Hillary Clinton calls millions of Americans ‘deplorables’ because Democrats can be ‘grossly generalistic’ without media destroying them


Imagine a situation where Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gave a speech to donors and said, “I don’t hate all Muslims. I just oppose those who I lump into a cultural ‘basket of deplorables.'” How long do you think it would take before the collective might of the U.S. media crushed him under the weight of his own “grossly generalistic” words?

Answer: Mr. Trump would be mercilessly beaten day in and day out by pundits, political action committees, Hollywood celebrities, and campaign attack ads. There would be no respite from withering criticism until his reputation was ground into a million pieces and thrown into the dustbin of history.

Now consider Hillary Clinton’s “grossly generalistic” claim that roughly 50 percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables.”

CNN reported Saturday:

Hillary Clinton told an audience of donors Friday night that half of Donald Trump’s supporters fall into “the basket of deplorables,” meaning people who are racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.

In an effort to explain the support behind Trump, Clinton went on to describe the rest of Trump supporters as people who are looking for change in any form because of economic anxiety and urged her supporters to empathize with them.
“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”

Republicans are never allowed to be “grossly generalistic.” Just ask Mitt “47%” Romney.

If a Republican makes a generalization about any issue that might make some minorities look bad, then he or she is a racistbigothomophobe. If a Democrat makes a generalization that makes millions of white people look like racistbigothomophobes, then we are supposed to accept the claim as a general truth. Classic!

Surprisingly, CNN pointed to a new Quinnipiac University poll on Saturday showing that most people who are voting for Mr. Trump are doing so because they do not like Mrs. Clinton. She is such an unlikable and untrustworthy politician (Dare we say, “deplorable”?), that tens-of-millions of Americans will essentially vote against her instead of “for” Mr. Trump.


America, give or take a few percentage points each election cycle, is politically split. There are about 40 percent who will always vote for Republicans, another 40 percent who will always vote for Democrats, and then another 20 percent who are up for grabs even though they may heavily lean in one direction. Therefore, saying that “half” of Mr. Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables” is politically tone-deaf.

It will be very interesting to see how much this comment affects Mrs. Clinton’s support in the weeks ahead. Regardless, independent voters should ask themselves why it is that one political party gets to generalize about millions of law-abiding Americans, while the other is not allowed to do so with law-breakers and terrorists.

FBI shreds credibility with Hillary Clinton document dump before holiday weekend; NYTs wonders why Americans love WikiLeaks

Hillary Clinton CNN

It was only one month ago that FBI Director James Comey stepped in front of television cameras and raked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the coals for her “extremely careless” handling of the nation’s most sensitive documents — before stating the bizarre conclusion that no prosecution was warranted. In short, Mr. Comey confirmed that the rule of law in the U.S. is a joke — Washington “elites” really are above the law.

Friday’s document dump by the FBIa political move right before Labor Day weekend to minimize the fallout to a presidential candidate — demolishes whatever credibility the agency had left and demonstrates why millions of Americans do not care where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gets his information from.

CNN reported Friday:

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she couldn’t recall key details and events related to classified information procedures, according to notes the bureau released Friday of its July interview with the Democratic presidential nominee, along with a report on its investigation into her private email server.

Clinton told the FBI she “could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information,” according to the bureau’s notes of their interview with Clinton. The documents indicate Clinton told investigators she either does not “recall” or “remember” at least 39 times — often in response to questions about process, potential training or the content of specific emails.

What the network chose not to mention is that Mrs. Clinton literally linked her inability to recall operational security training to a concussion she suffered during a fall in 2012. The entire 58 pages are worth reading because they make clear — especially when coupled with Mr. Comey’s public statements — that Mrs. Clinton would be sitting in a jail cell if she had a different last name.

When the highest reaches of the FBI are no longer independent and it blatantly behaves as as political pawn, then America is in dire straits. I warned readers in April 2011 that Donald Trump was a canary in the mineshaft, and now he is the 2016 Republican presidential nominee. That is important because it is only when one understands how bad of a predicament we are in that he or she can put the acceptance of WikiLeaks into proper perspective.

