...Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated. Full Piece
]]>Without any reservation I agree with King’s observation that we must judge people by their character and nothing else and will do just that as I take a look at King without any prejudice. I wonder if radical leftists, King worshipers, white liberals, black non-thinkers, media moguls, Joe Six-Pac, and others will do the same? Look at the King facts as you try to control your emotions.
The following facts about King are irrefutable whereas my opinions can be discussed, debated, and disbelieved by anyone. The documentation can be found in my 22-page report “Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color.” ( http://cstnews.com/ )
King was a confessed adulterer having many prostitutes and mistresses as all informed people know; however, we are not supposed to mention that sin in his life. We are told that he was not perfect and was, indeed, a flawed person. That is supposed to negate any criticism; however, while King, his best friend, and his very friendly biographer admit the unsavory fact, we won’t dwell on it. But the media sure dwelt on Cain’s alleged sexual problems. And the charges against Cain were as fishy as a ten-day-dead Grouper.
Why would the media overlook, make excuses, and defend King while going after Cain with hammer and nails while looking for a couple of four by fours? Could it be because King was a flaming liberal and Cain is a flaming Conservative? The fact that King is dead and Cain is alive might also make a difference. For sure, Cain’s résumé is deficient in that he cannot boast of martyrdom!
King showed his shocking liberalism in his theology and while that would not bother the media moguls, it bothers Christians and all people who believe in consistency. I have read his seminary theological papers as provided by his people in Atlanta and they contain irrefutable evidence that King did not believe the core teachings of the Bible, i.e., Christ’s virgin birth, virtuous life, vicarious death, victorious resurrection, and His visible return. King used the Bible, the churches, and Christians to accomplish his social agenda. Some would say that that doesn’t matter, but it does to those who are concerned about honesty and personal integrity.
King climbed into bed with Liberals very early in his life then as he “grew” he made room for his Communist buddies. President Kennedy warned him that he must fire the high profile Communists on his staff or they could destroy his work. While our military were dying in the rice paddies of South Vietnam, King was defending and praising the warlords in Ho Chi Minh City.
Jackie Kennedy called King a “terrible man” and a “phony” and was aware of King’s many sexual escapades including his attempt to organize a sex orgy during his march on Washington. However, Jackie’s husband was a sexual predator like King and she seemed not to make the connection that both preacher and president were vow-breaking scumbags. Moreover, Jackie was not a paragon of virtue herself. The 1964 interviews (recently released) has her in essence, throwing rocks from her glass house.
Robert told Jackie about MLK’s very critical and crude, even lewd remarks about JFK during the funeral. She said her brother-in-law told her that King also mocked Cardinal Cushing who did the eulogy saying Cushing was drunk during the funeral.
I can honestly say, and my life proves it, that I don’t care what a person’s color is. I look at his character. If a Black is a bum, he is a bum. If a White is a bum, he is a bum. Bums come in all complexions. So do the good guys. I have dear friends who are black and who are always welcome in my home, but I don’t feel a need to “use” blacks as a merit badge as many Liberals do. So as I look at Martin Luther King, Jr., his color means nothing to me. It should mean nothing to anyone. When a white preacher or leader is guilty of the things King was guilty of, most people are disgusted and repulsed, but they give King a pass. They are racists.
No, I will not be celebrating King’s birthday although I would be very delighted to honor Booker T. Washington who did more for Blacks and civil rights than King and his passel of political and partying parsons ever thought of doing.
Besides, January 15 is my birthday so we will eat at a favorite Italian restaurant and go to bed early.
Copyright 2012, Don Boys, Ph.D.
]]>That was my reaction to Andy McCarthy’s New Years Eve article at National Review Online about President Obama recruiting Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi to mediate secret peace talks between the United States and the Taliban. (2) As McCarthy notes Qaradawi issued a fatwa exhorting Muslims to kill U.S. troops in Iraq.
For President Obama to ask Qaradawi to act in America’s interests in Afghanistan would be like asking Hell’s Angels to provide security at a White House concert; asking Michael Vick to take Bo out for a walk or asking Jerry Sandusky to babysit prepubescent male children.
But even if Obama hadn’t sought out Qaradawi that still leaves the secret negotiations with the Taliban. The idea that our armed forces spent more than ten years fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan only for President Obama to legitimize and leave with them in power in the vain hope that they, like the Muslim Brotherhood, will become a largely secular organization is an insult to their duty, heroism and sacrifice. It would be like our forces leaving Japan with Tojo still in power after bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then again, it was President Obama who wanted to apologize to Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 2009. (3) Fortunately, the Japanese government had the good sense to put the kibosh on such impropriety and imprudence.
