Why Is EWTN Boycotting Ben Carson?

by Justin Soutar

(NOTE: This article was originally published by Catholic Online Dec. 28, 2015 at http://www.catholic.org/news/politics/story.php?id=66141 )

Like tens of millions of Catholics and others throughout the United States and hundreds of millions of people around the world, I am immensely grateful to God for the priceless gift of the Eternal Word Television Network. From the day of its founding by a Poor Clare nun named Mother Mary Angelica in a Birmingham, Alabama garage some thirty-five years ago, this great tool of catechesis, inspiration, and evangelization has been faithfully proclaiming the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church both “in season and out of season,” strengthening and assisting those of us who are “inside the fold” while attractively presenting the beauty of our faith to those outside the Church, leading to many conversions to Catholicism. As someone who has been watching EWTN since 1993, I have been delighted to observe the steady growth of this Catholic cable and satellite network in national and global reach, professionalism, and the quality and variety of programming offered. Since its initial foray into shortwave and AM/FM radio back in the nineties, the advent of twenty-first century media technology has further extended the network’s reach to the Internet, satellite radio, mobile devices, and social media. Along the way, EWTN has acquired a new studio along with its own publishing house which offers our nation’s leading Catholic newspaper, the National Catholic Register, in both print and digital format together with an array of high-quality Catholic books. All of these providential developments have transformed the network from a small amateur TV station of humble origin into the world’s foremost Catholic media apostolate, which is now reaching well over one billion people across the globe.

Thanks to the ongoing prayers and sacrifices of Mother Angelica and her Poor Clare nuns as well as to the spiritual and financial support of its ever broader base of viewers, EWTN has continued to remain remarkably faithful to its mission, in general doing a fantastic job of nourishing and spreading the Catholic faith. Because of that, I have rarely felt the need to question or criticize a policy decision of the network’s leadership during my twenty-two years of watching EWTN. At the present moment, however, I do feel that it is important to raise a question and offer a little dose of healthy criticism regarding one aspect of the network’s programming and publishing that has been bothering me for some time. We are commanded to speak the truth in love, so that is what I will attempt to do here.

My current bone to pick with EWTN has to do with the network’s news programming and publishing—and specifically with its overall coverage of the 2016 presidential election campaign—in light of its mission to faithfully proclaim the truth of the Gospel. I have no objection whatsoever to the network offering extensive and in-depth coverage of this election campaign from a faithful Catholic perspective, as it has been doing over the past year on TV and radio programs such as The World Over Live, EWTN News Nightly and Candidate Conversations, as well as through the National Catholic Register. My problem lies with the fact that this coverage has been noticeably slanted—that is to say, unfairly biased—in favor of certain Republican candidates and against others, under the influence of the godless, radically secularist, worldly, dishonest, immoral, corrupt, and money-driven mainstream media establishment whose values are diametrically opposed to those of the network itself.

As a civil nonprofit corporation run chiefly by lay Catholics, EWTN has long prided itself, and rightly so, on its independence from official Church institutions as well as from corporate entities of both a religious and secular nature, which has allowed it to strike its own path and pursue its mission without unwelcome interference. Unfortunately, when it comes to covering American politics and world news, in recent years the network has gradually but perceptibly drifted from its core mission to be an independent voice of truth, and it is now almost slavishly following the lead of the worldly mainstream media both in the stories it is choosing to break and discuss and in the presidential candidates on whom it is focusing. Whereas EWTN News was once accustomed to offering a fresh and balanced perspective on well-known current events and highlighting important stories neglected by the mainstream media, the network’s journalism division is now largely caught up in the Beltway news cycle, airing and discussing much the same headlines and focusing on the same presidential candidates as Fox News, CNN, the New York Times, Politico, and all the other D.C. establishment media outlets. This is quite a sea change from ten years ago, when Raymond Arroyo and other Catholic journalists at the network were known for their refreshingly independent and investigative approach, often digging up interesting stories off the beaten path, occasionally presenting a different angle on well-known stories, and not infrequently interviewing news makers who were being unfairly attacked by the mainstream media--or who might otherwise never appear on television, radio or in print.

A paradigm shift has clearly occurred within the journalism department at EWTN. Prior to this shift, the network was focused on the objective truth of what is happening in the world today, and its priorities were to seek out and discover that truth and share it with viewers as an independent source of faithful Catholic news and commentary. Now the focus is on what is happening in the world as seen through the dirty and short-sighted lenses of the worldly and highly subjective mainstream media, and the priority seems to be to highlight and discuss whatever the mainstream media is highlighting and discussing at the moment. While EWTN News was once prized for original Catholic news and analysis you couldn’t get anywhere else, now its programming is often almost a lock-step imitation of secular mainstream media news broadcasts—secular news with Catholic overtones, if you will. Although faithful Catholic perspectives are still routinely offered on current events, the global Catholic network’s overall news agenda is now largely dictated by the mainstream media. It’s like an orchestra whose members have remained the same, but they now have a different conductor and are playing different music.

This shift seems to have begun back in 2008 when the TV studio for the network’s flagship news magazine, The World Over Live, was permanently relocated from Birmingham to Washington, D.C. Whereas prior to this big move, the weekly news program was produced in a small, devoutly Catholic media enclave on the outskirts of a large city in central Alabama, now it comes to us from Capitol Hill, where the idols of money and power generally hold sway and where the alluring yet toxic influence of the mainstream media is difficult to resist. Over time, this significant change of environment has led, regrettably yet predictably, to a noticeable change in both the content and tone of the EWTN News programming. Without constant vigilance and the help of God’s wisdom and grace, how could any good Catholic journalist who lives and breathes this radically secular environment not find himself being gradually influenced by it as time passes? It will increasingly reshape his ways of thinking and acting, until eventually he is hardly distinguishable from his worldly peers.

Yes, it must be acknowledged that a certain degree of worldliness has crept into the journalism department at EWTN. This is clearly evident from just a cursory glance at its coverage of the 2016 presidential election cycle thus far, which—with the notable exception of Raymond Arroyo’s brief interview with Senator Rand Paul, a true statesman of character and principle—has generally mimicked the mainstream media coverage. This coverage has been unfairly skewed in favor of wealthy Republican candidates such as billionaire real estate magnate Donald Trump, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, and former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, with insufficient attention given to the moral character, voting records, and issue positions of these candidates—the things that really matter to faithful Catholics looking to cast their vote responsibly in next year’s elections. Trump, a longtime Democrat and a good friend of Hillary Clinton, has donated money to Planned Parenthood, supports ObamaCare, and earned much of his fortune by forcing other companies into bankruptcy. That EWTN’s news director would unhesitatingly embrace him as a good candidate and give him so much positive attention on a faithful Catholic TV network this past summer was an example of irresponsible journalism that betrayed a serious lack of wisdom and discernment.

Meanwhile, just about every other leading and longshot Republican presidential candidate has been interviewed or discussed at some length on one or more EWTN news programs during this past year, indicating that some degree of fairness and balance does still prevail within that realm. However, there is one leading Republican candidate who, for no good reason, has been glaringly conspicuous by his near-total absence from the network’s news programming and publishing. Perhaps there is no better way to highlight the problem under discussion here than to pose the following simple question: Why is EWTN boycotting Ben Carson?

Now, it’s true that the term “boycott” usually refers to a consciously activist, deliberate and explicit decision to exclude a certain person, product, or service from one’s support or patronage because he, she or it in some way violates the principles held by the one engaged in the boycott. I am not aware of any conscious or explicit decision on the part of EWTN executives to ban Dr. Carson from the network airwaves or press; nor am I aware of anything in Carson’s character, achievements, or issue positions that would warrant such a boycott by a faithful Catholic media powerhouse. Yet the fact remains—having grown painfully obvious over the past few months—that, aside from occasionally mentioning him briefly in passing on a few programs and in one or two news articles, EWTN News has been avoiding Carson like the plague, neglecting to interview or discuss him and in general refusing to have anything to do with him. There seems to be an implicit, unspoken decision by the network’s journalism staff to simply ignore Ben Carson. And the answer to the simple question posed by this article is unfortunately also quite simple: EWTN is boycotting Dr. Carson because the corrupt and worldly mainstream media—from which the network’s journalism department now takes its cues—is deathly afraid of this particular presidential candidate and hates him with a passionate vengeance.

This, of course, leads to another question: Why does the Washington, D.C. media establishment so deeply fear and loathe Ben Carson? And the answer to this is that the Beltway media elite correctly perceives that Dr. Carson’s candidacy poses a major threat to everything it stands for. And what exactly does this radically secularist mainstream media empire stand for? Moral relativism, religious syncretism, unbridled materialism and hedonism, abortion on demand, continued funding for Planned Parenthood, the retention of ObamaCare and the unjust HHS mandate, unlimited government growth, higher taxes, endless national debt accumulation, the destruction of the nuclear family through sexual immorality and deviant lifestyles, the radical homosexual agenda, the continued stranglehold of powerful special interest groups on our national politics and economy, the recension of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties, and the thorough de-Christianization of our country.

