Contestant #6: The Doctor is In…Sane

The next in a series of biased reports about the men and women who want to be President of the United States.

Ben Carson. A great surgeon. Proof that a person can excel in one area and be a total incompetent in other areas.

A look at Mr Carson’s website: https://www.bencarson.com/issues/

Ben has no experience in governing. Which is fine. But he has no record of voting on issues.  So his website is especially important. It allows us to see the depth of his understanding of political issues and the practical solutions he puts forth.

His site lists 10 issues. They are: A Balanced Budget Amendment; Education; Keep Gitmo Open; Keep Faith in Our Society; Health Care; Protect Innocent Life; Russia;2nd Amendment; Israel; and, the Tax Code.

Ben wants an amendment to the Constitution to balance the budget. He makes no recommendations on what he would cut to do so. Voodoo.

Education. Schools are failing. He wants to improve schools by having more “local control” and less big government interference. He would stop common core. Evidently Ben does not know that our educational system is the ONLY area in our lives where “local control” dominates and has done so since book learnin began. . Maybe that is why schools are failing in some communities? He also evidently does not know that common core is not mandated .

Ben wants to keep prisoners at Gitmo without trial. Evidently he does not believe that evidence should be required to detain folks.  (To his credit he does not claim to support the Constitution).

He wants religions to be able to practice their faith. I am not sure who opposes this.

He wants to end the ACA and fund health care through individual “Health Savings Accounts” which will drive down health care costs. Does not explain how this keeps costs down. I guess if you tell your doctor that you are paying with a HSA he will cut you a deal? And on a minimum wage salary it should be easy to sock away a lot of loot into your family’s HSA.  Yep. That will work.

He wants to protect innocent life. Don’t we all?

He thinks Russia must be dealt with. And he supports Israel. So far, so good.

He thinks the 2nd Amendment should stay on the books. Hard to argue that.

And he wants to change the tax code and eliminate the IRS. Not sure how taxes get collected?

All in all, his “Issues” amount to vague generalities, code words and general ideas. To put it bluntly. This guy is full of crap.

One example is from his “Keep the Faith” explanation. He wrongly asserts that the US was based on the Declaration of Independence as the “bedrock” document. It wasn’t . The Declaration lead to the Articles of Confederation, which was a massive failure. The “bedrock” document of the USA is the Constitution, which fails to mention any religion.

There’s more. And I quote:

“…However, we need to reverse the recent trend of secular progressives using activist, federal judges to drive faith out of our society. Anyone who wishes to practice their faith, for example by praying privately, can and should be able to do so. Equally, the rights of someone to abstain from private prayer should also be jealously protected…”

He cites no case in which judges have DRIVEN OUT faith. (Is he not aware of Hobby Lobby?). And he says people should be able to pray privately. Who , in god’s name, is STOPPING THEM  from praying privately?

I have to stop. The shallowness of his thinking, the lack of understanding of US history, the use of code words. I can’t decide if he is the most devious, dishonest candidate to date or if he is actually dumber than Sarah Palin . (Now that WOULD be an accomplishment.)

Last note: He forgot to mention Prison Reform on his website. After all, “Dr” Ben is the guy who insisted that prisons create gays.

Contestant #4: Rubio…Less Than Meets the Eye.

(This is the fourth in a series of biased reports about the people who think they are qualified to be president. Really. They do. They think they should be the most powerful human being on earth. Really.)

I somehow missed it. On April 13 Marco Rubio evidently announced that he wanted to be President of the US. I missed it.

I had a little trouble finding his campaign website but I finally did. (marcorubio.com).

In announcing his candidacy he emphasized that he was a break with the old way of politics . A new beginning. A new way. Oh, I almost forgot. He announced his candidacy to his wealthy donors before he told the rest of us. A new way?

I checked his Senate website looking for specific legislation he has sponsored and/or passed. None mentioned. (rubio.senate.gov)

His campaign website has 5 issues. Each has a nice picture and the usual Obama-is-bad statements. I think someone should tell Marco that Obama will not be running again.

His 5 issues: Isis, Cuba, Iran, Abortion,Israel.

Nothing on health care. Nothing on unemployment.  Nothing on job creation. Nothing on immigration. Nothing on gun violence. To look at his website you would think he is running for Secretary of State….hmmm.

On ISIS he says we should kill them. He says we cannot “ignore” the problem. Yet, he has proposed no legislation authorizing the POTUS to do so. He does sit on the foreign relations committee, so he could write a bill.  But killing ISIS is a good idea. Obama should have thought of that.

On Cuba he says that Cuba is an exporter of terror and we should not have relations with dictatorships. Isolate dictatorships. An interesting principle. But he makes no comments about our China policy. He wants to keep Cuba isolated because it is a “communist” dictatorship. Maybe China is a nice communist dictatorship?  Did I mention he rejects the policies of the past and looks to the future?

On Iran he says we should isolate them as well. We should do what Netanyahu tells us to do. Does Rubio really think that the US can unilaterally decide world arms policies? And why should we look to Israel to determine our foreign policy?

On Israel he is clear. Obama  (there he is again) has “failed to stand with Israel”. But a quick check of military aid to Israel shows that under Obama the US has given much more aid than under Bush. More, in fact, than any other administration. Giving more aid and making it clear that we will support Israel in any attack is somehow “failing to stand” with Israel?  (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html)

The only domestic issue he chooses to include on his website deals with abortion. He is unequivocal. Roe v Wade, which guarantees a woman the right to an abortion, is “morally wrong” and should be overturned. He does not elaborate .