Wikileaks Julian Assange

The New York Times wants Americans to shun Julian Assange because they see him as a tool of Russian President Vladimir Putin:

The newspaper wrote Aug. 31:

From the outset of WikiLeaks, Mr. Assange said he was motivated by a desire to use “cryptography to protect human rights,” and would focus on authoritarian governments like Russia’s.

But a New York Times examination of WikiLeaks’ activities during Mr. Assange’s years in exile found a different pattern: Whether by conviction, convenience or coincidence, WikiLeaks’ document releases, along with many of Mr. Assange’s statements, have often benefited Russia, at the expense of the West.

Among United States officials, the emerging consensus is that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services. But they say that, at least in the case of the Democrats’ emails, Moscow knew it had a sympathetic outlet in WikiLeaks, where intermediaries could drop pilfered documents in the group’s anonymized digital inbox.

In an interview on Wednesday with The Times, Mr. Assange said Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats were “whipping up a neo-McCarthyist hysteria about Russia.” There is “no concrete evidence” that what WikiLeaks publishes comes from intelligence agencies, he said, even as he indicated that he would happily accept such material.

Let us ask the following question about Mr. Assange by ironically quoting Hillary Clinton: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The Obama administration as a whole, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the FBI have obliterated the rule of law to protect Mrs. Clinton. Countless media outlets downplay or ignore the story, and other cultural institutions (e.g., academia, the entertainment industry), look the other way as corruption consumes us.

Does it really matter if WikiLeaks gets its information from Russia if it is one of the few organizations willing to expose corruption?

Vladimir Putin made this very same point in an interview with Bloomberg News on Friday — again, on the same day the FBI did whatever it could to protect Hillary Clinton.


The Russian president said September 2:

“Listen, does it even matter who hacked this data?” Putin said. “The important thing is the content that was given to the public. There should be discussion about this, and there is no reason to distract the public’s attention from the essence of the problem by raising some side issues with the search for who did it.”

It is with great sorrow that I find myself in agreement with Vladimir Putin on this issue. We used to rightfully lash out at Russia for spreading outright lies for its propaganda purposes; we now complain that Mr. Putin is responsible for truthfully exposing our own corruptionIf this does not convey just how far we have fallen, then nothing will.


James Comey’s decision on Hillary Clinton: Welcome to Animal Farm!

An open letter to James Comey and the FBI about Hillary Clinton’s missing server Snapchat joke

Hillary Clinton turns over server to FBI — after months — yet campaign still calls story ‘nonsense’

Hillary Clinton used personal email account for all State Dept. business: Laws are for little people

Terry Crews filming anti-Trump ads that will only energize Trump supporters


Regular readers of this website know that their friendly neighborhood blogger is rooting for the Sweet Meteor of Death in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This is a propaganda-free zone in terms of the race for the White House, which is why Terry Crews must be called out for the decision to film anti-Trump commercials with screenwriter Etan Coan and director Mike Judge.

Buzzfeed reported June 3:

Idiocracy screenwriter Etan Cohen talks to BuzzFeed News about his 2006 movie “coming true” with the 2016 election and the anti-Trump ads he’s working on with Camacho himself, Terry Crews. …

Cohen and [director Mike] Judge have always maintained that the movie had a kernel of truth to it, but, Cohen said, “We just thought it would take much, much longer to get to this point.” The film was meant as a satire of the obsession with celebrity and entertainment culture in America. “Obviously, when writing the movie, we knew that that was true about TV and movies and pop culture,” he said. “But it was a crazy joke to think that it could be extrapolated to politics. It seems to be happening really rapidly.” …

Cohen felt a call to action, saying these ads are very important to him. “This is what satire is for … to be able to hold up a mirror and say, ‘This is crazy,’” he said. “Idiocracy was like that, but this all of a sudden felt like a very immediate need for the true meaning of satire and what it can actually do.”

Terry Crews seems like an amazing guy. It is hard to resist his charm. He probably has the best of intentions in terms of filming his anti-Trump ads, but if he really wants to help stop a Trump administration from ever happening then he will not say a word about politics until after Nov. 8, 2016.

Donald Trump’s popularity is a symptom of a much larger cultural disease. Many factors were at play during his race to secure the Republican presidential nomination, but one of them was the predilection of Hollywood actors and actresses to mock anyone who does not share their political preferences.

