Soft Spoken Presidential Hopeful Dr. Ben Carson Comes Out Swinging for the Campaign

Dr. Ben Carson, the retired chief of Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Hospital, has experienced a meteoric rise in conservative political circles since he upstaged President Barack Obama with a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013.  Carson’s mild mannered delivery of critiques of the Obama-nation coming from a faith filled physician with a compelling personal story stole the show.

Carson’s remarks before the National Prayer Breakfast, as well as CPAC and the Faith and Freedom Coalition spawned a “Draft Ben Carson” campaign, which raised nearly $12 million in a year. The “Run Ben Run” movement played upon peoples’ enthusiasm for a thoughtful prospective politician’s candidacy, but the unaffiliated Super PAC had dubious spending patterns, rolling most of the garnered donations back into the fundraising operation.

In early March 2015, Dr. Carson announced that he was forming an Exploratory Presidential Campaign Committee, which was all but a pro-forma announcement of a White House run.  Since then, Dr. Carson has made numerous media appearances which has inspired increased scrutiny.

Just after the Exploratory Committee announcement, Dr. Carson was drawn into a debate on CNN’s “New Day” with Chris Cuomo on whether homosexuality is a choice.  Carson commented that convicts  "go into prison straight -- and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question," This view syncs with Dr. Carson’s Seventh Day Adventist background and traditional marriage premises but did little to advance his candidacy.

Shortly afterwards, Carson backtracked on the statement saying "I realized that my choice of language does not reflect fully my heart on gay issues." Later, Carson declared that he would no longer speak about gay issues. But the damage had already been done.  Glenn Beck called this quote “the dumbest thing I’ve every heard”, which led Beck to declare that Carson’s candidacy was over just as it begun. That may have been hyperbole, but it was unwise for Dr. Carson to touch today’s third rail of politics in a wonton way. Carson squandered his wider introduction to the public by allowing himself to be painted a bigot for a peripheral point.

As part of the media barnstorming effort, Dr. Carson engaged in a thoughtful radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, a politically center right Salem Radio host who prides himself on not conducting ambush interviews.  Since the 2016 Presidential Campaign cycle may well pivot on foreign policy issues, Hewitt asked about Russian provocations and Western response.  When asked how NATO should respond if Putin made a move on the Baltic States would we go to war, Dr. Carson responded:  “Well, if we have them involved in NATO. We need to convince them to get involved in NATO and strengthen NATO”.

Hewitt later followed up on an inference that Carson did not seem aware that the Baltic States were part of NATO.  Dr. Carson rejoined: “Well, when you were saying Baltic state, I thought you were continuing our conversation about the former components of the Soviet Union. Obviously, there’s only three Baltic states.”  Unfortunately that clarification was as clear as mud as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were former components of the Soviet Union and have some ethnic Russian speaking communities still residing there (which was the pretext for Russia effectively seizing Crimea and try to take the  Donbass).  Hewitt is known for in-depth interviews and going into the proverbial weeds to explore military issues.  Carson’s ignorant answers on defending our Baltic State NATO partners exposes a serious chink in his campaign armor and exhibited a lack a preparation.

Dr. Carson granted a long form interview with GQ magazine which was conducted at Armstrong Williams abode. The resulting piece from Jason Zengerle : “What if Sarah Palin were a brain surgeon?” frames Dr. Carson as the Tea Party’s great White House hope, while sliming him with the Alinsky inspired animus associated Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK).  The pull quote from Carson’s GQ interview involved Armstrong Williams egging on Ben Carson to opine on Obama’s optics.  The soft spoken Dr. Carson pronounced: “Like most psychopaths--that’s why they’re successful. That’s the way they look. They all look great...he's trying to sell what he thinks is not true. He’s sitting there saying, ‘These Americans are so stupid, I can tell them anything.’”

 Dr. Carson is a renowned neurosurgeon, not a psychiatrist, so taking a swipe at President Obama as a psychopath is off the mark.  Such a distant diagnosis from Charles Krauthammer (who was trained as a psychiatrist) seems reasonable, but from Dr. Carson it seems like a harsh characterization.  Part of Carson’s political charm is his mild mannered air of authority.  Being bombastic by characterizing the Obama obsession with optics and fooling “idiotic” Americans sacrifices this strength.  Moreover, this pugilistic “psychopath” trope was nothing new and unlikely to garner much new support.

