WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
NEW
Movie Links
08/13/2026
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs Update 07/03/2026
Favorite
Websites--updated 07/03/2026'
My Stuff
On The Web, Updated 06/28/2026
Audio-Visual Updated: 09/29/2026
Favorite
Articles --
last updated 08/13/2026
This Month's Scripture Verse:

1 But false prophets also appeared among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their indecent behavior, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep..
II Peter 2:1-3

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernie Sanders. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 3, 2020

Will The Establishment Strike Back Today?

Today is Super Tuesday. Today, 14 states have their primaries. So today we get a clearer picture of who is leading the field in delegates for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination.

The nomination for the Democratic Party's  choice of President  seemed fixed with the use of what was called superdelegates in 2016. Those were delegates who qualified to become delegates because of their position in the government, the Party, or by popularity. Those delegates get to choose anyone they want. Their votes for who gets to be nominated are not determined by the voters. And though the last presidential election year, Hillary was leading Bernie in the number of regular delegates, her superdelegate  advantage changed a slim lead in delegates to a commanding lead.

From what I understand, the Democratic Party will  slightly change how they use superdelegates. But that isn't the issue. The real issue is who will become the Democratic Party's nominee to be President. That is because of the contrast that exists between the positions of a progressive like Sanders and old guard's positions of the establishment candidates.

Bernie has drawn a lot support especially from younger voters with his progressive agenda. That agenda includes heathcare for all, the Green New Deal, college for all who want to go,  and his proposed protection for workers. But he seems not to get much support from the Democratic Party establishment because that agenda rubs personal interests of those who have wealth. He is not their number 1 choice. It appears that Joe Biden is one of the candidates that the establishment in the Democratic Party favors. And though Sanders won the primarily white states of Iowa and Vermont, Biden won the South Carolina primary, a state with more minority voters than the first two states.


So the question becomes this, what will happen today as 14 states have their primaries? The past suggests that the establishment's choice for candidate starts to take charge of the race on Super Tuesday. That means that at least one of this year's establishment candidates should  emerge victorious when counting all of the delegates from Super Tuesday's 14 states. And after today, we will witness the demise, however slow, of the candidacies of the other candidates. And if  that holds, then Sanders will no longer lead in delegates after today. And he will again lose out and be put into the position of having to support a Democratic nominee who does not support his progressive agenda. And in doing that, regardless of how popular Sanders is, makes him become a sheepdog candidate--a candidate whose role in the Party becomes that of herding the fringe members of the Party back into the fold, back to supporting the choice of the Democratic Party's establishment. And that means that the progressives begin to lose their voice in the Democratic Party nominating process for they will be strongly told to support the Party's nominee.

If the Democratic Party's tradition holds, Sanders gets fewer delegates than the Democratic Party's establishment preferred candidate, Joe Biden, on Super Tuesday. Then the establishment of the Democratic Party will regain control of the Party and the dreams of the progressive wing of the Party will become gone with the wind. And those progressives will be told to pay for the parties they had before the primaries and during the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire by kowtowing the candidate predestined by the establishment of the Democratic Party.

Then this year's choice for President will be between thing-one and thing-two with both things being played by wealthy old bumbling white guys whose policies represent the interests of those with wealth and who believe in imposing their archaic view of the world and past solutions onto today's America.



Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Is Bernie A Socialist?

With Sanders' lead in both the polls and in delegates, the question becomes whether America is ready for Socialism. At least that is how Republicans want to frame Sanders' campaign. And of course, with the Republican view of Socialism and Marxism, the answer should be 'no.' The trouble is that the Republicans often have no clue as to what Socialism from the Marxist tradition are. And the reason for that is that they are content to read about Marxism from their own their own people. And that is like expecting to learn all about Christianity by listening to Bill Mahrer.

To learn about Socialism, especially the Marxist brand of Socialism, one should read Karl Marx. And one could include Frederich Engels as well. But one should first read Marx.

Perhaps the primary document one could use is the Communist Manifesto (click here for the document). Their primary concern, as expressed in that document, revolves around how the bourgeoisie, the owners of capital, rule over the state and society. Their solution is not described as big government that tries to control every aspect of life. Rather their solution is to change the ruling class from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. Marx called that the proletariat dictatorship. The name is a bit of a misnomer because Marx and Engels believed in democracy. They just believed in a kind of democracy that would be the proletariat in charge.

It is from the rule of the proletariat that Marx expected his utopia to emerge. Why is that? It is because he expected the proletariat, with the help of his analysis of Capitalism, to arrange for the distribution of wealth in ways that, with their control, would eliminate the injustices that arose from the distribution of wealth from the Capitalism of his day. And here we should note that this is where Republicans misunderstand Socialism from the Marxist tradition is at this point. While Republicans strictly limit Socialism to how it redistributes wealth and big government; Socialism from Marx's view teaches that Socialism is first about the redistribution of power, both at work and in the government, from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat. And it isn't just Republicans who make that mistake, even those who have called themselves Socialists do so many times as innocent mistakes and at other times opportunistically.

