Democrats have sought to impeach the President for being elected to the Presidency in 2016. Impeachment is a good reversal of elections results tool that the Democrat Party hasn't failed to employ against President Donald Trump. Original political sin to a degree that requires complete expurgation is the Apple of the eye for Democrats and the Main Stream Media. Select Democrat Party friendly or partisan internet organs have implemented expurgation since the Obama administration when non-leftist and homo-takeover unfriendly writers and even C.E.O.s were removed as far as possible from the public broadcast media mainstream and internet; that trend continues all the way to the White House occupant so offensive; virtually an abomination of desolation for communists and leftists of the homosexual and billionaire political axis of evil. When Republicans impeached President Clinton for lying to the Congress in direct testimony, Democrat Party appetites for pay-back were whetted that could not be satiated without a blood-letting destruction of President Trump. When Democrats attacked the President and instigated the Mueller investigation the President responded early on that the opposition force Democrats should be investigated themselves; plainly that included former Vice President Biden. Democrats also use a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument that the President withheld military aid to Ukraine as a lever to compel the Biden investigation. There is however thus far no direct evidence that the two events were at all related. If they so happened to be, most Americans might not care. Perhaps those subject to investigation would be the primary indignants. Some apparently feel that providing $300 million of free military aid to Ukraine is automatic and the time frame in which the President released it Ukraine was unnaturally protracted. For the President to have done right one might infer, that is right enough to satisfy Democrats, he would have been safer to cancel the military aid and then ask the President of Ukraine if he would investigate the infamous Hunter Biden corruption or nepotism quid pro quo issue. Alternatively he should have given the military aid first, and the asked about the investigation getting started, yet that would have appeared to be an expectation of reciprocation in some Democrat eyes so the President was da_med if he did and da_med if he didn't. A better policy would be to cancel military aid automatically in any foreign nation where the son or daughter or wife of a President (or other close family members) is publicly perceived to be receiving unnatural products or exchanges of financial value from that foreign nation expecting to receive military aid for free. The Democrats strategy involved using insiders in the Government to accuse the President of collusion with Russia, and of course the 5th column of deplorable Americans that voted for the President in a virtually treasonous betrayal of the nation- that is in their point of view, one that should be a sycophant of Democrat Party organs.
The Ukrainian government is a lineal descendant of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. That government expropriated Ukraine from Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. The Democrat Party of the United States cannot tolerate a Russian nationalist government seeking recovery of some of its Ukraine land lost to communism. Therefore the President is nominally being impeached for asking the Ukraine government to investigate the alleged corruption of the Biden family in the Ukraine and needing leverage to get an inquiry going- as if the Ukraine government would have strongly resisted President Trump's request ordinarily. One could infer the Democrat Party believes the Ukraine is an associated leftist government that hates capitalists such as Donald Trump.
Hong Kong has been an entrepreneurial entrepot to China for more than a century. Freedom of thought, freedom of speech and security from repression by bureaucrats, corporations and organized crime are necessary for individuals to develop and present new ideas to the marketplace of ideas that is the driving force behind free enterprise in a demographically heavily populated world. China is not being useful in exerting jack-booted organized crime force upon the citizens of Hong Kong that have for several months been protesting onerous legal measures from the Communist government that would undermine personal and social liberty. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/china-suspends-review-of-request-for-us-military-ships-to-hong-kong.html China has nothing to fear from the small population (comparatively) of Hong Kong having more civil liberty to determine their own economic, personal and spiritual life preferences than those of the vast mainland realm of the Middle Commundom. Instead of looking backward to the past history of imperial subjugation of the masses and fearing warlords or worrying about Marxist concerns of a commercial class oppressing the rights and well being of the communist, Chinese leaders should be more forward looking and support civil liberties for Hong Kong with the hope that a glasnost and perestroika evolution could germinate and flow forward with better ideas and efficiencies for the challenges of the mainland economic and social situation. Marxism was not the end of economic evolution nor the final state of the philosophy of government. It is wrong for political theorists to mire themselves in the past instead of improving real conditions for the people presently. Goals of any government should be modest egalitarianism with a fair distribution of opportunities for building wealth, creation and ownership of productive ideas, security and well being of all citizens and so forth. The people should not be oppressed or repressed by onerous bureaucrats nor corrupt, wealthy and powerful elites who control political destiny to benefit themselves and a fractional minority foremost. China could learn from the successes and failures of the Soviet and Russian post-cold war evolution and build and infrastructure a priori for letting a normalized liberalization occur in China. It would need to set laws that would limit the amount of wealth any individual could have as a percent of the national income and create progressive tax laws to assure that concentrated wealth does not lead to concentrated power that leads to oligarchy or tyranny. Western responses to Russia following up the end of the Cold War have tended toward being self-serving more than mutually beneficial and practical thereby limiting the potential for bi-lateral progress in addressing the host of environmental and economic challenges the entire world unavoidably experiences and need to deal with. China can create transitional and lasting foundations for a transition toward as free of a society as possible for individuals within the real paradigm of demographic, social and security challenges. The freedom of Hong Kong as an associate entity within the Chinese mainland society is not any sort of threat to Chinese state security.