Ben Carson has proudly declared: “I'm not a politician and that I never intend to become a politician. Even if I'm elected to office, I'm not going to be a politician because they tend to do things that are politically expedient. And I'm not trying to do things that are politically correct.”  In this day and age, not being considered a Beltway Establishment politician is an advantage to base voters who tire of political lies and political correctness.

However Dr. Carson is making plenty of rookie mistakes in on the political field. Allowing a Draft movement to exploit donations which never really make it to the actual campaign may dismay donors. Opining on hot button issues like homosexuality without successfully connecting it to preserving traditional marriage, which should really be an ancillary campaign issue in the first place.  Taking partisan pot shots like labeling the incumbent a psychopath which mars his soft spoken demeanor and popular appeal. Giving extensive access to media outlets like CNN and GQ on the proto campaign roll out which would play gotcha journalism.  Then there is the sin of going on friendly media like Hugh Hewitt unprepared, exposing a key weakness of the candidacy, namely foreign policy chops.

Dr. Carson was no stranger to making controversial statements, such as his interview with conservative radio firebrand Mark Levin in which an animated Dr. Carson called white liberals the worst type of racists for putting blacks in a box.



That perspective may be provocative and perspicacious as a pundit, but it sounds like another thing altogether on the campaign trail, especially with spin coming from other campaigns' opposition research laundered through the compliant press.

 As Dr. Carson continues to move closer to declaring his candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination, he has come out swinging for the fences.  Unfortunately, he seems to be off balance for some of the pitches and creating lots of wind.  To mix sports analogies, the off balance stance on the campaign hustings makes him prone for sucker punches from the Lamestream Media.

Dr. Carson could make great contributions to shaping the campaign conversation in the 2016 Cycle.  His tremendous personal story shatters the liberal labeling of Republicans as the party for old white men.  Dr. Carson’s faith history underscores a potential appeal to evangelical voters, which would be key to victory in the Iowa Caucuses.  As a physician, he would be given great credence for critiquing Obamacare.   So Dr. Carson should eschew some of his ardor against being a politician and get good advice which best represents his brand as a thoughtful outsider who will not abandon promises because it is politically expedient.

Governor Moonbeam and the Green Global Test

As Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was barnstorming the mainstream media before the presumed Republican presidential candidate makes his intentions official, he spoke about Climate Change on Late Night with Seth Myers.




The Lamestream Media would love to paint Senator Cruz as one who sets the world on fire, not just from misunderstood political metaphors but also due to partisan politics on the environment.

Ardent environmentalist Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) used his appearance on Meet the Press as a forum to besmirch Senator Cruz as being unfit for office due to a green global leadership test.

Although this is Jerry Brown's fourth term as Governor of California, long time political observers can recall how Governor Moonbeam hesitated in taking prevailing scientific wisdom in eradicating the Mediterranean fruit fly in 1981, which compounded problems.   Lest anyone believe that Jerry Brown was virtuously standing up for green health concerns, when he ran for governor in 2010, Brown quipped: "If I see a Medfly, I'm going to spray that sucker. I'm not waiting this time."

Notwithstanding Governor Moonbeam's scientific shilly shallying on the Medfly, Brown backs his bluster against a Tea Party bete noir with the 90% scientific consensus statistic.  Well, at least Brown did not use the Al Gore settled science canard.  Wonder if how much of this consensus was based on the falsified East Anglia hockey stick model.  Then there is the temptation for climate scientists can  to claim "the sky is falling" for more money to study the issue.

Senator Cruz noted that satellite data over the last 17 years has not shown any increase in temperatures.

What have leading climate scientists had to say about this mercurial anomaly?

Governor Moonbeam's Green Global test seems little more than a progressive popularity contest and paint your political opponents as ignorant knuckle draggers.  As Governor Brown admitted on Meet the Press, he would have run for President (again) if he were only 10 years younger. But he probably would have run as a watermelon candidate-- green on the outside and red on the inside. 

