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?
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.
My second reason for wanting Senator Rand Paul and Senator Bernie Sanders to win their parties' respective presidential nominations is also defensive.
Hillary Clinton, the only other person to have a chance at winning the Democratic presidential nomination, will advance the Bush/Obama march toward war in the Middle East. PCR says Clinton will ignite nuclear war.
She is way too dangerous.
Trump ought not win because as much as I like his non-interventionist foreign policy -- he believes Muslim countries should take care of ISIS -- he is a buffoon when it comes to both domestic and international economics. He touts protectionist economic claptrap that has been refuted centuries ago.
He will aid in the destruction of our economy.
The latter criticism -- foreign policy and all -- applies to Sanders, too. But socialism was only refuted fairly recently in 1991. Democratic socialism, which Sanders advocates, clearly hasn't been refuted in the eyes of the public.
[Editor's Note: Reality Check: Denmark's economy is a mixed economy -- a mix of government intervention and free-markets -- that has a single-payer health care system, while the U.S. has a heavily interventionist and highly regulated health care system.]
Vox reports Denmark's prime minister attempt to set Bernie Sanders straight on what kind of economy his country is:
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said, "therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
In Rasmussen's view, "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."
Matthew Yglesias goes on to say that the Denmark official's comments aren't substantially different from Bernie Sanders. He says that Denmark has a single-payer healthcare system, which is what Sanders advocates.
Tom Wood's new book "Bernie Sanders is Wrong" offers an interesting corrective on this point. In the second chapter on Denmark, and in the first chapter on Sweden, there is detail about how these socialist countries actually started out with more laissez faire economies than there are now.
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
[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.
I was at an event last night and a speaker said something to the effect of "Only in America" -- or let's say under capitalism -- do they make you pay for something free like water, as she sipped her bottled water...
… bottled water that has been contained with machinery, filtered, and bottled -- among a host of other things -- by human beings.
…bottled water that was at one time in a river, or lake, or mountain, or spring, or wherever they get water from (the beauty of the division of labor in free-market capitalismis that I don't have to know that stuff).
In part, she wanted specialized knowledge to be free.
Deer Park employees, among the many other water companies' employees, are people who wake up every day provide a vital product to the billions of people who chose not to be in the water business. Numbers of trucks which run on un-free gasoline deliver this vital source for life every single day to the market place.
Gone are the days of carrying a pail of water to the river, scooping up as much water as you can, and carrying it back to the hut village. Gone are the days of getting water from the well.
The water companies have gotten so good at this that they provide water in different sizes -- from little bottles that can fit in your palm, to bigger bottles that be put on water coolers; these bottles come in size swig, saturate, and submerge. Gone are the days of size pail and bucket.
They have gotten so good at it that water comes with flavor.
And yet they want this to be free.
Fine, I'll grant you, but only for the sake of the argument, that water is free. What I won't grant you is that the labor should be free. Further, I know that you won't either.
Much of that was my immediate thought but I didn't say anything. It wasn't the right forum. It would have taken the event over the allotted time. The only thing I thought in addition to that is that working for free involuntarily is what we used to call slavery.
But I know what they mean: Whether it is free school or free water, advocates will say workers will get paid through taxes. But that only pushes the involuntary labor to the taxpayers.
Why should I involuntarily use my labor to pay for someone else's stuff?
That is an ethical problem for Democratic Socialists.
But I want to put another thorn in the side of Democratic Socialists.
Going back to the subject of water companies, why should someone like Coca-Cola, the Dasani water owners, be mandated by the government to operate a large part of their company for F-R-E-E.
Am I shifting definitions? Don't I know that Democratic Socialists would, through taxpayer dollars, pay a company to operate their water business.
Oh, so you want to get into subsidizing big businesses and corporations. Gee, I thought that was what you were protesting in the first place.
But let's take it one step further. Why should we think of only existing businesses as free providers of this vital product? Why not apply our thinking to future entrepreneurs? The little guy. Should the little guy provide this service F-R-E-E?
Should we subsidize the little guys future water business? Should he not operate by profit-and-loss to judge the success of his business?
Rand Paul had a similar experience.
He was asked a question about Bernie Sanders' solution to Social Security.
I like Rand Paul's answer. He admits up front that you are not going to like his solution. Furthermore, he gives the alternative: He can pretend like everything is okay and promise you everything you want and destroy the country in the process.
By destroying the country, he probably means destroying our dollar through hyperinflation. The Federal Reserve would have to create so much money that our dollar would become worthless.
Democratic socialists, like Bernie Sanders, would solidify our economic doom.
[Editor's Note: Regular readers of this blog should know that I was coming up with a "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, as was the case with the first post above.
