If Hillary Clinton is elected President, which Bill will be more dangerous to humanity: Bill Gates or Bill Clinton?
Here are a couple of resources to help answer this difficult and perplexing question:
An Ex-President, a Big Donor and a Lucrative Uranium Deal - International Herald Tribune
Bill Clinton: Rogue Co-President In Waiting - Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Let's step back and ask a bigger question about the concept of "Market Discipline."
By "market discipline" I mean this: a man who has to earn his living by serving customers turns out to be a better human being -- a more ethical human being -- may I even say a more Christ-like human being -- than a man who appeals to ignorant and covetous "voters" and uses threats of force to extort his paycheck from productive taxpayers.
A free market produces better people, and does not provide as many opportunities for evil people to inflict harm on others. A free market encourages service and persuasion. A world where "governments" take priority over markets is a world immersed in domination and violence.
By the time Bill Gates became wealthy enough to afford to buy nuclear weapons, he had already become the kind of person who is more likely to start a philanthropic foundation than drop nukes on millions of innocent non-combatant civilians (getting married also helped). The market made him that kind of person, because he had to persuade people to buy his products, serving their interests, rather than threatening them with imprisonment or fines or death, as governments do. (Getting married also helped.)
If the U.S. federal government did not exist (or existed only in proportions permitted by the U.S. Constitution) would we have nuclear weapons today? If the U.S. federal government had not gotten involved in World War I, giving rise to Hitler, or subsidized the Soviet Union before World War II and after, giving rise to "the Cold War," would the U.S. have needed to develop nuclear weapons?
Could the great scientific minds needed to develop nuclear weapons have been recruited for the works of death if they had not been seduced by the false religion of "patriotism?"
Would the Rosenbergs have given atomic bomb technology to Moscow in a world guided by markets rather than by statism (the worship of the State)? Did Bill Clinton give nuclear technology to the Chinese Communists because of Market rewards, or because of political rewards? Will Bill and Hillary Clinton increase their personal assets by enabling dictators in the "former" Soviet Union to arm their weapons of mass destruction? (It's not enough for a dictator to have uranium buried in his back yard. He needs to sell some of it to someone who is wealthy enough to buy it, and also unprincipled enough to buy it from a corrupt dictator, and a middleman like Bill Clinton to pull strings to make the deal happen. Then the dictator will have the funds to be able to turn "natural resources" into weapons and still more political power.)
Who are these people? Who is Frank Giustra? Who is Nursultan Nazarbayev? Who are the Clintons? Who is John McCain? Why are these people powerful? Why do they have the power to murder millions of people with the push of a button?
It won't matter who is elected President in November if the religion of statism is not replaced in the hearts of millions of people by what America's founders called "true religion."
The world of "Vine & Fig Tree" -- of "Liberty Under God" -- is a world where a "rogue co-President" is less likely to emerge.