Barack Obama on DHS Funding

  

 During the lame duck session of the 112th Congress, House Republicans fully funded FY 2015 budget, with the exception of Department of Homeland Security, in which a short term continuing resolution was applied to allow for a rider which would not Congressionally fund President Obama's Executive Action on illegal immigration.

 In the new 113th Congress, Senate Democrats refused to allow cloture to debate the DHS bill, lest the funding bill pass on majority terms.  The Obama White House and lackeys in the Lamestream Media and Senate Democrats are striving to frame Republicans for being obstructionists for not rubber stamping Mr. Obama's extra-constitutional effective amnesty. 

 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has suggested bifurcating the Executive Amnesty issue from DHS funding.  But this legislative legerdemain was acceptable to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) only if House Speaker John Boehner acceded to Obama's will.  So far, Speaker Boehner holds the attitude that Senate Democrats ought to "get off their asses" and vote on the House bill. 

The GOP opponents seek to claim that Republicans will endanger the nation due to not funding DHS's $38 Billion budget. Alas, 80% of DHS's 240,000 employees are essential workers, who are required to report to work without a guaranteed pay check (even though all workers have routinely been paid after a budget standoff).  So security should not be an issue, even though the Obama Administration has been hyping the Boko Haram and al Shabob threat on the Mall of America and other Jewish owned shopping centers (but this has nothing to do with certain religions). 

So now the Obama Administration's tact has shifted to hardball politics.  During a townhall meeting telecast on MSNBC and Telemundo, President Obama dared the Republicans to pass the House bill, which would merit another Obama veto.   

  

 May the majorities in Congress stick to their principles and not quickly fold to a passive aggressive bully chief executive.  No matter what, the Lamestream Media is ready to repudiate Republicans. But the shutdown is so targeted that the public won't shed tears over the World War II monument being shut down as during the Flying Flip shutdown of October 2013.

h/t: Bruce Plante

Guardians of Free Speech or Vanguards of the Dhimmitude?

The Mainstream Media loves to trumpet the trope that they are Guardians of First Amendment rights for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.  However, the timorous self-censoring displayed by major media outlets in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terror attack in Paris exposes this ideal as an intellectual chimera.

CNN Senior Editorial Director Richard Griffin issued an internal memo which dictated that the media outlet not show images that could be considered offensive to Muslims.  The Politico released Griffin's email:

Although we are not at this time showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet considered offensive by many Muslims, platforms are encouraged to verbally describe the cartoons in detail. This is key to understanding the nature of the attack on the magazine and the tension between free expression and respect for religion. 

Video or stills of street protests showing Parisians holding up copies of the offensive cartoons, if shot wide, are also OK. Avoid close-ups of the cartoons that make them clearly legible.

It's also OK to show most of the protest cartoons making the rounds online, though care should be taken to avoid examples that include within them detailed depictions of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

NBC News mimicked this tact by guiding their outlets to neither show headlines nor cartoons which could be deemed insensitive or offensive.

In the print medium, the Associated Press applied an internal policy of "not moving deliberately provocative images" so it removed Charlie Hebdo images from their database. However, it only took the Associate Press 27 years and an embarrassing exposure by the Washington Examiner for the same standard to be applied to Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" (1987).   Was this because a crucifix dipped in urine and displayed as art is not deliberately provocative? Do elitist editors think that anti-Christian imagery is not provocative but that they dare not offend adherents to the Prophet Mohammad?  Or does publishing some provocative pictures might put their lives on the line by radical terrorists?

The New York Daily News covered the source material which provoked these three Islamic terrorists to assassinate twelve French citizens by pixillating the Prophet Mohammad's image.

Stephane Charbonnier posing with satirical cover pixillated in NY Daily News {photo FRED DUFOUR/AFP}

As Mark Steyn remarked, the New York Daily News put Mohammad in the witness protection program with their editorial sensitivity, yet the editors did not obscure the hook nose caricature of a Jew which shared the frame. So much for sensitivity or avoiding provocative pictures.

It is galling that the media outlets are proud as a peacock as being protectors of Free Speech while acting in a duplicitous and cowardly manner.  While these Charlie Hedbo pictures are provocative, they are no longer a polemic point of view but now are a news story. None the less, the major media acts in a Milquetoast manner towards the prophet Mohammad.  No wonder why they can derisively known as the "Lamestream Media".