Suffice it to say, neither I am surprised that President Obama sees fit to negotiate with the Taliban nor I am surprised that Obama thought it a good idea to ask Sheikh Qaradawi to intercede. After all, this is the President who was prepared to engage Iran, North Korea and Venezuela without precondition. This is the President whose administration saw fit to give guns to Mexican drug cartels. This is the President who thought it sensible to give in excess of half a billion dollars to the sinkhole known as Solyndra to manufacture overpriced solar panels no one wanted to buy. This is also the President who has accumulated more debt in less than three years in office than all his predecessors accumulated in 220 years.
And yet in ten months time, Americans might very well see fit to bestow Obama with another four years in office. Although Obama’s Gallup numbers are lower than those of Jimmy Carter at this stage of his Presidency, the White House’s current resident has some things going for him. As Charles Lane of The Washington Post notes:
On the plus side for Obama, majorities continue to like him personally and to describe him as honest and trustworthy. His foreign-policy ratings are strong, blunting the GOP’s traditional edge in that department. The man who presided over the demise of Osama bin Laden scored a phenomenal 63 percent approval rating on fighting terrorism in an early November Gallup poll. (4)
I would add to that a billion dollar war chest and a media that despite its disappointment with him is still largely sympathetic to his agenda. Put together these assets are considerable and may prove to be insurmountable for any Republican challenger to overcome. At this point, Mitt Romney is considered the odds on favorite to win the GOP nomination despite the fact a critical mass of the conservative movement is at odds with him both personally and substantively. Yet with one Republican challenger after the other rising and falling while Romney stays steady, GOP activists might very well settle for the former Massachusetts Governor. But even if Republicans settle for Romney that doesn’t mean the rest of the country will be prepared to do the same.
Then again what if Ron Paul decides to run as a third party candidate should he fail to win the Republican nomination? Nothing would delight the Obama campaign more because not only would Paul’s presence help Obama in November he would make Obama look like Abraham Lincoln.
Of course it was Lincoln who famously said, “You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Yet President Obama doesn’t need to fool all of the people to get re-elected. Whatever the sheer stupidity of negotiating with the Taliban, allowing Sheikh Qaradawi to mediate the negotiations, allowing weapons to get into the hands of Mexican drug cartels or accumulating record levels of debt, there will be a segment of the population that will not know or will not care about such details. They will only remember that Obama gave the order to kill Osama bin Laden even if Team Six did the heavy lifting. Even though bin Laden’s killing doesn’t end the threat of Islamic radical terrorism against the United States; for an American public weary of war, it might be just enough to get Obama over the finish line.
The big question facing America in 2012 is whether President Obama will be able to fool us again?
Aaron Goldstein
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q
(2) http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286854/obama-recruits-qaradawi-andrew-c-mccarthy
(3) http://news.investors.com/Article/587698/201110111829/Apologies-Not-Accepted.htm
(4) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gloomy-numbers-for-obama/2012/01/02/gIQAuGI3WP_story.html
]]>“The proponents of Internet freedom and prosperity have been asleep at the switch,” Mr. McDowell, the lone Republican serving at the FCC, told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. “Or maybe I should say asleep at the router.” Full Piece
]]>His anti-American, socialist/Marxist, racist, antibusiness actions are far more egregious than the litany of complaints that early American colonists made against the tyrant King George III. It is incredible that those early colonists rallied to revolution against King George while many present-day Americans still think Obama is simply a liberal Democrat. It is time to repent of the sin of gullibility and stupidity although I’m not sure one can be forgiven for stupidity. That will probably continue even after conversion.
I wrote the following in 2008 and reiterate it today.
Face it; if another candidate as inexperienced as Obama suggested that he was considering a run for the U.S. Presidency, he would be laughed off the stage. Why is Obama the exception? Why are not Americans rolling in hilarious laughter at his presumption? It is not because he is a Democrat or radical liberal or part of the corrupt Chicago political machine. It is because he is black; however, color (or race or religion) is not a qualification or disqualification for any office.
The thought that such an “empty suit” could even become a U.S. Senator is itself appalling and atrocious but a tribute to the effectiveness of the corrupt political system in Chicago. But for him to think he is qualified to take the gargantuan step to the Oval Office is arrogant, asinine, and audacious. Have Americans lost their minds to think this phony savior can actually fill the shoes of former Presidents like Ronald Reagan or Harry Truman?
It seems that Obama’s ambition has overrun his ability. He was in the U.S. Senate 143 days up to the time he started making noises like a national candidate. He has accomplished almost nothing except to get the reputation of being the most liberal senator in the nation! That alone should disqualify him for any office!
During the nine years that he was a “civil rights lawyer” he never handled a trial but “worked in teams of lawyers who drew up briefs and contracts” according to Obama: From Promise to Power.” While editor of the Harvard Review, he never published one article. That never happens!
As a state senator, he voted “present” 130 times! He didn’t seem to understand that he was not elected to sit in the senate but to represent his district by voting. As a U.S. Senator, he has missed more than 20% of the votes! What would happen if you missed that much work?
