Ben Carson Makes Giant Announcement That’ll Terrify His Opponents And Shatter Records

Ben Carson’s campaign has done what few political insiders thought was possible when the former neurosurgeon launched his candidacy last spring: become a fundraising juggernaut.

The political outsider, now running only one point behind Donald Trump in recent polling, raised over $20 million dollars in the third quarter only. To date, the campaign has raised over $31 million.

“You know, the pundits all said that we would never be able to mount a national campaign for financial reasons, but here we are approaching 600,000 donations,” Carson told the Associated Press while campaigning in New Hampshire. “The people have gotten involved, and that’s something I think they probably never anticipated.”

The fundraising haul is not being fueled by mainly major donors, but by smaller donations and volunteers stepping up to be “bundlers” for the campaign.

CBS News reports that Jacquelyn Monroe, 45, is one example. The Georgian plays piano for a living and had never given a significant amount to politicians in the past, but decided to raise $100,000 for Carson’s campaign.  

“‘It’s not something that I would normally set out to do,’ Monroe [told CBS News], who added she was moved by Carson’s authenticity and Christian faith and coaxed into collecting money from friends and business associates by his ambitious campaign staff. ‘$100,000-plus is a big deal for me.’”

Carson’s campaign reported raising $12 million in September alone, and a significant portion of that came in after the candidate indicated he would not support a Muslim who did not renounce Sharia Law for president.

The campaign brought in $700,000 in the 36 hours after he made that comment less than two weeks ago, according to campaign manager Barry Bennett.

“I would guess that we’ve outraised the Republican National Committee and many of our opponents maybe combined,” the campaign manager added.

Do you support Dr. Ben Carson? Like the page:

Now flush with cash, Bennett said the campaign has begun implementing plans to buy television ad space across the South for the Super Tuesday primaries on March 1, 2016.

“Sooner or later, they’ll have to realize there’s a new reality or they’ll pay the price,” Bennett said of the Republican establishment. “The outsiders are not going away.”

h/t: Business Insider

Congress And The Fed Refuse To Learn From Their Mistakes

This month marks the seventh anniversary of the bursting of the housing bubble and the subsequent economic meltdown. The mood in Congress following the meltdown resembled the panicked atmosphere that followed the September 11th attacks. As was the case after September 11th, Congress rushed to pass hastily written legislation that, instead of dealing with the real causes of the crisis, simply gave the government more power.

Just as few understood the role our interventionist foreign policy played in the September 11th attacks, few in Congress understood that the 2008 meltdown was caused by the Federal Reserve and Congress, not by unregulated capitalism. Not surprising to anyone familiar with economic history, the story of the 2008 meltdown starts with the bursting of the Fed-created tech bubble.

Following the collapse of the tech bubble, the Fed began aggressively pumping money into the economy. This money flooded into the housing market, creating the housing bubble. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress also added fuel to the housing bubble. These so-called “free-market” conservatives expanded federal housing programs in hopes of creating an “ownership society.”

If Congress understood the Austrian theory of the business cycle, it would have allowed the recession that followed the housing bubble’s inevitable collapse to run its course. Recessions are the economy’s way of eliminating the distortions caused by the Federal Reserve. Attempts by Congress and the Fed to end a recession via inflation and government spending will only lead to future, and more severe, economic downturns.

The corporate bailouts, government spending, and money creation via quantitative easing that Congress and the Fed have engaged in since the fall of 2008 have failed to produce even the illusion of prosperity. The daily experience of most Americans shows that the government’s doctored statistics drastically understate both unemployment and inflation.

This is not to say that no Americans have benefited from Federal Reserve policies. Even Donald Trump has called quantitative easing “a great deal for guys like me.” Much of the growth of government over the past seven years, from the bailouts to the increases in military and domestic spending to Obamacare, has also benefited politically-connected crony capitalists.