The people who will laugh and giggle at anti-Trump ads featuring Idiocracy’s “President Camacho” were never going to vote for Donald Trump to begin with. The commercials will do little more than reenforce Trump’s critics’ existing beliefs. Meanwhile, the ads will serve as further proof to Mr. Trump’s supporters that Hollywood, the mainstream media, and “the establishment” are out to get them.

  • Mr. Crews’ videos will turn passive Trump supporters into people who make phone calls for the man.
  • Mr. Crews’ videos will prompt people who already make phone calls for Mr. Trump to now go door-to-door on his behalf.
  • Mr. Crews’ videos will inspire small donors to Mr. Trump’s campaign to find an extra $50-$100 to donate.

In short, Hollywood’s efforts to destroy Mr. Trump’s campaign through expensive media mockery plays right into his Us vs. Them stump speech. Worse, it causes guys like me — Sweet Meteor of Death supporters — to feel sympathy for Mr. Trump’s campaign.

Question: If Mr. Cohen was worried about celebrity culture seeping into U.S. politics, then why did he never make satirical videos mocking President Obama’s decision to sell Obamacare on “Between Two Ferns” with Zach Galifianakis?

Question: If Mr. Cohen was worried about celebrity culture corrupting U.S. politics, then why wasn’t he making satirical videos when all of Hollywood created creepy political ads straight out of a Star Trek episode featuring The Borg.

Giant Meteor 2016

Hollywood turned the 2008 and 2012 U.S. presidential elections into a popularity contest akin to an episode of American Idol, and now that Mr. Trump transformed it into The Apprentice they want to quickly unwind the clock. It’s too late for that.

The best option is for Hollywood screenwriters, directors, and actors to go away. If they do not, then they will only have themselves to blame when Mr. Trump becomes the 45th president of the United States.

Et tu, Rubio? Marco stabs NeverTrump, twists knife

Marco Rubio Clinton tweet

Throughout the 2016 Republican primary season, there was one man who consistently warned that nominating Donald Trump would signal the death knell for the party of limited government: Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

He called the billionaire a “con artist” who was not fit for office.

He helped spearhead the “NeverTrump” movement.

He was supposed to be the one principled man in the room. Now, like a modern-day Brutus, he has engaged in a betrayal that has left his supporters speechless.

Marco Rubio NeverTrump tweet

To add insult to injury, Sen. Rubio’s plan to help Trump win the White House comes the same week the billionaire said he wanted to turn the Republican Party into the “worker’s party,” (Yes, “worker’s party”).

Bloomberg reported May 26:

“I asked Trump what he thought the GOP would look like in five years. ‘Love the question,’ he replied. ‘Five, 10 years from now—different party. You’re going to have a worker’s party. A party of people that haven’t had a real wage increase in 18 years, that are angry.’

Marco Rubio is throwing his weight behind a man who wants to fundamentally transform the Republican Party into a “worker’s party.” Let that marinate in your head for a few moments before moving on. Think about it. Turn it around. Consider the long-term implications…

Mr. Trump’s quote demonstrates precisely why “NeverTrump” exists: If the head of the Republican Party is someone who sounds like Karl Marx, never mentions the U.S. Constitution unless prompted, donated to Democrats for most of his adult life, and has literally changed positions on almost every serious policy issue, then “Republican” means nothing. 

Marco Rubio Bill Kristol twitter

Sen. Rubio is being disingenuous when he says voters must choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. If Mr. Rubio was telling the truth about both candidates being unfit for office, then the principled thing to do would be to a.) write in an acceptable candidate, b.) vote for a third-party candidate, c.) not vote — because not lending your support to a field of unacceptable candidates is more honorable then voting for someone you called a “con artist” who is unfit for the job.

At this point it looks like I will be voting for “Giant Meteor” for president. At least Giant Meteor will never lie to me.

Giant Meteor 2016

Hillary Clinton pairing up with all-female ‘Ghostbusters’ cast … because pandering

Ghostbusters 2016

Imagine a scenario in 2012 where Mitt Romney decided to appear on Jimmy Kimmel with the cast of The Expendables 2. Jimmy then tweeted, “The entire cast of The Expendables is here next week and now @MittRomney is coming, too! Get your Man Cards ready.”