In some of his speeches Rubio has called for more tax breaks to create jobs. (Reaganomics) He has denied the science of climate change. Wants to go back to a time when all abortions were illegal. He was for immigration reform or not. Opposes any gun restrictions. Wants to isolate Cuba. Did I mention that he wants to look to the future and rejects the policies of the past?

His main claim seems to be that he is young. He emphasizes his youth as though it is somehow a qualification in and of itself.

In the political boxing ring Rubio is not a lightweight. He is a featherweight. Old wine in new skins. A blast from the past.

Much, much less than meets the eye.

Tom Reed…Pants on Fire !

Politicians are well known to lie, er, prevaricate, er, exaggerate about their accomplishments.This is nothing new and no surprise. So,  when Congressman Tom Reed of the NY-23 sends out campaign materials touting his support for Medicare or Social Security I am not impressed. Or bewildered. While Mr. Reed has voted to privatize Medicare he can, with a politician’s straight face, claim he supports it. Even has pictures taken with old people. What further proof do we need. But I give him a pass. After all, misinforming the voters about your real values, beliefs and income sources is how the game is played. Borderline dishonest? Yep. But we are big boys. We can see through it.

And when a politician stretches the truth about an opponent that is also part of the game. Like when Tom Reed’s people put up a website that claimed his opponent supports child molesters (Peter Yarrow of Peter Paul and Mary fame). Yarrow did do a fundraiser for Robertson. Now, stretching that to suggest she supports child molesters might remind you of the famous “Willie Horton” ad by George H. W. Bush. The one with the picture of the scary black guy who was furloughed from prison when Mike Dukakis was Governor. Absolute proof that Dukakis supports rapists, at least scary black rapists. In the nasty world of American politics all of this is now considered acceptable, while being slimy. Yet, acceptable.

So, lying about your own record. Acceptable. Insinuating that your opponent loves child molesters and rapists. Slimy, but acceptable. (Only an idiot would believe that stuff, after all).

But intentionally lying about your opponents positions on issues. That is a no-no. Or should be.

But this is what Tom Reed’s supporters have done. My proof? I am looking at a flyer from the GOP State Committee of NY.

First, It says that Reed’s opponent, Martha Roberston, does not support the 2nd Amendment ! What ! She does not support our right to own a gun? I need to hear more.

On the backside of the flyer it gives 4 big Xes followed by the following statements:

Supports Andrew Cuomo’s Safe Act
Failed to Sign a Pledge to Repeal Safe Act
LED the only county legislature in Upstate NY that REFUSED to call on Governor Cuomo to Repeal the Safe Act.
Voted to BAN RIFLE HUNTING as County Legislative Chair.
SAY NO to Martha Robertson’s plan to strip away our 2nd Amendment rights.

That’s it. The GOP has stated Martha Robertson has a PLAN to strip away gun rights. A PLAN. That is pretty insidious. So, let’s look at their facts, one at a time.

Martha SUPPORTS the Safe Act and lead the only county legislature that refused to call for a repeal of the Safe Act. Both of those statements are based on the Thomkins County legislature Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2013. BUT, when you read the summary of that meeting you realize that Martha Robertson did not LEAD the legislature to refuse to call for the repeal. In fact, you find that she VOTED in the MINORITY (5-10) against the resolution supporting the Safe Act.  So, the two statements in this flyer, that she LED the legislature in voting to support the Safe Act and that she SUPPORTS the Safe Act are just plain FALSE. No two ways about it. FALSE.

The “rifle ban” for Thomkins County. Is accurate. Misleading but somewhat accurate. The county was asked to consider allowing rifles and after PUBLIC HEARINGS and listening  to their constituents they voted no. Along with a few other upstate counties. Does this mean that there is a PLAN to take away your 2nd Amendment rights ? If so, it is a weird plan. Why? Because Thomkins County continues to ALLOW hunting with bow, muzzleloader, handgun and shotgun. Just like many other counties. If you want to hunt with a rifle you can drive to the next county and do so. The idea that a ban on a specific weapon, desired by a county, is somehow a PLAN to take away gun rights..well…FALSE.

The flyer says Robertson FAILED to sign a pledge to repeal the Safe Act. That seems to be the ONLY true statement in the entire flyer. TRUE (I hope). I say I hope because only an IDIOT would sign a pledge given to them by private citizens to support a private group. When you are an elected official you serve ALL the people. Taking a pledge to serve the interests of one group should be illegal. It is certainly unethical. And downright STUPID. Times change. New situations arise. A politician needs to be flexible. And a leader, not a follower. Pledges are for school children and politicians who don’t want to consider options.

Which brings me to Tom Reed. Tom HAS taken a pledge. A pledge to Grover Norquist. A private citizen. Not a resident of NY-29. A pledge not to raise taxes on Grover or any of the wealthy no matter what the consequences. Even if it means shutting down the government. No matter how situations and conditions change. I thought he also took a pledge to serve the people.  A man cannot serve two masters (I just made that up).

So, Mr .Reed. Based on the flyer about your opponent, Martha Robertson, I have to say what we used to say on the playground when Cindy Lou was caught prevaricating once again: “LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE .”

(On a personal note. Please comment if you like or don’t like this post so I know if anyone other than the cat is reading these. Yes, Klyde reads these diligently)