Browse By

Ben Carson Lied About Passing An Honesty Test

In his book “Gifted Hands”, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson tells the story of how he had his photograph taken for the Yale University newspaper after he won a test to determine “the most honest student” student in a psychology class called Perceptions 301.

The truth that’s emerged this weekend:

– Ben Carson never had his photograph published in the Yale University newspaper
– There was no such class as Perceptions 301
– There was no psychology class with the number 301 during any of the years Ben Carson was at Yale
– No one else but Ben Carson remembers anything about any honesty test given at Yale that year

In related news, it has been confirmed that Ben Carson’s pants are in flames.

ben carson pants on fire

185 thoughts on “Ben Carson Lied About Passing An Honesty Test”

  1. Charles Manning says:

    Even casual observers know that MSM reporters frequently misstate what candidates say and the facts that confirm or belie what they say. Thus far, Carson is benefiting from the controversy over his remarks because there’s always a grain of truth in what he says. Republicans, especially, are more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Irregular Times has a reputation for not misstating what people say or the related facts. Because of Carson’s success, more emphasis is needed on his actual claims and the facts. The current article doesn’t contain detailed information. It refers to other news sources that don’t throw much light on the subject. The CBS story, for example, doesn’t name the professor who supposedly gave the test to Carson and gave him $10, or explain why Carson would make such a fantastic claim without naming the professor. It doesn’t name or provide a way of discovering the identities of other students who allegedly were involved in this bizarre “test” (who could forget such a thing?). It doesn’t identify the photographer, or explain how a photograph would have been selected to appear or not appear in the Yale Daily News. No follow up on Doug Watts’ comment — that Carson got the course name wrong — appears; surely if Watts knew Carson got the name wrong, Watts has information concerning the correct name.

    Hard work is necessary to get to the bottom of issues like this. The authors of the sources cited in your article clearly didn’t see the necessity of digging deeper, or face obstacles from their supervisors or those who finance their outlets. I hope you will do the digging. Joking is okay, but optional; accurate and complete factual reporting isn’t.

    1. Peregrin Wood says:

      Charles, you were not paying attention. There was no professor. There was no photographer.

      1. Charles Manning says:

        The articles I read, including yours, didn’t convince me that there was no professor and no photographer. The only reason I care about this is that Carson is getting away with telling the story because voters are giving him the benefit of the doubt. Carson could end up being nominated and even elected by such voters.

        I’d like to see evidence concerning what inquiries were made to substantiate or disconfirm Carson’s story, assuming it has a grain of truth in it. If I had the time, I would be contacting Yale officials and obtaining records leading to witnesses who would surely know whether Carson’s just blowing smoke.

        1. Jason says:

          At there heights, to this point neither Carson nor Trump has garnered even 30% of REPUBLICAN voters nationwide. Their average has been around 25%. So 25% for Carson and 25% for Trump on average. Neither anywhere close to 50%. And nothing to indicate that Trump’s supporters would swing behind Carson or Carson’s behind Trump (if Trump’s support is anywhere above 24-25% and he doesn’t get the nomination, I fully expect him to break his promise and run Third Party).

          Either way, as a Progressive Liberal, I hope that Carson or Trump or Huckabee (in that order) gets the Republican nomination.

  2. The Man says:

    It is not Wood or for that matter the MSM that must present evidence to prove a negative (a nearly impossible task). Rather, Carson has made these statements with the intent to convince others of his integrity. He’s doing this to gain the trust of the electorate to select him to be the President of the United States.
    The MSM has a sacred duty and obligation to investigate what any candidate claims that supports whether or not that candidate should be elected. Wood has an obligation to share that reporting.
    Now it is up to Carson to prove the positive: give us the proof that this thing actually happened. Again, proving a negative is not a reasonable request, and should not be the intent of the MSM. They’ve done their job, time for Carson to supply us with facts or–more likely–try to ignore the inquiry so as not to admit that he has distorted his record and created a false narrative with the intent of misleading others for economic or political gain.

    1. Charles Manning says:

      Unfortunately, Carson will be coming up with evidence to support his claims that the MSM is unfairly attacking him.

      What I notice is that the MSM people questioning him about this incident never ask him who the professor or photographer were, what classmates of his would know about the incident, what documentation exists concerning the incident, etc. If he says he can’t come up with such information, that will help deter people who are supporting him from continuing to believe his questionable stories. This incident is just one of several, of course, that need to be handled similarly.

      1. Charles Manning says:

        Here’s what Newsmax, a supporter of Carson, reported: “The Journal said that the photo can’t be found in archives of the paper and that no such course could be found. Carson did not provide evidence of the photo, but did find that the course is still being taught:’Allow me also to do the research for the Wall Street Journal reporter. Here is a syllabus for the class you claim never existed. Still waiting on the apology.'” Evidently he provided the syllabus.

        This is an effective response to the criticism. I hate the see him getting away with this stuff.

        1. ella says:

          I posted this link earlier as a putting in my two bits. It is the curricula for the Yale Department of Psycholoy 2015/2016 year.

          1. Leroy says:


            It wasn’t taught then, nor is it taught now.

            Nor was there ever such an Honesty Test in that Department. Ever.

            Do you know about the “inventor” of the Seventh Day Adventist Church?

            Another individual who lied about just about everything.

          2. ella says:

            That was the thing I wanted to get across concerning Carson’s ability to be (or desirability?) President. I just do not know how to say it in a politically correct manner and still not be offensive. The Seventh Day Adventist Church is based on the worship of a woman who lived in the 1800’s and is considered a Prophet(ess). I have attended a few of their churches and I can tell you that most church going Christians would be appalled at their customs. Being open to learning the ways of others, I learned and eventually went may own way. People would be advised to realize that Adventists give no slack. They will be devious and deceptive in the extreme. Study the art of using words, are taught to in their own schools. That is so they can live around an prosper from people on the outside. Carson is typical and a devoted church member. He has the powers of persuasion and deception. He use words to imply a matter, others will accept it as such. Just like his opening debate speech. No one had asked him what he had said in the 10th grade. Yet, I will bet, that the majority thought he was talking about the questions concerning his childhood and college. Then he clarified it with another deception, to the effect of (not a quote) ‘You should treat everyone else like you did me’ – any swept his arm to indicate the candidate on his right – Donald Trump. Very clever. And which covered his comment about the ‘301’ Yale class. He does not expect anyone to dare to question him or anything he says. To that end he will do his utmost to embarrass or scare, even intimidate, anyone who tries to. Most of his contributions are coming from church members, and the ‘useful idiots’ who believe and will ‘follow’ him.

  3. Leroy says:

    Ben Carson lied (again)?


    What’s new?

    Looking at their post Eisenhower history, one would assume GOP stands for Greedy Old Prevaricators!

    1. Leroy says:

      $5 will get you $10 that he will double down on this claim for at least 3 days… and then after that adamantly insist that he never said any such thing!

      And, as a bonus bet, he will then attack the media for bringing this stuff up against him!

  4. Jim Cook says:

    I was sure this had to be satire, it’s such an extreme example. But no, the sources indicate it’s real. Bizarre.

  5. Leroy says:

    The MSM didn’t make that claim, Carson did!

    “In his book ‘Gifted Hands’, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson tells the story of how he had his photograph taken for the Yale University newspaper after he won a test to determine ‘the most honest student’ student in a psychology class called Perceptions 301.”

    And Irregular Times didn’t dig out the discrepancies, it was other MSM. The WSJ reports on a segment from Carson’s book (a story in the book about Carson, by Carson). CBS then followed up on that story. And then ABC. Soon it will be many (most) of the MSM.

    It keeps coming back to what Carson said in his book. Which is said VERY clearly and very definitely. Yet now his response is muted and his recall dim!

    1. Leroy says:

      This is the one I liked the best:

      “They’re examples of Carson saying things that he later denies or that turn out to be untrue. If he does it as often as this list suggests, he’s probably done it a few more times as well. We just don’t know it yet. Now that the press is onto this, however, I’ll bet we’re going to come across a few more before long. Anyone who continues to support Carson had better be prepared for the worst.”

  6. ella says:

    Fox News reported that when any one mentions any of these things that contributors go into high gear. He collected $10 million in October and after news that his story was being questioned broke, he collect over half a million in short order. Any vetting seems to make people pay him even more money. I need his formula to see if it will work for me. Will that work for Jeb Bush? He has lots of good ideas, experience, and is a cultured man, from a cultured family. It is one thing that he has in common with the major leaders of the world, that after listening to Carson, well, even Obama speaks better.

    1. Jason says:

      No, it won’t work for JEB.

      His lies aren’t as spectacular.

      The fact that donations took a boost when he attacked the media (for reporting his lies) isn’t unusual. There’s usually a burst of donation activity when a rightwing wingnut attacks the MSM. A few million dollars. Then fades away. Conservatives love when any rightwing wingnut attacks the MSM (as long as it’s not Fox News – which isn’t really legit news anyway).

      1. Larry says:

        Plus even Trump is attacking Carson’s lies.

        Trump hates the MSM, yet is siding with them against Carson!

      2. ella says:

        🙂 Someone said that it probably was best that G.W. became President instead of JEB. I don’t know if that is right or not, but JEB seems so soft spoken. That seems natural to him. I think he has some ideas, if only he is able to articulate them. I kinda like Christie, but I think Jersey wants him there. Now that I have seen more of Carson, I am sure I he doesn’t have what it would take to govern. I’ve read some comments made by former members of his church who say that because of the church organization it would not be possible. An example is that they cannot work on the Sabbath – Saturdays off.

        1. Leroy says:

          Yes, I personally am so glad that GW became president…

          I love the fact that instead of continuing the focus on Afghanistan and the Taliban there – and all Qaeda locked up in that area where maybe, just maybe we could have maintained a focus and won that one, that instead Bush – Cheney – Rumsfeld pulled out 80 – 90% of our resources to run off and invade Iraq (which rapidly turned into a quagmire and multiple major insurgencies) so we lost Iraq, helped establish the foundation for ISIS and the eventual loss of Afghanistan.


          George W. Was just great (and we haven’t even got into all the economic disasters that his administrations created).

          (Might as well throw some RR lies in there also)

        2. Leroy says:

          Even Donald believed that GWB lied us into Iraq – and so much so that he felt (as stated back in 2008) that impeaching GWB for that reason would be a very good thing:

          Likewise a former Deputy Director of the CIA:

          Of course George 41 is already putting a spin on the lies of George 43 (it wasn’t really his fault – LOL! – and who was the president, GWB? Or Cheney? Or Rumsfeld?)

          1. ella says:

            Of course G.H.W. was involved in a lot of things as head of the CIA. He did not lose contact with operatives during his stint as Vice President with Reagan, but his children were in different places at that time. When Jeb and George W. became governors, Jeb was living his own life with his Mexican wife. It is natural for the two that were groomed to be president to have some ideas similar to papa Bush’s, but look how different G.W. is. Granted Jeb’s idea of campaigning and it appears attitude, are similar. G.H.W. was a good President and G.W. had to plow a different road. Jeb did well expressing himself at the 4th debate, that just is not what is wanted today it seems.