So read through Bernie Sanders' website (click here for his website). Is he promoting the redistribution of power, even in part, to the proletariat both at the work place and in government? Does Sanders' proposals on strengthening unions really do justice to what Marx and Engels said about getting the proletariat to become the ruling class? Does Sanders's views help the proletariat gain control over the government?

My own views on Sanders is that though he is a breath of fresh air when it comes to major political party candidates, he is more of an FDR New Deal candidate who is promising to act as a vanguard for the vulnerable and workers. And though we should always appreciate candidates and elected officials who share Sanders' concerns, in the end Sanders provides an inadequate approach to what Marx and Engels promoted as well as to any meaningful hybrid approach that combines Capitalism with Socialism. Under Sanders, we won't see workers gaining enough power in the work place, and definitely not in government, to change the status quo.

Here we should note that the prevailing belief passed on to society from the free market is that the pursuit of self-interest is one's only moral obligation. Thus, what we need are for different groups, like the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, to share power and collaborate. A structure that forces those two groups to sufficiently share power in the work place can be found in Germany's codetermination laws. Those laws state that, based on the number of employees, a business's executive board must contain a  certain percentage of workers so that workers are also represented in those boards. Such does not occur with the promotion of union despite how unions can help workers. And there is nothing in Sanders' visions to increase the number of proletariat representation in government.

It is sad that there is much deliberate ignorance regarding Socialism from a Marxist tradition. The ignorance is deliberate because it allows people to use the label 'Socialism' either as a pejorative or as a moral appeal. In either case, the ignorance prevents people from learning what Marxist Socialism has to offer and what it has that can be detrimental.




Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For February 15, 2017

Feb 8

To Joe Carter and his blogpost supporting the striking down of the law that prohibits political speech in churches. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

A perspective that is missing here is that from Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church has supported Putin. So now Russia maintains laws that put strict limits on those from the LGBT community in terms of what they can say about their sexual orientation and Russia has passed a law that prohibits evangelism by other churches than the Orthodox Church outside of the walls of one's own Church. Can supporting politicians bring privilege to the Church? And if the Church has privileges, then is the separation of Church and State gone?

History tells us that one of the flaws of the Church is that it often supports wealth and power. It tells us this through the examples of the predominant Churches in France, Russia, and Spain prior to their revolutions. This led to the Church siding with tyranny. It tells us this with other examples, such as Chile and Guatemala, where the Church sided with wealth in Socialist nations whose governments were democratically elected with the result of the Church siding with tyranny of those governments were overthrown.

Striking down this law may explain why some evangelical leaders supported Trump in the first place. Now one only needs to see how these leaders and the evangelical movement benefits afterwards.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 9

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost citing J. Gresham Machen’s opposition to the creation of a federal department of education. This appeared in the Heidelblog.

Why it is important that it was Machen who said what is recorded above is a mystery. For what we see is just a libertarian expressing his views regarding federal standardization and aid. We should note that Machen opposed a child-labor amendment and federal aid for roads. We should note that without the latter, we would have no interstate system and the ability for states and even regions to maintain infrastructure would depend solely on the resources of that region and state even though the stakeholders of such resources include many who do not live in the state or region.

Certainly, Machen is speaking as a libertarian. But I wouldn't want to blame everything he said on his libertarianism. I would also add that perhaps Machen's personal history in the Presbyterian Church influenced his opposition to all standardization in education especially regarding the teaching of morality. But a question I would have for Machen is this: Would today's educational standardization of morals which include racial equality be objectionable to him? Would he object to the teaching that we are all equal regardless of our race? The issue at hand is not racism per se, and such is not a minimizing of the importance of the subject, but on whether Machen's thinking at least sometimes unnecessarily followed all-or-nothing patterns. That to accept a part would be no different than to accept the whole. His rejection of liberalism seems to lean that way.

One final comment is due. Certainly, Libertarians would no doubt agree with Machen's position expressed above. But the problem becomes whether Libertarianism's rejection of Federal involvement in so many areas of life involves a denial of the differing degrees of interdependency that existed in society during the writing of The Constitution and Machen's time as well as with what exists during our time.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 11

To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost review of the healthcare debate between Cruz and Sanders where Johnson states that Cruz highlighted the weakness of government run healthcare. This appeared in the Acton blog.

There are two problems with the article above. First, while wait times in Europe and Canada or determined by the provider, wait times in America are forced on people by their personal financial abilities. It is funny that that argument, which is a point Sanders brought up, was not mentioned above. The second problem is that the wait times are unfairly attributed to the government. It is unfair because the wait times are not due to inefficiency since single payer systems are more efficient than the health care system we have now because administration is simplified by single payer systems. Increasing competition by allowing people to cross state borders to purchase healthcare insurance, as suggested by Cruz, only increases the administrative part of providing healthcare because it adds to the mix of providers. And it is the number of providers that complicates the administration part of healthcare because each provider has its own system and rules.

