Run Where, Exactly?

I sent them this reply, referencing a Knoxville Gun Rights Examiner column by Liston Matthews I linked to earlier this month:

So is he going to answer this?
http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-rights-quiz-for-dr-ben-carson

How about some unequivocal specifics to undo some of the damage he has done to his credibility with gun owners? How about running toward addressing their legitimate concerns, instead of away from them?

Or should I instead convey the campaign's silence and avoidance?

UPDATE: Well, I got an answer for Liston:

It is very unlikely Dr.Carson will be able to respond to this, he has been very busy lately. His book tours are very time consuming, and you would have to contact him directly for a response. The Draft Ben Carson effort is not associated with Dr.Carson, meaning, we can not communicate with him by law. However, everything Dr.Carson has stated concerning gun laws is below. Rest assured, he certainly does support the 2nd Amendment. 

Does Dr. Carson support the Second Amendment? - Yes.***** Dr. Carson wants to keep guns out of the hands of mentally impaired individuals and violent criminals, and he fully supports gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. 

Some of his comments include: “To threaten the Second Amendment rights of ordinary American citizens is itself insanity. Those wishing to ban all assault weapons fail to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment.” 

"I used to think they (guns) needed to be registered, but if you register them they just come and find you and take your guns." 

"If we were only concerned about external forces, then we would be okay, but there are some pretty sinister internal forces." 

"I truly believe in Second Amendment rights. I would never advocate anything to interfere with Second Amendment rights; however, I do think we have to be intelligent." 

We need to engage in a discussion about, 'Is there something we can do?'" (about keeping guns away from criminals and mentally ill people.) 

"We have to keep in mind that law-abiding American citizens absolutely should have gun rights." 

Thanks,

RunBenRun.Org --Draft Ben Carson 2016 Like Us On Face Book! www.facebook.com/RunBenRun.Org FOLLOW US ON TWITTER! https://twitter.com/draftrunbenrun

"Rest assured"?  Did they really just say that? To me?

I wonder if Kurt will...

So: How do we bypass the cheerleading squad and reach the man behind the curtain?

Sympathy for the Devil

Gimme that old time religion?

Opportunistic political panderers from both parties, along with special interests are having a field day attacking Ben Carson for saying he does not believe Islam is consistent with the Constitution, and that he "would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Thinking they've found a prime "Gotcha!" to exploit, people who ignore the Constitution whenever they find it an impediment are dragging out the First Amendment Establishment Clause, and the Article VI prohibition on religious tests. The thing is, Carson never said there oughtta be a law -- he merely stated what he made clear was his personal viewpoint, and last I checked, we're still allowed to have those, even if some might take offense and issue fatwahs.

Here's the thing. Were a Muslim to be elected president (and yes, I know some will say one already has been), if he did not hold Shariah "law" above the secular as the "supreme Law of the Land," prevailing worldwide Islamic thought would brand him an apostate. And this is the person who would appoint an Attorney General, Supreme Court Justices, and... Again, there can be no law against those positions being filled by the "faithful," so whether or not you're OK with that is up to you. But as with all the politically correct uproar following Carson's response, the devil is in the details, because the implication is that anyone not OK must be a xenophobe, an extremist, a bigot...

Since we're talking about religions, do you think there'd be such an uproar if Carson had opined he wouldn't feel comfortable with a chicken-sacrificing Santeria practitioner in the White House?

Hell, let's cut to the chase. Let's talk about an ancient and established religion, one that is recognized by the government, one with practitioners throughout  the land, and one that involves itself in vigorous legal and outreach actions centered around all kinds of Constitutional issues, including, as a plus for those who value "progressive" causes, women's reproductive rights and same sex marriages.

I'm talking, of course, about Satanism.

I'm also talking about moral and logical consistency, which means if the "outraged" rival candidates and pundits are going to exhibit any, they have to agree that they could support a Satanist for president, and condemn as intolerant anyone who would venture that they are disqualified by "virtue" of their religion.

If what everyone in the field is professing truly reveals their unwavering principle that religion doesn't matter, they should have no problem publicly agreeing with consistent substitutions. Whether such a candidate would have a chance is not the point. And would the establishment candidates decry that as unacceptable intolerance?

Let's test some convictions, shall we? How would these alterations to on-the-record statements of conviction fly with the respective campaigns?

Marco Rubio: "I personally do not believe that your religious denomination being a Satanist should disqualify you from serving in office."

Jeb Bush: "The former Florida governor believes an individual’s faith being a Satanist is irrelevant to seeking the White House or any public office..."

Lindsey Graham: “[Carson] is not ready to be Commander-in-Chief. America is an idea, not owned by a particular religion ... [he]needs to apologize to American Muslims Satanists."

Ted Cruz: In trying to navigate a minefield, Sen. Cruz got it right that the Constitution prohibits religious tests as a matter of law, which, as we've already noted, is irrelevant to what Carson actually said.  Cruz should now weigh in on if he'd have issued a different statement had Carson said he "would not advocate that we put a Satanist in charge of this nation."

