My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
My Stuff
On The Web
This Month's Scripture Verse:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5


Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 21, 2017

June 14

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on the Regulative Principle. This appeared in Heidelblog.

I believe that the regulative principle is more destructive than constructive. This principle that we can only worship or run the Church by what is specifically commanded or explicitly shown by example in the Scriptures does not help the Church. In fact, it is more destructive because by not recognizing the full transition that came with the New Testament, this principle has transitioned from a fulfilling of a command to the building of a fence. And while keeping a fence can give the appearance of keeping God's commands, it sometimes actually interferes with doing what God wants us to do.

Even during the later Old Testament and intertestament times, we breaks with the command to only worship in way that were stipulate by what God said in the OT. For we see Jesus attending events that were not commanded in the OT. And when Jesus talks to the woman at the well, He announces that a transition has already taken place. We also see, in both synagogue worship and in the Feast of the Dedication of Jerusalem, forms of worship not stipulated by the Old Testament. Jesus attended both. We see in the NT a list of acts of worship in the NT that weren't stipulated by anyone but formed spontaneously. Speaking in tongues was one such act of worship. 

But we also need to go to Acts 15:10 see reasons why the regulative principle should not be followed. For in that passage, we see a fuller awareness by the Church of the transition that has taken place with the advent of the New Testament. For there, Peter asks, regarding circumcision, why should the Church put the same burden on Gentiles that no Jew had been able to bear. That burden was the Law. And in Peter's speech in Acts 15, we see Jesus' statement to the woman at the well becoming more and more apparent in the growth of the Church as it started to include Gentile believers with Jewish believers. From here, we might want to note how the Church transitions from what Jesus said, in Matthew 5, about reconciling with those one has offended with what Paul said in Corinthians about letting fellow believers offend one and  what Paul said in Ephesians about how those who steal should stop stealing.
My observation is this, those who follow the regulative principle are not only more unnecessarily judgmental of fellow believers who do not follow that principle, they limit the application of the Bible because they tend to not recognize the differences in historical context that exists between Apostolic times and today. It isn't that we are not still in New Testament times; but is that New Testament times are not a monolith. Some things have changed since the times of the Apostles

The beginning of New Testament times saw supernatural acts wrought by believers who were given miraculous gifts. In addition, there was the giving of God's Word in the New Testament. We don't see that today. During the times of the Apostles, we saw the chief concern of the Apostles being the spread of the Gospel. Today, the Gospel has already been spread throughout the world. During the times of the Apostles, we saw the Church living in a one empire dominated world. Today we have multiple empires as well as democracies. How the regulative principle can hurt us here is that it tends to lead to looking in specific commands and literal examples how to live in one world while we live in quite a different world. 

It isn't that there is nothing to learn from the regulative principle. The concern that we should be careful not to do what God doesn't want us to do applies as much today as it ever has. But beyond that, the regulative principle forces us to fit the context of either Old Testament times or the times of the Apostles into present times as we try to follow their words and actions and sometimes that results in trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.


June 19

To Joseph Mussomeli and his blogpost on comparing America’s relationship Iran with that of Saudi Arabia and how we should change those relationships. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

There are many excellent points that Mussomeli made about Saudi Arabia and the strange relationship that the US has with that nation. This is especially true when he contrasts that relationship with our relationship with Iran.

But there is something amiss as well. For the reason why we have pursued our faulty relationship with Saudi Arabia is both praised and criticized. That reason has to do with the interests of one's own nation. My guess is that national interests (which often means business interests but can also mean strategic interests) is the reason why we let Saudi Arabia slide on so many issues. And letting certain nations slide on issues, such as human rights issues, is not new for us. In 1953, we replaced democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddegh with the Shah who treated dissidents brutally, but the Shah served our business interests. Something similar happened in Guatemala in 1954 and Chile in 1973. So supporting Saudi Arabia with all of its trappings for national interests is not new to American foreign policy.

So why rationalize the acting in one's own interests by both our leaders and Israel's leaders when we see that acting in our own interests, even if that means tolerating the spread of a hostile religion and the tolerance of human rights abuses, has produced some rotten fruit in Saudi Arabia?

