Liberals Are Losing It Over One Sentence Ben Carson Just Said About Shootings

In what has become a controversial response to a question his campaign received, Dr. Ben Carson shared a decisive stance in favor of the Second Amendment. Carson solicits emails from members of the public with questions for him, choosing some to answer publicly via social media.

One such individual wondered if the recent Oregon mass shooting had any impact on Carson’s support of legal gun ownership. Despite having been affected personally by gun violence, however, he said he remains committed to preserving the fundamental right to bear arms.

Each weeknight, we get to spend time together as I answer some of your questions. Keep emailing them to AskBen@…

Posted by Dr. Ben Carson on Monday, October 5, 2015

“I saw plenty of gun violence as a child,” he wrote. “Both of my cousins were killed on the streets.”

Later, as a surgeon, he noted that he witnessed the devastation such weapons can inflict.

“There is no doubt that this senseless violence is breathtaking,” he acknowledged, “– but I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away.”

He went on to excoriate leftist activists for politicizing this and other tragedies; however, it was his reference to bullet holes that evoked the wrath of many political detractors.

Jen Hayden, writing for the left-leaning Daily Kos, insisted that Carson — and all GOP presidential candidates — “continue[s] to hide behind an antiquated and often misunderstood Second Amendment,” which she presented as “the definition of cowardice.”

While a number of gun control activists panned Carson’s remark, his impassioned defense of American rights resonated with many others.

“I love that Dr. Ben speaks softly with the language of a gentleman,” one Facebook user wrote, “yet has an iron will and means what he says.”

Hillary Just Got Caught On Tape Revealing What She REALLY Wants To Do To Guns In America

Hillary Clinton, speaking at a recent private fundraiser in New York, stated that the Supreme Court got it “wrong on the Second Amendment.” She also told listeners that, if she is elected as president of the United States, she will go after the NRA.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the Supreme Court case Clinton was apparently referring to was District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Court struck down a DC handgun ban. In the case, which had a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals have a fundamental right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment. This contrasts with the liberal view that the Second Amendment right to gun ownership only applies to militias.

Clinton also said that she would “do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence,” referring to the NRA.

Clinton thought it is “despicable” that individuals can openly carry semi-automatic rifles.

She stated: “The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable.”

Clinton also said: “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s legislative division, responded to Clinton’s comments: “Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it. The NRA’s strength lies in our five million members and the tens of millions of voters who support the Second Amendment. A majority of Americans support this freedom, and the Supreme Court was absolutely right to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.”

What do you think of Clinton’s comments?

Bernie Sanders’ America

(Editor’s note: This piece originally appeared at

The raucous welcomes and thundering applause that have greeted America’s newest (and oldest) political rock star, the septuagenarian Bernie Sanders, have launched a cottage industry of puzzled pundits trying to figure out the source of his appeal. Of course it’s his ideas, his supporters have insisted, perhaps as well as his presentation style, which issues from an agreeable set of features topped by undisciplined strands of white hair, giving him a sort of aged, professorial look of a speaker waving his arms while hurling his points across the lectern before the class ends.

So, what has he been proposing, as he continues to cleave chunks of supporters from Hillary Clinton’s troubled political base? Quite a few things, actually. He wants to centralize the current healthcare system even more than the Affordable Care Act did by having the federal government guarantee health care for all under a single-payer system. Social Security would receive a big increase, along with more funds for rebuilding roads, bridges, and airports, and significant amounts of taxpayer moneys to defray the expenses for “free” college attendance, paid family and medical leave, youth job initiatives, child care, and pre-K programs.

Read: Did She Ever Take Econ 101?

Read: Did She Ever Take Econ 101?

What is the price of all this over the next decade? A cool $18 trillion, which also would raise government spending from about 20 percent of the GDP to 30 percent in its first year of implementation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. No matter; Sanders continues to fill stadiums to overflowing, with cheering crowds clamoring for more, more, more. More “free” stuff, more security, more continuous peace of mind.

Which brings us to our main point, which is that there is something unsettling about all this, about the whole Sanders phenomenon, which has cast a spell on perhaps 20 percent of Democrats—not a small amount, by any means. And it simply is this: Sanders appeals to many of those who are quick to blame distant “evil-doers” for their difficulties—big banks, greedy corporations, bad billionaires, or the capitalist class as whole—while the politicians they have supported over the years get off with nary a soupcon of doubt. Further, Sanders’s enthusiastic supporters want everything immediately, regardless of the consequences, costs, the future, our children and grandchildren, or even America’s constitutional system.