Obama is an impressive failure, but still a failure, and to present himself as presidential timber, is colossal egotism. He is like a 10-year-old Little League player who wants to play with the big leagues; however, he doesn’t qualify. Someone would say, “Young man, come back to see us in 10 or 12 years.” Obama needs to grow up. After he has actually done something, then the voters can look at him seriously, but today it is embarrassing that more than his family and a few close friends would even consider voting for him.
If American voters have seizures of stupidity and elect him President, he will drive this nation over the cliff at 100 miles per hour. [They did and he did!]
His wife has told us “He is going to demand that you...move out of your comfort zones...and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual….” Someone needs to remind her that he is not running as a king or dictator or Messiah. He will not rule, or reign but he will ruin the U.S. if he is elected. Moreover, he will not demand that I do anything and I will “engage” if I choose to engage. Furthermore, he will not tell me how to live my life.
Obama is like the rooster who struts out each morning thinking the sun had risen just to hear him crow! But a big problem is he can’t crow unless he is reading a script written by a hired hack. When he wanders away from the teleprompter, he does a great imitation of Elmer Fudd.
President of the United States of America? Surely this is a bad dream but if it becomes reality, it will become our worst nightmare.
I wrote the above in 2008 and am amazed how prescient it was; however, it was far too tame. Obama has made it clear that he is impatient with the constrictive presidency and prefers to dictate or rule. He disregards our constitution and form of government. He denigrates our country and her citizens around the world. He is trying hard to destroy America’s working middleclass. He hates free enterprise, independence, and our Christian foundation. On national television he referred to “My Muslim faith” until he was “corrected” by the host. He was born a Muslim to Muslim parents, trained in Muslim schools, and has climbed into bed with radical Muslims in total disregard of mainstream America. Is it an overstatement to suggest that Muslims are in control of this once-great nation?
Obama, if elected again, will totally destroy our nation that is already reeling from past decisions by various presidents. Christian supporters of Obama should repent and get involved in the next election to keep Obama and what’s her name from within ten miles of Washington. Anyone, even Elmer Fudd would be a better leader than Obama.
Copyright 2011, Don Boys, Ph.D.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 14 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. His most recent book is ISLAM: America’s Trojan Horse! His new eBook, The God Haters is available for $9.99 from http://www.thegodhaters.com . These columns go to over 11,000 newspapers, television, and radio stations. His other web sites are http://www.cstnews.com and http://www.Muslimfact.com . Contact Don for an interview or talk show appearance.)
]]>New research from University of Notre Dame Psychology Professor Gabriel Radvansky suggests that passing through doorways is the cause of these memory lapses. Full Piece
]]>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWJP3Dlz8jY
It shows people at OWS rolling up their sleeves to get flu vaccinations. Here are a couple of news reports on it:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-703401?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.observer.com/2011/11/america-furious-over-occupy-wall-streets-free-flu-shot/
My friends and colleagues were horrified and perplexed by this. One, from Australia, had written:
QUOTE---------This is horrifying! It makes me cry to watch it. I can’t believe how naive these occupiers are, that ironically they are willing victims to the worst, most sinister aspect of all, of the very corporatization of America about which they are there protesting!!-------------UNQUOTE
I suppose one could also be bewildered over the fact that their devotion to their iPhones and iPads seems unaffected by its corporate origins. Or even the fact that such technology wouldn’t be available today, and at such low prices, were it not for open markets, globalism, and capitalism----that is, the ethic of accumulated wealth and the incentives we call “profits.”
Admittedly, it’s hard to discern their ideas, if any, from reading placards that say, “debt is evil”; “war is evil”, etc. Although Rick Santorum might be happy to learn that they at least believe in some form of “evil”. Wouldn’t that mean they have values?
What values? Well, they believe that Jews “occupying” any part of Palestine is illegal, but their occupation of the public commons is alright. They believe that the “one percent” should be prosecuted for breaking the law, but it’s OK for them to break the law, and make their fellow 99 percenter’s lives miserable in the process.
But my colleague’s have a point: How can these protesters be so gullible as to accept poison in their bloodstreams, when any idiot knows that pharma makes huge profits from the sale of vaccines.
Hmmm, maybe they think that because it’s being given to them free of charge, that no one is profitting from it? No, not even a college student can be that stupid. Pharma always makes someone pay. And that contributes to their wealth and power.
No, I think the answer lies in the fact that the vast majority in the OWS mob are students. And all students think they know better how the world should work. I sure did, when I graduated college in 1974. And my peers did as well. Those 60’s radicals went on to teach the college students who are occupying public areas of our cities today.
But students really don’t know how the world works. What they know is only what their left wing college professors told them how the world works. Or more accurately, how the world doesn’t work. They don’t teach them how to solve problems. Rather, they teach them what is wrong with the world, especially what is wrong with the US. In other words, they become experts in complaining, and how to ACT OUT those complaints through demonstrations ("direct action").