What we should note here is that the national interests of a nation can have several components including different components and different time periods. And thus a nation can have conflicting national interests in how it acts in a region or how it relates to a particular nation. In addition, we sometimes need to choose between acting in particular national interests and acting morally.


June 20

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost about how health care should be solved through solidarity via a subsidiary approach rather than through socialism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative website.

The above article sounds more like a turf battle between those who want the local communities to solve our problems vs the larger communities as represented by our various government associations. An indicator of this interpretation is seen in the the emotional rejection of government intrusion in providing health care. Of course, the context for that rejection includes government requiring Christian employers to provide kinds of healthcare options to employees that go against their conscience. But in addition to the turf battle, how the government solution to health care, or pretty much anything else dealing with individuals who live in families, is so negatively presented, it is pretty clear that all-or-nothing thinking is being employed here.

On a practical side we need to ask if local resources adequate to help everyone with health care. And we might especially ask that question for people who choose not to belong to the Church. And if they don't choose to follow Pearce's religious views, isn't our government obligated to represent them when they are in need? We might also note how Pearce sees the government as being obligated to follow the Roman Church's social teaching. Certainly, the government should listen to all proposed solutions. But what kind of religious liberty do we have when our representative government is required to follow Church teaching? 
Another indicator that all-or-nothing thinking is employed by Pearce is his definition of socialism in his subsidiary vs socialism model of thought. We should note that, at least from a Marxist perspective, large government programs does not make socialism. Marxist socialism puts the first emphasis on who is in control of both government and the workplace. Thus, when big government interferes, if workers do not have an equal or dominant voice in making the decisions, it isn't socialism. But that is besides the point. That the local has absolute sovereignty over any larger community where the larger community involves local, state, or federal government is the giveaway to such thinking. All this amounts to is a greater division within our nation than what exists. For our division is no longer just in terms of ideology, but, according to Pearce, it should be in terms of local communities as well. For Christians to fully benefit from what Pearce is proposing, then Christians would have to move into Christian communities. But then how could such Christians practice virtues like charity when they only participate in their own voluntary communities.
But the local having precedence over the larger communities is not consistently followed by Pearce. For in joining Christian co-ops, one is joining a larger community. Thus, this isn't even a local community vs the world turf battle. Rather, the battle is between the communities one volunteers to be a member of vs society as represented by the various forms of government from local government to the federal government. And such does not provide a solution for everyone.

Pearce does well in recognizing the state of health care coverage before Obamacare. And he has a very legitimate concern over Christian employers having to provide for abortaficient drugs and abortions in their employee health care plans. But his all-or-nothing thinking has not created a viable approach for those who choose not to belong to the Church for certain, and possibly for those for whom Pearce wrote this article. For ties to the larger communities that are represented by governments aren't so easily cut nor should they be.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Which Shot Rings Out The Loudest?

Last week saw the tragic shooting of Republican congressmen as they practiced for a baseball game. There is no excuse for the shooting regardless of why the shooter was upset. The shooter himself, like other active shooters, was a deeply disturbed person. But he was a deeply disturbed person with a gun.

For the next few weeks, we will be awaiting the release and passage of the Senate health care plan. As Obama tried to do with his attempts to fast track the TPP, the details are being hidden from the public. And we should think about that fact. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers believe that at least some significant legislation, in what we call a democracy, should be hidden from the public while it is being crafted and even voted on.

It is unlikely that the Senate is hiding the writing of this bill so as to give the public a surprise gift. What is more plausible is that, like the writing of the TPP, much of this healthcare plan is not even being written by our Senators. Rather, this health care plan, like the House version and Obamacare, is being written by health care industry representatives and is being designed to primarily benefit the providers of health insurance and health care rather than the health care recipients. It isn't that those providers should not be represented by our government in the writing of this bill. It is that the recipients of any new health care plan should be the primary beneficiaries of any health care plan especially since we have a voting, rather than financial, relationship with our Senators.

Why mention these two events together? Because both involve making death imminent to a group of people. An active shooter makes death seem immediate for his/her targets. Likewise, especially because of medical care expenses, a wrongly crafted health care bill can do the same to those who are ill and do not have financial means to pay for medical care. Even more so before Obamacare, many people delayed getting screened or treated until they could afford to. With some diseases, this is as good as pointing a gun at one's head, but these people had no choice.