I believe all of this distills to an approach toward life that literally can be best described as infantile. What is infantilism? Merriam-Webster defines it as “retention of childish physical, mental, or emotional qualities in adult life,” which admittedly is not too helpful. But in its political context, I think the meaning becomes clearer as one considers proclivities to shun responsibility, blame others, be obsessed with the present and abjure the future, avoid painful decisions, and, frankly, try to escape from any unpleasant reality. Indeed, anyone who has raised children and grandchildren is familiar with these characteristics. The political expression of an infantilized population is what for the past half century or so has been termed accurately as the nanny state.

To all this, of course, one could respond, so what? Perhaps America should become more like Europe, especially if enough of our citizens vote to move in that direction. The problem with this answer is that Europe has prospered from the military largess of America for so long, and Europeans have been so infantilized by their welfare states, that they no longer seem to have the will to live or to think much beyond the present. European birth rates, for instance, are so low that several countries on the continent are in a population death spiral.

Read: Is Europe Losing Control of its Borders?

Read: Is Europe Losing Control of its Borders?

Indeed, with their burgeoning Muslim citizens and refugees, countries such as Germany, France, and England are going to have to make serious existential decisions about defending their cultures, and more broadly, western civilization. And if Americans in larger numbers become more like Europeans, then who will defend the West against its adversaries? Worse, who will defend America?

The answer is, certainly not those who have succumbed to the siren song of Bernie Sanders’s political infantilism. America’s progress as a great country depends on those capable of making hard decisions and taking responsibility for them. Whether enough grownups will remain to lead our country throughout the 21st century is the most important question Americans face. Indeed, we’ll learn much about the answer in next year’s election.

Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and fellow for American studies with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy novel titled “The Thirteenth Commandment.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Things Just Went Very Wrong For Radical Feminist Lena Dunham

The controversial star of the HBO series Girls has become an icon in some leftist circles despite admitting to acts such as molesting her adolescent sister and falsely accusing an acquaintance of rape.

Lena Dunham’s antics, however, have also led to some harsh social media criticism. It is for this reason, she recently confirmed, that she has officially left Twitter.

“I really appreciate that anybody follows me at all,” she explained when announcing her decision, “and so I didn’t want to cut off my relationship to it completely, but it really, truly wasn’t a safe space for me.”

Instead of posting directly to the platform, she said she will use a surrogate to post tweets on her behalf.

Reaction by other Twitter users was mixed, but largely consisted of ridicule and apathy.

In addition to her breakup with Twitter, Dunham confirmed the television series that made her a household name will be ending after its next full season.

As Breitbart’s John Nolte opined, even her recent interview with Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton could not undo the damage Dunham has done to her own reputation – and Hollywood marketability.

“Naturally,” he wrote, “Dunham is being allowed to pretend the cancellation is her choice, you know, because with no other career prospects, what Dunham really wants to do is run an obscure website where the self-proclaimed sexual abuse activist doesn’t ask Hillary Clinton about her decades of rape denial but rather about a black man’s penis.”

Will you miss Lena Dunham’s tweets? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

The Coming Corporate ‘Crime Wave’

In a recent appearance before Congress, Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates declared that the US Department of Justice is going to ratchet up its prosecution of individuals employed in corporations as part of a larger push against “white collar crime.” There is no doubt that such prosecutions will be very popular to a large section of voters, given that presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O’Malley, along with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, pretty much have declared that nearly all American businesses are part of a massive criminal conspiracy that must be brought down by federal authorities.

Within the next year, we should expect to see mid-level business and finance executives doing “perp walks” in front of the news media, as federal prosecutors will charge them with various “economic crimes” in hopes that they will implicate their superiors. All of us by now know the drill; and in a time of anemic economic growth complete with business failures, it won’t be hard to find scapegoats.

Everyone Is “Guilty”

When famed civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate published his now-famous book, Three Felonies a Day, it caused quite a stir. Going through a number of very disturbing cases, Silverglate made clear that if federal prosecutors want to target an individual, it is very easy to fashion criminal charges against them.

To prove his point, he noted how the federal prosecutors in New York when Rudy Giuliani was US Attorney for the Southern District of New York regularly played a game in which they would see if various celebrities and others, including Mother Theresa, had broken federal criminal law. The result, unfortunately, was that for each person no matter how good his or her public character, a federal statue existed that would place them in prison.