          2. Leroy says:

            Obviously the links involving GHWB weren’t read to state that he was a “good president”.

            I don’t understand how you can like Bernie Sanders (supposedly) while loving so many Republican presidents and GOP candidates.

            Bernie believes in the exact opposite of what they do.

            The. Exact. Opposite.

            In every area.

        3. Leroy says:

          This may very well be somewhat overboard, but it has come up more than once. And Daddy (George 41) later on did become CIA Director and was affiliated with the CIA in the early 1960s (and reportedly in Dallas at this time) and was a Texas oilman:

          Other sources:

          Heck, I don’t know (other that IMO the Warren Commission Report is complete BS and IMO there was some type conspiracy and cover-up).

          Just food for thought.

  7. J Clifford says:

    Ben Carson says that “It’s time to really move on” and stop talking about the huge gap between the stories he has told about his life and the truth about what his life has actually been.

    If Ben Carson really wants everyone to stop talking about the dishonesty in his autobiography, there are just two steps he needs to take:

    1) Drop out of the presidential race
    2) Ask his publisher to withdraw his autobiography from bookstores

    What do you think the chances are that Ben Carson thinks it’s time to really move on in that way?

    No, Ben Carson just thinks that he should be able to run for President of the United States without anyone asking him any challenging questions.

    1. Leroy says:


      “Ben Carson just thinks that he should be able to run for President of the United States without anyone asking him any challenging questions.”

    2. ella says:

      “It is time to move on” he said. And here is an example of how so. Is Obama ‘black’? Is Carson ‘black’? Note the comparison. Why would it make any difference that the media supposedly declared it “…off-limits” to investigate Obama. And is that true? Being deceptive to get money from the ‘useful idiots’. Is the double standard really causing a “…blatant disregard for the truth”? Double standard because he is being picked on and Obama wasn’t? And lying about him, Carson? Carson is beginning to show himself.

      “If you’ve been watching the news, you’ve seen that the media is in full attack mode. They’ve been tracking down and interviewing my childhood friends and even accusing me of fabricating parts of my personal history.

      *Funny, because this was the same media that time and again declared it off-limits to dig into then-candidate Barack Obama’s background.*

      The media’s double standard is incredible, but even worse is their viciousness and blatant disregard for the truth.”

      This is in part an advertisement for money in an email, dated November 12, 2015

      1. ella says:

        Why was that last post returned to my inbox? The part of an advertisement.

  8. Korky Day says:

    Donald Trump is sounding better in comparison to Ben Carson!

  9. ella says:

    Yet Carson claims to have proof of the class in question (, Perceptions 301. One thing is a fact and that is that Yale does not offer such a class in the Psychology Department today, and in fact offers no class with a 301 designation. ( It is interesting that Carson used the word “perceptions” in regard to his story of the students walking out of class. Does anyone else remember that story? Check around psychology student stories. He has left a lot of “perceptions”, including his opening statement of debate. I have nothing but a surgery. I am a surgeon. It is time to leave the perception of black and white in the past. Perceptions I have of his first statement. That and how wide his eyes got as the crowd cheered loudly and long. His raised eyebrows as he looked down at his notes. And uttered Hillary noted she has useful idiots, after another comment.

    1. Jason says:


  10. ella says:

    “Huh?” to which. I just related several ideas that Carson put forward in his opening remark and second response in the first debate, if that is confusing, I can understand that. I just validated with the Yale curricula for the Psychology Department that there is no such class as “Perceptions 301”. And the “Hillary uses useful idiots” came after someone said that she would probably be the Democratic nominee and Carson said that would be “…a dream come true.” Just watch a re-run of the first debate.

  11. Jason says:

    Sorry, but your wording just makes no sense.

    I think in the future I will just skip past your postings.

    Most of them make no sense.


    1. ella says:

      It would seem that is the way of it lately. Still, I say something most times. Thank you for being honest in your assessment, criticism. It is accurate.

  12. Korky Day says:

    Wikipedia implies that Carson was probably one of the those fooled by a student hoax test which was done as a prank.

    1. Leroy says:

      I am not one of those people who automatically dismiss Wiki as source material (as many do due to its open access), but I do look for the references cited in any given article and check those references out.

      Anyway, in my almost daily checks of Carson’s Wiki page, I have noted that almost immediately after one of these major “discrepancies” that his page quickly gets altered to include an “explanation”. And usually with no corroborating source data.


    2. ella says:

      There still isn’t any such class as “Perceptions 301” and the Wikipedia site for Ben Carson changes. Guess someone close to Carson is keeping it updated. Carson had an interview on Fox News, and I watched it all so I can tell you it was above board, where he, in a weasel worded way, admitted he had been caught and was not sorry for it.

      1. Leroy says:

        That is what’s so amazing.

        He lies.

        He gets caught.

        He repeats the lie numerous times.

        He denies that he ever said that.

        He then admits that he said that and that it’s a lie, but the media shouldn’t be questioning him.

        Then he tells another lie.

        Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera!

        1. ella says:

          That’s about it. And he wants Katie Couric to do to others what she is doing to him. He has called all of questioning of him a lie, in the last opening remark to the 4th debate. He did so by saying that all the lies being told about him needed to stop. And no one questioned that he had just called them liars. What is so amazing is that he seems to only hear himself, think of himself, and believe that no one else can see or hear anything else either. The only thing that hasn’t been told about Donald Trump is what color his underwear is. Or maybe it has and I missed that.

  13. Korky Day says:

    That certainly sounds suspicious, Leroy. The anti-Trump coalition could certainly be expected to engage in dirty tricks, of which this might be one. They might even have a team of a dozen well-paid people working Wikipedia alone.

    Of course, I’m just speculating.

    1. Leroy says:

      That could be, if someone was being very complex.

      It sounds much more like someone on the Carson support staff is trying to put out fires. One of these fibs comes out and it gets added to his Wiki page – and then soon afterwards the “official story line” appears that “explains away” the fib.

      Obviously anything that helped Carson could be “anti Trump”… But it sounds too much like it is simply pro Carson in agenda. (Plus, if Trump’s people were on the ball, they would sign in to Wiki and correct those explanations)

      1. ella says:

        Yup, you got that one right Leroy! 🙂

  14. ella says:

    Thank you Peregrin Wood for beginning this process. This mornings Drudge Report shows Carson at 4.83%, at this hour of 7:46 A.M. I believe he realizes that being a surgeon, and without any experience in management or finance, other than investing his own fortune through investment houses, isn’t enough to govern a nation.

    1. Leroy says:

      Once again, the Drudge Report is an Open Access Voodoo Poll, and NOT a scientific poll. It’s accuracy is highly suspect. Actually it is completely inaccurate.

      Look up Open Access polls in Wiki and the go to the section Voodoo Polls.

      1. ella says:

        You can vote as many times as you want on Drudge! The early bird gets the vote. And it is so fast that there isn’t enough time to get all those extra votes in for anyone else. Tragic! But fun if your candidate is on top. RealClear Politics is showing Trump ahead in South CArolina and New Jersey, but Carson with a 2 point lead in Arizona. Leroy, you are good at finding things. Who is Robert Solomon and why does he come back to Ben (Benjamin) Solomon Carson as though they are the same person? I was looking for his family, and I know he said that his father left when he was a small child, but every article or link leads to Ben (Benjamin) Solomon Carson. Even runs the names together. Looking for a birth certificate would up with over 5,000 possibilities from Detroit or Florida, either way. Can you find any information on Robert Solomon Carson, father of the President candidate Ben Carson?

      2. ella says:

        Let me answer this again. Leave out the Drudge remark and read the rest of the post to get what I was saying.

        1. Leroy says:

          Got it. See below.

  15. ella says:

    I know – I can’t spell. That is supposed to be “wound up with over…” and “Carolina” and I was looking for “Robert Solomon Carson” which according to one source is Ben’s fathers name.

  16. Leroy says:


    You ended up asking this about Ben Carson’s father on another article posting.

    I answered over there, but, yes, that is the name of BC’s father. He “married” Ben’s mother when she was 13. He was a Baptist minister. Then it later turned out that Robert Solomon Carson was already married. He abandoned his “new” family and ended up going back to his original wife…

    1. Leroy says:

      ” Ben Carson was born in Detroit, Michigan, the son of Sonya (née Copeland) and Robert Solomon Carson, a Baptist minister and later Cadillac factory worker. Both parents came from large families in rural Georgia and were living in rural Tennessee when they met and married. Carson’s mother was only 13 when she married Carson’s father. Carson’s mother subsequently discovered her husband had another family, in with Carson’s father eventually moved.”

  17. Leroy says:

    My favorite Election Campaign poster so far.

    A chart based on a PolitiFact research from around 2-3 weeks ago.

  18. ella says:

    I see. There is the following and then there is the matter of “Jean and William Avery”, from and living in Boston when Sonya was what, 23 years old? Since Ben was 10 when she left “Robert” and she married at 13, a third grade drop out. Since she was ‘passed from home to home’ until she was 13, I guess she stopped going to school when she was about 9 years old. There is a 1) Dr. William Avery who was married twice, died and is buried in Boston, a successful physician. ( ( Of course this Avery is way too old.
    (2) a William Joseph Avery… “AVERY, William Joseph 84, on Nov. 17, 2014, of The Villages, Florida, formerly of Woburn and Somerville. … Published in The Boston Globe on Nov. 20, 2014 +” AVERY, William Joseph 84, on Nov. 17, 2014, of The Villages, Florida, formerly of Woburn and Somerville. … Published in The Boston Globe on Nov. 20, 2014 +” But his Avery is about the right age, and his Obit. was published in Boston. This does not fit the profile of a very poor family after a 10 year old Ben moved with his mother into the Avery home. Nor does it fit the very poor family profile before they moved away from their father.
    “Eventually Sonya uncovered the very hurtful truth behind her husband’s behavior, that he was a bigamist, married to another woman, and with another family. Their sons, Curtis and Ben were 10 and 8 respectively when Sonya made the very difficult but courageous decision to leave her husband, and move to Boston to live with her sister and her husband, Jean and William Avery.”

    1. Leroy says:


      Recheck the language.

      Robert Salomon left Sonya… not her leaving him.

      He left her (and her kids and returned to his first wife – who he had never divorced. So Robert Solomon Carson was a bigamist Baptist minister.

      ” …Carson’s mother subsequently discovered her husband had another family, in with Carson’s father eventually moved.”

      He clearly left her and moved in with his “other family” (who Carson never identifies).

      Though in the whole scheme of things, not sure why it matters.

      1. ella says:

        I’ll tell you why these two different stories are so important. One tells the story of a young woman who was married to a minister who, it turned out was a bigamist. How his church kept from finding that out is another mystery. Then it makes you feel even more pity for her and her children when, as that story goes, he left her. The inference is that she is penniless and having to struggle to survive.