Certainly gunshots are louder. But bad health care plans cover a greater geographical range than any gun can and can hurt, or even kill, far more people. And with the Senate employing their 'cone of silence' in the writing of their health care bill, Senators are hoping that this acts as a silencer for the weapon of their choice.

What makes the Senate's tactics allowable here is that guns blazing from an active shooter are louder than any legislation passed by our elected officeholders. What makes the Senate's tactics optional for our Senators is that we, the public, have far more sympathy for the victims of a mass shooting than we will have for the victims of any health care legislation. And what makes the Senate's tactics practical for our Senators is that we are more enraged by the actions of an active shooter than we are by the actions of elected officials when they write health care laws that benefit wealthy elites more than they benefit the people who are in need of health care.

There is one more thing that makes the Senate's tactics employable and that includes us too. We had one large march the day after the inauguration but smaller protests afterwards. Such a display of public participation does not grab the attention of our elected officials. Rather, the message that such participation communicates is that the most we voters will do in response to anything our government does is to get mad. And our elected officials are counting on that anger subsiding and giving way to fate come election time.


Monday, June 19, 2017

ONIM For June 19, 2017

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.

Christian News

World News

Trump News

Pick(s) Of The Litter

Friday, June 16, 2017

Are We Tearing Down Hiistory Or Pedestals?

I have recently experienced 4 encounters about the removal of Confederate war monuments in the South. Two were personal while the other two were not.

Of the two that were personal, both individuals objected to the removal of these monuments. Both saw the removal as attacks on our history. One person failed to see that monuments do more than bear witness to history, they serve to honor specific people or events. The one who failed to see this was a northerner. The other person felt the pain more personally because that person was Southerner. That person felt that their South was more than just a land of slavery and racism. That people had changed since then. And that person wanted to hang on to some vestiges of pride in their region.

The other two encounters were not personal. One was a speech given my New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu on why a monument honoring Confederate General Robert E. Lee was being torn down. In short, Landrieu justified the taking down of the statue because Lee and the Confederates were on the wrong side of history due to their defense of slavery and white supremacy. One of the most moving points Landrieu made was to ask how can we explain a statue that honors people who defended white supremacy and slavery to a young Black child (click here for a transcript of his speech)?

The last encounter is the one we will review here. It is an article written by Patrick Buchanan (click here for his bio) and it opposes the tearing down of these monuments. In an article entitled, Why Do They Want To Tear Down Our History (click here for the article), Buchanan appeals to both History and Western contributions to history against the tearing down of the Confederate monuments.  Like the people I encountered over this subject, Buchanan sees the tearing down of these monuments as an effort to erase a part of our history. Again, he fails to see that monuments serve other purposes than being historical bookmarks; monuments are built to honor, and thus call us to revere, people and/or events. At this point, Buchanan has his answer especially if he were to listen to or read what Mayor Landrieu said about the monuments. So what else needs to be said?

We need to pay attention to Buchanan's appeal to consistency as well as his assertion that Western Civilization's contributions far outweigh its faults as to why we should not tear down the monuments.

Using consistency as a defense, Buchanan notes how Generals Sherman and Sheridan, two brutal Northern Civil War generals who burned civilian areas to the ground while at war, are honored by having circles in our nation's capital named after them. With Sheridan, we should also note his hatred of Native Americans and how he fought against them. Buchanan also correctly points to our inconsistency in mentioning our monuments and memorials in D.C. to Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, all of whom owned slaves.

In previous times, according to Buchanan, we have honored those from both the North and South who fought in the Civil War. Then he goes beyond that point in saying that in previous times, we honored the West for its accomplishments. Those accomplishments include the ending of slavery and the idea of inalienable rights. He continues by citing Charles Murray in saying that well over 90% of history's most notable people and accomplishments come from the West. But now we are taught to associate the West with racism and imperialism. We are becoming victims of iconoclasts who, like ISIS and Boko Haram, can tear down but could never build a anything great according to Buchanan.

At this point, we need to see the scope of Buchanan's argument against the tearing down of Civil War monuments. For he started with talking about attacks on Southern heritage and then proceeds to generalize to attacks on Western Civilization. So that it isn't just the history of the South that is being erased with the tearing down of the monuments, it is the history of much of the world that is current being threatened considering how well over 90% of the most notable people and accomplishments come from the West. For if we tear down every tribute to the West, we don't have much of a world left.