By contrast, Ben Carson is a devout Christian who stands for moral absolutes, hard work and sacrifice, the right to life of the innocent unborn and an end to legalized abortion, the repeal of ObamaCare and the HHS mandate, smaller government, lower taxes, a balanced budget, traditional marriage and family values, personal responsibility, and a return to strict Constitutional government. However, Dr. Carson’s values alone cannot adequately explain the malicious ferocity of the mainstream media’s coordinated vitriolic assault on him or why he is perceived as being such a formidable threat to the establishment. Other Republican and Tea Party presidential candidates claim to stand for these things as well, yet they are not being half so viciously attacked by the mainstream media. Why is Ben Carson being treated differently?

The answer is that he is different from the other Republican presidential candidates in key respects—and these differences may collectively afford him a decisive advantage over his rivals when it comes to winning both the Republican nomination and the presidency. Among the unique characteristics that set Dr. Carson apart from the rest of the field:

1. He is a citizen statesman running for president by popular demand for the good of our country, not a career politician seeking high office for his own benefit.

2. He is a devout Christian man who reads the Bible daily and puts his faith into practice, not a Christian in name only.

3. He is a trustworthy and courageous man of impeccable character and principle who always strives to do what is right, or what he thinks is right, in any given situation regardless of public opinion or other external pressures.

4. He is a clear and independent common-sense thinker whose issue positions are not predetermined by partisan rhetoric.

5. He is a great communicator, blessed with a unique ability to discuss and explain complex issues and topics in simple terms that anyone can understand.

6. He has a clear vision for America’s future based on a return to sound Constitutional government and the wisdom of our nation’s Founders.

7. He is a splendid example of the American dream and a role model for American youth, having risen from childhood poverty to become one of the world’s greatest neurosurgeons.

8. As a philanthropist, he has made a significant contribution to improving America’s education system through the Carson Scholars Fund.

9. He is the most highly decorated American civilian among all the presidential candidates and the only one to have received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

10. He has built up, and continues to steadily build up, a massive following among the American people, having already sold far more books, recruited far more campaign volunteers, and received far more individual donations than Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or any other presidential candidate.

Those running the mainstream media establishment are all too happy to promote politically correct presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump who are in line with their own radically secularist philosophy and values. But the mere thought of a principled citizen statesman like Dr. Carson even approaching the White House is enough to send them into panic. The fact of the matter is that, despite his lack of political correctness, Ben Carson stands a significant chance of being nominated and elected President of the United States. The media elite is clearly aware of this, which explains their vicious and despicable attempt to destroy Carson’s candidacy. They desperately wish that he would just go away.

But the biggest reason of all for the mainstream media’s fear and hatred of Ben Carson is this: polls consistently indicate that he is the only Republican presidential candidate who can decisively defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election. Another unique characteristic of Dr. Carson as a presidential candidate is that, as an African-American who is deeply respected among his own people, he is the only Republican candidate who can realistically win a significant percentage of the black vote. If he were to win only 17 percent of the black vote in the general election, he would defeat Hillary Clinton and win the presidency. Furthermore, despite the mainstream media’s all-out effort to destroy his candidacy, polls reveal that Ben Carson has now gained the support of about 20 percent of African-American voters—and that percentage is likely to grow in the near future. In other words, Dr. Carson is the only Republican presidential candidate who can put an end to Hillary Clinton’s hope of finally becoming president herself. And therefore, Ben Carson is the only Republican who can realistically win the White House in 2016.

As the Second Vatican Council reminded the Church, those who are in charge of the communications media bear a serious responsibility to transmit the truth and to help shape public opinion in accordance with what is objectively true and good and right. When it comes to the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, the truth is that Ben Carson is the only viable alternative to Hillary Clinton as America’s next president. Therefore, EWTN should be taking advantage of its unique position as an independent and massively influential bully pulpit to help promote Dr. Carson’s candidacy among its U.S. viewers, listeners and readers and to galvanize millions of faithful American Catholics in support of his presidential campaign. I am not asking the network or its journalists to explicitly endorse Ben Carson for president (although that might not be such a bad idea); I only ask that they candidly recognize his providentially unique qualifications to lead our nation in light of the basic realities of the current presidential landscape and give him the fair share of attention he deserves.

EWTN’s beautiful and appropriate motto is “Sharing the Splendor of Truth,” and the network continues to do just that in admirable fashion as far as Catholic doctrine, liturgy, the sacraments, morality, prayer and spirituality are concerned. But when it comes to the Catholic media apostolate’s news coverage of the critically important 2016 presidential election season, the truth is not served by sweeping the best and most promising candidate in the race under the rug. It seems clearly apparent that Ben Carson has received so little attention on EWTN thus far because he has been so perniciously attacked, maligned, and belittled by the morally toxic Washington mainstream media establishment. That’s a shame. A faithful Catholic television network should not be permitting the lies and deceptions of worldly mainstream media outlets to influence the decisions of its own journalism department. On the contrary, EWTN should do whatever is necessary to reclaim and preserve its original identity as an independent voice of truth and reason, clarity and common sense in a world ever more filled with lies, irrationality, ambiguity and craziness. Instead of allowing itself to be dragged along by the Beltway media machine, EWTN News should be setting its own agenda based on its own values and striving to influence political discussions and events in a wholly different direction.

The unjustified and irrational EWTN media blackout of Ben Carson must end. The network can, and should, utilize its tremendous influence to support and further advance the presidential candidacy of Dr. Carson with the true good of our country in mind. As Catholics vote, so goes our nation. If we can get a majority of American Catholic voters firmly committed to Ben Carson, we can elect a new president who shares our Christian faith and moral values and prevent another radically secularist, scandal-ridden career politician from succeeding Barack Obama. That is a goal worth achieving, but it may be very difficult to achieve it without the vital support and assistance of the Eternal Word Television Network.


Copyright © 2015 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Hillary Clinton at the Witness Stand

This morning, former Senator, former First Lady, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the witness stand in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol building to testify before the Benghazi Committee regarding her role as Secretary of State during the mysterious terrorist attack of September 11, 2012 that claimed the lives of four American civilians at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. This Congressional investigation, led by Representative Trey Gowdy, represents a noble attempt to probe beneath the Obama administration's inconsistent and unsatisfactory official account of this tragedy in order to find the real answers to the perplexing questions of what actually happened, who was responsible, and why the State Department refused requests for additional security at the Consulate prior to the attack. The problem is that, in its efforts to pierce the administration's thickly woven veil of secrecy surrounding this terrorist crime and get the full truth of the matter to the American people, the Benghazi Committee is up against corrupt and deceitful politicians, a heavily biased mainstream media, and a super-secret spy network from one of America's closest allies in the Middle East.

It would be downright foolish to accept the testimony of Hillary Clinton regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack at face value. As a deeply corrupt, dishonest and power-hungry career politician, Mrs. Clinton has too much at stake to clearly admit to any kind of criminal wrongdoing on her watch as Secretary of State, such as failing to ensure the safety of American diplomatic personnel at an overseas embassy or sending classified information through a private unsecured email server or permanently deleting thousands of emails containing such sensitive information. Why? Because such an admission would not only jeopardize her dream of becoming President of the United States, it would also undoubtedly lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence against her erstwhile collaborators within the State Department, ultimately exposing a massive crime ring within the Obama administration. In fact, for many months now, she and her allies in the administration have been desperately attempting to shut down the Benghazi Committee and destroy Congressman Gowdy's reputation in order to prevent the full story of the Benghazi attack from ever seeing the light of day. Thankfully, these evasive political tactics have not yet proven entirely successful, since Hillary has finally been cornered, forced by Congressional subpoena to testify under oath on the matter. What she had to say, though, was (quite literally) another story.

In their efforts to suppress or deflect attention from the truth and advance their political careers, Mrs. Clinton and President Obama can count on their fluently deceptive and reliantly subservient mainstream media buddies to influence public opinion in their favor by presenting the Benghazi Committee as a cynical Republican political maneuver to destroy Hillary's reputation prior to the 2016 presidential election. This deliberate misrepresentation has produced its intended effect, convincing roughly seventy-five percent of Americans to view the Congressional Benghazi investigation as a politically motivated scheme rather than as the sincerely honest and important fact-finding mission it really is. By discrediting the Committee in the minds of the American people, the mainstream media hopes to diminish the impact of the incriminating revelations about Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration that are certain to emerge from this Congressional investigation.

