Democrat Party vs. Russia; the wrong way to help concentrate wealth

Trying to interpret contemporary history and U.S, Presidential leadership isn’t too easy. Especially that of Barrack Obama, possibly of Indonesian birth, though more likely Hawaiian, who was given a Nobel Prize and then stimulated civil conflicts across the Middle East. Understanding his role in fomenting nearly a decade of race protests and riots and contributing to the hate Russia narrative and Ukrainian war with Russia is challenging for outsiders to elite American establishment institutions. The media made it unpatriotic and racist to criticize President Obama’s conduct as one might any usual President with dubiously useful policy. That was convenient for Wall Street an 1% insiders who had their way with tax cuts for the rich without resistance except from Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Most American voters probably will never visit the Ukraine or care much about it. Neither do most Americans care much about Muslim world except when Islamic terrorists are blowing up buildings in the United States. Even so it is useful to understand the relations of Democrat politics and Presidential leadership to foreign affairs as they do impact the U.S. economy and moral sensibilities.

President Bill Clinton got Cold War 2.0 established in 1994 when Ukraine was removed entirely from Russia. Russia was weak and rebuilding after going through the very risky step of ending the Soviet Union. In theory President Reagan would have welcomed Russia as equals in a post-Soviet world order. In fact there were elements that sought to exploit Russian weakness and minimize Russian land area. A long period of rebuilding Russia from a dead communist model to a free enterprise society followed.

Russia choose to rebuild its military on the American model of volunteers well trained with modern equipment, smaller in numbers yet more effective than a conscript military. It began to build institutions and eventually was able to put a small income tax on big business mostly held by oligarchs. A Russian movie industry developed. When the Muslim attack on the World Trade Towers occurred Russia partnered with western agencies cooperatively to contain Muslim terrorism internationally. During the Bush II years Russia was still basically on good relations with the United States. The Barrack Obama was elected President of the United States.

The Nobel Prize Committee awarded Barrack Obama the peace prize for being the first black President of the United States. The President made a speech in accepting the prize that seemed to support just war. He travelled to the Middle East and at Cairo made a speech in support of the Arab Spring revolts that was followed by several years of conflict in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen. The Republican Bush II administration had made a peace treaty with Kaddafi of Libya that was destroyed by President Obama who supported the war on his regime. When anarchy followed the end of the Kaddafi government and Islamic fundamentalist cadre moved in, the increase of Sub-Saharan Muslim terrorism grew too. America has probably lost Russian support in fighting against Muslim terrorism.

President Obama was an accelerant and organizer for the Syrian civil war. He sent military and financial support to Syrian rebels. Syria was a long-time ally of Russia, and that choice to support the Sunni revolt against Shi’a/Alawite minority rule placed the United States in conflict with Russia policy. That may have been inevitable, as the earlier Democrat president Bill Clinton had laid the foundation for Democrat Party belligerence toward Russia.

President Obama’s domestic policies allowed the Black Lives Matter movement to grow without resistance or redirection to more positive and civil means for achieving racial goals.* His decision to support homosexual marriage and the orientation of blacks as queer allies placed the U.S.A. into another belligerent, antagonistic posture in regard to Russia. Russia was far more conservative of traditional morality. When the European Union and the U.S.A. became queer marriage entities placing sanctions on Russia for supporting Syria, and expanded N.A.T.O. into Eastern Europe, Russian leadership probably viewed the west and corrupt, duplicitous, untrustworthy and dedicated to flanking and subjugating Russia so far as they could. In 2014 Russia choose to invade and retake the Crimean Peninsula- claimed by Ukraine that had been part of Russia- rather like Florida is to Americans for winter vacation and southern commerce, for centuries before President Clinton. More western sanctions followed, and the ground was set for protracted Cold War.

The election of President Trump changed the inertia of U.S. foreign policy for a while to one that was not too antagonistic to Russia. At least, the administration was amenable to improved Russian-American relations though the Democrat Party hatred of President Trump and Russia grew white-hot. An inquisition was made by the Democrat controlled Congress into the 2016 election that tried to prove Russians colluded to elect the President, and that President Trump might have hidden relations with Russia. President Trump’s support may have in part been a reaction not only to onerous, wicked Democrat Party policy that was so belligerent in approach; it may have received white support to counteract the perceived racist agenda of Barrack Obama and the Democrat Party.

One might wonder why Democrats hate Russia. It could be speculated that Democrat Party politics in support of homosexuality and feminine leadership and quick women’s liberation around the world- unsupported by economic facts to a certain extent, coupled with the desire for political and economic hegemony on Eurasia, required a continuum of pressure to hold and expand their goals. One wonder if President Obama was a racist who viewed Russia as the main obstruction to creating a non-white world and new age for Africans, Asians, Latinos etc over old Europe and the United States- each already flooded with illegal migrants Democrats tended to support.

Donald Trump is a famous loud blonde, or orange haired guy. He is a self-promoter with a rough style that offends many opponents. His international relations policies were pretty good however; he should have won a Nobel Prize for merit rather than race. He was skunked instead. After his years of being a target of Democrats ended with his administration- or might end after the end of the Biden administration, President Putin probably realized that he faced more years of very tight sanctions and Democrat Party hostility from the new Democrat administration led by President Obama’s Vice-President, Joe Biden. In 2022 Russia invaded Ukraine and the fighting continues with Democrats pouring all of the accelerant they can find onto the fire of war. That affect the U.S. and world economy, yet as part of the Democrat New World Order agenda of making a morally corrupt world beyond good and evil led by feminist-queer shop forepersons of planetary plutocrats, it may be considered a small price to pay. Democrat, godless corporatism doesn’t come cheap in terms of the cost of human lives.

*Most of the Black Lives Matter protests and riots were about police shootings of black men. With hundreds of thousands of arrests made each year in the U.S.A. fewer than twenty or so killings of suspects by police are plainly wrong. All of those policemen are union members and it isn’t likely union performance will be able to improve much and reduce the killings to zero.  An alternative approach might be to de-unionize police departments and replace them with contract workers financially incentivized for quality performance. Perhaps unions could negotiate contracts with monetary penalties for shooting people without necessity or for using excess bullets. Maybe any bullets used that hit a human should cost $1000 per in order to discourage use of bullets except in cases where perpetrators are firing bullets at police in which case police officers would be entitled to send three bullets for each bullet fired at them by a perp at no cost. Performance criteria for pay could be low or no numbers of shootings, most arrests leading to conviction etc; money matters. If police job performance matters for pay purposes financial motivation to use minimal force might be able to reduce fatalities without simply transferring fatalities from suspects to police. Should every policeman receive an automatic semi-annual $1000 non-shooting bonus that is forfeit if he fires a gun? I think it unlikely a policeman would ever not shoot if his life were actually in danger from an armed suspect as he weighed the question of his life worth losing a thousand dollars or not. Jack Benny told a story that he was accosted by an armed robber who said “Your money or your life”, and Benny said; “I’m thinking about it”. It is possible though that police fatalities could increase if they are compelled by new union rules to give themselves greater exposure to risk of death from armed suspects while they have their hands tied regarding use of force, such that they have no choice to use force. The problem seems to be one of using excessive or unnecessary force when it is required for personal or public safety.

Making sense of the Democrat Party’s long range influence on international affairs is challenging. Democrats started the Vietnam War in 1960 and the appropriately labeled General Westmoreland oversaw the U.S. military at its height. Russia and the communists of the Soviet Union supported Asians versus the U.S. Army of the new world. After the failure to secure more land in the old world Republicans worked on rapproachment with the Soviet Union and Communist China eventually producing fruit with the Reagan administration’s mutual draw down of military and political hostility. The Communism of the Soviet Union ended and Russia was converted to free enterprise and modern gangster elitist concentrated wealth capitalism. It did not end there.

The Democrat Bill Clinton took office and stole Ukraine from the nascent Russian federation to found the West’s Democrat Party eastward expansion that resulted eventually in the Ukraine conflict after succeeding Democrat Presidents elevated enmity with Russia. If N.A.T.O. leader Stoletenberg is replaced someone named Eastmoreland should be replace him to provide neat historical bookends on U.S. foreign policy the past 62 and next three years when, with luck, the policy will be retired and a new era of peaceful free enterprise with a safely taxed capitalism will build.

The tendency for wealth concentration edging toward enabling a small aristocratic elite effectively ending Democracy except in name only requires defense with taxation. Overly concentrated wealth subverts free enterprise of the masses, prevents competition to existing structures owned by elites and requires a substantial underclass with perennial economic insecurity.

Democrat presidents unconcerned with business in comparison to Republicans too readily get involved in wars even if for reasons of political ideology. One must wonder if the Second World War and Korean Conflict (and Serbian) could have been avoided and finessed to a better non-combative direction. President Eisenhower was no slouch at war yet managed to make it through eight years without creating a large international conflict or even sponsoring one. I wonder if anyone might be able to discern a Democrat Party pattern of political conduct, policy or method regarding Eurasia.

Democrats were the party of the Confederacy leading to the Civil War. After Andrew Johnson no Democrat could get elected President for more than a half century. Republicans were the northern anti-slavery party and held the office of President for quite a while. Republican leadership was o.k. until Woodrow Wilson got America into the First World War, then Americans voted for the Bull Moose neo-Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Calvin Coolidge had a good Presidency in the roaring twenties getting out after one term ducking the immanent crash that occurred during the Hoover administration. The national depression enabled the election of the first Democrat to the White House Lincoln’s assassination promoted Andrew Johnson to be the 17th U.S. President. Maybe Andrew Johnson wasn’t really a Democrat. No internet access here in rural S.E. Alaska to confirm that presently. It is easier to consider long range, general historical trends in an unelectrified paradigm than to remember select historical details of centuries past.

Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin Franklin was a Democrat lawyer from New York able to get elected after the Hoover crash of 1929-30. Franklin D. Roosevelt got the United States into the Second World War. I am not of the opinion that Democrat President always get the United States into foreign wars or that they were all honorably avoidable. My opinion is that if sound alternatives to war could have been developed Democrats would not find them. Their leadership in regard to war seems to be like that of crash test dummies on foot running blindly into unsound policies that meet war like an old friend. Since Vietnam Democrats prefer proxy wars.

The Democrat party of the United States appears to use social-political insanity to construct a fascist society under plutocratic, authoritarian rule enforcing Democrat Party agenda. That tradition may have begun with the desire to enforce the return of escaped slaves from anyplace in the U.S. to southern slave owners and continues today with the use of force so far as possible to control the federal legislature along with executive power to corrupt racially impartial civil rights.





%d bloggers like this: