Story 1: Mainstream Media Mob Electronic Lynching of Dr. Ben Carson — Attempted Assassination Fails — Limbaugh Unmasked The Perpetrators — The Conservative Right Strikes Back — Videos
Ben Carson Thanks ‘Biased’ Media After Raising $3.5 Million In One Week
Ben Carson On Biased Media and Trump This Week FULL Interview
Dr. Ben Carson Talks West Point With Bill O’Reilly
Scrutinizing Ben Carson – Donald Trump – O’Reilly Talking points
Ben Carson Holds Press Conference On West Point Scholarship False Claims (11-6-15)
November 6, 2015: GOP Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson addressed the media this evening on the alleged false claims he made in his book, “Gifted Hands”, including that he received a full scholarship offer to West Point and that he allegedly tried to stab a friend and hit his mother with a hammer.
Ben Carson strikes back at the press
Glenn Beck Exposes Obama’s Fraudulent History and Radicalized Beliefs
Report Questions Ben Carson’s West Point Story, Campaign Pushes Back – Cavuto
Ben Carson: “I was offered a full scholarship to West Point” (Oct 9, 2015) | Charlie Rose
Ben Carson thinks Egypt’s pyramids were built by Joseph
Carson: Egypt’s Pyramids Built To Store Grain
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson stood by his belief that Egypt’s great pyramids were built by the Biblical figure Joseph to store grain, an assertion dismissed by experts. (Nov. 5)
Ben Carson: How I Got into Politics (Oct. 9, 2015) | Charlie Rose
Dr. Benjamin Carson’s Amazing Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast with Obama Present
Fox News: Ben Carson Admits Story About Getting Into West Point Was NOT TRUE
Carson Campaign: Politico Story About West Point Acceptance Not True
The Politico, Lies about Ben Carson
Politico: Carson admits fabricating scholarship story
audio 11/6/15 RUSH LIMBAUGH: POLITICO & MEDIA TRYING TO TAKEDOWN BEN CARSON
Hillary’s Vicious Media Tools Now Getting Brutal On Ben Carson (Limbaugh)
Rush Limbaugh – November 6, 2015 Full Podcast
Rush Limbaugh Explains Why Trump And Carson Are Circling The Top Of The Tier
Rush Limbaugh: Trump is driving the GOP establishment insane
Rush Limbaugh: Only Trump or Carson can stop GOP donor agenda
Dr. Ben Carson’s response to a 10-year old boy-Amazing!
Dr. Carson’s amazing speech at CPAC 2014
INCREDIBLE: DR. BEN CARSON STOPS BY “THE VIEW” AND DEMOLISHES LIBERALISM
RUSH: Dr. Ben Carson Has Everyone In Democrat Party Scared To Death
RUSH LIMBAUGH NAILS IT ABOUT BEN CARSON
“There is not a single person in the media today that could wear Dr. Benjamin Carson’s uniform, whatever uniform he puts on in a day, a business suit, if it’s surgical scrubs, there’s not a single member of the media that could do anything close to what Ben Carson has done with his life. ”
Ben Carson: Debate audience picked up on media bias
Ben Carson on CNN: Full interview, part 1
Ben Carson on CNN: Full interview, part 2
Ben Carson on CNN: Full interview, part 3
Mark Levin – Obama the “Red Diaper Baby”
Unearthed: Obama Admits Mentor Was Communist Agitator Frank Marshall Davis
The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor
(CNN) Andy Martin’s discovery that Obama’s father is communist Frank Marshall Davis
Paul Kengor & Glenn Beck “The Communist” on GBTV Frank Marshall Davis Barack Obama’s Mentor
Van Jones: ‘Ben Carson Bewilders, I Think, Most Black Democrats’
Hillary’s Vicious Media Tools Now Getting Brutal On Ben Carson (Limbaugh)
audio 11/6/15 BEN CARSON TO CNN, “ASK HILLARY THE SAME QUESTIONS”
Poll: Ben Carson is 9 points ahead of Hillary! (Limbaugh)
LIMBAUGH: CARSON IS VICTIM OF ‘ELECTRONIC LYNCHING’
Media ‘telling an outright lie’ in ‘an assassination attempt’
Talk-radio kingpin Rush Limbaugh shredded Politico and accused the news site and mainstream media of coordinating an “assassination attempt” against Dr. Ben Carson on Friday.
In fact, Limbaugh went even further, calling the onslaught of attacks an “electronic lynching being conducted against the Republican African-American candidate by a majority-white mainstream American liberal media.”
In a damning accusation Friday, Politico claimed Carson’s campaign “admitted he did not tell the truth” about having been accepted into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
A Carson spokesperson made a response to an inquiry by Politico into the veracity of a story in the surgeon’s autobiography, “Gifted Hands,” that the then-17-year-old was offered a full scholarship after a meeting in 1969 with Gen. William Westmoreland in 1969.
Politico reported West Point had no record of either Carson’s application or admission.
However, a Carson spokesman told the Daily Caller on Friday, “The Politico story is an outright lie.”
Doug Watts said, “The campaign never admitted to anything,” and Carson “[N]ever said he was admitted or even applied” to West Point.
“I want to show you how this works. I want to share with you some headlines that have run during the course of this program,” Limbaugh said, blasting Politico as a “liar,” and listing the following media reports Friday:
In a press conference late Friday, Carson ripped into combative reporters:
If you look at one of the websites that West Point has today, it says government offer for full scholarship to West Point. So they use that very language themselves. So almost 50 years ago, they may have been using that language as well.
They were very impressed with what I had done. I had become the city executive officer in less time than anybody else had ever done that. They were saying, “You would be a tremendous addition to the military, and we can get you into West Point with a full scholarship. I simply said, “I want to be a doctor. I really appreciate it. I’m very flattered.” And I moved on. So it didn’t go on any further than that. …
I think what it shows, and what these kinds of things show, is that there is a desperation on behalf of some to try to find a way to tarnish me because they have been looking through everything. They have been talking to everybody I’ve ever known, everybody I’ve ever seen, [saying], “There’s got to be a scandal. There’s got to be something. He’s having an affair, there’s gotta be something.” They are getting desperate. So next week it’ll be my kindergarten teacher who says that I peed in my pants. I mean, this is just ridiculous. But it’s OK because I totally expect it.
Dr. Carson explained that, as the top ROTC student in Detroit 50 years ago, he was invited to “a number of events because of my position.” In that role, he was invited to meet Gen. Westmoreland.
“That was also a time, as I recall, that several of the high brass told me that I would be somebody that they would be interested in in the military. It was an offer to me. I interpreted it as an offer. … They told me this was available to me because of my accomplishments and that they would be delighted for me to do it. And I told them immediately that my intention was to become a physician. It always has been, and I was very honored but I would not be pursuing that.”
Carson said he “made it clear” in his book that he, in fact, only applied to one college because he had just enough money for one application fee.
When relentlessly pressed about his childhood years, Carson told reporters, “My prediction is that all of you guys trying to pile on is actually going to help me, because, when I go out to these book signings and I see these thousands of people, they say, ‘Don’t let the media get you down. Don’t let them disturb you. Please continue to fight for us.’ They understand that this is a witch hunt. …
“Let me just say one thing. I do not remember this level of scrutiny for one President Barack Obama when he was running. In fact, I remember just the opposite. I remember people just [saying], ‘Oh well, we won’t really talk about that. We won’t talk about that relationship. Well, Frank Marshall Davis, we don’t want to talk about that. Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, we don’t really know him. You know, all the things that Jeremiah Wright was saying, oh, not a big problem.’
“[Obama] goes to Occidental College, doesn’t do all that well, and somehow ends up at Columbia University. His records are sealed. Why are his records sealed? Why are you guys not interested in why his records are sealed? Why are you not interested in that? Let me ask you that. Can somebody tell me why? … Now you’re saying that something that happened with the words ‘a scholarship was offered’ was the big deal, but the president of the United States, his academic records being sealed is not? Tell me how there’s equivalence there.”
Carson told reporters he wouldn’t “sit back and let you be completely unfair without letting the American people know what’s going on.”
New front-runner Ben Carson faces closer scrutiny of his life story
By David Weigel and David A. Fahrenthold
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson — now making the transition from living legend to scrutinized candidate — faced new questions Friday about the way he tells his powerful life story.
For years, Carson has said he was offered a “full scholarship” to the U.S. Military Academy when he was a high-achieving high school Army ROTC cadet in the late 1960s. But Carson never applied to West Point, was never accepted and never received a formal scholarship offer. In fact, West Point does not offer scholarships; all cadets attend free.
The story was first reported Friday by Politico. Carson responded to the resulting controversy by saying that when he spoke of an “offer,” he referred to informal, verbal statements of encouragement from military leaders he met through the ROTC, the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps .
“I was told that because of my accomplishments, they would be able to manage to get me into West Point and that I wouldn’t have to pay anything,” Carson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network. He said he decided not to apply and went to Yale University instead to pursue medicine. “There was no application process [at West Point]. I never even started down that path,” Carson said.
Carson’s campaign cast the episode as new evidence of persecution of the candidate by the news media. Tension between Carson and the media came to a boil Friday night in Florida, where at a combative news conference the candidate asked why President Obama had not been subjected to such scrutiny.
“The words ‘a scholarship was offered’ were a big deal, but the president of the United States’ academic records being sealed is not?” he said.
The original Politico report declared that Carson had “fabricated” a story about “his application and acceptance” at West Point. It also claimed that the candidate had “admitted” the fabrication.
Carson’s campaign vehemently denied those statements.
The Politico story seemed to mischaracterize a small but key detail in the way Carson has told the story. In many cases, Carson implied only that he received a formal offer from West Point. He never said explicitly that he had been accepted or even that he had applied.
“It gives journalism a bad name,” said Armstrong Williams, Carson’s close friend and business manager. “It only fits into Dr. Carson’s narrative of a witch hunt” by the media.
By mid-afternoon, Politico posted a new version of its story that no longer included the wording that Carson had “fabricated” a part of his biography. Later in the day, the news site posted an editor’s note stating that the story should have made clear that Carson never claimed to have applied for admission to West Point.
“We continue to stand by the story,” Politico spokeswoman Lauren Edmonds said in a statement. “We updated it to reflect Ben Carson’s on the record response to the New York Times and other new details, which underscore the validity of our original reporting.”
As the day went on, conservative media voices chimed in to agree with Carson. “It’s almost like the Politico is the official leak machine for the Republican establishment,” Rush Limbaugh said on his syndicated radio show. Radio host and blogger Erick Erickson replaced an entire post about “the beginning of Ben Carson’s end” with one about a “demonstrably false” Politico report.
Carson, 64, achieved worldwide fame for his daring surgeries at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and for his story of rising out of poverty in southwest Detroit. This week, as Carson has challenged Donald Trump for the lead in the Republican presidential primary contest, there has been a new focus on Carson’s personal beliefs and on the way he tells his life story.
First, the Web site BuzzFeed posted a 17-year-old video of a commencement speech in which Carson offers an alternative theory about why the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids. In Carson’s telling, they were not built to be tombs, as historians and archeologists say. Instead, they were built for grain storage, in keeping with the biblical story of Joseph, in which the patriarch counseled the pharaoh to store up grain for years of famine.
Carson told CBS News this week that he still believes that the pyramids were granaries, saying the proof was in sealed chambers inside the structures. “You would need that if you were trying to preserve grain for a long period of time,” he said.
Then, CNN sought to verify a key part of Carson’s life story: that, as a young man in Detroit, he had committed acts of violence, including smashing a boy’s nose with a thrown rock, attempting to stab a friend in the abdomen and threatening his own mother with a hammer during an argument.
CNN interviewed nine people who knew Carson during his childhood and who said that the violent incidents did not fit their recollections of him.
Carson said CNN did not speak with the right people. “I was generally a nice person,” he told the network. “It’s just that I had a very bad temper. So unless you were the victim of that temper, why would you know?”
It was an unusually odd situation: a presidential candidate insisting, in the face of skepticism, that he really did have a history of violence.
The part of Carson’s life at issue Friday — the “offer” he got, or did not get, from West Point — is a story that Carson has told repeatedly in books, interviews and speeches.
He tells it in the context of his rapid rise through high school Army ROTC, which ended with him as the top-ranking cadet in Detroit.
“I was offered a full scholarship to West Point,” Carson wrote in his 1990 memoir, “Gifted Hands.” “I didn’t refuse the scholarship outright, but I let them know that a military career wasn’t where I saw myself going. As overjoyed as I felt to be offered such a scholarship, I wasn’t really tempted. The scholarship would have obligated me to spend four years in military service after I finished college, precluding my chances to go on to medical school.”
In that account and others, Carson seems to rely on loose, broad definitions for the words “offer” and “scholarship.”
In fact, applicants to West Point must be sponsored by a member of Congress or the secretary of the Army. If accepted, they attend tuition-free: There are no “scholarships” at West Point beyond the benefits that all cadets get.
Doug Watts, a spokesman for Carson’s campaign, said Carson never completed the process for acceptance by West Point and never had an official sponsor. Indeed, in “Gifted Hands,” Carson makes clear that he actually applied only to one school: Yale.
“Each college required a ten-dollar non-returnable entrance fee sent with the application,” Carson wrote. “I had exactly ten dollars, so I could apply only to one.”
Still, his campaign spokesman said, it was proper to say Carson had an “offer” of a scholarship because military leaders had told him that his acceptance would be a sure thing.
“He was told by the ROTC commander that he could have an appointment,” Watts said. “Dr. Carson rejected the offer, did not apply or pursue admission. Had he done so, and been accepted, that would have been tantamount to a scholarship, the same that all cadets receive.”
In one of his books, Carson also made a similar claim about a scholarship offer from another school.
“The University of Michigan had offered me a scholarship, but I wanted to go farther from home,” he wrote in his 1999 book, “The Big Picture.”
A spokesman for the University of Michigan, Rick Fitzgerald, said he could not confirm that account. The university no longer has records from that time. Carson’s camp said the scenario was similar to that involving West Point: He had decided to apply elsewhere and never submitted an application.
Exclusive: Carson claimed West Point ‘scholarship’ but never applied
Republican hits POLITICO story, later admits to The New York Times he wasn’t offered aid.
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson on Friday conceded that he never applied nor was granted admission to West Point and attempted to recast his previous claims of a full scholarship to the military academy — despite numerous public and written statements to the contrary over the last few decades.
West Point has occupied a central place in Carson’s personal story for years. According to a tale told in his book, “Gifted Hands,” the then-17 year old was introduced in 1969 to Gen. William Westmoreland, who had just ended his command of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and the two dined together. That meeting, according to Carson’s telling, was followed by the offer of a “full scholarship” to the military academy.
Story Continued Below
West Point, however, has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission.
“In 1969, those who would have completed the entire process would have received their acceptance letters from the Army Adjutant General,” said Theresa Brinkerhoff, a spokeswoman for the academy. She said West Point has no records that indicate Carson even began the application process. “If he chose to pursue (the application process), then we would have records indicating such,” she said.
When presented by POLITICO with these facts, Carson’s campaign conceded he never applied.
“Dr. Carson was the top ROTC student in the City of Detroit,” campaign manager Barry Bennett wrote in an email to POLITICO. “In that role he was invited to meet General Westmoreland. He believes it was at a banquet. He can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson’s performance as ROTC City Executive Officer.”
“He was introduced to folks from West Point by his ROTC Supervisors,” Bennett added. “They told him they could help him get an appointment based on his grades and performance in ROTC. He considered it but in the end did not seek admission.”
In an interview with The New York Times following the POLITICO story, Mr. Carson said: “I don’t remember all the specific details. Because I had done so extraordinarily well you know I was told that someone like me – they could get a scholarship to West Point. But I made it clear I was going to pursue a career in medicine.”
“It was, you know, an informal ‘with a record like yours we could easily get you a scholarship to West Point.’”
Carson would have needed to seek admission in order to receive an offer of free education from West Point. Also, according to West Point, there is no such thing as a “full scholarship” to the military academy, as Carson represented in his book.
An application to West Point begins with a nomination by a member of Congress or another prominent government or military official. After that, a rigorous vetting process begins. If offered admission, all costs are covered for all students; indeed there are no “full scholarships,” per se.
The statement from Carson’s campaign manager on Friday went on to say: “There are ‘Service Connected’ nominations for stellar High School ROTC appointments. Again he was the top ROTC student in Detroit. I would argue strongly that an Appointment is indeed an amazing full scholarship. Having ran several Congressional Offices I am very familiar with the Nomination process.
“Again though his Senior Commander was in touch with West Point and told Dr. Carson he could get in, Dr. Carson did not seek admission.”
Ben Carson has repeatedly claimed he was offered a full scholarship from West Point. He conveys the story in at least two other books, “You Have a Brain” and “Take the Risk.” Carson repeated his West Point claim as recently as Aug. 13, when he fielded questions from supporters on Facebook.
And in October, Carson shared the story with Charlie Rose: “I had a goal of achieving the office of city executive officer [in JROTC]. Well, no one had ever done that in that amount of time … Long story short, it worked, I did it. I was offered full scholarship to West Point, got to meet General Westmoreland, go to Congressional Medal dinners, but decided really my pathway would be medicine.”
The Carson campaign pushed back against POLTICO’s story after its publication, with Carson himself telling Christian Broadcasting Network’s “The Brody File” that the media “will go through all lengths trying to discredit me.” According to a tweet from the show, Carson said, of the mainstream media, “they’ll ask my kindergarten teacher, ‘did I ever wet my pants.’”
The concession from Carson’s campaign comes as serious questions about other points of fact in Carson’s personal narrative are questioned, including the seminal episode in which he claimed to have attempted to stab a close friend. Similarly, details have emerged that cast doubt on the nature of Carson’s encounter with one of the most prominent military men of that era.
The West Point spokeswoman said it certainly is possible Carson talked with Westmoreland, and perhaps the general even encouraged him to apply to West Point. However, she said, the general would have explained the benefits of a West Point education without guaranteeing him entry.
In “Gifted Hands,” Carson says he excelled in his ROTC program at Detroit’s Southwestern High School, earning the respect of his superiors — just a couple years after anger problems led him to try to murder a friend. He attained the rank of second lieutenant by his senior year of high school and became the student leader of the city’s ROTC programs.
In May of his senior year, he was chosen to march in the city’s Memorial Day parade.
