LIMITED GOVERNMENT --
For Good Individuals of a Society to
Live Well and Free from Enslavism, Politicians Must
Be Limited in What They Can Do, and There
are No Exceptions to the Rule
Victor Edward Swanson,
The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan 49721
The United States of America
copyright c. 2019
December 27, 2019
Over the centuries and centuries, societies have become more complex--going from little family-based entities that were likely nomad types to nations of millions and millions of individuals. The leaders have been mostly fathers (in the case of families), tribal elders, religious leaders (such as "chosen ones" by gods), people of councils, kings and queens, et cetera. Today, there are various types of government forms, such as representative democracy or a constitutional democracy (something like the United States of America), monarchies, democracies, socialistic republics, communistic republics, et cetera. Generally speaking, today, the leaders of societies are called, generally speaking, politicians, and in this day and age, which I happen to call "The Pseudo Information Age and the Age of Ignorance," I report that most of the politicians do bad work in the long run and muddle up societies in the long run, and that is because they follow defective theories and such about how to run societies, which have been gained through defective educational processes, such as those of bad schools and universities, where professors and self-appointed elites push to install the rules of such political forms as communism and socialism into the ways of societies. Centuries and centuries ago, a leader of a group, such as a family, did not need to know much; the person might have to know about where water is, how to catch food, how to make a structure to protect the group against the weather, how to make stone weapons, and how to do other simple things. Today, societies are complex, involving water-treatment systems, food-distribution systems, nearly countless economic and industrial entities, electricity-generation systems, media systems, numerous industrious people, numerous lazy people, freaks, and more, and a person's being a useful leader or at least a good-enough leader is tied to knowing much about the society, and given that, it is so easy for a so-called leader to be under qualified for the position with which the person is involved or the position with which the person seeks to be involved, and, in fact, most people in political positions are under-qualified for their positions for a number of reasons and poorly suited to do well.
I have an important piece of information that must be put forth now. Politicians can control armies and soldiers and police officers, and politicians can put people in jail or prison easily when they wish, such as those who oppose any communistic or socialistic policies of the politicians. Politicians can even kill citizens at will, as has happened by the thousands or the millions in such communistic countries as Cuba (related to Fidel Castro) and China (related to Chairman Mao), because they control armies and soldiers and police officers, especially when the citizens have no arms with which to protect themselves.
And I have yet another piece of information to put forth here. No person can be altruistic (having, for example, real compassion and caring for others) and be a supporter of the ways of communism or socialism or progressivism or Sharia, since the compatibility between (1) altruism and (2) the ideas of communism and socialism and progressivism and Sharia does not exist--communism and socialism and progressivism and Sharia are enslavism forms of government that rely on violence and coercion and punishment of people through laws on a regular basis--and that means politicians who are communists or socialists or progressives or Shariaists (maybe also calling themselves "activists" and "social justice warriors" and "someone for the people") cannot possibly be working to help the lives of others, such as millions of so-called constituents or the citizens of a country. The nature of communism and socialism and progressivism and Sharia cannot be practiced by a person who is altruistic! By the way, because of what the true natures of communism and socialism and progressivism and Sharia are, communists and socialists and progressives and Shariaists have to lie about what they stand for and not make it clear what they stand for--their ultimate goal is to hurt others to protect themselves and to be "free" to do what they with without limits. [Note: You are urged to see my document entitled "Freedom" for the Communist, the Democratic Socialist, the Liberal, the Progressive, the Shariaist, and the Socialist (a.k.a. the "Democrat" of the Democratic Party) in the United States of America, which can be reached through this Freedom link.]
It has been said that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but I think the theme is not always true, and I say that I think the slogan does not tell a good story and it has a missing part, and the missing part is most politicians are bad because it is usually bad people who go into politics and become leaders, so they are very likely and predestined when given so-called absolute power or any power to do bad things, and this document passes along why the bad people do take up the job of politicians and passes along why bad people are commonplace as politicians.
Because bad people as politicians are commonplace, politicians have to be limited in what they can do. To show the reasons for limiting politicians or governments, this document presents information two forms. Some things are said in one sentence, and some things are presented in more than one sentence.
Consider a few simple reasons why politicians should be limited in what they can do. Politicians are nothing more than regular people, like all other persons, and politicians are not chosen ones, such as from birth, by gods or deities, as the Egyptian rulers of some 4,000 or more years ago sold their citizens on, and when a politician believes a god, like Allah (of Islam), as proclaimed the politician to be a chosen one, the person is, for one, a person who is not altruistic and has only the self in mind, and the person has a distorted and defective view of the world and life. People exist who think the world is a figment of an imagination or their imaginations or whatever, and the view of life in such persons is distorted, and they think the world was created for them, so they can do with it what they wish, and that means they have no care about anything but themselves--others are expendable and other things are expendable, and such a person is insane and can lead to the destruction of people and things and societies and even the world. The world has dictatorships, where one person is in complete control of a society ultimately, but it is a fact that no politician--or any person--is smart enough or has enough brain power to control well the lives of millions of persons, since a country with millions of persons is too complex, so screw-ups are most likely and failure is most likely, as is happening in, for example, North Korea. People, such as politicians, can have warped minds, having minds that think that they are smart when, in fact, they are not, and such politicians will not listen to reason or fact, and, for one, the warped nature can come about through what environment or social environment that the politician grew up in, such as a defective family (in which the parental structure was corrupted by the use of alcohol or mind-altering drugs) or defective schools (such as the communistic-based Harvard University). A politician could have been born with a defective brain (with a genetic defect), or a politician could get a disease (such as hardening of the arteries) in the brain that affects the brain aversely, or the politician could have or could have had a mini-stroke in the brain, or a politician could have had a physical accident that unknowingly affects the brain and leads to impaired thinking processes. People, especially existing politicians, can be jealous that leaders in other countries are more "free" to create laws and rules, and the people can actually look up to leaders of communistic countries, impressed by power held by those other leaders, and the people can wish and work to be like more "free" leaders of their minds--it can be a goal of life. Some politicians can be perpetual lairs or what might be thought of as "born liars," who are persons who over time have learned how to lie well, such as through instruction from parents while growing up, and such persons use lying regularly, and a good example of a perpetual liar is Barack Hussein Obama (a former U.S. president) [Note: Proof of my statement about Barack Hussein Obama exists in two very-long documents of mine that expose the lying of Barack Hussein Obama while he was the U.S. president, one document of which can be reached through this Quotes link and the other document of which can be reached through this Quotes2 link.
Communism and socialism are bad political systems for people or citizens, and, by the way, progressivism is another name for communism, and the difference between communism and socialism is the amount of violence the leaders following socialism or communism will do to the citizens, and communists are more hideous than socialists are, but socialists can easily convert to communism when they are opposed by the citizens (for enacting bad laws) and when they have to work to keep their jobs and positions of power. Communism and socialism are ultimately about government having complete control over the lives of the citizens, from health-care to wages and from what citizens can do with their property to what they may make. Communism and socialism are enslavism forms of government, which can allow rulers to rule for life and rule without restrictions. With socialism and communism, the rulers heavily control businesses or have government-operated businesses only, and, over time, the business industry usually fails or falls apart or stagnates because the leaders lack real knowledge about products, such as how to make products, what new products to make, and what products people want, and the leaders are heavily involved in satisfying themselves, and in such systems with government-controlled businesses or government-owned businesses, there is no incentive based on competition as a rule to make products better or especially better than what is already in existence, and, generally speaking, when the economy is faltering or falters, the leaders lack resources (such as money) that can be used to develop new things, and the people, who have been taxed heavily, have nothing left that can be used to try new things and create new things. With socialism and communism, leaders work to tax the people so that no one--no one that does not support the leaders--will have more money than they have and be able to challenge the leaders and their authority. Incidentally, the "democratic socialist" is another person versed in the ways of communism, but the democratic socialist tries to make socialism seem good by attaching the word "democracy" to "socialism", and it is an evil ploy, since socialism is not democratic in the long run. Socialism and communism are designed to keep government "safe" and protected, or socialism and communism are designed to keep bad politicians safe from the people (the citizens) who might rise up against the politicians for the politicians' bad actions. A person--particularly a politician--who shows signs of believing socialism and communism are worthwhile for "workers" or "citizens" shows off the dumbness of the person and the evilness of the person, and for the person to say that the failures of socialism and communism to date can be traced to the idea that neither has been done by the right person or the right people shows more signs of ignorance, and a person, especially as an adult, who has not come to understand how socialism and communism work or do not work and can never work is rotten and is a person who should never exist in a government job. [Note: Some people think businesses that are not controlled by politicians are worse things than governments are or the people have more hate of businesses than of governments, but businesses cannot tax people, and businesses cannot put people in jail, and people are not required to buy any product from a business, and when people do not buy a product from a business, the business might go out of business, so, in a way, businesses are more concerned about giving good products and services to people than governments are. Remember--When a business owner has more money than a politician has, then the business owner could use more money than the politician can to influence people (voters) and could use more money than the politician can get hands on to depose the politician. Politicians who hate businesses not owned by the government or heavily controlled by the government (as in the case of fascistic governments) are people who are working to protect themselves at the expense of the society, and they often push out the idea that businesses take advantage of customers by charging a lot and cheat customers, though customers work at businesses and though businesses go out of business if people stop buying their products or services.]
