Thursday, June 18, 2026

"Isms"

 

As Joan Rivers used to say, “Can we talk?”  The stuff that passes for news these days is biased, whether the source is conservative or liberal.  The facts get “spun,” and things are presented is a way that tries prove the point the various news media want to make.  The same thing is true in American politics. 

It gets so confused that many people do not know what to believe.  The liberals call the conservatives “Fascists.”  The conservatives call the liberals “Communists.”  Each side denies it.  Each side, however, continues to call their opponents liars, and name-calling is rampant. 

We hear the term “gaslighting” a lot these days. When terms become popular, they tend to lose their original meaning and become generalized. Gaslighting is not persuasion, argument, or convincing others through logic. It is an insidious form of manipulation. With gaslighting, people are manipulated into doing what somebody else wants. They are led to doubt their beliefs, the facts, their judgment, even their very selves and their motives. Their fears are used to cause them to do the bidding of the other. Gaslighting is destructive for those reasons. Nevertheless, we see it in interpersonal relationships, news broadcasting, politics, and even religion. Persuasion respects the other person. Gaslighting is used to control others by destroying their confidence in themselves. 

In the interest of sanity, let’s attempt to clarify terms.  The public discourse will no doubt remain confusing, but it is hoped that those who read this may be helped to sort it out.  In the interest of brevity, we will summarize and simplify.  Please allow some degree of latitude in the interest of conciseness. 

Ideas about how to organize societies, economies, and government are often talked about in terms of an “ism.”  Each “ism” is by its very nature opposed to the others.  Ideally, differences can be resolved by debate, and the “ism” with the best arguments will win in free and fair elections and the decisions of duly elected officials. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.  If nothing else, let’s all try to be tolerant and non-violent. 

The college professors often tell their students that they will fail a paper that is overly reliant on one source of information.  However, I have used https://www.britannica.com/ in order to try to give each “ism” equal treatment. 

Socialism 

Socialism is characterized by public ownership of property and the means of production and distribution of goods and services.  Innovation and work are accomplished collectively, rather than by individual effort.  Socialists believe that those who participate in the production and distribution of goods and services are, therefore, entitled to an equitable share of the economic benefit of their labor.  Socialists condemn the profit motive as greed, and they say that capitalism allows the rich to oppress the poor in order to earn bigger profits. [1] 

Paraphrased, the following are provided as examples of the socialist worldview: 

When he was President, Barack Obama drew a lot of criticism for saying that nobody ever built a business on their own.  During the Covid-19 pandemic, former Vice President Kamala Harris criticized churches because they were not willing to stop holding public gatherings … “for the good of the “collective.”  For years it has been widely taught in US public schools, colleges, and universities that the profit motive was greedy and self-serving.  Socialism has morphed into several subgroups. 

Social Democrats 

Social Democracy generally works to replace capitalism by peaceful, evolutionary, democratic means.  Some Social Democrats have favored government regulation of private enterprise as opposed to replacing capitalism entirely.  Social Democracy incorporates what are commonly referred to as Marxist-Leninist ideas, but it rejects violent revolution and the aggregation of power by totalitarian forms of government.  Social Democrats generally advocate that the means of production be held by the many rather than concentrated in the hands of the few, and they espouse government run social welfare programs that “redistribute” wealth. [2] 

Democratic Socialists 

Democratic Socialists accept revolution as a means of socio-economic change. They favor replacing capitalism entirely, rather than improving it by regulation.  Democratic Socialists prefer a decentralized economy, and they reject centrally managed economies.  They oppose control by a government of party elites who tend to replace private ownership of property by seizing control of the means of production for themselves.  Democratic socialists favor worker control of the means of production and distribution, and usually favor market-driven economies.  Like social democrats, democratic socialists want government run social welfare programs as a means of redistributing wealth.  Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism are easily confused, and have often been transposed in the past.  Although their goals are similar, they differ primarily in the means to achieve those ends. [3] 

Communism 

Pure Communism is a type of Socialism, but it differs from the others in significant ways.  Communism follows the socio-economic doctrines of Marxism more closely than other forms of Socialism, and advocates for violent revolution as a means of replacing Capitalism.  Pure Communism replaces private property ownership with public, and it replaces the private management of production and distribution with communal management by worker’s collectives.  Communism embraces the Marxist view that wealth should transfer “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” 

To meet the needs of the people, Communist societies have tried to implement centrally managed economies.  Centrally managed economies differ from Capitalist economies, which are market driven based on demand.  Centrally managed economies have failed in Russia, China, and Vietnam.  China and Vietnam are ruled by Communists but have adopted market driven economies. 

