Donald Trump On Ben Carson: Doctors Don't Create Jobs

Donald Trump says he has great affection for Ben Carson, but he’s not so sure Carson has the right experience to be president.

The billionaire businessman and Republican presidential frontrunner explained why in an extensive interview with The Daily Caller that covered a wide array of subjects. The interview will be published in sections over the coming days.

A Monmouth University poll of Iowa released Monday showed Trump tied with Carson for first place — though Trump is quick to note that it was just one poll and that he leads the field, including Carson, in all the other recent polls.

But despite the rising threat of Carson in Iowa, Trump has not yet attacked the world-renowned neurosurgeon. Asked by TheDC whether being a doctor provides the necessary experience to be president, Trump said while Carson is  “a wonderful guy,” he thinks it would be “very tough” for someone who spent his life as a surgeon to handle the job.

“I think it’s a very difficult situation that he’d be placed in,” Trump elaborated. “He’s really a friend of mine, I just think it’s a very difficult situation that he puts himself into, to have a doctor who wasn’t creating jobs and would have a nurse or maybe two nurses. It’s such a different world. I’ve created tens of thousands of jobs over the years.”

In the past Trump has questioned whether Ted Cruz is eligible to be president because the Texas senator was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. Cruz and Trump have since become something like BFFs on the campaign trail, refusing to criticize each other and even scheduled to appear together at an upcoming rally in Washington against the nuclear deal with Iran. Asked whether he still thinks Cruz might not be eligible to be president, Trump said, “based on everything I see, there’s no problem.”

“Because other people have brought it up, and it seems like the legal scholars have all been satisfied,” he went on. “It was never a big point for me, but I have watched other people question him, and the legal scholars have been satisfied.”

President Barack Obama has been criticized by many Republicans, including Trump, for his regular golf outings. But would Trump, who is an avid golfer and owns many golf courses throughout the world, regularly hit the links if he makes it to the Oval Office?

“The problem with the president, he’s played more than people on the PGA tour,” Trump quipped. “He plays a lot. He’s like a touring professional in terms of the amount of play.” (RELATED: Beck Was Obsessed With Proving That John Boehner Is An Alcoholic)

“Golf can be a great tool for making deals, but you can’t play with your friends, you have to play with people that you’re looking to — for instance, playing with [House Speaker] John Boehner and playing with [Senate leader Mitch] McConnell and playing with people that you need to make deals with,” Trump argued. “It can be an amazing tool for getting things done and for making deals.”

“With that being said, you want to play it the proper number of times,” he went on. “If the president would use golf as a tool more than he does, I think it would be very positive.”

Trump often cites how rich he is as a sign of his success and, in turn, a qualification to be President of the United States. By that standard, would someone richer than him, like Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, be more qualified for the presidency?

“That’s different,” Trump replied. “Honestly, I don’t think I’d swap assets, to be honest with you. I’ve seen that stuff go up and down. I have very, very solid stuff. To me, I love real estate because you can feel it. A lot of people, they’ll make five hundred million dollars by doing some new computer game, but I don’t consider that — I consider that sort of different. I consider that paper.”

“I did it in real estate,” he explained, “and as real estate goes, this is about as high as you go.”

Check back to TheDC over the coming days for more of our exclusive interview with Donald Trump.

Via: Larry Elder

Continue Reading.....

Not News: Unarmed White Teen Killed by Cop; Two White Cops Killed by Blacks by Larry Elder

The media enthusiastically remind us that it's the first anniversary of the death of Ferguson's Michael Brown, a death that spawned the so-called Black Lives Matter movement.

In a September speech at the United Nations, President Barack Obama said, "The world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri -- where a young man was killed, and a community was divided."

Never mind that both a grand jury and the federal Department of Justice exonerated the officer who shot and killed Brown. Never mind that neither the physical evidence nor eyewitness testimony corroborated the assertions that Brown had his hands up or that he said, "Don't shoot."

Never mind that cops, fearing false accusation of racial profiling and police brutality, are increasingly reluctant to engage in proactive policing -- to look for suspicious activity in an effort to prevent crime. As a result crime has gone up, particularly in cities with high-profile cases of alleged racial profiling.

Call it the "Ferguson effect."

In New York City a black man, Eric Garner, was killed by police in 2014 as he resisted arrest. A grand jury found insufficient grounds to indict any of the officers involved. Still it became a cause celebre. In New York City, shootings rose 20 percent during the first half of 2015, compared to the previous year.