In 2013, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) sought to limit who can be a journalist. Feinstein argued that a federal shield law should only apply to "real reporters".  But what if these paid journalists refuse to report the news?

These pusillanimous journalists should review what dhimmitude means.  This second class citizenship of non-Muslims acknowledges the dominance of sharia law and does not allow anything to offend those within the Dar-Islam.   Self-censorship so as not to give offense to Muslims is a major step in accepting those social shackles.

In Paris, many protesters to the Charlie Hebdo atrocity carried pencils to symbolize that the pencil is mightier than the sword and that they are not afraid. The cartoon of the Twin Tower of Pencils links terrorism from America's 9/11 attack to the Parisian terrorism.  Sadly this cartoon has another connection.  American news networks stopped showing the terrorist planes hitting the World Trade Center except briefly during the 9/11 anniversary to supposedly not to show provocative images. Of course, such horrific footage might remind people about the consequences of unchecked terrorism.  

How the Clintons' Treat Pressitutes

The First Amendment of the US Constitution is in part intended to ensure Americans of a the Freedom of the Press.  But that fundamental freedom does not ensure access when progressive politicians want to manage the message by rounding up reporters and controlling access.

New York Times reporter Amy Chozick revealed how the Clinton Global Initiative separates reporters from an event which they are supposed to cover.  Of course, the special treatment is attributed to "security".  

This monitoring went to the extend of a 20 something year old aide following Ms. Chozick into the bathroom.  Kind of sounds like North Korea, but with electricity.

Perhaps the New York Times reporter earned some extra special treatment considering the critical pieces which the "Old Grey Lady" published in 2013 about the disarray with the Clinton Foundation:

“For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.”

Control access and effectively manage the message.  So much for "All the news that's fit to print". Or as Greta Van Susteren pointed out, many in the White House press corps are happy to accept Obama Administration edits of White House Press Pool reports.

The Obama Administration brags that it is "absolutely" the most transparent Administration ever.  But just because White House Spokesman Josh Earnest uttered the phrase, it ain't necessarily so. In July 2014, 38 press organizations and transparency groups sent a letter to the White House calling for  the Obama administration to end “politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies".    The plea from the press noted:

“Over the past two decades, public agencies have increasingly prohibited staff from communicating with journalists unless they go through public affairs offices or through political appointees,” the letter reads. “This trend has been especially pronounced in the federal government. We consider these restrictions a form of censorship—an attempt to control what the public is allowed to see and hear.”

Confining journalists is not just a Clinton trick. Reporters have recently been sequestered in a bedroom during an Obama fundraiser.

One unlucky journalist was made to wait in a maintenance  shed while the Golfer in Chief hit the links at the tony Robert Trent Jones Golf Course in Gainesville, Virginia.  While Houston Chronicle reporter Kevin Diaz could not see any of the drives on the golf course, he could report a motorist on I-66 give the Presidential motorcade a "lone eagle salute" to the motorcade.  And in 2011, Vice President Joe Biden's aides locked a reporter in storage closet during a fundraiser.

While these shoddy treatments of the press can be chronicled through jocund journalistic jibes on social media or short comedic reports on television morning news, this is because the perpetrators were liberals with whom the reporters generally agree.  If a Republican treated the press in such a high handed manner, no doubt the Fourth Estate would be clamoring for impeachment.

Controlling access and projecting positive optics as an easy story for prospective presstitutes.  Former Senator Hillary Rodman Clinton has been touted as one of the smartest and most accomplished women in America thus she should become President.  When I queried a die hard Hillary! supporter, I asked her to cite one concrete accomplishment from her four year tenure in the Obama Administration's Secretary of State.   This Hillary fan did not not even try to claim that Hillary's extensive travels counted as an accomplishment. When pressed, the Hillary supporter resorted to retorting that Hillary earned it by standing by her man through thick and thin.

So to reach low information voters predisposed to support a leading female candidate, it may be enough to feed presstitutes with positive stories and manage messages by controlling unfiltered access.

This might explain why the Lamestream Media ate up the Clintons' photo op at the 39th annual Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Steak Fry but criticized President George W. Bush for posing with a fake turkey when visiting troops in Afghanistan for Thanksgiving.

