Matt Drudge and I agree: Globalists freak out over Trump

Snapshot of the August 2, 2016 Drudge Report

President Obama is no revolutionary.

Rather he is of the status quo.

Today he played the role of gatekeeper of that status quo: Donald Trump absolutely cannot become president. He is unfit. Blah. Blah. Blah.

This morning when I saw the headlines about President Obama, referencing the above activity, I immediately thought that the globalists were freaking out.

This afternoon I went on the Drudge Report and I found agreement there.

Matt Drudge calls Obama out for his globalist gatekeeping on August 2, 2016.

Confirmed: Ted Cruz surrounds himself with neocons

Back in February, I shared my concerns with readers about GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz.

Recently, my suspicions were confirmed: Ted Cruz really surrounds himself with neoconservative foreign policy advisers. ThinkProgress has the story.

The New American, an old paleo-conservative publication, ran a story in late 2015 called Ted Cruz's Closest Counselors Are Neocons.

Believing at first that the journalism was shaky, I wrote just two months ago:

It goes on to mention Chad Sweet, Victoria Coates, James Woolsey, and Elliot Abrams (although I think that Abrams is no longer on the campaign, if he ever was; in fact, RedState called him a Rubio mentor), all of which have neocon bona fides. Daily Caller has a story saying Cruz consulted Abrams, but this doesn't mean he was on the campaign.

Abrams doesn't appear to be an adviser in any official capacity, or ever have been. But there is reporting that says Cruz has consulted him. Part of me believes he's a Rand Paul 2.0 just trying to ride the waves of whatever will gain him support.
This is journalism that stretches the facts.

But according to the ThinkProgress story, Elliot Abrams is absolutely is on Ted Cruz's foreign policy team -- and he has two more alarming people on the team.

The Nation has an excellent story about Ted Cruz's dangerous foreign policy views in more detail. Peep the headline and subheadline:

Ted Cruz Embodies the Degeneration of Foreign-Policy Conservatism

Think nothing could be worse than a Trump presidency? Think again

Bernie Sanders' disappointing pro-war record

Recall that over the 8 years of Clinton Time, Iraq was bombed an average of once every four days.

Even though Sanders markets himself as an “independent socialist,” in fact, he has rarely dissented against the Democratic Party orthodoxy, especially when it comes to military intervention. That should permanently settle the notion of whether Bernie is a real Democrat. With the blood of 500,000 Iraqi children on his hands, surely Sanders has already won the “Humanitarian Warrior Seal of Approval,” which leaves us with only one haunting question: Was it worth it, Senator Sanders?

Jeffrey St. Clair, Blood Traces: Bernie’s Iraq War Hypocrisy

Ted Cruz vs. Bernie Sanders

Ted Cruz vs. Bernie Sanders would be a nice showdown in November.

It would be the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate (Cruz) versus the furthest left Senator (Sanders). The American people would get a chance to vote for two diametrically opposed people -- not two sides of the same coin.

Ted Cruz would rhetorically smack Sanders down.

This is almost as good as Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders -- the match-up I hoped would transpire.

I'm still very concerned about Cruz's foreign policy, and the foreign policy advisers he may appoint in his cabinet, but on economic policy he is great....Ending the IRS...Ending the Department of Education...Sound Money...and more.

The opposite is the case for Sanders: I am cool with his foreign policy, but his economic policy is atrocious.

Professing Jesus Christ isn't enough in politics

Professing Jesus Christ isn't enough in politics.

It's too low a bar to hop over, no matter how authentic the statement.

Pro-life politics aren't enough either.

What's needed is a full-orbed Christian philosophy: one that understands foreign policy, monetary policy, welfare (not welfare statism), the role of the government, the role of churches (and private organizations), and the role of individuals and families, for starters, from a Christian perspective.

(The candidate who has the most of this is Rand Paul, by the way)

Rubio, Trump, Cruz, et al. have a full-orbed something...it just ain't Christian.

Same goes for Hillary and Bernie.

I write this mainly because I saw a few Christians get excited about Marco Rubio, who, quite winsomely, confessed Christ while speaking to an atheist concerned about Rubio running for "Pastor in Chief." I was very convinced of Rubio's authentic love for the Lord.

But Rubio's hegemonic foreign policy -- his neoconservatism -- is in direct conflict with the claims and aims of the gospel. And remember, the president is Commander-in-Chief. It's one of the few explicit presidential duties delineated in the U.S. Constitution. Who he believes should be bombed is a big deal.