Corrupt politicians who lie to protect their careers and mainstream media journalists who lie to protect the politicians would be sufficient to make Representative Gowdy's critical job a challenging task to fulfill. However, there is also a third and virtually unknown factor at play in the Benghazi affair that rarely, if ever, surfaces in any of the discussions on the matter, and that is the probable role of Israeli intelligence in producing the anti-Islamic video that allegedly provoked the attack, in the attack itself, and in the Obama administration's cover-up following the attack.

While Hillary Clinton and President Obama may be inveterate liars, some grains of truth are probably embedded in their insistently reiterated story that the despicable anti-Islamic video Innocence of Muslims sparked protests that led to the attack. Based on my years of research into this area, I have little doubt that this video was clandestinely produced by Israeli intelligence agents at the behest of radical Zionists and deliberately released on the Internet to coincide with the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Apparently the goal of Mossad, Israel's highly advanced intelligence agency, in secretly creating and releasing this video was to stir up Muslim outrage throughout the Middle East, which would spark violent protests in multiple countries, forming a suitable backdrop for the dramatic act of violence that the agency itself was planning to carry out against innocent American civilians at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. The video would then serve as a convenient scapegoat for the terrorist attack--an attack which was carefully designed to appear as if it was carried out by al-Qaeda, with all traces of its true source diligently hidden from plain view.

For a number of years now, anonymous Mossad spies have excelled at the dark art of perpetrating such "false flag" terrorist attacks in selected locations all around the world, including right here in the United States on September 11, 2001, in order to further the radical Zionist agenda of world domination. But just as the Congressional 9/11 Commission was never able to identify the exact details or the real perpetrators of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, so the Benghazi Committee will most likely fail to unearth the actual details or perpetrators of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. If Israeli intelligence was actually involved in the Benghazi affair, and if Hillary Clinton is aware (as I suspect she might well be) of this highly secretive involvement, she would not divulge any information about it to the Benghazi Committee for fear of certain and swift retaliation from Mossad. Members of an elite, high-tech and global organized crime ring, Israeli spies operate in absolute and perpetual secrecy, and they retain this indispensable cloak of darkness by threatening to kill anyone "in the know" who would even think of revealing their true identity and activities. Such are America's nameless and faceless back-door enemies, who will continue to craftily manipulate our national politics and foreign policy, using terrorist violence when necessary in order to further the godless agenda of radical Zionism.

Article Heritage Series #5: "The Grand American Puppet Show"

Two years ago this month, I started this "Article Heritage" series here on my blog, in which we step back from the present moment just for a bit and take a retrospective look at some articles from my early days as a freelance writer, meaning articles from the years 2005 to 2007. It's been eight months since the last installment of this series, so once again we're overdue for another. Here is a rather light-hearted satirical piece I wrote in the summer of 2007 in which I poked some fun at the corrupt and dishonest 2008 presidential campaign, which was already well underway at that time. Now, eight years later, I wouldn't have to change very much to make the article accurately describe the even more corrupt and dishonest 2016 presidential contest, since Hillary Clinton is unfortunately once again the presumptive Democratic nominee thanks to her unrelenting lust for power and her supposedly opposite number on the presidential stage, real estate magnate Donald Trump, is one of her own financial supporters and not much different from her on the issues despite his bold rhetorical efforts to appear genuinely Republican. Much like Arnold Schwarzenegger (and Hillary), Trump is a wealthy and corrupt establishment politician essentially devoid of character and morals who's putting on a brilliant act to dazzle his audience in an attempt to grasp the office of the presidency for the rewards it offers. What a charade. God save us from another unscrupulous career politician for president. I don't think our country can handle it. Of course, the current presidential race is not simply a replay of the 2008 contest; the remarkable ascendancy of principled citizen statesmen and Tea Party leaders Ben Carson, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio despite mainstream media attempts to ignore and sideline them adds an interesting dynamic to the 2016 campaign and offers the tantalizing possibility that a God-fearing man of character and principle may actually win the Republican nomination this time around. But that's a serious topic that deserves a serious article. For now, here's my classic humorous piece from 2007, which originally appeared on the website Political Cortex and on my Newsvine page in March of 2008:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Grand American Puppet Show

by Justin Soutar

July 6, 2007

           

            Each year, it seems, the Grand American Puppet Show is getting longer, and the assortment of characters more diverse and talented. This time the curtain was lifted in the middle of 2006, more than two years before the Grand American Puppet Choice Day—er, excuse me, Election Day. The first two characters to appear on stage were New York Senator Hillary Clinton, representing the Democratic Party, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, representing the Republican Party.  

Indeed, with the bold and surprising appearance of the latter, all pretensions to making the quadrennial presidential race look like anything more than a puppet show were stripped away. Governor Schwarzenegger is not eligible for the presidency because he is an immigrant to the United States and our Constitution forbids immigrants from becoming president. However, such inconvenient realism and outmoded respect for tradition—as well as that obnoxious entity called the law of the land—must not be allowed to interrupt a good show. Since the national audience at large did not know whether to laugh, cry or cheer for Schwarzenegger, he has receded to the back of the stage—but only temporarily. More on him later.

            Meanwhile, Senator Clinton has basked in the spotlight on the left side of center stage for more than a year now thanks to piles of money from her loyal puppeteers (narrow special interest groups). Somehow her lackluster performance has managed to draw applause from no less than forty percent of the jaded American audience. But this should not be taken to imply a positive judgment in her regard. The popularity Clinton has attained is more a reflection of American war weariness, disillusionment with the neocon-hijacked Republican Party, a desire for change, and her demagogic manipulation of these feelings than it is a reflection of her own skill.

            Though he must take second place to Hillary Clinton, North Carolina Senator John Edwards is the most accomplished puppet of all. His splendid wealth as a lawyer and his cadre of devoted puppeteers have kept him on the stage. While Senator Edwards’ beaming smile and ethereal manner have delighted spectators, his hypocrisy has triggered more than a few cases of nausea and vomiting. It is plainly obvious to almost his entire audience that Edwards is a corrupt playboy living in a world far removed from the average American, who says one thing and does another, who cares for nothing so much as enjoying his life and wealth. Since he is the leading puppet, Edwards would make the worst possible president.

            Delaware Senator Joe Biden, who is also a lawyer, is fairly well-known for his attempts to reach the dead center of the stage. Senator Biden serves on numerous Senate committees where he has the opportunity to lead debates and introduce legislation. On almost every Senate bill, whether it deals with abortion or the minimum wage or defense spending, he has voted both ways or refused to vote, making it hard to pin down his positions on the issues. Biden’s act has chiefly consisted of two features: precariously walking the tightrope near center stage on all issues and keeping an eye on the performance of his more admired fellow puppet Obama. With this dangerous combination of moves, Biden fell to the stage floor and is likely to never fully recover.

            Another Democratic candidate may be more appealing in some ways, and even sincerely straining to be more than just a puppet, but he is also out of touch with his audience in important areas. The fact that Illinois Senator Barack Obama hails from the Midwest rather than from the tightly-knit, super-rich, over-educated East Coast intellectual establishment is a major plus that has brought him cheers. Yet while Senator Obama has captivated Americans with his youth, his vision for the future of America and the prospect of breaking the two-hundred-twenty-year-long chain of white presidents, his support for abortion and homosexuality has alienated the growing number of morally conscious Americans, resulting in many catcalls. Early in 2007 the popularity of Obama’s performance threatened to push Hillary from left center stage, but her puppeteers quickly came to the rescue with more funds.  

Finally, Tennessee Senator Al Gore is down but not out. After spending eight years across the street from the Chief Puppet’s Mansion (the White House), the temptation to power will likely urge him to claim a spot on the stage. Senator Gore has had lots of time to polish his ability as a puppet. He seized a golden opportunity to expose this talent to the entire nation and world when he refused to concede the 2000 presidential election, a sparkling recital which drew praise and derision. In recent years Gore has established a considerable reputation for his efforts to raise public awareness of global warming and his dedication to replacing American dependence on petroleum with alternative energy sources. Like many Democrats he also sings the song of plenty, smoothly promising to guarantee every American the necessities of life with a heap of taxes garnered mainly from the rich (but not, of course, from the pockets of Gore or his rich cronies). These acts have won significant applause from like-minded Americans. However, Gore’s demagoguery seems to be a reflection of that of Edwards.