As with most liberals, these leftists consider their emotional acting out----their expressions of concern and outrage----to be all that is necessary to obtain the (unwarranted) media attention and approval that they’re receiving now. And they’re right!! The liberal media has done just that, and have ignored really pressing issues of the day. For 3 months, a few thousand students across the country have attracted lauditory reviews from most of the MSM. Quite in the same superficial way in which the MSM lauds vaccination and portrays anti vaccine activists as loons. And all despite these students having offered not one bit of consensus in a manifesto describing a proactive policy for change. As I said, offering solutions and showing results is not expected of them, nor was that part of their education. They were taught they have the right of speech. Nothing about the efficacy of it’s content.
But what is it about their education that would make them inclined to accept vaccinations?
Economic students have an understanding of capitalism. But the departments of history, philosophy, political science, etc all denounce capitalism. Those infectious disease nurses that set up their tent at Zucotti Park were selling Obamacare as much as they were promoting flu vaccine. John Jacoby, MD, representing Physicians for National Health Program was on hand there also. The students may have felt they were making a political statement by getting vaccinated. Again, ACTING OUT takes precedence for them----as opposed to THINKING OUT an issue or problem.
Could it be that it is just “free” healthcare and “free” vaccines that appeals to their political biases. Essentially, yes. All public health policies appeal to their ideal of an egalitarian, collectivist, redistributionist society.
Obamacare, progressives promise, will bring the benefits of health insurance to all----and fine or jail those who don’t purchase it. The reason Obamacare and vaccine mandates are broad and uniform is for control of the population. It is based on the paternalistic liberal philosophy that the locals are idiots, and the central government knows best. Families get it wrong, so “it takes a village” to get it right.
Obamacare, I’m instructed, specifies those provisions that make for a good insurance policy, whether I agree or not. It prohibits those which do not conform to that ideal, whether I agree or not. Because liberal theology instructs us that what is good for one is good for all. The philosophy is “one-size-fits-all”, because----as progressives believe----if we all have equal civil rights, then we must all have the same wants and needs and dreams (i.e. the rationale of socialism). And based upon that paradigm, a vaccine that is safe for one, is safe enough for all. Complain all you want about chain stores and corporate conformity, at least it’s done through persuasion----by attending to the price and quality of their product or service. Under socialism, it’s done through government fiat.
“One-size-fits-all.” Everyone has heard that slogan. It has been NVIC’s mantra for many years, and echoed by other “safe vaccine” advocates. For what is “vaccination policy” anyway? It’s government policy. And government doesn’t provide choices or makes suggestions. It makes requirements. And a federal government makes broad centralized requirements. And it makes these determinations internally----within the ranks of allopathic-trained doctors who run health agencies----without helpful suggestions from parents or “safe vaccine” advocates. That is what any fool knows about CDC and HHS. And that’s what you get when you bargain with them: Nothing. There is no legislation you can draft that they cannot implement in such a way as to mold and slant it towards their own purposes. Legislation cannot be made specific enough to tie their hands. Their discretion is as wide as the Potomac River. It is true of all executive branch agencies, but especially the health agencies. Legislators do not tell doctors how to run public health departments.
But faith in responsive government (which is a myth) is the liberal theology these students were inculcated with for years. And perhaps that supersedes the apparent contradictions that have confused my colleagues with respect to OWS for not kicking out those pro corporate, pro vaccinators from Zucotti Park.
Pardon the self-promotion, but my essay on capitalism vs corporatism here: http://cfic.us/articles/An.Economics.Tutorial.For.Liberals.pdf
would be more of a cure for these students than any flu vaccine would be. Admittedly, it’s polemical----but not partisan. It explains one point of view patiently and civilly. Agree with it or not, at least you understand why I believe it.
By contrast, a liberal, Frank Miller, caused a fuss by caustically attacking OWS: http://www.observer.com/2011/11/frank-millers-vitriolic-anti-occupy-wall-street-rant/
I note he’s a liberal, because it’s common for liberals to be vitriolic and emotional, when a dispassionate, reasoned argument is warranted.
Miller’s anger aside, it doesn’t take great insight to understand why most of the public is fed up with OWS, despite the sympathic coverage from MSM. When you hold up traffic, making people late for work; late to pick up their kids at daycare after work, what do you expect?
Forget their embrace of flu vaccine. The real mystery is why Mayor Bloomberg believes setting up tarps and tents in a public park is dangerous now, but didn’t consider it dangerous weeks ago!
Perhaps he had nostalgia for the 60s? But back then, Nixon’s popularity went up in the polls following anti war demonstrations. The riots in Chicago in 1968 were a disaster for Humphrey and the Democrats. Today, the polls show that the public is as angry as the students at OWS, but consistent with the protests of the 60s, they dislike their method of protest.