“I felt so proud, my chest bursting with ribbons and braids of every kind. To make it more wonderful, we had important visitors that day. Two soldiers who had won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Viet Nam were present,” he wrote. “More exciting to me, General William Westmoreland (very prominent in the Viet Nam war) attended with an impressive entourage. Afterward, Sgt. Hunt” — his high school ROTC director — “introduced me to General Westmoreland, and I had dinner with him and the Congressional Medal winners. Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”
But, according to records of Westmoreland’s schedule that were provided by the U.S. Army, the general did not visit Detroit around Memorial Day in 1969 or have dinner with Carson. In fact, the general’s records suggest he was in Washington that day and played tennis at 6:45 p.m.
There are, however, several reports of an event in February of that year, similar to the one Carson described. Then, Westmoreland was the featured guest at a 1,500-person banquet to celebrate Medal of Honor recipient Dwight Johnson. The event drew prominent guests, including the governor at the time, the mayor of Detroit, the president of Ford Motor Company and nine previous Medal of Honor awardees, according to an Associated Press account of the event.
Carson, a leader of the city’s ROTC program at the time, may have been among the invited guests at the $10-a-plate event.
Carson’s later retelling of the events in this period of his life downplays his meeting with Westmoreland and that event’s link to a West Point acceptance. In his January 2015 book, “You Have a Brain,” — a book geared toward teenagers — Carson again recalls his rapid rise through his high school ROTC program to become the top student officer in the city.
“That position allowed me the chance to meet four-star general William Westmoreland, who had commanded all American forces in Vietnam before being promoted to Army Chief of Staff at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.,” he wrote. “I also represented the Junior ROTC at a dinner for Congressional Medal of Honor winners, marched at the front of Detroit’s Memorial Day parade as head of an ROTC contingent, and was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”
Carson has said he turned down the supposed offer of admission because he knew he wanted to be a doctor and attending West Point would have required four years of military service after graduation.
Cecil Murphey, who ghostwrote “Gifted Hands,” told POLITICO that his memory of Carson’s exchange with Westmoreland was hazy.
“My gut response is that it was not a private meeting, but there were others there,” he said in an email. “The general took a liking to Ben and opened doors.”
Ben Carson admits he lied about West Point scholarship, insists stories about troubled childhood are true
BY MEG WAGNER
Ben Carson admitted Friday that he lied about earning a prestigious scholarship to West Point while controversy over the validity of his troubled kid-to-renowned doctor narrative reached a crescendo.
The 2016 GOP candidate said he fabricated a part of his 1996 autobiography, “Gifted Hands,” in which he claimed he was given a “full scholarship” to the U.S. Military Academy just hours after he rebuked accusations that he lied about his violent outbursts as a child and teenager.
In the nearly 20-year-old book, Carson boasted about his transformation from rage-filled boy to refined neurosurgeon, describing how he once tried to hit his mother with a hammer and attempted to stab one of his friends to death.
His former classmates, however, said they don’t remember the Republican as a rough kid.
“I don’t know nothing about that,” Gerald Ware, Carson’s classmate at Detroit’s Southwestern High School, told CNN. “It would have been all over the whole school.”
Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson claimed in his 1996 book that he had a violent childhood full of moments of ‘pathological anger.’
CNN spoke with nine people Carson grew up with. Not one remembered the Republican’s self-proclaimed violent outbursts.
While Carson slammed the CNN report, calling it a “bunch of lies” and “pathetic,” he did admit that there is at least one falsehood in the book: A story about how Gen. William Westmoreland offered the then-17-year-old a full-ride to West Point.
Carson said that as the leader of his high school’s Junior ROTC program, he attended a 1969 Memorial Day dinner for Congressional Medal of Honor winners. There, he met with General Westmoreland.
“Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point,” he wrote.
Carson may have met Westmoreland at the 1969 banquet — which was held in February, not May — but the general would not have promised the student a scholarship, West Point told POLITICO. All costs are covered for admitted West Point students, so “full ride” scholarships don’t exist.
Carson was “introduced to folks from West Point by his ROTC Supervisors” at a banquet, Carson’s campaign manager Barry Bennett said. While they may have discussed application process, Carson never applied or received a scholarship.
Instead, he attended Yale University before going on to the University of Michigan’s medical school.
West Point said it has no records of Carson applying to or enrolling in the academy.
Carson admitted he “doesn’t remember all the specific details” of meeting Westmoreland.
Ben Carson’s Violent Childhood Called Into Question as Classmates Don’t Remember
NY Daily News
“Because I had done so extraordinarily well you know I was told someone like me – they could get a scholarship to West Point,” Carson told the New York Times.
Despite the scholarship lie, Carson defended the rest of the book Friday, saying all the stories about his violent childhood are true.
In the 19-year-old book, Carson claimed he once tried to strike his mother with a hammer as they argued over clothing. His brother Curtis stepped in and disarmed the boy before he could physically harm their mother.
Carson also said he physically attacked at least two of his school friends.
In the seventh grade he hit a boy named Jerry with a lock after he teased Carson for saying something “stupid” in English class.
Carson wrote that he was given a “full scholarship” to West Point.
“I swung at him, lock in hand. The blow slammed into his forehead, and he groaned, staggering backward, blood seeping from a three-inch gash,” Carson wrote.
Two years later, in the ninth grade, he tried to stab a friend who he identified in the book only as “Bob.” The blade stuck Bob’s belt buckle, breaking the blade and leaving the teen unharmed.
“I was trying to kill somebody,” Carson wrote of the knife attack, calling it a moment of “pathological anger.”
The teenage Carson ran to the bathroom after the failed stabbing and prayed. Since then, he has never had a problem with his temper, he claimed in the book.
Carson’s classmates remembered him as introverted and studious — someone who was more likely to be found in the library than in the middle of a schoolyard fight.
Carson’s classmates have described him as a quiet, shy student, not an angry young man.
“He was a quiet, shy kid, not too outgoing,” said his junior high and high school classmate Jerry Dixon. “Bennie stayed home a lot or went to the library to work.”
Dixon said he is not the Jerry the doctor-turned-politician beat with a lock — and said he had never even heard of such an incident.
Carson refused to reveal the names of his victims in a Friday interview on CNN, saying to name them would be “victimizing.”
He admitted that he changed the names in his autobiography, but maintained both “Bob” and “Jerry” are real people who will only be identified if they chose to come forward on their own.
“Tell me what makes you think you’re going to find those specific people?” Carson asked CNN’s Alisyn Camerota. “What is your methodology? Because I don’t understand it.”
Carson’s campaign adviser Armstrong Williams also refused to identify the candidate’s alleged victims or provide any kind of documentation showing disciplinary actions for his claimed school fights.
“Why would anyone cooperate with your obvious witch hunt?” Armstrong Williams wrote to CNN in an email last week, the day before Halloween. “No comment and moving on…… Happy Halloween!!!!!”
Donald Trump quickly weighed in on his rival’s controversy.
“The Carson story is either a total fabrication or, if true, even worse-trying to hit mother over the head with a hammer or stabbing friend!” he tweeted Thursday.
Ben Carson prepared to board his campaign bus after appearing at a book signing in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Thursday.Credit Joe Raedle/Getty Images
A report on Friday said Ben Carson had acknowledged never having applied to West Point, raising questions about his repeated assertions that he had turned down a scholarship to attend the military academy.
According to the report, in Politico, West Point had no record that Mr. Carson, who has been leading in some national polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, had applied. When Politico approached Mr. Carson’s campaign with the information, his campaign manager, Barry Bennett, in a statement, explained that Mr. Carson had considered an offer to receive help getting an appointment to the academy, but he did not apply.
In repeated references to West Point over the years, Mr. Carson has strongly implied that he had a standing offer to attend.
In his statement, Mr. Bennett said, “Dr. Carson was the top R.O.T.C. student in the City of Detroit.”
Referring to Gen. William C. Westmoreland, the Army chief of staff at the time, Mr. Bennett added: “In that role he was invited to meet General Westmoreland. He believes it was at a banquet. He can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson’s performance as R.O.T.C. city executive officer.”
“He was introduced to folks from West Point by his R.O.T.C. supervisors,” Mr. Bennett said. “They told him they could help him get an appointment based on his grades and performance in R.O.T.C. He considered it but in the end did not seek admission.”
In an interview with The New York Times on Friday, Mr. Carson said: “I don’t remember all the specific details. Because I had done so extraordinarily well you know I was told that someone like me – they could get a scholarship to West Point. But I made it clear I was going to pursue a career in medicine.”
“It was, you know, an informal ‘with a record like yours we could easily get you a scholarship to West Point.’”
Mr. Carson has recounted the episode of being offered a scholarship at various points in telling his triumphant personal story. (Technically, West Point does not offer scholarships; it is free to attend.)
In his recent book, “You Have a Brain,” Mr. Carson described how he decided which college to attend: “I still had the scholarship offer from West Point as a result of my R.O.T.C. achievements.”
“But I knew medicine is what I wanted to do. So I applied to only one school. (it was all the money I had). I applied to Yale and thank God they accepted me. I often wonder what might have happened had they said no.”
The revelation came just a couple of days after a CNN report questioned the accuracy of Mr. Carson’s accounts of violent episodes in his youth, which are central to his often-told story of personal redemption through faith and hard work, one that has made him a favorite of evangelical Christian voters. On Friday, shortly before the Politico report was published, Mr. Carson attacked the CNN report as a “bunch of lies.”
Ben Carson defends his telling of an informal offer from West Point
By David Weigel
Ben Carson defended his long-told story of a “scholarship” to West Point today, responding to scrutiny by saying that he merely had received an “informal” offer of a free ride to the military academy.
“Because I had done so extraordinarily well you know I was told that someone like me [could] get a scholarship to West Point,” Carson told the New York Times. “It was, you know, an informal ‘with a record like yours we could easily get you a scholarship to West Point.'”
Allies of the former neurosurgeon, who has slowly risen to the top of 2016 Republican primary polls, had been making a similar case all day. The argument — which depends on a careful parsing of verbs — is that he never applied, even after being told he’d be a sure-thing candidate. The point, which found many takers in conservative media, was that the controversy could be dismissed as a witch hunt.
That reasoning came together Friday morning, after Politico published a story titled “Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship.” After confirming that Carson had never applied to West Point, and that a meeting Carson described with Gen. William Westmoreland apparently did not happen when the candidate had claimed, the story quoted Carson campaign manager Barry Bennett’s new explanation.
“He was introduced to folks from West Point by his ROTC Supervisors,” Bennett said. “They told him they could help him get an appointment based on his grades and performance in ROTC. He considered it but in the end did not seek admission.”
West Point cadets must be sponsored by a member of Congress or the Secretary of the Army. But Doug Watts, a spokesman for the campaign, said that Carson never completed — nor claimed to have completed — the process for acceptance into West Point, and those never had an official sponsor.
“He was told by the ROTC Commander that he could have an appointment,” explained Watts. “Dr. Carson rejected the offer, did not apply or pursue admission. Had he done so, and been accepted, that would have been tantamount to a scholarship, the same that all cadets receive.”
In an interview, Carson’s close friend Armstrong Williams argued that Politico had written a false headline off of Bennett’s accurate quote.
“In the story itself, the campaign does not say Dr. Carson applied to West Point,” Williams said of Politico. “Dr. Carson boasts about his scores in ROTC. Westmoreland encourages him to apply. As Dr. Carson says, they were impressed by his scores, but he never applied. They said to him, we could get you in. This guy got into Yale — obviously he could have got in. The headline was a fabrication.”
Carson, whose steady rise to the top of presidential primary polls has started to draw media scrutiny his way, is depending on a loose interpretation of the word “scholarship.” There is no tuition at West Point; there is no equivalent of a “scholarship” as generally understood at most universities. In his memoir “Gifted Hands” and in anecdotes about the offer, Carson never says that he “applied,” only that some “scholarship” came his way after a meeting with Westmoreland and “congressional medal winners.”
“I was offered a full scholarship to West Point,” Carson wrote. “I didn’t refuse the scholarship outright, but I let them know that a military career wasn’t where I saw myself going. As overjoyed as I felt to be offered such a scholarship, I wasn’t really tempted. The scholarship would have obligated me to spend four years in military service after I finished college, precluding my chances to go on to medical school.”
That description of the offer came with its own problems — it is not, for example, impossible for a West Point graduate to complete his service, then become a doctor. But Carson’s allies insist that the gap between “applying” and being offered a “scholarship” debunks the Politico story. Indeed, in “Gifted Hands,” Carson repeatedly described how he had only $10 to submit with a college application, limiting his choices.
“Each college required a ten-dollar non-returnable entrance fee sent with the application,” Carson wrote. “I had exactly ten dollars, so I could apply only to one.”
In an August 2015 Facebook post, Carson described that situation again, to tell a questioner that he applied only to Yale.
“I was the highest student ROTC member in Detroit and was thrilled to get an offer from West Point,” wrote Carson. “But I knew medicine is what I wanted to do. So I applied to only one school. (It was all the money I had). I applied to Yale and thank God they accepted me.”
Williams, who had not spoken to Carson since Politico’s story went online, insisted that it was “shoddy journalism” and oversold what Carson himself had claimed.
“It gives journalism a bad name,” said Williams. “It only fits into Dr. Carson’s narrative of a witch hunt.”
On Friday afternoon, conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and Sean Hannity criticized the coverage that had made Carson out as a dissembler. But at least one of his rivals sense a political opportunity in the scrum.
“Well, I think it’s really the beginning of the end,” said Donald Trump in an interview.
In two of his books — the popular “Gifted Hands” as well as a newer book entitled “You Have a Brain” — Carson tells the West Point story as part of his aspirational life that began in poverty in Detroit and continued through a decorated career as a world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon.
Now we know that story is, at best, somewhat misleading. It is of course possible that Carson was either led to believe he might have been given a scholarship to the military academy if he had applied or simply misunderstood a conversation he participated in. That is the direction the Carson team appears to be headed, saying in a statement of his meeting with then-Gen. William Westmoreland: “He can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson’s performance as ROTC City Executive Officer.”
Regardless of whether the West Point story is a simple misunderstanding or something more nefarious, what it will do is raise this simple question: What else in Ben Carson’s remarkable biography might not be totally, 100 percent accurate?
Even before the West Point story broke, Carson was dealing with suggestions that his recounting of his tough childhood highlighted by a terrible temper and a series of altercations with his mother — among other people — might not be true.
A CNN report, which was based on interviews with nine people who knew Carson as a young man, argues that the violent portrait he paints of himself doesn’t jibe with the person they knew. “All of the people interviewed expressed surprise about the incidents Carson has described,” reads the CNN story. “No one challenged the stories directly. Some of those interviewed expressed skepticism, but noted that they could not know what had happened behind closed doors.”
Carson spent Thursday insisting that the people who were directly involved in these purported attacks weren’t the people that CNN had spoken to and, therefore, the report had no merit.
Now, with the West Point story raging, Carson will come under even more pressure to explain some of the fuzzier parts of his personal biography. And if any other inconsistencies or outright falsehoods come out amid that heightened scrutiny, it could spell curtains for a Carson campaign that has just moved into the pole position in the Republican primary race.
With question over West Point offer, Ben Carson feels the glare of the front-runner’s spotlight
Timothy M. Phelps
retired Baltimore neurosurgeon Ben Carson has reached the top in several recent national polls, he is also experiencing new scrutiny as a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.
On Friday, his name dominated political news with a Politico report that his campaign “admits fabricating a West Point scholarship” in his autobiography, though that reference was later taken out of the story. The story also quoted a West Point spokeswoman as saying the famous military academy had no record of an application from Carson.
Barry Bennett, Carson’s campaign manager, said in an interview that Carson’s book,“Gifted Hands,” was accurate when Carson wrote, “I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”
“I would not have used the word ‘full scholarship.’ I would have said ‘nomination,’ but it’s not a fabrication, it’s not a lie,” Bennett said in an interview. At West Point, tuition and other expenses are paid by the government.
Bennett said that Carson, who he said was the top high school Junior ROTC officer in Detroit, was offered a nomination to West Point by ROTC officials in the city. He said he did not have names, but that the campaign and others are trying to locate them to corroborate Carson’s story.
Later, Carson told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that his account of the West Point episode “could have been more clarified. I told it as I understood it.”
Also, Theresa Brinkerhoff, the chief of media relations at West Point, said that a comment she made to Politico was “misconstrued.”
Politico wrote that West Point had no record of Carson applying to the academy, but Brinkerhoff said in an interview that the academy does not keep records beyond three years if a candidate does not attend the school. The academy has no way of knowing whether Carson applied, Brinkerhoff said.
In the end, Bennett confirmed that Carson had not applied. In his book, Carson wrote that he never had any interest in any career other than medicine. “I remembered the scholarship offer from West Point. A teaching career? Business? None of these areas held any real interest,” he said.
Clearly, however, Carson has left an impression that the offer to go to the academy came from West Point itself. On Facebook in August, Carson took a question from someone named Bill, who “wanted to know if it was true that I was offered a slot at West Point after high school. Bill, that is true. I was the highest student ROTC member in Detroit and was thrilled to get an offer from West Point. But I knew medicine is what I wanted to do. So I applied to only one school.”
Carson went to Yale.
Carson was also involved in a contentious interview Friday morning on CNN. Anchor Alisyn Camerota badgered him about reports by the network that it had been unable to locate some childhood friends or family members Carson mentions having assaulted in his autobiography.
In his book, Carson says he once tried to stab a person he refers to as Bob. On Friday, Carson told CNN that person was really a family member by another name who did not want to be identified. Other childhood friends mentioned in the book could decide for themselves whether to come forward, he said.
Bennett said the political attacks were a function of national polls over the past week showing him ahead of Donald Trump and all other Republicans for the nomination.
“Somewhere, there is a panicked candidate running for the Republican presidential nomination who is spreading a lot of dirt,” Bennett said.
Story 1: Lying Lunatic Left Lame-stream Losers: CNBC — Winners: Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Carson and Trump — Losers: Bush and Kasich — 2016 Republican Candidates Debate — October 28, 2015 — Boulder, Colorado — New House Speaker Paul Ryan — Videos
Lying Lunatic Left Lame-stream Losers
Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick, and especially John Harwood
Are We Really Talking About Fantasy Football? • Chris Christie • GOP Debate • 10/28/15 •
Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio spar over Rubio’s congressional attendance record
Rand Paul on Raising the Debt Ceiling | Republican Debate
Ben Carson Says PC Culture is Destroying America
Donald Trump Closing Remarks During 3rd Republican Debate
Donald Trump says he negotiated the length of the debate from 3 hours down to 2 hours during his final statement at the end of the 3rd Republican Presidential Debate on CNBC.
The Republican debate
10 28 15 Luntz Focus Group After 3rd GOP Debate Segment 1
Did Marco Rubio Win The 3dr GOP Debate? Full Kelly File Segment.