            In general, the Republican contenders for president have been even more lackluster. Unlike Senator Clinton, who has steadily held a place in the spotlight, the Republicans have taken turns occupying the right-hand area of center stage. The prime selling point for Arizona Senator John McCain is that he has the distinction of being the only well-funded candidate with a reliable record of opposition to abortion. In addition, Senator McCain is a genuine Vietnam War veteran who spent five years in the hellish conditions of a Communist prison camp. He was the first serious Republican hopeful to draw the audience’s interest in 2006 with his condemnation of torture of al-Qaeda suspects abroad. Despite McCain’s backing for the Bush administration’s “War on “Terrorism” policy and its war in Iraq, his Congressional efforts at immigration and campaign finance reform have earned him a reputation for bipartisanship. Moreover, the soft-spoken, smiling man can aver a greater amount of integrity than any of the other candidates. While his combination of heroism, principle and charm seems irresistible, McCain’s age and the fact that his honesty keeps him from fulfilling his puppet potential have nudged him towards the rear of the stage.

            McCain was followed by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who has spent lavishly on his campaign in an effort to win the hearts and cheers of American spectators. By flashing his own cards of integrity and commitment to values, Governor Romney gradually elbowed McCain to the side. The hard core of American neocons has cheered him on with uncontrollable excitement. Nevertheless, from the large majority of Americans Romney’s act has drawn a rather subdued reaction—and not just because he is a Mormon. His record of egregious flip-flopping on the issue of abortion and his calls for a further increase in defense spending fail to resonate with most Americans. Romney is a puppet of neocon warmongers and war profiteers whose patriotism and hatred for terrorism is confined to their pocketbooks.

            In turn, Romney has vied with New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, a power-hungry demagogue whose leadership record is nothing short of abysmal. He has defended all uses of excessive force by the New York police, declared the air at Ground Zero safe when the fires were still burning after 9/11, and attempted to serve an illegal third term as mayor. Though his puppeteers have created quite an impressive performance that some Americans have applauded, he is far too similar to President Bush on foreign policy matters to ever be elected by a plurality of the American people. His presidency would be focused on expanding public access to abortions and on a disastrous foreign policy of war for oil, both of which only benefit the rich entrepreneurial (puppeteer) class.

            The most recent Republican candidate to rule the stage is former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. His apparent surge in popularity is a result of excessive positive attention from the mega-corporate media. However, the strikes against Mr. Thompson are many: he is a lawyer, a longtime Washington lobbyist for big businesses such as General Electric and Westinghouse, a staunch advocate of the “War on Terrorism” and the war in Iraq, and he served as legal defense for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was convicted of lying to federal investigators about the Plame affair. The appearance of Thompson on right center stage suspiciously coincided with the climax of Libby’s trial, his conviction, and his pardon by President Bush. While this man is generally pro-life and favors limited government, the familiar moves of his dance and his ties to the same puppets that are controlling the current Bush administration have led to persistent boos from the overwhelming majority of the American people.

            Americans are clapping for these mediocre puppets because no better performers have been invited or admitted to the stage. The puppeteers are not interested in offering a presidential candidate dedicated to rock-solid moral values and imbued with common sense who actually will meet the needs of America, as that would ruin their silly presentation. Take Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, for example. He is a fervent pro-lifer, a defender of traditional marriage, a champion of fiscal discipline, had the common sense to turn against the Iraq war after supporting it for several years, disapproves of President Bush’s domestic wiretapping program, and favors stricter border security. On all these varied issues, Senator Brownback can count on steady backing from a clear majority of American voters. Because he is in general a committed, principled statesman rather than a puppet of special interests, he has been shunned by the puppeteers and all but forced offstage. The fact that Brownback was even briefly admitted to the rear of the stage in early 2007 was recognition of his approval of NAFTA and his vote for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

            The Republican and Democratic parties, which run this show, are taken far too seriously by tens of millions of Americans. Indeed, one should not expect gaily reveling parties to conduct the urgent business of the country. Both the Republican and Democratic charades are meant to divert American attention from the well-greased lobby networks busily moving and shaking national politics. Neither has the true interests of the country in mind. The parties are the subtle opiate of the masses, serving as channels for popular discontent to forestall rebellion and revolution—the most dreaded enemies of our freedom and democracy, according to the rich puppeteers. Yet most Americans still cling to the parties as if to salvation because each one represents some of the policies our country needs. At the same time, a steady diet of puppets and parties does not make for a healthy nation.

In 2006 the puppet extravaganza took an interesting twist when longtime Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, a registered Democrat who supports abortion and the Iraq war, officially left his party to become an “independent” senator. Thus Senator Lieberman is the only puppet to occupy dead center stage, even though the central limelight is off for the moment. Neocons love Lieberman for his continual defense of Israeli policies and the Iraq war, and he is respected by Republicans and Democrats as a thinker willing to cross party lines—although in fact he is a pawn of special interests on both sides. No one has been discussing him as a presidential hopeful and he has not mentioned a desire to enter the race. However, the affable Lieberman may be a politician anticipating the future, a puppet quietly waiting for the right moment to storm the stage and do his dance. With so many special interest groups tied to him, he is almost certain to step out from the shadows and “surprise” Americans in the 2008 Grand American Puppet Show. Lieberman’s unusual renunciation of political affiliation could well be a ploy to gain widespread American support in a run for higher office. Recall the 2004 event, in which Howard Dean was expected to win the Democratic primary but instead we received the surprise of puppet extraordinaire John Kerry. My guess is that Lieberman will either be selected by Hillary or the Republican candidate as a running mate, or that he himself will win the Democratic nomination for president and take Hillary as his running mate.

            Furthermore, this upcoming 2008 Election Day will be more of an authentic Grand American Puppet Choice Day than any previous presidential election. The 2006 Congressional election served as a dry run for this makeover. In more than a dozen states across the country on November 7, 2006, newly installed electronic voting machines failed to work properly, and secrecy holders were dispensed with. Even worse, the citizens were deceived by mysterious signs stating that their polling place had been moved. All these unprecedented elements are part of a grand scheme to transform the presidential election into a true farce and prevent the people from choosing their demagogue. In 2008, American voters will attempt to choose a particular puppet as president, but the already tested forms of trickery will be employed to swing the election in favor of the opposite puppet. This puppet will then have the audacity to claim that he (or she) is the choice of the American people.

            This is where California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger could come back onstage and begin stealing the show. Perhaps he will wait to put on his act until the 2012 American Puppet Show rolls around. Like Giuliani, Governor Schwarzenegger is an ambitious, self-centered politician as well as an exceptionally cunning demagogue who would love to gain the most powerful political office on earth. But in order for him to do so, a Constitutional Amendment allowing a legal immigrant to become president would have to be passed by two-thirds of the United States, or thirty-four states. Schwarzenegger realizes that few states would agree to change a longstanding, widely accepted law that our nation’s founders established for sound reasons. Therefore, voting tricks to the rescue! Schwarzenegger’s puppeteers fiddle with the voting machines and, voila—to the nation’s semi-bewilderment, the Presidential (Puppet) Immigration Status Amendment passes. From that occasion onward, Americans will have, for all practical purposes, lost control of their nation.

            With each quadrennial American Puppet Show in recent decades, Americans have been subjected to a more and more entertaining spectacle. The 2008 extravaganza is certainly a cut above previous shows. Just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, our presidents now enjoy the fine life while uncontrolled big business and technological development speed America down the highway to disaster. When the next Grand American Puppet Choice Day finally rolls around, Americans may find themselves so dazzled, bored, and stupefied that they will reject not only the finalists, but the entire masquerade. The greatest tribute to the talent of the Grand American Puppets on Puppet Choice Day would be a hearty burst of laughter from all three hundred million Americans.

 

Copyright © 2007 by Justin Soutar. All rights reserved.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Ben Carson for President

by Justin Soutar

As we gradually head towards the end of the immoral, corrupt and disastrous Obama administration (thank goodness) and begin to approach the 2016 presidential election, the American public is faced with a bewildering menagerie of contenders for the Republican nomination. A number of these candidates, such as Senators Rand Paul and Marco Rubio and Governors Scott Walker, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Perry, are men of sound character and principle with the right positions on many critical issues, any of whom would, in my opinion, probably make a good if not excellent president. Two of the candidates, Senators Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz, while also men of sound character and principle with the right positions on domestic issues, unfortunately espouse the aggressive interventionist foreign policy of the Bush administration championed by Israel’s elite radical Zionist minority that has fueled the growth of Islamic fundamentalism and destabilized the entire Middle East, just as John Paul II predicted would happen. Several contenders, including Governors Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Mitt Romney, are wealthy Republicans in name only who would do little to clean up the current fiscal, legal and moral mess in Washington. The rest of the field is an even more mixed bag of presidential wannabes, including exotic candidates such as billionaire celebrity Donald Trump and former HP executive Carly Fiorina, few if any of whom stand a real chance of winning their party’s nomination (much less the White House) next year.