The governance of Communist nations has been by one-party rule, and they have been authoritarian and oppressive. The means of production and distribution have initially been centrally managed by the government. [4] 

Today, the Democratic party has been coopted by radicals who are changing it from  Classical Liberalism into a Socialist political movement.  Those radicals tend to call themselves Democratic Socialists; although we can find that they often espouse views that are more correctly ascribed to Social Democrats.  So far, they have not advocated for violent revolution, but they have been supportive of violent demonstrations.  Accurately or inaccurately, the word Communist has been tossed about to describe the most radical of the leaders of the new Democratic Party.  Please decide for yourself if that is correct. 

By contrast, American Conservatives are almost always Capitalists, whether they are private or corporate owners of the means of production, or they are workers. 

Capitalism 

A Capitalist economic system is characterized by a free market economy with limited government involvement.  The means of production and distribution are privately owned, either by individuals or stockholders.  A portion of profit is reinvested to increase productive capacity, or capital is raised by selling stocks.  Companies may be organized as corporations, which then become legal entities.  In some cases, workers’ benefits include stocks (shares) in the company, or the worker-shareholders may actually own the company; although those companies are usually governed by a Board of Directors and a management team appointed by the Board. 

In Western societies Capitalists favor elected, representative forms of government.  The exportation of American Capitalism to developing nations has raised the standard of living of millions of people. 

During the industrial revolution, and the exportation of Capitalism to developing nations, workers were often exploited. [5]  However, such exploitation has been reduced by organized labor and government intervention.  Worker exploitation remains one of the Socialist arguments against Capitalism.

American Capitalists and other Conservatives believe that social programs should be designed to provide a temporary safety net to help the poor until they can obtain gainful employment; and to provide financial support for elderly and disabled persons.  They are to fulfill society’s obligation to care for the poor – not to redistribute wealth. 

Socialist criticism sometimes involves calling Conservatives Fascists.  That is almost always a misnomer. 

Fascism 

Fascism is characterized by a strong, charismatic leader and a ruling elite who galvanize popular support around nationalism, militarism, opposition to liberalism (anti-communism), and a general distain for deliberative, democratic process.  As with Communism, Fascism strives for one-party rule, and dissent and opposition are not tolerated. 

Fascism is totalitarian, and it organizes society to serve the interests of the state.  Individual interests are, therefore, subordinate to the interests of the nation state. [6] Although in Fascist economies the means of production and distribution are privately owned, they are also subordinate to the interests of the state and subject to government control. 

It is usually unfair to label Democrats as Communists or Republicans as Fascists.  This kind of rhetoric is divisive.  It is part of what is dividing Americans and pitting them against each other.  It is, however, necessary for voters to inform themselves.  In November, they will often have to choose whether they want to be represented by Socialists or Conservatives. 

Conservatives like to point out that Socialism has always failed.  Liberals counter by saying that the Social Democratic countries in Europe have been successful.  Conservatives answer that those European nations have market driven economies.  They insist that the Europeans have starved their ability to defend themselves by spending their defense money on social programs, and that they still need to struggle to keep from going broke.  “Und so weiter.” 

The November midterm elections will be here before we know it.  Regardless of our political beliefs, all eligible voters are encouraged to get out and vote.  That goes double if you are a Conservative. 

Before the elections arrive, every voter needs to examine the salient issues and make a conscious choice about the direction we want the USA to take regarding those issues.  To that end, Lamp in a Corner will post on the issues, and provide a reasoned argument for the direction that would best serve the American people.  Unapologetically, the goal will be to motivate Republicans, other conservatives, and Independents to get out and vote. 

Please vote for Conservatives who favor a Capitalist economy and retaining our Constitutional Republic as they always have been.  They have served us well, and do not need to be remade into a utopian, Socialist pipe dream.

