He's so good (relatively speaking) on the domestic economy and, so far, being extremely careful not to bring up certain subjects but stick to only main points highly popular with shallow and novice/green thinkers (many were only children when Obama first ran). He's not been pushed at all on the full agenda. He may never be. Too much of the question-and-answer sessions will be stage-managed by those who also don't want all the issues discussed, even though those asking the questions will often not agree with Sanders on what's considered more purely domestic economic issues.
Last night, I watched his delivery in Portland, Maine:
He says nothing about foreign policy other than the trade "deals" he didn't vote for.
Bernie Sanders: Many American liberals are looking to the independent senator from Vermont, who announced his intention to seek the Democratic Party nomination in May, to provide an alternative to standard, Wall Street-driven party politics. But while Sanders may oppose the influence of Citizens United on American politics, he’s still a supporter of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. During last summer’s brutal assault by Israel on Gaza, which killed over 2,000 Palestinians — mostly civilians — and left hundreds of thousands homeless, the entire U.S. Senate, including Sanders, unanimously voted to show their support for Israel.
Bustle’s Chris Tognotti reported last month on a tense confrontation between Sanders and supporters of Palestine at a 2014 town hall event in Vermont. While Sanders condemned Israel for attacking United Nations targets, he still voiced support for the deadly Israeli offensive: [ http://www.mintpressnews.com/election-2016-left-right-or-center-all-major-candidates-toe-the-line-on-palestine/206469/ ]
I will give it to him that he believes he doesn't have the "magical" answer or solution, but he doubts anyone in the audience does either.
Well, it is extremely clear that Bernie Sanders accepts the Zionists having come from Europe to take the land and to unilaterally declare a Jewish state and having done so on the back of sympathy over what is now termed the Holocaust (with a capital H) even though a great deal of that Holocaust has been brought into question because of the admitted lies of those very Zionists. There were no shrunken Jewish heads, no soap from the fat of killed Jews, and no lampshades from the tattooed skin of dead Jews. Much of the "evidence" for gassing on a massive scale was absolutely doctored. For instance, the holes in roofs through which to drop poison-gas pellets were added after the camps had been liberated. The list goes on and on and on but is highly censored, even made illegal.
That said, of course there were atrocious acts by Nazis against Jews, just as there were atrocious acts by Nazis against Russians and all manner of other ethnic groups. Does any of that excuse Zionist atrocities against Palestinians? No.
Where does Bernie Sanders stand on trying the top Zionists for war crimes the way Nazis were tried (only let's give the Zionists truly fair trials)? See: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/country-holding-accountable
He also says nothing about our Second Amendment rights actually expressed in the US Constitution. What about freedom of religion? He pushes what he calls "gay" rights, but where does he draw the line on all the other "rights" being claimed because of Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion on state-sanctioned homosexual marriage? See: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-wedding-license-32162748
I have no doubt Bernie Sanders thinks it's fine that teenagers be given free contraceptives in school without their parents knowledge or consent, but where does he stand on those same teenagers having as much freedom to choose to obtain professional mental-healthcare assistance to overcome the teens' unwanted same-sex attractions (often the direct result of homosexual sexual-abuse)? If teens are old enough to decide for themselves to engage in sexual intercourse, why aren't they old enough to have the same choice concerning mental healthcare on same-sex attraction and sexual abuse, etc.?
On top of that, what kind of state/government aids children to deceive their parents? What does that teach those children? What can't they hide from their parents in that case? Where are the wisely consistent ethics?
What's the age of consent where schools are handing out condoms or implanting IUD's? Are states facilitating/encouraging breaking the law of those very states?
When does the state actually take the place of biological, and adoptive, parents altogether? We have certainly been heading in that direction. Will there ever be a line that won't be crossed regarding biological parenting?
Remember, it was the Nazis who pushed having babies to be raised up by the state for the state. We have solid evidence that doing that does not result in the best outcomes for children. We have been heading in the wrong direction. We should have been working on improving the parenting skills of biological parents instead while still doing our best for orphans and others by providing fostering and adoption.
What about the NSA, etc.? Is Bernie ready to let whistleblowers come home without having to face trial and for other whistleblowers to be released from prison and to be fully compensated for having been wrongfully imprisoned in the first place? Isn't it important enough to mention in his stump speeches? Who doesn't know that the US government, including the Obama administration and President, has lied and lied and lied to us about spying on all of us? Who doesn't know that it has lied about and covered up the reasons for the various wars it has taken us into?
What about US war-criminals, such as those who deliberately lied the US into invading and occupying Iraq?
Bernie calls banksters on Wall Street criminals but doesn't say what he'd do about them? There are statute-of-imitations issues, but a President with a cooperative legislature could still hold banksters to account going forward, avoiding ex post facto problems.
Bernie goes on and on about his view of "family values" and that women control their own bodies (as if, for only one, that fathers don't matter that the babies being carried are every bit as much theirs); but does he dare even touch partial-birth abortions and other serious issues directly involved? He sure didn't say a thing about them in his stump speech.
He'll give 12 weeks to a new mother to bond with her baby, but will he look the other way when the pregnant woman next door has an extremely late-term abortion or partial-birth abortion just because it's "her" body? What is that child, just so much meat until Bernie thinks the maternity leave should kick in? I'm for maternity leave, always have been; but honestly, where's the wise consistency?
My God, we're making chicken growers take their chickens out of little cages (a good thing) while we're acting as if babies in the womb are unfeeling blobs! "The day before he was born, he was worth just as much as 81 days later." ~ Tom Usher:
I could go on and on and on about all of this. There's plenty to like in what Bernie says but just as much not to like because of his avoidance and/or the stands he takes while discussing the surface aspects.
In fact, he's too "conservative" for me on domestic economics. For instance, why just reduce the interest people are paying on student debt? I would have zero problem with the federal government assuming all that debt (buying it all up) and then canceling all of it.
By the way, $1 trillion is far, far less than we need to spend.
He says he'll get $70 billion from taxing Wall Street speculation. Why doesn't he mention Public Banking and better yet, a debt-free currency? He's getting his economic advice from Modern Money Theorists, who don't have any problem with interest/usury (which is counterproductive and includes the Federal Reserve System). See: "Monetary-and-Banking-Reform Platform for The United States." There's your domestic and international economic solution to start with. From there, we can do away with money altogether.I'd rather have leaders who don't have all the answers than to have choices pushed on us where the candidates all mince words and avoid the full spectrum of issues. We need candidates who want to deal with the issues, all of them and in depth.
Is Bernie my man? Obviously not. Is he the worst choice among the so-called top candidates? What difference does that make? "The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." (Luke 11:34-35)
Truth is freedom. The whole truth is complete freedom. Let's reach the whole truth so we may be totally liberated.
This post has been lightly edited for greater clarity.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)