You would probably lose a ton of respect for Mr. Romney for a.) blatantly pandering to a certain demographic of men, and b.) doing so when nothing about him says “cigar chomping, beer-chugging dude.”

Now consider the following tweet from Ellen DeGeneres on Tuesday:

“The entire cast of Ghostbusters is here next week and now @HillaryClinton is coming, too! Get your Woman Cards ready.”

Sad, isn’t it? It screams, “Vote for Hillary because she’s a woman. Seriously. I mean it.”

Ellen DeGeneres Hillary Clinton Ghostbusters

The weird thing about Mrs. Clinton’s May 25 appearance with Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones is that no one has apparently warned her: Ghostbusters is literally the most reviled movie trailer in YouTube’s history.

The Hollywood Reporter covered the infamous milestone April 30:

Not only does it have the most dislikes for a trailer on the social platform, but it also makes the top 25 most disliked videos overall.

Things are not boding well for director Paul Feig’s upcoming Ghostbusters based on the film’s first official trailer on YouTube.

Released March 3, the trailer, viewed 29.2 million times and counting, is the most disliked movie trailer in YouTube history, according to “MyTop100Videos” channel’s “Most Disliked Videos” list that was last updated April 16.

Mrs. Clinton, a pale political imitation of her husband, will link herself with a cast that will likely be a pale imitation of the original Ghostbusters. It’s the kind of pandering that only a desperate candidate would resort to because someone who was confident would want the stage all to herself.

If Hillary Clinton were confident that she represented the majority of women, then there would be no need for “Get your Woman Card ready” tweets by Ellen DeGeneres.

If Hillary Clinton were running a smooth campaign, then the cast of Ghostbusters would appear the next day and talk about her for most of the interview.

If Hillary Clinton had decent political instincts, then she would not appear with any cast that would allow critics a segue into discussions about “ghosts” that haunt the former secretary of state at night.

Again, I would be highly insulted if a male candidate showed up on a talk show with a bunch of “manly men” as guests because … “bros before hoes in the voting booth, bro!” I can only hope that millions of intelligent women feel the same way about the Clinton campaign’s shameless efforts with female voters.

‘Dilbert’ creator Scott Adams nailed it on Trump’s strategy

Dilbert Trump

A friend of mine asked me earlier this week whether I thought Donald Trump would be the next president of the United States. We had a lengthy discussion on the matter, and then the next day an old Washington Post piece showed up in my Facebook feed that covered much of the same ground. I was amused to find out that “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams and I have many of the same observations about the billionaire. We agree on Trump’s general strategy, but differ in terms of how successful his tactics will be in the general election.

In short, Adams believes Trump will be the next president of the United States. I … don’t know.

The Washington Post reported March 21:

The Manhattan mogul is so deft at the powers of persuasion, Adams believes, that the candidate could have run as a Democrat and, by picking different hot-button issues, still won this presidency. In other words: Trump is such a master linguistic strategist that he could have turned the political chessboard around and still embarrassed the field. …

1. Trump knows people are basically irrational.

“If you see voters as rational you’ll be a terrible politician,” Adams writes on his blog. “People are not wired to be rational. Our brains simply evolved to keep us alive. Brains did not evolve to give us truth. Brains merely give us movies in our minds that keeps us sane and motivated. But none of it is rational or true, except maybe sometimes by coincidence.”

2. Knowing that people are irrational, Trump aims to appeal on an emotional level.

“The evidence is that Trump completely ignores reality and rational thinking in favor of emotional appeal,” Adams writes. “Sure, much of what Trump says makes sense to his supporters, but I assure you that is coincidence. Trump says whatever gets him the result he wants. He understands humans as 90-percent irrational and acts accordingly.”

Adams adds: “People vote based on emotion. Period.”

3. By running on emotion, facts don’t matter.

“While his opponents are losing sleep trying to memorize the names of foreign leaders – in case someone asks – Trump knows that is a waste of time … ,” Adams writes. “There are plenty of important facts Trump does not know. But the reason he doesn’t know those facts is – in part – because he knows facts don’t matter. They never have and they never will. So he ignores them.

“Right in front of you.”