[L] Ex-Sen.  Hillary Clinton (D-NY) [C] Ex- President Bill Clinton [R] Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) at Steak Fry 

Whereas, National Review's Jim Geraghty, who certainly would not get a press credential on a Hillary! campaign, presented more piquant coverage of the Iowa photo op.

“How perfectly Clintonian: ‘While a crowd of several thousand Democrats waited on a sloping, grassy field below, Mrs Clinton, her husband and Senator Harkin staged a mini-grilling of steaks for the press at a single barbecue grill in a fenced-off enclosure, framed by a handsome tree and a picnic table filled with some patient Iowans. Mrs Clinton gamely posed, pretending to grill a steak that had been pre-cooked for her"

Bridging the Gulf in Obama's Geographic Knowledge

During the close of President Barack Obama's sixth appearance as Chief Executive on NBC's Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Mr. Obama sought to embarrass penny pinching opponents to infrastructure "investments."



President Obama opined that as the Panama Canal is being widened to accommodate Super-Tankers, Gulf Coast ports like Charleston, South Carolina, Savannah, Georgia and Jacksonville, Florida needed to dredge their ports lest these trade tankers go elsewhere.

Perhaps these ships will navigate in the Gulf instead of venturing to Southeast Atlantic seaports.

This gulf in geographic knowledge should not be surprising to a high information voter.  During the 2008 Presidential election, then candidate Senator Obama (D-IL) claimed that he had visited 57 states and had one more to go.

While such a verbal flub like the 57 states faux pas may delight detractors, it is easy to understand it as a slip of a tongue from a tired candidate without the retinue of White House staffers.   For the latest Late Night appearance, Mr. Obama is coming off of vacation (again).  The President sought a softball interview with an entertainer.  Mr. Obama brought out specifics and they had no correspondence to reality on the map.

When President George W. Bush mispoke, the establishment liberal media (a.k.a. the Lamestream Media) was quick to label him a dunce and persiverate in mocking the former President's intelligence.  More likely than not, the Lamestream Media will ignore this flub because it does not fit their natural narrative and asking hard questions to our Dear Leader may cause a journalist their job or access to the White House.

SNAP -- Food for Thought

Despite the happy news reports from the Lamestream Media that the economy is on the mend and the end of the housing meltdown, a record number of Americans are on food stamps.  In 2012, the federal government spent $74.6 billion on food stamps, which was increase of 70% from the amount spent prior to the 2008 downturn.   Now 15% of the populace or 47.8 million people on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

As the federal government defaulted its budgeting duties to sequestration, which is just a 2.3% cut in the rate of domestic spending growth, the Obama Administration has been making these budget reductions as painful as possible for the American people.  So a variety of high profile ham-handed cuts have been made, like releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants in detention facilities, cancelling White House tours for school kids, rolling closures at the Smithsonian Museums, reducing the size of the Marine Corps by 22,000, cutting military contractors by one day furlows amount to a 20% salary cut, cancelling Blue Angels flights, cutting the Air Forces flights by nearly 20%, delaying maintenance on navel vessels delaying deployment, cuts in air traffic controllers delaying flights and more. 

 In this artificially austere environment, the Obama Administration continues sharing the SNAP program for illegal aliens.





Judicial Watch has exposed documenst from the U.S. Department of Agriculture of Spanish language advertising campaign sent to the Mexican embassy advising people how to apply for food stamps in the United States.  The salient detail is a statement that is both bolded and underlined  which notes: “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”

So a government that is so supposedly cash strapped that it is laying off air traffic controllers,  government contractors and risking military readiness continues a campaign for what the politically correct Obama Administration (and the White House stenographers working for the Associated Press) would label  "undocumented immigrants."   Or as Jay Leno joked, "undocumented Democrats."



Nevertheless, this neither inspires confidence in the competency of comprehensive immigration legislation, Executive Branch budgeting skills or public policy prioritization.

 While this information has prompted Senator John Thune (R-SD) to vow that this USDA program will be cut, these seem like empty words from a minority party in a Senate that did not even bother to pass a budget for three years.  When Senator Harry Reid decided to finally pass a budget, after the threat of not being paid unless they did their jobs,  the Senate Democrat passed budget featured another $1 trillion tax hike and the budget deficit actually increases. 