In Baltimore, Freddie Gray, a black man who resisted arrest, was placed in a police van, slipped into a coma shortly after arriving at the station and died a week later. Days of riots followed and six officers were indicted in connection with Gray's death. During the riots, Baltimore's mayor told the police, as she put it, to give "those who wished to destroy space to do that." Cops got the message. As in New York, they backed off, doing little more than responding to radio calls -- no more proactive policing. As a result, Baltimore is experiencing crime levels unseen in decades. Murders have increased 48 percent in the first six months of 2015 -- with most of the homicides occurring after Freddie Gray's April 19 death.

Never mind, according to the Centers for Disease Control, police shootings of blacks are down almost 75 percent over the last 45 years, while police shooting of whites remained level. And never mind that the media engages in selective concern.

Selective concern?

In just the last two weeks, two cops, who happened to be white, were killed by two suspects, who happened to be black. And an unarmed white teen was killed by a cop.

In Tennessee, Memphis police Officer Sean Bolton approached an illegally parked car, apparently interrupting a drug deal that was taking place inside. The car's passenger got out, engaged Bolton in a physical struggle and shot the officer multiple times. Bolton, a 33-year-old Marine vet who served in Iraq, died at the hospital. After a two-day manhunt, the murder suspect, on a supervised release following a bank robbery conviction, turned himself in.

In Louisiana, Shreveport Officer Thomas LaValley was dispatched to investigate a potential prowler, an armed man reportedly threatening a family member inside a house. When LaValley arrived, he was shot multiple times, and pronounced dead at the hospital. The alleged shooter, wanted on an attempted second-degree murder charge for a shooting three weeks earlier, was captured the next day.

In South Carolina, an unarmed teenager was shot and killed by a cop. Zachary Hammond, 19, was out on a first date when he was fatally shot by a Seneca police officer during a drug bust. His date, who was eating an ice cream cone at the time of the shooting, was later arrested and charged with possession of 10 grams of marijuana. The shooting is under investigation. But the police claim Hammond was driving his car toward the police officer who was attempting to make the stop, an act that resulted in the officer firing two shots, striking Hammond in the shoulder and torso.

The Hammond family wonders why so little national attention has been focused on their son's death. "It's sad, but I think the reason is, unfortunately, the media and our government officials have treated the death of an unarmed white teenager differently than they would have if this were a death of an unarmed black teen," said Eric Bland, the family's attorney. "The hypocrisy that has been shown toward this is really disconcerting. The issue should never be what is the color of the victim. The issue should be: Why was an unarmed teen gunned down in a situation where deadly force was not even justified?" 

COPYRIGHT 2015 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM 

Via: Real Clear Politics

Continue Reading....

Democrats: They're All Socialists Now by LARRY ELDER

Socialism, according to Dictionary.com, is defined as: "A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, recently appeared on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Matthews asked, "What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?"

Wasserman Schultz laughed, looked stunned, and began hemming and hawing. Matthews helpfully interjected, "I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is?" Still, Wasserman Schultz refused to give him a straight answer. "The difference between -- the real question," she said, "is what's the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican."

Matthews tried again: "Yeah, but what's the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist? You're the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist."

Still, Wasserman Schultz wouldn't answer the question .

A few days ago Chuck Todd of NBC's "Meet the Press" offered her a chance for a do-over. He replayed the exchange with Matthews, then asked: "Given that (Democratic presidential candidate) Bernie Sanders is an unabashed socialist and believes in social democratic governments -- (he) likes the ones in Europe -- what is the difference? Can you explain the difference?"

And again she either could not or would not answer, and wanted to discuss the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

On the one hand, Wasserman Schultz might have refused to answer because she did not want to put her thumb on the scale of the self-described socialist candidate Bernie Sanders or the likely nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton. No matter what Wasserman Schultz would've said, it would injure one while helping the other.

That's one explanation. But the more likely explanation is simple. There is no real distinction between today's Democrats and socialists. A few years ago Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., conducted hearings in which she grilled oil executives for alleged price fixing. She threatened to nationalize their business. Did (SET ITAL) any (END ITAL) Democrat speak out against her threat? No.

Newsweek, in 2009, ran a cover story with the headline: "We Are All Socialists Now." Jon Meacham wrote:

"The U.S. government has already -- under a conservative Republican administration -- effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries. That seems a stronger sign of socialism than $50 million for art. Whether we want to admit it or not -- and many, especially Congressman (Mike) Pence and (Sean) Hannity, do not -- the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state. ...