And stating numbers that might not quite be facts nevertheless can anchor those numbers, and facts, in your mind.

4. If facts don’t matter, you can’t really be “wrong.”

Trump “doesn’t apologize or correct himself. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump looks stupid, evil, and maybe crazy,” Adams writes. “If you understand persuasion, Trump is pitch-perfect most of the time. He ignores unnecessary rational thought and objective data and incessantly hammers on what matters (emotions).”

I highly suggest reading the entire piece. Adams’ analysis will be invaluable in the months ahead.

Back in February I concurred with The Federalist’s James Poulos, who likened Trump to the Marvel character “Deadpool.” I said, “It appears, unfortunately, as though the Republican Party will not listen to Poulos’ advice, but instead will continue to ‘agonize’ over Trump.”

Now, Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. That means that we are only left to wonder if Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will be able to successfully counter Trump’s strategy — unless there is an X Factor.

I believe the X Factor that Adams did not discuss is the percentage of people who Trump inadvertently filled with irreversible negative emotions while wooing Republican primary voters.

Translation: The billionaire might not be able to make more people irrationally support him than those who now irrationally hate him.

To this day I still believe Marco Rubio would have been the only Republican candidate who would have beat Hillary Clinton in a “normal” election (e.g., no one accuses an opponent’s family member of being linked to the JFK assassination). Mr. Trump, however, is not a normal candidate.

As of now I am not prepared to make any predictions, but I will put on an intellectual poncho. There is no doubt that things will soon get dirtier than the front row of a Blue Man Group performance.

Hannity: ‘Unite’ behind guy who gave Todd Akin-like abortion answer now exploited by Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Sean Hannity, Fox News’ perpetual Donald Trump apologist, took to Twitter earlier this week to beg conservatives to “UNITE” behind the billionaire if he wins the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. His plea came on the very same day that Trump actually answered a hypothetical question by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that hinged on 1973’s Rov v Wade being overturned and state legislatures then rushing to outlaw abortion.

Trump said there would have to be “some punishment” for women who had abortions under this magical scenario from every Planned Parenthood executive’s worst nightmares.

Writers like yours truly have said for years that principled and articulate conservatives are the key to changing American culture in ways that will reinvigorate the Republican Party. Meanwhile, guys like Sean Hannity now find themselves “uniting” behind a guy with no core principles — a guy who just says whatever pops into his mind at any given moment — who just gave an abortion answer that is worse than former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin in 2012.

For those who don’t remember, Mr. Akin said women’s bodies have a natural defense against rape that prevents them from getting pregnant under such circumstances. Democrats used that to bolster their bizarre “War on Women” campaign — as if all Republicans actually held such an embarrassing opinion and secretly hate their wife, sisters, grandmothers, etc.

Hillary Clinton, who spent a lifetime trying to destroy the reputation of every woman who had an affair with her husband or accused him of rape, is now exploiting Trump’s abortion answer as expected.

She told Business Insider on Friday:

“I think you have to take him at his word. And I think what we heard was a very unvarnished view that he has, and I for one have been very vocal in criticizing him and criticizing the other Republicans who are now embarrassed that he said what they all believe.”

Trump’s response is in many ways worse than Akin’s because he is the Republican front-runner for the 2016 presidential nomination. The media portrayed some random goof congressman from Missouri as the poster boy for the Republican Party in 2012, and now it gets to do the same thing with a man who could legitimately be the presidential nominee.

Who do we have to thank for all of this? There are many people who have brought us to this point, but it cannot be denied that pundits like Sean Hannity — who never saw an indiscretion by Trump that he couldn’t smooth over — shoulder a good chunk of blame.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go back to waiting for someone to ask Hillary Clinton a hypothetical question about the Second Amendment. I was hoping Chris Matthews would ask her how she would react if the Second Amendment was magically repealed tomorrow and states like California outlawed all guns.

Maybe Chris Matthews will ask her if she would support penalties for Californians who purchased guns anyway. Or not, because Democrats are almost never asked stupid questions like that.