You might ask WHY. Unlike Frank Miller, I will explain without vitriole or insults.
I think there are several inherent problems with OWS. As I argue below, it’s an illegal assembly and it’s closed to most of the public. I consider that more akin to a mob, and not a movement.
An illegal Assembly:
1. The only way OWS exists and functions is to violate public spaces. It literally occupies spaces intended to serve the public. The fact that they are not arrested by the liberal Mayors in their respective jurisdictions does not mean that what OWS is doing is legal. It is unambiguously illegal.
2. The violation is not limited to displacing the public from the commons. The violation also involves the act of forcing the public to pay attention to the demonstration. That is the purpose of a demonstration----to force youself on others. One reason protest rallies and such are tolerated at all is because they’re restricted by time and place: You need a city permit to take over the public spaces for just 90 minutes, let alone 90 days!
3. Unlike a homeless person who might occupy a public space solely for his personal use, OWS forces the public to pay attention to them. This constitutes an additional public nuisance. No, I need not cite the rapes or assaults, which is bad enough, and would have terminated the tea party movement had ONE instance of violence been proven. No, I’m just talking about the community board complaints of the drum noise all day and night, and garbage, and drug use, and the blocked traffic, and passersby being accosted and criticized for going to work, or for appearing to be wealthy or Jewish (still lots of anti semitic, anti israel sentiment). Local businesses are suffering too. OWS therefore cannot exist without destroying quality of life for the larger public that legally resides there.
4. Given that OWS is breaking the law, the students at OWS obviously never read Henry Thoreau. The PURPOSE of illegal, nonviolent protest is to get arrested. Martin Luther King Jr. walked into all-white diners in the south, EXPECTING to get arrested. That was the purpose: To demonstrate your willingness to endure hardship from an unjust law. You don’t fight the police. You don’t complain about the arrest. You complain about an existing law, and offer an alternative. OWS has not offered either. They refuse to even admit that they are breaking any laws. They just allege that others are (i.e. the “one percent").
Not Open to the Public:
The liberal media touts the democratic process at Zucotti Park. They have a “General Assembly”, just like the UN! They debate using Roberts Rules of Order. Even the mobs in Seattle voted on whether to be violent with police ("violence" won the vote), or smear feces on bank walls (which must be cleaned up by overworked, non-college educated, members of the “99 percent”, earning minimum wage). How wonderfully democratic! But there are only a couple of hundred people there, and far less who are participating in these parliamentary proceedings.
I’ve complained that OWS has not published an agenda----listing problems and solutions. Something you’d expect from a real movement. My left wing friend countered that I need only go down there to hear their “chants.” But that’s the problem. Just showing up (and not looking too wealthy or jewish), and “putting in a lot of time” (as he wrote), is the only qualification for having a say in what OWS will stand for.
But that process excludes many people who don’t live in NYC. or Manahttan. Or handicapped or otherwise homebound people. I suppose women who are willing to risk getting raped or assaulted are not excluded though. A couple of hundred people is not representative of a small town, let alone NYC, or the nation. OWS does not deserve the attention it is getting, no matter how loud they “chant”.
A bunch of angry (mostly) young people showing up at one place, with myriad complaints, is a mob.
Gary Krasner
]]>The lawyers will submit briefs as friends of the court, and they will participate in the marathon arguments likely to take place in March. Full Item
]]>Cain’s background is impressive. Born during a time when racial prejudice was the norm, to a mother who worked as a cleaning woman and a father who held down three jobs (janitor, barber and chauffer) just to make ends meet, Cain applied himself to education and earned a degree in Mathematics. Yes, Mathematics – not political science, sociology, or Liberal Arts. The man understands MATH. Probably a good idea for one who seeks the presidency at a time of trillion dollar deficits and massive debt!
From there he went on to earn a Masters Degree in Computer Science. He understands technology - another good idea for one aspiring to lead the nation in the age of tablet PCs, smart-phones, Facebook and Twitter.
Parts of his business career are well known. His legendary leadership of Godfathers Pizza, where his stint as CEO saved the company; and his term on the board of directors at the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank are fairly common knowledge. His suddenly controversial time as CEO of the National Restaurant Association is also becoming well known.
Lesser known, perhaps, are his service with the Navy, where he designed Fire Control Systems; a time working for Coca Cola, and his Vice Presidency of Pillsbury. He also has a radio program and writes as a columnist.
Cain’s prowess as a businessman is undeniable. He understands markets, economics, problem solving, power delegation, responsibility and accountability. His leadership skills are unassailable.
Political wonks may remember, but it bears pointing out to the public at large that during Herman Cain’s tenure as CEO of the National Restaurant Association, he attended a televised Town Hall meeting where Bill Clinton was defending his proposed healthcare reform, later to be known as “HillaryCare”. Clinton was claiming that his reform would not harm American business owners. Cain spoke up, saying, “Quite honestly, Mr. President, your calculations are incorrect. In the competitive marketplace, it simply doesn’t work that way.”