But some points should be made here. First, the West didn't end slavery. Slavery still exists. In addition,  just as Jim Crow soon followed the Civil War, so too prison labor soon followed slavery and both Jim Crow and prison labor have been steeped in racism.
And we still have a significant degree of racism here in America. We could also mention Western Imperialism that both preceded America becoming a superpower and after the fact. We should note that the current refugee crisis of those fleeing the Mediterranean area into Europe started with America's 2003 invasion of Iraq.

We should also note something about Charles Murray's claim that well over 90% high percent of the most notable people and accomplishments have come from the West. Such is the view of a Westerner. We might ask whether those percentages would stay in tact if we asked scholars from the Middle East, Latin America, or Asia from where the most notable people and accomplishments come.

Certainly, the West has accomplished much. But many of those accomplishments were paid for through the abuse of indigenous people by either their exploitation or their ethnic cleansing from their own land? Those living in the West are inclined to have a more favorable view of the West because of how they want to see themselves. Thus, they tend to highlight the West's  accomplishments while possibly minimizing its sins and atrocities. 

Here, we might ask Buchanan if his view of the West versus how non-Westerners see the same would parallel the views of the Capitol by those who lived in the Capitol versus those who lived in the districts from the Hunger Games movies. For the point here is that when viewing our own nation and/or civilization, we tend not to take into account how outsiders see us. And with our penchant for self-flattery, especially in this current age of narcissism, it is unlikely that we will do so in the near future.

Like the West, the old South accomplished much. But who paid the most for those accomplishments? This is the question that challenges Buchanan's idealism. And though Buchanan wants to appear to be objective by noting some of the West's failures, it doesn't stop him from idealizing the old South and Western Civilization. Thus, what Buchanan is really defending when he opposes the tearing down of Confederate Civil War monuments and then generalizes that to his defense of the West against criticisms of racism and imperialism, are not the monuments or the civilization themselves, but the pedestals on which he has put them. In essence, he is defending one of his religions.


Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 14, 2017

June 10

To Joe Carter and his blogpost accusing Senators Sanders and Van Hollen of being ignorantly intolerant of orthodox Christian beliefs when they accused Russell Vought of being intolerant for expressing the belief that Jesus is the only way to God. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

Yes, Sanders and Van Hollen exhibit an ignorance of basic Christian doctrine in their statements against Vought. So does the ACLU. But didn't Vought display intolerance and the same regarding Larycia Hawkins when he suggested that Hawkins, a Christian, did not have a 'prayerful and faithful relationship' with God? After all, Hawkins was explicitly clear in saying that whether one can say if Muslims worship the same God depends on the context of the statement. And yet, most Christians ignored the distinctions and contexts of which Hawkins spoke. After all, in one context, Hawking said something very orthodox regarding the faith and her other statements, because of the context of her statements, did not contradict the statements she made that was orthodox.

We might also look at acts of intolerance religiously conservative Christians have associated with Christianity by the stands they have taken. In particular, many of us religiously conservative Christians have shown intolerance for refugees, despite the fact that it is America's foreign policies that have caused the refugee crisis, and  the LGBT community. The intolerance for the latter was shown by opposing same-sex marriage in society. So now, why shouldn't Sanders and Van Hollen see intolerance in Vought's statements? Yes, we know that Vought was theologically correct in saying that Jesus is the only way to God--though his statement failed to observe that Hawkins agreed with him on that point because he failed to see the distinctions she was making. But having associated other Christian beliefs with intolerance means that belief in Jesus as the only way to God will be viewed with suspicion and greater vigilance than normal.

Yes, we religiously conservative Christians have been exhibiting intolerance toward others in some of the practices and beliefs we have been practicing and promoting. So should we be surprised by the views  Sanders and Van Hollen exhibited in their judgments on Vought?


June 13

To Joe Carter and his blogpost supporting Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accords and how it is human creativity, rather than government agencies, that can help us produce a cleaner environment. This appeared in the Acton blog.

