I found the transcript of Ben Carson’s appearance on Fox News Sunday, where Chris Wallace did challenge him on his flat tax idea but then let him off the hook. On several other issues, he just let Carson get away with not even attempting to answer his questions or just answer with a list of platitudes.
WALLACE: All right. Let’s talk about real policies and drill down into some of them.
Here’s what you say on your Web site about Russia, “All options should remain on the table when dealing with international bullies such as President Putin.”
Dr. Carson, when you say all options, does that include the use of military force?
CARSON: All options includes all options. That doesn’t mean that would be my first option. When we look at Russia and we look at Putin, we can realize that he has great ambitions. His ambitions have been thwarted of late because of falling oil prices. And we should take note of that and realize that the economic weapon is a tremendous one in his case.
We have incredible natural resources in this country in terms of oil, in terms of natural gas, but we have energy exportation rules from the ’70s when we had an energy crisis that need to be gotten rid of, so we can use that to make Europe and other portions of the world more dependent on us. And that decreases his influence and his ability to expand.
WALLACE: But let me follow up. You say all options, all options. Under what circumstances would President Carson be willing to go to war with Russia? What are your red lines?
CARSON: Well, I would, obviously, do that in consultation with very competent generals and people who are more knowledgeable in that area than I would be. But, clearly, if the interest and the existence and the safety of the people of the United States was at stake — and that was the only way to protect them — of course, I would do whatever was necessary.
WALLACE: Would you go to war over Ukraine?
CARSON: No, I wouldn’t go to war over Ukraine, but I would handle Ukraine a very different way. You know, Ukraine was a nuclear arms state. They gave up their weapons. You know, it was agreed they would be protected if something happened with aggression.
Have we — have we lived up to that? Of course, we have not. And what does that say to our other allies around the world? It’s not a good sign.
This is totally incoherent. He declares that he would not go to war over Ukraine, but then seconds later he says that we promised to keep Ukraine safe from attack and we’ve failed to do so (which is true) and that’s bad. He contradicted himself literally within three sentences. And he says he would “handle Ukraine in a very different way” without offering a single different thing he would do.
WALLACE: OK. Here’s what you said about ObamaCare.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARSON: ObamaCare is, really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: The worst thing since slavery?
CARSON: Well, you have to understand what I’m talking about. You know, ObamaCare fundamentally changes the relationship between the people and the government. The government is supposed to respond to the will of the people. Not dictate to the people what they are doing. And with this program, we’re allowing that whole paradigm to be switched around.
WALLACE: Finally in the area of these remarks, just this week, you said that the president must carry out a law passed by Congress, but you said he doesn’t necessarily have to pass what you called a judicial law — which raises the question: Do you believe that the president must observe a decision by the Supreme Court?
CARSON: Well, what I said is the president doesn’t have to agree with it.
WALLACE: No, of course not. But does he have to — but does he have to enforce it?
CARSON: Well, Dred Scott, a perfect example. You know, the Supreme Court came up with this and Abraham Lincoln did not agree with it. Now, admittedly, it caused a lot of conflict and eventually led to a civil war, but we’re in a better place because of it.
WALLACE: But does the president have to carry out a Supreme Court ruling?
CARSON: The way our Constitution is set up, the president or the executive branch is obligated to carry out the laws of the land. The laws of the land, according to our Constitution, are provided by the legislative branch.
WALLACE: But, sir —
CARSON: The laws of the land are not provided by the judiciary branch. So —
WALLACE: But, sir, since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, we have lived under the principle of judicial review which says, if the Supreme Court says this is the law, this is constitutional, the rest — the executive has to observe that.
CARSON: And I have said, this is an area we need to discuss. We need to get into a discussion of this because it has changed from the original intent. And —
WALLACE: So, you’re saying this is an open question as far as you’re concerned?
CARSON: It is an open question. It needs to be discussed.
No, you really need to read a history book. Dred Scott was handed down in 1857, nearly four full years before Lincoln took office. In fact, the prior president, James Buchanan, hadn’t even been sworn in yet when the ruling was handed down. And no, this is not an “area we need to discuss” or an “open question.” And if the case involved a ruling that Carson agreed with and the president refused to comply with it as he’s demanding here, Carson would be the first one to scream TYRANNY! NAZI! COMMUNIST! DICTATOR!
Ben Carson literally has no idea what he’s talking about on any of those issues. He’s an utter ignoramus on virtually every political issue that he speaks on. Of course, that can only help him in a Republican primary.