Cain’s words resonated through the nation, and Newsweek later credited him as the “primary saboteur” of HillaryCare.
Unlike Mitt Romney, Cain has a long history of standing up AGAINST government healthcare. This took place in 1994.
So what of these harassment allegations?
Only Herman Cain and the accusers know exactly what took place… but we can look objectively at what we do know and try to make sense of it.
The allegations were made in 1998. The Restaurant Association settled with the 2 women with one getting around $30,000 and the other around $45,000, according to the Politico. This represented a year’s salary. No civil action was ever brought against Cain personally.
To anyone familiar with business or with the legal system, making a settlement payout, especially one so small – relatively speaking – is certainly not prima facie evidence that an allegation has merit! It’s nuisance insurance. Companies will often settle such claims rather than invest time and expense in fighting off spurious complaints and allegations. It’s part of the cost of doing business and if you investigate any company of size, or any CEO of prominence, you’ll probably find somewhere, sometime, that they settled a meritless claim against them!
But let’s leave aside the he-said, she said for a time. It is much more interesting and telling to analyze the REACTIONS to these allegations coming to light.
Here we see Herman Cain, a successful black CONSERVATIVE man, and a rising star politically who could very well take a position of power a year from now.
Black conservatism is on the rise, and threatens the very fabric of the Democrat demographic. Successful black conservatives run counter to the narrative that empowers the Left: that blacks are oppressed and unable to achieve apart from white liberal beneficence! That blacks need liberals to “take care of them”. Blacks are indoctrinated to believe that success is impossible – unless that success comes from pimping the very dependence and victimhood that empowers the left… like Jackson, Sharpton and Obama! But let a black man apply conservative principles and attain success, and he will become a target. While no black man CAN succeed on the Democrat’s plantation of enforced dependency… no black man may be allowed to succeed if they’re OFF that plantation! Especially if that success leads to prominence, public attention, or worse – political power!
Hearken back to the mid 90s and Clarence Thomas!
Remember that the Anita Hill allegations were based on little more than a coke can – and a hair described as “pubic” but which could easily have fallen innocently off the head of a black man. Coarse curly hair may have a “pubic” association in the white mind… but could be found on the bathroom sink of most any black man who combs his hair or trims his beard in front of a mirror!
Still, the Left and their willing accomplices in the media did everything they could to turn this allegation into the “borking” of Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court. Not because it had any bearing whatsoever on his character, but because they saw it as a weapon to use to derail a black conservative on his way to a position of power and influence.
The duplicity and hypocrisy of the left is astoundingly striking when it comes to such allegations as those leveled against Thomas and Cain.
On such flimsy evidence as a Coke can or a hand gesture and comment about one’s height, the entire character of a man is held in question… yet water was carried for a John Edwards until the NATIONAL ENQUIRER did the journalistic job the mainstream press WOULDN’T do and presented incontrovertible evidence that finally proved his downfall. And the left went so far as to REDEFINE SEX in defense of Bill Clinton, when there was a stained blue dress as evidence of his misdeeds in the very Oval Office!
The attempt to derail the Cain Train with these allegations may well backfire, as the American People are seeing through the dirty politics. Some free advice to those who oppose a Cain presidency (whether on the left or the right): If you find fault with his policies, platform, plan or proposals, then debate those issues on their merits. But the politics of personal destruction has seen its heyday and it has come and gone. The American people are tired of it, and will punish the purveyors of it with their votes.
Copyright © 2011 by Doug Edelman
http://starboard.blogtownhall.com/
Every day my dogs engage in certain, limited activities. They want fed in the morning and the evening. They want to go outside to poop and pee. They want to chase each other around. Sampson wants to lie on the couch. Cisco wants his butt scratched. Both want to avoid the children at nearly all costs. They both want to bark incessantly at anyone or anything that comes within a quarter mile of the house. And they both want to go to sleep at night.
There is no mystery as to how their schedule is going to pan out even if the order of these events may vary slightly from day to day.
Liberals, as I already said, are essentially the same; predictable. How predictable they are exactly is measured by what I like to call the Liberal Predictability Index. While the scale is only officially from zero (meaning highly unpredictable) to one hundred (meaning having the predictability of the finest Swiss watch), on a typical day the Liberal Predictability Index is somewhere in the 110-120 range.
But even as bizarre as it sounds, the Liberal Predictability Index is on the rise even above its normal levels. In July it was up to 125.4. In August it rose to 129.2. In September the index jumped to 140.7. In October, the latest data available for me to use as a guide, the index pegged at 160.0! I currently have an extension for the scale on order because it simply cannot go any higher at the moment. And judging by the way things are going, the scale is going to have to go higher in the coming months.