Self-interest--this theme affects everyone who lives. Self-interest involves a person's working to acquire such things as money, housing, food, jobs, sex, a mate, et cetera, and a politician like everyone else is involved in self-interest, and, really, because of that, no politician can worry about or be concerned with every citizen within a society, and no politician--especially the socialistic or communistic politician--can put the interests of the people over the interests of the politician first. Self-interest can be so strong that a person can kill a country and millions of persons to keep in a position to acquire what the emotions are driving toward.
Words can have unclear meaning or vague meaning or stand for the opposite of what people think, and some people can use words to trick people and lie to people. Even though "democracy" is hinted at in the name of the "Democratic Party" in the United States of America, the Democratic Party is not about democracy for citizens, and at best, it is a about democracy for the leaders, who set rules by the one-party system with voting amongst those in the leader class, and often the voters follow the ways of the top leaders or the top leader, not wanting to be ostracized for not voting with the upper leaders or die, and what that is a false democracy. Today, the Democratic Party in the United States of a America is based on communism and socialism and Sharia! Because the word "democracy" is hinted at in the name of the "Democratic Party," naive people, such as new arrivals to the country, believe the political party is devoted to "democracy," and that can lead the naive citizens voting for bad people as politicians, even some politicians so bad that the politicians are actually working to enslave the naive.
"The Rule of Generations and Careers"--Here is one of my rules about people and life. Over the centuries of man, it has been commonplace for fathers to work to get their children to take up the careers that they have, especially in the case of doctors and lawyers, since doctors and lawyers can make big money and gain high positions in society. It is commonplace for sons and daughters to not wish to follow in parents' footsteps in relation to careers, and when sons and daughters are sort of forced to follow in parents' footsteps, the sons and daughters often do not do as well as the parents do, lacking, for example, the mental drive to do well or do better. Over the last six decades, I have seen entities, such as small businesses, fall apart after there is a transition of leadership from parent to son or daughter, but, of course, I have seen entities remain in existence through two generations or more than two generations. The problem comes in relation to thinking jobs because fathers and sons or fathers and daughters have different brains and different upbringings and different hopes from life, and they have different abilities and have had different environmental influences while growing up. In the case of politics, which is supposed to or should involve high-level thinking, a succession of so-called leaders from the same family almost always leads to failure, especially if the start of the line is a person who is, for example, a socialist or communist, given ignorance and corruption are very likely to be passed on, such as from father to son.
Politicians can be female, and females are less logical than men are, and that has come about through the evolutionary process of millions of years, and that is what the female has had to evolve into to do well at being a motherer/teacher/comforter/et al to babies and children on a daily basis, while male has had to evolve to do other duties. Because of the nature of the female, a female can be more likely than the male to take up the ways of socialism, thinking she can make daily life less confrontational, have everyone get along, make people equal, comfort people through laws, and make people sociable. When a woman takes up promoting socialism and communism as good, the women is highly defective and maybe more defective than a man is since the women is also driven by defective female thinking ways, involving emotions and feelings. The modern feminist movement was launched in the 1960s, and the nature of the female has not changed since then, and it will not change over some decades and more to come, so the problem that can show up with females as politicians will be around for a long time to come. [Note: Here is a note to guys. Have you ever had an argument with a woman? Do women usually argue logically on many subjects? It is often difficult to get a woman to accept facts over her emotions? For more knowledge, you are urged to see my document entitled And the Stupid Women Shall Lead--and Lead Every Good Individual into Shit, Driven on by Communism, Feminism, and Defective Female Beliefs and Little-Girl Thinking, which can be reached through this Stupid Women link.]
To really learn about what life is and have a good general-knowledge background of the physical world, a person should learn to do physical things while growing up. If a politician comes from a rich family or a well-off family, then the person probably did not have to do such things while growing up as mow lawns, rake leaves, clean bathrooms, and wash walls, or the person did not do much of it, since there were hired workers to do the work. Beyond that, such a person may not have grown up learning to do bigger jobs, such as repair cars, such as change brakes and brake lines, install bathroom tile, and lay concrete walk or driveway. Given that, it can be said that such a person who has not learned the nature of what it takes to do many thing--such as the time involved and the struggle and body energy required to complete a job, especially if the work must be done time and time again over years--will make defective decisions about problems related to the physical nature of the world that must be dealt with and solved.
I have noted already that most politicians are not smart enough to be in their jobs, and that is because of what they were educated in and what they were not educated in. Unlike some two-hundred-fifty years ago, when national politicians were farmers or other things by trade, politicians of today are very likely to be career politicians, and they are very likely to be one type of person, a person whose background has been tied to government jobs since leaving school, and so the rule is a politician has not gained knowledge about life through trial-and-error process of making things and learning what works, and so decision-making for the politician is often not grounded in common sense gained through experience and on-hands work and is grounded in bookish theories (probably put together by people who had not gained common-sense knowledge about the world). Many politicians get education at schools, such as universities, in sociology, political science, and law, and, for example, a person educated in law has learned to do unclear writing and vagueness writing ("legalize"), double-talk, and flap-doodle speak, and such a person has learned how to avoid saying true beliefs and meanings, how to avoid saying anything useful, how to side-step questions, and how to do round-about speak, speaking in a way that fools people into thinking something useful was spoken when it was not, and sociology does not teach how to run something. A politician can be a good memorizer but a bad thinker, since colleges and universities do not necessary work to make people "thinkers," and a person could have gained good grades because the person can memorize things easily so that the person can pass multiple-choice tests. It is fact--A person's having achieved good grades at college or university is no sign of that person's having a sound mind that has good thinking skills, those needed to run a town, a city, a state, or a country. People who take up studies at a college or university have a tendency to specialize--focus on one main subject--and not become general-knowledge people, and there is a rule that I have that notes that many people are so specialized that they are not equipped to take on general-knowledge problems, lacking enough information about a lot of subjects. It must be remembered that politicians could have gotten their college or university degrees though not deserved, such as by getting the degrees because the people were black and universities and colleges had secret policies (such as like that of Wayne State University, Detroit, at least in the 1960s) to not flunk black students, and it is possible politicians may have cheated on tests and term papers [Note: There have been and are people who write or produce terms papers for others for a fee, and rich people or students from rich families can pay the fees.].
I must present an aside here, and it focuses on smartness and intelligence, and there is smartness and intelligence that a person can have that is good and can allow the person to run a government well and honorably, and there is a smartness tied to evil that a person can have. A person can attain university degrees in all types of subjects and sound smart while talking, such as by using proper English and following the rules of proper English grammar, but it is a type of smartness can be tied to a mind that is adept at lying well and deceiving people, and it is a mind that is smart but morally defective and ethically defective. It is commonplace for those who reach the highest-level of government employment in the United States of America to have the ability to sound smart, but many of such people can have minds that are evil to the nth degree, willing to subvert true facts and evidence and overlook facts and evidence. Yes, a person's sounding smart or educated--having the ability to speak good sentences, for example--is no sign that the person is honorable or smart in a way that will lead to other persons being unhurt by the person through the person's actions, which could be guided by foolish bookish theories or by the rules of communism, which are not designed to make people better. [Note: In November 2019 and December 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives held a number of hearings that were telecast live, pushed along and controlled by the Democrats (who are communists or socialists or progressives or Shariaists), and a person's seeing the Democrats ask questions could understand many of the Democrats spoke well or well enough to not sound uneducated, but I could tell and deduce the Democrats were clearly pushing lies and defective information, bent on removing a person by hook or crook from the office of the U.S. presidency. The hearings and associated actions by the Democrats during the period of time of the "impeachment" episode will go down in the history of the United States of America as clearly a time when smart yet very bad people showed off their evil nature (to at least good persons), and it was not a few persons of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives who showed the nature of the Democratic Party, but it was hundreds of persons--all the members of the Democratic Party--that showed how smart-sounding people can have detective minds and use those minds to destroy others at the expense of the country, which they dislike because the country is not a communistic country or a country that would be made to take up being under control of the United Nations.]
In relation to a person working politics, it is commonplace for a person to have not or to have barely worked in the private sector--which involves big businesses and corporations and small businesses and small companies--over the years. A person who has not really worked in the private sector has not had to be involved in, for example, meeting payrolls, balancing accounting books, and complying with what can be like countless federal regulations, state regulations, and local regulations, and for a person running a business, the person's complying with regulations is probably the biggest obstacle that the person has to deal with, and a politician who has not had to deal with such obstacles has no good understanding of what businesses have to deal with on a day to day basis. People who create laws and rules on businesses and corporations usually have no recognition of what will be the real results of the laws and rules. [Note: On Friday, December 6, 2019, when there was truly good economic news about the economy, and it was news that noted that the economy was booming like no other time in decades, and U.S. President Donald J. Trump talked about the economy and other matters in a press event, and some of what Donald Trump said was--"...We have a situation where we're looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms, where, ah, you turn the faucet on in areas where there's tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it, and you don't get any water. You turn on the faucet, you don't get any water. They take a shower, and water comes dripping out. It's dripping out. Very quietly dripping out. People are flushing toilets ten times, fifteen times, as opposed to once. They end up using more water. So EPA is looking at that very strongly at my suggestion. Ah, you go in to a new building or a new house or a new home, and they have standards, only you don't get water, you get, you can't wash your hands practically, there's so little water comes out of a faucet, and the end result is you leave the faucet on or it takes you much longer to wash your hands. You end up using the same amount of water. So we're looking at very seriously opening up the standard....". The set of words from Donald Trump hinted at rotten rules about water that have been enacted, such as in relation to toilets (and so-called water-saving toilets or low-flow toilets) since the rise of the modern environmental movement in the 1970s. A lot of "environmentalists" (those that I define as freaks) and defective politicians have come together to set standards about how much water that toilets can use for each flush and how much water that fixtures can put out over a given amount of time, not taking into account such things as how much water is really needed to move refuge through pipe systems and out of buildings, and California--which is under control of communists and socialists and the like--is one of the states that has led to the crap for people, especially in earnest since 2013. Yes, Donald Trump hinted at bad laws and rules, which have resulted in companies having to stop making some type of fixtures for bathrooms and such and having to make government-mandated-style fixtures and which resulted in people (such as homeowners) stuck with crap in the long run. By the way, engineers over the decades or centuries have come up with rules about how much water must be used to move waste through water pipes and how big pipes have to be to move waste water and what slope for piping is effective and not effective, but politicians have thought they know best and believe they are going to save the planet by having citizens use less water (which cannot escape the planet or disappear), and that is how crap was created for the people of the country by screwed-up politicians. Also I noted that Michael Bloomberg (who was running to be a U.S. president in 2019 when this document was originally made) had been involved in putting in a rule in New York City, New York, as the mayor, that noted that a soft drink could not be in cups bigger than 16 ounces at, for example, restaurants, and that happened in 2012, and that rule was later knocked down in courts over the next year or so. In Michigan, the state government put out a law on November 21, 2019, that mandated that only cage-free chicken eggs could be sold in the state by December 2024 (even though at the time cage-free chicken eggs cost about a third more than regular chicken eggs did (and they will always cost more because it takes more effort to produce cage-free chicken eggs, which--I say in jest--should have made poor people happy)). I could present other ideas of idiotic rules of non-federal entities, but I stop here, and I would expect you may have come across crap rules and laws over the years.]
Hey, have you ever really thought about why people often become politicians? If you have not, I will help you. Bad people will do anything to avoid having to do real work or regular jobs, such as be in a job at a business or corporation, and it is all about self-preservation. People can be jealous of people who have money, especially more money than they have, and the jealous people become politicians so that they can knock down others in stature through laws. People who are socialists and communists like--if not love--to hurt other people, and being in government allows the people who are socialists and communists to hurt other people through rules and laws. A government deals with a lot of money, and when a person is a politician, the person has the opportunity to corrupt the money process so that money ends up in the hands of the person (such as through fraud). In societies, people have a tendency to hold politicians in high regard, and people become politicians so that they can gain high status in society, which might lead to their receiving free things and better seating locations at restaurants and games and such [Note: A person who has gained high status in society by being a politician probably would not have gained as much status by being in another career, lacking any real skills.].
The background of a person can show whether or not the person would be good at helping to run a country, such as by voting to pass bills into laws or voting to change laws. Around 2019, when the main structure of this document was put together, few of the persons in the U.S. Congress of the United States of America at the time or few of the persons running to be the next U.S. president were qualified--related to actual knowledge about things--to be in their jobs or take up the jobs that they seek, and I base that thought on the information about their backgrounds. I have compiled a list of persons, most of whom happened to be members of the Democratic Party of the United States of America around 2019, which is a political party that supported (and yet supports) the ways of communism and socialism and Sharia (Islam law, which is a hideous political system masquerading as a religion, headed by some entity called Allah, a god of some type or other) for the "masses":
Joseph Biden (of the Democratic Party) -- His main educational background is in law and history, and he has a degree described as Juris Doctor.
Michael Bloomberg (of the Democratic Party) -- His main educational background is in engineering and business administration, but he, even though he is a rich man, is a big supporter of the ways of socialism and communism. [Note: It must be remembered really rich people--like Michael Bloomberg--often support socialism and communism, and other examples of such persons living around 2019 were Bill Gates (of Microsoft fame) and George Soros, and a big example of rich-man Michael Bloomberg's defective thinking can be found in Television History and Trivia #188, which can be reached through this T.H.A.T. #188 link.]
Cory Booker (of the Democratic Party) -- His main educational background is law, and he has a degree described as Juris Doctor.
Pete Buttigieg (of the Democratic Party) -- His main educational background is in politics and philosophy and economics.
Bill Clinton (of the Democratic Party) -- His main education background is political science and foreign service, and while he was the U.S. president, he was impeached for having lied to a grand jury.
Hillary Clinton (of the Democratic Party) -- Her main educational background is in political science, and she has a degree described as Juris Doctor, and her ties to communism are decades old, going back to, for instance, her college studies when she had praise for the author of Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals, Saul Alinsky.
Kirsten Gillibrand -- Her main educational background is law, and she has a degree described as Juris Doctor.
Kamala Harris (of the Democratic Party) -- Her main educational background is in economics and political science, and she has a degree described as Juris Doctor.
Amy Klobuchar (of the Democratic Party) -- Her main educational background is in law, and she has a degree described as Juris Doctor.
Mitch McConnell (of the Republican Party) -- His main educational background is in law.
Barack Hussein Obama (of the Democratic Party) -- His main educational background is in international relations, political science, and English literature, and he is a big supporter of socialism and communism and Sharia.
Jerry Nadler (of the Democratic Party) -- His main educational background is law, and she has a degree described as Juris Doctor.
Michelle Obama (of the Democratic Party) -- Her main educational background is law, and she has a degree described as Juris Doctor..
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (of the Democratic Party) -- Her main educational background is in international relations and economics, but her main guiding knowledge is tied to Democratic Socialism.
Ilhan Omar (of the Democratic Party) -- Her main educational background is in political science and international studies, and she is a supporter of Sharia.
Beto O'Rourke (of the Democratic Party) -- His main educational background is in English literature.
Nancy Pelosi (of the Democratic Party) -- Her main educational background is in political science.
Mike Pence (of the Republican Party) -- His main educational background is in law, and he has a degree described as Juris Doctor.
Mitt Romney (of the Republican Party) -- His main educational background (such as at Harvard Law School) is law and business, but history shows he has big support for socialism and communism in government, such as his helping to enact a socialistic health-care system in Massachusetts in 2006 when he was the governor of Massachusetts, and he has gained the distinction of putting down other Republicans, especially U.S. President Donald Trump.
Bernie Sanders (of the Democratic Party) -- His main educational background is in political science, and he is a well-known hard-line supporter of communism.
Adam Schiff (of the Democratic Party) -- His main educational background is political science, and he has a degree described as Juris Doctor.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (of the Democratic Party) -- Her main educational background is in political science.
Chuck Schumer (of the Democratic Party) -- His main educational background is law, but he never practiced law as a lawyer, such as by trying cases before judges or juries, and he has a degree described as Juris Doctor.
Rashid Tlaib (of the Democratic Party) -- Her main educational background is in political science, and she has a degree described as Juris Doctor.
Donald J. Trump (of the Republican Party) -- His main educational background is in economics.
Elizabeth Warren (of the Democratic Party) -- Her main educational background is in audiology, pathology, and law, and she has a degree described as Juris Doctor, and she is a hard-line supporter of the ways of communism.
Maxine Waters (of the Democratic Party) -- Her main educational background is in sociology.
Andrew Yang (of the Democratic Party) -- His main educational background is in economics and political science, and he has a degree described as Juris Doctor.
[Note: You should see through the section about individuals and their backgrounds that many persons have the same educational background, such as in political science, and there are few persons with practical experience, and if you think about "diversity" of education, which is not necessarily important if the majority of people have practical experience in worthwhile matters, such as business, there is no "diversity"--that is, most of the people have the same limited educational background, and I note that often degrees are attained through the same few universities, such as Harvard University, which, as history shows, is a breeding ground for communists and socialists.] .
To get bills passed in to law by a U.S. Congress (the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate) and a U.S. president, the people involved often have to compromise, since so many of the people have proposed rules that they want to become laws, many proposals of which are often rotten, to satisfy constituents or donors, and that leads to crap, such as unrestricted spending of money acquired by the federal government, such as through taxing the citizens. For example, pretend there is a bill in the U.S. Congress called "HR 246803579," and it is being pushed along by Representative X, and it will not pass unless Representative Y votes "yes" to pass the bill, and Representative X promises to vote "yes" on a bill being pushed along by Representative Y, if Representative Y votes "yes" for the bill tied to Representative X, but if both bills are actually crap and defective and they get passed in to law, both laws can become bad for the country and the citizens of the country. Of course, there are politicians, such as communists, who push the idea that communism (socialism), which is a one political-party system, is good because there need not be so much compromising to get laws passed and laws can be passed easier--the politicians are freer to do anything and enact anything, and, of course, I push the idea that that is crap, since the politicians are not restricted from passing regularly rotten laws and rules for the society and the citizens, and I put forth that it is better to have government that is limited in what it can do to affect every-day life for the citizens than to have a one-party government system, and to me, it matters not if politicians have a hard day at work and are caught in tough times each day, since the goal in relation to government is not to make life easier for politicians. Actually, it is better to keep government restricted so that it cannot pass so many laws and get so involved in comprising, which creates crap and waste and bloated budgets, and it can be said that compromising in relation to government never gets anything solved, but, of course, when things do not get solved, politicians always have something that they will have to work on in the future.
Here is an aside. Proof of why national government must be limited has been proved to me through my association a little historical societies and such and my watching the workings of local governments. For instance, I was associated with the 40 Mile Point Lighthouse Society (the Rogers City area of Michigan) for a while, and around 2018, some high-ranking members of the historical society once again wanted to change the by-laws of the entity (though the by-laws had been changed for the better a few years previously), and, for one, those members wanted to change the by-laws so that the board could change the by-laws alone, not having to deal with the membership, and, of course, that is the way of enslavists (or socialists or communists) [Note: When the by-laws of such an entity can be changed by the board alone, board members could actually get rid of a particular board member (such as a non-socialist) at a meeting when the particular board member is not present (such as because of a temporary illness of the person or a relative of the person's).] I opposed the idea about the board's being allowed to change the by-laws alone greatly, and I was fired from the 40 Mile Point Lighthouse Society, though I had put together several history documents for free for the 40 Mile Point Lighthouse Society and was like the unofficial historian for the 40 Mile Point Lighthouse Society. I am the only person in history to ever have membership revoked from 40 Mile Point Lighthouse Society (and I received no refund or partial refund).
A person need not be smart to be a politician, and, in essence, politicians are mostly elected into office because of popularity (vague reasons) and not because of knowledge within their minds, and a person need not be smart to be a voter, and most voters seems to be stupid (as the 2016 presidential vote shows, showing 65,853,514 persons voted for Hillary Clinton--a communist and a corrupt person (as good and smart persons well understood then)--to be a U.S. president). Voters are mistaken in thinking, because a person has a law degree, that the degree qualifies the holder to be a good person to run government, and so they vote for the person. Voters, especially women, can lack the nerve to vote out bad people or bad politicians form their jobs, not wanting to hurt people, and that is a problem, and it is an emotional thing or an emotion thing about personalities. Voters can think, just because a person running for an office has held public office in the past, the voters would not be doing bad by voting for the person, though the past does not mean the person has any value or is worthwhile or is honest or will be a good politician (or a so-called "public servant"). Voters often elect people because the people running for office look nice or pretty or handsome or look like a politician. It must be made clear that many voters can be bad people, such as those who believe they are due free stuff from the government, such under the heading of "environmental justice". Voters can elect people who are relatives of existing politicians, such as sons or daughters, thinking there is a heredity trait that makes the sons or the daughters of existing politicians (fathers or mothers) worthwhile.
Since the late 1900s, especially since the 1960s, there has been a rise in the acceptance of marijuana (a mind-altering drug) as drug that can be used on a daily basis for fun and pleasure, and the idea has been pushed along by communists and socialists, such as those in government, and that is even though there are more than 100 years of evidence showing that marijuana has the informal name of "dope" for a real reason. Because more and more people are using marijuana, more minds of people are being affected adversely every day it seems. Facts show that since Colorado legalized marijuana use on a recreational basis and since Washington has legalized marijuana use on a recreation basis, there has been a down turn in the quality of people in those states, and population centers have had deterioration and increased crime, and visitors to places in the states, such as Seattle, Washington, have seen what the results of legalized marijuana use has led to, such as areas of dopers on the streets and bums and such. Over time, people--especially young people--using marijuana can end up with impaired judgment, and that can translate to making defective choices in relation to voting for politicians, and the use of marijuana can make people complacent, and that can lead to people giving up on voting or becoming lack-luster voters, skipping out on voting. By the way, if people take up using marijuana as children (such as secretly) and continue using marijuana in adult life, the people are very likely to have distorted thinking.
While thinking about reasons that the government must be limited, a person should think about the press or the majority and how the press or the majority of the press can be corrupt and tell lies, siding with enslavists (such as socialists and communists and Shariaists). For instance, in the United States of America, by the time that Barack Hussein Obama was running to be the U.S. president, it was clearly evident that many persons in the main press were corrupt and sided with socialists and communists, and, for one, there was little vetting of the background of Barack Hussein Obama for the general voting public, and then during, the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama (from 2009 to 2017), many in the press passed along the lies that Barack Hussein Obama was pushing out, such as about the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care bill. Then, when Donald J. Trump became the U.S. president in 2017, the press was most certainly willing to pass along lies about Donald J. Trump and side with the Democratic Party, especially the effort of the Democratic Party to perpetuate a lie that Donald Trump--right from the start of the presidency--was worth impeaching, though no facts bore out the charges.
Between 2009 to 2017, many events took place in the United States of America that showed why politicians must be limited in what they are allowed to do. During the time of Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. President--between 2009 and 2017--many things showed off the rottenness of Democratic Party politicians, especially Barack Hussein Obama. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010--a communistic health-care law designed to lead to having the government control all aspects of health-care in the country--was passed, being able to be passed because the Democrats controlled the U.S. Congress and the U.S. presidency, and in the process to pass the law, the Democrats lied about what the law was about and worked to pass the law without support of Republicans, and that was a sign of the communistic nature of the Democratic Party. There was the "Benghazi Killings Scandal" during the time of Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. president, which, for one, had Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton (the U.S. Secretary of State) doing nothing or very little to protect American citizens under attack by Islamic terrorists, and, for instance, a U.S. ambassador was killed at Benghazi. The Barack Hussein Obama administration worked to have gun laws change in the country--making it harder for Americans to own guns, which might be used in the future to put down rotten politicians--and the administration did it by getting guns to Mexican thugs, and the event (which is now informally known as "Fast and Furious") ultimately led to the death of a U.S. border agent. It was during the time of Barack Hussein Obama as the U.S. president that yearly treks from South America, Central American, and Mexico to the United States of America by foreigners were encouraged by at least the Democrats, and one reason for the treks was to get more uneducated people, such as from poor communistic countries, in to the United States of America who might vote or soon become voters, probably voters for Democratic Party candidates (thinking, for one, "Democratic Party" means "democracy" and something good). There was the matter about Hillary Clinton's time as the U.S. Secretary of State (under the U.S. presidency of Barack Hussein Obama), in which she violated U.S. law, such as in relation to using private servers to conduct government business, and then how James Comey (as the director of the FBI) worked to free Hillary Clinton from prosecution related to her unlawful actions (as good people were well aware).
Events tied to investigating U.S. President Donald Trump (a Republican) from 2017 to at least 2020 showed more of the rottenness of national politicians, and, in essence, right from the start of Donald Trump as the U.S. president, the Democrats worked to impeach Donald Trump or get Donald Trump impeached, because, he was anti-communistic and anti-socialistic and was turning back bad laws and such that had been set up in the country, such as illegally or unconstitutionally by the previous U.S. president (Barack Hussein Obama), who had gotten away with doing illegal or unconstitutional actions while the U.S. president. There were several years of Robert Mueller's investigations into the Donald Trump/Russia election collusion theme, and the Mueller investigation plot died out--showing nothing bad had been done by Donald Trump as the U.S. president or before becoming the U.S. president. In late 2019, there were U.S. Representative Adam Schiff's or Jerrold Nadler's guided "impeachment" inquiry hearings, numerous weeks of behind-closed-doors hearings and five nationally televised hearings (of November 2019) that had nothing but hearsay evidence and emotions from Democratic Party-supporters to try to prove U.S. Donald Trump had done something illegal in relation to Ukraine (especially one telephone called on July 25, 2019). And on December 18, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on impeaching U.S. President Donald J. Trump, based on nothing.
Then there is the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and vice versa, and this cliché applies well to a federal government. A federal government can get so big with so many different parts that rules are created at this place (or department or agency) and rules are created at that place (or department or agency), and you end up with a collage of rules, and then there is confusion about what rules apply, Beyond that, the government should not have been involved in putting the rules together to begin with, since the topics addressed should not be even addressed by government, maybe something like that which stipulates the maximum size of a drink in a cup that can be sold at a restaurant (such a rule of which comes from freaks).
History shows that national control of education can lead to rottenness and a stupid populous, because when an educational system is set up with national control, it is ripe for corruption by bad people, such as bad politicians and bad educators. In the United States of America, there is a national education entity, the U.S. Department of Education (of the federal government), and that entity and teachers' associations (which are controlled by socialists and such) have been pushing throughout the country a "Common Core" format related to educational standards, and the format is filled with nonsense, right down to how to add up numbers (in a new way). Over recent history, communistic and socialistic countries have set up national systems, and the systems often have focused on educating the public well on following the ways of the leaders and the government, and, today, in China, North Korea, Cuba, et cetera, citizens are forced to learn the sayings of leaders, and in the 1900s, communists and socialists of the Soviet Union and Germany (of the 1930s and 1940s under the leadership of Adolph Hitler) had to take up hours and hours of studies of books tied to the leaders, and it was and is all propaganda learning. When an education system exists where there are independent parts, such as independent state systems, if one system goes bad, because the system adopts teaching crap, such as the ways of socialism, then the other systems are unaffected, and when one system goes to crap, people at least have a chance to move from the crappy state or whatever to another state or whatever to escape the failure and defectiveness [Note: Corruption of national entities can lead to having book publishers putting out bad school books, such as those that promote socialism, and if such books get pushed on the entire country, children all over the country can be adversely affected.]. And one rule of life is--Some things fail, and if people adopt crap and fail, it is too bad for them--they are expendable--and history shows that bad educational systems can fail [Note: Around 2019, about forty-three percent of the children in elementary school of the Detroit Public School system could not read, and many adults in Detroit were functionally illiterate, and one reason that came about was blacks did not want to learn "white"-people things (such as proper English), and the standards of education went down because, for instance, some blacks who had been allowed to enter college and university and take up studies in teaching were give preferential treatment and were passed, and those people went on to teach in Detroit, though they were low-grade teachers.].
I have heard over the years that ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, thousands of rules and laws are created every year by the federal government of the United States of America, and no person, even a person employed by the federal government, can know all the rules and laws that exist. To keep up with the number of rules and laws, a person would have to spend every day of life reviewing rules and laws. There are rules and laws on the books that have been long forgotten but can yet be used to pressure a citizen into doing something or be put in jail. And when rules and laws are written in convoluted ways--legalize--so that they cannot be understood easily, that also puts down the rule about ignorance of the law is no excuse. Today, agency and departments of the federal government--the numbers beyond those which the Founders would have expected to exist it seems to me--are creating rules at will, unchecked by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. president, and that is bad, and, incidentally, the history of the last ten years or so shows that often members of the U.S. Congress have been unable to read bills before voting on the bills because, for one, bills have been over one-thousand-pages long, written in lawyer language and often referring to existing parts of laws, and a bill can be a collage of crap, and even U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi once famously said about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act bill that we have to pass it before we will know what is in it. It is commonplace for the U.S. Congress and a U.S. president to pass laws in which many details are left to the administrative state (departments and agencies)--the administrative state is left to actually put out rules after the main laws (like structure laws) are enacted, and the country then ends up with law upon law upon law upon law upon law--a mess of laws, which have not actually gone through the U.S. Congress and a U.S. president.
Many people in the federal government of the United States of America--in fact, most people--are not elected to their positions, and because of the way government works, such as in association with employee unions, it is hard to remove bad people from government jobs or it is hard to kick people out of government work completely. Politicians who are rotten will very likely put people in government jobs, especially high-level government jobs (not tied to elections) who are beholden to the politicians, such as by being in the same bad political party, and the hirees can often be unqualified. In addition, when people tied to communism and socialism, such as people of the Democratic Party, are involved in hiring people for government jobs, the hirees can be socialists and communists and radicals, and they can be installed in their jobs so that, in the future, they can obstruct good politicians, such as U.S. presidents (who are not supporters of communism and socialism) from doing good things and passing good laws or removing bad laws. The more and more government grows, the more bad people can become employees who can be ultimately be bent on screwing things up, which screws up the lives of good Americans (non-communists and non-socialists).
I have heard it said--in relation to what socialists and communists and progressives believe--that average people cannot run their lives well and they need politicians (their government) to run the lives; people cannot take care of themselves since they are stupid, according to politicians. Even if some people cannot run their lives or run their lives well, when the rotten politicians are bent on running the lives of people--based on the idea that people cannot--the politicians will screw up the lives of people who can take care of themselves at least well enough (based on their thinking about themselves). Anyway, who has determined that politicians are smart enough to run the lives of others (the citizens of the country), especially if the politicians have a main educational background that is focused on political science?