By itself, Trump's withdraw from the Paris Accords is ambiguous. But along with his dismantling of regulations, including environmental regulations, and his tax cuts, the purpose of his withdrawing from the Accords becomes more and more obvious. Add to that his mistake in using a MIT study on the environmental impact of the Paris Accords in his speech(see [sent invalid link]), his intentions are clearer and clearer. Businesses are not to be hampered or constrained by regulations meant to protect the environment in their search for increased profits.

But something should also be said about the title of the article above. For it presents a false dichotomy between employing human creativity and technocrats. Aren't the technocrats those from agencies like the EPA whose study of the environment produce regulations? And without the regulations, who says that the human creativity involved will be directed toward reducing a business's environmental impact especially where ever increasing profits for shareholders trump most, if not all, other concerns?

It's not that government agencies like the EPA  don't commit errors when producing regulations. But it is that the government can provide a buffer between the people and the business world where government can represent the concerns of the people to the business world. Ideally that is how it is suppose to work. But in today's society where everybody, both big business and the little individual, is on the take, we find that those with the most wealth get the most representation by the government and the rest of us have to live with that.


To Donald Devine and his blogpost discussing the ideological splits in Conservatism partially caused by Trump’e election and Presidency. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Three points here. First, it seems that in an effort to categorize all of the ideologies that could be associated with conservatism, Devine overlooks a group of neverTrumpers. That group consists of those who, for personal and moral reasons, found themselves opposing Trump. For them, character mattered more than any pretense to a conservative ideology.

Likewise, some who voted Trump because they were voting against the person of Hillary are also overlooked. It isn't just the promise to help that swayed their votes, it was, again, the character of a candidate whom they could not trust.

The short of it is that some who found either candidate too personally objectionable were leery of associating their ideology with character flaws. And so they vote for the other candidate.

Second, the conservative attack on entitlement programs are not very honest. They don't talk about the lack of economic opportunities that some on entitlements face. For example, they don't talk about how gov't assistance programs subsidize corporate payrolls because of the poverty wages being paid by those corporations for certain jobs. In addition, while conflating all entitlement programs together in order to say that we can't afford these, we forget that two entitlement programs are financially self-funded. And both are threatened by corporate interests. Social Security for example is totally self-funded and the only risk it faces is due to the fact that it is the largest holder of federal debt--it even holds more of our federal debt than the Chinese. Since some of this debt was used to pay for unfunded wars where the use of private contractors spiked as well as the use of goods and services from the Military Industrial complex, what we are seeing is the transfer of public funds into private coffers.

Medicare is also self-funded however it is, by law, prohibited from negotiating for lower pharmaceutical prices. Thus, the pharmaceutical industry also gains unnecessary profits at the expense of public funds.

In addition, by longing for the days that preceded the New Deal, one is pining for the conditions that led to the Stock Market collapse of 1929 and the subsequent depression. We should note that the economic collapse of 2008 saw either a prohibiting of regulations that would oversee new financial products or a lack of enforcement of existing regulations. In the end, the bailout given to the financial sector also saw a transfer of public funds to private coffers.

Finally, the assumption made by Conservatives who want to limit government is that government will be run by elites. And thus, to restrict the power of elites, government must be restricted because one cannot guarantee that the right elites will be in power after any given election. And there are liberals who also make the same assumption except that they don't believe in limited government. The condition that allows a democratic nation to be run by elites is that the populace must embrace a passive authoritarianism. This authoritarianism not only promotes loyalty and obedience to elites, it sustains divisions by groups who adhere to different elites.

Now if we, the people, could see our way clear of this passive authoritarianism, both conservatives and nonconservatives would benefit by gaining a measure of independence for the two corporate major political parties: the Republican and Democratic Parties. In addition, if we could free ourselves from this authoritarianism, instead of placing too much reliance on elites, we could see a more participatory political system. And such would ease the need to restrict the power of government lest the wrong group of elites take power.


To Joseph Sunde and his blogpost claiming that free trade is fair trade. This appeared in the Acton blog.

Free Trade is fair trade for those who benefit the most. But what about those who don't?

Proponents of free trade forget that the United States, with all of its emphasis on freedom by the founding fathers, did not practice free trade at first. Rather, protectionism was employed to allow for American industries to start and become competitive. Without that protectionism, our nation would not have developed its industries either as fast or as far as it did.