With the “Occupy” crowd on Wall Street and elsewhere around the nation the typical, predictably liberal, behaviors are in the news every day. They have:
Yes indeed, the Liberal Predictability Index is on the rise. Because this is who liberals are!
While they have been content for many years to play their true beliefs close to the vest and then act oh so indignantly when their ideology was correctly labeled as socialist, communist, fascist, and even hypocritical, they have abandoned all pretense of illusion now.
And that is a good thing for America. Right now America is getting to see who liberals are and what the left believes in. People tend to believe what they see with their own eyes. And they are seeing liberals at their finest right now.
J.J. Jackson
]]>...The person that John spoke to is an executive on the Charlotte in 2012 Host Committee who are central to the planning of the convention and how things will operate in Charlotte. ...the Committee member told him, “We were just told that we cannot accept bids unless they are from companies that are unionized.” Full Piece
]]>Free-Market Analysis: The editors of the Economist “newspaper” – who never met a tin-pot dictatorship or dictator that they couldn’t find some way to praise – have apparently “hit a wall” when it comes to China. That great hope of capitalism (Communist China) is broke and heading for a hard landing. Full Piece
]]>Leading into the mid 1800’s, the Democrats in Congress went on a binge of passing pro slavery bills, in response to this the people who supported the Whig party decided that it was ineffective and weak and formed a new party known now as the Republican party. What many people are unaware of is that it was a Democrat who was instrumental in forming this new party, his name was Charles Sumner and he was a big proponent of anti slavery and a champion of civil rights. He was so passionate about anti slavery that he gave a two day long speech on the floor of the US Senate in 1856. This so angered a member of the House of Representatives a Democrat named Preston Brooks, that during the speech he came over to the Senate and nearly beat Sumner to death with his cane. None of Sumner’s fellow Senators came to his aid, as a matter of fact the Democrats who witnessed this occurring laughed in response, because they were appalled that Sumner would take a stand so bold on the slavery issue. Despite his injuries that took almost three years to recover from, Sumner returned to the Senate and picked up right where he left off from. The beating of Charles Sumner became the indecent that helped cement the birth of the Republican party.
If you want to know how a split in a party can lead to the opposing party winning the presidency you have to look no farther than the presidential race that led to the election of Lincoln. To understand this we have to remember that the Democrats held a majority in both houses of congress and the presidency from around 1820, until the key election years of 1856, 1858, and 1860 when the balance of power turned upside down and the Republicans gained power in all three houses and making the Democrat party the minority. Many of the Democrats from southern states resented this shift in power and started forming ideas that they should break away and form a slave holding nation. The more “moderates” in the Democrat party from the north still wanted to keep the nation united and were spit with their southern members on the issue of slavery. They decided that a “moderate” candidate would appeal to both factions in the party and ran Stephen Douglas who was squishy on the slavery issue. Lincoln knew that Douglas was pro-slavery and was determined to call him out on the issue as Douglas was attempting to appeal to both abolitionists in the north and supporters of slavery in the south.
Prior to running for president Lincoln and Douglas met up in a race for Senate that Douglas eventually won, but in doing so Lincoln was able to expose Douglas for his pro-slavery stance during the now famous series of debates the two had. On August 27, 1858 Douglass is quoted as saying, “Those of you who believe that the negro is your equal and ought to be on an equality with you socially, politically and legally, have a right to entertain those opinions, and of course will vote for Mr. Lincoln.” Even though Douglas attempted to be the so called moderate in the party, the clear divisions were already cemented and the Democrat electorate split their vote between Douglas and John Breckinridge helping to pave the way for Lincoln to become president.
As we are all well aware the house did not stand and it did divide. The election of Lincoln inevitable led to the creation of the Confederate States and the Civil War. Today however history seems to be whitewashed in the Republicans role in the promotion of civil rights and the end of slavery. One only needs to listen to the rhetoric that is espoused from today’s Democrats and from the Left in general to see examples of this. Our children today are taught in school that yes Lincoln helped end slavery, but after that it was the Republicans that are somehow now demonetized as racists and bigots. This in of itself is the farthest from the truth, and the truth needs to be told to our children. Especially our African American children.
You would think today that it was the Democrats that ushered in the first civil rights bills, correct? Well you would be wrong if you were under that assumption! The Democrats did not usher in any civil rights legislation until the 20th century and they needed to have the Republicans to get it passed even then as the Democrats who once again held majorities could not get it done since those deep held hatreds still abounded even then. Let’s go back and look at who not only introduced but passed the first civil rights legislation in this country.
In 1862 with the Republicans fully in the driver’s seat, they got down to work to dismantling the institution of slavery. In 1862 the republicans abolished slavery in Washington D.C that later led to Lincolns ‘Emancipation Proclamation’ of 1863, that declared that all slaves as of January 1st of that year were free. In 1864 the Republican platform called for a Constitutional Amendment to end slavery in the United States completely. Other civil rights legislation was also introduced by the Republicans and passed, these included the equal pay for all soldiers and the repeal of the fugitive slave law that the Democrats put in place. Republicans in congress introduced the 13th Amendment and got it passed on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865.This is not to say that it was not passed without divisions as the final vote count broke down like this; 118 Republican and 19 Democrats were in favor of this amendment, while 82 democrats and 0 Republicans voted against it.