Sean Hannity Trump

Trump rally shut down by Chicago goons, socialist idea of ‘free speech’ on display

Chicago cop

If there is one good thing about Donald Trump’s presidential campaign it is that socialist goons are making their totalitarian tendencies known. A Trump rally was cancelled on Friday at the University of Illinois-Chicago Pavilion over security concerns. Bernie Sanders supporters and left-wing activists let it be known that they specifically sought to stifle the billionaire’s ability to speak.

Roughly 10,000 people showed up to hear Trump speak inside the arena and thousands of others waited outside. Activists arrived to start fights, block traffic, and generally make life miserable for the Chicago Police Department.

Fox News reported:

Kamran Siddiqui is a 20-year-old student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where the event was to take place.

He says: “Trump represents everything America is not and everything Chicago is not. We came in here and we wanted to shut this down. Because this is a great city and we don’t want to let that person in here.”

Siddiqui says he’s a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. He says it “feels amazing” to have stopped Trump from speaking at his own rally.

He adds: “Everybody came together. That’s what people can do. Now people got to go out and vote because we have the opportunity to stop Trump.”

Newsflash: Donald Trump is popular in part because the U.S. is increasingly populated with Siddiquis-like thugs. You can find them online or on any college campus that makes “safe spaces” a priority.

Siddiqui wasn’t alone:

“Chicago community activist Quo Vadis said hundreds of protesters had positioned themselves in groups around the arena, and that they intend to demonstrate right after Trump takes the stage. Their goal, he said, is “for Donald to take the stage and to completely interrupt him. The plan is to shut Donald Trump all the way down.”

The Founding Fathers knew that free speech and the right to assembly were essential to the health of the Republic, which is why they are covered in the First Amendment. Sadly, there are millions of “Siddiquis”and “Vadis” who call themselves Americans while only respecting a narrow band of left-wing thought along the ideological spectrum.

Trump Chicago


“We stopped Trump” the refrain goes. Quite the opposite, in fact. All 10,000 people who did not get to see the man speak because of security threats caused by Bernie Sanders supporters — and millions who watched it unfold on the news — now will be twice as energized to vote for the man.

Guys who would rather be writing about Marvel comics and superhero movies — like me — now must defend the guy. Trust me, that is something I do not want to do, but my love for individual liberty trumps (no pun intended) my lack of enthusiasm or disdain for any political candidate.

Chicago Trump Bernie

Who is more dangerous to the future of America: Socialist hordes that take pride in silencing opponents through any means necessary, or Donald Trump? It’s an excellent question, but right now those who “feel the Bern” are making it clear that their vision for the future looks very much like the nightmare that is Venezuela. Make sure to stock up on toilet paper — socialist utopias usually don’t have much in supply.

Bloomberg eyes White House run. Big Gulp 2016: Ready to swill

Michael Bloomberg is like Soda Popinski. Not only is he obsessed with sugary drinks, but a lot of people want to punch him in the face.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks Americans may finally be ready for President Big-Gulp. The billionaire who tried to ban businesses in NYC from selling sodas, energy drinks, and sweet tea in cups larger than 16-ounces is seriously exploring a 2016 presidential run.

The New York Times reported Saturday:

Michael R. Bloomberg has instructed advisers to draw up plans for a potential independent campaign in this year’s presidential race. His advisers and associates said he was galled by Donald J. Trump’s dominance of the Republican field, and troubled by Hillary Clinton’s stumbles and the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the Democratic side. …

Mr. Bloomberg, 73, has already taken concrete steps toward a possible campaign, and has indicated to friends and allies that he would be willing to spend at least $1 billion of his fortune on it, according to people briefed on his deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss his plans. He has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, the latest point at which advisers believe Mr. Bloomberg could enter the race and still qualify to appear as an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.

It is times like these when we must look to the records for a window into Mr. Bloomberg’s soul. An NBC interview with May 2012 should do the trick:

“We’re not taking away anybody’s right to do things, we’re simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision to go from one cup to another cup,” (Michael Bloomberg, NBC with Andrea Mitchell, May 31, 2012).

In Mr. Bloomberg’s world, turning mom-and-pop business owners into criminals because they sell 32-ounce drinks to customers who like 32-ounce drinks is no big deal. In Mr. Bloomberg’s world, it is totally reasonable to micro-manage the lives of citizens down to the cup-size they prefer at local eateries.