        Now go to the link I provided and read the church article that was written about her and her children. You will find a far more reasonable and believable story told there. She left him and went to stay will wealthy “friends” (or possibly relatives?) in Boston. Jean and William Avery. This ties in with a good deal of other information. Carson is from Florida now and Avery died in Florida in 2014, but his Obituary was published in Boston. Look it up, or return to my post and follow the information in the link.

        1. Leroy says:


          This is by a minister who is an ardent supporter of Carson’s – and doesn’t relate his source material (WHO told him this… Ben Carson?). And it matches the Wiki article quite closely… on my leaving out that beside from her wise cost-saving measures, that she worked two and even three part-time jobs at a time (so did my mother, also a single mom with three kids AND while going to college part-time to get her teaching degree).

          Anyway, it sounds to me exactly like this minister’s source was… Ben Carson.

          1. Leroy says:

            Actually, in reading the article, the minister at Redland? His source wasn’t even through Ben Carson directly, but by reading Ben Carson’s books!

            “He has authored five books which you can see here and more than 100 medical journal articles. These first four books were my sources for preparing this lesson.”

            And most of Ben Carson’s exposed lies came from?

            His books!

            And there’s NOTHING in his article that even infers that her sister and brother-in-law were even remotely well to do.

            In fact, AFTER she moved in with her (probably also quite poor sister and family):

            “…Suddenly a poor single mother, with a third grade education, and no occupational training, Sonya was faced with the seemingly impossible task of caring for her sons. At this point in her life she had no personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and her faith in God had been hurt by the hypocritical example of her “preacher” husband. When the fears and hurt became too much to bear Sonya hit rock bottom, and even attempted to end her life by overdosing on prescription sleeping pills… ”

            This was AFTER moving in with sister and family.

            Where did you get “wealthy friends (or possibly family” at? It is no where in the article.

            So there are no “two separate stories”.

          2. ella says:

            This article by the church was a second story. But within the article, doesn’t it mention Jean and William Avery?

            “Eventually Sonya uncovered the very hurtful truth behind her husband’s behavior, that he was a bigamist, married to another woman, and with another family. **Their sons, Curtis and Ben were 10 and 8 respectively** ^^ when Sonya made the very difficult but courageous decision to leave her husband,^^ and **move to Boston to live with her sister and her husband, Jean and William Avery.**”

            They moved to Boston. Now look up Jean and William Avery, in the lineage of Dr. William Avery of Boston. And that William Avery, who at 84 died in Florida, (see links above) and his obit was published in Boston. Dr. Ben Carson has a lavish home in Florida, West Palm Beach
            In the past: Dr. Avery came to America (

            “I, being a social worker, was working in the community,” Dan Richardson, who at 77 is a lifelong Roxbury resident, said in a recent interview. “There were some incidents happening at that point but none that I recall with bodies on the street, never a whole lot of criminal activities. That’s just a vast exaggeration.” BUT keep reading:

            Now, this is how Ben Carson relates his ‘story’.(below) and notice he makes himself 8 years old (not 10, here he is the younger) and after his mother and father have divorced. Not his father left and they do not know what happened to him. Which the Church letter says that she left him.

            “It’s a memory that Ben Carson refers to on the campaign trail and in his autobiography:” this article relates “How, as an 8-year-old, he witnessed horrible violence outside his front door, and how it motivated him to seek a better life.”

            “It was a pretty horrible environment,” Carson told a room of New Hampshire voters recently. “I saw people lying in the street with bullet holes, stab wounds.”

          3. ella says:

            I couldn’t tell. But why would Carson tell two different stories? In the church letter it says that she left her husband and went to live with the Avery’s. By the way, I had both of my parents – such as they were, and three siblings raised by relatives, such as they were. But in the years that followed, I became acquainted with people who were in that boat, and while I was living in a house my parents rented, got to be best friends with a girl whose father came and went. There were 13 of them and a mother than taught school in the day. She had a doctorate – stuff happens on all levels. I feel like Carson could have told the truth and it would have helped. Not that he needs any. Trump doesn’t seem to be as intelligent as Carson. He needs to be learning about our international issues from our Generals and Intel agencies. There is a lot about him fussing about Carson and nothing about what he needs to be talking about. Carson is crafty, intelligent and learning. I’ll give him that. I wanted to know what made my hair stand on end when I watched him. Now I know. I could never vote for him, I know why he appears to be so popular. That he has used that with deception has ruined him in my view. He said the money would come to him and so would the people, but the wrong way.

            Democrat Debate tonight. go bernie.

        2. Leroy says:

          I an only imagine that Carson tells whatever story helps him at any given point.

          You have to remember that the story in the church (Redland) newsletter was not obtained from a conversation with Carson, but from the contents of the books that Carson had written – and that the minister had read.

          And the only thing that was really different was that in the true situation Carson’s father left them and returned to his first family. In the Ben Carson version his mother leaves him.

          In either version, she then moved in with her sister and brother-in-law in Boston. In neither version is her sister and brother-in-law wealthy or even relatively well off. I think that is something that you thought that you read somewhere.

  19. Leroy says:

    Typical for Ben…

    “Ben Carson Wants Jail Time For Health Care Fraud — Except For Friends”

  20. Leroy says:


    This has nothing to do with anything. These people were born in the early 1600s in England and died 50-60 years later in Massachusetts… and were White.

    The Avery family that Sonya moved in with were her Black sister and brother-in-law in Boston in roughly 1974-75 (over 300 years after the Avery family listed in geni). There’s ZERO connection.

    ” …Sonya made the very difficult but courageous decision to leave her husband, and move to Boston to live with her sister and her husband, Jean and William Avery… ”

    (And we KNOW some of that is a lie as Robert Solomon left her and returned to his old family… for all we know, if he would have stayed, Sonya would have remained with him)

    1. Leroy says:

      And this link:

      It is so my the headstone of the William Avery from the 1600s.

      “William Avery’s headstone, Kings Chapel Burying Ground, Boston, MA

      Mary (Woodmansey Topping) Avery is William’s second wife. His first wife was Margaret Allright (or Allbright?) who dies 28 Sept 1678. William dies 18 March 1687 and was born in 1622 in England.”

    2. Leroy says:

      As to the William Avery that died in Florida:!/Obituary
      (Note the picture. Note the wife’s name)
      (Where did you get info on being a doctor and obit also being in Boston papers – though that wouldn’t have been unusual as the moved from Woburn, Massachusetts – though not Boston).

      (Interestingly and coincidental, but my in-laws lived in The Villages for several years until moving back here for health reasons, passing away in 2005 and 2010 respectively… I remember that they got the paper version of this newsletter)

      Different people altogether.

      1. ella says:

        That is possible that, that they were black. It isn’t unusual for black families to take white family names and the Avery’s were well known in Boston. May have been a chocolate drop. Sorry if that offends you, but it was a common practice during the 60’s and 70’s. Now new names are being used. “China Doll” was also a term for “white girl” in the 60’s and 70’s. A little confused there. I still like Trump and Sanders. And I know that confuses you. But they are both dedicated men with the best interests of the Nation at heart. Bernie did very well at the last debate, I think. He is coming into the public eye more so now. He was on a daytime news show that asked him back. Trump is now becoming more Presidential.

  21. ella says:

    I don’t get what your point concerning the William Avery that died in Florida. Sonya was his (her husbands) “…china doll…”, a reference to being white. If that is what you are getting at. He has a white mother and black father, that is certainly nothing new. The same is true of Obama. I just posted another article link on the obit, (I think) the Dr. Avery was alive in the late 1600’s but had an extensive family left behind. Where he was buried spoke of money. It is common for obits to be published in a major paper in or near the person’s former home. Or where they have family. That was the point of the obit leading back to Boston and the surrounding area.

    1. Leroy says:

      This link refers specifically to the Dr.Avery from the 1600s – over 300 years ago. And makes no mention of moving to Florida at any point. Florida belonged to Spain (and was barely inhabited by any non Indians until the early 1800s).

      (Also, back in that historical era, doctors didn’t have the requirements, reputation, or PAY like they do today. Most doctors – especially in early Colonial America – would be considered middle class, upper middle class at best)

      I don’t see the link about the obituary.

      And “China doll” isn’t a term for being white, but a slang term of that of a petite fragile woman:

      China doll

      noun phrase

      “A woman of very delicate beauty; a pretty and fragile woman”

      The Dictionary of American Slang, Fourth Edition by Barbara Ann Kipfer, PhD. and Robert L. Chapman, Ph.D.
      Copyright (C) 2007 by HarperCollins Publishers.”

      I still don’t recognize any connection between her sister and brother-in-law and the Avery from Florida. Even if names are the same. I have a fairly unusual last name, but in doing an Internet search a couple of years ago and found six couples in the U. S. with the same names as us… and we’re not related at all.

    2. Leroy says:

      Woah… wait a second.

      Did you say that you understand that Ben Carson’s mother is White?

      Where did you get that from?

      Pictures of her exist.

      For example:

      1. ella says:

        I did not look up a photo of her and did the wrong thing and ‘assumed’, the use of a term was racially motivated. I could have probably looked up the divorce and found that she was also black. I did look up more about her after you told me she was also black. Now I know she has Alzheimer’s and is living in Dallas, Texas. An up and down condition that takes a lot of attention and loving care, encouragement, to have the energy to keep living.

        On the subject of Bernie Sanders, Rasmussen just put out a notice that Hillary and Sanders are tied with younger voters now. Hillary did not make any gains after the last debate, even with only two competitors on stage. It may be that her health issues combined with Bill’s heart and arterial condition, are beginning to take a toll on her performance. As the process proceeds, it may be that people are also realizing that she and Bill have spent 8 years in the White House already and they just want to go back to continue on where they left off. It is too late to do that. World conditions have changed dramatically since then.

        1. Leroy says:

          What do they say about assuming?


          From what I’ve read, her condition is no longer up and down, but just “down”. She was considered Crit Condition back in like late July.

        2. Leroy says:


    3. Leroy says:

      These aren’t shown in chronological order, just as I found them…

    4. Leroy says:


      You went from A to Z covering over 300 YEARS with lot of shortcuts – that were all errors

  22. Korky Day says:

    Overall, Carson’s popularity is largely based on the Republican’s desire not to be out-done by the Democrats electing a Black president. And thus to win.

    But Carson is a real lightweight politically. Far too influenced by Christianity to get non-Republican votes.
    Trump is a far better candidate for the Republicans (not me).

    1. Leroy says:

      Actually, polls (not just of Republicans, but all voters) pretty consistently show that the leader in the category of what candidate they would absolutely NOT vote for, it was Trump.

      Since there’s no chance that I would ever vote for either one, I don’t care. I don’t think that either would be a good candidate for the Republicans, but either would be a great GOP choice as far as the Democrat candidates are concerned.

