Who Is In Charge of Long-term U.S. Foreign Policy

That is a problem for the United States. Each President can generally set his or her own parameters that sometimes contradict those foreign relations that went before. Occasionally a President may establish a new policy direction such as Richard M. Nixon did in opening up Chinese relations, that persists for several generations. A President may be a trail breaking sled dog behind which the other dogs temporally follow. The dogsled may have no driver, or it could be a hidden groupthink.

For example G.W. Bush normalized relations with Libya, President Obama decided to support rebellion and destruction of the Libyan government, and today there is chaos of a sort in Libya.

While Presidents inherit some traditional relationships such as the Cold War or the trouble with North Korea, sometimes they choose to realistically change the criterion.

Because of the Iranian problems and the wounded pride of the embassy capture U.S. Presidents have selected adversity with Iran rather than something else. President Obama though, briefly tried to change or move toward normal relations with Iran. Some speculate that he was really born in a Muslim nation- Indonesia, and his Hawaiian birth paper was fudged by a friendly doctor there in an era when it was possible to do so. Growing up in Indonesia until age seven when he moved to Hawaii may have made him too sympathetic to Muslims and antipathetic to Christian interests as well as Jewish. So he signed a kind of treaty with Iran that President Trump has repudiated because it would let Iran have too good a chance to develop the infrastructure of nuclear weapons and missiles eventually, legally (meaning with U.S. acquiescence).

Conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones and Prison Planet have speculated about secret long-term formation of U.S. foreign policy that would accomplish the objectives of elite, hidden groups. It is more difficult to access Alex Jones video now because Facebook, YouTube and Apple Pod-casts have banned and deleted his work.

In some respects the lack of solid long-term planning is a strength because it would in theory enable more responsive U.S. leadership to create good foreign policy yet of course it doesn’t work out that way. An example is the project of ending the Cold War without nuclear holocaust. Ronald Reagan envisioned complete nuclear disarmament and did everything he could to realistically move toward that and normal relations with Russia. Gorbachev and Soviet leadership were moving toward normalization to, in stages, and Yeltsin accelerated that.

The Clinton administration working with Russia befitted the rich too far in wresting integral parts of Russia away. The Crimea and Ukraine were lost and formed the basis of a bilateral schism after the end of the Cold War to slowly build its renewal. President Trump sought to move toward more normal relations yet the Democrat Party has done everything they can to move the world toward the hair-trigger of Mutually Assured Destruction and total Cold War again. They hate Vladimir Putin. Hating Russia is a kind of new American tradition that reveals the lack of reasoning concerning what good foreign policy is, or how it should be made.

My best explanation is that a secret group of elitists do desire to annex Russia and Siberia because of its vast natural resources, so U.S. foreign policy will need to be in line with that principle. Finally then it could be said that the capital interests of global plutonomy control much yet not all of U.S. foreign policy.

Where Scientists Will Be in a Century (on Earth)

James Lovelock; inventor of the Gaia hypothesis, predicted in his book The Vanishing Face of Gaia; The Final Warning, that most of the world would be desertified within 200 years. Even Scandinavia may become a barren wasteland and just a few cool spots remain. So within a century Russia or Greenland may be where the world’s scientists congregate.

High Arctic regions of Russia above the rising sea level that will flood much of the Siberian lowlands may be some of the best places to beat the heat. When Greenland stops flooding from ice-sheet meltdown remaining valleys in the mountain shadows will look cool, and not evil to scientific researchers.

Alternatively society may change its structure and homosexuals will congregate in their own nations-maybe Europe, while hetero scientists attracted to Chinese women will move to China from the U.S.A. seeking la femme. Chinese scientists may move to San Francisco and the left coast when it is vacated from homos moving abroad. Harvard and Yale may move too, perhaps to a frontier city in the Hamalayas where some coolness persists in summer.

An alt-right scenario is that scientists will seek out a small country with zero taxes and easy citizenship for an exclusive to the rich and scientists tax haven with desirable waterfront properties, fully stocked refrigerators and golf courses, good mobile robotic defense force etc. A nation to keep an eye on for that is Iceland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Vip-PbuZQ the Final Warning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAHZTDQOj2I Too Late to Fix the Earth

It isn't Necessary to Import People to Improve Economy

Researchers say there are three or four true geniuses per million people. That stat applies universally, though some geniuses in poorer countries and those with repressive or corrupt governments may waste a lot of their time in defense or find unsupported health that retards development. The United States can do fine without immigrants; it already has more than 320 million people and the environment suffers with more. The few geniuses that might be lost without immigration to become U.S. citizens could discover the telephone or internet and communicate with people that way.