 

Wednesday, June 17, 2026

Be Humble and Resist Satan

“Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’ 

Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.  Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.  Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.  And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.  To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.”                        (1Peter 5:5-11 ESV) [1]

Friday, June 12, 2026

Don't Start Anything Unless You Intend to Finish It

Sometimes a quote can be attributed to more than one person.  Credit for coining the phrase, “It is easier to start a war than it is to end it.” is most often given to Gabriel Garcia Marquez. [1]  Similar sayings have been attributed to Carl von Clausewitz, Nicolo Machiavelli, and many others.  Repetition is often regarded as predictive of reliability.  The opinions of informed persons may be considered to be information. 

Observing the efforts of the Trump Administration to negotiate a ceasefire, and ultimately to bring an end to our current military conflict, with Iran is an example of how difficult it is to end the hostilities through negotiations and get an acceptable conclusion.  Those in power in Iran are clearly trying to use the negotiations to give themselves an opportunity to rearm and to drag the process out in order to manipulate outcomes in our upcoming midterm elections in November. 

They know that resuming military operations would generate opposition in Congress.  They believe that public opinion in the US is becoming increasingly critical of President Trump’s handling of our struggle with Iran. 

It is also clear that the Iranian government has a pattern of violating agreements.  Past behavior is predictive of future conduct.  We can expect the radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to violate any agreement that is negotiated; if not immediately then after President Trump leaves office. 

Although the Trump Administration has repeatedly stated that regime change is not a goal of the conflict, it is as plain as day that no agreement with an Iran that is in the control of the IRGC and the Ayatollahs will last.  The only answer that will result in a long-term achievement of our goals is to remove the powers that be in Teheran and provide the Iranian people with a freely elected government that is responsive to the will of the Iranian people. 

Every kid who goes to elementary school quickly learns than you don’t start something unless you are willing and able to finish it.  The USA needs to finish the current fight by doing what is necessary to resolve the matter in our favor.  General Jack Keane has said that war is always a contest of the will.  The Iranian government still has the will to resist.  Although their ability to strike has been degraded, they can still deliver strikes on their neighbors. 

We need to finish this.  We need to destroy the will and ability of the hardliners in Iran to continue to resist.  It needs to get done, and soon. 

Iran was positioning itself to be able to produce and deliver nuclear weapons in a relatively short period of time.  It is right for the community of nations to oppose that.  The Ayatollahs and IRGC have turned Iran into a terrorist state that relies on outlawry to achieve its ends.  It was obvious that only the United States and Israel were willing to do what was necessary to put a stop to it.  Now let’s finish the job.

Saturday, May 30, 2026

Words of Encouragement

 

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.  Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you … Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.” (James 4:7-8,10 ESV) [1] 

“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for peace and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.  Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you.  You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.  I will be found by you, declares the Lord … “                 (Jeremiah 29:11-14 ESV) [2] 

“The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and kind in all his works.
The Lord is near to all who call on him,
to all who call on him in truth.
He fulfills the desire of those who fear him;
he also hears their cry and saves them.
The Lord preserves all who love him,
but all the wicked he will destroy.” (Psalm145:17-20 ESV) [3] 

“On the day I called, you answered me;
my strength of soul you increased.” Psalm 138:3 ESV) [4] 

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (John 6:37 ESV) [5]

Saturday, May 23, 2026

NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a defensive alliance of member nations in Europe and North America.  It was established in 1949 in response to the Soviet Union’s expansion of influence and control over nations in Eastern Europe.  Although it has always been intended to be a deterrent to aggression - first by the Soviet Union, and now by the Russian Federation - it applies to aggression by any nation against any NATO member. 

Most recently, concern about Russian aggression in Ukraine has motivated Sweden and Finland to become NATO member states.  In the recent past, the Baltic States and several countries in Eastern Europe (that were once under Soviet control) have joined NATO to try escape Russian domination.  Since they are located close Russia, their addition to NATO has been perceived to be threatening from the Russian point of view. 

During his terms as President, Donald J. Trump has been very critical of NATO.  He has rightly focused on the failure of NATO member states to provide for their fair share of the burden for our mutual defense.  He thinks that NATO is a “bad deal” for the United States, because the US has borne an unfair share of the load.  He is correct, and we should support his efforts to motivate all NATO member states to fulfill their treaty obligations in good faith. 