I made this video reading from my free ebook- God, Cosmology and Nothingness- with photos from a visit to Alaska in October 2018. Thanks to N.A.S.A. for the use of a couple of Hubble photographs.
With so much skill built up in genetically modifying crops one must wonder if the Afghanistan conflict with the Taliban that is partially funded by opium producers could be reduced with the introduction of genetically modified opium poppies that had no potential for use in the manufacture of opium ort heroin? The poppy crop may be worth as much as seven billion dollars. https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/05/1010332 https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2018/May/last-years-record-opium-production-in-afghanistan-threatens-sustainable-development--latest-survey-reveals.html Theoretically the modified poppies would readily interbreed with existing poppies and render the regular poppies useless for opium production. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101104154224.htm One must wonder if other dope producing plants could not be converted into non-mind altering potential through genetic modification in the field. Governments might invest a modest amount of research funding to potentially reduce problems from terrorist funding via illegal drug production.
Governments can approach delivery of services issues in new and more efficient ways. The Governor has the opportunity to try that, as does anyone in the office. Education can be restructured, and different buildings for physical campus needs rethought to synergize with other state-funded structures and internet-sharing facilities and adding on-line programs elsewhere to count as part of Alaska State College accreditation. The Marine Highway system can be regarded as four zones instead of one and most efficient and cost-effective services with minimal luxury boats on dedicated routes interfaced with land and air connections as well as private entrepreneurs in the transportation field to reduce overall costs. Fuel cell power plants, earth heating for state new state buildings, more super-insulated domes in rural structures, Tesla trucks with stainless steel bodies for Juneau and other S.E. locations with state recharging stations usable by the public too. Wind and solar farms with flip panel barn doors to shelter solar cells in harsh winters with little sunshine. Recombining existing structures and bureaucratic processing to enhance efficiency should reduce overall costs. It requires critical, creative thought to make changes based on deep understanding of the geography, demography and tools of technology available to apply to a reformed government system.
A modern absolute ruler probably would reply heavily on A.I. and expert systems to rule the world. Because humans could be designed from the feet up genetically someday, perhaps becoming like pets to Artificial Intelligence, it would be a good idea to have a human moderator with dictatorial power to pull the plug on the A.I. machine. The human supervisor might need a squeal oversight committee with lots of whistle blowers to overcome the dictator’s supervision of the A.I. Like the dictators of the Roman Republic the world ruler’s term of office would be limited to a couple years (it was one year renewable in Republican Rome). It is possible that global warming, mass extinctions and the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity will drive human civilization to select a dictator for a year to run things with heavy condign power implementation in order to survive- especially if politicians cannot even balance a federal budget or avoid deficits reaching dozens of trillions of dollars in a democratic paradigm. In some respects the ancient political philosophy paradigms that Aristotle wrote of in The Politics haven't changed. The basic paradigm of democracy collapsing into tyranny because the voters and politicians aren't competent at public affairs remains a prospect for voters reestablishing an imperium via concentrated wealth perhaps, or simply and election. Neither has the Republic's paradigm of ancient Rome in the Republican era lost its Platonic power. Besides being a Republic with a limited franchise that had not yet degraded into democracy with universal franchise, the Roman Republic appointed a dictator whenever existential crisis (usually war) threatened. Because the Romans appointed a Master of the Horse in addition to Dictator for a Year, the Republic resembled reasonably well the structure of the Republic of Plato. The paradigms of Dictator and Imperial Empire for the evolutionary course of a democracy are to this day live possibilities for a world incapable of ruling itself intelligently. * Politics have evolved comparatively little since ancient times. The printing press just gradually allowed more people to read ancient political philosophy. In its absence despotism, monarchy and absolute rule to various degrees prevailed until the past few hundred years. While technology has evolve much, political thought has not. Marx's attempt at fine tuning Plebeian rights was not a significant departure from the basic Aristotelian and Platonic categories. There are many ways to provide cheap health care for the poor yet both major American parties want to avoid that. Here is an example of a better, cheaper way… The U.S.Government has politicians that reflect the state of greed and ordinary ignorance about government that has developed following the Reagan administration when