John Kasich: "Although Kasich did not say he would have a problem with a Muslim Satanist president, he did not directly address the issue and answered the question more broadly." (Kasich being a weasel-wording equivocator...? Say it ain't so!)

Bobby Jindal:“If you can find me a Muslim Satanist candidate who is a Republican, who will fight hard to protect religious liberty, who will respect the Judeo-Christian heritage of America ... I will be happy to consider voting for him or her.”

Rand Paul: "...did not indicate he would have any objections to a Muslim Satanist president in an interview on CBS Sunday."

Donald Trump: "Would I be comfortable?" (Well, would you be?)

Mike Huckabee: "I don’t think we ought to just disqualify from somebody because of his or her Satanist faith."

George Pataki: "You know, they said the same thing back in the past, you couldn’t have a Catholic president, you couldn’t have a Jewish president, you couldn’t have an African American or a women president and now Dr Carson is saying you can’t have a Muslim Satanist president and I think it is just wrong.”

Carly Fiorina: "When host Jimmy Fallon asked Fiorina if she was affirming that she would be fine with a Muslim Satanist president, she confirmed, 'Yes, I would be fine with that.'”

Bernie Sanders: "I am very disappointed that Dr Carson would suggest that a Muslim Satanist should not become president of the United States."

Hillary Clinton: "Hail Lord Sata... uh, not really, but she did tweet:

Martin O'Malley: “American people are better than latest Trump/Carson/GOP anti-Muslim Satanic bigotry. Hate is not an American value. #diversityisourgreateststrength. It’s sad to see the party of Lincoln being led by candidates who choose bigotry against Muslim Satanic-Americans over 'united we stand.’”

Lincoln Chaffee: “Regarding Dr Carson’s statement that a Muslim Satanist shouldn’t be president, Article II Section 1 of our Constitution clearly states the qualifications for the presidency. Dr Carson should discontinue his campaign based on making such an uninformed and discriminatory statement that a Muslim Satanist shouldn’t be able to ask American voters to have the freedom to make that decision.” (First of all, Carson never said that, and second of all, who seriously gives a damn what Lincoln Chaffee has to say about anything?)

Lest anyone think this comparison for the sake of establishing consistency is insulting to Muslims or Satanists, and God forbid I'd ever want to do that, I'd presume to think the latter would agree that the candidates ought to extend to them comparable recognition to their beliefs. As for the Islamic community, I'll offer them the most respectful acknowledgement I can: Equal treatment.

So how about it, fellas? Can I put you on record as agreeing with and embracing this change?

And maybe getting some of your high ranking religious leaders to endorse it...?

!!!

Is there a reason the first three paragraphs in this hit piece on Ben Carson end with exclamation points?  Aside from intentional breathless sensationalism, as opposed to journalism?  [More]

I'd imagine over the course of a career in neurosurgery, not every effort in sometimes desperate crapshoots is going to be successful, and the best possible outcomes may end up being far from satisfactory. Some things are broken and can't be fixed. I also note the sponge headline is definitive, but the narrative includes an "allegedly" qualifier. What happened in the lawsuits? Then again, maybe the guy has messed up, and were I or someone I loved the one who suffered, I don't think I'd be very forgiving.

I have reasons I've considered Ben Carson problematic, but being capable of blunders is not one of them. Show me a human being who is not.

This could cause real problems for his campaign via sound bites, hashtags and captioned posters to spread and amplify a poisonous meme. Deranged racism is one thing, but something like this can really hit home with people. I'll be interested to see how his campaign responds.

Neck and Neck?

Ben Carson Ties Donald Trump in Iowa Poll [More]

Forgive me for suspecting establishment manipulation. I think the whole Trump phenomenon scares the hell out of all the major players, desperate to quell any rebellions, and one of the best ways to do that is to confuse the herd. If they can slow his momentum with Carson, they know he's a guy they can sideline without anywhere near as much difficulty, as he's neither as rich nor as provocative as The Donald.

And while Trump has his share of past conflicting actions and statements to atone for, when it comes to RKBA and cultural terraforming, Carson, like Lucy, has some splainin' to do.

Armed American Radio Redux

AAR Washington DC editor, Neil McCabe, Crossbreed Holster’s Trent Cooper, Gun Owners of America’s Exec. Dir. Larry Pratt, David Codrea, Sean "Seanto” Young

• AAR 7-13-2014 Hour 3

• AAR 7-13-2014 Hour 2

• AAR 7-13-2014 Hour 1

HA! Looks like I win the fierce power struggle on how to spell the Chairman of the Board Operators' name!

I also received a reminder from a friend that Ben Carson is problematic on immigration, kind of implying I should have mentioned that when I brought his name up. I know, same holds true on guns. The fast-moving conversation was centered on Holder playing the race card as the reason why some people are against him and Obama, and the only point I was trying to make is that white people who oppose Barry are more than willing to support a  person of a different race if he represents their ideology. I also mentioned Allen West and Thomas Sowell, and didn't see a need to say anything more about them than their names. Sometimes, when you sense the host is soliciting a conversation to amplify a point, a perceptive guest will follow the lead to help him, rather than throw in detours and sidetracks until you end up having a different discussion than the one being offered.