One day the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and Rubio's vision veers away from that tremendously.

Say No to Rubio and the "New American Century"

The first thing I noticed back in April when Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio announced his run was the banner with the words "New American Century" in the background.

This is code word for a defunct think-tank by the same name which provided the intellectual ammunition for George W. Bush's disastrous Iraq foreign policy.

One writer describes the defunct Project for the New American Century as desiring and demanding "one thing: the establishment of a global American Empire to bend the will of all nations."

I agree.

The Project for the New American Century was a place warmongers turned to hear the intellectual justifications for their warmongering and hawkish foreign policy. This organization was started by neoconservative William Kristol, who is currently an editor of the neocon Weakly Standard.

Dick Cheney, Vice President under Bush II, is a founding member.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is a founding member.

Not that Rubio is hiding hawkish views, as you might see in the debates, but his selection of "New American Century" is very telegraphic of the kind of people he would place in his administration.

The next thing I noticed was that Mitt Romney's former aides embraced him.

This should tell you all you need to know.

We don't need a Latino George Bush. Say no to Rubio.

Vote Rand Paul.

Rand Paul's Best Debate?!?

The always reliable American Conservative says that the fourth Republican Presidential debate was Senator Rand Paul's best.

This is great news. I missed the debate last night.

Just a few weeks ago I was ready to tell him to quit and save his Senate seat. I provided the above video as a rebuttal to the views of Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, et al.

On Paul:

Overall, this was Paul’s best debate by far, and he was finally playing the role that many people thought he could play in these debates by opposing some of the more ludicrous and reckless foreign policy statements from the other candidates. He pushed back on the hawks’ endorsement of a “no-fly zone” in Syria (though he erred a bit in later statements by saying Iraq when he meant to say Syria), and corrected Trump on the TPP. He had a crowd-pleasing line about that we shouldn’t “arm our enemies,” but if you didn’t already know that U.S. arms sent into Syria and provided to the Iraqi government have ended up in the hands of ISIS and the Nusra front it might not have made much sense. There was still not enough scrutiny of the hawkish candidates’ statements on their support for “no-fly” and safe zones in Syria, and none of them was pressed to answer who would be defending these safe zones on the ground. They were permitted to propose much more aggressive policies without being called out on it with the exception of Paul’s criticisms.

On the neoconservative Rubio:

Rubio showed off his reflexive interventionist side much more last night than he has in previous debates, and resorted to using the dishonest, misleading label of “isolationist” when he asserted that Paul was a “committed isolationist.” Besides being untrue, it confirmed how shallow his arguments against realist and non-interventionist Republicans have always been. As he usually does, he framed other states’ actions in terms of U.S. “weakness,” because he apparently can’t grasp that other states have interests unrelated to our action or inaction and will pursue them for their own reasons. He mentioned that ISIS has a foothold in Libya, but neglected to mention that he was a supporter of the war for regime change that helped make that happen.

Regrettably, the audience at the debate responded well to a lot of his rhetoric, but he makes it very easy for people to see him as a neoconservative factional candidate and nothing more. 

On Bush:

Bush repeated his line that the U.S. won’t be the “world’s policeman,” but that it will be the “world’s leader,” which for all practical purposes amounts to the same thing. 

He assumes that the U.S. has to respond to every crisis and conflict, and that if it doesn’t it creates an unacceptable “vacuum.”

On Fiorina:

Fiorina advocated once again for her program of needless provocation of Russia. Her position on a “no-fly zone” in Syria implied that she thought the airspace of all countries in the world rightly belongs to the U.S.: “We must have a no fly zone in Syria because Russia cannot tell the United States of America where and when to fly our planes.” 

On Kasich:

Kasich manically listed all of his bad and questionable foreign policy views at one point that included endorsing a Syria “no-fly zone,” embracing the Sisi dictatorship in Egypt, and praising the Saudis as “fundamentally our friends.” The first position is obviously dangerous, the second is misguided, and the third is delusional. Kasich also predictably said that the U.S. has “no better ally” in the world than Israel, which will come as news to all of the actual treaty allies that the U.S. has around the world.

Read the original article here. 

Eight Presentations You Will Never Hear From Bernie Sanders, Clinton, Et al.

Many financial experts believe that a financial downturn is coming. All agree a recession is guaranteed. Some go as far to say that we in the United States are going to experience a depression.