This rather embarrassing spectacle of dozens of candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination—among whom are eight to ten serious possibilities—evinces a major problem within the GOP that, if not acknowledged and corrected in the near future, risks negatively affecting its chances to reclaim the White House in 2016. It’s not for nothing that Democratic politicians and mainstream media pundits in the last few years have been repeating almost incessantly that Republicans are divided. What they say is true: Republicans are divided between principled Tea Party constitutionalists (Marco Rubio, Thom Tillis, Mia Love, etc.) and corrupt Republicans in name only (John Boehner, Thad Cochran, Lamar Alexander, etc)., and they are further divided on foreign policy between interventionists like Santorum and isolationists like Paul. Even worse than these divisions, however, is the fact that Republicans themselves are seemingly unaware of the seriousness of their division problem when it comes to a) nominating their best possible presidential candidate and b) winning the presidency. If they really want to do both next year, Republicans must hasten to recognize and address their own crisis of leadership. Their problem is not that they don’t have any leaders for the American public to rally behind; their problem is that they have too many such leaders. Like a plot of overcrowded and stunted garden vegetables competing for nourishment from a limited supply of soil nutrients, this unhealthily crowded field of would-be presidents is hungrily devouring supporters and voters from a limited electoral base, thus restricting the amount of support for each individual candidate and making it nearly impossible for any one of them to clearly dominate the GOP field as we head towards the all-important presidential primary elections.

If Republicans are truly serious about defeating Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or whomever else the Democrats nominate in 2016, they must call an abrupt halt to their currently running game show, “Who wants to be the GOP nominee?” and discipline themselves to get down to business. Specifically, they must eliminate all longshots from consideration, cut the field down to their ten leading candidates, identify their strongest possible candidate from among those top ten who is realistically likely to win both the GOP nomination and the presidency, begin coalescing now around that single leader, and start working like mad to ensure that that particular candidate clinches the Republican nomination. That is the winning strategy the GOP must adopt if it intends to regain control of the White House in 2016. Unless the party achieves this kind of unity and focus within the next six months, its nominee will in all likelihood be another mediocre one who will go down to defeat in the next presidential election.

After all, only one candidate is going to win the Republican nomination for president. And only a strong candidate with a clear identity, impeccable character, traditional values, broad public appeal, and a super PAC working to mobilize the grassroots on his behalf will be able to defeat the likes of Hillary Clinton. Therefore, Republicans must be very careful whom they choose to nominate for the presidency. The worst possible choice would be to repeat the mistake of 2008 and 2012 by settling on a super-wealthy, big-government Republican establishment career politician like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or Mitt Romney. That is a proven recipe for defeat. Such a Republican in name only bears too much similarity to his Democratic opponent both in reality and in the minds of voters and simply cannot generate sufficient enthusiasm among Republican and independent voters to decisively defeat that opponent. If the Democratic nominee were a Democrat in name only, this approach might work, but the Democrats themselves have enough sense not to nominate someone who is a Republican in Democratic garb. In next year’s open contest between two presidential candidates, their respective identities must be absolutely clear. Only a genuine Republican will soundly defeat a genuine Democrat. And these days, a genuine Republican usually means a Tea Party Republican.

So which leading presidential candidate should the Republican Party choose to rally around to ensure it wins the White House in 2016? According to a recent NBC/WSJ national poll taken June 22, 2015, the top ten contenders are, in descending order of popularity:

1) Jeb Bush,

2) Scott Walker,

3) Marco Rubio,

4) Ben Carson,

5) Mike Huckabee,

6) Rand Paul,

7) Rick Perry,

8) Ted Cruz,

9) Chris Christie, and

10) Carly Fiorina.

As wealthy Republicans in name only attempting to buy the nomination, Bush and Christie are liabilities to their party who must be firmly rejected. Fiorina is not sufficiently well known or supported to win the necessary delegates to clinch the nomination. Scott Walker may be a great governor, but his positions on certain issues are controversial within the party, which makes him less than an ideal nominee. Although a genuine conservative with some public appeal, Mike Huckabee is having trouble getting more than ten percent in any of the polls, while Rick Perry cannot get out of single digits. The same goes for Ted Cruz, who would be too similar to President Bush on foreign policy. That leaves Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, and Rand Paul as the three strongest contenders for the GOP nomination. There is little doubt that any one of these three men would be able to defeat Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden and win the presidency in 2016. They are all trustworthy conservatives, Christian men of good character and moral values, with reputed integrity and common sense and the right positions on the critical issues facing America today. They are all honest and proven public servants, not slick-talking career politicians, and they are all blessed with outstanding leadership qualities that the American people are looking for in a president. The only remaining question is: Which of these three leading candidates should Republicans choose to nominate? Let’s take a closer look at these top contenders.

Elected to the U.S. Senate for Kentucky as part of the Tea Party Republican landslide elections of 2010, Rand Paul has earned a solid reputation as a no-nonsense conservative in Washington who stubbornly refuses to compromise his core principles for the sake of political advantage. He is the son of respected former Congressman and former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who was a Tea Party Republican decades ahead of his time. But while his father never gained sufficient backing to win the Republican nomination for president, the younger Paul’s public appeal is significantly broader. He is known and liked for introducing and gaining political support for the Life at Conception Act, which if passed by Congress and signed into law would protect unborn children throughout the United States from abortion. He is also known and liked for his vocal opposition to unconstitutional Obama administration policies, including the ever-unpopular Affordable Care Act, executive amnesty for illegal immigrants, and the administration’s massive phone surveillance program. A true statesman with decent looks to match his character, Paul has the force of personality and the oratorical skills necessary to challenge Hillary Clinton and put her on the defensive—and there is no doubt he would do just that. A head-to-head matchup with Clinton not long ago showed Paul leading her by double digits. The main caveat to choosing Rand Paul as the Republican presidential nominee is that he would fail to gain significant support from black and Hispanic voters, majorities of whom are actually conservative on social issues despite their tendency to vote Democratic. Because these groups of minority voters will comprise an increasing share of the U.S. electorate in the years ahead, Republicans must actively reach out to them if they want to win future elections. But if nominated, Paul would likely still manage to win the White House in 2016 despite this handicap.

Another freshman senator from the Tea Party landslide of 2010, Marco Rubio has similarly stellar conservative credentials. In addition to vigorously supporting the Life at Conception Act and opposing ObamaCare and executive amnesty, he has introduced or co-sponsored several bills to protect religious liberties and moral conscience rights. The son of impoverished Cuban Catholic immigrants to Florida, Rubio’s story of achieving the American Dream has inspired millions of people across the nation. Elected to the Senate while still in his thirties, Rubio is at forty-four the youngest presidential candidate from either major party. Rubio’s youth and optimistic personality, his Hispanic identity, his humble immigrant background, and his good looks combine to give him movie-star charisma reminiscent of what Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008. The prospect of America’s first Hispanic president is an exciting one that offers the GOP a serious opportunity to change the political landscape by drawing millions of Hispanic voters into the Republican Party. It would make good sense for the Republicans to nominate this guy because he would pull a large share of the Hispanic and black vote--and likely a majority of the Catholic vote as well--away from Hillary Clinton, resulting in a landslide GOP victory for the White House. Rubio would undoubtedly be an excellent choice as the Republican presidential nominee.
 

The third frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination differs markedly from the other two leading candidates, as well as from the rest of the GOP field, in several respects. A world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon, best-selling author, gifted speaker and noted philanthropist, Ben Carson is the only African-American in the race, the only leading Republican candidate with no previous political experience, and the only candidate running for president by popular demand. Carson’s famous speech at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, in which he frankly compared America’s moral and economic decline to that of ancient Rome and courageously condemned ObamaCare with President Obama himself sitting nearby, propelled him onto the national stage. His meteoric rise from refusing to even consider running for president three years ago to being a leading candidate today is a tribute to the organizational skills and dedicated efforts of his super PAC, formerly the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee, now The 2016 Committee. Here are nine reasons why Dr. Benjamin Solomon Carson should be chosen as the Republican presidential nominee in 2016:

1. Ben Carson is a universally admired example of the American Dream. From his inauspicious poverty-stricken single-parent childhood in a Detroit ghetto, Carson rose to become the nation’s leading pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins University at the age of thirty-three. Over the following three decades, he drew worldwide acclaim for skillfully performing thousands of life-saving brain surgeries with an extremely low patient mortality rate. During the past twenty-one years, through the Carson Scholars Fund, he and his wife have been working to reform America’s education system by encouraging better academic performance and helping promising students from low-income families get the higher education they deserve. He has received thirty-eight honorary doctorates and numerous awards in recent years including the NAACP’s Spingarn Award, the Horatio Alger award given to extraordinary self-made Americans, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian award. Jesse Jackson has called him a role model for all the youth of today, and he was ranked in a December 2014 poll as the sixth most admired man in America. Because he is admired and respected by Americans of all races and backgrounds, Carson will win a large number of votes in the 2016 presidential election.