O’Reilly On Trump: ‘Maybe This Is His New Style A Bit Low Key’
Must-see moments from the CNBC GOP debate (FULL VIDEO)
O’Reilly: ‘Jeb Bush Is Done, But He Has Cool Things To Do’ Post GOP Debate Recap
O’Reilly Recaps GOP Debate With Brit Hume 10.28.15
Paul Ryan Sworn In As New Speaker Of The House
Call It Like It Is: Marco Rubio Is Just Better At This Than Jeb Bush
FULL CNBC GOP DEBATE Part 8: Round 2 Republican Presidential Debate 10/28/2015
Texas Senator Ted Cruz Attacks CNBC Moderators- Presidential Debate
Rand Paul Opening Statement Republican Debate
Rand Paul on Medcaid and Medicare | Republican Debate
GOP presidential debate Highlights October 2015 #GOPDebate
FULL Rand Paul Highlights Republican Debate
Rand Paul Closing Statement | Republican Debate
Donald Trump Closing Statement At GOP Republican Presidential Debate On CNBC October 28, 2015
Donald Trump Interview after 3rd GOP Debate VIDEO CNBC Presidential Debate GOP
Donald Trump vs John Kasich At Gop Debate. Kasich Tears Into Trump, Carson:
Lamestream GOP Moderators’ Total Debate Fail
By Lloyd Grove
When Rand Paul asked for the rules about who was allowed to respond to a rival candidate’s statement, Quick informed him, “It’s at the discretion of the moderators.”
It was not an answer guaranteed to instill the participants’—or, for that matter, the viewers’—confidence in the fairness and balance of the occasion.
Speaking of which, Fox News, unsurprisingly, had a field day with CNBC’s treatment of the candidates.
“This is the most appalling performance by the moderators,” Charles Krauthammer opined, “that I can ever remember seeing.”
Republican talking point virtuoso Sean Hannity declared: “The candidates combined beat the moderators, who were taking the Democratic Party line.”
“This a horrible night for the news media,” Hannity added—and, for once, I agreed with him.
The trouble started with the very first question, Quintanilla cutely asked each candidate, as though they were in a job interview, to admit to a weakness of character or somesuch.
It was a gimmicky and rather puerile inquiry, of course, and predictably few of the contenders even bothered to address it. Bush conceded he was probably a little too impatient. Trump claimed he was a little too trusting, and then bitterly unforgiving when betrayed. Carly Fiorina—grinning winsomely for laughs—revealed she was advised to smile more during debates.
Quick, meanwhile, got blindsided when she asked Trump about something he supposedly said about Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg’s immigration policies, and Trump told her he never said it.
“So where did that come from?” Quick pleaded lamely.
“I don’t know. You people write this stuff,” Trump retorted, to laughter.
Harwood, who also writes for The New York Times, came in for particular criticism from the candidates—and with justice. He came across as a sort of grand inquisitor and took on the severe and scolding tone of an irritated headmaster with candidates who spoke beyond their 60-second allotment.
“John, do you want me to answer or do you want to answer?” Christie chided after Harwood interrupted him. “Gotta tell ya, even in New Jersey what you’re doing is called ‘rude.’”
Toward the end, when each contender was invited to deliver a 30-second closing pitch, Trump used his time to congratulate himself and Ben Carson for negotiating with CNBC to pare down the debate from 3½ hours to 2 hours “so we can all get the hell out of here.”
Trump argued that it’s just those sorts of negotiating skills that he’ll employ as president to make America great again.
“Just for the record,” Harwood felt compelled to chime in, “it was always going to be two hours.”
“That is not right,” Trump shot back, basically calling Harwood a liar. “You know that is not right.”
All in all, the night offered a harsh lesson for future debate moderators: Go ahead and pose tough questions, but get your facts straight, don’t be snarky, and don’t, on any account, debate the pros
A Liberal, Progressive and Socialist Opinion of the John Birch Society
A Personal History of the John Birch Society
1 Why Did I Write This Book?
Because of the accident of my birth, I watched the rise of the John Birch Society in the late 1950s and 60s. Because of my own experiences, I had to share the reality that John Birch ideas are dominating right wing politics today. Read more at http://www.claireconner.com.
2 I Never Hear About The Birchers, Aren’t They All Dead?
Follow me at http://www.claireconner.com. Read my blog, check out the family photo album and read all the endorsements of Wrapped in the Flag: A Personal History of America’s Radical Right, coming July 2 from Beacon Press. You can also share your ideas with me on facebook: Wrapped in the Flag by Claire Conner. I’m twittering @wrappedinflag.
3 What About The Koch Family And Why Do They Matter?
Say the word KOCH and people pay attention. Here’s a short version of their story from Fred Koch, an original John Birch Society member to today’s infamous David and Charles who are determined to change our government into a tiny, weak, powerless system where rich folks and businesses pay no taxes and face no regulations. Read more at http://www.claireconner.com.
4 What Do These People Want?
These right wingers have an agenda. Listen to this video to discover how wealthy men built tax free foundations based on Birch ideas and partnered with the religious right. Discover more about this powerful right wing coalition. You’ll learn much more about these folks in my book, Wrapped in the Flag: A Personal History of America’s Radical Right, coming July 2 from Beacon Press. You can pre-order today on Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Indie Press. See more at http://www.claireconner.com.
5 Who Are The Birchers Today?
The lurch to the right in 2010 is the unholy coalition of Tea Party, libertarian, big business, the gun lobby, the religious right and the newly reborn John Birch Society. It took 50 years, but these folks are back and they are strong. See more at http://www.claireconner.com. In my new book, Wrapped in the Flag: A Personal History of America’s Radical Right (coming from Beacon Press on July 2, 2013), you be able to read all about this right wing gang.
6 Why Did You Reject John Birch Society Ideas?
The Antidote To Progressives, Socialists and Other Fellow Travelers
Ezra Taft Benson on The John Birch Society
This is an excerpt of an hour-long talk given in 1965 by Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, just 4 years after having left the cabinet in Washington DC where he served the full 8 years (despite all predictions that he would be the first one in the cabinet to be removed given his severe anti-socialist policies). He sought to undo the bondage and destruction brought on by the New Deal as government now had moved far outside of it’s jurisdiction and constitutional bounds. Visit http://www.JBS.org for more information about The John Birch Society.
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958
What Is the John Birch Society?
Betrayal Of The Constitution-An Expose of the Neo-Conservative Agenda
G. Edward Griffin Interviews the John Birch Society (1984)
Super rich are in a conspiracy to rule the world – G. Edward Griffin – 2007
The Quigley Formula – G. Edward Griffin lecture
G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy
Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 1/5
Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 2/5
Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 3/5
Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 4/5
Alex Jones welcomes John Birch Society President John McManus 5/5
John Birch Society on the Illuminati and the New World Order
Robert Welch: The Truth in Time [Preview]
In this classic watershed presentation, Robert Welch, founder of The John Birch Society, significantly updates his worldview by introducing evidence that Communism is merely a tool of a much larger Conspiracy. He coins the term “Insiders” and outlines their relationship to international Communism. Filmed in 1966.
The Truth in Time by Robert Welch.flv
If You Want it Straight by Robert Welch
Alex Jones Ron Paul founded the Tea party and the Koch brothers fund it
Ron Paul’s Keynote Speech at the 50th Anniversary of JBS
John Birch Society CEO Arthur Thompson on the Article V Convention
John Birch Society CEO Art Thompson: The Dangers of Foreign Entanglements
Mark Levin’s Dangerous Constitutional Convention Proposal
Conspiracy Against the Independence of the American People
Betrayal of the Constitution: The Neocons Now Run the GOP | John F. McManus
Stand Up For Freedom
A classic 1966 message in which religious and patriotic leader Ezra Taft Benson challenges Americans to defend their freedom against the socialist currents now engulfing our country, and he defends the John Birch Society.
Howard Hughes – The Man And The Madness – Documentary – Biography
A documentary on the eccentric billionaire who was a pioneer in both aviation and film production. Unfortunately his obsessive-compulsive behavior and drug abuse made him a mysterious, bizarre recluse in the eyes of the public and the media. Interviews with business associates and newly discovered archival footage shed light on the Hughes enigma.
Local Billionaire Marries Socialite – This Forgotten Day in Houston
Hell’s Angels 1930 Re-Release Trailer
Hell’s Angels – Anjos do Inferno (Completo) Legendado 1930
Hells Angels Premiere
The Story of Howard Hughes – Documentary Films
The Secret History: Howard Hughes, Bizarre Billionaire (1/5)
The Secret History: Howard Hughes, Bizarre Billionaire (2/5)
The Secret History: Howard Hughes, Bizarre Billionaire (3/5)
The Secret History: Howard Hughes, Bizarre Billionaire (4/5)
The Secret History: Howard Hughes, Bizarre Billionaire (5/5)
The Affliction of Howard Hughes: OCD – Aviator – Martin Scorsese – Leonardo DiCaprio
Howard Robard Hughes, Jr. (December 24, 1905 – April 5, 1976) was an American business tycoon, entrepreneur, investor, aviator, aerospace engineer, inventor, filmmaker and philanthropist. During his lifetime, he was known as one of the wealthiest self-made people in the world. As a maverick film tycoon, Hughes gained prominence in Hollywood from the late 1920s, making big-budget and often controversial films like The Racket (1928), Hell’s Angels (1930), Scarface (1932), and The Outlaw (1943).
Hughes’ birthplace is recorded as either Humble or Houston, Texas. The date is also uncertain, though Hughes claimed that his birthday was Christmas Eve. A 1941affidavitbirth certificate of Hughes, signed by his aunt Annette Gano Lummis and Estelle Boughton Sharp, states that he was born on December 24, 1905, in Harris County, Texas.[N 1] However, his baptismal record of October 7, 1906, in the parish register of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Keokuk, Iowa, has his birth listed as September 24, 1905, without reference to the place of birth.[N 2]
His parents were Howard R. Hughes, Sr., a successful inventor and businessman from Missouri of English descent, and Allene Stone Gano. His father had patented thetwo-cone roller bit, which allowed rotary drilling for petroleum in previously inaccessible places. The senior Hughes made the shrewd and lucrative decision to commercialize the invention by leasing the bits instead of selling them, and founded the Hughes Tool Company in 1909. Hughes’s uncle was the famed novelist, screenwriter, and film director Rupert Hughes.
Hughes demonstrated interest in science and technology at a young age. In particular, he had great engineering aptitude, building Houston’s first “wireless” radiotransmitter at age 11. He went on to be one of the first licensed ham radio operators in Houston, having the assigned callsign W5CY (originally 5CY). At 12, Hughes was photographed in the local newspaper, identified as being the first boy in Houston to have a “motorized” bicycle, which he had built from parts from his father’s steam engine. He was an indifferent student, with a liking for mathematics, flying, and mechanics. He took his first flying lesson at 14, and later attended math and aeronautical engineering courses at Caltech.
Allene Hughes died in March 1922 from complications of an ectopic pregnancy. Howard Hughes, Sr., died of a heart attack in 1924. Their deaths apparently inspired Hughes to include the creation of a medical research laboratory in the will that he signed in 1925 at age 19. Howard Sr.’s will had not been updated since Allene’s death, and Hughes inherited 75 percent of the family fortune. On his 19th birthday, Hughes was declared an emancipated minor, enabling him to take full control of his life.
Hughes was an excellent and enthusiastic golfer from a young age, often scoring near par figures, and held a handicap of three during his twenties. He played frequently with top players, including Gene Sarazen. Hughes rarely played competitively, and gradually gave up his interest in the sport to pursue other interests.
Hughes withdrew from Rice University shortly after his father’s death. On June 1, 1925, he married Ella Botts Rice, daughter of David Rice and Martha Lawson Botts of Houston. They moved to Los Angeles, where he hoped to make a name for himself as a filmmaker.
Hughes enjoyed a highly successful business career beyond engineering, aviation, and filmmaking, though many of his career endeavors involved varying entrepreneurial roles. The Summa Corporation was the name adopted for the business interests of Howard Hughes after he sold the tool division of Hughes Tool Company in 1972. The company serves as the principal holding company for Hughes’s business ventures and investments. It is primarily involved in aerospace and defense, electronics, mass media, manufacturing, and hospitality industries, but has maintained a strong presence in a wide variety of industries including real estate, petroleum drilling and oilfield services, consulting, entertainment, and mining. Much of his fortune was later used for philanthropic causes, notably towards health care and medical research.
Hughes entered the entertainment industry after dropping out of Rice University and moving to Los Angeles. His first two films, Everybody’s Acting (1927) and Two Arabian Knights (1928), were financial successes, the latter winning the first Academy Award for Best Director of a comedy picture.
Hughes spent $3.8 million to make the flying film Hell’s Angels (1930). It earned nearly $8 million, about double the production and advertising costs. Hell’s Angels received one Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography.
He produced another hit, Scarface (1932), a production delayed by censors’ concern over its violence.
The Outlaw (1943) was completed in 1941 and featured Jane Russell. It also received considerable attention from industry censors, this time owing to Russell’s revealing costumes. Hughes designed a special bra for his leading lady, although Russell decided against wearing it.
For a period of time in the 1940s to late 1950s, Hughes Tool Company ventured into the film and media industry where it then owned the RKO companies, including: RKO Pictures; RKO Studios; RKO Theatres, a chain of movie theatres; the RKO Radio Network, a network of radio stations.
In 1948, Hughes gained control of RKO, a struggling major Hollywood studio, by acquiring 25 percent of the outstanding stock from Floyd Odlum‘s Atlas Corporation. Within weeks of taking control, he dismissed three-quarters of the work force, and production was shut down for six months in 1949 while he undertook the investigation of the politics of all remaining studio employees. Completed pictures would be sent back for re-shooting if he felt that his star (especially female) was not properly presented, or if a film’s anti-communist politics were not sufficiently clear. In 1952, an abortive sale to a Chicago-based group with no experience in the industry disrupted studio operations even further.
Hughes sold the RKO theaters in 1953 as settlement of the United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.antitrust case. With the sale of the profitable theaters, the shaky status of the film studio became increasingly apparent. A steady stream of lawsuits from RKO’s minority shareholders became an increasing nuisance, charging him with financial misconduct and corporate mismanagement, especially because Hughes wanted to focus on his aircraft-manufacturing and TWA holdings during the Korean War years. Eager to be rid of the distraction, Hughes offered to buy out all other stockholders.
He had gained near-total control of RKO by the end of 1954, at a cost of nearly $24 million, becoming the closest thing to a sole owner of a Hollywood studio seen in three decades. Six months later, Hughes sold the studio to the General Tire and Rubber Company for $25 million. Hughes retained the rights to pictures that he had personally produced, including those made at RKO. He also retained Jane Russell’s contract. For Howard Hughes, this was the virtual end of his 25-year involvement in motion pictures; his reputation as a financial wizard emerged unscathed. He reportedly walked away from RKO having made $6.5 million in personal profit.
General Tire was interested mainly in exploiting the value of the RKO library for television programming, though it made some attempts to continue producing films. After a year and a half of mixed success, General Tire shut down film production at RKO for good at the end of January 1957. The studio lots in Hollywood and Culver City were sold to Desilu Productions later that year for $6.15 million.
Beyond extending his business prowess in the manufacturing, aviation, entertainment, and hospitality industries, Hughes was a successful real estate investor. Hughes was deeply involved in the American real estate industry where he amassed vast holdings of undeveloped land both in Las Vegas and in the desert surrounding the city that had gone unused during his lifetime. In 1968, the Hughes Tool Companypurchased the North Las Vegas Air Terminal.
Originally known as Summa Corporation, The Howard Hughes Corporation was formed in 1972 when the oil tools business of Hughes Tool Company, then owned by Howard Hughes, Jr., was floated on the New York Stock Exchange under the Hughes Tool name. This forced the remaining businesses of the “original” Hughes Tool to adopt a new corporate name Summa. The name “Summa”, Latin for “highest”, was adopted without the approval of Hughes himself, who preferred to keep his own name on the business and suggested HRH Properties (for Hughes Resorts and Hotels, and also his own initials).
Initially staying in the Desert Inn, Hughes refused to vacate his room and instead decided to purchase the entire hotel. Hughes extended his financial empire to include Las Vegas real estate, hotels and media outlets, spending an estimated $300 million and using his considerable powers to take-over many of the well known hotels, especially the organized crime connected venues and he quickly became one of the most powerful men in Las Vegas. He was instrumental in changing the image of Las Vegas from its Wild West roots into a more refined cosmopolitan city.
Another portion of Hughes’s business interests lies in aviation, airlines, and the aerospace and defense industries. Hughes was a lifelong aircraft enthusiast and pilot. At Rogers Airport in Los Angeles, he learned to fly from pioneer aviators, including Moye Stephens. He set many world records and commissioned the construction of custom aircraft for himself while heading Hughes Aircraft at the airport in Glendale. Operating from there, the most technologically important aircraft he commissioned was the Hughes H-1 Racer. On September 13, 1935, Hughes, flying the H-1, set the landplane airspeed record of 352 mph (566 km/h) over his test course near Santa Ana, California (Giuseppe Motta reached 362 mph in 1929 and George Stainforth reached 407.5 mph in 1931, both in seaplanes). This was the last time in history that the world airspeed record was set in an aircraft built by a private individual. A year and a half later, on January 19, 1937, flying the same H-1 Racer fitted with longer wings, Hughes set a new transcontinental airspeed record by flying non-stop from Los Angeles to Newark in 7 hours, 28 minutes and 25 seconds (beating his own previous record of 9 hours, 27 minutes). His average ground speed over the flight was 322 mph (518 km/h).
On July 14, 1938, Hughes set another record by completing a flight around the world in just 91 hours (3 days, 19 hours, 17 minutes), beating the previous record set in 1933 by Wiley Post in a single engineLockheed Vega by almost four days. Hughes returned home ahead of photographs of his flight. Taking off from New York City, Hughes continued to Paris, Moscow, Omsk, Yakutsk, Fairbanks, Minneapolis, then returning to New York City. For this flight he flew a Lockheed 14 Super Electra (NX18973, a twin-engine transport with a four-man crew) fitted with the latest radio and navigational equipment. Hughes wanted the flight to be a triumph of American aviation technology, illustrating that safe, long-distance air travel was possible. While he had previously been relatively obscure despite his wealth, being better known for dating Katharine Hepburn, New York City now gave Hughes a ticker-tape parade in the Canyon of Heroes. In 1938, the William P. Hobby Airport in Houston, Texas—known at the time as Houston Municipal Airport—was renamed after Hughes, but the name was changed back after people objected to naming the airport after a living person.