Being that Giuliani’s prosecutors — and Giuliani himself — regularly committed felonies by selectively leaking grand jury information to favored journalists in order to damage the ability of accused people to defend themselves. He also did it to stoke the fires of the anti-business mobs, and these prosecutors were quite familiar with how to fashion the ever-malleable federal statutes to turn ordinary acts into crimes. During the 1980s, when Giuliani was at DOJ, the New York office engaged in a massive show of force against Wall Street firms and other business enterprises in large part to enhance the coming political careers of Giuliani and others who worked under him, and to appease the anti-business Democrats and Republicans who were anxious to declare to roll back what they called the “Decade of Greed.”

Is a New Wave of Crackdowns Coming?

Federal prosecution of business figures tend to come in waves. During the Great Depression, prosecutors tried to claim criminal behavior by businessmen was responsible for the lengthy economic downturn. During the 1980s, Wall Street rivals of Michael Milken and others who challenged the established financial firms were the quiet-but-effective engine of prosecution, combining their political connections with Giuliani’s ambition to nearly destroy the alternative capital funding machine that was overturning the corporate status quo with new startups and shakeups of existing firms.

Because Milken had become wealthy through his financial dealings, he became the symbol of “greed” by the Democratic Left, which at that time was facing a loss of influence during the Ronald Reagan years and was desperate to regain its former status of America’s “conscience.” Going after Milken mollified both the Left and the Republican establishment on Wall Street, as the “old money” firms were happy to see Giuliani eliminate the competition.

After the spectacular failure of Enron and other firms that depended upon Alan Greenspan’s Federal Reserve System policies of easy money, policies that ended in the Tech Bubble meltdown in 2000 and 2001, the George W. Bush administration went after people like Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron and others who had high-profile CEO jobs. In the lynch-mob atmosphere that inevitably follows the bust cycle of Fed-induced business cycles, it was not hard to convince Americans that the corporate bankruptcies and the subsequent recession were the handiwork of criminal executives.

I have written about federal criminal law and its abuses for more than a decade and have not changed my viewpoint. No matter how often writers and activists expose the consequences of expanding federal criminal law, the law expands anyway. People are elected to Congress on platforms of “being tough on crime,” and large crowds heartily approve when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren call for more business executives to be thrown into prison for unspecified “crimes.” (They demand the Beria approach. Beria, who was the head of the original KGB, famously stated: “You bring me the man, I’ll find you the crime.”)

A Winning Political Strategy

The current public mood is ugly, and perhaps for good reason. Although the official rates of unemployment are relatively low, statistics clearly show that huge numbers of potentially-employable people have left the job market altogether because they know that finding meaningful employment is highly unlikely. We know that in percentage terms, labor participation in the workplace is at near-record lows. We also know that, economically speaking, the economy is stagnating and that individuals continue to be squeezed as real pay fails to keep up with creeping-but-real inflation. In short, people are angry, and they want someone to pay.

Many angry people have found a political home with candidates like Sanders and Donald Trump, both of whom speak to voter frustrations and who also find perfect scapegoats for vengeful Americans. Bernie Sanders blames businesses and entrepreneurs for “greed,” while Trump blames immigrants. Economically speaking, neither Sanders nor Trump is correct, but it doesn’t matter; angry voters don’t want facts–they want scalps.

Ever since sociologist Edwin Sutherland during the 1930s came up with the term “white collar crime,” politicians and the media have claimed that businesses often are little more than criminal enterprises. Certainly the current political climate reflects that sentiment and more. Furthermore, politicians are appealing to voters with proposals that would destroy capital formation, criminalize much of entrepreneurship, and make it much more difficult for business firms to engage in normal activities.

In a recent campaign speech, Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton declared, “We’re going to go back to enforcing labor laws. I’m going to make sure that some employers go to jail for wage theft and all the other abuses that they engage in.” Few candidates of either party are willing to stand up for businesses and entrepreneurs; and as the campaign rhetoric becomes more inflammatory, federal prosecutors are going to find it increasingly easier to charge business owners and employers for law “violations” that might be called “criminal” even if they never were intentional, according to law professor John Baker.

Selective and Politically-Motivated Prosecution

Because there are so many business owners and executives, and because federal prosecutors cannot go after everyone, it will be a crapshoot as to whom prosecutors select for “the treatment.” For the most part, those targeted will not have political connections (such as many Wall Street executives), nor will they be people involved in “green energy” ventures, such as those businesses tied to people like Al Gore.