      (I heard from my grandson earlier tonight, he was getting ready to leave to attend the Bernie Sanders rally at Cleveland State University. I think he said that they had a 13,000 capacity arena and expectations are that it would be full)

  23. Korky Day says:

    Trump will win over the other Republicans. If he’s smart enough, he’ll win over enough non-Republicans. Don’t be too surprised.

    His personality is good for the job better than any of the Republican or Democratic candidates. It’s only his policies which lag behind.

    1. Leroy says:

      Never happen.

      Fortunately the hugely vast number of voters vote based on policy position (as the individual person perceives), and NOT on “personality”.

      We are truly in DEEP trouble if we hit the point where (in a time where political positions are vitally important) if we start voting based on personality!

      Only (roughly) 1 voter out of 4 of the registered Republicans support Trump. When you see a poll that shows him at 24% or 27% a or whatever, if you read closely, that’s his poll numbers for surveyed Republican voters. Not Democrats. Not Independents.

      From “National Review”:

      We can see this from two other questions polls often ask — namely, whether voters have a favorable or unfavorable impression of a candidate and whether voters cannot support a candidate under any circumstances. Trump polls much more poorly on these questions than he does on questions of voter preference. Trump’s favorable-to-unfavorable ratio is the lowest of the major candidates’. His positive rating always ranges between 52 and 44 percent, whether the poll is of national or state voters. His negative rating always ranges between 33 and 46 percent, and is usually in the 38–43 range. Most major Republican candidates are getting positive ratings in the 60s and low 70s, with negative ratings well below 20 percent. Even Jeb Bush has significantly higher positives and lower negatives than Trump. Christie, Graham, and Pataki are typically the only candidates thought of less highly than Trump. Moreover, Trump receives the highest “would never vote for” ratings among the major candidates. A Quinnipiac national poll taken before the debate, for example, found that 30 percent of Republican-primary voters would never support Trump, the highest number among all the candidates…

      These data are even more troubling for Trump when we dig deeper. Sharp ideological differences are apparent in Trump’s favorable–unfavorable ratios, in contrast with the voter-preference question. His favorable rating exceeds his unfavorable one by roughly a 3–1 margin among tea partiers and a 2–1 margin among “very conservative” voters. “Somewhat conservatives” tend to split evenly, and moderates dislike him by a 55–40 percent margin.

      Why is this problematic for Trump? Tea partiers and “very conservative” voters are a large minority, but a minority nonetheless. In primary states, exit polls show that moderates tend to constitute 30–40 percent of the total vote outside the Deep South, rising to 40–50 percent in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. “Somewhat conservatives” tend to constitute 33–40 percent of Republican-primary voters in most states. Trump’s poor showing among these groups bodes ill for his ability to win outside the South and in (some early) midwestern caucuses and primaries… “

      1. ella says:

        November 18, shows Trump over the field all the way down. Trump over Clinton everywhere but New Hampshire.

        1. J Clifford says:

          Actually, the site you link to shows Trump 7 points behind Clinton in the latest Fox News national poll. The recent state polls available for Trump vs. Clinton are all in red states.

    2. Leroy says:

      Courtesy of the folks over at the LiberalLand news / blog site:


      Five Reasons Republicans Will Not Take The White House In 2016

      1: Democrats have a huge demographic advantage.

      Daily Kos’s Kerry Eleveld recently pointed out that the GOP base is quite literally dying off. Myra Adams at The Daily Beast recently mined national data, and it looks pretty much impossible for the GOP to hit 270 electoral votes now or in the near future. AND As Pew Research pointed out in April, the “emerging” Democratic majority has, well, emerged already.

      2: The Republican Party Is In Open Civil War.

      GOP chairman Reince Priebus admitted recently that the GOP is “cooked” if they can’t get the White House. Republican insider Peter Wehner sees the base rebelling against the people that the party’s big donors rely on: Beltway insiders and career politicians. And need we mention the continuing shenanigans in the most telling petri dish of Republican behavior, the House of Representatives? The Tea Party faction refuses to compromise on core principles. The majority party is having such trouble finding a speaker that one credible candidate is putting conditions on his candidacy to tamp down the hard right. Good luck with that!

      And let’s not forget that a high-profile third-party candidate that skews right (like, say, Jim Webb or Donald Trump if he “goes rogue”) is more likely to appeal to the sort of blue-collar white non-college-educated voters that backed Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan.

      3: The Republican Party’s Platform? Defund Planned Parenthood, Repeal Obamacare, Shut Down Big Gubmint, And Guns For Infants!

      Okay, so i exaggerate – but only slightly. But can you name any other issues that Washington Republicans are getting behind?

      4: The “Party Of Lincoln” Is Stuck With A “Cuckoo’s Nest” Of Candidates.

      The front runners are a fearmongering reality TV show star; a neurosurgeon who has bought into the lunatic worldview of a conspiracy-obsessed anti-Communist crackpot; a failed CEO not named Donald Trump; and a senator who is not liked by one candidate’s well-known brother (not to mention the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill). That should work out well next November. Not.

      5: Obamacare Is A Resounding Success That Has Helped Tens Of Millions – And Democrats Will Make Sure Voters Don’t Forget.

      Ask the 17.6 MILLION now insured thanks to Obamacare. Ask the AMA. Ask consumers seeing their premiums plummet. Democrats made it all happen, despite a history of GOP obstruction of everything Obama undertook.

      Bottom line: Yes,billions will be spent, spin will be spun, and both bases will show up – but no matter who the Democrats nominate, that person will win the White House.

      ‘Nuff said!

      – Dave “Doctor” Gonzo,

      1. ella says:

        Got to admit, the Democrats know how to work the Electoral College.

        1. Leroy says:

          Not as well as the Republicans did with their gerrymandering following the 2010 Census.

          Did you know that more people voted Democrat in House elections and yet Republicans were able to gain House control and maintain it due to a gerrymandering process that was so improper that many States (such as Ohio) have adopted laws that have taken away the state level.gerrymandering from the legislature.

          And in other cases, federal courts are stopping the established redistricting process done by GOP legislations while redistricting occurs that the Courts deem proper (it is part of our Constitutional protections).

          1. ella says:

            Well, here is some news about Hillary and her views on terrorism: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

        2. Leroy says:

          “The primary goals of gerrymandering are to maximize the effect of supporters’ votes and to minimize the effect of opponents’ votes. These can be accomplished through a number of ways:

          “Cracking” involves spreading voters of a particular type among many districts in order to deny them a sufficiently large voting bloc in any particular district. An example would be to split the voters in an urban area among several districts wherein the majority of voters are suburban, on the presumption that the two groups would vote differently, and the suburban voters would be far more likely to get their way in the elections.
          “Packing” is to concentrate as many voters of one type into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts. In some cases, this may be done to obtain representation for a community of common interest (such as to create a majority-minority district), rather than to dilute that interest over several districts to a point of ineffectiveness (and, when minority groups are involved, to avoid possible racial discrimination). When the party controlling the districting process has a statewide majority, packing is usually not necessary to attain partisan advantage; the minority party can generally be “cracked” everywhere. Packing is therefore more likely to be used for partisan advantage when the party controlling the districting process has a statewide minority, because by forfeiting a few districts packed with the opposition, cracking can be used in forming the remaining districts.
          “Hijacking” redraws two districts in such a way as to force two incumbents of the same political party to run against each other in one district, ensuring that one of them will be eliminated, while usually leaving the other district to be won by someone from a different political party.
          “Kidnapping” aims to move areas where a certain elected official has significant support to another district, making it more difficult to win future elections with a new electorate. This is often employed against politicians who represent multiple urban areas, in which larger cities will be removed from the district in order to make the district more rural.
          These tactics are typically combined in some form, creating a few “forfeit” seats for packed voters of one type in order to secure more seats and greater representation for voters of another type. This results in candidates of one party (the one responsible for the gerrymandering) winning by small majorities in most of the districts, and another party winning by a large majority in only a few of the districts.”

        3. Leroy says:

          “Gerrymandering is effective because of the wasted vote effect. By moving geographic boundaries, the incumbent party packs opposition voters into a few districts they will already win, wasting those extra votes. Remaining districts are more tightly constructed, with the opposition party allowed a bare minority count. These districts constitute the majority of districts and are drawn to produce a result favoring the incumbent party.[13]

          While the wasted vote effect is strongest when a party wins by narrow margins across multiple districts, gerrymandering narrow margins can be risky when voters are less predictable. To minimize the risk of demographic or political shifts swinging a district to the opposition, politicians can create more packed districts, leading to more comfortable margins in unpacked ones.”

          1. Leroy says:

            Look especially at the chart under “Effects of gerrymandering”

          2. Leroy says:

            “The easiest way to solve this issue, of course, would be to take the redistricting process out of human hands entirely. There is already software capable of doing just that — good luck getting any politicians to agree to it, though.”

          3. Leroy says:

            “The easiest way to solve this issue, of course, would be to take the redistricting process out of human hands entirely) There is already software capable of doing just that — good luck getting any politicians to agree to it, though.”

          4. Leroy says:


            “HAVING the first modern democracy comes with bugs. Normally we would expect more seats in Congress to go to the political party that receives more votes, but the last election confounded expectations. Democrats received 1.4 million more votes for the House of Representatives, yet Republicans won control of the House by a 234 to 201 margin. This is only the second such reversal since World War II.”

          5. Leroy says:

            “Using statistical tools that are common in fields like my own, neuroscience, I have found strong evidence that this historic aberration arises from partisan disenfranchisement. Although gerrymandering is usually thought of as a bipartisan offense, the rather asymmetrical results may surprise you.

            Through artful drawing of district boundaries, it is possible to put large groups of voters on the losing side of every election. The Republican State Leadership Committee, a Washington-based political group dedicated to electing state officeholders, recently issued a progress report on Redmap, its multiyear plan to influence redistricting. The $30 million strategy consists of two steps for tilting the playing field: take over state legislatures before the decennial Census, then redraw state and Congressional districts to lock in partisan advantages. The plan was highly successful.”

          6. Leroy says:

            “I have developed approaches to detect such shenanigans by looking only at election returns. To see how the sleuthing works, start with the naïve standard that the party that wins more than half the votes should get at least half the seats. In November, five states failed to clear even this low bar: Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

            Now let’s do something more subtle. We can calculate each state’s appropriate seat breakdown — in other words, how a Congressional delegation would be constituted if its districts were not contorted to protect a political party or an incumbent. We do this by randomly picking combinations of districts from around the United States that add up to the same statewide vote total. Like a fantasy baseball team, a delegation put together this way is not constrained by the limits of geography. On a computer, it is possible to create millions of such unbiased delegations in short order. In this way, we can ask what would happen if a state had districts that were typical of the rest of the nation.

            In North Carolina, where the two-party House vote was 51 percent Democratic, 49 percent Republican, the average simulated delegation was seven Democrats and six Republicans. The actual outcome? Four Democrats, nine Republicans — a split that occurred in less than 1 percent of simulations. If districts were drawn fairly, this lopsided discrepancy would hardly ever occur.”