Rather than appealing to Mexicans, maybe we should target our advertising to give succor to Chavistas, as America is currently being run like a banana republic, albeit without the comfy upscale clothing.  

Philadelphia Fallout From the Abortionist Kermit Gosnell Trial

The horrific testimony about Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who is being tried for
the murder of seven newborns and a Bhutanese female refuge after a botched abortion has shown that ideology isolates opinion on mass murder.  While America is outraged over the cruel killing and maiming that the Boston Marathon Bombers inflicted, the media had to be shamed into briefly covering a doctor who's groundbreaking technique was to snip the spinal cords of infants after being born to "ensure fetal demise" and storing dozens on jars of dismembered body parts on shelves.

Kermit Gosnell's attorney Jack McMahon

Through his lawyer Jack McMahon, Gosnell claims  that: "Everybody's made him the butcher, this, that and the other thing without any trial, without anything being exposed to the public and everybody's found him guilty, that's not right"..  Furthermore, the Gosnell's legal mouthpiece asserted that: "This is a targeted, elitist and racist prosecution of a doctor who's done nothing but give (back) to the poor and the people of West Philadelphia."  If that were the case, why did Gosnell's defense not bring it up in trial--after all, the two year gag order was moot in court.   Instead, the  Gosnell defense rested without calling a single witness.


The lack of curiosity in the Lamestream Media over the testimony for the  House of Horrors at 3801 Lancaster is understandable as political partisans who do not want the sacrament of abortion on demand to be endangered.

 But even for those who fervently support the right of a mother to an unborn baby, they should be concerned at the basically unregulated health and sanitary conditions and disparate treatment of their desperate customers.

Public health officials found unsterile medical instruments, with rusty and outdated equipment covered with dust. Gosnell admitted that perhaps 20% of his procedures were on women after their 24th week, which is in violation of Commonwealth of  Pennsylvania law. In fact, during trial a worker at the clinic testified that Gosnell joked that one baby that he aborted was big enough to walk him home.

The clinic had a string of violations which were never corrected. Then Pennsylvania Health officials stopped inspecting for ten years for what observers might conclude were willful political ignorance about protected procedures.

There was testimony that rang of medical malpractice of women being injured by careless surgical technique on the cervix. And then the clinic had non-licensed individuals, including a 15 year old high school student aiding in surgeries.

When Gosnell applied to become a member of the National Abortion Federation, the Evaluator reported that the records were a mess, that patients were not properly informed of medical risks, that anesthesia was misused and that equipment was not available.  While the invigilator from NAF rejected Gosnell's establishment terming it the worst abortion clinic that she ever inspected, this cornucopia of snafus was not reported to authorities.  So much for caring about womens' health or civic duty.

 It is rich to hear Gosnell's defense talk about racism and targeted treatment when Gosnell himself gave disparate treatment to white women as it was the "way of the world" because they might report him, unlike his Black and Asian clientele.

Pro Life people were dismayed when the trial court judge threw out three counts of the first degree murder for newborns as not having enough evidence to present at trial.  This was probably aided by the documented fact that  Gosnell' destroyed clinic records before he was raided.  The trial judge later reinstated one count on the newborn thrown in a shoe box. Thus Gosnell is still being tried for five first degree murders and the third degree murder of the botched abortion. While this records cleansing may spare him some jail time, the publish should know his record.

If the Lamestream Media would do its job, there would be little need to have a slew of summer Horror flicks as all one would need to do is review Gosnell trial coverage. However the elite liberal media reports on what it cares about, ignores the rest while disparaging journalists who do not follow the party line. For those who can stomach the gory details, it is worth watching the documentary 3801 Lancaster (2013)  by director David Altrogge.



 


h/t: Conrad Friedersdorf, the Atlantic

Rand Paul's Blockbuster Filibuster

Yesterday, first term Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the floor and spoke for nearly 13 hours in a filibuster of a cloture vote for CIA nominee John Brennan.  The talking filibuster was prompted by repeatedly evasive answers that Obama Administration Attorney General Eric Holder gave when testifying about the potential of drone attacks in the United States not engaged in battle without due process considerations. 