The Federal Reserve’s continued delay of an interest rate increase suggests that, contrary to its public statements, the Fed understands that the economy has not recovered from the meltdown and is on the brink of another major recession. Fear that the Fed is not being fully forthcoming with its view of the economy is one reason the stock market declined following the Fed’s recent decision to once again postpone increasing interest rates.

Learning the full truth about how the Fed evaluates the economy and its plans to respond to another downturn are two reasons why it is important to pass the Audit the Fed bill.

A vote on Audit the Fed would probably be the only good thing to occur in Congress this year. A Congress that cannot defund Planned Parenthood is unlikely to make any serious cuts in spending. Instead of waiting for politicians to do the right thing, those who know the truth must spread the ideas of liberty as far and wide as possible. Only when the teachings of the Austrian school are embraced by a critical mass of Americans will Congress cut warfare spending, cut welfare spending, and audit, and then end, the Fed.

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

Carson Gets Support From A NASCAR Legend, Makes Announcement To Confederate Flag Waving NASCAR Fans

GOP top-tier presidential candidate Ben Carson won a coup with NASCAR fans after a racing legend gave him an unofficial endorsement. Richard Petty, one of the South’s most famous race car drivers, said he was impressed with Carson after he paid a visit Sept. 28 to a camp for disabled children funded by Petty’s foundation.

“We’re hoping he’s endorsing the camp, we’re not necessarily endorsing him, but we are — you know what I mean?” Petty said in an Associated Press interview. Although he wasn’t formally endorsing Carson, Petty posed for pictures on the presidential candidate’s campaign bus.

Petty said he appreciates Carson’s character.

“He’s very humane,” Petty said. “That’s one of his strong points as far as we’re concerned.”

The relationship between the South and the racing community is somewhat complicated for Carson because of the Confederate flag issue. Carson has compared the rebel flag to the Nazi swastika in that both are considered a “symbol of hate” for many people. Carson, the sole African-American running in the 2016 presidential election, negotiated the issue by stating that the rebel battle flag is “a local issue.”

“If it’s a majority of people in that area who want it to fly, I certainly wouldn’t take it down,” he said.

He said the only condition is that the flag be flown on private property instead of government grounds. It is an important point for racing fans because the battle flag often flies prominently at NASCAR events around the country.

There’s more good news for Carson. He got a significant fundraising bump after he made controversial comments regarding a hypothetical Muslim as a U.S. president. Carson said he could not advocate for a Muslim candidate to advance to the office of president unless that person completely rejects Sharia Law. He said Sharia Law is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution.

While the comments irked many in the media, in progressive politics and even among other GOP presidential contenders, Carson apparently struck home with grassroots voters. Campaign reports state the presidential candidate’s campaign raised between $600,000 and $700,000 after his comments were publicized. His campaign collected $10 million for its coffers in September and has garnered nearly $20 million for the quarter. The Carson campaign has raised an aggregate of $30 million since his campaign launched.

Carson said while visiting the Petty-funded camp in North Carolina that his comments probably contributed to a bump in the latest polls.

“There’s no question that the people of America recognize that America is a unique place, and I don’t think that anybody wants to give that away. We want to be fair to everybody, but we certainly don’t want to change it into something else,” he said.

Who Has Control Over The Government’s Budget?

I was recently contacted by a concerned Texan regarding a town hall meeting she attended with her Congressional representative. Her email to me reads as follows:

I have a constitutional question. At a town hall yesterday, we had a heated discussion with our Congressional representative Mike Conaway. Our question was why isn’t the House withholding funds for Obama’s overreaches? Conaway’s reply was the House can’t do that alone, it also takes the Senate. I have been under the impression the House alone controlled the purse strings. Am I correct?

I wanted to respond to this email publicly since it involves an important constitutional issue. I fear that many are confused on this vital check and balance; and because of our ignorance of this principle, we are losing one of the most important controls on government incorporated into the Constitution.

Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution is the governing text regarding this issue of spending. It reads:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Since the Constitution is a contract, pursuant to contract law we must look to the drafters of the contract when we need clarity. James Madison explains exactly what we need to know in Federalist 58:

The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of the government…This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutatory measure.

Madison also explains that one of the main reasons the House was vested with this important power was to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government” as the people may demand.

On May 15, 1789, Madison, then a federal representative to his District in Virginia, had a conversation with fellow Virginia Representative Alexander White during the ratification debates:

Mr. White said: “The Constitution, having authorized the House of Representatives alone to originate money bills, places an important trust in our hands, which, as their protectors, we ought not to part with.  I do not mean to imply that the Senate are less to be trusted than this house; but the Constitution, no doubt for wise purposes, has given the immediate representatives of the people a control over the whole government in this particular, which, for their interest, they ought not let out of their hands.”

It is interesting to note that Alexander White is repeating the principle of the power of the purse Madison identified in Federalist 58, that it is the duty of the House to have a “control over the whole government” to reduce “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government.”

Madison replies to White with confirmation:

The principle reason why the Constitution had made this distinction was, because they (the House) were chosen by the people, and supposed to be the best acquainted with their interest and ability.

It is clear, according to the drafters of the Constitution, that the House alone was vested with the power of purse. Pursuant to Article 1 section 7, the Senate may propose amendments and may concur, but their assent is not necessary. As both White and Madison stated, this power rests in the House alone because it is the House that is chosen directly by the people as their representatives, and best suited to redress their grievances and reduce and control all the other branches as the people see fit. If the House proposes a budget that the Senate refuses to vote upon, then the House budget stands. If the Senate proposes an amendment to the budget, and the House doesn’t want it, then the original House budget stands. It is also important to note that constitutionally speaking, the president has no veto power over a budget.

Some may confuse the procedure for passing a law with the procedure for passing a budget. A very important distinction must be recognized; a budget expires, but a law does not. A law must follow the procedure of both houses of Congress, with veto power by the president because in order to get rid of a law, it must be repealed. Budgets, however, expire and must be renewed by each congressional session. No future Congress is ever bound by a past congressional budget. That is why the Senate is not necessary and the President is procedurally excluded from the budget process.  

We must also remember that one of the chief purposes for vesting this power in the House was to reduce the overgrowth of the other branches of government. It is counterintuitive to ask the House to exercise that control over the Senate, the Executive, and the Judiciary and then require those branches to concur with that control. It is highly unlikely that our founders would create such an absurdity with the Constitution.

The current budget procedures, invented outside the boundaries of the Constitution by past Congresses, have achieved exactly what both Madison and White have warned about; they have let this vital power out of their hands and placed it into the hands of those not constitutionally fit to fulfil the demand. We need educated and principled leaders in Congress to stand against this usurp of the greatest check and balance on governmental overreach.  

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

Here Are 7 Easy Questions For The Donald That Even An ‘Apprentice’ Could Answer

Should we ask Donald Trump or Forrest Gump these all-important questions? The Donald calls a lot of people “stupid”–but Forrest Gump at least offered a definition for stupid.

Gump said: “Stupid is as stupid does”

In the area of what Trump has done or what he is doing, we will have to eliminate the acquisition of ten billion dollars for the obvious reasons. A child’s first trip to Disney World and an adult’s first million dollars are both pretty much fantasies for the average American; so for the sake of this argument, we will set aside the entire matter of acquiring wealth for the more practical questions that we actually will have to answer on a daily basis.

  1. What’s the difference between Russia’s Putin and the average American citizen?

What president in our history has ever claimed that he could get along with our strongest protagonist and potential enemy (Putin) all while calling many of our own citizens stupid? If you can’t get along with us – what makes Putin so special?

Not everyone in the nation is onboard the Trump train; many of us got off quickly after applying Gump’s definition of “stupid” to this question.

