Sen. Schumer 'duels' with the President at Electoral College Tally

It wasn't a good way to official usher in the President elect. Democrat leaders were blind to the aspirations of millions of the political opposition and believe just their own ideas are acceptable. Intelligent people have empathy- that is they understand the point of view of other people-Democrats tend to fail at that. When the Senate returned to the chambers to wrap up the electoral vote process Vice-President Pence and Majority Leader McConnell made dignified speech addressing the issue. Then came Senator Chuck Schumer who seemed overcome with hatred of President Trump. In most of American history such abuse as Mr Schumer spewed would beg for a duel, and it might be a good thing if a couple of politicians were shooting each other instead of f' ing up the public business as they usual do. Sadly I missed watching the spectacle live, It must have been a sight watching Chuck Schumer wade into the mob throwing punches all around leading the resistors defending the sacred senate temple from desecration. Democrat Presidents and vice are always lawyers- a slum of lawyers since the Clintons, and Americans can expect consigliary subterfuge and deceit four more years. It would be good if someone with an economic and environmental brain ran for the job and got the nomination. President-elect Biden showed his age when he said that Americans will learn to respect Democrat leadership the next four years, especially one assumes, as he exonerates Hunter's relationship with Ukrainian paymasters while Dad was Vice-President supporting the attack on Ukraine’s Russian rivals.

A democracy requires leaders that comprehend the art of finding a way for as many people to get what they want as possible without stepping on the toes of others. Lawyers are good at their profession of representing clients in litigation- they seek to win for a client and make the other a loser. Lawyers have no special qualification for the Presidency- they should work with laws rather than make them. The Democrat leadership slum of lawyer-President since Bill Clinton have sought to make Americans that aren’t goose-stepping sycophants of their lunatic agenda losers. They expect Americans to learn to respect corporate censorship, to respect the daily hate, to be nailed down and compliant so they don’t need to hammer people into silence.

 Congressional opponents of President Andrew Jackson probably incited violence against him - an assassination attempt Jan 30th 1835. The Attempt to Kill "King Andrew" I am not really a fan of Australians, yet some of their reputed toughness of character might be better in such a circumstance as the gunless ‘insurrection’. One thinks of the line of Julius Ceasar when he is being stabbed to death when he pulls up his toga over his head and says; "This is violence". He was such a clown.

 A good example of political insider violence would be Vice President Calhoun who resigned to join Congress and form the War Hawk Party leading to ‘the nullification crisis’ and the civil war. This week in history: John C. Calhoun resigns as vice president That is a complex and interesting story that took time to develop. The 1856 beating of a Senator from Massachusetts by a Congressman from South Carolina with a cane is another story. Assault of Senator Charles Sumner | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Democrats are equally responsible for the mayhem that disrupted the electoral college proceedings for they have made a custom since the Clinton administration of having their way or no way as far as possible. They are the actual party of intolerance along the lines of Joseph Stalin. Senator Schumer definitely threw gasoline on the fire of national division so far as he possibly could. Senator Schumer and Hillary Clinton experienced the last gasp of 'the deplorables' that voted for President Trump- they emulated the Democrat Party custom of forcing the law to stretch as far as possible to benefit themselves. Senator Schumer was aghast that the Senate chamber was “desecrated”, yet had little to say for the year of Antifah stoning and fire-bombing of the Federal Courthouse in Portland Oregon that drew his ire equally. Portland Oregon doesn't count in comparison to Washington D.C. evidently.

A democracy cannot reasonably be run in such a way that a bare majority can expect to get away with murder and force their policies upon 49% of the people whenever they have a majority. In a nation of 320 million people that approach isn't wise. With oodles of weapons of mass destruction and an overpopulated world their will be dissent sometimes rising tom use those tools of politics through other means. Maybe some biological custom redesigner of viruses will engineer a subtle device to cull the population of millions- who can predict the future? The U.S.A. Should be a nation with a reputation for trying to tolerate the political opinions and morals of millions of people rather than ridiculing or suppressing them to extinctions as Democrats might like to do. The art of democratic politics should be to make each side happy whenever possible instead of just one side with a nominal majority. I should stipulate that I.m.o. as the world political response to Covid 19 evidenced, there may not be any intelligent political leaders on the planet, so getting dual political plaintiffs in a civil matter to be happy may exceed the I.Q. Of those elected.