A better way to advance economics nationally and globally would be to reform the patent legal criterion such that a patent’s exclusivity is limited to three years. After that the inventor-patent owner would get 10% royalties for his or her invention when others produce it.

Without ecospheric economics social sustainability is itself endangered. Present global economic policy is mal-adapted to social sustainability for a number of reasons. Geniuses working to transform global economics into a reformed capitalism with sustainability, liberty and justice for all can do so regardless of citizenship. As President Kennedy said; when the tide comes in, all the ships in the harbor rise

The United States has imported a lot of foreign geniuses, yet if native birthed geniuses were all there was, and they didn’t shift allegiance, except where they would be trimmed by poverty growing up or living as in developing countries where the best chances for expressing genius may be elsewhere than in the native country, the U.S.A. might have fewer geniuses than China or India. It is possible that India’s poverty and China’s political system repress genius somewhat.

The idea about shortening the time for patent exclusivity and just giving royalties to patent holders after three years when anyone with capital could produce the idea is that it would stimulate the economy and get patents to market much faster. Inventors with patents would not be short changed at all. It would for example get generic drugs to the sick at much lower cost quicker, yet still return as much or more than the patenter would have earned by selling the product for-himself. Supply would be greater and demand would be more quickly satisfied.

Alex Jones Infowars Was Mueller's Primary Critic

Alex Jones and Infowars was a prime critic of the Mueller investigation. Now that YouTube has removed all of his videos that element is suddenly absent from the Internet. Jones had innumerable interesting angles and ideas concerning deep state perfidy that were silenced and deleted. Roger Stone was on the Infowars broadcast several times as a contributor; now he is a focus of the Mueller investigation. The public in the midst of a critical point in contemporary history had one side of the square of opposition erased, That wasn't good.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/11/alex-jones-claims-hes-being-silenced-as-bans-push-him-to-alternate-platforms

Don't Send U.S. No Stinking Best or Brightest

Researchers say there are three or four true geniuses per million people. That stat applies universally, though some geniuses in poorer countries and those with repressive or corrupt governments may waste a lot of their time in defense or find unsupported health that retards development. The United States can do fine without immigrants; it already has more than 320 million people and the environment suffers with more. The few geniuses that might be lost without immigration to become U.S. citizens could discover the telephone or internet and communicate with people that way.

A better way to advance economics nationally and globally would be to reform the patent legal criterion such that a patent’s exclusivity is limited to three years. After that the inventor-patent owner would get 10% royalties for his or her invention when others produce it.

Without ecospheric economics social sustainability is itself endangered. Present global economic policy is mal-adapted to social sustainability for a number of reasons. Geniuses working to transform global economics into a reformed capitalism with sustainability, liberty and justice for all can do so regardless of citizenship. As President Kennedy said; when the tide comes in, all the ships in the harbor rise

The United States has imported a lot of foreign geniuses, yet if native birthed geniuses were all there was, and they didn’t shift allegiance, except where they would be trimmed by poverty growing up or living as in developing countries where the best chances for expressing genius may be elsewhere than in the native country, the U.S.A. might have fewer geniuses than China or India. It is possible that India’s poverty and China’s political system repress genius somewhat.

The idea about shortening the time for patent exclusivity and just giving royalties to patent holders after three years when anyone with capital could produce the idea is that it would stimulate the economy and get patents to market much faster. Inventors with patents would not be short changed at all. It would for example get generic drugs to the sick at much lower cost quicker, yet still return as much or more than the patenter would have earned by selling the product for-himself. Supply would be greater and demand would be more quickly satisfied.

Fake Approval Rating or Good One?

Some report that Donald Jr posted a fake approval rating for the President.

https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-jr-photoshopped-screencap-instagram-trump-approval-a6053e82a66f/

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/401232-trump-jr-shares-fake-trump-approval-rating-on-instagram

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/08/10/trumps-approval-hits-50-percent-in-a-doctored-poll-graphic-shared-by-his-son/?utm_term=.31cefac84ff9

The Washington Post and the site above report that Don Jr inflated the approval rating 10 points. Instead of 50% its 40%. Yet the Gallup Poll reports 45% making the WP's article a half truth.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/trump-job-approval-weekly.aspx

I read somewhere that one poll reported a 49% approval rating and that makes the WP report 90% fake.

Newsweek reported on a Rasmussen poll that showed (Aug. 2nd) the rating is 50%. That is what Donald Jr. said it was, and that makes the WP article 100% false.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-approval-rating-obama-higher-1054927

Even so; here is a line graph (an economical bar chart) that shows the approval rating for the President from some subjective opinion poll that I made with an online chart maker..