2. Ben Carson is a man of devout Christian faith, good moral character and traditional values. A large majority of the American people are still Christian, and they are tired of radically secularist politicians like President Obama who relentlessly attack their traditional values of faith, family, and freedom; furthermore, they are similarly weary of middle-of-the-road politicians who profess traditional values but refuse to vigorously defend them when they are attacked. By contrast, Carson is a devout, Bible-believing Christian and a man of prayer, humility and compassion; he lives according to the Ten Commandments and believes in the sanctity of every human life, religious freedom, traditional marriage, and the importance of the nuclear family to a healthy society. Carson is also a firm believer in the realities of the natural law, unalienable rights, and ordered liberty upon which the Founders built this nation. Carson not only shares these values with Middle Americans, he will consistently articulate, uphold and defend them as president, just as he has done his whole life.

3. Ben Carson is a man of wisdom, common sense, courage, and calm decisive action in critical situations. At this time of national crisis, we desperately need a great and wise leader who can discern what should be done in a given situation, who can make the right decision, and who has the courage to follow through on that decision regardless of political considerations and negative criticism. As someone who has been reading the Bible’s Book of Proverbs daily for years, Carson is accustomed to allowing God’s own wisdom to guide his daily life. Additionally, as a brain surgeon for nearly thirty years, Carson gained abundant experience making critical life or death decisions under tremendous pressure. God has blessed him with the ability to remain calm, think things through carefully, and make the right decision amid difficult circumstances. As president, Carson will do this for America, offering the wise leadership that is necessary to return our nation to greatness regardless of the challenges that we may face.

4. Ben Carson is a strict constitutionalist. Unlike President Obama, who has exceeded his authority in violation of the Constitution on numerous occasions throughout his presidency, Ben Carson will govern America in strict accordance with the Constitution. This is because he prizes the Constitution as a safeguard of the rights and freedom of American citizens against the general tendency of the federal government to assume more and more power. As he wrote in One Nation (p. 172): “The Constitution was written primarily to protect the rights of the people and not the right of the government to rule the people. It restrains the natural tendencies of government to expand while disregarding the rights of its constituents. Our freedoms are safe as long as we abide by its principles.” Carson understands that his primary role as president will be to enforce all laws passed by Congress that do not conflict with the Constitution. He will also appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will interpret the Constitution objectively as the Founders meant it to be interpreted, not subjectively as they think it should be interpreted.

5. Ben Carson is an honest citizen statesman, not a corrupt career politician. Poll after poll reveals that Americans have had enough of corrupt establishment politicians in both the major parties. In the 2014 Congressional and gubernatorial elections, they overwhelmingly rejected establishment politicians in favor of honest statesmen and women whom they could trust to represent the best interests of their state and nation. As a citizen statesman, President Carson will focus on doing what is best for America rather than on advancing his political career. After all, Ben Carson never intended to run for public office, and he is only running for president now because millions of Americans have urged him to do so. 

6. God will reunite and heal our divided and broken land through Ben Carson. Our nation is currently more divided than at any time since the Civil War. For example, the gap between rich and poor has never been wider than it is today. President Obama and other unscrupulous politicians have exploited and exacerbated these divisions to their own advantage, stirring up hatred between whites and blacks, rich and poor, men and women, young and old. These social divisions threaten to tear our nation apart. Because he is so widely admired and respected across social boundaries, nominating and electing Ben Carson for president will bring Americans back together and restore American unity. Thus will begin the process of healing the hurts and brokenness these divisions have caused. Carson’s official campaign slogan, “One nation under God, with liberty and justice for all,” encapsulates this theme of unity based on America’s founding principles.

7. Ben Carson is a great communicator. Ever since that historic address at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, Ben Carson has enjoyed a growing reputation as the most articulate conservative since Ronald Reagan. Although many of the ten currently leading Republican candidates would make a good president, none can match Carson’s unique ability to take complicated issues and break them down into clear, simple terms that anyone can understand. This ability to communicate effectively with potential voters gives Carson a crucial advantage over all the other Republican presidential contenders. The GOP needs a presidential candidate who can connect not just with its own base, but with the American people in general. Here again Carson fits the bill.

8. Ben Carson has a super PAC in his corner. If you’re a presidential candidate these days, you stand little real chance of winning either major party’s nomination unless you have a super PAC separate from your official presidential committee working full time on your behalf to organize and mobilize primary voters in key states at least two years prior to the presidential election. It was a super PAC that enabled freshman senator Barack Obama to snatch the Democratic nomination away from Hillary Clinton in 2008, and it was a super PAC that enabled Mitt Romney to defeat his rivals for the Republican nomination in 2012. Without the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee and its successor, The 2016 Committee, Ben Carson would not have risen to his current position as a leading presidential candidate. Thanks to his super PAC, Carson has a realistic chance of winning enough state primary elections, and thus enough delegates, to actually clinch the GOP nomination for president. The same just can’t be said for Rick Santorum or Carly Fiorina.

9. Ben Carson is sure to win the White House. As a respected leader in the African-American community, GOP presidential nominee Ben Carson will automatically pull more than enough black votes away from Hillary Clinton to ensure her defeat on Election Day 2016. If Carson were to receive just 17 percent of the black vote nationwide, Clinton would lose all the critical swing states and Carson would win the election. Polling data indicate that Carson will actually win at least double that minimum percentage of the African-American vote. Furthermore, polling research also indicates that Carson will win a large minority, if not a majority, of the Hispanic vote. The result will be a landslide Carson victory. If Republicans want to be sure of winning the White House, their logical choice will be to nominate Ben Carson for president.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

To summarize: The Republican Party now has an exciting and historic opportunity to nominate a presidential candidate who is universally admired and respected, who is a great communicator, who shares the religious and moral values of Middle America, who will who will govern wisely in accordance with the Constitution, who will help to reunite and heal America, who can win the nomination, and who can decisively win the presidency. At this critical juncture in our nation’s history, to abandon this golden opportunity by settling for yet another Republican in name only loser such as Jeb Bush would be the epitome of foolishness. The GOP will deserve to lose again if it attempts to send another mediocre candidate to the White House. Now is the time for the Republican Party to unite around its single best candidate for president of the United States--Ben Carson--and work tirelessly to ensure he wins the nomination. It would help further Carson’s cause if some of the other Republican presidential candidates, especially those stuck in the longshot arena, were to voluntarily withdraw from the race and declare their support for Ben Carson. These other candidates should try to put the good of their party, and especially the good of their country as a whole, ahead of their individual interests and political careers. As the old saying goes, in union there is strength. Excessive individualism is hurting the GOP more than anything else. What is needed now is a spirit of generous self-sacrifice on behalf of the common good. America stands in dire need of Ben Carson’s leadership. It’s time for the Republican Party to acknowledge that fact and act accordingly.

Copyright © 2015 Justin D. Soutar. All rights reserved.

Article Heritage Series #3: Revisiting the Twenty-Second Amendment

It's time for another installment of the quarterly (or so) "Article Heritage" Series here on my blog, which features selections from my early days as a writer. This time I present an article I wrote back in late 2007 entitled, "Revisiting the Twenty-Second Amendment." On one level, this essay was driven by my nostalgia for the fact that the Bush administration would soon be ending, and by my apprehension that our country would be governed by a worse president once Bush left office. (Turned out to be true.) But on a deeper level, the prospect of the end of a presidential administration led me to reflect on the whole concept of legal term limits for American public office and whether such constitutionally imposed term limits are necessary, desireable, or even beneficial for the good functioning of our federal government.

Our nation's Founders counseled against setting term limits on any public office, arguing that it should be left up to the voters to decide whether a given public official should be re-elected for another term. If an official has served well and won the people's approval, so goes the argument, they will naturally re-elect him; if, on the other hand, he has served badly and won public disapproval, he will be voted out of office. Also, eschewing term limits leaves public officials free to decide whether to run for another term or not. For almost 150 years, following the example of George Washington, U.S. presidents voluntarily restricted themselves to a maximum of two terms in office. There was nothing wrong with that; on the contrary, this praiseworthy practice reflected the character and nobility of our nation's earlier leaders, who were selfless public servants rather than opportunistic politicians. Leaders were free to decide whether to run for another term or not, and the people were free to decide whether to re-elect them or not. The thinking was that term limits should be voluntary, not imposed by law. The Founders' rejection of constitutionally mandated term limits was thus a sign of their respect for the freedom of both leaders and people.

I have taken the Founders' position on this matter in this article. I contend that the Twenty-Second Amendment to our Constitution, adopted in the early 1950s following the lengthy administration of FDR, should be repealed. Supporters of term limits on federal public offices claim that such limits provide a healthy and necessary check on corruption, careerism, and excessive centralization of power in the hands of a few leaders. However, the two-term limit imposed on the presidency by the Twenty-Second Amendment has not resulted in a less corrupt presidency since the days of FDR; on the contrary, we are now living under the most corrupt president in American history. Legally imposed term limits simply force corrupt and unscrupulous leaders to confine their corruption to a shorter time period, while preventing the voters from re-electing a good leader who deserves more than two terms. Moreover, power-hungry tyrants never allow legally imposed term limits to thwart their ambitions; they simply abrogate them, changing the laws to suit their agenda.

