WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
NEW
Movie Links
Updated- 10/28/2026
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: 10/28/2026
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 Jill Stein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jill Stein. Show all posts

Monday, November 7, 2016

ONIM For November 7, 2016

Presidential Election



Christian News

World News

Standing Rock Sioux - DAPL News

Pick(s) Of The Litter

  






Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Our Three Kinds Of Presidential Candidates

In saying that we currently have three kinds of Presidential candidates, I am not saying that we have candidates that are too much, candidates that are too little, and candidates that are just right. The reason why is that though there are Papa Bear candidates and Mama Bear candidates, there are no Goldilocks candidates.

 What we currently have is at least one candidate who is prepared and has the experience necessary to be President and a number of candidates that have little to no preparation. Here we should note that rarely have we had a candidate that is fully prepared to be President on day one. In fact, the last presidential candidate I remember who was fully prepared on day one was George H. W. Bush during the 1988 and 1992 campaigns. He was the resume candidate.

From that we obtain two important points. The first point is that one does not necessarily have to have the preparation others have had to be what is considered a successful President on day one. The second point is that Hillary is the George W. H. Bush of 2016 in that she is this year's resume candidate.

 So none of the other candidates have Hillary's qualification to be President as of now. But many of our past Presidents became qualified as they learned their job. In addition, qualifications alone do not make candidates who are just right. Having the right sense of direction is also a part of being a successful President. Here, we should note that that the current direction of the nation since the 1970s is to implement neoliberal economic policies while pursuing neoconservative foreign policies. 

 Neoliberal economic policies want to strip as many government regulations on a given nation's economy and trade as possible as well as reduce taxes on businesses as much as possible. This might sound good to many conservatives, but what that actually says to nations with governments that are working democracies is that there should be as few, if any, democratic controls on a nation's economy as possible. Such an approach sounds good to conservatives because they regard most, if not all, governments as alien entities and they have little regard for democracies because of their emphasis on individual liberty. 

What neoliberal economic policies end up doing is to make a society of any given nation into a pawn of economic elites. And while in the early days of neoliberalism, our own society would be a pawn of the economic elites of one's own nation, the same is not true for today. With free trade and today's trade agreements and organizations, the people of free trade nations become pawns to economic elites from other nations. Neoliberal economic policies produce ruling classes and, again, with free trade, these ruling classes not only gain a measure of control over their own nation, they gain control over other nations regardless of what the people from those other nations say or do.

 Neoconservative foreign policies is the latest version of American Exceptionalism. What these foreign policies accomplish is a degree of hegemony for America. Acknowledging and submitting to that hegemony is the admission price other nations must pay to enjoy Pax Americana. In the end, only America is allowed to be immune to international law because international law challenges America's national sovereignty. Thus, it is only America's national sovereignty that must be respected in the world. And American hegemony does not allow other nations to claim that privilege.

 But we should note one other point here. Neoliberal economies present a challenge to the national sovereignty of any nation, including America's. That might sound like a potential threat to American hegemony, but in reality, it isn't. That is because America's power will be redirected to support neoliberal economies.

Neoliberalism and neoconservatism are the two factors we must consider when assessing the direction of our current crop of Presidential candidates. Those candidates that pursue one of the various forms of neoliberalism and/or neoconservatism are going, in the opinion of this blog, in the wrong direction. They are pursuing a world where financial elites rule and one's welfare depends solely on whether one is serving the interests of the world's financial elites.

 Having said all of this, we can now classify the current crop of Presidential candidates we have. In terms of those candidates who are fully prepared to step in as President on day one, only Hillary Clinton qualifies. No other candidates have her experience. Trump neither has her experience nor does he demonstrate a Presidential degree of self-restraint. And neither Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, nor Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, have Clinton's experience or have they shown adequate preparation in terms of understanding how government works or having adequate background knowledge of the world and its leaders.

 But of all the candidates, only Jill Stein and the candidates to the left of her, such as Gloria La Riva, have the right direction. We must reverse course from implementing neoliberal economic policies and pursuing neoconservative foreign policies. Here we should note that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump  are advocates of their own versions of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Here we should note that for all of Hillary's talk of taxing corporations and the rich and that she now opposes the TPP, she is strongly in favor of open hemispheric trade (click here) and does not denounce the TPP for how its structure threatens our national sovereignty (click here and there). We should note that Clinton's call for open trade across the hemisphere is a modified version of US plans from 1945 that oppose economic nationalism in Latin America nations and was partially enforced on many of those nations (click here).