          7. Leroy says:

            “We can quantify this effect using three different methods. First, Democrats would have had to win the popular vote by 7 percentage points to take control of the House the way that districts are now (assuming that votes shifted by a similar percentage across all districts). That’s an 8-point increase over what they would have had to do in 2010, and a margin that happens in only about one-third of Congressional elections.

            Second, if we replace the eight partisan gerrymanders with the mock delegations from my simulations, this would lead to a seat count of 215 Democrats, 220 Republicans, give or take a few.

            Third, gerrymandering is a major form of disenfranchisement. In the seven states where Republicans redrew the districts, 16.7 million votes were cast for Republicans and 16.4 million votes were cast for Democrats. This elected 73 Republicans and 34 Democrats. Given the average percentage of the vote it takes to elect representatives elsewhere in the country, that combination would normally require only 14.7 million Democratic votes. Or put another way, 1.7 million votes (16.4 minus 14.7) were effectively packed into Democratic districts and wasted.”

          8. Leroy says:

            “To preserve majority rule and minority representation, redistricting must be brought into fairer balance. I propose two plans. First, let’s establish nonpartisan redistricting commissions in all 50 states. In Ohio, one such ballot measure failed in November, in part because of a poorly financed campaign. Maybe those who prodded voters to turn out could support future initiatives.

            Second, we need to adopt a statistically robust judicial standard for partisan gerrymandering. In the Supreme Court’s Vieth v. Jubelirer case, in 2004, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted against intervention in chicanery in Pennsylvania, but left the door open for future remedies elsewhere if a clear standard could be established.

            The great gerrymander of 2012 came 200 years after the first use of this curious word, which comes from the salamander-shaped districts signed into law by Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. Gov. Gerry’s party engineered its electoral coup using paper maps and ink. But the advent of inexpensive computing and free software has placed the tools for fighting politicians who draw absurd districts into the hands of citizens like you and me.

            Politicians, especially Republicans facing demographic and ideological changes in the electorate, use redistricting to cling to power (TO CLING TO POWER). It’s up to us to take control of the process, slay the gerrymander, and put the people back in charge of what is, after all, our House.”

          9. ella says:

            And it seems that every big election the hype over who gets to do which ‘gerrymandering’ where, begins all over again. Swinging one and then the other, believing that no one remembers the last election, has become a long standing habit. Too many of us are getting old enough to look back over the years and see the continuing patterns for them to get away with changing it so easily. That is the last winner wants it to stay that way. Democrats won last time, they must need to make some adjustments.

          10. Leroy says:

            The gerrymandering (remapping of districts) is done by state legislatures, not by the President or the Executive Branch… state legislatures.

            And are not done every election cycle, but the election cycle following the Census (which is done every ten years).

            It is spelled out right there Ella, if you would only read the links and information posted.

            So, based on facts (and not erroneous opinion or interpretations) what does this mean?

            “Democrats won last time, they must need to make some adjustments.”

            Democrats won WHEN?

            In the last election cycle in 2014?

            Democrats won WHERE?

            The House of Representatives?

            The Senate?

            Most state legislatures?

            Or are you talking about strictly the Presidential election of 2012 when the Democrat candidate won (but has ZERO impact on gerrymandering)?

            All three branches of the government have extremely strong, but very limited, powers.

            For example, Trump could get elected and have a GOP -controlled House and Senate and get a law passed that sets up a Muslim national database – only to have the U. S. Supreme Court reverse it as being Unconstitutional (which it would be).

            But, please, I don’t want to argue with you about this or debate it or discuss it. No debate or discussion or one hundred million chanting otherwise will change the facts.

            Sorry, but that’s life.

            I won’t respond to your posts and would appreciate if you not respond to mine.

            Thank you.

          1. Leroy says:

            Impediments to voter registration

            Laws or administrative practices have made it more difficult for people to register to vote. In the United States, Florida imposed a short deadline for the submission of voter registration forms in 2011, with stiff penalties for late filing. The bill led to the end of voter registration work by one organization, the League of Women Voters, whose spokesperson said, ‘Despite the fact that the League of Women Voters is one of the nation’s most respected civic organizations, with a 91-year history of registering and educating voters, we will be unable to comply with the egregious provisions contained in [this bill].’… “

          2. Leroy says:

            “In the United States, supporters (GOP) of photo ID laws contend that the photographic IDs (such as driver’s licenses or student IDs (in some states) from state schools) are nearly universal, and that presenting them is a minor inconvenience when weighed against the possibility of ineligible voters affecting elections. Opponents (Democrats) argue that photo ID requirements disproportionately affect minority, handicapped and elderly voters who do not normally maintain driver’s licenses. Requiring such groups to obtain and keep track of photo IDs that are otherwise unneeded is considered a suppression tactic aimed at those groups..”

            “Indiana’s photo ID law barred twelve retired nuns in South Bend, Indiana from voting in that state’s 2008 Democratic primary election, as they lacked the photo IDs required under a state law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2008. John Borkowski, a South Bend lawyer volunteering as an election watchdog for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said, ‘This law was passed supposedly to prevent and deter voter fraud, even though there was no real record of serious voter fraud in Indiana.’…”

          3. Leroy says:

            “Proponents of a similar law proposed for Texas in March 2009 also argued that photo identification was necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud.

            Opponents respond that there is no evidence of such voter fraud in Texas, so no remedy is required. They say that such a ‘remedy’ would decrease voting by senior citizens, the disabled, and lower-income residents. Opponents cited a study stating that 1 million of the state’s 13.5 million registered voters do not have a photo ID (roughly 7%… elderly, minorities, etcetera).

            State Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) said, ‘Voter fraud not only is alive and well in the U.S., but also alive and well in Texas. The danger of voter fraud threatens the integrity of the entire electoral process.” ‘

            Democratic Caucus Chairwoman Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) said the proposed law ‘is not about voter fraud. There is no voter fraud. This is about voter suppression.’

            Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) spent $1.4 million investigating voter fraud and from 2002 – 2012 (over TEN YEARS) brought 311 accusations of voter fraud to the attorney general’s office (that is 32 cases a year on average). 57 cases have been resolved (by conviction with other dismissed) and among these 57 convictions (for various reasons) there were ONLY TWO cases of voter impersonation – the type of fraud that photo ID laws would prevent (that is one case every five years, and the investigation cost Texas taxpayers – not counting any trial costs – $700,000 per case.

            BTW… More than 8,000,000 votes were cast in Texas in the most recent presidential election.”

          4. Leroy says:

            Purging voter rolls

            In 2008, more than 98,000 registered Georgia voters were removed from the roll of eligible voters because of a computer mismatch in their personal identification information, leading registrars to conclude that they were no longer eligible Georgia voters at their registered addresses. At least 4,500 of those people must prove their citizenship to regain their right to vote, but opponents say that could be an impossible burden to meet. For example, the state of Georgia gave college senior Kyla Berry one week to prove her citizenship in a letter dated October 2, 2008, but the letter was postmarked October 9, 2008. However, Berry is a U.S. citizen, born in Boston, Massachusetts with a passport and a birth certificate to prove it.

            Commenting on Berry’s case and those like it, Wendy Weiser, an elections expert with New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, said, “What most people don’t know is that every year, elections officials strike millions of names from the voter rolls using processes that are secret, prone to error and vulnerable to manipulation.’ “

          5. Leroy says:

            Disinformation about voting procedures Edit
            Voters may be given false information about when and how to vote, leading them to fail to cast valid ballots. For example, in recall elections for the Wisconsin State Senate in 2011, Americans for Prosperity (a conservative organization that was supporting Republican candidates) sent many Democratic voters a mailing that gave an incorrect deadline for absentee ballots. Voters who relied on the deadline in the mailing would have sent in their ballots too late for them to be counted. The organization said that the mistake was a typographical error.

            Inequality in Election Day resources

            Elections in the United States are funded at the local level, often unequally. In the 2004 elections, Wyoming spent $2.15 per voter while California spent $3.99 per voter. In contrast, Canada spends $9.51 per voter. Underfunded election areas can result in long lines at polling places, requiring some voters either to wait hours to cast a ballot or to forgo their right to vote in that election. Voters who cannot wait the required amount of time are therefore disenfranchised, while voters in well-funded areas with sufficient voting capacity may face minimal or no waiting time.

            Delays at polling places are widely regarded as being a greater problem in urban areas.

          6. Leroy says:

            Jim Crow laws

            In the United States, voter suppression was used extensively in most Southern states until the Voting Rights Act (1965) made most disenfranchisement and voting qualifications illegal. Traditional voter suppression tactics included the institution of poll taxes and literacy tests, aimed at suppressing the votes of African Americans and working class white voters.

          7. Leroy says:


            2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal Edit
            In the 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal, Republican officials attempted to reduce the number of Democratic voters by paying professional telemarketers in Idaho to make repeated hang-up calls to the telephone numbers used by the Democratic Party’s ride-to-the-polls phone lines on election day. By tying up the lines, voters seeking rides from the Democratic Party would have more difficulty reaching the party to ask for transportation to and from their polling places.

          8. Leroy says:

            2004 presidential election

            Allegations surfaced in several states that a private group, Voters Outreach of America, which had been empowered by the individual states, had collected and submitted Republican voter registration forms while inappropriately discarding voter registration forms where the new voter had chosen to register with the Democratic Party. Such people would believe they had registered to vote, and would only discover on election day that they were not registered and could not cast a ballot.

            Michigan Republican state legislator John Pappageorge was quoted as saying, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election.”.

            In 2006, four employees of the John Kerry campaign were convicted of slashing the tires of 25 vans rented by the Wisconsin state Republican Party which were to be used for driving Republican voters and monitors to the polls. At the campaign workers’ sentencing, Judge Michael B. Brennan told the defendants, “Voter suppression has no place in our country. Your crime took away that right to vote for some citizens.”

          9. Leroy says:

            2006 Virginia Senate election

            During the Virginia U.S. Senate election, Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections Jean Jensen concluded that incidents of voter suppression appeared widespread and deliberate. Documented incidents of voter suppression include:

            – Democratic voters receiving calls incorrectly informing them voting will lead to arrest.

            – Widespread calls fraudulently claiming to be “[Democratic Senate candidate Jim] Webb Volunteers,” falsely telling voters their voting location had changed.

            – Fliers paid for by the Republican Party, stating “SKIP THIS ELECTION” that allegedly attempted to suppress African-American turnout.

          10. Leroy says:

            2008 presidential election

            A review of states’ records by The New York Times found unlawful actions leading to widespread voter purges.

            A dispute between the Social Security Administration commissioner and the National Association of Secretaries of State about the use of the Social Security database to test the validity of voters led to the shutdown of the database over the Columbus Day holiday weekend.


            Wait times of 2 to 10 hours were reported during early voting at multiple Georgia locations.