"... If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world. ...

"... This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one."

Polls, too, show that most Democrats are quite comfortable with socialism. A recent poll found 52 percent of Democrats had a favorable opinion about socialism.

Bernie Sanders has always caucused with Democrats, and they are perfectly comfortable with him. He's still a long shot for the Democratic nomination, but he is rising in the polls. If there is a distinction between him and President Barack Obama on anything major, what is it? Both pushed "universal health care." Both oppose the Keystone pipeline. Both believe taxes should be raised on "rich" people. Both believe in the redistribution of income. Obama wants two years of "free" community college. Sanders wants to make college "free" altogether. Both attack "corporate greed" and both belong to the school of economics that says, "you didn't build that."

Andy Stern, then the head of the Democratic Party-supporting Service Employees International Union, said, "I think Western Europe, as much as we used to make fun of it, has made different trade-offs which may have ended up with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality."

That's an acceptable trade-off in today's Democratic Party.

Jack Kennedy, a tax cutter, defended his plan by arguing it would invigorate the economy. He wanted growth and said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Today's Democrat, like Wasserman Schultz, would deride Kennedy as a greedy Republican advocate of "trickle down."

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @larryelder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Via: GOPUSA

Continue Reading....

George Clintonopoulos!

By: Larry Elder

What took so long?

The question isn't whether George Stephanopoulos compromised his credentials as a "journalist" by failing to reveal his donations to the Clinton Foundation. The question is why, immediately after Stephanopoulos left the Clinton administration, ABC hired this partisan in the first place.

In 1996, when ABC hired him, the initial press release said he would "serve both as a political analyst and as a correspondent." The "correspondent" role caused such an uproar -- even in liberal mainstream media -- that a few days later ABC quickly retreated: "I don't know how that got into the press release," said a spokeswoman. "He will not report the news."

Then-ABC News Vice President Joanna Bistany said Stephanopoulos would be a commentator like ABC contributor William Kristol, Republican Dan Quayle's former chief of staff. "I view it the same way as Kristol," she said. "He has a point of view, a political persuasion." Bistany also said, "We want a mix of voices," assuring that Stephanopoulos wouldn't "do anything that has any appearance of conflict."

Then came the double cross.

By 1999, Stephanopoulos was a regular contributor on "World News Tonight" and "Good Morning America" and had co-anchored ABC's overnight news program. Still, ABC assured viewers that he'd stay away from partisan political stories. "We're all conscious of the sensitivity with him having been part of the news in Washington," said then-ABC News President David Westin. "We wouldn't have him be the beat reporter on the (Al) Gore campaign." An ABC spokeswoman added, "He will not be the beat reporter assigned to a campaign," although that "does not mean that we won't have him doing more general political stories."

In 2002, Stephanopoulos became host of "This Week," and two years later ABC named him "chief Washington correspondent."

Via: Townhall

Continue Reading.....

Dems, It's Okay to Change Your Mind on Obamacare by Larry Elder

Note to congressional Democrats: You can change your mind on Obamacare. It's allowed. Really. You can. We won't tell.

If MSNBC's anti-gun lefties like Ed Schultz can do a 180 on a hot-button issue like guns, then Democrats can change their minds about President Obama's signature Obamacare. More on this later.

President Barack Obama promised to provide healthcare insurance to some 30 million Americans without it.

He promised to do so more cheaply than under the current system, without lowering quality for anyone. He promised: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."

Obamacare requires carriers to take on people with pre-existing conditions and to allow young adults up to 26 years of age to remain on their parents' plan. Oh, and all this while "bending the cost curve" of health care downward and lowering the deficit.

Early results are in -- and they are not pretty.

Obamacare defines a full-time worker as one who works 30 or more hours a week. So some employers, especially those in food service, have simply cut hours for workers. According to a survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 74 percent of small business owners say have or intend to reduce hours, put off hiring or fire people.

Even Teamsters union President James Hoffa, once an avid supporter of Obamacare, now wants major changes: "[Obamacare] will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class. ... The unintended consequences ... are severe," and "perverse incentives are causing nightmare scenarios."

Via: Real Clear Politics

Continue Reading.....

[FLASHBACK] The True History of the Democratic Racist Party 2005 by Larry Elder

So much for the Republican "outreach" to black voters, with only 2 percent of blacks "approving" of the president's performance.

If only blacks knew of the true history of the Democratic Party.

"Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973.

Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.

How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.

Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.

Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.

Via: Free Republic
Continue Reading....