In other words, legally imposed term limits can never guarantee honest, responsible, and limited government. Only honest and responsible leaders of good moral and religious character can provide that. The core issue here is personal responsibility vs. legal and political structures. As Pope Benedict XVI reminded us in his encyclical Spe Salvi (Saved by Hope), man is always free and must always make his decisions anew; therefore, good structures alone cannot guarantee good government. That depends on the personal character of those who govern. Many Tea Party activists are attempting to compensate for the increasing corruption of our federal government by legally restricting the number of terms senators and representatives may serve. By so doing, they are applying a political and legal solution to a moral and personal problem. A government is only as good as the people who run it. As long as we have corrupt, irresponsible, and tyrannical leaders, we will have corrupt, irresponsible, and tyrannical government regardless of what the Constitution says or of what term limits may be on the books. The Tea Party activists who favor imposing new term limits on Congress should listen to the wisdom of the Founders in this regard and attack the problem of corruption at its root by focusing on personal responsibility rather than espousing a top-down solution that won't fix the problem and will further restrict the liberties of the American people.

Okay, enough said--here's the article.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

REVISITING THE TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT: A THIRD TERM FOR PRESIDENT BUSH

by Justin Soutar
December 21, 2007

I am not particularly a fan of President Bush. As an American Catholic, I certainly applaud our president’s sustained defense of the right to life of all innocent human beings from conception to natural death, and I generally approve of the measures he has taken to help eradicate the curses of abortion, embryonic stem-cell research involving abortion, and euthanasia in the United States and around the world. President Bush’s continued defense of traditional marriage against the enormous pressure of a few misguided social activists is similarly refreshing. I have been proud to hear this president mention God in his speeches without fear of retaliation by anti-Christian groups such as the ACLU. Moreover, I also generally approve of the USA PATRIOT Act, a comprehensive piece of legislation which he signed in 2001 to facilitate governmental action against terrorism. I have steadily supported the war in Afghanistan from 2001 until 2007. Bush’s appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court met with my satisfaction. In addition, I was pleased with Bush for signing the Broadcast Decency Bill into law in 2006, which raised by ten times the FCC fine for instances of indecent pictures and language in the media. Finally, I agree with the president’s principles on taxes, affirmative action, and gun ownership.

However, beyond these important areas I have tended to disagree strongly with President Bush’s policies. I find myself at odds with our current chief executive over federal spending levels, global laissez-faire economics (so-called “free” trade), energy policy, Social Security, the minimum wage, immigration policy, certain sections of the PATRIOT Act, the “War on Terrorism,” the Iraq war, torture of prisoners, America’s nuclear weapons program, our relationship with the UN, foreign aid, and environmental policy.

Yet despite all of my momentous differences with President George W. Bush, for some time now I have been considering the idea that he should be able to run for a third consecutive term. Why? Why would someone who so strenuously opposes the neoconservative ideology favor granting President Bush another four years in office? Perhaps I have gone crazy? If our highest public servant has violated the Constitution and wreaked significant havoc to our country both domestically and overseas as I believe he has, why wouldn’t I be in favor of impeachment instead?

All of these good questions depend upon and point to a broader issue: Why revisit the Twenty-Second Amendment to our Constitution, which stipulates that “no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice”? Nearly everyone knows the reason for the passage of this amendment in 1951. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had been elected to four consecutive terms in office stretching from the midst of the Great Depression in 1933 to the end of World War II in 1945. Many Americans felt that in this twelve-year-long tenure, a single president accumulated an undue amount of power and influence over the federal government. Indeed, the United States had distinguished itself from other nations in the late 1700s by deciding to check government power through the holding of periodic elections for all members of the legislative and executive branches of government.

Since the mid-twentieth century, Americans have generally come to understand democracy as a system in which no single public servant holds very much power for very much time. They point to the example of founders such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, who voluntarily departed office after serving two terms, as evidence that no president should ever be allowed to remain in office longer than that. By and large, Americans support the Twenty-Second Amendment without question as a beneficial curtailment of executive authority and an accurate reflection of the intent of our nation’s founders that we maintain a limited government, that we be “a nation of laws and not of men.”

However, I have come to believe that this amendment, far from being beneficial and traditional, is harmful to our country and represents a serious misunderstanding of what our nation’s founders actually intended. In a series of articles which advocated ratification of the Constitution and which were printed in several New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788 entitled The Federalist Papers, founding father Alexander Hamilton argued convincingly against setting any sort of term limit on the “office of the chief magistrate” (the presidency). In this argument, which is several thousands words long, Hamilton offers five distinct reasons to support his position. We will review this rationale briefly and then focus mainly on the one overarching reason I find most compelling. The Federalist No. 72 (ed. Garry Wills, Bantam Books, New York, 1982, pp. 367-370) reads as follows:

Nothing appears more plausible upon first sight, nor more ill founded upon close inspection, than a scheme, which in relation to the present point has had some respectable advances—I mean that of continuing the chief magistrate in office for a certain time, and then excluding him from it, either for a limited period, or for ever after….

One ill effect of the exclusion would be diminution of the inducements to good behavior. There are few men who would not feel much less zeal in the discharge of a duty, when they were conscious that the advantages of the station, with which it was connected, must be relinquished at a determinate period, than when they were permitting to entertain a hope of obtaining by meriting a continuance of them….

Would it promote the peace of the community, or the stability of the government, to have half a dozen men who had had credit enough to be raised to the seat of the supreme magistracy, wandering among the people like discontented ghosts, and sighing for a place which they were destined never more to possess?....

A fourth ill effect of the exclusion would be the banishing men from stations, in which in certain emergencies of the state their presence might be of the greatest moment to the public interest or safety. There is no nation which has not at one period or another experienced an absolute necessity of the services of particular men, in particular situations…How unwise therefore must be every such self-denying ordinance, as serves to prohibit a nation from making use of its own citizens, in the manner best suited to its exigencies and circumstances!....

A fifth ill effect of the exclusion would be, that it would operate as a constitutional interdiction of stability in the administration. By necessitating a change of men, in the first office in the nation, it would necessitate a mutability of measures…And we need not be apprehensive there will be too much stability, while there is even the option of changing; nor need we desire to prohibit the people from continuing their confidence, where they think it may be safely placed, and where by constancy on their part they may obviate the fatal inconveniences of fluctuating councils and a variable policy….

There is an excess of refinement in the idea of disabling the people to continue in office men, who had entitled themselves, in their opinion, to approbation and confidence…

Often our perception of what our nation’s founders intended is distorted by our own contemporary ways of thinking. Hence the importance of returning to the actual writings which those esteemed men have left us. The text above may be somewhat difficult reading for a twenty-first-century American, but even the casual reader can tell that Hamilton was definitely not in favor of a term-limited presidency.

The first reason Hamilton gives is based on the principle of positive incentive. When a person knows that he will be forced to leave office within eight years whether the people approve of him or not, he will tend to not care so much about performing his job well. On the other hand, if a president’s continuance in office depends entirely on popular satisfaction with his administration, he will be motivated to fulfill his duties well in order to gain and retain that satisfaction. This is the same rationale on which a free market economy exists: incentives to productivity, efficiency, quality, and frugality are built into the system. No one would suggest compelling a successful, popular and respected CEO to step down simply because he has spent a certain amount of time in the same post.

Hamilton warned that a term limit on the chief executive office of the nation would encourage unscrupulous men to take advantage of the short-lived tenure for their own personal benefit. With a two-term limit that effectively renders the president a lame duck (unaccountable to the public) for half of his administration, we would expect corrupt, unethical or immoral behavior to surface mainly during those latter four years. Unfortunately, this has proven true in the cases of Richard Nixon (Watergate in 1973), Ronald Reagan (Iran-contra scandal in 1986), Bill Clinton (Lewinsky scandal revealed in 1997), and the younger George Bush (role of Vice President Cheney’s petroleum firm Halliburton in Iraq war; the continuing New Orleans disaster; Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals in 2005; Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove scandals, and warrant-less wiretapping revealed in 2006). Corruption has infested the presidency with increasing vigor since the Twenty-Second Amendment came into force almost sixty years ago. Presidential approval ratings during a second term have routinely plummeted for almost every two-term president since Lyndon Johnson, as well as for many single-term presidents, usually because their concern for the good of the people became distorted or overshadowed by personal and corporate interests.