2. Will we have to go through the next 4 to 8 years wondering what you mean by what you say?

For the last seven years, we have been subject to the vacillations, lies and obfuscations of Barack Obama. The grandiose cover for all his adjustments and modifications, made on the fly, is the simple explanation that he has – evolved.

Most of us don’t care about the difference between a face and a persona. Speaking of stupid, are we too stupid to understand the difference between a semantic word game and an ordinary insult?

Maybe you should start evolving if you are going to catch up to our outgoing president, who is a master in the art of giving empty answers to loaded questions.

  1. Have you ever read Dale Carnegie’s classic, “How to Win Friends…”?

Perhaps someone with ten billon bucks doesn’t think they need any improvements in their life, but even Daddy Warbucks knew enough to treat people with a little dignity.

Are you aware that one of the rare gems of Carnegie’s wisdom was the simple truth that people react better and give back more in business, life et al to those who take the time to help them to save face?

Criticizing faces is the act of a child; helping others to save face is the act of a fully matured lady or gentleman who has learned to recognize the dignity of others.

Can we project the question into our future and ask: what kind of an example will it be to our children to have a president who may at any given time make fun of any one of our 321 million faces?

  1. How would you answer the question of the nuclear button?

For over half an hour during the recent CNN Republican debate, you were silent as others answered important questions about matters that all Americans are concerned about. It was obvious that many of those questions could only be answered by qualified senators, governors and experienced politicians.

During that half hour, it was clear that you were – dare I say it – the apprentice.

Rising candidates like Carly Fiorina had more to say than you. Seasoned statesmen like Cruz and others barreled ahead from knowledge and experience to give answers that no apprentice could possibly answer.

When the CNN moderators posed the question that was obviously aimed at creating tension between other candidates and you, did it occur to you that they should have asked you – and only you – that most important question?

It is here you have the chance to answer the question.

Would you put the nuclear button in the hands of an apprentice?

  1. Which of these phrases does not belong in the list?

This question may fare better on the popular show “Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?” Nevertheless, it begs to be asked.

After enduring the fruit of a generation-long mistake called Roe v. Wade, which to date has cost the lives of 55 million innocent children, and now the morally decadent ruling called Obergefell v. Hodges, why have we not heard some bold promise from you on what you would do about these as president of these United States?

So far, we have heard you say we should partially fund Planned Parenthood, and that Obergefell is, after all, the “law of the land.”

We will not tax your comprehension of moral matters above what you may be able.

Here is one single question.

Which of these phrases about America does not belong in this list?

  1. 55 million abortions
  2. “homosexual marriage”
  3. national greatness
  1. Which vision will be our future – yours or mine?

Almost every speech along your campaign trail has been peppered with the promise of greater riches for America. My message is exactly the opposite.

I will not draw on the reports and predictions of many of our best economists to bolster my message, even while many of them are warning that America cannot avoid the coming fiscal fall.

I have only three top messages and will proclaim them until my death. One is the gospel of the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ. The second is the warnings of one third of the Bible that Christ is about to re-enter the affairs of men in judgment. A third explicit and detailed message was given to me by the one who gave me the first two. Our nation is about to undergo an economic crash that will far exceed the days of deep austerity caused by the stock market crash of 1929.

Irony will have an entirely new definition if it is you who is sitting as our president when these things occur.

It will be the billionaire – presiding over the greatest economic crash in America’s history?

  1. The seventh question as a concomitant to the other six.

Will you admit that you were, after all, just too stupid to make all Americans richer–or will all Americans admit that they were very stupid to elect you as their president?

We are still waiting for your favorite verse from the Bible, which you said was your favorite book. If you can’t think of one soon, let me suggest that you memorize this two-part gem – as quickly as you can.

It’s about a rich man who had his best year ever and said to himself…

“…Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.” (Lk 12: 19)

Then along came God’s answer to him – to you – to us all…

“But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” (Lk 12: 20-21)

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