In reality, the wait times in both capitalist and government systems are more due to the matchup between demand and available resources. When demand exceeds available resources, then wait times are longer. And so the European and Canadian healthcare systems have two options in alleviating wait times for medical procedures. First, they can invest more money into their healthcare systems. Second, they can reduce the number of people their systems serve. In America, the second option occurs naturally when  people who feel financially constrained put off obtaining healthcare services til a later time. And to show that point more vividly, we should note that before Obamacare, the number one reason for personal bankruptcies in America were due to healthcare costs.

We should note one more point about Cruz's position. He wants the private sector to solve the problem of people being able to access sufficient healthcare in a timely fashion. Thus, he wants to expand competition to force the healthcare insurance industry into offering better deals. But such a dynamic doesn't always work with publicly owned companies that are operated for the sake of shareholders who are more and more becoming the business owners' equivalent of absentee landlords. Do we really think that shareholders, who have become the only significant group of stakeholders recognized in today's publicly owned companies, will continue to invest adequately into health insurance companies as competition reduces the ROI?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 13
To Pat Buchanan and his blogpost criticizing the courts for stopping Trump’s immigration ban and urging President Trump to ignore the courts and their power. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Buchanan exhibits the worst traits of authoritarianism and tribalism in this article. For the validity of Trump's executive order banning refugees from 7 Muslim nations, according to Buchanan, rests in the authoritative position of the people commenting on it. Thus, Buchanan seems to say that Trump's executive order is correct because he is making a wartime decision as President while the decisions of the justices who have ruled on it are wrong because they are merely justices. In addition, Buchanan gives personal attacks on those who disagree. He did the same by unnecessarily attacking Elizabeth Warren who challenged the nomination of Jeff Sessions.

There is nothing in Buchanan's article that discusses the concerns of either side let alone that of the justices. And there is nothing in Buchanan's article that even mentions that there already exists a vetting process for refugees let alone mentions how effective that process is. Rather, Buchanan believes that it is time to reduce the power of our courts who use The Constitution to review our laws. And he promotes this position so that the power of the President can be increased and he has fewer people to be accountable to.

Certainly, if Buchanan was consistent, then he would have written similar articles defending President Obama's executive order on immigration during wartime when it was reviewed by the Supreme Court. But he didn't. Instead, he attacked him. And when he criticized Obama, he resorted to something he didn't use when he defended Trump's executive order on immigration, he mentioned the details on immigration to bolster his argument (see http://buchanan.org/blog/rogue-president-7159 ).

If we learned anything from Star Wars it is this, that those who have an insatiable desire for power use war or conflict as a camouflage for obtaining more and more power. Now that one of Buchanan's own is in the White House, he is arguing for his President to assume and exercise more power. Again, Buchanan has, in this article exhibited the worst traits of authoritarianism and tribalism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 14

To Joseph Pearce and his blogpost praising Trump’s protectionism as providing a hedge of protection for American economic sovereignty from foreign economic elites. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Just for clarification, only a small group uses violence on a consistent basis to demonstrate for the nonconservatives. That group is Black Bloc. Most of the other nonconservatives are peaceful protesters. As for why nonconservatives didn't protest Obama's inauguration?  If the left didn't protest his inauguration, they did oppose his globalization. It is the Democrats who refrained from criticizing their own.

There are things to agree with here. Protectionism is a viable option for America to take provided that it allows other nations to do the same. That has not always occurred. But we should note this, while protectionism provides an economic wall that could possibly partially block the immigration of the influence exercised by foreign economic elites, Trump will not provide sufficient protection for America from being controlled by economic elites in general. This was made clear by Trump's promise to corporate leaders that he will cut taxes and regulations by over 70%. The problem here is that in so doing, Trump is removing a layer of protection from economic, workplace, and environmental exploitation for many Americans. The more one cuts corporate taxes to the extent Trump is promising, the more the tax burden is shifted to workers and the federal deficit is increased. The more one cuts regulations, because regulations primarily deal with pay, working conditions, and protecting the environment, the more that workers and workplace communities are placed at risk for abuse. And though Trump's protectionism might act as a wall that restricts the flow of control foreign investors might have over our nation, his promise to cut taxes and regulations by such a significant amount allows foreigners who invest in American businesses to benefit at the expense of all other stakeholders besides shareholders.

When we look at Trump's team of the "best" people, we are quick to discover that those with wealth will hold on to their power since they are well represented. All others, especially workers, are left unrepresented. This is perhaps why Trump stated that he had heard no complaints about DAPL.





Monday, December 19, 2016

ONIM For December 19, 2016

Christian News
 
World News
 
Standing Rock Sioux - DAPL News
 
Pick(s) Of The Litter












Monday, June 13, 2016

ONIM For June 13, 2016

Christian News



World News



Pick(s) Of The Litter







Monday, June 6, 2016

Onim For June 6, 2016

Christian News

World News

Pick(s) Of The Litter