Another reason Hamilton put forward against a term limit is that our nation may desperately need the continued services of one particular executive during a time of war or other national crisis. The long presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt was a fruit of such circumstances; Americans chose to reelect him three times because they were passing though the wrenching experiences of economic depression and world war. Voters intuitively understand that the nation needs continuous leadership during such a challenging period. For this reason, every American president who served during an officially declared war was reelected. The people should not be barred from keeping in office for upwards of eight years a single individual whom they believe will guide their country safely though a difficult time.

The final reason Hamilton advances against “exclusion” is that a term limit harms the stability of the nation by ordering a change in presidents after every few years. A president who knows that he will be in office for no more than eight years will not be too inclined to pursue policies that require more than a decade to develop, or that will benefit the nation twenty or thirty years from now, as he knows that the next president can soon undo whatever he tries to accomplish. This compulsory turnover of chief executives, Hamilton observed, would result in “fluctuating councils and a variable policy,” which he terms “fatal inconveniences” to the country. There is no doubt that occasionally a particular president might pursue some detrimental measures which need to be corrected by a future president. But Hamilton was not discussing that; rather, he was warning of the threat to American stability posed by recurrent, massive, radical paradigm shifts in government policy in general, such as from isolationism to interventionism, from overregulation to laissez-faire economics, from a weak central government to a federal police state, and from insufficient national defense to large and permanent standing armies. Continuity should be the norm, while change should be the exception. The Twenty-Second Amendment represents a rejection of this wise counsel.

I confess that I am totally enamored of Hamilton’s logic concerning this issue. Yet for me the most compelling argument against term limits is implicitly present in all the reasons which Hamilton listed. It is this: The people should be free to decide whether to keep a particular president in office or to elect a new president. They should not be forced to automatically elect a new head of government either every four or eight years.

The threat of a corrupt, power-hungry demagogue, which the Twenty-Second Amendment was passed to protect us from, can be dealt with just as easily by having the people vote him out of office in the next election. Some people might remind me that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected by an unsuspecting German populace, that he legally enacted a constitutional amendment allowing himself to serve as chancellor for life, and that he became the infamous genocidal warmongering egomaniac we remember today. They might point out that with a term-limiting amendment at least we are insuring ourselves against such a dangerous dictator. However, this line of reasoning is flawed in one important respect: determined absolute dictators do not allow constitutions, amendments, or laws to stand in their way. Hitler suspended the constitution of Germany altogether and imposed martial law as soon as he wished. If the American people ever become gullible enough to elect a Hitler-like president, he would laugh at the Twenty-Second Amendment and proceed to ignore it for his own purposes. In other words, the main reason why most Americans like the amendment turns out to be completely insubstantial upon closer examination.

And while each American president can choose not to seek reelection, as our leaders for the first one hundred fifty years were accustomed to do after serving two terms, this in no way demands that such custom become the unchanging law of the land. The Twenty-Second Amendment unnecessarily restricts the freedom of both electors and the elected. Hamilton notes that any perceived benefit from a law which can expel bad presidents from office is far outweighed by the disadvantage that the same law will also force from office excellent and much needed presidents. Many Americans think that the two-term limit is among the guardians of our democracy, when in fact it is the opposite—it prevents the people from maintaining in office a wise and capable president whom they admire and trust.

It is remarkable how all the “ill effects” of a term limit on the presidency have manifested themselves just as Hamilton predicted more than two centuries ago: instability, insecurity, and corruption. The latter deserves a little more attention.

Evidently, the CEOs of mega-corporations love the current presidential system because it gives them enormous opportunity for profit and allows them to routinely select new presidential candidates who will further their own narrow selfish interests. The cost of bribing even several dozen candidates is trivial compared with the financial rewards to be reaped when one of those candidates reaches the highest office in the land. Under pretext of national security, or free-market economics, or freedom and democracy, or some combination of these excuses, the president allows the mega-corporations a broader sphere of influence and then, by the time the people figure out what has happened, he is a lame duck anyway. The Clinton and Bush administrations have been excellent examples of this corporate corruption of the presidency. The abortion industry thrived under the care of President Bill Clinton, and it’s no coincidence that he and Wal-Mart both came from Arkansas. Under President Bush we have witnessed a war in Iraq for the defense manufacturers and oil tycoons, low foreign trade barriers and amnesty for illegal immigrants for all the transnational corporations, neglect of New Orleans levees and Minnesota bridges, inattention to the Sudanese genocide, the birth of a new nuclear weaponry program (Complex 2030), compulsory voting machines with deliberate design flaws—the list goes on and on.

So now that I have explained the disadvantages of the Twenty-Second Amendment to our Constitution in general, I turn to the question of why I favor permitting President Bush to run for a third term in particular. Several factors have combined to lead me to adopt this opinion.

For one thing, this president is sincere. In stark contrast to President Bill Clinton, a habitual TV liar who knew he was deceiving, President Bush believes what he says whether it is true or not. This sincerity remains refreshing for me despite all of the damage Bush has done. I would rather have a sincere president who knows what he believes than an insincere president who deliberately deceives the public.

A second major factor in my opinion is the sorry state of the 2008 presidential campaign. The high-profile candidates being fawned upon by the corporate-owned media range from mediocre to appalling at a time when the need for a truly great president has never been more painfully felt.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on the issue of abortion and plans to increase American defense spending above already ridiculous levels. The dangerous, power-hungry former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani adamantly supports the unrestricted legalization of abortion and sodomy and would have no qualms about starting a nuclear war in the Middle East. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson is a practiced lobbyist and wealthy trial lawyer who opposes everything I stand for. California Representative Duncan Hunter and Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo do not represent me on most of the issues either. Texas Representative Ron Paul would make a truly great president, but it is highly unlikely he will win the Republican nomination. Arizona Senator John McCain and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee hold praiseworthy moral values, but the odds are against both men. On the Democratic side, all of the candidates support abortion, and the currently leading contender—-New York Senator Hillary Clinton—-makes me sick to my stomach.

On the other hand, when compared with any one of the Republican or Democratic hopefuls, I find President Bush to be the lesser of two evils. No, Bush may not be the “truly great” leader America desperately needs at this time. But I believe that having George Bush continue in office would be far superior to having Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards, or Barack Obama, or Dennis Kucinich, or Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani, or Fred Thompson take over the presidency and make an even bigger mess of it.

Thank goodness Mrs. Clinton cannot muster much more than a 30 percent public approval rating despite glossy coverage in the media. Of course, this highlights the point that moving from President Bush to President Hillary Clinton would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. As much as Americans are disenchanted with President George Bush, I believe that they are even less enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. In fact, the approval ratings of presidential candidate Mrs. Clinton and the incumbent President Bush in late 2007 were statistically tied at 30 percent.

Of course this startling result is a reflection of America’s disapproval of Bush and its disconnection from Hillary, but it also should give pause to those who claim that Bush is finished. Isn’t it remarkable that, after seven long years of Bush administration, an experienced, first-ever female candidate from the opposite political party with money to burn and media attention that won’t quit cannot rank any better than the incumbent in the public mind? If a presidential contest between Bush and Mrs. Clinton were held at the time of these poll results, a third Bush victory would have been a distinct possibility. So a third factor in my belief that George Bush should be eligible to run for a third term is that, contrary to general perception, he actually would be a viable repeat candidate.

Finally, my last significant reason for advocating a third Bush run is to comfort the president and to give him a third chance. In recent years, I have become dismayed and disturbed to witness such a flood of vile, rude, offensive and obscene personal attacks unleashed against President Bush. It’s one thing to disagree with and even to firmly oppose various domestic and foreign policies of an administration; it’s another to throw hateful insults and pointless abuse. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be the most attacked, ridiculed, disparaged, and insulted president in American history, not just in America but around the world. Certainly President Bush has been responsible for numerous illegal actions that provide ample grounds for impeachment, as his critics declare. Yet I do not favor impeachment because President Bush has a good heart and he has accomplished the commendable things I mentioned at the beginning of this article. The next president may very well bring neither a good heart nor good actions. By proposing to allow George Bush another campaign, I am making a little statement that I am appalled at the deterioration of our public discourse; that I desire to retain a leader who is committed to the pro-life philosophy; and that I wish the president well.

Realistically, I do not expect the Twenty-Second Amendment to our Constitution to be repealed anytime soon. Nevertheless, it is interesting and healthy to ponder the hypothetical possibility of a third Bush term, just as it is instructive to discuss the merits and demerits of a term-limited presidency in general. I believe that in this chaotic and uncertain period of our nation’s history which began with the 9/11 attacks, the need for a chief executive office unrestrained by term limits is greater than when Alexander Hamilton espoused it at the dawn of our history. A term-unlimited presidency would be a better, more accountable, more responsive and more democratic institution for the United States.

Copyright © 2007 by Justin Soutar. All rights reserved.