biggest CO2 polluter manufacturing products for export. It burns a huge amount of coal that might be replaced with Alaskan natural gas. I haven’t relocated the article-it was surprising to me.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MethaneMatters/

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/27/us-eia-natural-gas-co2-emissions-surpassing-coal-emissions/

I read an article somewhere recently about Exxon and/or BP stating they were don't want to develop North Slope gas because it would make a substantive increase in the world's greenhouse gassing footprint. If a pipeline were profitable at any rate they would probably build one except for the methane by-product.

https://www.kcet.org/redefine/climate-change-is-really-dangerous-here-are-6-environmental-issues-that-are-even-worse

Fact Checking Fact Checkers; Trump For and Against Iraq War

The Clinton forces are claiming that Trump lied about his opposition to the Iraq war. As recently as August 11 of 2016 other Clinton forces sought to prove that Trump was against the Iraq war before  Barrack Obama took office.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-wanted-same-strategy-that-made-obama-founder-of-isis/article/2599153?custom_click=rss

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-tries-prove-iraq-war-opposition-227905

Evidently Trump was for and against the war according to the pro-Clinton media; a bittersweet policy.

A fact check page shows that Trump was preponderantly against the war.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/

A Clinton Foundation of Imperialism

Queen Hillary's Dialectical Evolution 

When I wrote much of this post July 12, 2013 the nation didn't yet have 19.5 trillion dollars of public debt as at present in 2016. Smallotry from Clinton-Obama Sunnicrats reduced the significance of debt and Wahabist madrassa proliferation to the public as they built up Sunni interests across the Middle East and Europe following the Hitler-Ottoman Empire path- even today in Syria. Clinton like Napoleon hates a Russian leader while in pursuit of duplicitous concentration of gross wealth and power for planetary oligarchs and likely her own level one imperial dynasty through The Clinton Foundation.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stimulated the market announcing he would continue buying 85 billion dollars of Treasury bonds monthly the market rose to an all-time high. Distributing wealth to the rich and corrupt circles that brought America the 2008 financial meltdown and excessive regulation is the unconventional wisdom for the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Pumping imaginary cash into the economy buying mortgage backed securities (maybe better named dubious securities) with the inflation rate about 1% and letting too big to be accountable bankers have lots of no-interest cash to buy up everyone's distressed or foreclosed home is a policy one might expect would create some sort of anomalous bubble never before seen in our times. Chairman Bernanke said the unemployment situation is actually worse than the 7.6% national average indicates. The obvious to select elite economists is that reinforcing the rich is clearly the best way to bring about full employment, good wages and jobs for all workers, a recovering ecosphere and reduction of public debt.

Queen Hillary the first is looming in 2016. If the Obama administration plan to reduce the U.S. public debt and budget deficit running the total up to 21 trillion dollars with perennial deficits can't fix the economic doldrum the winner of the Clinton vs. Bush title bout-one the public has long clamored for, its like an Ali vs. Marciano fight after all will get a shot. Cynics might prefer a womano y womano Bruser Hillary vs. Condi Rice title fight yet like the Hearns -. Leonard fight it's difficult to get a brilliant yet out of play contender to step into the ring (although Leonard evolved to that and did win).

Dialectical political evolution is experiencing a comeback after the 1989 slump when the Reagan vs. Gorbachev dialectical led to total ideological collapse of communism and even dialectics. The two-party U.S. political dialectical evolution of political economy has demonstrated that dialectical evolution is itself still a valid theory.

Like the two sides of a stationary rotating auger pushing throw sludge or waste or other products the Republican and Democrat parties are partisan dialectical opposites evolving the economy in a particular way processing input through to output debt, unemployment and a deteriorating national environment (ecosphere section). Without giving quantitative easing relief to philosophers outside of academic not enough theoretical development of post-cold war dialectical evolution has been funded by government extremists content with the other corporate-government dialectical kickback evolution.

Dialectical political evolution is simply a stage in the reduction of economic pluralism to monism. From a pluralistic economic environment with a myriad of competitors an economy through networking and inter-corporate board sharing and insider trading is reduced to a few corporations with limited competition. It may evolve downward in number until a two-stage dialectic evolves; yet like the tripartite foundation of the U.S. Government before corporatism an economy works better with three rivals in a trialectic evolution. More than that requires more than simple math to calculate and is often avoided by politicians and economists.

A dialectical evolution of D.N.A. is the basis of a human genome. A trialectical basis for the genome with an extra strand of P.N.A. instead of D.N.A. would allow political dynasties to evolve within the two party structure by surpassing the political mortality of term limits. Human genes implicit let genetic chaos and mortality develop because of inherent failure to recalibrate and return to original condition genetic stability. An emergent lifetime of Clinton or Bush Presidencies could be negated by selection or merger to a champion King or Queen Bush or Clinton with the evolved dialectical kickback line of Presidential families racing to the top perfected instate-of-the-art political laboratories in Boston.

For the time being the trialectical third helix of political immortality is simple a shadow government ghost selecting the winners and losers in American economic free enterprise. There may be an infinite number of dialectical and trialectical systems in existence simultaneously if they are not powerful enough to dominate or totalize national or global economics.

A trialectical processes of reinventing the U.S. economic system to expand beyond the rather myopic dialectical evolution toward political pluralism and the goals of full employment, good wages for all, decreasing concentration of wealth and increasing ecospheric health and biological diversity isn't likely to occur without something of genius in U.S. political leadership. That hope ended in the first Clinton administration's echoed in the Hollywood zeitgeist Dumb and Dumber.

Muslim Invasion of Europe (Siege Lord 2)

September 11, 1683 a vast Muslim Army nearly took Vienna and Europe... the well-acted movie Siege Lord 2 recounts the story.

http://www.distribution.metrodomegroup.com/DVD/siege-lord-2

https://www.microsoft.com/…/movies/siege-lord-2/8d6kgwzl61v7

President Obama's Economic Record

Richard J. Carroll published a book on President Obama's economic record compared to the eleven other post-World War II Presidents finding he finished in 8th place. Mr. Carroll may not have included the decade-long expansion of money supply 400% during his administration that started two years before the first term. That practice provided so much free money and opportunity to mint e-dollars via zero-interest Fed Reserve loans to rich banks and could be regarded as the reason the Obama-Clinton years didn't finish in last place.

Mr. Carroll published an article on his book at:

 https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-06/how-obama-s-economic-record-stacks-up