A man who thinks he should be able to control how much sweet tea you consume in one sitting is a man who thinks he should be able to control every aspect of your life. The tens-of-millions of dollars he has spent on gun-control efforts across the country is further proof of his insatiable desire to “force” you to “understand” that his wants trump your rights.

Personally, I hope Mr. Bloomberg does run for president. He is generally an unlikable politician who will only siphon off support from whatever micro-managing candidate wins the Democratic Party’s nomination.

Big Gulp 2016: Ready to swill. Bloomberg for president.

Make it happen, Michael.


Ben Carson exposes ‘West Point’ witch hunt, nails media over its silence on Obama’s academic records

Ben Carson v media West Point

Retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is finding out first-hand that when a black conservative runs for office, there is no stone that will remain unturned in the media’s effort to destroy him. The president who put “composite” white girlfriends in his autobiography to this very day gets away with having his academic records kept from public view, but Dr. Carson’s “implication” of an offer to West Point as a 17-year-old ROTC student was somehow a scandal on Friday.

Dr. Carson was a shooting star in Detroit by the time he was an ROTC student. It does not take a genius to figure out that someone with military clout, apparently Gen. William Westmoreland, pulled him aside and said West Point was a done-deal if he wanted it. I say this as someone who a.) seriously looked into the Army’s “Green to Gold” enlisted-to-officer program as a mechanized infantryman, and b.) has a father who graduated from West Point.

Only a political opponent or a media apparatus intent on destroying the man’s chances at winning the 2016 Republican presidential nomination would make a big deal out of this story — and I say that as someone who supports another candidate.

Faced with the media’s feeding frenzy, Dr. Carson intellectually destroyed a room filled with so-called journalists. He said Nov. 6:

Ben Carson: There is a desperation on behalf of some to try and find a way to tarnish me because they have been looking through everything. They have been talking to everybody I’ve ever known, everybody I’ve ever seen. ‘There’s gotta be a scandal. There’s gotta be some nurse he’s having an affair with. There’s gotta be something!’

So next week it will be my kindergarten teacher who said I peed in my pants. I mean, it’s just ridiculous. But it’s okay, because I totally expect it.

I do not remember this level for scrutiny for one President Barack Obama when he was running. In fact, I remember just the opposite. I remember people just, ‘Oh, well, we won’t really talk about that. We won’t talk about that relationship. Well, Frank Marshal Davis. Eh, we don’t want to talk about that. Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers? Eh, he didn’t really know him.’

All the things Jeremiah Wright was saying. ‘Eh, not a big problem.’

[Obama] goes to Occidental college. Doesn’t do all that well, and somehow ends up in Columbia University. ‘Eh, I don’t know.’ His records are sealed. Why are his records sealed? Why are you guys not interested in why his records are sealed? Can somebody tell me why? Please.

**reporter gets upset and asks why Carson is raising the question**

I’m asking you why it is so. Will someone tell me please why you have not investigated that.

**reporters try to interject**

Why? Because I want to know. You should want to know, too. He’s president of the United States. You’re saying that something that happened with the words of scholarship that was offered is a big deal, but the president — his academic records being sealed — is not?

**reporters try to interject again**

Tell me how there’s equivalency there. Tell me, somebody. Please. You see, what you’re not going to find with me, is somebody who is going to sit back and let you be completely unfair without letting the American people know what’s going on. The American people are waking up to your games.

Boom. Mic drop.

Have you ever noticed how strange it is that reporters and pundits who always praise Mr. Obama for his intellect show zero curiosity as to why he doesn’t want his college transcripts made public?

Have you ever noticed that the media never really talked to anyone who remembered Mr. Obama at Columbia?

Has it ever seemed peculiar that a man who admits he was a confused druggie with poor grades suddenly found himself able to transfer to a prestigious university?

Mr. Obama has been the president for almost eight years, and yet there is still much about his past that remains a mystery. It is incredibly telling how the media obsesses over Dr. Carson’s youth, yet it shows contempt for anyone who speaks on the odd trajectory of Mr. Obama’s college life.

The retired neurosurgeon’s campaign certainly has its faults, but its ability to call out media bias is certainly not one of them.

For more reading on this issue, check out Ace of Spades.