However, President Trump has made some rather rash statements about NATO.  He has threatened to “pull out” of NATO, or not to help defend NATO member states who have not spent the required amount of their GDP on defense, which they are obligated to by the NATO Treaty.  He may have said those things because he felt that milder requests made in the past were disregarded.  To put it directly, when people don’t pay attention, he slaps them around a bit.  It is debatable whether this tactic produces good results … or just causes hard feelings.  Currently, most NATO members have increased their defense spending, but that may be a response to the threat posed by recent Russian aggression in Ukraine; as much as a response to the President’s threats. 

For clarity, we should understand that NATO is a treaty.  A treaty has the effect of law.  The President does not have the authority to withdraw the United States from a treaty without the approval of Congress. It is not an agreement like the Iran Nuclear Agreement.  The NATO treaty obligates the United States to help defend any other member state if they are attacked.  As Commander in Chief, President Trump must, by treaty requirement, commit US military forces to fulfill our treaty obligation.  He can, however, decide the level of our military response. 

Recently, our NATO allies have not supported the military actions of the United States, during Operation Epic Fury.  Their governments have concluded the Article 5 provisions of the NATO Treaty do not apply because the United States has not been directly attacked by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and because our military actions are illegal under international law.  They have cited Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits member nations from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another nation state, unless it is in response to an attack. [1] The Trump Administration has held that the USA and other countries have been repeatedly attacked by Iran and its proxy terrorist groups for years, and that Operation Epic Fury has been conducted in accordance with all applicable law. [2] 

The Trump Administration has also argued that our NATO allies are morally obligated to support our military and diplomatic efforts to change the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran because we have carried the lion’s share of the defense of Europe since the end of WW II.  Although the legal arguments of some of our NATO allies may be a smoke screen to hide their reluctance to get their hands dirty, our support of their defense does not obligate them to act in violation of their conscience.  Furthermore, we have also benefited from the deterrent against Russian aggression provided by NATO. 

The bottom line is that the NATO Treaty, and our support of the defense of Europe, do not obligate member states to assist in what they believe are acts of aggression by other members.  That is fair, and we all should accept it. 

To advance the discussion a little further, however, regardless of any other legal or moral arguments - the actions of the radical, terrorist clerics and the IRGC who rule Iran have turned Iran into an international outlaw.  They have made it necessary for the community of nations to take preemptive and preventive action to defend the peace and safety of their people.  Once again, the United States of America has stepped forward, in equal partnership with Israel, to do the heavy lifting to get it done.  Once again, we are being condemned for doing it.  When you are a pioneer, you must take a lot of arrows in the back. 

We still need the deterrent that NATO provides against Russian aggression.  Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

God bless President Trump for his vision and courage.  God bless Israel.  God bless the USA.

Saturday, May 9, 2026

Mother's Day 2026

I love you, Mom.

  



"In A Shanty In Old Shanty Town"
Doris Day Lyrics
(from "Lullaby Of Broadway" soundtrack)

I'm up in the world,
but I'd give the world to be where I used to be,
A heavenly nest,
where I rest the best,
means more than the world to me.

It's only a shanty
in old Shanty Town
the roof is so slanty it touches the ground.
But my tumbled down shack by an old railroad track,
like a millionaire's mansion is calling me back.

I'd give up a palace if I were a king.
It's more than a palace, it's my everything.
There's a queen waiting there with a silvery crown
in a shanty in old Shanty Town. [1]

 

 

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

Which do You Choose - Death or Eternal Life?

"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?  Far from it! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?  Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?  Therefore, we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in newness of life.  For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,  knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;  for the one who has died is freed from sin. 

Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.  For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all time; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.  So you too, consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 

Therefore sin is not to reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the parts of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those who are alive from the dead, and your body’s parts as instruments of righteousness for God.  For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under the Law but under grace. 

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under the Law but under grace?  Far from it!  Do you not know that the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of that same one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?  But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and after being freed from sin, you became slaves to righteousness.  I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented the parts of your body as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your body’s parts as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in relation to righteousness.  Therefore, what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death.  But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.  For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:1-23 NASB) [1]