Some call it a "Great Reset" or "Great Default." Others believe we will experience a "credit crisis." Some believe we are going to believe to experience a deflationary depression.

The Bible teaches that "Without consultation, plans are frustrated, But with many counselors they succeed." (Proverbs 15:22).

These are your multiple counselors.

They all agree on the central premise that the Federal Reserve's money printing policies and artificially low interest rates have done serious damage to the economy.

They paint slightly different scenarios of how their scenarios come to be.

How will all of this come about?

Watch these videos to find out.

David Stockman-Debt Markets Unstable and Tottering


The Great Deformation | David Stockman




Bill Bonner: Cash Shortage to Hit U.S.


Jim Rickards: Coming Economic Depression


Exclusive Interview: Jim Rickards and Peter Schiff Discuss Global Gold Mar...



Ron Paul - From Stansberry Research



Economic Collapse Coming - Rep. Ron Paul [Mirrored]



David Stockman The Global Economy Has Entered The Crack Up Phase

Video: The Truth About Bernie Sanders

Get a free E-book on Bernie Sanders here.

[Editor's Note: Regular readers of this blog should this is part of the"Why You Should Not Vote For Bernie Sanders" series. 

The reason I am doing this is because a number of my (young) friends are falling for the rhetoric and promise of Democratic Socialism. It (often rightly) rails against big business.  It (almost) never rails against the government framework which made big business possible. 

It is embodied in the persons of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Unfortunately, they're both wrong.

My posts will be informed by the Thomas Woods' new E-book Bernie Sanders is Wrong, other informed economic articles, and my personal reflection, except in cases where I find good videos, as was the case with the second post above.

This is Part 2 of many…and I mean many.]

Mike Huckabee: Declare a war on Alzheimer's, Cancer and other diseases

Last night, during the September 26, 2015 CNN Republican debate, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said that the U.S. should declare a war on Alzheimer's, Cancer, and other diseases.

Does he mean we should declare a war on Alzheimer's and cancer the same way we declared war on drugs, poverty, and terror?  We aren't winning those wars.

Carly Fiorina: Donald Trump Went Bankrupt Four Times

Carly Fiorina points out that Donald Trump invested other people's money and went bankrupt four times.

Donald Trump denied going bankrupt.

But a video posted by Reason.TV just moments before the exchange reveals that Donald Trump did, in fact, go bankrupt.

Trump biographer Jerome Tucille explains that "[Trump] doesn't do a deal unless other people are putting up the money. He's very good at losing other people's money and preserving his own."

Fiorina brought up his bankruptcy and investing habits in light of taxpayer money.

This is my interpretation of what she said, but I think Fiorina was making the connection that as president he will badly spend taxpayer money.

I think it's a good point. The great wall of America which Trump wants to build to keep immigrants out is an example of that. Taxpayers -- even if Mexican taxpayers -- will lose tons of money on an expensive project that can be spent elsewhere or (even better) not spent at all.

"Other people," in this case Mexican taxpayers, will be on the hook for one of Donald Trump's investments.

Trump's website says "a nation without a border is not a nation." So, apparently, the 239 years that have passed since 1776 we were never a nation. And, apparently, ever other country that lacks a wall also are not, and never have been, nations.

Video: Donald Trump is 'Very Good at Losing Other People's Money'

Rand Paul: We should keep talking to Iran

On the September 16, 2015 CNN Republican Presidential Debate:

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says that we should keep talking to Iran.

His statement was in response to being asked whether President Obama's upcoming meeting with Chinese officials should be canceled.

He also noted that those who would have cut off dialogue with foreign leaders are isolating the U.S. from international discussion.  Paul's foreign policy has been called "isolationist," so he was, in fact, pointing out the irony of those who call him isolationist are themselves just that.

Paul also wondered what would have happened if Ronald Reagan stopped talking to Gorbachev during the Cold War.

He also said that every time the U.S. government topples a secular dictator in the Middle East that there is backlash and unintended consequences.

Rick Santorum honest but misguided on the minimum wage

On the September 16, 2015 CNN Republican Presidential debate:

Rick Santorum went full liberal Democrat moments ago. His heart is right but his policies are misplaced. 

Why should all jobs below his proposed incremental minimum wage rate hike be illegal? Why can't low-skilled workers have something to put on their resume before they get to more difficult jobs?

I understand he wants to show Americans that Republicans aren't heartless thugs, but that is not the way to do it.