Those who would force free trade on undeveloped nations are not promoting fair trade. They are not allowing nations to develop past their current capabilities. Rather, they are 'kicking away the ladder' that allowed their own nation to develop its industries. And by doing so, they are, at least in part,  promoting an economic caste system on undeveloped nations. Undeveloped nations need to use protectionist measures that would allow desired industries to get off the ground, succeed, and then become competitive with their counterparts from the more developed nations.

And it isn't just the undeveloped nations that could benefit from protectionism. Nations that want to revive dead industries because such industries gives balance to their economic portfolio should also be free to employ protectionism.

In the end, it is not the case that either free trade or protectionism are always right or wrong. It is the case that depending on the economic needs and goals of a given nation, both free trade and protectionism have their roles to play in helping a nation develop and sustain a healthy economy. To force free trade on a nation, especially an undeveloped nation, makes that free trade neither free nor fair. After all, is kicking away the ladder fair?

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

The Trouble With Trump's Infrastructure Plan

In order to further reduce taxes while maintaining promises to rebuild infrastructure, Trump is touting  public-private partnerships or, in the case of the FAA, replacing it with a privately run entity.

Trump is certainly not the first President to replace government provided goods and services with those from the private sector. During the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, Bush greatly increased the use of private contractors to provide services formerly provided by our troops. This provided a boon in profits for corporations like Haliburton including its subsidiaries like Kellog, Brown and Root.  But along with the profits came corruption (https://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/12/halliburton_and_private_military_contractors_strike ).

As a college instructor, I was occasionally asked to be a reference for students who were applying for jobs that required security clearances. And one of the things that disturbed me is that more often than not, those interviewing me for the security clearances were actually employed by corporations rather than the government. Even though many of those interviewers would wear uniforms to the interviews,  their paycheck came from a corporation. And so the question I would ask myself is this: Were those interviewing me more loyal to the government or to the party that signed their paychecks?

So we come to President Trump's infrastructure plan that is long on public-private partnerships and short on government funding. It isn't that public-private partnerships have never been successful (click here for an example). But some kinds of public-private partnerships struggle to succeed (click here for an example). So public-private partnerships have a mixed record. Thus, we have to ask, as I would with the government's use of private contractors to help give security clearances, where is the first loyalty of those private sector participants in these partnerships? Is their first loyalty in serving the people or in serving those who write their paychecks?

Certainly government provided services do not always provide the quality that they are suppose to. However, there is a difference between the indifference of individuals in an organization and the split loyalty of the organization as a whole. To further complicate matters, Trump promises to cut regulations that would slow down the work of these private sector partners in rebuilding our infrastructure. But what regulations are being cut? Are they safety regulations? Are they worker protection regulations? Are they environmental protection regulations?

The whole ethic behind transferring the work from the government to the private sector is to reduce the taxes paid by the taxpayer. But think about the set of values that go along with that. The public is now promised a partially free lunch. But who is the primary beneficiary of that lunch? For if it is those in the private sector, then has the public interest been sold to enrich a few from the private sector? And will the first loyalty for many from the private sector be to profits? Meanwhile, the public has exhibited less community participation and thus are less connected with others in an effort save on one's own taxes.

In addition, those who benefit the most when taxes are cut, especially under Republican plans, are not individuals, but corporations and thus the wealthy. Isn't this is the impetus behind not just public-private partnerships under Trump, along with his mass cutting of regulations as well as his plans to cut taxes on the wealthy. In essence, what we are seeing is not just an Ayn Rand 'Atlas Shrugged' coup in our government, we are told to value lower taxes more than being concerned with how our taxes help society as a whole. And while paying less in taxes, we are put in the place of being more and more dependent on corporations who do not answer to democratic processes. And, just as with the Republican mantra about big government, the more we are dependent on the corporations of wealthy elites from the private sector, the more control they have over us. For we have already seen a mass transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private sector in different areas such as the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, and in the healthcare industry as well as our financial sector. And none of that includes the building of Trump's Wall. At what point do we become alarmed at our dependence on corporate elites as we are told to be on guard against big government?

Monday, June 12, 2017

ONIM For June 12, 2017

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.

Christian News

World News

James Comey News

President Trump News

Pick(s) Of The Litter