I've talked about Carson on this blog, including highlighting Kurt's work. I'm sure I'll do so again, including on Armed American Radio.

Paranoid Gun Owners

Editorial: There is no plot to seize the guns of law-abiding citizens [More]

Yeah, pay no attention to all those editorials demanding to repeal the Second Amendment in the current Google News feed being promoted throughout the land. Besides, you can trust us on guns: we have Gannett ethics!

Do you believe that loon Ben Carson, actually suggesting to fight back?

And thinking that the Holocaust could have been resisted had more Jews been armed and unified? Where would anyone come up with a ridiculous idea like that?

Or that governments that disarm citizens to establish a monopoly of violence would ever abuse such powers? That's just plain ludicrous!

All these Fourth Estate Fifth Columnists have are blatant lies and Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule. If you want to take a brief trip further down the rabbit hole, try reading some of the comments -- they demonstrate better than anything I could say why it's a waste of time trying to debate with fanatical ignoramuses. You won't change closed minds, and the time and energy is better spent elsewhere.

"No, your move" is about all the engagement I'll give them. I like to hear them resort to contemptuous dismissals because their beloved masters have predator drones and nukes.

Good Thing This Has Nothing to Do with That 'Single Issue'

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that every one of the mayors who signed the "open the floodgates" letter is also a member of Bloomberg's coalition.

But heck, it must not have anything to do with that "single issue," since NRA Director Grover has partnered with Mike on "immigration" himself...

Hey, when they are made citizens, forget the xenophobic fear-mongering by religiously intolerant bigots like Ben Carson, and listen to what the "pilgrims" have to say themselves:

A Solution to the Problem

When it comes to guns, Dr. Ben Carson still doesn't get it [More]

Here's a novel idea: Why not support someone who does?

Oh, look:

He's a commie-lover, too.

This guy is major fail.  There's not only no time to put him through a learning curve, when it comes to leaders, you shouldn't need to.

The Definitive Rebuttal...

...to any "conservative" pushing the wholly unacceptable Ben Carson for president.  Hold onto Kurt's link so you can email it to them whenever they start stumping for the guy.  [More]

Another Ben Carson Gunfail

Sorry, those still promoting this guy for high office. The answer is "No." [More]

I also find it hard to believe someone advocating something this ignorant --strictly from a physiological capacity standpoint -- is qualified to be a medical professional.

Grilling While Armed

Liston Matthews puts some tough gun rights questions to Ben Carson. [More]

I know someone who will be looking over any answers with a critical eye...

Well THERE's an Opinion Worth Caring About

SETH ROGEN: BEN CARSON ‘F*CKING BONKERS’ FOR SAYING ARMED PEOPLE LESS LIKELY TO BE SLAUGHTERED [More]

You tell 'im, Seth!

I'd Like a Second Opinion

‘Wrong Direction’ to Choose a Supreme Court Justice Based on Skin Color: Ben Carson [More]

But that's not really what they're doing, Doc, as the fresh attacks on Clarence Thomas demonstrate.

[Via bondmen]

Attacks on Ben Carson Show Sick Gun-grabber Preference for Death

It’s pretty revealing – not only do these sanctimonious … things not want their countrymen to have the capability of armed defense, they ridicule the concept and the faith of anyone who would presume simply to fight back with whatever means are at hand. That all goes back to their beloved “monopoly of force,” that is, a “monopoly of violence.” And CSGV knows who advocated that, because Executive Director Josh Horwitz wrote a HuffPo piece trying to justify it, citing the philosophical progenitor of the concept, German sociologist and political economist Max Weber. What he didn’t share was that his ideological hero Weber supported approving Article 48 into the Weimar constitution, establishing “emergency powers” to bypass Reichstag consent, and allowing Adolf Hitler’s rise to unchallenged power. [More]

The stupid outraged Prozis are having a foot-stamping hissy fit over the exact same advice DHS gives for the last resort.

"Trump is a Charlatan"

Maybe. [More]

Name one who's not, Jack Kelly. Do you have a solution, or are you just here to pee in the pool?

Because the other charlatans -- including those in the media abetting their efforts -- are trying to move energy and focus over to alternative charlatan Ben Carson, who has recommended the same 'Chicago/Cheyenne" 2A infringements as Obama, and who will pave that pathway right along with Jeb. That's because the establishment knows he and his more laid-back following will be easier to either sideline or outmaneuver.

So what do we do if Trump is lying?

I don't know -- what do "we" do if any of them are lying? And what's with "if"? Either a line will be crossed that's a catalyst for responsive actions or it won't be. Unless/until that happens, Trump at least is promulgating a message that is waking some people up and motivating others. Perhaps that's all the usefulness we can expect from the guy.

In the mean time, ain't no sin in noticing the increasing desperation of those with a vested interest in the cultural terraforming of the Republic.