The Hughes D-2 was conceived in 1939 as a bomber with five crew members, powered by 42-cylinder Wright R-2160 Tornado engines. In the end it appeared as two-seat fighter-reconnaissance aircraft designated the D-2A, powered by two Pratt & Whitney R-2800-49 engines. The aircraft was constructed using the Duramold process. The prototype was brought to Harper’s Dry Lake California in great secrecy in 1943 and first flew on June 20 of that year. Acting on a recommendation of the president’s son, Colonel Elliott Roosevelt, who had become friends with Hughes, in September 1943 the USAAF ordered 100 of a reconnaissance development of the D-2, known as the F-11. Hughes then attempted to get the military to pay for the development of the D-2. In November 1944, the hangar containing the D-2A was reportedly hit by lightning and the aircraft was destroyed. The D-2 design was abandoned, but led to the extremely controversial Hughes XF-11. The XF-11 was a large all-metal, two-seat reconnaissance aircraft, powered by two Pratt & Whitney R-4360-31 engines, each driving a set of contra-rotating propellers. Only the two prototypes were completed; the second one with a single propeller per side.
Near-fatal crash of the Sikorsky S-43
In the spring of 1943 Hughes spent nearly a month in Las Vegas, test flying his Sikorsky S-43 amphibian aircraft, practicing touch-and-go landings on Lake Mead in preparation for flying the H-4 Hercules. The weather conditions at the lake during the day were ideal and he enjoyed Las Vegas at night. On May 17, 1943, Hughes flew the Sikorsky from California carrying two CAA aviation inspectors, two of his employees and actress Ava Gardner. Hughes dropped Gardner off in Las Vegas and proceeded to Lake Mead to conduct qualifying tests in the S-43. The test flight did not go well. The Sikorsky crashed, killing CAA inspector Ceco Cline and Hughes employee Richard Felt. Hughes suffered a severe gash on the top of his head when he hit the upper control panel and had to be rescued by one of the others on board. Hughes paid divers $100,000 to raise the aircraft and later spent more than $500,000 restoring the aircraft.
When the XF-11 finally came to a halt after destroying three houses, the fuel tanks exploded, setting fire to the aircraft and a nearby home at 808 North Whittier Drive, owned by Lt Col. Charles E. Meyer. Hughes managed to pull himself out of the flaming wreckage but lay beside the aircraft until he was rescued by MarineMaster Sgt. William L. Durkin, who happened to be in the area visiting friends. Hughes sustained significant injuries in the crash, including a crushed collar bone, multiple cracked ribs, crushed chest with collapsed left lung, shifting his heart to the right side of the chest cavity, and numerous third-degree burns. An oft-told story said that Hughes sent a check to the Marine weekly for the remainder of his life as a sign of gratitude. However, Durkin’s daughter denied that he took any money for the rescue.
Despite his physical injuries, Hughes was proud that his mind was still working. As he lay in his hospital bed, he decided that he did not like the bed’s design. He called in plant engineers to design a customized bed, equipped with hot and cold running water, built in six sections, and operated by 30 electric motors, with push-button adjustments. The hospital bed was designed by Hughes specifically to alleviate the pain caused by moving with severe burn injuries. Despite the fact that he never had the chance to use the bed that he designed, Hughes’s bed served as a prototype for the modern hospital bed. Hughes’s doctors considered his recovery almost miraculous. Hughes, however, believed that neither miracle nor modern medicine contributed to his recovery. Instead he vigorously asserted that the natural life-giving properties of fresh squeezed orange juice were responsible. (He only drank orange juice he had personally witnessed being freshly squeezed.) 
Many[who?] attribute his long-term dependence on opiates to his use of codeine as a painkiller during his convalescence. The trademark mustache he wore afterward was used to hide a scar on his upper lip resulting from the accident.
The War Production Board (not the military) originally contracted with Henry Kaiser and Hughes to produce the gigantic HK-1 Hercules flying boat for use during World War II to transport troops and equipment across the Atlantic as an alternative to seagoing troop transport ships that were vulnerable to German U-boats. The project was opposed by the military services, thinking it would siphon resources from higher priority programs, but was advocated by Hughes’s powerful allies in Washington, D.C. After disputes, Kaiser withdrew from the project and Hughes elected to continue it as the H-4 Hercules. However, the aircraft was not completed until after the end of World War II.
The Hercules was the world’s largest flying boat, the largest aircraft made from wood, and, at 319 feet 11 inches (97.51 m), had the longest wingspan of any aircraft (the next largest wingspan was about 310 ft (94 m)). (The Hercules is no longer the longest or heaviest aircraft ever built; both of those titles are currently held by the Antonov An-225 Mriya.)
The Hercules flew only once for one mile (1.6 km), and 70 feet (21 m) above the water, with Hughes at the controls, on November 2, 1947.
The Hercules was nicknamed the “Spruce Goose” by critics, but was actually made largely from birch (not spruce), rather than of aluminum, because the contract required that Hughes build the aircraft of non-strategic materials. It was built in Hughes’s Westchester, California facility. In 1947, Howard Hughes was summoned to testify before theSenate War Investigating Committee to explain why the H-4 development had been so troubled, and why the F-11 had resulted in only two prototypes after $22 million spent. General Elliott Roosevelt and numerous other USAAF officers were also called to testify in hearings that transfixed the nation during August and again in November 1947. In a hotly disputed testimony over TWA‘s route awards and malfeasance in the defense acquisition process, Hughes turned the tables on his main interlocutor, Maine SenatorOwen Brewster, and the hearings were widely interpreted as a Hughes victory. After display at the Long Beach, California harbor, the Hercules was moved to McMinnville, Oregon, where it is now part of the Evergreen Aviation Museum.
Hughes Aircraft Company, a division of Hughes Tool Company, was originally founded by Hughes in 1932, in a rented corner of a Lockheed Aircraft Corporation hangar in Burbank, California, to build the H-1 racer. During and after World War II, Hughes fashioned his company into a major defense contractor. The Hughes Helicopters division started in 1947 when helicopter manufacturer Kellett sold their latest design to Hughes for production. The company was a major American aerospace and defense contractor manufacturing numerous technology related products that include spacecraft vehicles, military aircraft, radar systems, electro-optical systems, the first working laser, aircraft computer systems, missile systems, ion-propulsion engines (for space travel), commercial satellites, and other electronics systems.
In 1948, Hughes created a new division of the company, the Hughes Aerospace Group. The Hughes Space and Communications Group and the Hughes Space Systems Division were later spun off in 1948 to form their own divisions and ultimately became the Hughes Space and Communications Company in 1961. In 1953, Howard Hughes gave all his stock in the Hughes Aircraft Company to the newly formed Howard Hughes Medical Institute, thereby turning the aerospace and defense contractor into a tax-exempt charitable organization. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute sold Hughes Aircraft in 1985 to General Motors for $5.2 billion. In 1997, General Motors sold Hughes Aircraft to Raytheon and in 2000, sold Hughes Space & Communications to Boeing. A combination of Boeing, GM and Raytheon acquired the Hughes Research Laboratories, where it focused on advanced developments in microelectronics, information & systems sciences, materials, sensors, and photonics; their workspace spans from basic research to product delivery. It has particularly emphasized capabilities in high performance integrated circuits, high power lasers, antennas, networking, and smart materials.
In 1939, at the urging of Jack Frye, president of Trans World Airlines (TWA), Hughes quietly purchased a majority share of TWA stock for nearly $7 million and took control of the airline. Upon assuming ownership, Hughes was prohibited by federal law from building his own aircraft. Seeking an aircraft that would perform better than TWA’s fleet ofBoeing 307 Stratoliners, Hughes and Frye approached Boeing’s competitor, Lockheed. Hughes had a good relationship with Lockheed since they had built the aircraft he used in his record flight around the world in 1938. Lockheed agreed to Hughes and Frye’s request that the new aircraft be built in secrecy. The result was the revolutionaryConstellation and TWA purchased the first 40 of the new airliners off the production line.
In 1956, Hughes placed an order for 63 Convair 880s for TWA at a cost of $400 million. Although Hughes was extremely wealthy at this time, outside creditors demanded that Hughes relinquish control of TWA in return for providing the money. In 1960, Hughes was ultimately forced out of TWA, although he owned 78% of the company and battled to regain control.
Before Hughes’ removal, the TWA jet financing issue precipitated the end of Hughes’ relationship with Noah Dietrich. Dietrich claimed Hughes developed a plan by which Hughes Tool Company profits would be inflated to sell the company for a windfall that would pay the bills for the 880s. Dietrich agreed to go to Texas to implement the plan on the condition that Hughes agreed to a capital gains arrangement he had long promised Dietrich. When Hughes balked, Dietrich resigned immediately. “Noah”, Dietrich quoted Hughes as replying, “I cannot exist without you!” Dietrich stood firm and eventually had to sue to retrieve personal possessions from his office after Hughes ordered it locked.
In 1966, a U.S. federal court forced Hughes to sell his TWA shares because of concerns over conflict of interest between his ownership of both TWA and Hughes Aircraft. The sale of his TWA shares netted him a profit of $547 million.
In 1929 Hughes’ wife, Ella, returned to Houston and filed for divorce. Hughes dated many famous women, including Billie Dove, Bette Davis, Ava Gardner, Olivia de Havilland, Katharine Hepburn, Ginger Rogers andGene Tierney. He also proposed to Joan Fontaine several times, according to her autobiography No Bed of Roses. Jean Harlow accompanied him to the premiere of Hell’s Angels, but Noah Dietrich wrote many years later that the relationship was strictly professional, as Hughes apparently personally disliked Harlow. In his 1971 book, Howard: The Amazing Mr. Hughes, Dietrich said that Hughes genuinely liked and respected Jane Russell, but never sought romantic involvement with her. According to Russell’s autobiography, however, Hughes once tried to bed her after a party. Russell (who was married at the time) refused him, and Hughes promised it would never happen again. The two maintained a professional and private friendship for many years. Hughes remained good friends with Tierney who, after his failed attempts to seduce her, was quoted as saying “I don’t think Howard could love anything that did not have a motor in it.” Later, when Tierney’s daughter Daria was born deaf and blind and with a severe learning disability, because of Tierney’s being exposed to rubella during her pregnancy, Hughes saw to it that Daria received the best medical care and paid all expenses.
In 1933, Hughes purchased unseen the Rover, a luxury steam yacht previously owned by British shipping magnate Lord Inchcape. “I have never seen the Rover but bought it on the blue prints, photographs and the reports of Lloyd’s surveyors. My experience is that the English are the most honest race in the world.” Hughes renamed the yacht Southern Cross and later sold her to Swedish entrepreneur Axel Wenner-Gren.
On July 11, 1936, Hughes struck and killed a pedestrian named Gabriel S. Meyer with his car, at the corner of 3rd Street and Lorraine in Los Angeles. Hughes was certified as sober at the hospital he was taken to after the accident, but an attending doctor made a note that Hughes had been drinking. A witness to the accident told police that Hughes was driving erratically and too fast, and that Meyer had been standing in the safety zone of a streetcar stop. Hughes was booked on suspicion of negligent homicide and held overnight in jail until his attorney, Neil McCarthy, obtained a writ of habeas corpus for his release pending a coroner’s inquest. By the time of the coroner’s inquiry, however, the witness had changed his story and claimed that Meyer had moved directly in front of Hughes’s car. Nancy Bayly (Watts), who was in the car with Hughes at the time of the accident, corroborates this version. On July 16, 1936, Hughes was held blameless by a coroner’s jury at the inquest into Meyer’s death. Hughes told reporters outside the inquiry, “I was driving slowly and a man stepped out of the darkness in front of me.”
On January 12, 1957, Hughes married actress Jean Peters. The couple met in the 1940s, before Peters became a film actress. They had a highly publicized romance in 1947 and there was talk of marriage, but she said she could not combine it with her career. Some later claimed that Peters was “the only woman [Hughes] ever loved”, and he reportedly had his security officers follow her everywhere even when they were not in a relationship. Such reports were confirmed by actor Max Showalter, who became a close friend of Peters while shooting Niagara (1953). Showalter told in an interview that because he frequently met with Peters, Hughes’ men threatened to ruin his career if he did not leave her alone.
In 1953, Hughes launched the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Miami, Florida, and currently located in Chevy Chase, Maryland, formed with the express goal of basic biomedical research, including trying to understand, in Hughes’ words, the “genesis of life itself”, due to his lifelong interest in science and technology. Hughes’ first will, which he signed in 1925 at the age of 19, stipulated that a portion of his estate should be used to create a medical institute bearing his name. When a major battle with the IRS loomed ahead, Hughes gave all his stock in the Hughes Aircraft Company to the institute, thereby turning the aerospace and defense contractor into a for-profit entity of a fully tax-exempt charity. Hughes’ internist, Verne Mason, who treated Hughes after his 1946 aircraft crash, was chairman of the institute’s medical advisory committee. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s new board of trustees sold Hughes Aircraft in 1985 to General Motors for $5.2 billion, allowing the institute to grow dramatically.
The deal was the topic of a protracted legal battle between Hughes and the Internal Revenue Service, which Hughes ultimately won. After his death in 1976, many thought that the balance of Hughes’ estate would go to the institute, although it was ultimately divided among his cousins and other heirs, given the lack of a will to the contrary. The HHMI was the 4th largest private organization as of 2007 and the largest devoted to biological and medical research, with an endowment of $16.3 billion as of June 2007.
Shortly before the 1960 Presidential election, Richard Nixon was alarmed when it was revealed that his brother, Donald, received a $205,000 loan from Hughes. It has long been speculated[by whom?] that Nixon’s drive to learn what the Democrats were planning in 1972 was based in part on his belief that the Democrats knew about a later bribe that his friend Bebe Rebozo had received from Hughes after Nixon took office.
Meier, in collaboration with former Vice President of the United States Hubert Humphrey and others, wanted to feed misinformation to the Nixon campaign. Meier told Donald that he was sure the Democrats would win the election because Larry O’Brien had a great deal of information on Richard Nixon’s illicit dealings with Howard Hughes that had never been released; O’Brien didn’t actually have any such information, but Meier wanted Nixon to think he did. Donald told his brother that O’Brien was in possession of damaging Hughes information that could destroy his campaign. Terry Lenzner, who was the chief investigator for the Senate Watergate Committee, speculates that it was Nixon’s desire to know what O’Brien knew about Nixon’s dealings with Hughes that may have partially motivated the Watergate break-in.
In 1972, Hughes was approached by the CIA to help secretly recover SovietsubmarineK-129, which had sunk near Hawaii four years earlier. Thus, the special-purpose salvage vessel Glomar Explorer was born. Hughes’ involvement provided the CIA with a plausible cover story, having to do with civilian marine research at extreme depths and the mining of undersea manganese nodules. In the summer of 1974, Glomar Explorer attempted to raise the Soviet vessel.
However, during the recovery a mechanical failure in the ship’s grapple caused half of the submarine to break off and fall to the ocean floor. This section is believed to have held many of the most sought-after items, including its code book and nuclear missiles. Two nuclear-tipped torpedoes and some cryptographic machines were recovered, along with the bodies of six Soviet submariners who were subsequently given formal burial at sea in a filmed ceremony. The operation, known as Project Azorian (but incorrectly referred to by the press as Project Jennifer), became public in February 1975 when burglars obtained secret documents from Hughes’ headquarters in June 1974. Though he lent his name to the operation, Hughes and his companies had no actual involvement in the project. The Glomar Explorer was eventually acquired byTransocean Inc., an offshore oil and gas drilling rig company.
Obsessive–compulsive disorder and physical decline
As early as the 1930s, Hughes displayed signs of mental illness, primarily obsessive-compulsive disorder. Close friends reported that he was obsessed with the size of peas, one of his favorite foods, and used a special fork to sort them by size.
While directing The Outlaw, Hughes became fixated on a small flaw in one of Jane Russell‘s blouses, claiming that the fabric bunched up along a seam and gave the appearance of two nipples on each breast. He reportedly wrote a detailed memorandum to the crew on how to fix the problem. Richard Fleischer, who directed His Kind of Woman with Hughes as executive producer, wrote at length in his autobiography about the difficulty of dealing with the tycoon. In his book, Just Tell Me When to Cry, Fleischer explained that Hughes was fixated on trivial details and was alternately indecisive and obstinate. He also revealed that Hughes’s unpredictable mood swings made him wonder if the film would ever be completed.
In 1947, after the U.S. Government rejected his massive H-4 Hercules, Hughes who had suffered a near-fatal aircraft crash in 1946 told his aides that he wanted to screen some movies at a film studio near his home. He stayed in the studio’s darkened screening room for more than four months, never leaving. He ate only chocolate bars and chicken and drank only milk, later urinating in the empty bottles and containers. He was surrounded by dozens of Kleenex boxes that he continuously stacked and re-arranged. He wrote detailed memos to his aides giving them explicit instructions not to look at him nor speak to him unless spoken to. Throughout this period, Hughes sat fixated in his chair, often naked, continually watching movies. When he finally emerged in the spring of 1948, his hygiene was terrible, he had not bathed nor cut his hair and nails for weeks although this may have been due to allodynia (pain response to stimuli that would normally not cause pain).
After the screening room incident, Hughes moved into a bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel where he also rented rooms for his aides, his wife, and numerous girlfriends. He would sit naked in his bedroom with a pink hotel napkin placed over his genitals, watching movies. This may have been because Hughes found the touch of clothing painful due to the allodynia. He probably watched movies constantly to distract him from his pain—a common practice among patients with intractable pain, especially those who do not receive adequate treatment. In one year, Hughes spent an estimated $11 million at the hotel.
Hughes began purchasing all restaurant chains and four star hotels that had been founded within the state of Texas. This included, if for only a short period, many unknown franchises currently out of business. He placed ownership of the restaurants with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and all licenses were resold shortly after.
Another time, he became obsessed with the 1968 film Ice Station Zebra, and had it run on a continuous loop in his home. According to his aides, he watched it 150 times.
Hughes insisted on using tissues to pick up objects, to insulate himself from germs. He would also notice dust, stains or other imperfections on people’s clothes and demand that they take care of them. Once one of the most visible men in America, Hughes ultimately vanished from public view—though tabloids continued to follow rumors of his behavior and whereabouts. He was reported to be terminally ill, mentally unstable, or even dead.
Injuries from numerous aircraft crashes caused Hughes to spend much of his later life in pain, and he eventually became addicted to codeine, which he injected intramuscularly. Hughes had his hair cut and nails trimmed only once a year, likely due to the pain caused by the RSD/CRPS, which was caused by the plane crashes.