            Before the presidential election, on September 16, 2008, Obama legal counsel announced that they would be seeking an injunction to stop an alleged caging scheme in Michigan wherein the state Republican party would use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters still using their foreclosed home as a primary address at the polls. Michigan GOP officials called the suit “desperate”. A Federal Appeals court ordered the reinstatement of 5,500 voters wrongly purged from the voter rolls by the state.


            The conservative nonprofit Minnesota Majority has been reported as making phone calls claiming that the Minnesota Secretary of State had concerns about the validity of the voters registration. Their actions have been referred to the Ramsey County attorney’s office and the U.S. Attorney looked into Johnson’s complaint.


            On October 5, 2008, the Republican Lt. Governor of Montana, John Bohlinger, accused the Montana Republican Party of vote caging to purge 6,000 voters from three counties which trend Democratic. These purges included war veterans and active duty soldiers.


            Wait times of six hours were reported for early voting in Franklin County, leading to people leaving the line without voting.[36]


            The Republican Party attempted to have all 60,000 voters in the heavily Democratic city of Milwaukee who had registered since January 1, 2006, deleted from the voter rolls. The requests were rejected by the Milwaukee Election Commission, although Republican commissioner Bob Spindell voted in favor of deletion.

          11. Leroy says:

            2010 Maryland gubernatorial election

            In the Maryland gubernatorial election in 2010, the campaign of Republican candidate Bob Ehrlich hired a consultant who advised that “the first and most desired outcome is voter suppression”, in the form of having “African-American voters stay home.”

            To that end, the Republicans placed thousands of Election Day robocalls to Democratic voters, telling them that the Democratic candidate, Martin O’Malley, had won, although in fact the polls were still open for some two more hours.

            The Republicans’ call, worded to seem as if it came from Democrats, told the voters, “Relax. Everything’s fine. The only thing left is to watch it on TV tonight.” The calls reached 112,000 voters in majority-African American areas.

            In 2011, Ehrlich’s campaign manager, Paul Schurick, was convicted of fraud and other charges because of the calls. In 2012, he was sentenced to 30 days of home detention, a one-year suspended jail sentence, and 500 hours of community service over the four years of his probation, with no fine or jail time. The Democratic candidate won by a margin of more than 10 percent.

          12. Leroy says:

            2012 Florida

            A Florida law passed in 2011 by the Florida legislature which reduced the days available for early voting, barred voter-registration activities of groups like the League of Women Voters, and made it more difficult to vote for voters who since the last election had moved to a different county within the state.

            Jim Greer, the main source for the information cited in the Palm Beach Post article (which to a large part of the passage of the this legislation), was sentenced to 18 months for embezzling from the Florida Republican Party.

            A majority of early voting ballots cast in 2008 were cast by Democratic voters, and minority voters are more likely to move (to new districts).

            The reason given by Republican politicians for the law was to reduce cost and to deter voter fraud; however, some former senior Republican officials alleged that the true drivers of the law were GOP political consultants who were seeking ways to suppress the Democratic vote.

          13. ella says:

            Leroy, I am going to tell you why I am without sympathy concerning a lot of so call detrimental blocks to voters having the ability to vote. I have not been able to cast a ballot in the last two Presidential elections because my ballot was disfigured. Not by anyone in authority, but by people who had the ability to do so. I mailed them, or tried to. One had been ripped and run over, the tire marks still on the envelop and the other was soaking wet. There are more ballots, mail in, that are destroyed than are ever counted. Voters should be required to have ID’s and there should be photo lists to verify them. That won’t stop using multiple names. Felons have lost the right to vote by engaging in high crime activity – and being caught. Dirt flows in politics, not just between the candidates. Those who support candidates sometimes get just as rowdy and do things to ‘help’ their candidate. I do not approve of it, but it goes on.

          14. Leroy says:

            Great answer.

            Someone destroyed TWO of your mail-in ballots and that justifies blocking the voting ability of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of voters?

            Was it random vandalism? Someone you suspect who KNEW how you were going to vote and wanted your vote to not count? (RWM would insist it was the ZOG)

            Why didn’t you vote in person when you found that your mail-ins had been destroyed? After all, mail-ins are used for EARLY voting, so you would have had time.

            You say, “There are more ballots, mail in, that are destroyed than are ever counted.”

            That simply is NOT true. It is mathematically impossible. Please show your source of factual information. Or is that simply your OPINION, with no basis in fact.

            And what does “Voters should be required to have ID’s and there should be photo lists to verify them.” have to do with destroyed mail-in ballots. How did YOU do your mail-in ballot? Did you send your driver’s license in the mail-in?

            Not every state has Early Voting and / or Absentee Voting. Not even close to all. In most cases, I’d be curious to see how the process works in your state.

            But I really don’t care.

            The subject was about OFFICIAL voter suppression laws, not individual incidents with “rowdy supporters”. But then I’ve learned to trust that you’ll never read any factual information – even when supplied on a platter. Nope. Ella just pulls out something not directly related to the subject matter… And then throws in a lot of opinion comments.

            I really do not care.

            (Nor most times anymore even believe you most times… after Ben Carson’s mommy and that whole situation, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about most of the time – but in any case, don’t care)

            I find the very idea that your own loss of vote somehow (in ANY way) justifies denying others the right to vote disgusting (and essentially racist as the groups most affected by voter suppression are Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor elderly) utterly disgusting.

        4. Leroy says:

          Confounding conventional wisdom, partisan redistricting is not symmetrical between the political parties. By my seat-discrepancy criterion, 10 states are out of whack: the five I have mentioned, plus Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Illinois and Texas. Arizona was redistricted by an independent commission, Texas was a combination of Republican and federal court efforts, and Illinois was controlled by Democrats. Republicans designed the other seven maps. Both sides may do it, but one side does it (a LOT) more often.

          Surprisingly absent from the guilty list is (highly Democrat) California, where 62 percent of the two-party vote went to Democrats and the average mock delegation of 38 Democrats and 15 Republicans exactly matched the newly elected delegation. Notably, California voters took redistricting out of legislators’ hands by creating the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.”

        5. Leroy says:

          “Gerrymandering is not hard. The core technique is to jam voters likely to favor your opponents into a few throwaway districts where the other side will win lopsided victories, a strategy known as “packing.” Arrange other boundaries to win close victories, “cracking” opposition groups into many districts. Professionals use proprietary software to draw districts, but free software like Dave’s Redistricting App lets you do it from your couch.

          Political scientists have identified other factors that have influenced the relationship between votes and seats in the past. Concentration of voters in urban areas can, for example, limit how districts are drawn, creating a natural packing effect. But in 2012 the net effect of intentional gerrymandering was FAR LARGER than any one factor.”

        6. Leroy says:

          And just how is it that the Democrats are “working the Electoral College”?

          That occurs when the President gets elected due to having MORE (a majority) of Electoral Votes while having less than a majority of the Popular Vote (all votes cast for President).

          So how is it that the Democrats are working the Electoral College?

          Was it the 2008 election? Did Obama receive fewer votes than McCain? How about the 2022 election? Did Obama receive fewer votes than Romney?

          Well, actually, in both elections Obama won the Popular vote easily as well as the Electoral Vote.

          In fact, I doubt that it has ever happened.

          1. Leroy says:


            “On four occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election.”

            2000? Wasn’t that election the first term of GWB and Al Gore?

          2. Leroy says:


            Why, Republican candidate George W. Bush won the Presidency by ONE Electoral Vote – though Al Gore received more than 1/2 million MORE votes by the population!

            Bush won by taking Florida (where his brother JEB was governor) and then by only 537 votes out over 5.8 million votes cast in Florida. Several counties had initiated recounts “however the U. S. Supreme Court’s contentious decision in Bush v. Gore, announced on December 12, 2000, ENDED the recounts, effectively awarding Florida’s votes to Bush and granting him the victory.”

            Seems to me like them Republicans sure know how to work the Electoral College process – especially with foul play.

            (BTW, “The Green Party gained widespread public attention during the 2000 presidential election when the ticket composed of Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke won 2.7% of the popular vote. Nader was vilified by some Democrats, who accused him of spoiling the election for Al Gore. Nader’s impact on the 2000 election has remained controversial.”)

          3. Leroy says:

            “Ultimately, a media consortium—comprising the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Tribune Co. (parent of the Los Angeles Times), Associated Press, CNN, Palm Beach Post and St. Petersburg Times[69]—hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to examine 175,010 ballots that were collected from the entire state, not just the disputed counties that were discounted; these ballots contained undervotes (votes with no choice made for president) and overvotes (votes made with more than one choice marked). Their goal was to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used for the voting process. The NORC concluded that if the disputes over the validity of all the ballots statewide in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won…”

          4. Leroy says:

            “Subsequent analyses cast further doubt on conclusions that Bush likely would have won anyway, had the U.S. Supreme Court not intervened. An analysis of the NORC data by University of Pennsylvania researcher Steven F. Freeman and journalist Joel Bleifuss concluded that a recount of all uncounted votes using any standard (inclusive, strict, statewide or county by county), Gore would have been the VICTOR.”

            “Such a statewide review including all uncounted votes was a very real possibility, as Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, whom the Florida Supreme Court had assigned to oversee the statewide recount, had scheduled a hearing for December 13 (MADE MOOT by the U.S. Supreme Court’s final ruling on the 12th) to consider the question of including overvotes as well as undervotes, and subsequent statements by Judge Lewis and internal court documents support the likelihood of including overvotes in the recount.”

            “Florida State University professor of public policy Lance deHaven-Smith observed that, even considering only undervotes, ‘Under any of the five most reasonable interpretations of the Florida Supreme Court ruling, Gore does, in fact, more than make up the deficit’…”

          5. Leroy says:

            But in any case, even with the criminal voter fraud allowances, the bottom line was that nationally the Democrat candidate won the most votes of the voting population while losing the Presidency by ONE Electoral College vote!

            Damon but them Republicans are good at working the Electoral Vote (and cheating)!

          6. Leroy says:

            Damn… not Damon!

          7. Leroy says:

            The other three Presidential elections where this happened:

          8. Leroy says:


            ” It was the first presidential election in which the candidate who received the most electoral votes – Andrew Jackson – did not become president, a source of great bitterness for Jackson and his supporters, who proclaimed the election of Adams a corrupt bargain. (Amongst four candidates, Jackson won 41.5% of the Popular Vote, John Quincy Adams received 31%, Henry Clay received 13% and William Crawford roughly 11.5%. Jackson won 99 Electoral votes, Adams had 84, Calhoun had 41 and Clay had 37. 131 Electoral Votes were needed to win, thereby sending the election to the House of Representatives where the “corrupt bargain” threw the vote to Adams.)

            Prior to the election, the Democratic-Republican Party had been the sole national political organization in the United States, winning the last six presidential elections, a period of one-party government known as the Era of Good Feelings.

            In 1824 the Democratic-Republican Party failed to agree on a choice of candidate for president, with the result that the party temporarily split behind four separate candidates of differing regions.