MSN and Alt-Right Gab

Social media giants have recently been targeting supporters of Donald Trump and conservatives flr not using toady speech. MSN threatened to take down and alt-right site named GAB for letting a poster write something NAZI replicant about liquidating Jews. Because inciting violence in certain contexts is illegal MSN had little choice about pulling thr plug on GAB if it allowed such violations of law to occur.

That is reasonable enough. The Internet is not a sanctuary for crimes. Taking down Alex Jones web sites for breaking the fine print in corporate policy for users is something else. They allow content to go on sometimes for years then take it down when it will do the most damage. Hate speech is a subjective term. When certain language is merely incidental and the natural vernacular that occurs in the English language it is a hard thing to deny someone free speech. Not even the Obama administration would be seeking to prosecute posters for using words like fag, queer, scum or whatever in a politically disapprobative paradigm in regard to hiomosexual marriage laws or whatever.

The Internet giants and the Apple corporation have taken web page down for the language because their leadership is sometimes queer, and they descry pejorative appellations applicable for-themselves. Some of the majors should rethink their use of lawful language they have classified subjectively as hate speech. Big queer brothers as minders do crimp civil liberties, and that may be their intent.

The Future if China Wins the Trade War

If China wins the trade war they will build a great brick block wall on the Mexican border. Mexican restaurants will start selling Chinese pork fired rice all over America. A tofu salesman that corners the soy futures market will become a vassal President of Beijing as a puppet. The United States will not be great again. Democrats will be promoted in proportion to their willingness to wear Mao suits and quote from the little red book.

In the United States today the Democrat Party is an honest toady of the most rich accomplishing whatsoever they want on the street to end the U.S.middle class and replace it with subjects of plutonomy. That will all change if the Chinese prevail in the war of trade tariffs: Democrats will become toadys of the Chinese Communist Party and seek to serve in the Chinese navy as toadys.

What is the Logic of New Sanctions on Russia?

The rationale for new sanctions on Russia isn't evident to me. One sanctions in order to correct something or to get something, rather than nothing. The new sanctions were punitive rather than a lever to exact a concession, as is usual in diplomacy. Russia cannot release some jailed homo or something the administration might desire in exchange for a repeal of the most recent sanction.

The reason for the sanction said the administration was the use of a nerve agent in Britain that killed an individual. No proof was given that Russia was to blame, yet even if they were, could they resurrect the dead to end the sanction?

There are more than six nations that have the particular nerve agent in question, so it is not necessarily Russia responsible for the death. In fact the premise of innocent until proven guilty seems lacking here. Democrats have that policy toward President Trump, but that is no excuse for passing the unsupportable blame on Russia. That does harm to the U.S.A. as well as the cause of international justice.

Maybe the President is just trying to appear patriotic for PR purposes. He should however be more concerned with upholding the principles of justice.

The Berlin and Other Government Walls

The Berlin Wall divided two different political frontiers. As Hadrian’s Wall and Offa’s Dyke were built to keep opposition forces at bay, the Berlin Wall kept capitalists and their agents out as well as forcing their own people not to venture outside the communist world where they could be contaminated by Elton John and Pink Floyd.

Defense walls are one of the most ancient products of government. Jericho had a wall since fallen to ruin thousands of years ago. North American aboriginals never used stone defense walls, except for one excavated a few years ago in North Dakota that protected a city long gone. They were an exception to the rule. Signs of fatalities existed at the wall.

Communism was totalitarianism or for some, a socialist version of anocracy. It was a form of government disliked not only by many of its subjects, capitalists hated it too. Soviet and communist frontiers were designed to defend against clandestine and conventional invasion. The Wall was simply one element in the great ideological war between Marxism and the Free World.

Not all East Berliners were non-communists. Communism had some popular support I would guess. When the 1993 White House in Moscow conflict occurred between Yeltsin’s tanks, the public and those supporting the Supreme Soviet in the White House, there was residual though not overwhelming support for communist government as theoretically it provided food to the starving as well as Dachas for the elite party members.

There have been other walls or dividing barriers placed between rival political and social cultures in modern times. One that springs to mind is the zone of rubble and junk dividing Turks and Greeks at Cyprus. The Israelis have built a wall to keep out Muslim suicide bombers, and famously, the demilitarized zone and barriers existing between North and South Korea have existed since the 1950s.

United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus - Wikipedia

If governments and citizens of nations have no issues with one another, and if there would be no difference if a wall existed or not, in the absence of a wall, walls generally are not built.

European housing, especially in Italy, is notable for the defensive-like architecture with interior courtyards for security, that existed in pre-contemporary eras. When law enforcement was not so good, people needed to defend themselves against a world of wandering criminals, gangs and so forth.