And while Gary Johnson rejects neoconservatism, he fully supports neoliberalism. We should note that neoconservatism will eventually draw us into a war using WMDs since advancing technology has made the proliferation of WMDs inevitable. To back that claim, we should note that it was our nation's pursuit of neoconservative foreign policies that fueled the rage that was part of the 9/11 attacks. So Gary Johnson gets both a mark and a demerit for having a good direction. The demerit is, of course, because of his support for neoliberalism.

 With Trump, Johnson and Stein being woefully prepared to be President while only Stein, of those three, can point our nation in the right direction and only Clinton being more than adequately prepared. But with Clinton being ready to take us in a horrible direction that can only lead to elite-centered rule over our nation, the following question becomes critical in deciding for whom to vote. Which candidates will harm our nation the most, will it be inadequately prepared candidates who can lead our nation in a good direction vs the candidate who is very well prepared but will lead us into the self-destruction of some kind of elite-centered rule?





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 15, 2016

ONIM For August 15, 2016

Presidential Election

Christian News

 World News

Pick(s) Of The Litter




References


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Voting For One Candidate While Supporting Others

If the election was held today, I would vote for Jill Stein. Why? Though the Green Party is not a Socialist party, it offers the best hope for us to transition into a more socialist type nation by strengthening our democracy.

The trouble with a sudden change to Socialism is that it probably could not be done without force. And to use force to change to Socialism has, in most instances, resulted in maintaining the same kind of government that preceded it. Lenin's Russia serves as an example of where forced change, such as what occurred in the October, 1917 Revolution, resulted a continuation of the previous type of government. For Lenin's rule over Russia turned into a Tsar type dictatorship but with a different cast of characters. There are exceptions to this quick change rule. Nicaragua, for example, since its forced change resulted in a democracy that the US brutally attacked by supporting the terrorism of the Contras.

 So, as of now, I will be voting for Jill Stein, but I am supporting the idea of people voting for other candidates as well as long as those candidates do not belong to the either the Republican or Democratic Parties. That means that I could support someone voting for Gloria La Riva from the Party of Socialism and Liberation, Emidio Soltysik from the Socialist USA Party, or Alyson Kennedy from the Socialist Workers Party. And though I could not support any conservative third party candidates, I encourage disgruntled conservatives to vote for either Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party Candidate or Darrell Castle from the Constitution Party.

 Of course, the most common response to voting for a candidate from a third party is that a vote for such a candidate is a vote for the most objectionable major party candidate. For example, some say that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Trump just as, in Florida in the year 2000, a vote for Ralph Nader was a vote for George Bush. But such reasoning fails on two levels.

 First, such reasoning attacks the independence of the voter. To blame Nader for Bush's win forgets that Nader was the candidate that best represented the people who voted for him. And if we can't vote for the candidates who best represent us because the wrong major party candidate will win, we are not free to vote for whom we want. To be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils forces many of us to vote against the worst candidate while all the other major party candidate has to do is to demonstrate that they are not the worst candidate. Thus, we are always voting against a candidate rather than for a candidate.

Second, such reasoning is myopic. It always focuses our attention on today's election while sacrificing future ones. This is true because always voting for the lesser of two evils maintains the two-party system to which we are pretty much enslaved. If the people who blamed Nader for Bush's win had praised him instead, then it is possible that we would have more than 2 viable Presidential candidates 16 years later. 

 We should note that third party candidates do not become viable overnight. So if we wait until a third party candidate becomes viable until we vote for one, we are waiting to vote for Godot. Because there are no viable third party candidates this year, voting for such candidates is voting for changing the system in the future. Refusing to vote for third party candidates is voting to keep the two-party system.

 So the objections to voting for the lesser of two evils involve voter independence and voting for the future. Seeing that our choices in the two-party system seem to be getting worse with each election, isn't it time in this land of the free and home of the brave that we do what takes the most courage to do: we change. And, perhaps, changing ourselves will result in real change in the nation.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, August 8, 2016

ONIM For August 8, 2016

Presidential Election

Christian News

World News

Pick(s) Of The Litter




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)