When the health care of every person in a country is ultimately controlled by national politicians and completely controlled by national politicians--so that there is no alternative care to the national system--the citizens of the country are enslaved to the national government, where rotten politicians can withhold care from people who do not support the politicians (citing lack of money to do the care or citing some other reason, such as the age of person) and the citizens cannot avoid the government health-care system, especially sloppy care, and get care and treatment in other ways (the "private sector" of the country). When Bill Clinton was the U.S. president, Bill Clinton, his wife (Hillary Clinton, a hard-line communist), and the members of the Democratic Party worked to get a national-hearlth-care law passed, which would put the federal government in charge of the health care of every citizen in the United States of America, and, fortunately for the people of the United States of America, no national law was able to be passed. In 2009 and 2010, the Democrats (the politicians in the U.S. Congress) and Barack Hussein Obama (a Democrat who held the office of the U.S. president) once again worked hard to get a national heatlth-care law passed, and the bill for the law was called, for one, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and, during the creation process, the Democrats lied about what the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act bill was about and would do, and that is especially true of Barack Hussein Obama. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed into law because the Democrats in government were not restricted, such as by enough Republicans, to kill the law in bill form, and it turned out the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was crap and is crap, but it helped and helps the pushers of communism who are working to make the nation evolve into a one-party communistic nation, where you might not get health care if you do not vote for the communists and like rotten people. [Note: A good person is will aware that when people lie as much as, for instance, Barack Hussein Obama did to pass a health-care bill or any bill, there must be something highly rotten with the bill, and a good person well understands that it is unnecessary to lie to pass something into law that is good.]
While a society becomes more complex and bigger, the less the society should be centrally controlled by politicians in relations to many aspects of life, because, when politicians control more and more of peoples' lives and more numbers of people, decision errors made by politicians and the lack of acting on something by politicians or the retarded actions of politicians are more likely to occur and more likely to cause problems to great numbers of persons. When there is less control by a central entity of government and more control by local government (especially numerous small entities controlling parts of the whole), it is easier for people to escape bad communities for better communities, which benefits the overall health of a society. Communities go bad and die because of politicians, as has happened in the past, such as in Detroit (a super-big city in Michigan that went bankrupt because of communistic and socialistic politics enacted by blacks and some whites). I state that, in a society or a country, communities can be expendable. It is like families in a society--some fail because of defected minds, and many do not fail, and when a particular family fails, it does not taken down all others. When a city fails, it does not take down others, especially those where the culture has not been involved in embracing communism and socialism. When a country fails because of bad politicians, every citizen is affected adversely, and people have to leave--if they can--to survive.
Incidentally, in a country that is not set up with the government owning or controlling businesses, if a particular type of business fails, there are always other businesses of the same type, and the country goes on, and people can move on to jobs in other businesses.
In essence, this document focuses mostly on the United States of America, but the themes can apply to any country, and I have a point that applies to the world, and that point is tied to manmade-climate change, manmade-global warming, or whatever it is called at the moment. Government people--either highly stupid or evil (socialists and communists and progressives and such)--all over the world have picked up idea of fighting manmade-global warming or manmade-global cooling or whatever it is called at the moment, and their fighting is fake, based on fake premises and lies. One of the guiding forces for the fighting movement has been a book entitled Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals, which was written by Saul Alinsky (a hard-line communist who once lived in the United States of America) and which was published in 1971. By the way, Mark R. Levin of The Mark Levin Show (a nationally syndicated radio show) has on a number of occasions over the last ten years or so has reported how he (while he was working in the federal government) discovered the federal government was involved in sending out Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals to government employees in the 1970s (paid for by taxpayer money), even though the book was a communistic book that was designed to help freaks knock down the United States of America and make it a communistic nation (which might be headed by freaks--socialists and communists and such). In the book entitled Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals, Saul Alinsky talked about, in essence, climate change as a cause, and since 1971, it has become clearly evident that socialists and communists have been pushing countries to adopt idiotic laws related to carbon so that socialists and communists (such as through the United Nations) can control the industries of non-communistic and non-socialistic nations through international laws and treaties. Over the years, Americans and others have taken up the cause to save the planet by getting rid of using carbon-based fuels, though, for instance, when carbon-based fuels are used, plants have carbon dioxide to use to live and grow and countries or industries weaken because they lack alternative energy sources, such as those able to keep people alive. In the United States of America, Al Gore (a former U.S. Vice President) has pushed the cause of saving the planet for decades in relation to climate change, and he is tied to a discredited documentary film called Inconvenient Truth, and in England, Prince Charles has shown his support for fighting climate change to save the planet. One proof that the climate-change idea leading to the death of the planet is fake got exposed in the "Climategate" scandal (circa 2009), which showed that people in the United States and England and people tied to the United Nations (which is mostly controlled by communists and socialists) were lying about years of climate data so that they could push people into accepting new laws on industry, especially in developed nations, which would, for one, in the long run, depress economies of the developed nations and would even force developed nations to pay money to non-developed nation (such as, in essence, tribal nations headed by black dictators or kings) as a part of "environmental justice." To date, there has been no proof that man is killing the planet, but there have been a lot of predictions, all of which have been shown to be nonsense. [Note: To learn more about the nonsense of man killing the planet through the use of carbon, see my document informally called Countdown to the End of the World (which can be reached though this Countdown link) and my document informally called "CAP AND TRADE" (which can be reached through this Carbon link).]
To some extent, a country should be run like a business, and, for one, a good business does not over-spend, as happens--because of socialists and communists--with the federal government of the United States of America, where the national general-operating debt was about 20,000 billion in 2019 [Note: Then, there was also the unfunded-liabilities debt, which was somewhere way over 100,000 billion in 2019.], but a business cannot do what a government can, such as print money without restrictions to so-called fund whatever. In the United States of America, the federal government gets money, in essence, through taxing, such as businesses and individuals, and if things were right in the country, the federal government would only be able to spend what it takes in in taxes, but that idea has been abandoned, since, for instance, the federal government sets upper spending limits and then changes them at will on a regular basis. In a country, like the United States of America, it is the citizens who are responsible for the debts incurred by the government or the politicians--if the country goes bankruptcy, then the people have to pay up (if possible). On July 18, 2013, the City of Detroit, Michigan, filed for bankruptcy protection because politicians had run the city defectively (and because of ultimately the citizens who had hired the politicians, such as black communists (Democrats), to run the city over decades). Big cities can go bankrupt, and big countries can go bankrupt. When the financial status of a country goes bad because of rotten politicians--which are commonplace in countries because how politicians get their jobs--the citizens of every city and town in the country are affected adversely. Why do politicians in the United States of America over-spend? Some of the reasons are the politicians know money is not their personal money, know money (in the form of, for instance, paper and coins) can simply be printed off, feel that such a big country cannot fail financially, want to keep giving citizens things so that the citizens will vote for the politicians (whether or not the giving will ultimately kill the country), do not even care whether or not the economy of the country crashes (especially in the future) if the crash does not affect them, and purposely want the economy of the country to crash so that the country can be put in chaos and be changed into a communistic country (the "Cloward-Piven" strategy), probably controlled through military-like rules. In addition, taxing is what a government can do and a business cannot do. It is commonplace for bad politicians to tax greatly the citizens, especially the so-called rich, and a vicious cycle can be set up in which politicians over-spend so the politicians have to raise taxes (the percentages) to cover their spending, and the politicians continue to over-spend so the politicians have to take more percentage of taxes from the people, and yet the politicians keep over-spending, and there comes a point when the over-spending cannot be covered through taxes, since the people no longer have enough money to give to the government and live, and the people cannot run businesses or keep businesses going, lacking money and resources, as became the way of Venezuela in the very early 2000s. By the way, the idea of taxing some people more to give to others so that those who receive will vote for the politicians is the nature socialism, and it has nothing to do with running a country well. Politicians are in a position to bankrupt a country by overspending, lacking limits and restrictions imposed on them! [Note: By the way, it is commonplace for bad pelicans, such as socialists and progressives, to believe that the money and assets that exist in a country or the money and assets that the citizens have and hold is really the property of the government, and that is a rotten idea.]