This was the first talking filibuster since Senator Bernie Sanders ("I"-VT) held the Senate floor for eight hours in protest of President Obama's proposed tax cut.   Senator Paul was not the only renegade Senator to participate in this filibuster.   Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and even Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) took turns participating in the filibuster by asking long winded, ambling "questions" which gave Paul a chance to rest his voice.  

A few other GOP old hands lent some help.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senator John Thune (R-SD) added their voices late in the filibuster.  And Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) gave Sen. Paul some symbolic sustenance by offering an apple and tea, which mirrored "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939). 

Senator Paul offered to quit his filibuster after seven hours if Senate Democrats would consent to a non-binding resolution which expressed opposition to killing American citizens on American soil not engaged in imminent combat without due process.  The Democrats demurred on the offer, proposing instead to study it in committee.  Senator Paul declined this modest proposal and spoke on. 

The interesting thing was the confluence of events while Senator Paul's filibuster was occurring.  President Obama took a twenty car motorcade for the four block trip to the Jefferson Hotel to dine with the likes of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) supposedly on the President's own dime.     Mr. Obama's largess with GOP members of the Cocktail Party seems to have quickly paid dividends as Sen. McCain took to the Senate floor the next day to echo print criticisms against the filibuster.

“If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms.”

Senator Graham mouthed the bipartisan critique wondering if Republicans would protest drones under President Bush.  It seems as if McCain and Graham had sour grapes as their bipartisan last supper with Obama was upstaged by the filibuster. 

The elite liberal media poo-pooed Senator Paul's filibuster, noting that the Senate CSPAN2 cameraman was reading a newspaper and only 30 people were present during a portion of the afternoon filibuster.  But social media, like Twitter and Facebook, buzzed about  #StandwithRand. The day after, talk radio trumpeted Senator Paul's audacity for straight shooting to speak up for the Constitution and hold the Obama Administration accountable. 

 CSPAN2 certainly does not subscribe to an Arbitron ratings book, it surely must have achieved blockbuster viewership than for a typical Wednesday evening in the Washington wonk cable channel. While it would be a stretch to think that Senator Paul droning on was buffo box office, the filibuster was a blockbuster for several reasons. 

This was the first instance in the 113th Congress when one legislator was able to stand up to the bully pulpit of the Obama White House and the loyal Lamestream Media stenography pool  by standing for Constitutional principles. 

Senator Paul did the hard thing, by initiating a talking filibuster rather than relying upon cloture votes and it drew significant attention outside of the District of Calamity.  The filibuster for civil liberties even garnered material support from civil liberty oriented liberal Senator Ron Wyden. 

Senator Paul taking a stand on the Senate floor drew enough negative attention upon the Obama Administration to shame Attorney General Holder into eventually issuing a clarification.  The DOJ statement admitted  that President Obama did not have the power to launch drone strikes against Americans in America who are not engaged in imminent violence.  Funny what a filibuster can force elected officials to do.

The filibuster energized the base for Republicans, while it exposed the complacent coziness that Cocktail Party politicos who trumpet bipartisanship yet sell out both party principles and Constitutional concerns. Both McCain and Graham are up for re-election in the 2014 cycle so they ought to expect fierce primary challenges.  But the way Cocktail Party weenies have mocked the so called Tea Party hobbits, we soon might refer to the GOP as the Whig Party as Tea Party types and libertarians leave for greener political pastures. 

And clearly Rand Paul's star is rising in the American political firmament.  Senator Paul had been raising his profile by giving the Tea Party Express response to President Obama's 2013 State of the Union speech. It seems that Senator Paul is angling to run for President in 2016.   But Paul is bringing a dynamic, principled and pragmatic libertarian politics to our national debate. 

SOTU Reactions--Stay Thirsty My Friends

During Senator Marco Rubio's (R-FL) Republican response to the 2013 State of the Union speech, he experienced some cotton mouth and took a swig of water which was stored slightly out of frame. 

Perhaps he should have wet the whistle between giving his Spanish State of the Union rebuttal  and the English edition. 

Admittedly, the optics of this "Water-gate" were awkward.  Even the cameraman in the Speaker's ante-chamber blurted out "Uh oh". In follow up media appearances, Rubio used self-deprecating humor to minimize the muffed moment.  But it is sad to think that this slight media misstep dominates the coverage of the evening.  

