Obama critic would 'seriously consider' White House run

Rising GOP star Ben Carson said Thursday he would "seriously consider" a run for the presidency. 

The Maryland neurosurgeon who electrified Republicans with a controversial speech challenging President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast told CNN he might run for the White House if a top candidate did not emerge in the Republican field. 

“If a year and a half goes by, and people are still clamoring for me to do that, and there’s no other very good candidate, I would certainly have to seriously consider it,” Carson told CNN. 

Carson then downplayed the possibility, saying the “the likelihood of that is incredibly small."

"So I’m not really planning on that,” he said.

Carson also hinted at a possible run in his speech last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). He received a standing ovation from the crowd while speculating about what might happen if "you magically put me in the White House."

After his speech, Carson announced he was retiring from medicine because he wants "to quit while I'm at the top of my game, and there are so many more things that could be done."

In his prayer breakfast speech, Carson criticized Obama's healthcare law and tax proposals with the president sitting nearby.

“I think particularly about ancient Rome. Very powerful — nobody could even challenge them militarily … they destroyed themselves from within,” Carson said. “Moral decay. Fiscal irresponsibility.”

—Alexandra Jaffe contributed.

View Comments

View the original article here

The Nine Republican Men Who Won’t Consider Any Version Of The Violence Against Women Act

Nine Congressmen — all male Republicans — voted Wednesday against a resolution to allow the U.S. House to consider re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The vast majority of House Republicans (214) and all 200 House Democrats voted for rule, which will allow votes Thursday on the watered-down GOP version of the bill and (assuming that fails), the bipartisan Senate plan.

The nine Republicans were Representatives Paul Broun (GA), Scott Garrett (NJ), Louie Gohmert (TX), Tim Huelskamp (KS), Walter Jones (NC), Steve King (IA), Thomas Massie (KY), Tom McClintock (CA), and Matt Salmon (AZ).

Three of the nine — Gohmert, Jones, and King — voted for the watered-down Republican version of the bill last May, making their opposition to even bringing up the bill now a surprise. King said of the 2012 bill, “I supported VAWA in 2005 and am doing so again to see to it that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have access to the resources and protection when they need it the most.”

While apparently none of the opponents has released a statement on today’s vote, some explained their opposition to last year’s bill. Huelskamp, in a letter to constituents, noted that he does not believe the federal government has a role in funding protection against domestic abuse. “This is a matter that should be left to our states,” he wrote, and Congress “should not be in the business of handing out grants conditioned on how states do or do not prosecute criminals.”

McClintock, in explaining his 2012 vote against VAWA, argued: “This is a feel-good measure that uses ‘Violence Against Women’ as an excuse to vastly expand a dizzying array of government grant programs, hamstring judges who are attempting to resolve and reconcile highly volatile relationships, add $1.8 billion to the nation’s debt and generally insinuate the federal government into matters the Constitution clearly reserves to the states. Federal grants of all kinds (essentially gifts of public money with little or no oversight) are out of control and ought to be abolished — not expanded.”

The landmark 1994 law, authored by then-Senator Joe Biden, expired more than a year ago.

View the original article here

Maine, Texas GOP Consider Requiring High Schools To Teach Gun Classes

In middle of the national debate on preventing gun violence, Republican lawmakers in Texas and Maine want gun classes added to public schools. Modeled after a National Rifle Association school program for children, similar proposals that claim to enhance “gun safety” have also popped up in South Carolina and Missouri.

According to the Texas bill sponsor, Rep. James White (R), kids are “resilient” enough to handle guns, which he says are no more dangerous than weightlifting or auto mechanics:

“Education, foremost, as stated in our Constitution, is about teaching our people their rights and responsibilities as a free people,” said White, who emphasizes that the most important component of the class would be teaching students the history and importance of the Second Amendment.

You could go to any high school today and you’ll see them engaging in many what we would consider probably dangerous activities: Welding, auto mechanic, weight lifting, playing sports. So our students are not these little fragile beings. They’re very knowledgeable, they’re very resilient and they can handle this.”

Meanwhile, a bill under consideration in Maine — which has drawn support from Gov. Paul LePage (R) — would add an optional gun safety course, potentially paid for by the NRA’s “Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program.” The Maine bill sponsor Rep. Paul Davis (R) claimed this course would manage to prevent domestic violence, by giving would-be victims firearms training. “In these situations, these victims [of domestic violence-related slayings] did everything the law provided,” Davis said. “I have to wonder if they knew anything about guns. I don’t think they did. However, if they did and they wanted to protect themselves, what would have happened?”

Instead of offering NRA-sponsored classes at schools, the ultimate way to protect kids from gun violence is to simply not have a gun lying around. According to the Centers for Disease Control Prevention, over 86 percent of firearm deaths of children occur at home. Guns in households increase the risk of suicides and homicides, while anecdotal evidence shows how armed guards and armed teachers could go very wrong.

View the original article here

Philadelphia, Portland City Councils Consider Offering Workers Paid Sick Leave

America is in the middle of what is projected to become the worst flu epidemic in a decade, and across the country workers risk making it worse by going to their jobs while sick. They do so because American workers have little access to paid sick leave, but some cities are considering enshrining such leave into law.

City councils in Portland, Oregon and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are both considering new paid sick leave laws. Under the Portland proposal, all businesses would have to grant workers at least 40 hours of sick leave each year; for businesses with more than six employees, that leave time would be paid. A report from the Main Street Alliance of Oregon, which supports paid sick leave, said business expenses would grow at most by 1.9 percent under the law.

In Philadelphia, where a paid sick leave law was passed in 2011 but was vetoed by the mayor, lawmakers are making another attempt. The bill is backed by local restaurant workers, thousands of whom go to work while sick each day. Nearly 80 percent of food workers do not have paid sick leave, and 60 percent say they have reported to work while sick. A majority of Americans support providing paid sick leave to food workers.

The lack of paid sick leave is its own epidemic in the United States, where 40 percent of private sector workers and 80 percent of low-income workers don’t receive a single paid sick day. Lack of paid sick leave led to an additional 5 million cases of the H1N1 flu virus in 2009.

And though business leaders in Portland and Philadelphia oppose the laws, perhaps they shouldn’t. Research suggests that paid sick leave reduces employee turnover and increases productivity, meaning providing it to employees has substantial benefits for the companies’ bottom lines too.

View the original article here