Even with the passage of the 13th Amendment the Democrats weren’t interested in abiding by the new law, instead they instituted a new form of slavery that has been referred to as the Black Codes , these new laws tried to restrain the new found freedom of Blacks in the south and in essence replaced slavery with institutional tyranny. Once again it was the Republicans that came up with a way around this new found Master-Slave Relationship and Introduced the14th Amendment. Again it was the Democrats that in both the House and the Senate had 0 votes for its passage, while it was the Republicans with a 94% of a yes vote that got it passed. Even with the 13th and 14th Amendments being passed the violence and intimidation continued against the Blacks by Democrats. The KKK was formed from members of its party in the north and south of this country, and former Confederate soldiers. Lynching’s of both Black and White Republicans occurred in the following years. The 15th Amendment that gave the right to vote for African Americans fueled these flames even more. Once again it took the Republicans to have African Americans the right to vote in this country, all 56 Democrats from both the north and south voted against this amendment to the Constitution.
It is an outright travesty that the truth about history has been so whitewashed from what is taught to our children today! As I mentioned earlier, the common rhetoric today is that the Democrat party is the party that ushered in civil rights and have been the champion for African Americans in this country when the truth of the matter proves false time and again.
Robert Rohlfing
http://thedrumbeatofliberty.com/
But critics see the ‘roadless rule’ as a job-killing block on the country’s natural resources. Full Piece
]]>Politicians have been robbing the American people, almost since the founding of this country. The taxation imposed on this nation has constantly been designed to take the property of one faction with the objective of enhancing another faction, or endearing the politico in the eyes of the group he or she was seeking to impress.
Both political parties have twisted and distorted the truths related to other nations or enemies to lead us into wars. These wars, all fought by average American men and women who served in the spirit of patriotism, were in reality ploys by the political class to enrich themselves and their supporters across the nation in industry and supply. If you think not, look at the wildly impossible profits gained by manufacturers of everything from weapons to shoes. Look at the former elected officials that end in as high-ranking executives in industry, once they leave political office. Think of the former congressmen and women who are now lobbyists and still seeking money and favors from the body in which they formerly served. We might add one other thought…how many members of Congress have left office with less money in their pocketbooks than when they arrived?
Historically we have talked about the Robber Barons of our country, but in doing so have failed to condemn the additional Robber Barons we have placed in elective office. We have allowed them to steal from the public purse in so many different ways that correct tabulation is almost impossible.
These employees of the people who have made Congress their habitat are allowed to fund their continued employment with money turned over to them by other people. They decide their own pay scale. They vote their own wages. They make up the rules by which it is almost impossible to remove them from office. They investigate their own crimes and misdeeds. They decide their own healthcare and retirement. They even determine their own holidays, vacations and work schedules. When all of these elements require some form of payment, they arrange for the American people to write the checks.
Dishonesty in one form or another exists in almost everything that transpires in Congress. Do you really think they are working on your behalf? What a joke. Every problem this country is facing exists because of some action by Congress or the Executive Branch. If they were true representatives of the people they would have already fixed the multitude of mistakes plaguing the country. They could solve the debt, the unemployment, the unworkable and unmanageable government programs and all those other sins of commission and omission by just working together for the benefit of all Americans. Instead, one side will never agree with the other, solely because it might give their opponents the upper hand in a conflict.
We have thousands of pages of totally impossible tax law that should be refined into a simplistic single page document, but the Bad Apples we have placed in Congress will do nothing to improve it, knowing it might give the other side a bigger vote. We have Medicare and Medicaid that are failing and almost unsalvageable, but if they were truly fixed, the other party might gain win the advantage.
There is Social Security that is a bottomless pit, primarily because Congress stole all the funding and spent it on pet projects, while at the same time telling America the money was all in a “lock box”. They won’t tell the truth about the program or even fit it because each side wants to preserve its own special share of senior voters. If they would truthfully fix the program and those voters might balk.
The list of misdeeds goes on and on into infinity. It started when the representatives of the people decided they were special and in a new class…the political elite. Two centuries ago Congress and the Executive branch of government all started out in the same barrel. They were the fresh fruit of the nation. Along the way one or two of them turned rotten…. it grew and grew. We all know what happens when you leave rotten apples in a barrel. There comes a time when they all need to be thrown out. Has that time arrived?
As the United States faces unbelievable debt and huge unemployment numbers, many of us agree with the man who once said…”What this country really needs are more unemployed politicians.”
Semper Fidelis
Thomas D. Segel
http://thomasdsegel.com/