Over the hour when President Obama gave his 6500 word State of the Union speech (the second shortest SOTU during his presidency), there were many incredible utterances which should make political watchers squirm.  Mr. Obama claimed to have reduced the deficit by $2 Trillion during his time in office.  The White House must have employed some creative accountants to conjure up that false factoid, as the deficit had grown by $6 trillion over four years.  Then there was the audacity of hope which Obama exclaimed that his 29 new programs won't cost taxpayers any more money.  If that is true, it must mean that there will be unfunded federal madates to the states to cover universal pre-school.  Another Federal mandate which gets dumped on cash strapped states. 

But instead of exploring the impact of the laundry list of new Obama initiatives, it was "smarter government" for the Obama stenographers posing as the elite Liberal Media to promote the "Zero Dark Thirsty" meme.   So instead of thirsting for the truth,  the Lamestream Media sates itself by spreading the snark which is an ad hominem attack on Obama's opponent. 

For those who care about the country, it is wise to stay thirsty for the truth, even if it is lampooned by the Liberal Media.

Lotto Luck Avoiding the Fiscal Cliff

As American teeters at the edge of the fiscal cliff, and most of the Lamestream Media gave saturation coverage to Powerball mania, it may be instructive to use the lotto fever paradigm to explain the futility of “soaking the rich” via President Obama’s unceasing class warfare campaigning as governing strategy.

As the Heritage Foundation’s graphic illustrates, even confiscating all of the lucky Lotto winners gross (granted government already takes around 50%), this would only fund the Federal Government for 86 MINUTES.  As Representative Tom Price (R-GA 6th) pointed out that President Obama’s plan to increase rates on the wealthiest 2% of Americans would only fund the government for EIGHT DAYS.  John Stossel points out that seizing the income of Americans earning $1 million or more would only garner $616 Billion, which is only 1/3rd of this year’s deficit.

It is worth noting that Mr. Obama’s opening bid to avoid the fiscal cliff was raising taxes by $1.6 Trillion over 10 years with ambiguous ersatz spending cuts made by future legislators.

Unless the IRS dons brown shirts, they probably will not seize all of the assets of the richy rich.  And remember that the Obama Administration considers the rich to be singles making $200,000 or couples making $250,000 a year.  Those upper incomes might be living large in “flyover” country, but in the true politically blue coastal cities like NY, DC, LA or SF, that may be barely getting by as middle class if you are married with children.



Much as it may be satisfying to socialist sympathsizing class warriors who want to excoriate the unconnected high income individuals, it is worth doing a cost benefit analysis.  Great Britain scrapped their 50% tax rates on high income earners when it discovered that it was garnering 2/3rds less than expected with the confiscatory rates.   Newly elected French President Francois  Hollande thinks that he can raise the rates on top Gallic grossers to 75% for just two years to better balance the books.  Alas, French tax evaders can take a 90 minute trip on the Chunnel to avoid those outrageous tax rates.  Soon Californian will see if there is capital flight after voters passed Proposition 30, which raised both taxes on the wealthy and the state sales tax in the midst of a shaky economy.  Will the mobile upper economic crust from the Golden State flee to lower taxing states–Who is John Galt?

While conservatives were disappointed that President Obama achieved re-election, the time for being campaigner-in-chief is over–now is the time to govern.  If President Obama is a leader then he should work with his Congressional counterparts to craft a legislative vehicle to avoid the fiscal cliff.  But if the Obama White House persists in playing puerile politics on Sequestration, then it may be time for Thelma and Louise, albeit without the sensible shoes.




If the American public thinks that by soaking the wealthiest one percent, it will balance the budget, then lotto luck.  If they are able to engage in critical thinking, it would behoove them to determine what is someone’s “fair share”.  Moreover, since the Obama Administration has defined millionaires downward to just $200,000, they should discern how low the label of the wealthy will go when seizing true millionaire’s incomes only funds the government for around just 100 days.  As Ayn Rand observed in Atlas Shrugged: “If you don't know, the thing to do is not to get scared, but to learn.”

h/t: Heritage.org