When people think of so-called business crimes, they think of embezzlement, firms falsifying information, tax evasion, or engaging in fraud while performing services under contract with the government. For example, say that Ajax Company is supposed to build tanks for the US Army and is paid on a cost-plus basis. The company then bills the army for a number of tanks it did not build or for phantom services, with the company CEO and his mistress putting the fraudulently-obtained money in a Swiss bank account.

This certainly would fall under anyone’s fraud statute, and if the government were to prosecute just those kinds of cases, few people would object. However, government fraud statutes are incredibly malleable and can apply to conduct that would seem to be legal. In an article I wrote for Regulation six years ago, I point out Enron’s practice of placing “non-earning assets” into “special purpose entities” was legal and also was made known to Enron stockholders; yet federal prosecutors decided to include those actions under the umbrella of “Honest Services Fraud.”

Prosecutors wanted jurors to believe that even though Enron’s activities met federal laws and regulations, nonetheless the company undertook those actions in order to present the company to stockholders and others in a false light, making the company’s financial condition seem better than it really was. Thus, it was left to the jurors to determine whether or not this action truly was a violation of the law, even though the original act did fall within the letter of federal statutes and regulations.

One can see immediately where there is a problem. Under most state laws governing crime, there often is no doubt that an actual crime was committed. The question is not whether someone broke the law, but rather who broke it, the defendant or someone else.

Federal Law Is Ambiguous Enough to Allow Prosecution of Nearly Anyone

In the federal system, however, jurors often are asked to decide whether or not someone actually broke the law and, thus, broke federal statutes. Jurors, who usually have no legal training, then are asked to determine whether or not a highly-complex deed that they may not understand was a legal violation; and more often than not, if jurors don’t understand it, or if they deem the defendants to be less-than-savory, they will vote guilty as a default position.

Furthermore, federal prosecutors have such leeway that they are able to pile on numerous charges that might be based from a single endeavor, thus creating a situation for defendants in which they either can chance going to prison for decades (and federal prosecutors almost always win at trial) or plead guilty. (I have a well-known friend who was charged with “Honest Services Fraud,” because the US attorney believed that the fees he negotiated with his clients were higher than they should have been. The prosecutor did not allege that he had defrauded his clients per se, since he charged the clients the fees upon which both parties agreed, but that because the fees were higher than fees other lobbyists charged their clients, then they simply had to be illegal. So, according to federal prosecutors, one can negotiate fees in daylight with all parties agreeing and still be breaking the law.)

Federal prosecutors also are notorious for appealing to the prejudices of juries. When the late Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were on trial in Houston, Texas, prosecutors appealed to the fact that when Enron collapsed, a lot of people lost money. (That Skilling and Lay also lost most of their income and wealth in the same collapse apparently was irrelevant, and prosecutors claimed that any act of Lay and Skilling diversifying their own personal financial portfolios — although both men held most of their wealth in Enron stock — was an attempt to knowingly bail out of a sinking ship.) Because the trial judge also was openly hostile to the defendants, prosecutors pretty much were able to do and say what they wanted without fear of legal repercussions.

Rudy Giuliani once noted with amusement that people charged with “white-collar crime” were more likely to “roll over” than were hardened criminals. Part of the reason is that most people, and especially business owners and executives who do try to obey the law, are horrified at the prospect of being charged criminally and going to prison. Because federal prosecutors can easily fashion charges that often defy defense, it is not hard to understand why business people plead guilty.

If Barack Obama and US Attorney Loretta Lynch decide to target business people, prosecutors will find plenty of targets. Because violation of regulations can be rolled into the “fraud” and “conspiracy” statutes — even if the violations were unintentional or the “targets” were unaware of their existence — it is not hard to find subjects to prosecute. Being charged in such conditions is more like “winning” an “unlucky lottery” than engaging in actual criminal behavior.

That turning the business community into a wreckage of criminal charges will have long-term effects on the willingness of entrepreneurs to risk their own assets will be no deterrent to people like Obama and Lynch. Neither of them have a minute of business experience, and they truly believe that businesses themselves probably at best are unethical entities or at worst caverns of criminality; so they most likely believe they are doing Americans a favor by throwing more people into prison. One only can feel sympathy for people and their families who at the present time have no idea that someone from the US Department of Justice is planning to wreck their lives over at worst what might be a legal technicality.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by