a million bi-partisan sycophants used that administration's Cold War emergency fiscal policies as a template for the ordinary way to do business. Financial responsibility was gradually jettisoned over the side of the ship of state by Republicans and Democrats alike. Maybe they believe the global warming end of the world in 12 years will erase the national debt too. It is the poor that will suffer most from the public debt crisis. Eventually programs that relieve them from suffering and social oppression will be cut back with rhetoric from satiated politicians that appeal to the middle class for support with welfare programs that should benefit just those poor people in need. If everyone collects on health insurance it will work for no one. The same principle applies to social security. If everyone that pays into it draws from it in retirement it will not work. The federal social security system should pay benefits just to those that need it- it isn't a savings account or a 401K plan. That system should provide just one size payment to all that need it. Work in ten different years and meet a certain earnings threshold and have a maximum annual income and savings balance and the single payment level would be yours. The problem is that those that don't need it feel they have a right to a full refund for what they paid into it thought they don't need it. If health insurance worked that way too, health insurance would probably not work either. If Americans did not use social security without needing it the actual payments that go in to it would be lower for everyone during their working years. Other government programs could be reformed too. Maybe the federal government should divert a portion of present social security deductions to a floating bond program at a 50-50 ratio. If people don't need a social security check they would at least get their bond value payoff. One may have confidence that politicians will just argue and enrich themselves (and an aristocracy) of their own disposition. One may have confidence that politicians will just argue and enrich themselves (and an aristocracy) of their own disposition. One world ruler with the appropriate tools will seem like a glimmer of hope during roilsome ecospheric and social decay that may lie ahead. *Socialism and communism are a way of ossifying the egalitarian elements of democracy concerning economy and social status. They too however lead to collapse and tyranny; a dictatorship of the proletariat, or rather, a dictatorship from the proletariat. In other words, a dictator like Joseph Stalin arises from the insider, elite party cadre to eliminate rival cadre.
Democrats seem to feel that it is open enrollment season to attack the President. The Secretary of the navy recently fired - Richard Spencer- claims he was obeying the law in working his own will instead of that of his Commander-in-Chief regarding the Gallagher issue. A SecNav is in the military chain of command and need obey his commander unless the commander makes an illegal order. All military personnel are obligated to disobey illegal orders. President Trump did not make an illegal order to his subordinate though, so it appears the former SevNav was merely insubordinate and rightly dismissed. A SecNav isn't the Attorney General who should mull over things regarding legality more so than a SecNav who should let the President worry amorphous points of law (who probably would delegate that task to an attorney). A U.S. District Court Judge appointed by President Obama made a ruling that President Trump's former personal attorney must appear to testify before Congress. The problem with that is that virtually every decision against President Trump the past couple of years seems to have been made by Democrat appointed judges making the conflict of interest too obvious. Maybe partisan judges should recuse themselves when they have too much invested in being biased against a Republican President. All those Democrat judges may wreak long-term damage to the reputation of the judiciary. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/don-mcgahn-former-white-house-counsel-must-comply-subpoena-trump-impeachment-case-judge-rules/
The 2020 crop of Presidential candidates are wimps on public debt and bringing the federal budget in to balance. They believe adults and non-yippees have to do such things as kept a government or company solvent and without excess debt load. The public debt is north of 23 trillion dollars and the annual interest approaching a trillion; about as much as the defense budget. That is a concern- public debt is the dark matter no one wants to meet in the dark alley of reality. The U.S. Government has politicians that reflect the state of greed and ordinary ignorance about government that has developed following the Reagan administration when a million bi-partisan sycophants used that administration's Cold War emergency fiscal policies as a template for the ordinary way to do business. Financial responsibility was gradually jettisoned over the side of the ship of state by Republicans and Democrats alike. Maybe they believe the global warming end of the world in 12 years will erase the national debt too. It is the poor that will suffer most from the public debt crisis. Eventually programs that relieve them from suffering and social oppression will be cut back with rhetoric from satiated politicians that appeal to the middle class for support with welfare programs that should benefit just those poor people in need.
