Corporations used to be largely Republican, but now it's reversed: Democrats no longer even pretend to care about the "deplorable" working-class (unless they're non-white), and are in bed with Cultural Marxist corporations.
But something similar happened before: Capitalists Henry Ford, Walter Christie, and Armand Hammer had no scruples about befriending that butcher Lenin and lending him aid. Ford showed the Soviets how to build cars, Christie sold them what became the ancestor of the T-34 (flouting an arms embargo), and Hammer sold them pharmaceuticals and pencils.
The common denominator is, "I don't care whom I associate with, so long as I get what I want."
For modern jet-setting sybarites, Gulfstreams are nothing compared to customized *jumbo* jets: www.arabianbusiness.com/photos/inpics-600m-boeing-747-8-converted-into-ultimate-private-jet-583350.html
Business-jet owners claim their time is at a premium and they don't want to wait for checkout, security, baggage, etc. Also, they gain access to smaller airports. These might've been less outrageous excuses.
Beware of whom you quote! By "Christianity" Hilaire Belloc meant Roman Catholicism. He, like other English Catholics such as G. K. Chesterton, was a Medievalist who endorsed Catholic Social Teaching instead of Capitalism, which is more "Protestant."
Perhaps the greatest era of prosperity and peace was La Belle Ã‰poque, when capitalism prevailed in America and Europe, even in nominally Catholic countries like France.
While I grant there is Commerce Clause "Navigable Servitude" justifying Federal regulation of shared waters, not every case is like this. Also, the Commerce Clause surely wasn't meant to entail every issue remotely tangential to commerce. Or come to think of it, commerce could be used to justify a less-regulated environment allowing *more* pollution.
States already have water rights laws in place (BTW, a concern for water harvesters), so it seems a natural extension to address water quality as well as consumption. But States' Rights have been given a bad name thanks to certain people.
That bark shield could've come from anywhere â€“ recent finds suggest that the ancient world had more trade than popular accounts admit. Chinese imports have been found at ancient Roman sites. And garnet inlay, found in very high-quality Anglo-Saxon gold items from Sutton Hoo (England), could've come from mines in S. Asia.
I imagine ancients would have a good laugh at what modern scholars say about them.
And should we expect Venezuelans to learn from this and repent from supporting a home-grown socialist regime? I'm not banking on it. Look at France and Britain, which have had socialist policies entrenched for generations now, yet I see no desire by Yellow Vests or Brexiters to return to a more libertarian, La Belle Ã‰poque social order. Or what part of LBJ's Welfare State has ever been repealed?
The best hope for dismantling socialism is when it has been imposed by a hated outsider, such as in E. Europe. Otherwise, it's like a Black Hole that cannot be escaped, for what voter will renounce an "entitlement," no matter how destructive it may be in the long run?
This is the evil genius of Leftist ideology, that appeals to the worst tendencies of fallen human nature.
You won't hear this from the History Channel, but France's defeat in 1940 was in large measure a result of Socialist policies. Her armaments industry was nationalized and hobbled by work rules, and Popular Front politicians were more afraid of de Gaulle's proposal for a professional Army (with armored divisions) than of the Germans. Productivity was so poor, the French had to go warplane-shopping in America.
"During the next 50 years, do you think most of the nations of the world will have a democratic government, a communist government or a socialist government?"
What an absurd question! Now I've even less inclined to take Gallup seriously. "Democracy" is independent of what degree of control over the economy a gov't has. Maybe the people will foolishly elect themselves a socialist regime, as Venezuela did, so they can get "free" stuff. France and Britain have enacted many Socialist policies over the years, yet are still labeled "democracies."
Or by contrast, consider Singapore, which is very capitalistic (no min wage) and has low corruption, yet it's dominated by a single party and is more authoritarian than Amnesty Int'l would like.
Wayfarer pilgrim wrote: Hey Neil, Youâ€™re making my point with precision.
"the louder the protest, the more guilty the party." Did you take a detailed survey of your benighted students to discover this, and if so, how do you know this applies everywhere else?
And how do you judge my "protest" to be "loud?" You're the teacher, so show me how to make it quieter for you. Or am I not supposed to protest at all, so you can continue accusing Reformed people of endorsing pogroms or whatnot?
Wayfarer pilgrim [and Jim too] wrote: Yet a denomination built on the teaching of the reformers has a great propensity with inadvertently dismissing Israel as a history lesson and a not spiritual or promised future.
I'm unsurprised and disgusted that people here would bring up the "Replacement Theology is Antisemitic" Strawman popular with Dispensationalist authors (e.g. Barry Horner). They are imitating the bullying leftists use against conservatives: Guilt By Association.
1 Cor. 6:3: "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" From what I've seen lately among Christians, I fear for the angels!
John Lee wrote: ...a better book to read by anyone, including IFB's, would be "The Reformed Pastor" by Richard Baxter.
I have a secondhand impression (glad to correct if possible) that Baxter was not wholly on board with the "Doctrines of Grace." That said, his pastoral care was exemplary, so on that account his book would be worthwhile. His "Christian Directory" is absolutely packed with advice. The productivity of Puritan authors, in an age of quill pens and candlelight, is astounding.
He was busted by Lord Jeffreys, presumably for being politically incorrect somehow.