            By the next election (1828), the largest faction, led by Andrew Jackson would become the de-facto Democratic-Republican Party, having achieved legitimacy as party leader through winning the popular vote AND from achieving a sort of moral authority through the way the election of 1824 was decided–a ‘corrupt’ alliance between Adams and an additional, lesser rival (Clay) to ‘steal’ the presidency.

            By 1828, the Jacksonian wing would lead the Democratic-Republicans (who would eventually shorten its name simply to the modern Democratic Party), and after that next cycle, the other factions, led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay would disaffect, dispersing but briefly coming together in coalition as the National Republican Party… “

          9. Leroy says:

            Following elections after 1824 corruption:


            (Overwhelming victory by Jackson)

          10. Leroy says:


            Rutherford B. Hayes had roughly 250,000 fewer votes (in a lot smaller population) yet won the Electoral College vote by ONE vote!

            That is REPUBLICAN candidate Rutherford B. Hayes.

            Dang if those Republicans don’t know how to work that Electoral Vote process!

          11. Leroy says:

            “The results of the election remain among the most disputed ever, although there is no question that Samuel J. Tilden of New York outpolled Ohio’s Rutherford B. Hayes in the popular vote. After a first count of votes, Tilden won 184 electoral votes to Hayes’s 165, with 20 votes unresolved. These 20 electoral votes were in dispute in four states: in the case of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, each party reported its candidate had won the state, while in Oregon one elector was declared illegal (as an “elected or appointed official”) and replaced. The question of who should have been awarded these electoral votes is the source of the continued controversy concerning the results of this election.

            An informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute: the Compromise of 1877, which awarded all 20 electoral votes to Hayes… “

          12. Leroy says:


            Democrat candidate Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by more than 100,000… but lost to Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison by SIXTY FIVE Electoral votes!!!


            Now there’s a Republican who REALLY knows how to work the Electoral Vote!

          13. Leroy says:

            Interesting tidbits about Third Parties.

            A Third Party has NEVER won a Presidential election.

            “Third parties have taken second place only twice, in 1860 and 1912.

            The last time a third (independent) candidate achieved significant success (although still finishing in third place) was in 1992.”

          14. Leroy says:


            Abraham Lincoln won a strong plurality (40%) of the votes and a definite majority (180) of the Electoral College vote. Third Party candidate Breckenridge won second place (72) in the Electoral Vote, but a distant third (out of four with 18.2%) in popular vote. Stephen Douglas (Democrat, the second major party) won 29.5% of popular vote, but only 12 Electoral votes. John Bell (another 3rd Party) won 12.6 of popular vote, but 39 Electoral votes!

          15. Leroy says:


            Democrat candidate Woodrow Wilson won 41.8% of Popular vote and 475 Electoral votes. Third Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt (the Progressive Party) came in second with 27.5% of Popular Vote and 88 Electoral votes. The major second party, the Republican candidate won 23.2% of Popular vote and oh 8 Electoral votes. Another Third Party candidate (Socialist) won 6% of Popular vote and zero Electoral votes.

            This was the last election in which a candidate who was not a Republican or Democrat came second in either the popular vote or the Electoral College, and the first election in which all 48 states of the contiguous United States participated.

          16. Leroy says:

            The 1992 election cycle was the last one where a Third Party had a significant impact on voter population.


            Ross Perot captured roughly 19% of the Popular vote, but zero Electoral votes.

            “Clinton won a plurality in the popular vote, and a wide Electoral College margin. The election was a significant realigning election after three consecutive Republican landslides. Northeastern, Upper Midwest, and West Coast states which had previously been competitive began voting reliably Democratic. This is the most recent election in which an incumbent president was defeated.”

        7. Leroy says:

          BTW… Since your Rey was to my posting “Five Reasons Republicans Will Not Take The White House In 2016”, what SPECIFICALLY in that posting had ANYTHING to do with the Electoral College and the Democrats “working it”?

          That somehow it is the Democrats fault that the older people who vote Republican AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS AND THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR COUNTRY are dying off? And that means that the Democrats are working the Electoral College unfairly?

          Or what?

          Or was that one of those meaningless, and very inaccurate comments that you just pull out of thin air and post?

    3. ella says:

      Since the Paris attacks Trump seems to have found some policy ideas. He has some foreign policy ideas as well as domestic. We so need that in a president after the past 7 years.

  24. Robert Milnes says:

    Hey Leroy,
    I saw where you posted some links to my website. I was going to comment but was distracted from computer and lost them.
    Which post were they on?

  25. Leroy says:

    And meanwhile… (This would be a NEW government agency – from the supposed Party of smaller government)

    Kasich Wants Government Agency To Promote Judeo-Christian Values Worldwide | Liberaland

  26. Robert Milnes says:

    Sounds like the ZOG to me.

  27. Korky Day says:

    So many great comments!
    Thank you, everyone!

    Donald Trump might be the salvation of the Republican Party.

    To be elected president, he’ll have to appeal to non-Republicans as well as he’s appealed to Republicans to get the nomination. I suspect he’s smart enough to do that, but I’m not sure.

    Trump’s personality is much more suited to being president than any other Republican, and than Hilary or Bernie. It’s only his policies that lag, but his personality is such that he can adopt new policies whenever needed. That’s one of the advantages of a populist over a doctrinaire politician.

    Even if Trump loses, he’s teaching all the other candidates how to campaign better. He’s improved the campaign greatly. He’s by far the hippest Republican I’ve ever heard of. We all owe him.

  28. Korky Day says:

    Donald Trump’s personality:

    a genius, ambitious, confident, proud, energetic, pragmatic, open-minded, articulate, brave in speaking his mind, determined, competitive, co-operative, loving, social, loyal, sober, funny, generous, innovative, inspiring, unprejudiced, semi-hip, and (to the best of his ability) moral.

    None of the other Duopoly candidates can compete with Trump on personality, which DOES affect how people vote.

    I’m looking at Trump from a Green Party point-of-view.

    1. Leroy says:

      I find your description of Trump’s personality as…. hilarious!

      Unprejudiced? LMAO… He is notoriously prejudiced.

      Co-operative? Oh, this list is so funny.

      Moral (to the best of his ability, of course, which is itself a ridiculous add-on – so was Hitler, to the best of his about!).

      I am shocked that someone from the Green Party would support ANYONE who denies Climate Change and Global Warming, who is against the very existence of the EPA, who supports fracking, etcetera, etcetera.

      I am even more shocked at someone who not only votes primarily as based on PERSONALITY over policies (especially when the personality that they describe is completely fictional) but believes that a lot of voters also vote based PRIMARILY on a candidates personality no matter what the candidate’s policy.

      And that he is so hip (or is it “semi hip”)… wow. What a great contributor!

      And “great comments”.

      Are you delusional?

      Other than Ella (who only moderately agreed with you briefly and spent much more time appropriately talking about Carson), I have seen no other postings at all that agreed with your points on Trump.

    2. ella says:

      Wow! Korky Day, you just plain left little out. But then you succinctly made your point – I agree with most of it. I would add, short on words, but says it all.

      1. Leroy says:

        Looks like further down you just got torpedoed by KD.

        She doesn’t support Trump nor even describes him as to her beliefs – just what KD perceives as how “another people” see Trump.

        Fortunately, the national polls disagree with that perception – and your attraction.

        You know, there are a lot of blogs out there that are conservative in nature. This is a progressive liberal blog. Why would you devote so much time to posting on a progressive liberalism site where Trump (and Carson) is for the most part ridicuuled?

  29. Leroy says:

    Back to the point of Presidential candidates and their propensity to lie:

    “Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders crossed the threshold of more truthfulness than lies. Of all the candidates, Bernie Sanders is the most truthful and Ben Carson is the most dishonest… ”

    “Kasich is the only Republican candidate that has a higher truth rating than Hillary Clinton. However, that single soundbite does not tell the entire story.

    Hillary Clinton has had 133 statements evaluate by Politifact while Kasich has only had 54 statements evaluated. This means that Clinton has nearly three times as many opportunities to misspeak, fabricate, deflect or outright lie and she is still nearly on par with the most truthful conservative.”

    “Consider the level of intensity with which Republicans decry Hillary Clinton to be a liar. Recall the relentless hours of inquisition by Congressional committees on Benghazi. And despite the belief that Hillary is the liar-in-chief, only ONE Republican candidate is more truthful than Hillary – and he was the LOWEST ranking candidate on the main Republican debate stage.

    In many respects, the candidates who are jockeying to be the most pious and spiritual have told the most “untruths.” Ben Carson, the Evangelical favorite, has yet to have a statement evaluated as anything above “’alf-True.’… ”

    “But not only Ben Carson: every single Republican candidate has made false statements which directly reflects their character and policy positions – for the few Republicans that have policy positions.

    Marco Rubio made false statements to deflect from his financial woes and deflected from his poor attendance in the Senate. But in fact, Rubio has had significant financial troubles and had the worst attendance record in the Senate.”

    “Ted Cruz has made his entire career on criticizing Obamacare, the Iranian Nuke Deal, and President Obama in general. Conservatives love him because of this. But according to the most egregious statements evaluated by Politifact, Cruz has either flat out lied or told half-truths 85% of the time. The very thing conservatives love about Cruz has been untrue 85% of the time.

    Chris Christie’s loudest applause line came when accused Bernie Sanders’ of wanting to raise the top marginal rate to 90%. This, of course, was completely untrue. Even the thunderous applause lines are blatantly false. What, if anything, do conservatives have?”

    1. Leroy says:

      If you feel that this is a “left-wing, lamestream media” attack on good, Christian politicians, I challenge you to evaluate the statements for yourself. Look at the evidence. Compare their decisions to similar evaluations for Barack Obama or whatever politician you dislike. You will find that Politifact’s methodology is consistent across political ideologies, and you will understand why Republicans and Democrats both use this site to expose the lies of their opponents.

    2. Leroy says:

      But what I’ve found more than anything else since I’ve shared this information is a complete refusal of conservatives to look even at the information. They’ve rejected it as propaganda and dismissed the source simply because the source brings information that is disturbing to their political beliefs. You can show them the extent to which their beloved candidate has lied to them, and instead of confronting reality, they reject the evidence!

    3. Leroy says:

      More on Donald’s “attacking personality”:

      If Kasich is so “irrelevant” and no threat, why go so nuts?

  30. Leroy says:

    At this point, the question must be asked if it even matters that conservatives are so blatantly untruthful and outright liars? One could argue that it does not matter because of the effectiveness of their lies. Nearly every statement that has been identified as untruthful by Politifact has been accepted as a statement of faith and the gospel truth by their base.
    Because of this, GOP presidential candidates can get on stage in front of millions of viewers and get away with an unprecedented number of lies and half-truths.
    But what about those conservatives that are at least reasonable enough to be offended when being lied to. They do exist. Will the truth matter to them? And at what point will they accept the reality that voting for any Republican candidate other than John Kasich is necessarily voting for a candidate that is more of a liar than they believe Hillary Clinton to be. Furthermore, voting for any Republican candidate is voting for one that far more untruthful than Bernie Sanders.