If everyone collects on health insurance it will work for no one. The same principle applies to social security. If everyone that pays into it draws from it in retirement it will not work. The federal social security system should pay benefits just to those that need it- it isn't a savings account or a 401K plan. That system should provide just one size payment to all that need it. Work in ten different years and meet a certain earnings threshold and have a maximum annual income and savings balance and the single payment level would be yours. The problem is that those that don't need it feel they have a right to a full refund for what they paid into it thought they don't need it. If health insurance worked that way too, health insurance would probably not work either. If Americans did not use social security without needing it the actual payments that go in to it would be lower for everyone during their working years. Other government programs could be reformed too. Maybe the federal government should divert a portion of present social security deductions to a floating bond program at a 50-50 ratio. If people don't need a social security check they would at least get their bond value payoff. Obamacare and Medicare for all are programs designed to convert government into a corporatist or socialist state alternatively. Each are inefficient. Just the poor should get free medical treatment provided directly by the U.S. government through and expanded V.A. system of hospital networked with community clinics for the poor. Worker's comp style references and screening would send the right patients to the right hospitals and clinics. A national network of self-driving Tesla trucks would convey patients without transport to treatment centers. With 25% of the nation that is the most poor having access to quality, free medical treatment the problems of healthcare the better off have would be left to the private sector. A tax of 10% on the most rich 5% should be added and used directly to pay down the national public debt as soon as possible. A balanced budget amendment that reduced payments proportional to population of states should be made and used whenever budgets are unbalanced negatively more than three consecutive years, except in time of war. When the public debt soon goes over 25 trillion dollars and the interest on it consumes more and more that should cause some- even princess politicians, to feel a tinge of discomfort as if a pea were under their mattresses.
The entry of Michael Bloomberg into the 2020 Presidential race on the Democrat side brings a light of economic rationality into the darkness of the Democrat field. Democrats are a growth of mushrooms kept in the dark and fed a lot of manure so far with the exception of Michael Bloomberg in whom the nation might have some trust that if elected he would not add piles of trillions of dollars of new public debt. If elected the Bloomberg administration could attack the terrible problems besetting the nation like a cluster of crocodiles circling around a sinking row boat. I refer of course to the problem of large soft drinks sold in styrofoam cups that have brought American youth and even some of the elderly into terrible physical fitness. The twenty-one twenty-three (23) trillion dollars of U.S. public debt is obviously an issue only to those that believe one must pay bills eventually. Some Republicans suggest new tax cuts to help the most rich weather the potential dark cloud/smole on the horizon. Michael Bloomberg might help with that and bring tax cuts just to the one-percent in order not to bother the rest. https://www.usdebtclock.org/ Former Mayor Bloomberg may be inclined to sympathize not only with a ban on unhealthy food and drinks, he may consider decreasing the annual federal deficit or contributions from auto exhaust pipes in the U.S.A. to global warming. So far he is the sole Democrat that citizens of the United States, except for anti-Semites worried about the global Zionist conspiracy to ban 64 oz. soft drinks sold in convenience stores, the citizens would have regard as relatively harmless as President of the United States. A Trump vs Bloomberg final would be interesting. One test for Pres. Trump and Mayor Bloomberg is the Hong Kong protests and legislation to protect the protesters; would either one sign off on a bill passed by the House and Senate that supports them, or would they abstain or vote against democracy in favor of corporatism and socialism? https://www.foxnews.com/world/hong-kong-elections-pro-democracy-candidates