Let me talk about inventions and about creating new things. Thomas Edison came up with a good light bulb in the 1800s, and to do research, he used money that he had to buy supplies, and government did not push for the invention of a light bulb, knowing such a thing could exist, and Philo T. Farnsworth came up with the idea of all-electornic television, and he came up with the idea while creating rows (furrows) to grow things on farm land--the lines--which led to his idea of having a sweeping electronic beam create lines and ultimately an image on a screen, and he did not get pushed to make the idea of all-electronic television come about through the push of government. Mr. Edison, Mr. Farnsworth, and others have created things on their own, and the inspiration has come from work, and things have come about from work that has involved trial and error. Important to the creation of new things is the creator has to have disposable money with which to use to experiment and try things out and make prototypes, and the end results and the time of arrival of new things cannot be mandated by politicians, such as through laws. When governments tax so much that people have no disposable income with which to experiment, which happens in North Korea and other communistic countries, people cannot make new things, and when governments have a stronghold on thinking, such as by controlling what may or may be taught to people and what may and may not be thought, creators become more scare, since people do not develop skills to think and create, maybe trapped in spending hours a day reading and reciting thoughts of top leaders, like the long-dead Chairman Mao of China, a killer. Government people can be so bent on taking money from the people--citizens--that creativity is stifled, and the society stagnates and dies. The government of a society has to be limited in how much tax that it can take from the people so that the society can grow; no government official has the skill to determine who should have more money taken away or more and more money taken away, because no government official has a crystal ball or the mind-set that would help the politician decide who might create something new and useful in the future and what it might take in money to create something new and useful. [Note: I have created and built things, and it is great that there are hardware stores all over the place, where a person can stroll and see things (such as tools and parts and whatever) and imagine how some type of new thing might be made from existing materials and parts. Are there such places in Iran, especially in almost every city and place? Do they have anything like a lot of hardware stores in North Korea?]
Two facets of the media industry have to be talked about. It is well known that the news media in Germany was corrupt to the highest degree in the time of Adolph Hitler (circa the 1930s and early 1940s), and it is well know communist countries have highly corrupt news-media entities (often owned by the government), as the histories of China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and the Soviet Union prove, and corruption in the news industry is rampant in the United States of America today. I began my association with the broadcast industry in earnest in 1971, and since 1971, I have seen many instances of corrupt media reporting, especially since the turn of the centuries--from the twentieth century to the twenty-first century--and I have seen countless examples of corrupt news reporting since Barack Hussein Obama became the U.S. president in 2009 (some of which I have documented in documents that I have posted on the Internet), and main news entities, such as NBC News, have actually manufactured lies and deceptive news reports [Note: In the past, Brian Williams was once an anchor of NBC Nightly News of NBC-TV, and he had to leave the anchorship since his on-screen image as an honorable person was damaged by corrupt news practices that became public knowledge, which the management of NBC Nightly News could not have clearly seen in the public eye in order to actually still be involved in pushing out--stealthily--biased and deceptive news.]. A country can have a news media that is beholden to the government and politicians, especially bad politicians, and not the people (the citizens), and that can lead to a media regularly doing reports that lead to more and more bad people getting in to government jobs, such as by election. History shows that that has happened in the United States of America through the news coverage of U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama (a black communist), who was praised as good and as someone who never did wrong or bad things while he was in office, and the news coverage of U.S. President Donald Trump (a non-communist and non-socialist), who was put down continually as bad, and most members of the main media sided with the propaganda of, for instance, the Democratic Party that Donald Trump was corrupt, was involved in bribes, upheld the interests of other nations over the interests of the United States of America, was working for Russia, was once naked in a hotel in Moscow and pissed over a bed that Barack Hussein Obama had once used, et cetera. [Note: Live television coverage of the so-called impeachment-inquiry hearings by the U.S. House of Representatives of November 2019 and December 2019 of U.S. President Donald Trump will go down in history as broadcasts that underscore the rottenness of the media in the United States of America, helping to push lie upon lie at the American public.] The other facet of the media industry that is covered here is advertising and political commercials in relation to newspapers and magazines and especially in relation to radio and television, which the Founders of the country never had even an inkling would exist in the country. In a day, a person in the United States of America can be exposed to dozens and even hundreds of commercials promoting this politician or that politician, and since there are no real laws that push rules that note that political advertising cannot be deceptive or outright lies, each political lie can be pushed and pushed and pushed endlessly, and, in essence, politicians can lie through advertising and interviews about opponents. If one person--a liar--has a lot more money to spend on advertising than the person's opponent, the opponent may not be able to well contradict or counter the lies.
There is a little-talked about thought to consider. In life, people have to do something or waste away--that is, people cannot do nothing day upon day (unless physically restricted from doing things, such as by being confined to a bed every day). People who become politicians have that urge within them to do something, and since they are politicians, they believe they have to create laws and rules to be seen as valuable to themselves and others. It is unfortunate that, since politicians are driven to do things and find it almost impossible to do nothing, they will end up creating unnecessary laws and rules just to feel as if they are doing something in life. The result is collage of crap for the good citizens in the country.
History shows that politicians, even those in the United States of America, can be highly racist; for example, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat and a hard-line socialist) of the early 1900s was anti-black (when blacks were more informally known as negros). By the way, some countries are not diverse, and many of the peoples in the countries wish to keep diversity down, and that is especially true in countries based on Sharia, whose populations are Arab in nature. In the United States of America, highly racist individuals have gotten into high-level government jobs and have worked against the interests of the United States of America, particularly allies of the United States of America, and, for instance, around 2019, at least three U.S. Representatives were high-level racists and had hatred against Jews, and those three were Rashida Tlaib (of Michigan), Ilhan Omar (of Minnesota), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (of New York). The three women clearly supported legislation to put down Israel and Jews, and, for example, the three women were pushers and supporters of Sharia (Islamic law), which is an enslavism form of politics that is not compatible with the ways of countries based on any document like The United States Constitution, which is not a set up to revolve around religious rules, such as those determined by clerics and such on a daily basis [Note: The ways of Sharia are clearly anti-Jewish, even wishing the destruction and death of Jews.]. When enslavists who are devoted to pushing pseudo-religious rules on to people or a society become people in political jobs, they will very likely work against the idea of working for all the people and will create bad laws, such as those to give special treatment to people tied to their so-called religions, as happened quickly when Ilhan Omar became a U.S. Representative, who was able to get rules changed in the U.S. Congress to allow her to wear religious garb--a "hijab"--in a chamber of the U.S. Congress (getting rid of a roughly 181-year ban on anyone wearing any headgear), and that started on January 3, 2019, and that has allowed Ilhan Omar to promote Sharia (which is anti-United States Constitution) as good in the U.S. Congress and for the country, though Sharia (Islamic law) is not good in any way.
The United States of America has the best form of government on the planet, and it is clear communists and socialists within the country, such as Barack Hussein Obama, are working to change the format of the government to something which allows them to be, for example, free to rule over others (masses of people) and hurt others (masses of people), which is the main reason communists and socialists are what they are and what they live for. Unfortunately for the good people of the United States of America, the United States of America is a member of the United Nations, which was created after World War II, which had been started by a hard-line socialist--Adolph Hitler, the leader of, for instance, 1930s Germany. Most of the countries in the United Nations are communistic or socialistic, and I report that only a very few of the bad countries are China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and Sweden, and even Canada is defective, having, for example, laws that prohibit the citizens from criticizing the politicians out right [Note: By the way, almost every country in the world has signed on to the rotten treaties related to manmade climate change, and people pushing for those treaties are working to have provisions set up so that rich countries, such as the United States of America, have to pay out money to Third World countries as punishment for using carbon-based fuels and having used carbon-based fuels, which the rotten people say are killing the planet and leading to the death of the people of Third World countries (and it is a part of the nonsense known as "environmental justice".]. The United States of America can be trapped into abiding by bad treaties or international laws, such as those created through the United Nations, if the politicians in charge of the United States of America, such as the members of the U.S. Congress, sign on to the bad treaties or international laws, and treaties and international laws can be made that supersede The United States Constitution. To date, The United States Constitution does not have a feature or section that notes that treaties or international law may not supersede the nature and laws of The United States Constitution, especially "The Bill of Rights" section of The United States Constitution, which, for one, allows citizens to have guns and be armed, which exists so that the citizens are able to fight back against highly rotten politicians, should highly rotten politicians get complete control of the federal government and impose the rules of enslavism (such as communism and socialism) [Note: There have been times in history where politicians had to be killed to save the lives of millions of citizens and free the lives of millions, and a time could come in the United States of America when the numbers of socialists and communists in government make up the big majority.]. It is a fact that there are people in the United States of America who want international laws and treaties to be made that would supersede The United States Constitution, and one person is Barack Hussein Obama. When The United States Constitution was created in the 1700s, no one had an idea that there would be an international body, such as the United Nations, which could have laws that supersede laws of the United States of America, especially The United States Constitution.