    Does it even matter?

    For the sake of our country, we must hope that it does.

  31. Leroy says:

    “Be Prepared to Protect Yourself and Fight Back”

    “Once considered liberal and progressive, the Republican Party has been taken over by right-wing conservative con artists who lie, cheat and steal to gain and maintain power. From voter fraud and suppression to smear campaigns, personal attacks and media manipulation, they have been using the same strategies for more than a hundred years.

    While Democratic Dirty Tricks prominently show up around FDR’s first election in ’32, Kennedy/Nixon (Chicago) in ’60 and Lyndon Johnson in ’64, these lead to The New Deal, Social Security and Civil Rights while Republican Dirty Tricks give us depressions, poverty and massive national debt.

    Republicans know if most people vote, they would never win so they try to demoralize the Democratic base and suppress the vote as much as possible, they buy some people off with tax cuts and scare the rest into voting against their own interests and that’s how they win. It’s a divide and conquer strategy that has worked well and they refine and expand it every election year.

    Republican Strategy:

    Demoralize the Democratic base with phony press releases and whisper campaigns.

    Attack oponents strength with character assasination.

    Suppress the vote in every possible way.

    Buy some people off with tax cuts.

    Scare the rest into voting against their own interests.

    In the 2004 election there was massive GOP voter fraud and suppression; from black box voting fraud, vote tabulating fraud, re-registering people into different precincts, destroying voter registration forms, misinformation in poor neighborhoods, moving polls close to election day, old ballot machines in poor and black neighborhoods that spoil votes, ballot checking machines in wealthy neighborhoods that allow wealthy voters to re-cast spoiled ballots, police intimidation, caging lists and on and on and on. The result was an 8 million vote discrepancy between the official results and exit polls. The official results had Bush winning by 3 million votes but the exit polls had Kerry winning by 5 million votes.

    Republicans have two major factors on their side; a fanatical base willing to carry out the dirty tricks and the greediest billionaires to finance them. They deceive good people by raising the red flag of abortion and gay marriage to divert attention away from their arrogant and greedy policies which cause the poverty, war and pollution we are facing today.

    The next time a Republican tells you “America, love it or leave it.” Tell them you love America. You just want right-wing conservatives to stop molesting her. If they act like they don’t know what you’re talking about, send them here.”

    This (the info at the link) is not only a VERY factual and accurate piece of information, but very detailed and comprehensive.

    Most readers will want to read this in segments.

    Readers who lean towards conservative will probably want to read in very small segments.

    Readers who are dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist hardcore conservative will probably not want to bother as they will refuse to believe, no matter how factual… or like their Republican presidential candidates, will just lie about their factual nature.

    Closing with commentary by Independent (there were no political parties yet – and our only president to win unanimously, unopposed) President George Washington:

    “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” – George Washington

  32. Korky Day says:

    My list about Trump doesn’t include honest or wise. Not sure about those.

  33. Korky Day says:

    Leroy, you must have read my comments too fast.
    I never said I supported Trump.
    I never said anyone agreed with me.
    I think Trump is not prejudiced, at least he is no worse in that than his average opponent. I’ve listened to hours of his speeches. His alleged slights are not so when heard in context. A bit ignorant, yes, but not reflecting a basic sexism or racism. His enemies twist everything he says because they’d rather have Bush or Clinton. I wouldn’t. I’m a Green and consistently vote Green. I’m merely analysing the overall situation.
    I never said I vote mainly on personality. I said others do.
    For me, it’s only one factor.

    Generally, though, you’re right on, Leroy!

    1. Leroy says:


      Let’s agree then that I still disagree with MOST of your analysis of Trump.

      But I do agree (LOL) that generally I am right on.

    2. Leroy says:

      Or even Irregular Times own thoughts on their racism and apparent support of Bernie Sanders’ disgust at Trump and Carson:

  34. Leroy says:

    RE: Do You Miss George Bush

    I guess I will have to post this comment here (though I doubt it will not stay here long) as I cannot post it over at the link above. It will not post no matter how many times I try. Yesterday and today both. And yesterday there were posts made after I tried and was rejected. So the tech glitch error explanation isn’t going to fly (like tried in the past).

    And you really need to read that link for this to make sense (obviously).

    On top of that, here I am apparently banned / barred from posting on that article – but no one had the balls to let me know

    So here goes:

    “Well, I tried replying yesterday – several times, but my comments wouldn’t post. So much for fearless IT (moderators I assume you meant… Dude).

    So actually, it is I who smell fear.

    Jon C. Cook?

    Is that where the fear emits from?

    But strangely it (the smell of fear emanating from JCC) does so when I take a solid stance on Progressive Liberalism (in other words, what the position of this blog of his is supposed to be (*).

    Is it no longer a Progressive – Left blog site, but a Full Spectrum Political Debate Society?

    If so (and that appears to be the case based upon observable facts), then a number of Progressive Liberal political websites that show Irregular Times in their links as “Additional Progressive Websites / Blogs” should be so told. I’d hate to see other Progressive Liberals come to this site under that false assumption.

    I’d also love to see links about all the times that Irregular Times article authors / moderators spoke very positively of Republican candidates / policies / positions.

    I also see a lot of hypocrisy from someone making the attacking posts that they do to tell ANYONE to “simmer down”!

    1. Leroy says:

      See “Category” at:


      You will have to manually enter it with a ” . ” where it says DOT as this blog, for some “unusual reason” won’t let me post a link that shows:

      1. That by category this IS listed formally as a supposed “Progressive – Left” site.

      2. It has such minimal statistics (especially as compared to other legitimate Progressive / Liberal blog sites (as also reflected in the 700-some Likes on Facebook)

      1. Leroy says:


        Still will NOT let me post the actual link.

        So interesting.

        So informative.

        So immature.

  35. Leroy says:

    And as to the snide comment in that article about President Obama’s “golf playing time” (time away from work) being so bad as compared to GWB:

    ” ‘This is the biggest job in the world and I’ve never seen a president make it smaller,’ Speaker Boehner complained.

    But did Boehner, Conners, Romney or West stop to compare President Obama’s vacation time to other Presidents?

    Calls to several Presidential libraries reveal that President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, was on vacation more — 1,020 days — than any U.S. President since Herbert Hoover and possibly more than any other President in history.

    Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was in office 12 years from 1933 to 1945, was on vacation less days than President Bush at 958 days. Calls to several Presidential Libraries reveal that no President can come close to Bush’s 1,020 days on vacation in an 8 year period. Even Lyndon Johnson, who spent 484 days at his ranch in Texas and at Camp David during his presidency, came in under Bush’s vacation time…

    A recession started in 2001 as Bush took office after 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton Administration from 1993 to 2000. Bush began wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and presided over the loss of 4 million jobs. The debt when Bush left office was $10.6 trillion. In 2005, the Washington Post noted President Bush’s frequent vacations in a piece titled Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record as Bush took the longest single vacation — 5 weeks — of any President in 36 years.

    President Bush spent 32% of his presidency on vacation.

    Bush passed Reagan in total vacation days in 2005 with three and a half years left in his presidency. Reagan spent all or part of 335 days in Santa Barbara over his 8 year presidency. Bush spent 487 days at Camp David during his presidency and 490 days at his Crawford, Texas ranch, a total of 977 days.

    When you add the days President Bush spent at Kennebunkport, Maine, he spent a total of 1,020 days away from the White House — close to 3 years. At 1,020 days, Bush was close to being on vacation more days than President John F. Kennedy’s total days in office (1,036)…

    President Obama has been on vacation 78 days from 2009 to 2011. At the three year mark into their first terms, George W. Bush spent 180 days at his ranch in Crawford, Texas and Ronald Reagan spent 112 vacation days at his ranch in California…

    Eisenhower (noted for his love of golfing) was on vacation for 456 days during his 8 years in office…

    President Obama was on vacation for 26 days during his first year in office (2009). Ronald Reagan spent 42 days on vacation during his first year in office (1981). President George H.W. Bush was on vacation even less than his son, 40 days, in 1989, his first year in office.

    President Obama was on vacation less in his first year in office than the previous three Republican Presidents.

    No President since Reagan was on vacation less than Bill Clinton. Presidents Clinton and Carter vacationed the least of any of the last seven chief executives.”

    Obama may have played more rounds of GOLF than GWB, but so what? I am sure that he played less than, for example, Eisenhower.

    The “completely away” vacation time is a much stronger indicator.

  36. Korky Day says:

    Leroy, thanks for 2 links I followed.
    The first was to another article in Irregular Times on their ‘racism and apparent support of Bernie Sanders’ disgust at Trump and Carson:

    I think I agree, Leroy.
    Trump was misquoted to make him seem racist toward Mexicans.
    He never said they were all rapists, just some. That’s not racist, that’s true. Obviously the females are unlikely to be rapists.

    The second link was

    which explained that Trump has assistants show him what the press is saying about him, calling that a strange habit done to boost his ego.

    Not at all, I say. Just smart.
    I’d do it, too, if I could afford it!

    You concluded, Leroy, ‘Doesn’t even read them!’

    Why should he read them all? I am sure he reads some when they look unusual or superior. Lots are repetitious, I’m sure.
    You can usually tell by the headlines. Have you noticed that about newspapers, Leroy?

    1. Leroy says:

      No KD, if you’d watched the video, he doesn’t read any. It is strictly an ego thing to see how many times he has made the media.

      I did NOT conclude that (I don’t know who jumps to conclusions more you or Ella)… The article said that!

      Not me.

      1. Leroy says:

        And I guarantee you my comment following this one disappears…

        Fortunately I copy-and-paste those important comments / posts / replies onto an email and send them to myself.

        As they (and many more details) are very likely to appear elsewhere. Someplace truly Progressive and Liberal that does not have censorship against the Truth.

    2. Leroy says:

      KD, if you check the first link real quick you will see that it specifies like 12 Comments listed.

      And yet there are only eight shown.

      What happened to the other four comments?

      Four comments that I posted that were detrimental to Irregular Times – and displayed links (and information being kept hidden) on those four posts.

      That was what you were supposed to see.

      But they were obviously pulled before you got to that link.

      (I find it interesting that after having been falsely accused of a “Sock Puppet” situation, that there are Sick Puppets all over the place with the owner(s) and their friends… and that this site unabashedly practices CENSORSHIP while piously claiming ultimate and fully unrestricted First Amendment, Freedom of Expression positions… total hypocrites)

  37. Leroy says:

    I wonder why I can post like two comments here:

    In response to numerous comments against me by Korky Day and suddenly when I go to post the reply comes up that “You are looking for something that is not there”

    And interestingly of my 3 or 4 unpublished replies (which I saved hoping that I can get them in at some time), the only one with a link (one link) posted just fine….

    Maybe I am only allowed two posts per article per day???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!