Democrats want to take America to atheism and homosexuality norms- they have passed hate speech laws and require terms of endearment or censorship follows in the corporate bulletin board of social media, Democrats sponsored abortion of what- sixty million fetuses, Democrats forced homosexual marriage on the nation when the public would, have tolerated some sort of separate civil union establishment; they refused to respect the onions of a virtual majority and choose the path of conflict instead of taking a course that would accomplish what the homosexuals wanted and left the sane institution of heterosexual marriage uncorrupted.

Democrats forced Obamacare on the nation with a technical vote using the nuclear option. Leaders like Chuck Schumer say the hell with the opinion of so many Americans against it. Some day that custom of not finding accommodation for strong American opinions may have real deleterious national consequences. The funny thing is that most of the opinions that are so inflammatory are easily remedied with better ideas including that of flooding the nation with illegal alien workers to render the political opinions of non-Democrats minority opinions. Phasing out American political resistance by flooding the nation with replacement workers and voters over a few decades also riles up several million Americans.

Many of the ideas if the red party are as wrong as that of the blue party. I though it might be a good idea therefore to create a third party- a white party (red, white and blue) yet that would be construed of course as racist these days. While Chuck Schumer is irate about what he labeled were 'insurrectionists' storming the capital like peasants with pitchforks might have tried in some former time or perhaps SDS radicals leading protesters to trash a government building during the Vietnam War, he seems unaware that his economic theories are wrong as are those of most on Capitol Hill. No one their seems to have an idea about how to have the Federal Reserve make those zero-interest loans to Social Security instead of big banks who can loan out 9 e-dollars from thin air for each e-dollar deposited by the Federal Reserve. That custom in the quantitative easing era has in effect given 200 trillion bucks to the rich since 2008, and the world economy is only worth may 100 trillion annually- that practice seems stupid from my humble non-economist perspective.

If Social security has great investment managers loan out cash from the federal reserve keeping the usual, and even a high marginal reserve on deposit the people of the United States would benefit more or less equally instead of just the rich when the rich have liquidity problems or the Federal Reserves believe they do.

China today has an economy that is an almost perfect fulfillment of Lenin's NEP program if it were carried out to a logical maturity. There is a mixed economy of private investment in business under communist party supervision. America's corporate people have signed off on investing in China for what seems like most electronic product production as well as innumerable other manufactures. They submit to China's law that a Chinese subject must own 51% of any business their. Meanwhile the U.S.A. has a jackass system of the Federal Reserve helping concentrate wealth and power in a global plutocracy and the plutocracy invests in China while Democrats flood the nation with illegal alien workers while drug cartels seem like one of the best businesses in Mexico.

President Trump was not the worst President in U.S. History as the histrionic Senator Schumer said. Actual President Trump did a fairly good job until 2020 when he bungled Covid management and set an especially bad example of not wearing a mask. He also used 2020 to accelerate gutting ecosphere health, and of course he exited office gracelessly bringing unwanted excitement to the Capitol.

President Trump deserves a Nobel Prize for Peace on his Middle East work and Democrats should remember that he started no foreign wars even while Democrats like Rep. Adam Schiff were throwing every sort of baloney content they could at him during the great smear the President with accusations that he is a Russian agent, dupe or general dope for President Vladimir Putin. President Trump was not the worst President by any means, though he does seem to have a problem with too much egoism. He is a billionaire so his approach can't be entirely impractical.

Social Media/Corporate Bulletin Boards and Subtle Conquest

 War is a continuation of politics through other means. War is not generally a sport with fixed rules of engagement, declarations of intent etc. It needn’t be said they are less desirable means than intelligent responses within democracy that address all of the concerns of various parties involved as protagonists. The founder’s Declaration of Independence was a succinct statement concerning the right of revolt of oppressed masses. It should be remembered that real material, spiritual and social interests in addition to natural resources should be protected where possible rather than destroyed. If the United States for example does not need a kinetic war to improve the situation, and if the war could not actually resolve the problem and would make matters worse, then other means should precede and supplant kinetic conflict.

One concern I have is social media. Quora is a good outlet for free expression though it too may have limits.

Social Media; Utilities or Corporate Bulletin Boards?

The freedom to use social media including blogs for personal and creative constructions require the media to be less flimsy than anti-global warming arguments. Writers don’t want their works to disappear when a web site goes black. To invest a lot of time in developing a product to then experience search engine listings being cut off by Google blogs after one criticizes N.S.A. or Google policy is consistent with the blog as a corporate bulletin board rather than a public utility. It is the nature of a public utility that is apparently necessary for security of free expression.

Since the first Obama administration I have experienced every place I write either disappearing, or I have been banned for using politically incorrect language occasionally. With the new Democrat administration Google managers felt it appropriate to zero my blog listings so they cannot be found. In my opinion that was noteworthy.

The concentration of power and wealth historically occur together. With the social networking of Wall Street and the support of free money loans from the Federal Reserve to the rich who then can mint their own e-dollars nine-fold for each dollar deposited concentration of wealth has occurred in the United States. Wall Street is global so a global plutocracy may be far advanced in development. They invest in China. Warren Buffet probably has a second home their. Plutocrats own social media in America.

Social media is used to express political opinions as well as sundry other thought and product sales. If it is a corporate bulletin board the content need be satisfactory and in effect subordinate to corporate goals and mission. Anything else could be degraded in search engine listing or deleted altogether. Corporatism spells the end of democracy and rise of plutocracy with happy minions. It might be useful for the government of the United States to create a social media site maintained by the Library of Congress that would allocate one space per registered citizen to write as much as they want without fear of it being deleted, censored or degraded in public search engine listings. Democracy of the United States in the modern era cannot exist without free speech and free speech unsubject to corporate plutocratic criteria for normal publication.

Without honest competition that won’t disappear and that isn’t biased against some social element, social media will simply become entirely owned and controlled by plutocrats. Individual writers can afford to tilt against the windmills of deep pockets of Google for less than a pico-second. If Verizon now owns Yahoo and it can delete one’s web site for using corporate defined hate speech can’t it also listen in to everyone’s Verizon phone calls with technology and censor any language it deems hateful? A democracy entirely filtered through corporate owned social media and mass communications is one that will become a complete farce. That former democracy will be nothing more than a sham maintained to keep somnolent masses contented.

Would the founders of the United States have been satisfied with rich British corporations owning all social media and communications venues? I believe that after the revolution they would have certainly permitted social media owned by corporations like the Hudson’s Bay Company or East India Company, yet they would have considered independent free speech including hate speech (which should be subjective matter of opinion) vital for democracy and therefore would have established a government operated public social media for citizens to use as a free, necessary defense against British Corporate power.

Maybe the Department of Defense should operate a social media site for American citizens that isn’t flimsy and won’t disappear the first time anyone writes something like stop the queer government or criticizes the lack of revenue sharing by corporate owned blogs. American defense asks of its servants they be sworn in to defend against enemies foreign and domestic. The oath isn’t to defend against foreign enemies and lay down for domestic enemies or to roll over for global corporations. Domestic enemies of the past were fairly plain and overt unlike today. Corporate and sedulous cults may readily take over the government, pass laws limiting free speech and put a muzzle on democracy in order to accomplish not only particular social class hegemony, but to channel the concentration of wealth as well. Adequate defense requires vigilance against KGB-Tass synthetic public broadcasting media and other agencies of socialization such as social media. Government operated channels with completely free, stable public social media outlets for the use of citizens might be necessary in order for true opinion to be found.

On One World Government

 A world government would have a Federal Reserve bank issuing e-dollar loans at zero interest to 1% of the people who could then e-mint 9x more dollars for each e-dollar on deposit. In other words they would have unlimited wealth and concentrate power globally buying up everything for plutocracy. The plutocrats would de facto partner with Chinese Communists and tech surveillance would become ubiquitous. The masses could have mass media entertainment and thought control being programmed culturally. That would be one form of world government.

Other forms would likely be some sort of authoritarian dictatorship. Without nations for firewalls against political monopoly power would concentrate just as wealth concentrates.

If it Could Exist, Economic Populism Would Be Good

 Economic populism would be an improvement if it could actually exist. The prospects for that are very poor though since the party exists to serve the plutocracy that owns everything in sight. The problem is the Federal Reserve enabling of free trillions of dollars for the richest. That seems a kind of treason. Quantitative easing was the most recent culprit and the last Bush and Obama administrations let the rich have north of 200 trillion dollars. The number is so large I wonder, since I am not an economist, how it can be right.

I wrote about the issue here WordPress.com and here WordPress.com

The broadcast media is owned by the rich and many analysts and commentators are motivated more by profit for themselves than accurate scholarly work. There was nothing in the constitution in support of the government giving trillions of zero interest loans to the private sector and big business. The marginal reserve of 10% means that every dollar on deposit for a zero interest loan from the Fed allow 9 more dollars to appear out of thin air for loans to others that appear with real dollars repaid. That policy unbalances the political system so much that plutocracy develops and the democracy a sham.

Populism should equate to egalitarianism rather than sycophancy with billionaires’ special interests.

Janet Yellen: The Sixteen Trillion Dollar Woman

Depression Wasn't the Sole Cause of W.W. 2

 It’s been said that the Second World War was the final battle of the First World War. I tend to agree with the concept. The royals of Europe had a grand conflict that ended without unconditional surrender, Germany had a revolution that got rid of the aristocracy and put Hindenburg in power of the Weimar Republic, and the former royals were very displeased-especially with the Bolsheviks in Russia. Former royals of Germany needed a populist political figure to put them indirectly back into power -and they used Hitler to bring corporatism and themselves toward a new kind of Germany able to fight the reds on the left and the decadent royals and rival free enterprises on the right from other nations.

Hitler was a very unusual fellow with a speaking voice that had a vibration at normal speech levels with characteristics others have when shouting. He was sent by military high command to infiltrate and take over the Germany National Socialist Party which he directly accomplished- he was charismatic, and the rest is history. Crown Prince Ruprecht had a breakthrough on the front reaching in to France (some say as far as far as 200 miles). He was apparently a fairly competent military leader.

Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria

If the Wehrmacht hadn’t just run out of bodies to put into the battle Germany might finally have won the war, or nearly so until more U.S. reinforcements arrived. When the armistice occurred many veterans like Hitler felt they were cheated and could have won.

The west should have fought to unconditional surrender instead of armistice in W.W.I., or have not asked for reparations from the Weimar Republic that couldn’t pay very easily, although I am confident they could have over time being industrious people. The foreign debt was a motivator for Hitler to try other kinds of economics that were Keynesian and deficit financed. The way Hitler planned to pay the war debt was likely just with the profit of winning in war with what he must have viewed as having good prospects for victory and profit.

US Economic Reform Paradigmata

 Republicans and Democrats have supported issuing of trillions and trillions of free dollars to the rich and that seems somewhat like treason. Those quantitative easing loans at 0% put electronic deposits in big banks, and with the marginal reserve rate of 10% generally those banks could loan out 9 dollars for each dollar in their account. That means 16 trillion given between 2008–2011 amounted to 134 trillion minus the 16 trillion that needed to be repaid to the Federal Reserve. Nothing was written in the constitution about a role of government to assure that the rich are given 134 trillion now and then and the poor, nothing. Republicans in the Senate are wailing and lamenting that 430 billion for Covid relief stimulus would bankrupt the country or need to be repaid by survivors of the future.

When the Federal Reserve was started the U.S.A. was still on the gold standard. The Federal Reserve was helpful in assuring liquidity and provided some protection for depositors. When the dollar became free floating during the Nixon administration the stage was set for future unscrupulous use of Federal Reserve loans.

President Reagan and Arthur Laffer seemed to understand that the need to run a balanced budget was as important as during former times. Many viewed Reagan stimulus deficit spending as a white-washed Keynesianism and apparently that view was wrong. It was difficult to entirely revise the classical view of economics to the free floating dollar paradigm.

During the 2008–9 financial crisis their was a paradigm shift in Federal Reserve application of creating liquidity such that enabling hundreds of trillions of dollars to appear out of virtually thin air for the rich has become normative- and that policy has hidden deleterious impacts on democracy, for it reinforces the concentration of wealth and economic segregation of citizens from political power. Georgia Republicans and Mitch McConnell need to trick Georgia voters into believe they are not at fault for withholding a $2000 stimulus check in order to keep control of the U.S. Senate in the January 6 special election. Republicans either do not comprehend the vast unearned political transfer of wealth to the rich or simply are sadistic and enjoy victimizing the poor.

Big business and banks should never be regarded as ‘too big to fail’. banking and making loans is fine when the money arises from the private sector and isn’t just the result of a federal prop. It would be far better for democracy in the United States if money from the Federal Reserve that goes to assure liquidity in the private sector primarily emerged from the people of the United States in a broad base such as social security accounts.

The Federal Reserve could make zero interest loans [periodically to all social security accounts and that money could be managed en mass/concatenated and available for loans to the private sector as big banks do presently. The money multiplier of 9 to 1 would go to Americans broadly as citizens rather than to special, globalist interest. If the private sector needs special free money from the public sector it should be the public sector as actual American citizens that profit from the action as well as private sector businesses directly borrowing cash at a reasonable yet low rate of interest.. This would have numerous salutary effects.

For one thing social security would remain solvent. The U.S. Government already borrows from social security and leaves i.o.u.’s. In the future it might be possible when retiree and disabled American accounts are flourishing to forgive federal indebtedness. Loans to the private sector would be more independent from domination by corporate networks controlled by 1% of the people, and special very low loan rates could be given to students and independent small businesses. There is nothin at all remotely American about the Federal Reserve helping the rich to have more free money in a few years than the poor would earn all together in a thousand lifetimes.

Neither party really has much good sense regarding ecological economics either. When the Federal Reserves enables trillions and trillions to be dumped to the present unsustainable economic infrastructure owners that makes changing the political economy improbable. Because the rich own the broadcast media Americans can be conditioned rather easily to accept being ‘managed’ by a plutocracy. I should mention that I personally am not an optimist about meaningful positive economic reform developing.

One Reason Why Some Consider Heidegger Existentialist

 Heidegger was interested in the phenomenal, root meanings of words. Examining language in such a subjective way might bring some to classify him as an existentialist. In that way of classification it might be said that Plato and realism was in opposition to extremist left nominalism and Heidegger was an innocent bystander. If all language is about language and classification that people make up for pragmatic reasons then it might be fair to say that things-in-themselves differ from words about them.

What can be said about reality in itself- the mass that is the steady state of mass perceptible to humans that completely defines it? Nothing I.m.o. Even structures that are man-made are founded in mass and energy that are described incompletely with word structures. In that circumstance one finds Sartre’s existential parameters congruent with Bishop Berkeley’s Three Dialog s concerning idealism. One cannot really say that the shared energy field that everyone encounters isn’t a complete production of God, or a simulation real for-itself generated by a sentient field.