Your reaching this point in the document should have resulted in your attaining some basic rules about why government should be limited in what it can do or why politicians should be limited in what they can do In the long run, politicians can screw up through their actions and inactions many lives, such millions of lives, and it is something that business people cannot do, and yet business people seem to be hated more that politicians are by many persons, and since many politicians are not qualified for their jobs, lives are usually screwed up through their actions, so stupid politicians have to be limited in what they get to do. Politicians can often be members of a cliques--like that which might informally be thought of as a collection of "elites," who believe they are highly smart for having gained degrees from high-level schools that pushed out theories and such that have nothing to do with running a country well and who are not smart people really--and the cliques can work to serve the interests of the cliques first, such as self-survival, so self-proclaimed elites as politicians have to be blocked from adversely affecting people through laws and rules that are helpful for cliques first. Educational standards should be left to local communities or maybe state entities (at most), and the federal government should not be the sole determiner of standards on education in a country, and a federal government should have little control of the educational system of a country, since bad politicians can become in control of the entire country and can affect aversely the minds of people all over the country, and also national non-government educational entities should not be allowed to set standards for education, such as book standards, in a country, since they can become corrupted, as has happened in the United States of America, such as with the National Teachers Association. Since a politician can be a type of person who likes to play with the lives of other people for fun or self-gradification, fewer ways in which a politician can affect the lives of others have to exist--blockers have to exist to stop politicians from potentially getting to hurt others to satisfy their sick minds. When a group of politicians with little background knowledge about economics have a lot of power over a country, any error in judgment about economic matters affects many persons, such as millions of persons, usually adversely (which is why it is commonplace for economic conditions to be weak or stagnate and fail in countries with socialists and communists in power). To put down rich people and get ahead of rich people in wealth, a politician--acting on jealousy--may wish to use laws and rules to ruin a business or a corporation, which ultimately can hurt employees and communities and even a country. The results of the idiocy of voters must be reduced as much as possible, and to do that, politicians must be limited; if voters put bad people in political jobs, then the bad actions of the voters can be compensated for by having the politicians limited in what they can do. For the most part, politicians often have no real skills or have no other skills beyond book learning about political science and law, which may do well for a person at a law firm, such as in trying cases in court, but have nothing to do with running a complex society. Politicians must be limited so that they are less able to pass out sort of free money from the government to certain people--money that is really money taken from some citizens in taxes, such as the evil "wealth tax" (which is a tax on money that has already been taxed), and given to so-called less-fortunate people, who have not really earned the money (such as by not working for it or by avoiding work for money purposely). Politicians have to be limited in what they can spend in money to uplift or keep other countries going when those other countries are run through failed political systems, such as democratic socialism, like some European countries, which spend taxpayer money to give out so-called free college and free health care to all people and spend little on defense. A person can have the mind-set of working to be the "king of the hill" for the sake of being king of the hill, and that means the person treats life like a game, and in the game, people can be hurt and hurt greatly if the person is a politician, who has the power of government behind the person. The decline in the mental capacity of people because of using mind-altering drugs is a reason politicians should be limited, since it can be easier for bad people to be elected by bad-drug-affected persons, and, in addition, politicians can end up being users of marijuana and like materials on a regular basis, which can lead to their minds being defective [Note: Before Barack Hussein Obama became a U.S. president, Barack Hussein Obama had noted publicly that he has been a user of mind-altering drugs during his lifetime.]. Since the press can become corrupt and work to teach the voting public nonsense and lies, the government must be limited so that there is another way in which to reduce potential bad damage to the country through the election of a bad person, who was promoted as good by the press. Politicians must not be able to control ultimately the health-care system of a country, because they--having, in essence, no real knowledge about health-care--will run and can run things poorly when the health-care system gets really, really big, and if given the authority to control a person's health care ultimately, they can use their power to hold back health care to a citizen unless the citizen helps keep the politician in power. Since politicians can bankrupt "the people" of a country or, simply, a country, politicians have to be limited in what they can do. Politicians in the United States of America have to be limited in their ability to get international laws and treaties (such as defective climate-change treaties) set up that could make laws and The United States Constitution mute, and, for one, The United States Constitution should have such a limiting provision, and the government has to be limited so that people cannot control the United States of America through world laws that might lead to a person's becoming king of the world, and it is very likely that such a person could only be rotten!
Of course, the main way in which a government is limited in what it may and may not do should be set forth in the "constitution" for the government, which sets down the general structure of the main government, and the constitution should not be set up with the politicians in mind first and foremost. People should set up a government that states what politicians may not do for the people or the citizens, and they should never set up a government that states what politicians may or should do. People should set up a government with checks-and-balances or set up a government in which there are, in essence, opposing parts or units, and, for instance, there should never be a one-part legislative unit (which is not the way of the United States of America, which has a U.S. Senate and a U.S. House of Representatives as the parts of the U.S. Congress). People should set up a government so that no one person has complete control, like a dictator. People should set up a government that does not have ultimate control of education or have ultimate control of health care (such as through a national health-care system or a universal health care system for all). People should set up a government that makes it possible for the people to recall high-ranking elected officials or remove elected officials who are like, for one, U.S. senators or U.S. Representatives in the United States of America, and the people should even set up a system in which the members of the highest courts can be removed from office by the citizens through vote-of-convidence ways (because high-court judges can be bad, as is currently the status in the United States of American in relation to the U.S. Supreme Court, where at least five of the nine persons are defective thinkers).
Oh, a big problem for the world today is so many governments are rotten or have rotten politicians that it will be nearly impossible to ever make good constitutions for most of the countries of the world, because the makers of any new constitutions will probably be politicians currently in government jobs who will work to protect themselves and their positions, like the hundreds rotten men and women in the U.S. Congress (all the Democrats and most of the Republicans), so the next best constitution for a country will probably be made in some place far from Earth in some thousands and thousands of years to come it seems--very, very few politicians in the world have the logical thinking skills and the moral values to make a good constitution.
Note: This document was originally posted on the Internet on December 27, 2019.
Note: This document is known on the Internet as www.hologlobepress.com/limited.htm.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Conservatism for
Children and What Conservatism Means,
which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Conservatives and
The United States Constitution Versus
Enslavers and Enslavism (Communism,
Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), which can
be reached by using this link: Enslavism.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled The "Enslavers" Want
Your Retirement Plan or Pension Plan,
which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Nonsense Statements
and Quotations of Barack Obama, which
can be reached by using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Madness in a President
and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see my
document entitled Sharia Law, Shariah-
Compliant Finance, Radical Islam, and
Barack Obama, which can be reached by
using this link: Sharia.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Never Forget These
Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
Individual in the United States of
America, which can be reached by
using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled A Little History of
Barack Obama Events: A Show of
Deconstruction, which can be reached by
using this link: History.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled Lessons for Children
about Politics and Dangerous People,
which can be reached by using this
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled The Next Elections:
What Has to be Done to Protect the
United States of America, which can
be reached by using this link: Elections.
For further reading, you should see the
document entitled World Tyranny:
Warnings about the Insane Who are
Trying to Create a Communist World
Country, which can be reached by
using this link: World.
Note: Many other documents exist at the
Web site for The Hologlobe Press that will
give you information about the bad that Barack
Obama and his associates are doing to the
United States of America, such as the Michigan
Travel Tips documents and the T.H.A.T.
documents that have been published since
the fall of 2008.
To get to the Site-Summary Page for The
Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may use this link: Summary.
To get to the main page for The Hologlobe
Press, you may click on this link now: