Famed neurosurgeon? Perhaps. Qualified presidential candidate? Hell no!
It boggles the mind to think that the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary narrowed the GOP field of presidential candidates—forcing people like Chris Christie, Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina from the race—yet Dr. Ben Carson remains, even though his fledgling campaign seems doomed to collapse eventually.
I mean, here’s a guy who left Iowa to return home for fresh clothes, for goodness sake. And then watched as Ted Cruz used his departure to claim Carson was leaving the race completely—effectively stealing the Iowa caucus in the process!
What has me so fired up against Carson, you ask? Fine. I’ll tell you.
In an interview yesterday with Breitbart News—when asked if Muslims who adhere to Sharia law could also participate in American democracy—Carson had this to say: “Only if they’re schizophrenic. I don’t see how they can do it otherwise, because they have two different philosophies boring at [them]. That would be very difficult.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t America founded on the ideas of religious freedom and tolerance? Or is it simply a Christian-only country?
Let’s see what the illustrious Dr. Ben Carson has to say about this, shall we? Here’s a quote from one of his speeches in Iowa earlier this month—and incidentally, he chose to use schizophrenia in a derogatory fashion in this quip, as well:
“Every coin in our pocket, every bill in our wallet, says ‘In God We Trust.’ If it’s in our founding documents, it’s in our pledge, in our courts, and it’s on our money, but we’re not supposed to talk about it, what in the world is that? In medicine, we call it ‘schizophrenia.’ And doesn’t that explain a lot of what’s going on in our nation?”
Although he was addressing the separation of church and state at the time, I find Dr. Carson’s remarks quite telling. Is he really implying that the “God” addressed on American currency only means the Christian God? Could it not also mean Allah or some other God-like figure from a religion other than Christianity?
I’m sorry, but people who believe only their God is the correct one—and everyone else be damned, so to speak—really bother me… especially when they want to become the next leader of the free world!
If you really want to help the USA move forward and return to greatness, do us all a favor, Dr. Carson. Suspend your presidential campaign so we can start to focus more on the important issues and less on the freak show that the GOP race to the White House has become. I’m begging you.
I absolutely love election season!
If you sense sarcasm in that statement, it’s probably because I’m laying it on pretty thick.
Truthfully, politics suck. And they suck worst of all leading up to an election, mostly because once-tranquil front yards get peppered with campaign signs and enjoyable television shows get interrupted by endless campaign commercials… most of which aren’t even sponsored by the candidates themselves!
Of course, what annoy me most of all are the ridiculous claims made by GOP candidates, conservative talk-show hosts and other Republican supporters. Granted, Democrats have their share of problems—as do all politicians—but for some reason, the GOP tends to be more public in their inanity.
Don’t take my word for it, though. Consider these examples and decide for yourself:
- In Sarasota, Florida on Tuesday night, conservative radio host Dennis Prager claimed the number of sexual assaults on college campuses was little more than an attempt by Democrats to win votes. “It’s a gargantuan lie to get votes,” Prager claimed. “It’s as big a lie as the culture of rape on your campuses. What nonsense.” I guess the fact that one in five women is sexually assaulted on college campuses means nothing, huh?
- New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recently supported the quarantine of Kaci Hickox, a nurse returning from West Africa who tested negative for the Ebola virus, yet was forced into isolation at a Newark hospital. When Hickox was finally released on Monday, she threatened a lawsuit and prompted this response from the “big-boned” governor: “Whatever. Get in line. I’ve been sued lots of times before… I’m happy to take it on.” And some people thought this rude and immature jackass should run for president!
- On Tuesday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker released a campaign video that featured his female lieutenant governor praising his support of equal pay for women. Unfortunately, Walker seems to have forgotten that several years ago he signed a bill that repealed the state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Can anyone say hypocrisy?
- Jody Hice, a conservative radio host and Republican candidate for Georgia’s 10th District, recently suggested that removing prayer from schools led to the pedophilia scandal at Penn State University several years ago. “The whole issue is a morally bankrupt nation is where we are,” Hice explained. “You can go back decades as we first kicked the Bible out of schools and prayer out of schools, and we’ve just basically been going downhill since then.” Of course, few people are more “morally bankrupt” than politicians, but as long as they’re praying, why should that matter?
These are just a few of the crazy GOP stories floating around out there, but the “best of the bunch” still centers on one very irrelevant political pundit, the great Sarah Palin. Aside from threatening to run for office again—which added even more horror to this year’s Halloween festivities—Palin also compared the “junk science” of climate change to past hysteria over eugenics (the belief and practice of improving the quality of human genetics).
Palin admits that climate change exists, but refuses to accept any of it is man-made. “No one has proven that these changes are caused by anything done by human beings via greenhouse gases,” she said recently. “There’s no convincing scientific evidence for man-made climate change. The climate has always been changing.”
And this woman came close to being our Vice President? What the hell?
Of course, Palin couldn’t be more incorrect in her claim, and I’ll tell you why: politicians are contributing to climate change right now. As they sling their political bullshit, they produce more methane, which in turn leads to global warming.
Want to help with climate change, Sarah? Shut your mouth and I’m sure we will all be better off!
On Monday, President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule to reduce carbon emissions from power plants 30% by 2030—a pollution reduction equivalent to removing two-thirds of all cars from American roads.
“For the sake of our families’ health and our kids’ future, we have a moral obligation to act on climate,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said. “When we do, we’ll turn risks on climate into business opportunity. We’ll spur innovation and investment, and we’ll build a world-leading clean energy economy.”
President Obama echoed McCarthy’s sentiment.
“This is something that is important for all of us,” he said during Monday’s announcement, as he urged people to work together to protect “this beautiful blue ball in the middle of space.”
Of course, it didn’t take long for opponents and naysayers to start chiming in about this “horrible” idea—by which I mean the GOP and Democrats from heavy coal-producing or coal-using states.
Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, for instance, feels the new EPA rule is “a green agenda that has been dreamed up by the environmentalist community for decades” and doesn’t seem to believe that greenhouse gases are harmful. In fact, he believes the whole “global warming thing” is little more than a United Nations invention designed to grab power.
What a fool, but it gets better.
Representatives from the Heartland Institute—which is funded by the fossil fuel industry—went even further into the realm of stupidity when they made this statement: “Carbon dioxide is essential to plant growth—more carbon dioxide makes for a greener planet… CO2 emissions boost the economy and don’t hurt the planet—in fact they most likely benefit the biosphere.”
Yeah, that’s what we need: more greenhouse gases. Apparently, the people at Heartland are thinking about plants growing in a greenhouse—which is a positive thing—rather than the Earth becoming one big greenhouse filled with poison.
What in the hell is that about?
And we certainly can’t exclude Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—who called the new EPA rule “a dagger in the heart of the American middle class”—or House Speaker John Boehner—who called it a “sucker punch for families everywhere.” They both cited a report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that projected such a reduction in carbon emissions could cost $28 billion annually, sacrifice more than 200,000 jobs and even lower the economy by $50 billion a year.
Unfortunately, they couldn’t be more wrong since this report projected a 42% reduction rather than the 30% announced Monday. And the EPA has estimated the actual cost at $8-9 billion per year, not $28 billion or more. Of course, this doesn’t account for the health benefits this rule would produce, as outlined by the Washington Post recently:
“The EPA estimates that the new rule would cut traditional air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and soot by 25 percent, according to those who have been briefed, yielding a public health benefit of between $55 billion to $93 billion when it is fully implemented with 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths avoided and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks a year avoided. The cost, by contrast, would be $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion.”
Again, I can see how this could be problematic. The last things we need, after all, are lower health care costs and healthy people. Heaven forbid!
At the root of opponents’ concerns is—go figure—money. Reducing carbon emissions will hurt corporations that rely on fossil fuels, thus reducing their profits, as well as their ability to donate campaign funds during the next GOP bum-rush to the White House. And we certainly don’t want that, do we?
The sad truth is that reducing carbon emissions should have happened a long time ago. Actually, today’s discussion shouldn’t even be about fossil fuels, which we clearly don’t need given all the clean energy alternatives (solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal). In 2012, for instance, coal supplied roughly 37% of U.S. electricity—the rest came from natural gas (30%), nuclear power (19%) and hydropower sources (7%). By 2030—under the EPA’s new rule—only 30% of our electricity will come from coal, but I’m sure we can eliminate it completely if we work together to make this happen.
And there’s the rub: people just don’t want to work together, especially all those jackasses in Washington. In fact, some “lawmakers” actually seem intent on destroying our planet, and for what?
I hate to tell you, but all the money in the world won’t save you once we destroy the environment—unless you can wrap yourself in “Benjamins” to protect you from UV radiation or “breathe through your bucks” to filter out all the poisonous greenhouse gases!