Hughes had this 1954 Chrysler New Yorker equipped with an aircraft-grade air filtration system that took up the entire trunk
Las Vegas baron and recluse
The wealthy and aging Howard Hughes, accompanied by his entourage of personal aides, began moving from one hotel to another, always taking up residence in the top floor penthouse. In the last ten years of his life, 1966 to 1976, Hughes lived in hotels in many cities—including Beverly Hills, Boston, Las Vegas, Nassau, Freeport, Vancouver,London, Managua, and Acapulco.
On November 24, 1966 (Thanksgiving Day), Hughes arrived in Las Vegas by railroad car and moved into the Desert Inn. Because he refused to leave the hotel, and to avoid further conflicts with the owners, Hughes bought the Desert Inn in early 1967. The hotel’s eighth floor became the nerve center of Hughes’ empire and the ninth-floor penthouse became his personal residence. Between 1966 and 1968, he bought several other hotel-casinos—including the Castaways, New Frontier, the Landmark Hotel and Casino, and the Sands. He bought the small Silver Slipper casino just so he could have its trademark neon silver slipper moved. Visible from Hughes’ bedroom, it apparently had kept him up at night.
After Hughes left the Desert Inn, hotel employees discovered his drapes had not been opened in the nine years he lived there, and had rotted through. An unusual incident marked an earlier Hughes connection to Las Vegas: during his 1954 engagement at the Last Frontier hotel in Las Vegas, flamboyant entertainer Liberace mistook Howard Hughes for his lighting director, instructing him to instantly bring up a blue light should he start to play Clair de lune. Hughes nodded in compliance—but the hotel’s entertainment director arrived and introduced Hughes to Liberace.
Hughes wanted to change the image of Las Vegas to something more glamorous. As Hughes wrote in a memo to an aide, “I like to think of Las Vegas in terms of a well-dressed man in a dinner jacket and a beautifully jeweled and furred female getting out of an expensive car.” Hughes bought several local television stations (including KLAS-TV).
Hughes’ considerable business holdings were overseen by a small panel unofficially dubbed “The Mormon Mafia” because of the many Latter-day Saints on the committee, led by Frank William Gay. In addition to supervising day-to-day business operations and Hughes’ health, they also went to great pains to satisfy Hughes’ every whim. Hughes once became fond of Baskin-Robbins‘ banana nut ice cream, so his aides sought to secure a bulk shipment for him—only to discover that Baskin-Robbins had discontinued the flavor. They put in a request for the smallest amount the company could provide for a special order, 200 gallons (750 L), and had it shipped from Los Angeles. A few days after the order arrived, Hughes announced he was tired of banana nut and wanted only chocolate marshmallow ice cream. The Desert Inn ended up distributing free banana nut ice cream to casino customers for a year. In a 1996 interview, ex–Howard Hughes communicator Robert Maheu said, “There is a rumor that there is still some banana nut ice cream left in the freezer. It is most likely true.”
As an owner of several major Las Vegas businesses, Hughes wielded much political and economic influence in Nevada and elsewhere. During the 1960s and early 1970s, he disapproved of underground nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site. Hughes was concerned about the risk from residual nuclear radiation, and attempted to halt the tests. When the tests finally went through despite Hughes’ efforts, the detonations were powerful enough that the entire hotel where he was staying trembled with the shock waves. In two separate, last-ditch maneuvers, Hughes instructed his representatives to offer million-dollar bribes to both presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon.
In 1970, Jean Peters filed for divorce. The two had not lived together for many years. Peters requested a lifetime alimony payment of $70,000 a year, adjusted for inflation, and waived all claims to Hughes’ estate. Hughes offered her a settlement of over a million dollars, but she declined it. Hughes did not insist on a confidentiality agreement from Peters as a condition of the divorce. Aides reported that Hughes never spoke ill of her. She refused to discuss her life with Hughes and declined several lucrative offers from publishers and biographers. Peters would state only that she had not seen Hughes for several years before their divorce and had only dealt with him by phone.
Hughes was living in the Intercontinental Hotel near Lake Managua in Nicaragua, seeking privacy and security, when a magnitude 6.5 earthquake damaged Managua in December 1972. As a precaution, Hughes moved to the Nicaraguan National Palace and stayed there as a guest of Anastasio Somoza Debayle before leaving for Florida on a private jet the following day. He subsequently moved into the Penthouse at the Xanadu Princess Resort on Grand Bahama Island, which he had recently purchased. He lived almost exclusively in the penthouse of the Xanadu Beach Resort & Marina for the last four years of his life. Hughes had spent a total of $300 million on his many properties in Las Vegas.
In 1972, author Clifford Irving caused a media sensation when he claimed he had co-written an authorized autobiography of Hughes. Hughes was so reclusive that he did not immediately publicly refute Irving’s statement, leading many to believe the Irving book was genuine. However, before the book’s publication Hughes finally denounced Irving in a teleconference and the entire project was eventually exposed as a hoax. Irving was later convicted of fraud and spent 17 months in prison. In 1974, the Orson Welles film F for Fake included a section on the Hughes biography hoax. In 1977, The Hoax by Clifford Irving was published in Great Britain, telling his story of these events. The 2007 film The Hoax, starring Richard Gere, is also based on these events.
Hughes was reported to have died on April 5, 1976, at 1:27 p.m. on board an aircraft owned by Robert Graf and piloted by Jeff Abrams. He was en route from his penthouse at the Acapulco Fairmont Princess Hotel in Mexico to the Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. Other accounts indicate that he died in the flight from Freeport, Grand Bahama, to Houston.
After receiving a call, his senior counsel, Frank P. Morse, ordered his staff to get his body on a plane and return him to the United States. It was common that foreign countries would hold corpse as ransom so that an estate could not be settled. Morse ordered the pilots to announce Hughes’ death once they crossed U.S. territory. (Morse, 2015)
His reclusive activities (and possibly his drug use) made him practically unrecognizable. His hair, beard, fingernails, and toenails were long—his tall 6 ft 4 in (193 cm) frame now weighed barely 90 pounds (41 kg), and the FBI had to use fingerprints to conclusively identify the body. Howard Hughes’ alias, John T. Conover, was used when his body arrived at a morgue in Houston on the day of his death. There, his body was received by Dr. Jack Titus.
A subsequent autopsy recorded kidney failure as the cause of death. Hughes was in extremely poor physical condition at the time of his death. He suffered frommalnutrition. While his kidneys were damaged, his other internal organs, including his brain, were deemed perfectly healthy.X-rays revealed five broken-off hypodermic needles in the flesh of his arms. To inject codeine into his muscles, Hughes had used glass syringes with metal needles that easily became detached.
Hughes left his entire estate, in his last will, and according to his senior counsel (Frank P. Morse) to the Hughes Medical Institute as he had no connection to family and was seriously ill. This is contrary to the many wills that have surfaced after his death. The original will, that included payments to aides, never surfaced and was apparently in a home surrounding the Desert Inn Golf Course, belonging to the mother of an assistant. He had no desire to leave any money to family, aides, churches, including William Gay and Frank Morse (Morse, 1976). Hughes was not Mormon and had no reason to leave his estate to that church. Frank P. Morse is still the attorney of record for Hughes. Gay has devoted his life to the Mormon Church. (Morse, 2015)
A further $156 million was endowed to a gas-station owner named Melvin Dummar, who told reporters that late one evening in December 1967, he found a disheveled and dirty man lying along U.S. Highway 95, 150 miles (240 km) north of Las Vegas. The man asked for a ride to Las Vegas. Dropping him off at the Sands Hotel, Dummar said the man told him he was Hughes. Dummar then claimed that days after Hughes’ death, a “mysterious man” appeared at his gas station, leaving an envelope containing the will on his desk. Unsure if the will was genuine, and unsure of what to do, Dummar left the will at the LDS Church office. In June 1978, after a seven-month trial, a Nevada court rejected the Mormon Will as a forgery, and declared that Hughes had died intestate. Jonathan Demme‘s film Melvin and Howard, written by Bo Goldman and starringJason Robards and Paul Le Mat, was based on Dummar’s story.
Hughes’ $2.5 billion estate was eventually split in 1983 among 22 cousins, including William Lummis, who serves as a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
“Howard Hughes Documentary”, broadcast in 1992 as an episode of the Time Machine documentary series, was introduced by Peter Graves, later released by A&E Home Video.
Before The Aviator (2004), there were several attempts to create a biopic based on the life of Hughes. For years, director-actor Warren Beatty wanted to play Hughes and direct a big-screen film of the mogul. It was to be released alongside Beatty’s film Reds, but owing to the lack of the right script, the project was abandoned. However, in 2015, Beatty will play as Hughes with an ensemble cast in Untitled Warren Beatty project in which he also directed. Set during the later part of Hughes’s life, the film is about a love affair between a younger woman and the reclusive billionaire.
The Aviator (2004), directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Hughes. Nominated for 11 Academy Awards, and winning five, the acclaimed film focuses primarily on Hughes’ achievements in aviation and in the movies and on the increasing handicaps imposed on him by his obsessive–compulsive behavior, and ends shortly after the successful flight of the Hercules in 1947.
Howard Hughes: The Real Aviator documentary was broadcast in 2004, and went on to win the Grand Festival Award for Best Documentary at the 2004 Berkeley Video & Film Festival.
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), as a plot-related prequel to Iron Man 2 (2010), in which Howard Stark (played by Dominic Cooper), father of Tony Stark (Iron Man), showed his inventions of future technology, clearly picturing Hughes’ persona and enthusiasm. His subsequent appearances in the TV series Marvel’s Agent Carter further this persona, as well as depicting him as sharing the real Hughes’ reputation as a womanizer. Stan Lee has noted that Tony, who shared several of these traits himself, was based on Hughes.
In the Beverly Hillbillies episode, The Clampett-Hewes Empire, Mr. Drysdale gets enthusiastic when he hears the news that Jed Clampett is going into the airport business with “Howard Hughes” and does everything he can to make “Mr. Hughes” as welcome as possible (even putting together a small girl chorus singing “We Love You Howard Hughes”)…until he discovers to his chagrin the “Howard Hughes” Jed Clampett is partnering with is not the famous billionaire airplane aficionado; he’s nothing but a plain old, impoverished, henpecked husband farmer whose last name is Hewes (H-E-W-E-S).
Andrew Ryan, partially based on Hughes, is a fictional character in the 2007 video game, BioShock. He was an industrialist business magnate in the Post-WW2 1940s, and seeking to avoid governments, religions and other ‘parasitic’ influences, ordered the secret construction of an underwater city, Rapture. 15+ Years later, when Ryan’s vision for an Objectivist utopia in Rapture falls into dystopia, he hides himself away and uses armies of mutated humans, “Splicers”, to defend himself and fight against those trying to take over his City, including the player-character Jack within the first game.
Robert House, largely based on Hughes, is a fictional character in the 2010 video game, Fallout: New Vegas. He was a naturally gifted engineer and aerospace enthusiast, much like the real Hughes. The game takes place in an alternate reality in 2281 after a catastrophic nuclear war in 2077. Mr. House defends Las Vegas against most of the missiles, and preserves his life through robotics, cryogenics and computers—eventually controlling the post-apocalyptic New Vegas, which the player character experiences. Many references are made to the life of Hughes, including a family-owned tool company, a crashed plane in Lake Mead, and an in-game photo similar to the famous photo of Hughes standing before a Boeing P-12.
In L.A. Noire, Hughes makes an appearance presenting his Hercules H-4 aircraft in the game introduction.
In Team Fortress 2 a hat referencing him can be obtained, named Barnstormer, the description of which references his film career, his aeronautics past, and some of his obsessions. The class that uses this hat is also a reference, since it is the Engineer.
Howard Hughes appears as a character in Death and Honor (Putnam, 2008), W.E.B. Griffin‘s fictional account of the clandestine espionage activities of agents of the United States Office of Strategic Services (the “OSS”) during World War II. In the novel, Hughes is portrayed as an unofficial intelligence community insider.
Howard Hughes also appears as a character in James Ellroy‘s L.A. Quartet and Underworld USA Trilogy. In the latter saga, Hughes is described as reclusive, eccentric and mentally disturbed. He plans to take over the mafia’s casinos in Las Vegas to establish a “germ-free environment” for his residence.
Stan Lee has repeatedly stated he created the Marvel Comics character Iron Man‘s civilian persona, Tony Stark, drawing inspiration from Howard Hughes’ colorful lifestyle and personality. Additionally, the first name of Stark’s father is Howard.
In the novel Jailbird by Kurt Vonnegut, the character Mary Kathleen O’Looney has several traits that were obviously modeled after Howard Hughes (living as a paranoid homeless person while simultaneously being immensely rich and the CEO of a huge corporation, her orders validated by her fingerprints only).
Hughes is referenced in the 1975 hit single, ‘Wall Street Shuffle’ by the top-selling UK band, 10cc.
In the Stan Ridgway song “I Wanna Be a Boss”, the narrator refers to himself as planning to be more famous than Hughes, including references to growing a long beard and watching Ice Station Zebra in the nude.
Story 1: American People’s Verdict On Democratic Socialist Debate: Lying Lunatic Left — Hillary Clinton — Bernie Sanders — Martin O’Malley — Lincoln Chaffee — Guilty As Charged — Indict or Nominate or Pardon Hillary Clinton — Biden Biding Time Until Benghazi Testimony of Clinton — Worse Economic Recovery Since Great Depression and 7 Years of Economic Stagnation Under Obama — No Change — No Hope — Videos
LAS VEGAS, NV – OCTOBER 13: (L-R) Democratic presidential candidates Jim Webb, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee take the stage for a presidential debate sponsored by CNN and Facebook at Wynn Las Vegas on October 13, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The five candidates are participating in the party’s first presidential debate. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton | Democratic Presidential Debate Analysis
Obama’s message to Democratic debate candidates
In a taped message to the Democratic candidates, President Barack Obama urged Democrats to work hard and fight to keep the White House in 2016.
Who were the winners and losers of the Democratic debate?
Bernie Sanders : People are sick of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s “damn emails”
Mom Of Benghazi Victim Demands Answers While Hillary Clinton Laughs Off Email Scandal
Winners and losers at first Democratic debate
Clinton and Sanders dominate first Democratic debate
The Best Moments From The First Democratic Primary Debate
Democratic debate CNN — democratic debate 2016 Full … Sanders,Clinton,Omalley,Webb,Chafee
Bernie Sanders continues to shock the political world
Hillary & Democrats May Not Cooperate With Benghazi Committee
Dem Debate #1: Mature Adults, Not Lunatics. Did Hillary or Bernie Win?
Emails Show Clinton Worked With George Soros To Run Shadow Gov’t
The real scandal surrounding Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s private email system may be that she was running, in concert with a private consulting firm tied closely to George Soros, an outsourced and parallel State Department answerable only to her and not President Obama, the Congress, or the American people.
Who Won The First Democratic Debate In Terms Of Body Language?
Carol Kinsey Goman
The major story of the first televised presidential debate in 1960 became the photogenic appeal of John F. Kennedy versus the sickly look of his opponent, Richard Nixon, who refused to wear makeup although his recent illness had left him with a pallid complexion. In addition, Kennedy looked directly at the camera when answering questions (rather that at the journalists who asked them), which made viewers see him as someone who was talking right to them and giving straight answers. To make matters worse, the cameras caught Nixon wiping perspiration from his forehead while Kennedy was pressing him on the issues.
When the debate ended, a large majority of television viewers recognized Kennedy as the winner. Radio listeners, who heard the debate but hadn’t seen it, gave the victory to Nixon.
Never again would politicians under estimate the importance of physical appearance and body language – especially when appearing on television. Today’s political figures are fully aware of, and heavily coached on, the impact of nonverbal communication.
And when it comes to nonverbal cues, everything matters: Gender, age, skin color, hair style, attractiveness, height, clothing, facial expressions, hand gestures, posture — audiences judge it all. Superficial? Maybe. But this potent (and often unconscious) process is also hardwired in the human brain.
There are two sets of nonverbal signals that are especially important for candidates to project: warmth and authority. Warmth cues project likeability and candor and authority cues denote power and status. The most appealing politicians (at least from a body language standpoint) are those whose behaviors encompass both sets of signals.
Which brings me to the first Democratic debate of the 2016 election cycle — and how I would grade the body language of the debaters.
Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state
How she did it: Clinton is often described, by both supporters and critics, as strong, tough, and aggressive. So it was no surprise to see those qualities exhibited in her body language through expansive gestures, erect posture, and well-prepared responses.
Recommended by Forbes
MOST POPULAR Photos: The World’s Top-Earning YouTube Stars 2015
TRENDING ON FACEBOOK Bernie Sanders Clearly Won Tuesday’s Debate — On Twitter
SungardASVoice: How Cloud Orchestration Keeps Cloud Computing In Perfect Harmony
Leadership Presence And The GOP Debate
Hits And Misses From The Second GOP Debate
So, Who Won The First Republican Primary Debate of 2012? -Media Training
But Clinton’s body language won the debate by doing more than displaying authority. She successfully “warmed up” her image, with smiles, head nods in agreement/support of other’s comments, and (at one point) even laughter.
Visually, being the only woman on stage was also to her advantage. The contrast between Clinton and the rest of the (white, male) candidates was visually striking – especially for someone who wants to show how she would be different from previous presidents.
Bernie Sanders, senator of Vermont
How he did it: Unlike Clinton, who (for better or worse) is a known national figure, Sanders needed to give the audience a clear picture of who he is and what he stands for – and he was very effective doing so last night. Sanders was animated and used gestures (like finger pointing and palms rotated down) to effectively emphasize his resolve – although at times, his movements were a bit jerky, instead of smooth. And for those who were wondering if a 74-year old could keep his energy high for two hours, the answer was a resounding “yes.”
Sanders nonverbal negatives include his leaning too often on the lectern (as if he needed physical support) and in his lack of warm cues. He is much more expressive when showing anger, disgust, and impatience – but rarely does he display joy or express optimism.
Martin O’Malley, former governor Maryland
How he did it: While he never had the “break through” moment his campaign was hoping for, nonverbally O’Malley had a significant nonverbal advantage: He looked fit and athletic – and he was the tallest person in the line up. Don’t discount the effect of these seemingly trivial facts. We are biased toward attractive, healthy people, and we unconsciously attribute leadership characteristics to tall people. (The effects of this are seen not only in politics, but in business. For example, in the U.S. population, 14.5% men are 6’ tall and over, but with CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that statistic climbs to 58%.) But his softer, slower communication style often lacked the energy and passion needed to support his rhetoric. And his deadpan, almost angry expression when other candidates were speaking was tweeted about as the “death stare” – not a good look for someone who is usually seen as upbeat and happy.
Jim Webb, former senator of Virginia
How he did it: Webb is known as being “gruff” and “stiff,” and both of those qualities were displayed nonverbally: Outside of a slight lean backward and a shoulder shrug now and then, he rarely moved his body – adding to his stoic image.
Lincoln Chaffee, former governor of Rhode Island
How he did it: Chafee’s body language was filled with nervous facial gestures (lip licking was especially prevalent) and conflicting nonverbal messages, the most noticeable being a smile with tightened or compressed lips that made the otherwise warm signal look forced and inauthentic.
The only missing contender in last night’s debate was Vice President Joe Biden, who hasn’t declared his intention to run. Too bad. He is passionate and expressive. He would have been interesting to watch.
EVIDENCE SHOWS CLINTON RAN A PARALLEL, OUTSOURCED STATE DEPT.
Clinton received help from George Soros to run shadow gov’t
The real scandal surrounding Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s private email system may be that she was running, in concert with a private consulting firm tied closely to George Soros, an outsourced and parallel State Department answerable only to her and not President Obama, the Congress, or the American people.
The media has tried to separate two dubious operations of Mrs. Clinton while she was at the State Department. The first is the private email server located in her Chappaqua, New York residence. The second is the fact that her government-paid State Department personal assistant, Huma Abedin, wife of disgraced New York “sexting” congressman Anthony Weiner, was simultaneously on the payroll of Teneo, a corporate intelligence firm that also hired former President Bill Clinton and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as advisers. Abedin has been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which has recently buried the hatchet with longtime rival Saudi Arabia and common cause against the Assad government in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Iran.
It is clear that Mrs. Clinton used her private email system to seek advice on major foreign policy issues, from her friend and paid Clinton Foundation adviser Sidney Blumenthal providing private intelligence on Libya’s post-Qaddafi government and possible business ventures to Clinton friend Lanny Davis seeking favors from Mrs. Clinton. It should be noted that Davis was a paid lobbyist for the military junta of Honduras that overthrew democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya in 2009. It also should be noted that Mrs. Clinton voiced her personal dislike for the late Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, when, after he was assassinated by U.S.-armed jihadist rebels, boasted, “We came, we saw, he died!”
It was highly unusual for Abedin to receive a U.S. government paycheck while also receiving a consultant’s salary from Teneo. Teneo was founded in 2011 by Doug Band, a former counselor to Bill Clinton. Teneo, which is as much a private intelligence firm as it is an investment company and “governance” consultancy, has its headquarters in New York and branches in Washington DC, Brussels, São Paulo, London, Dublin, Dubai, Hong Kong, Beijing, and Melbourne. With the exception of its investment arm, Teneo closely resembles the former CIA-connected firm where Barack Obama worked after he graduated from Columbia, Business International Corporation (BIC). Teneo’s marketing claims match those made by BIC during its heyday: Teneo works “exclusively with the CEOs and senior leaders of many of the world’s largest and most complex companies and organizations.”
Teneo has staked a position in the international news media with its recent purchase of the London-based firm Blue Rubicon, formed in part by the former home news editor for Channel 4 News in the United Kingdom. Teneo also recently acquired London’s Stockwell Group, which provides consultancy services to the National Bank of Greece and Pireaus Bank. It appears that Mrs. Clinton’s friends are cashing in on the global banking austerity being levied against Greece.
The head of Teneo Intelligence is Jim Shinn, a former assistant secretary for Asia for the Defense Department. What is troubling is that Teneo has been offering statements to the media designed to heighten tensions between NATO and Turkey on one side and Russia on the other over Russia’s military attacks on the Islamic State in Syria. Shinn’s intelligence chief in Teneo’s London office, Wolfgango Piccoli, who has worked for the Soros-linked Eurasia Group consultancy, told CNN that Russia’s “reinforcement of the Assad regime and the consolidation of separate areas of control is more likely to prolong the conflict by forcing a stalemate.” The Teneo statement came in a CNN report that suggests members of the Bashar al Assad government in Syria and Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government could be charged by international or “national” tribunals for war crimes in a manner similar to those convened on members of the Yugoslavian and Serbian governments.
The entire International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague and in Africa has fallen under the control of George Soros and his operatives. Soros has made no secret of his support for overthrowing Assad and Putin and he has resorted to a “weapon of mass migration” of Syrian, Iraqi, and other refugees into Europe in order to destabilize the entire continent and endanger its Christian culture and social democratic traditions. Mrs. Clinton and Soros extensively used Mrs. Clinton’s private email system to exchange, among other things, information on the political situation in Albania, a country where Soros’s operatives are plentiful and powerful. Soros is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Soros also pressed Mrs. Clinton for State Department support for his American University of Central Asia, which, as seen with Soros’s Central European University in Budapest and its graduate ranks of pro-U.S. leaders throughout central and eastern Europe, is designed to manufacture a new generation of pro-U.S. leaders in the Central Asian states of the former Soviet Union.
The “wiping” of Mrs. Clinton’s email systems’ hard drives appear to be part of a classic case of an intelligence operation destroying data after being exposed.
The Clinton outsourcing of U.S. foreign policy not only involves Teneo but also the Clinton Foundation, for which Mrs. Clinton solicited donations from foreign sources while she served as Secretary of State. Moreover, in a classic example of racketeering, Bill Clinton was paid by Teneo as an adviser while his Clinton Foundation hired Teneo as as a consultant. The Clinton Foundation is directed by Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with their daughter Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky. Mrs. Clinton’s private email use also extended to Clinton Foundation chief financial officer Andrew Kessel and longtime Bill Clinton friend Bruce Lindsey.
One of the emails sent via Mrs. Clinton’s private system was from her State Department counsel Cheryl Mills to Amitabh Desai, the head of foreign policy for the Clinton Foundation. Mills wanted Desai to arrange a meeting between Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame with the Democratic Republic of Congo strongman Joseph Kabila during Kagame’s visit to Kinshasa in 2012. This effort was conducted outside the State Department with the sole exception that Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, a close friend of Mrs. Clinton, was involved in the email exchange with Mills and Desai.
Other private email use involved Hollywood magnate Haim Saban, Loews heir Andrew Tisch, and Lynn de Rothschild, all of whom were peddling Israel’s interests to Hillary and Bill Clinton in return for sizable donations to the Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Under the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, the Clinton Foundation received generous financial support totaling some $31 million from Frank Giustra, a Canadian uranium mining magnate. Giustra relied on the Clintons to use their influence to open up lucrative uranium exploitation opportunities in places like Kazakhstan and Africa.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has been stonewalled in his attempt to obtain more information about Teneo’s relationship with Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton.
Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist who consistently exposes cover-ups from deep within the government. Want to be the first to learn the latest scandal? Go to WayneMadsenReport.com subscribe today!
Story 1: The Second Republican Candidates Debate for 2016 Presidential Nomination — And The Winners Are? First Place: Donald Trump, Second Place: Carly Fiorina Third Place Tie: Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — Delegates Count, Debates and Poll Numbers Are Snapshots — Videos
FULL CNN GOP Debate Intro’s By All 11 Top Leading GOP Candidates Sept.16 2015
FULL CNN GOP DEBATE: 2nd CNN Republican Presidential Debate Part 1/5 Sept. 16, 2015
FULL CNN GOP DEBATE: 2nd CNN Republican Presidential Debate Part 2/5 Sept. 16, 2015
FULL CNN GOP DEBATE: 2nd CNN Republican Presidential Debate Part 3/5 Sept. 16, 2015
FULL CNN GOP DEBATE: 2nd CNN Republican Presidential Debate Part 4/5 Sept. 16, 2015
FULL CNN GOP DEBATE: 2nd CNN Republican Presidential Debate FINAL Part 5/5 Sept. 16, 2015
Donald Trump takes centre stage and comes under attack from all sides in a fiery debate between the top Republican presidential candidates in the 2016 election.
Donald Trump CNN Debate Highlights
Donald Trump FULL highlights at 2nd GOP debate – PART 2 (9/16/15)
FULL Rand Paul Highlights from CNN GOP Debate
Senator Rand Paul’s full highlights from the CNN Republican Debate where Paul showed how he is different from the other candidates and the strongest on protecting the Constitution. Paul was asked about foreign policy issues, birthright citizenship, Iraq War, marijuana, Ronald Reagan, vaccines, lower taxes, and President Obama’s Iran Deal. Paul was joined on stage with Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker.
Rand Paul: There will be a ‘Reshuffling’ in the Polls | Sean Hannity Fox News
Donald Trump VS Jeb Bush 2016 Presidential GOP Republican National Debate
Main Debate Carly Fiorina vs Donald Trump Sept.16 2015!
Donald Trump OWNS Rand Paul At CNN Gop Debate
Donald Trump vs. The GOP | Republican Presidential Debate Analysis!
Who Won the Second Republican Presidential Debate?
The GOP rivals squared off at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, and a surprising victor emerged.
DAVID A. GRAHAM, YONI APPELBAUM, MOLLY BALL, RUSSELL BERMAN, PRISCILLA ALVAREZ,CONOR FRIEDERSDORF, TYLER BISHOP, MARINA KOREN, AND MATT FORD
What did the nation learn about the Republican candidates on Wednesday night?
First, viewers learned that the presidential contenders are delighted to take swipes at each other all night, if given the opportunity.
Second, they learned that the performance that elevated Carly Fiorina from the happy-hour debate in Cleveland to the main stage at the Reagan Library was no fluke—she’s a skilled speaker.
Third, they learned that the listless performance Jeb Bush delivered last time around was no fluke either. The wounded former frontrunner once again seemed unsure how best to handle the crowded stage or the slugfest the debate became.
What they didn’t learn was a great deal about policy. That was a result of a couple, related problems. First, the rules of the debate allowed anyone who was mentioned by a rival to offer a rebuttal. But that often just led to a sideswipe at a third rival, producing a daisy chain of rebuttals, as the topic of conversation drifted farther and farther away from the original question and toward a series of recriminations already familiar from the campaign trail. Second, and relatedly, the moderators allowed themselves to be rolled over by the candidates over and over—the inmates taking over the asylum, perhaps.
When policy did sneak in, the answers were often predictable: As it happens, the Republican candidates hate Planned Parenthood and the Iran deal; don’t think President Obama has an effective foreign policy; and don’t like ISIS.
But there were some notable moments, especially—surprisingly—on the back nine of the nearly three-hour debate.
A surprising and fascinating fight broke out over the lessons of the Iraq War for foreign policy, as Marco Rubio and Chris Christie represented the hawkish wing of the party, squaring off against Rand Paul, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump, who trumpeted their own opposition to the Iraq War and warned against foreign adventurism. One lesson here is that the Republican Party has a real split over the legacy of the Iraq War. As my colleague Matt Ford noted, there’s a real possibility that the Republican nominee in 2016 will have opposed the war, while the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, voted for it.
A second intriguing moment came as the candidates lined up to bash a somewhat surprising goat: the conservative chief justice of the United States, John Roberts. His Court’s rulings to legalize gay marriage and uphold the Affordable Care Act—the latter of which he supported—have made him a target for activists on the right. Ted Cruz tried to tie Jeb Bush to Roberts, who was appointed by George W. Bush; Bush, in one of his best moments of the evening, quickly turned and cornered Cruz, forcing him to admit he had publicly backed Roberts’s nomination.
Things got weird on taxation, too. Several candidates openly argued for regressive taxation systems; Mike Huckabee espoused the Fair Tax, saying, “We ought to get rid of all the taxes on people who produce,” while Carson decried progressive taxation on the wealthy. But Donald Trump—the Republican frontrunner!—delivered a defense of progressive taxation as a matter of fairness that was clearer and more concise than you’ll hear from almost any Democrat these days.
Of course, this nitty-gritty isn’t what many people were looking for from this debate: They were looking for a fight! (That includes moderator Jake Tapper, who promised, and delivered, confrontation.) They got it. Who came out on top?
Fiorina was the clear winner. She came with a store of zingers, notably directed at Trump. “Mr. Trump said he heard clearly what Mr. Bush said. I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said,” she said of his various misogynistic comments. It was perhaps the first moment in the two debates that Trump seemed truly flustered. More importantly, Fiorina repeatedly delivered clear, crisp, bullet-pointed answers to questions about policy—showing up her rivals, who tended to speak in more sweeping generalities. Often, those proposals didn’t add up once you looked at them closely. For example, her “plan” for Iran involved bringing the rest of the world back around to reinstituting a sanctions regime against Tehran, something that most experts reject as unrealistic. No matter: On a stage where no one seemed as sharp, it was enough to impress.
Ben Carson also delivered a strong performance, again using the calm, affable demeanor that’s become one of his great strengths. He was reassuring and friendly in most cases, and offered details—like explaining the kind of fence he saw in Yuma County, Arizona. He remains shaky on foreign policy, however, meandering through a confusing answer about how he would have responded to 9/11.
But what about Trump, the man everyone was watching? One lesson of the campaign so far is that it’s dangerous to judge his performance’s effects. The other candidates didn’t hesitate to take shots at him, but few besides Fiorina landed clean blows. Meanwhile, Trump maintained his typical demeanor. The frontrunner came out of the gate strong—when the first question invited Fiorina to take a shot at Trump, he used his rebuttal to take on not only her but also Rand Paul, seemingly out of nowhere. Mixing it up works well for him. His answers on policy, especially foreign policy, were characteristically vague or incoherent, but when has that hurt him before? More dangerously for Trump, he seemed to fade from view late in the debate. But if what he’s been doing works for him, this debate seems unlikely to radically affect his trajectory.
Bush seemed mostly to be in disbelief at the things Trump was saying as he stood beside him, and maybe at the temerity of the moderators who made him deal with it. (Understandably.) Bush was up and down, but it’s hard to believe that this was the pugnacious fighter his campaign promised to deliver ahead of the debate. Perhaps his most passionate moment came in defense of his brother, former President George W. Bush. But even that was bumpy: He claimed that his brother “kept America safe” from terror, overlooking 9/11, the one important moment at which Bush did not prevent an attack. Jeb Bush also still doesn’t seem to have a good answer to questions about how he differs from his brother and father, nine months into his candidacy. That’s a problem, given the low esteem in which those two administrations are held by both conservative activists and the general population. Raising his voice for what was clearly intended to be a strong finish, Bush flubbed his lines. This just isn’t a format that works well for him.
The rest of the slate are the candidates who stood to benefit the most from a strong debate performance: those who are muddled in the middle of the field, neither failing nor rising, but not especially buzzy. Marco Rubio, whose stock remains high among political pros but whose polling has stagnated, continues to shine on the debate stage, but never completely broke out. Rand Paul delivered a far stronger performance than he did in Cleveland, mixing it up with Bush and others, though it’s not clear that it matters anymore; he may already be dead in the water. Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Chris Christie also delivered solid performances, but none of them looked like gamechangers. Mike Huckabee rightly complained that he didn’t get many questions, but he didn’t do much with the ones he did field.
The real mystery of the night was Scott Walker. It’s been a rough couple of months for the Wisconsin governor, who was once hailed as a top-tier candidate but has since stumbled and lost his momentum. He’s slipped into single digits in Iowa, which was meant to be his launch pad. Ahead of this debate, Politico even argued that this “might be his last chance.” It’s wise to be wary of such definitive arguments, but Walker did need a strong performance, and he didn’t get it. He often seemed befuddled, didn’t offer many memorable answers, and—perhaps most damningly—seemed to totally vanish from the stage for long periods of time during the debate. Leaving the debate Wednesday, the Walker campaign will have to look for another moment on which to pin its hopes for a turnaround.
he day after a marathon three-hour meeting of 11 top tier candidates, here’s our take on the winners and losers of CNN’s Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
Fiorina insisted in the lead-up to the GOP debate that she belonged on the debate stage with the top-tier White House hopefuls.
She proved as much Wednesday night.
For the second debate in a row, Fiorina was once again the breakout star of the night, taking on Republican front-runner Donald Trump with finesse and capturing the crowd with polished, zinging answers and an impassioned charge against abortion.
Carly Fiorina to be Republican nominee 19% live odds
Will the odds go up or down?
Fiorina earned perhaps the biggest applause of the night as she skewered Planned Parenthood.
“This is about the character of our nation and if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this bill, shame on us,” Fiorina said to raucous applause in what was her biggest moment of the night, one that will appeal to the socially conservative base of the party.
Fiorina dodged an early opportunity to hit Trump but didn’t make that mistake again when she was asked to address the businessman’s recent comments about her appearance to Rolling Stone, in which he suggested her face would make her unelectable.
“I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said,” she said, once again to overwhelming applause.
New York journalist and CNN contributor Errol Louis said after the debate that Fiorina was “the clearest winner.”
“(She) successfully challenged Trump — criticizing his wisecracks about her personal appearance and challenging his credentials as a global businessman by deftly ticking off hotspots around the world and suggesting ways she would tackle them,” he wrote in a CNN op-ed.
Rubio proved Wednesday night why so many GOP elites have long considered him a top contender for the Republican nomination: He can weave his strong handle of policy with a compelling personal narrative.
Best debate moments from Christie, Fiorina and Rubio02:04
Rubio took on Trump differently than Fiorina or Bush, dispatching the front-runner without attacking him directly, instead steering the debate toward his strengths.
When Trump pointed out Rubio’s voting absences in the Senate, Rubio refused to retort with an attack of his own.
“You’re right, I have missed some votes, and I’ll tell you why, Mr. Trump. Because in my years in the Senate, I’ve figured out very quickly that the political establishment in Washington, D.C. in both political parties is completely out of touch with the lives of our people,” Rubio said. “That’s why I’m missing votes. Because I am leaving the Senate, I’m not running for re-election, and I’m running for president because I know this: unless we have the right president, we cannot make America fulfill its potential, but with the right person in office, the 21st century can be the greatest era that our nation has ever known.”
Bush stood out with several key moments during the debate that reassured his supporters after recently dipping in the polls and grappling with how to handle Trump’s staying power in the race.
Bush appeared to come out of the shell of the tortoise he has so heartily embraced as his symbol to give voters a taste of the passion he has struggled to showcase.
“You know what? As it relates to my brother, there’s one thing I know for sure. He kept us safe,” Bush told Trump to one of his strongest applause moments of the night. “You remember the fire fighter with his arms around it? He sent a clear signal that the United States would be strong and fight Islamic terrorism, and he did keep us safe.”
And he also successfully tackled Trump over the billionaire’s suggestion that Bush’s Mexican-American wife was the reason for his support for comprehensive immigration reform.
“To subject my wife into the middle of a raucous political conversation was completely inappropriate, and I hope you apologize for that, Donald,” Bush said. “Why don’t you apologize to her right now.” Trump declined.
6 takeaways from the Republican presidential debate
By Stephen Collinson
Donald Trump finally took some punches, Carly Fiorina grabbed control, Jeb Bush woke up and Marco Rubio and Chris Christie elbowed their way into the fray on a crowded stage. Everyone else just tried to crash the party.
The CNN Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on Wednesday crackled with confrontations between galloping insurgents and professional politicians desperate to channel the torrent of grass-roots fury that is consuming the campaign.
Here are the top takeaways from a debate that could significantly reshuffle the GOP pack.
Fiorina is for real
Carly Fiorina walked the walk after talking the talk.
She dominated the crucial first hour of the debate marathon when viewers were at their freshest. She confronted billionaire businessman Donald Trump, slammed President Barack Obama and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and likely foreshadowed a surge in the GOP field.
Poised and punchy, Fiorina’s vows to project no-nonsense U.S. power abroad will please hawkish conservatives.
Her response on Russia epitomized the clarity of her entire performance. “Russia is a bad actor, but Vladimir Putin is someone we should not talk to, because the only way he will stop is to sense strength and resolve on the other side,” Fiorina said.
And her passionate comments on leaked and edited Planned Parenthood videos produced by an anti-abortion group will be played over and over on conservative talk radio.
“I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain. This is about the character of our nation,” she declared. Planned Parenthood denies the charges leveled at it.
CNN senior political analyst and former Obama political aide David Axelrod said Fiorina, the only woman on the stage, changed the trajectory of the race.
“Carly Fiorina had a great opportunity tonight. I think she took full advantage of it — she is going to move up in the polls as a result,” Axelrod said.
Fiorina’s one uncomfortable moment came when Trump eviscerated her record as CEO. But she fought the billionaire to a draw by accusing him of building his business on “mountains of debt.”
Asked what her Secret Service code name would be, Fiorina chose that of famed racehorse Secretariat. She’s already two-thirds of the way to a triple crown of debate wins. But can she now make a real run at the nomination?
It’s not just about The Donald
For the first time in several months, the GOP race did not revolve around Trump. The billionaire opened the debate with a brutal assault on fellow candidate Rand Paul, a Kentucky senator, but failed to dominate the showdown as much as many pundits expected.
He held his own, and true to form hit back hard when attacked.
But as the debate moved into a thicket of issues, especially foreign policy, the advantage of Trump’s flamboyant, fill-every-room personality seemed to erode.
Early on, Trump raised his eyebrows and held up a finger to demand entry into the fray. But as the clash went into a third hour, he seemed to mellow. He even slapped palms with arch-foe Bush at one point and gave Ben Carson a tap on the elbow when the retired neurosurgeon didn’t castigate him over a waffling answer about discredited links between vaccinations and autism.
Trump, who has shocked pundits with his barnstorming rise to the top of the polls, probably didn’t disappoint his fervent anti-establishment army. But the fact that his bombast didn’t command the stage may prompt voters who have not followed the race closely to wonder what the fuss was about.
Former Mitt Romney spokesman and CNN analyst Kevin Madden said Trump had given other campaigns an opening.
“They saw him like a boxer who has finally bled for the first time,” he said.
Trump’s most awkward moment came when he tried to make it up to Fiorina over his harsh comments about her face in Rolling Stone magazine.
“I think she has got a beautiful face and I think she is a beautiful woman,” Trump said. Fiorina simply looked on without offering a response.
The pros have got game
It’s been grim for professional politicians amid the eruption of fury at Washington that has consumed the presidential campaign.
But office holders like Sens. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul along with sitting governors like Chris Christie showed they can bring it, too.
Rubio, a Florida senator, made up for a slow start with fluent discussions on foreign policy, lacerating Obama over turmoil in the Middle East, and appeared to win an exchange with Trump on national security by deploying a mastery of detail and a sweeping global mission that the front-runner failed to command.
Still, Rubio also won plaudits after the first debate and it didn’t help him climb above single digits in the polls.
Christie might have done himself the most good. The blunt-talking New Jersey governor was supposed to be the bully in the field, but Trump stole his schtick. So Christie tried a different tack, asking for the camera to be turned to the audience in his opening statement to symbolize it was not in fact “all about me. It’s about our country.”
His swipe at Trump, assault on Clinton and campaign message readjustment could get him a second look among some voters.
Jeb Bush was better. But better might not be enough. The establishment pick with the $100 million war chest jousted with Trump and showed more life than in his disappointing first debate appearance last month. Even his chief tormentor was impressed.
“More energy tonight. I like that,” Trump said.
But the question for the former Florida governor is whether his performance will fire up a campaign stuck in the doldrums.
He did have some good moments. Bush finally solved the riddle of how to deal with the elephant in the room — his own brother George W. Bush’s legacy.
“There’s one thing I know for sure. He kept us safe,” he said, recalling the iconic image of the 43rd president atop the smoking ruins of Ground Zero after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Bush also scored when he demanded an apology from Trump for comments he made about his wife and had a human moment when he admitted to smoking pot 40 years ago.
Yet he is not the establishment giant pundits had expected to see at the start of the race. He used a question on his preferred Secret Service codename to hit back at Trump’s claims that he’s running a “low-energy campaign,” quipping that he would be known as the high-powered battery “Eveready.” But it’s not clear that viewers agree with him.
11 is a crowd
It might have been the night when conservative gushing about the quality of the 2016 field was justified. None of the candidates — even the political novices — committed a clear gaffe. Several shone. But with an unwieldy field of 11 in the top-tier debate, even a three-hour conversation didn’t provide enough time for everyone to show what they can do.
Cruz, a Texas senator, had a flurry of good moments — talking especially to his core constituency of evangelical voters — and made a strong case against what he said was a “catastrophic” nuclear deal. Similarly, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was preaching to the converted when he stood up for Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses. He said Muslims at Guantanamo Bay got accomodations for their faith while a Christian women from Kentucky didn’t. But these candidates’ moments were few and fleeting.
Others, meanwhile, didn’t do enough with the scarce time they had. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, for instance, struggled to impose himself, and he may find momentum whipped up by a strong first debate performance stalled. Carson, the neurosurgeon who has shot nearly to the top of the polls, was his normal polite self. But his difficulty in coming out of his shell might have hurt him as he failed to stand out. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also didn’t set himself apart on a night when he needed to impress to shore up his nose-diving campaign.
And despite a strong showing in the undercard session, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s contribution could be an afterthought.
The Green Papers
Republican Detailed Delegate Allocation – 2016
These pages contain a combination of official, unofficial, and estimated data. The information posted here is subject to change.
The delegate selection processes herein, along with associated dates, are based on either (1) information obtained from either Major Party, (2) Presidential Primary dates established by currently-effective State statute, or- where the foregoing information could not be obtained- (3) the state’s 2012 delegate selection process and associated dates adjusted to the corresponding dates in 2016.
The Democratic delegate counts do not necessarily inlcude bonus delegates. The Republican jurisdictions have until the beginning of October to file their plans with the RNC. The RNC typically releases their delegate allocations during December. This is a work-in-progress.
The interpretations on this page were last updated on 5 February 2013.
Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada may hold their delegate selection primaries, caucuses, and conventions no earlier than one month before the next earliest state. The remaining jurisdictions may begin their processes on 1 March 2016 and must finish by the 2nd Saturday in June [11 June 2016 -Ed] [Rule 16(c)(1)]. Note that Rule 20(a) says “All delegates shall be elected or selected not later than 45 days [Friday 3 June 2016 -Ed] before the … national convention.”.
The computations used to create this document are described in the “The Rules of the Republican Party” adopted during the 2012 Republican National Convention.
Republicans base delegates are determined by the number of U.S. Senators and U.S. House Members elected by each state.
Bonus delegates are awarded based on the number of party members elected as Presidential Electors (2012), Governors (2012-2015), House members (2012-2015), Senators (2010-2015), and state legislatures (2012-2015).
For jurisdictions with Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress:
10 At-Large delegates from each state (effectively, 5 at-large delegates for each U.S. Senator) [Rule 14(a)(1)].
3 District delegates for each U.S. Representative as established by the 2010 census [Rule 14(a)(3)].
For jurisdictions without Constitutionally Elected Members of Congress [Rule 14(a)(4)]:
6 at-large delegates from American Samoa.
16 at-large delegates from the District of Columbia.
6 at-large delegates from Guam.
6 at-large delegates from the Northern Mariana Islands.
20 at-large delegates from Puerto Rico.
6 at-large delegates from Virgin Islands.
For all jurisdictions (the 50 states plus American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands) – 3 party leaders: the national committeeman, the national committee woman, and the chairman of the jurisdiction’s Republican Party. [Rule 14(a)(2)]
President: States casting a majority of their 2012 Electoral Votes for the Republican Candidate receive 4.5 + 0.60 × the jurisdiction’s total 2012 Electoral Vote in bonus delegates. Should the District of Columbia cast the majority of their electoral votes for the Republican Candidate, the District will receive 4.5 + (0.30 × 16) in bonus delegates. Round anyfractional remainder UP to the next whole number. [Rules 14(a)(5) and 14(a)(8)]
U.S. Senate: Award 1 bonus delegate for each Republican Senator elected in the 6 year period between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015. Limit 2. [Rule 14(a)(7)]
Governor: States electing a Republican Governor between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit: 1. [Rule 14(a)(6)(i)]
U.S. House: States electing Republicans to 50% or more of their U.S. House delegation between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit 1. [Rule 14(a)(6)(ii)]
One Chamber: States electing a Republican majority to one chamber of the state legislature (and the chamber is presided over by a Republican) between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit 1. [Rule 14(a)(6)(iii)]
All Chambers: States electing a Republican majority to all chambers of the state legislature (and all chambers are presided over by a Republican) between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015 receive 1 bonus delegate. Limit 1. [Rule 14(a)(6)(iv)]
In 2010, Alaska’s Class 3 Senator Lisa Murkowski (Republican) lost her bid for re-nomination in the Republican primary but was re-elected as a write-in in the General Election. We assume the state will receive a bonus delegate for her re-election.
The Nebraska state Legislature is unicameral and elected nonpartisan. In January 2013, unofficially 30 of 49 Senators were Republicans and Speaker Greg L. Adams is a registered Republican. We assume the state will receive 2 bonus delegates: 1 for One Chamber and 1 for All Chambers.
Delegate Allocation to Presidential Contenders
These rules appear to state that delegates must be elected by winner-take-all or proportional primaries, caucuses, and conventions. Direct delegate election by primary is also permitted.
In 2012, TheGreenPapers often included a statement such as “The participants at each caucus alone determine if presidential preference is to be a factor in such choice and, if so, how it is to be applied” to describe a nominating processes which elected delegates without formal binding to a presidential candidate. At best, we could only speculate about the preferences of the delegates and nearly every source tracking delegate counts had different figures. This type of delegate selection now appears to be prohibited. A state violating the rule will receive a 50% reduction in delegates and the RNC will allocate the delegates for them.
In addition, the delegates are bound to their pledge all they way through to the convention. In 2012, there were many claims that Paul delegates ran for and won delegate slots that where bound to Romney in a primary. The concern was that these delegates would vote for Paul at the National Convention. The 2016 rules indicate that a delegate can be removed for merely demonstrating support for a candidate other than one to which he or she is bound.
“Prior to 1 April 2016, any presidential primary, caucus, convention, or other process to select, allocate, or bind delegates to the national convention may … allocat[e] delegates on a proportional basis.” [Rule 16(c)(2)]
“Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates … who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.” [Rule 16(a)(1)]
If any … state Republican Party violates Rule No. 16(c)(2″), the number of delegates and … to the national convention from that state shall each be reduced by fifty percent (50%). Any sum presenting a fraction shall be decreased to the next whole number. No delegation shall be reduced to less than two (2) delegates ….” [Rule 17(a)]
“If any … state Republican Party violates Rule No. 16(c)(2) …, the Republican National Convention shall provide for the allocation of the selected at large delegates (excluding members of the Republican National Committee) among the candidates who received more than 10% of the votes cast in such primary, convention or caucus in accordance with and in proportion to the votes cast for each such candidate as a part of the total of the votes cast ….” [Rule 17(b)]
“… if a delegate (i) casts a vote for a presidential candidate at the national convention inconsistent with the delegate’s obligation …, (ii) nominates or demonstrates support … for a presidential candidate other than the one to whom the delegate is bound …, or (iii) fails in some other … to cast a vote at the national convention for a particular presidential candidate, the delegate shall be deemed to have concurrently resigned as a delegate and the delegate’s improper vote or nomination shall be null and void. Thereafter the secretary of the convention shall record the delegate’s vote or nomination in accordance with the delegate’s obligation …. This subsection does not apply to delegates who are bound to a candidate who has withdrawn his or her candidacy, suspended or terminated his or her campaign, or publicly released his or her delegates.” [Rule 16(a)(2)]
A table listing the 2016 allocation method used by each state is TBD.
In 2012, there were 2 start dates: 1 for the carve-out states and another the remaining jurisdictions. If a state bound delegates earlier, there was a 50% sanction: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina each received a 50% penalty for violating the timing rule. Even though Iowa began their process earlier than allowed, Iowa was not sanctioned because they did not bind their delegates.
In 2016, the carve-out states have a floating date: “1 month before the next earliest state”. The timing penalty for the non-pre-window states is no longer 50% of their delegation but a reduction to 12 delegates if they begin before the last Tuesday in February– 23 February 2016.
No primary, caucus, or convention to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates to the national convention shall occur prior to Tuesday 1 March 2016 …. Except Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada may begin their processes no earlier than 1 month before the next earliest state … [Rule 16(c)(1)]
No delegates … shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound … to any Republican Party … which materially changes the manner of electing, selecting, allocating, or binding delegates … or the date … [the] Party holds a presidential primary, caucus, [or] convention … if such changes were … made … after October 1 of the year before … the national convention …. [Rule 16(d)(12)]
If any state … Republican Party violates Rule No. 16(c)(1) of The Rules of the Republican Party with regard to a primary, caucus, convention or other process to elect, select, allocate, or bind delegates … to the national convention by conducting its process prior to the last Tuesday in February, the number of delegates to the national convention shall be reduced to 9 plus the members of the Republican National Committee from that state ….[Rule 17(a)]
There shall be a Standing Committee on Presidential Primary Debates …. The … Committee … shall have the authority to sanction debates … based on … considerations of timing, frequency, format, media outlet, and the best interests of the Republican Party … Any presidential candidate who participates in any debate that is not a Sanctioned Debate shall not be eligible to participate in any further Sanctioned Debates… [Rule 10(h)]
States should accommodate military voters.
Any process … for selecting delegates … for binding the presidential preference … shall use every means practicable to guarantee the right of active duty military personnel and individuals unable to attend meetings due to injuries suffered in military service the opportunity to exercise their right to vote in that process…. [Rule 16(d)(7)]
If a state violates the rules, the RNC members forfeit their positions as automatic delegates.
If a … state Republican Party is determined to be in violation … No member of the Republican National Committee from the offending state shall be permitted to serve as a delegate … to the national convention. [Rule 17(f)(1)
As in 2012, a state cannot appeal their sanctions.
A state … Republican Party shall have no appeal from … a penalty imposed upon it under this rule. [Rule 17(g)].
The party has clarified the nomination requirements for candidates at the convention.
Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of … delegates from … 8 or more states … [T]he affirmative written support … shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention … prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination …. [Rule 40(b)]
With expectations low, Bush’s several stand-out moments and overall improvement over his performance in the first debate sealed his spot as one of the night’s winners.
CNN political commentator Amanda Carpenter said Bush’s references to his family were immediately beneficial for him.
“I think the most interesting subtext with Jeb Bush in this debate is his newfound willingness to defend his family,” said the former Ted Cruz aide. “His best moment of the debate I think is when he came out and reminded everyone that his brother kept America safe. On the same hand, I think that will haunt him in the long term because I think tying himself to his brother’s legacy is bad in the long run.”
On Thursday morning, Carpenter said the former Florida governor should have been more forceful in demanding an apology from Trump for comments that real estate developer had made about Bush’s wife in the past.
“He could have been stronger and I think a lot of women were thinking that,” she said on CNN.
While Bush and Fiorina milked their standout moments from their tiffs with Trump, the New Jersey governor snagged his by using a key moment to make his opponents look narcissistic and portrayed himself the adult in the room.
“While I’m as entertained as anyone by this personal back-and-forth about the history of Donald and Carly’s career, for the 55-year-old construction worker out in that audience tonight who doesn’t have a job, who can’t fund his child’s education, I’ve got to tell you the truth. They could care less about your careers, they care about theirs,” Christie said. “Let’s start talking about that on this stage and stop playing — and stop playing the games.”
Earlier in the night, Christie suggested the problem with the debate was “we’re fighting with each other up here” over how to approach defunding Planned Parenthood even though “we agree.”
And that’s when Christie — who’s been accused of being too moderate — gave his best performance yet to prove his conservative credentials.
“She (Hillary Clinton) believes in the systematic murder of children in the womb to preserve their body parts…in the way that maximizes their value for sale for profit,” Christie said.
Trump faced a barrage of attacks from a field of contenders clearly more prepared, and eager, to take on the brash billionaire. Those who pulled punches in the last debate — like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush — didn’t hesitate to tackle Trump, eager to regain their faltering standings in the polls.
The result was mixed as Trump had both memorable highlights and cringe-worthy lowlights. But as the front-runner trying to hold on to the lead as retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson’s numbers grow, it’s difficult to see how Trump wasn’t at least partially wounded by Thursday’s performance.
Trump stumbled in responding to Fiorina’s deft answer to his comments about her face, awkwardly calling her “beautiful” after suggesting her looks would keep Americans from voting for her.
Former Bush aide and CNN political commentator Ana Navarro spoke highly of the move.
“I thought it was brilliant, because he surprised us all with his answer,” she said on CNN. “He shut it down.”
And when Bush attacked him for a “lack of judgment” and “lack of understanding about how the world works,” Trump resorted to an oft-used tactic of tying Bush to his brother’s presidency suggesting that “your brother’s administration gave us Barack Obama because it was such a disaster … that Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have been elected.”
Bush’s quick answer — that his brother kept the country safe — knocked Trump off balance as the crowd roared in approval.
However, Trump hit his high notes when he was on the offensive, delivering some of the standard fare that his supporters likely devoured. He said he never attacked Sen. Rand Paul on his looks though “there’s plenty of subject matter right there” — and he took on both Fiorina and Walker’s records with numbers to back his rhetoric.
Best Trump zingers of the CNN Republican debate01:28
And as he faced questions over foreign policy and his flubbed response to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, who was one of the debate’s questioners, Trump smartly pivoted to Hewitt, insulating himself from further attacks from his rivals.
Trump managed to escape the main question over his knowledge of various terrorist groups and their leaders by pointing out that Hewitt had recently conceded to a misunderstanding between the two when Hewitt spoke of the Quds Forces, which Trump misheard as “Kurds” — leading to crosstalk between the two, not between Trump and a fellow candidate.
Conservative analyst Mercedes Schlapp said Trump was silent for more than 30 minutes of discussion n serious policy issues.
“There was a point when he was speechless,” she said. “You could tell he was so uncomfortable talking about any of the issues except for immigration.”
There wasn’t much daylight between the Ohio governor’s first and second debate performances.
But Kasich’s second performance lacked the umpf that defined his first appearance on the debate stage when he barely squeaked into the top-tier and impressed political observers just weeks after launching his candidacy.
The libertarian-leaning senator from Kentucky once again went for Trump’s jugular. When he was asked whether he would trust Trump with the nuclear codes, Paul gave a firm answer: absolutely not.
But with each attack, Paul failed to do what candidates must do to break out in a debate: Pivot to his own strengths. Instead he simply pointed out Trump’s weaknesses.
Paul’s strongest moments came when he defended his libertarian point of view on foreign military interventions and drug and criminal justice reform. But while those audiences likely played well to his libertarian base of support, Paul appeared the odd one out as he discussed foreign policy amid a field of foreign policy hawks.
Walker came out swinging at the start of the debate, clearly eager to take on the front-runner after dipping in the polls in recent weeks off a strategy that largely avoided confronting Trump.
“We don’t need an apprentice in the White House. We have one there right now,” Walker said of Trump in what was clearly a prepared zinger — one that drew an approving nod from Bush.
Walker then took on Trump’s attacks about his tenure as governor and then defended his opposition to the minimum wage, but soon faded from the stage.
He delivered his responses with more zeal in a performance that topped his first debate night, but didn’t come away from the night with any breakout moments that may prove necessary as Walker looks to regain his footing in the race.
The second Republican debate was all Carson’s for the taking: the retired neurosurgeon’s appearance comes off a recent surge that has rocketed him to the No. 2 spot in the race.
But instead, Carson played it safe, clinging to his calm and measured demeanor, avoiding the food fights unfolding alongside him and injecting his trademark good humor into his responses.
It wasn’t for a lack of opportunities: Carson got several openings to knock Trump, but refused, even when Trump put forward some sketchy scientific backing for his views on vaccines.
A few zingers could have delivered the bump Carson needs to overtake Trump in at least one of the early states where he has been slowly catching up to the billionaire front-runner.
But Carson may get there anyway: his unorthodox appeal on Wednesday shied away from the spotlight-charging moments that often define presidential debates — not unlike his first debate performance.
Mike Huckabee & Ted Cruz
While both delivered solid responses to the questions they received, neither former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee nor Texas Sen. Ted Cruz seized opportunities to stand out on the crowded 11-candidate stage.
They didn’t want to take on Trump and both revealed an unwillingness to engage their fellow candidates on key policy issues.
The result? They faded into the background.
Candidates repeatedly attempted to distance themselves from the Beltway and paint themselves as anti-establishment, said former Obama aide David Axelrod.
“So Washington was a big loser in this debate for sure,” said Axelrod, a CNN senior political commentator.
“[This book] embodies the Buddhist wisdom about change, life, and the
world more than anything written after the events of that day.”
About the Book
Watching the World Change The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11 David FriendThe terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was the most universally observed news event in human history. That the event was so visual is owing to the people who, facing disaster, took photographs of it: imperiled office workers, horrified tourists, professional photographers risking their lives. Conceived by Osama bin Laden as the toppling of an image of America right before the world¹s eyes, the tragedy swiftly came to be defined by photography, as families posted snapshots of their loved ones, police sought terrorists¹ faces on security-camera videotapes, and officials recorded the devastation and identified the dead.
In Watching the World Change, David Friend tells the stories behind fifty of the images that altered our sense of our world forever‹from the happenstance shots taken by bystanders as the first tower was struck to the scene of three firemen raising the Stars and Stripes at the site. He tells unforgettable stories of photographers and rescuers, victims and survivors. He shows how advances in television, digital photography, and the Internet produced an effect whereby more than two billion people saw the terrible events as they happened. He explores the controversy about whether images of 9/11 are redemptive or exploitative; and he shows how photographs help us to witness, to grieve, and finally to understand the unimaginable.
Farrar, Straus and Giroux 464 pages Size: 6 x 9 24 Pages of Color Illustrations/Notes/Index $30.00 Hardcover
Story 1: Donald Trump is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative and Ted Cruz is Hard Core Conservative — Trump/Cruz Ticket? — Conservatives Intellectuals Need To Focus on Results Not Words — The Republican Party Is Not A Conservative Party — Conservatives and Libertarians Voters Have Been Abandoning Both The Democratic and Republican Parties Who Are Bought and Paid For By The Donor Base — The Tyranny of Two Party System — Corrupt Big Government Parties — The Decline and Fall of American Republic — Remembering 9/11 — Videos
History Documentary – World Trade Center attacks, Rise and Fall of the twin towers
911 Jumpers 9/11 in 18 min Plane Crashes Top World Trade Center Towers September 11 Terror Fact Vid
Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles
The Republican Party Has Ceased To be Conservative
Mark Levin • John Boehner’s GOP is NOT a Conservative Party • Hannity • 1/7/15 •
Liberal Party: 10 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal – Learn Liberty
Libertarianism: An Introduction
Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement
Libertarianism | Murray N. Rothbard
Kirzner on Rothbard & Libertarianism
TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism
Jon Stewart’s 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians!
Capitalism Needs Regulation – Why Max Keiser is Correct and Libertarians are Mistaken!
Liberals and Conservatives Will Never Agree – A Conversation with William Gairdner
The History of Classical Liberalism
The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) | Learn Liberty
The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) | Learn Liberty
FOX NEWS Hates Conservatives And Are WHAT”S WRONG WITH THE GOP PARTY
Mark Levin Eviscerates Megyn Kelly Fox News
Donald Trump vs. Fox News | Republican Presidential Debate Analysis!
McConnell on Iran Deal: ‘Obama Won Short-Term Battle, But We Won the Argument’
House Spars Over Iran Nuclear Agreement
Dennis Prager’s Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse
NATIONAL REVIEW’S JONAH GOLDBERG: ‘COUNT ME OUT’ OF ANY CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT WITH DONALD TRUMP
By BEN SHAPIRO
On Saturday, National Review senior editor Jonah Goldbergpenned a controversial column in which he rejected Donald Trump and his followers from the conservative movement. “Well, if this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out,” Goldberg writes.
Goldberg goes on to suggest that the embrace of Trump perverts conservatism itself, broadening the definition of the movement in order to include Trump.
Goldberg, whom I consider a friend and a brilliant commentator, is right to label Trump insufficiently conservative. I have specifically argued that Trump ought not be the nominee thanks to his insufficient conservatism—so has Michelle Malkin, so have numerous other conservative commentators.
But here is the sad truth: Many of the same people appalled by Trump made Trump’s candidacy possible.
Trump is a product of a conservatism-less Republicanism, prepared for and championed by the intellectual elites who told us to ignore Mitt Romney’s creation of Romneycare and
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 43% ’s campaign finance reform, who told conservatives to shut up and get in line, who explained that conservatives had to throw over Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 96% and his government shutdowns in favor of
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 52% and his pathological inability to take a hard stand against President Obama using the tools at his disposal.
Over at National Review, even as Goldberg condemns Trump for his non-conservatism, another columnist simultaneously urges a ticket with Governor “God Told Me To Use Obamacare Money To Expand Medicaid” John Kasich (R-OH) and Sen. Marco “Immigration Gang of Eight” Rubio (R-FL). Goldberg himself championed Romney’s candidacy because he wasn’t a conservative, writing back in 2012:
Even if Romney is a Potemkin conservative (a claim I think has merit but is also exaggerated), there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you. A President Romney would be on a very short leash.
Why wouldn’t the same logic apply to Trump?
And while Goldberg today raps Trump on the knuckles for his support of socialized medicine, going so far as to label opposition to such policy a “core tenet of American conservatism from Day One,” Goldberg used Romneycare as a point in favor of Romney in 2012: “He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to ‘fix’ health care in ways Massachusetts would like… He did it all. The man does his assignments.”
Goldberg today says that Trump doesn’t deserve to be a part of the conservative movement, and his followers have excised themselves from the conservative community. But in 2012, he warned that anyone saying the same of Mitt Romney threatened the possibility of conservative victory. In 2012, Goldberg explicitly opposed purges and purity tests:
That’s certainly reason enough to be mad at the establishment. But replacing the current leadership with even more ardent, passionate and uncompromising conservatives is far from a guaranteed formula for making the Republican Party more popular or powerful. To do that, the GOP needs to persuade voters to become a little more conservative, not to hector already-conservative politicians to become even more pure as they go snipe-hunting for the Rockefeller Republicans.
What requirements did Mitt Romney, and John Kasich, and John McCain, and Mitch McConnell fulfill that Trump does not? Goldberg is right that Trump has “no ideological guardrails whatsoever” when it comes to taxes and “knows less than most halfway-decent DC interns about foreign policy.” Goldberg could have added that Trump has made an enormous amount of money utilizing eminent domain, that he supports affirmative action, and that he opposes free trade, among other pernicious positions. There is a reason that this weekend full-fledged economic idiot Paul Krugman endorsed Trump’s economic policies.
The question is: Why are so many Republicans backing him? There are two answers: first, he’s tough on illegal immigration, the only issue many conservatives believe matters. The second answer is more telling, however: Trump has heavy support because Republicans rejected ideological purity a long time ago. And here’s the irony: Goldberg and others can’t call Tea Partiers to Jesus on Trump because, according to polls, Tea Partiers don’t support Trump in outsized numbers. The reality is that the same people who don’t like ideological litmus tests support Trump. Just a few weeks back, the Washington Post concluded that Trump’s fans “are more moderate than Tea Partiers were,” significantly more likely to call themselves Republicans than Tea Partiers were, far younger and less religious and blue collar than Tea Partiers.
As Sallah from Raiders of the Lost Ark would put it, “Jonah, you’re digging in the wrong place.”
If you want to target Trump supporters for failing to take conservatism seriously, try starting with those who don’t take conservatism seriously. Most of them were trained in the acceptability of “victory before conservatism” Republicanism by the some of the same folks now deriding the poll-leading Trump.
I’ve lived this story before: I’m from California. Trump is Arnold Schwarzenegger without the Austrian accent. He’s a know-nothing with a huge name and a Teflon personality, and people get behind him because he’s a celebrity and because victory matters more than principle. I know that’s so, because I made the same mistake with regard to Schwarzenegger, explicitly endorsing him in spite of his insufficient conservatism on the grounds that voters in California would get used to voting Republican.
That was a failure. Schwarzenegger was terrible, and what followed him was a shift to radical leftism unthinkable in the early days of his candidacy. I learned that lesson, and in January 2012, I said that the conservative embrace of Mitt Romney would pervert the movement itself, in the same way Goldberg now accuses Trump of perverting conservatism:
Yes, defeating horrible politicians like Barack Obama is the top goal — but that doesn’t justify redefining conservatism entirely…. When we deliberately broaden conservatism to encompass government-forced purchase of health insurance or raising taxes or appointing liberal judges or enforcing same-sex marriage or using taxpayer money to bail out business or pushing trade barriers, we destroy conservatism from within. If we do that, why would our politicians even bother to pay lip service to the standard?
Like Goldberg, I fear the same from Trump: I fear that he’ll be a wild card with no governing principle, that even if he were to win, he’d irrevocably split conservatism. But I also recognize that Trump isn’t a departure for Republicans abandoning principle: he’s the political love child of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, a combination of the non-conservative “victory mentality” and the arrogance of a dictatorial left many conservatives want to see countered with fire.
In sum, I’m happy to welcome establishment Republicans who want to revivify conservative litmus tests to the party. But from now on, let’s be consistent: if we’re going to oust Trump based on his ideology, those requirements can’t be waived for others.
Did you ever think you would see the day when the GOP front-runner rarely uttered the words “freedom” and “liberty”? Perhaps some Republicans can be accused of loving liberty and freedom too much — or at least using those words as rhetorical crutches. Donald Trump is not one of them. The current GOP presidential front-runner rarely uses the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his remarks at all.
Trump didn’t use the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his announcement speech. He didn’t use those words in his Nashville speech on August 29, or his Nashville rally on August 21, or his appearance at the Iowa State Fair on August 15, or his rally and news conference in New Hampshire on August 14, or his news conference in Birch Run, Mich., or his press conference in Laredo, Texas, on July 23.
He didn’t use those words while discussing his signing of the Republican National Committee’s pledge last Thursday, or in his contentious interview with Hugh Hewitt the same day.
Trump did use the term “free-market” once during his Meet the Press interview with Chuck Todd, in a defense of his qualified support for affirmative action: “Well, you know, you have to also go free market. You have to go capability. You have to do a lot of things. But I’m fine with affirmative action.” The word “liberty” didn’t even come up.
This is an unusual vocabulary for a Republican front-runner. It wasn’t that long ago that grass-roots conservatives showed up at Tea Party rallies with signs reading, “Liberty: All the Stimulus We Need.” The Tea Party named itself after an event organized by the Sons of Liberty. The GOP platform declares the party was “born in opposition to the denial of liberty.”
Trump’s lexicon is another indicator of the dramatic shift he would represent in moving the Republican party from a libertarian-leaning one to a populist one. During the Obama era, self-identified libertarians have asked whether the Tea Party and the GOP are truly dedicated to liberty and individual rights, or if their real objection to big government is that it’s controlled by Democrats. The embrace of Trump suggests their skepticism was well-founded.
It’s no accident that Trump has been labeled a populist by outlets across the political spectrum, from The American Interest to NPR. His speeches and off-the-cuff remarks make clear that he doesn’t see the world through the lens of free and unfree; he sees it through the lens of strength and weakness: For me, conservatism as it pertains to our country is fiscal. We have to be strong and secure and get rid of our debt. The military has to be powerful and not necessarily used but very powerful. I am on the sort of a little bit social side of conservative when it comes — I want people to be taken care of from a health-care standpoint. But to do that, we have to be strong. I want to save Social Security without cuts. I want a strong country. And to me, conservative means a strong country with very little debt.
The man whose slogan is “Make America Great Again” doesn’t seem particularly worried about a Leviathan state infringing upon its citizens’ liberties. He sees a disordered society whose people are threatened by violent criminals coming across the border, undermined by poor negotiation in foreign-trade and security agreements, and asked by free-riding allies to shoulder way too much of the burden in a dangerous world.
That philosophy is dramatically different from the liberty-focused message Republicans have become accustomed to since the rise of the Tea Party in 2009. And, at least for now, it has made Trump the front-runner by a wide margin.
The below is a way of thinking about the candidate’s political philosophy by dividing the candidate’s VoteMatch answers into “social” and “economic” questions. It is only a theory – please take it with a grain of salt!Social Questions: Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.
Economic Questions: Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.
The candidate scored the following on the VoteMatch questions:
Where the Candidate Fits In
Where the candidate’s Social score meets the Economic score on the grid below is the candidate’s political philosophy. Based on the above score, the candidate is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative.
Social ScoreThis measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s personal lives or on social issues. These issues include health, morality, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars.
A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in tolerance for different people and lifestyles.
A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government.
This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes.
A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in personal responsibility for financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government.
A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. The candidate believes that government’s purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program.
This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes.
How We Score Candidates
How we determine a candidate’s stance on each VoteMatch question:
We collect up votes, excerpts from speeches, press releases, and so on, which are related to each question. Each of these are shown on the candidate’s VoteMatch table.
We assign an individual score for each item on the list. The scores can be: Strongly Favor, Favor, Neutral/Mixed, Oppose, Strongly Oppose. The scoring terms refer to the text of the question, not whether the candidate strongly opposed a bill, for example.
We then average the individual scores, using the numeric scale: Strongly Favor = 2, Favor = 1, Neutral/Mixed = 0, Oppose = -1, Strongly Oppose = -2.
If the average is above 1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Favor.
If the average is above 0, the overall answer to the question is Favor.
If the average is exactly 0, the overall answer to the question is Neutral.
If the average is below 0, the overall answer to the question is Oppose.
If the average is below -1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Oppose.
When you do a VoteMatch quiz, your answers are compared to each candidates’ overall answer to come up with a matching percentage.
To get the political philosophy of the candidate, we sum up the answers on two scales, the Personal/Social scale and the Economic Scale. Some questions aren’t used in the political philosophy calculations.
The VoteMatch table indicates the number of scale points from each answer (any one question can provide from 0 to 10 scale points on one scale or the other).
The combination of social/moral scales and economic scales produces a political philosophy description. A more detailed explanation appears below.
The chart below indicates how four “hard-core” political philosophers would answer the questions. From this example, you can see how the candidate fits in with each philosophy. The candidate’s answers are on the left.
A “hard-core liberal” would answer social questions to minimize government involvement, but would answer economic questions to include government intervention.
A “hard-core libertarian” would answer both social and economic questions to minimize government involvement.
A “hard-core conservative” would answer social questions to include government intervention, but would answer economic questions to minimize government involvement.
A “hard-core populist” would answer both social and economic questions with proposals that include government intervention.
= Strongly Support = Support = No Opinion = Oppose = Strongly Oppose
Question 1. Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right
Question 3. Comfortable with same-sex marriage
Question 8. Human needs over animal rights
Question 12. Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
Question 17. Stay out of Iran
Question 4. Keep God in the public sphere
Question 9. Stricter punishment reduces crime
Question 15. Expand the military
Question 16. Stricter limits on political campaign funds
Question 19. Never legalize marijuana
= Strongly Support = Support = No Opinion = Oppose = Strongly Oppose
Question 2. Legally require hiring women & minorities
Question 5. Expand ObamaCare
Question 11. Higher taxes on the wealthy
Question 18. Prioritize green energy
Question 20. Stimulus better than market-led recovery
Question 6. Privatize Social Security
Question 7. Vouchers for school choice
Question 10. Absolute right to gun ownership
Question 13. Support and expand Free Trade
Question 14. Maintain US sovereignty from UN
= Strongly Support = Support = No Opinion = Oppose = Strongly Oppose
To ensure balance among political viewpoints, we arranged the wording of the questions so that half the time, the answer involving more government is answered by “support”, and half the time by “oppose.” Hence, each of the “hard core” philosophers would choose “support” for 5 of the Social questions and for 5 of the Economic questions.
Many of these statements cross over the line between social issues and economic issues. And many people might answer what we call a “Social” issue based on economic reasoning. But we have tried to arrange a series of questions which separates the way candidates think about government activities in these two broad scales.