Showing posts with label Liberal Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Racism. Show all posts

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Herman Cain’s Departure from the Presidential Race




It would be more important to publish an article informing people about the candidates that are still in the race, but I will indulge you with this article about Herman Cain instead.  The fact is, I am not 100% certain that Cain is really out, he has only “suspended” his campaign and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he reentered this race, which is characterized by a “flavor of the month” phenomenon.  I don’t believe that Cain ever even intended to win the nomination, and despite the recent polls, I stand by my belief the Rick Perry is the one is chosen by the establishment to be the next President and most of the rest of the candidates are just window dressing to make it look like there is really a honest competition.  Only Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and possibly Michele Bachmann are not part of this deception.  Herman Cain’s role all along was to draw supporters away from Ron Paul and possibly Michele Bachmann, so that he could deliver these voters to Romney or Gingrich and eventually to Perry. 

If Cain were ever really serious and if he was not unfaithful, these allegations would not stop him from continuing.  Cain himself said on Shawn Hannity that SOME of the allegations were not true.  That strongly implies that some of them were true and most particularly the latest ones, since up until then, he denied all of it.  A candidate who thought that he could get away with this is not a candidate you want to vote for, no matter how good his ideas are.  This sense of immunity to culpability plagues those who are in a position to take an office such a President.  Power goes to people’s heads.  And all these people who kept defending him look like idiots now.  Maybe that was all part of the plan (to discredit conservatives).  I do believe that moral integrity is directly correlated to political integrity.

I have heard several people say that they wanted Cain to be the nominee because he was a black man.  They thought a black man would have a better chance of beating Obama because some blacks vote for people just because they are black.  But this a horrible reason for voting someone.  For one thing, any black who would vote for Obama just because he is black, would probably not vote for Cain.  The fact that Obama is (allegedly) black may have brought more blacks to polls in 2008, but these were mostly people who would never vote a Republican of any race--even if the opposing Democrat was white.  More importantly, even if such a strategy of voting for a black Republican would work, it is not a principled strategy.  It is always best to vote for the best candidate.  Is Obama more powerful than God?  (I don’t want anyone to think that I am opposed to voting for a black man.  I have in past voted for Alan Keyes and other blacks who at the time I thought were sincere, constitutionally-minded, and well-qualified statesmen.  But such statesmen are rare in any race.)  And I don’t think that Martin Luther King, Jr. would have wanted people to vote for either Obama or Cain for either of these reasons.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

But I dismissed Cain as a possibility for my vote long before these allegations were ever made.  In fact, I was against him before I had even heard of any talk that he was considering running for President.  Like Obama, McCain, Bush and most of the rest of the Republicrats, Cain supported the bank bailouts.  This is an immoral, unconstitutional and ultimately economically detrimental policy.  There is no difference between stealing from people by your own physical force or by using public policy.  The Constitution requires that the Congress make laws for the GENERAL welfare, not the specific welfare.  (i.e., the laws must be for the benefit of all, not only certain people).  There is no charge in the Constitution to protect banks or other private institutions from failure.  The bailout policy does more harm than good in the long run because it encourages banks to engage in unnecessarily risky behavior, because they know that they are too big to fail.  But Cain either does not understand any of this, or does not believe in doing what is in the best interest of the American people. 

Furthermore, Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is just another political con job.  Cain had no plan to cut spending significantly.  There were platitudes, but no specifics.  Cain said he would wait until he became President to decide (with the advice of generals) whether or not to withdraw from Afghanistan. What’s to decide?  We are broke!  The generals can’t change that no matter what they think.  We simply can’t afford it.  We will be become enslaved to our debtors if we don’t immediately drastically cut both foreign and domestic spending.  No matter how revenue is collected, if it there isn’t enough, then there isn’t enough!

Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would have introduced a new tax (a National sales tax).  We fell for this kind of thing before.  When we (as a nation) were sold on the idea of an income tax, we were told that it would only be a one percent tax.  Research shows that best method of getting the most money out of taxpayers is to create as many taxes as possible, with no one tax being too high.  They were successful at this in Europe.

Cain claims to want honest money (so that a “dollar is a dollar”), but laughed at the idea that we even need to audit the Federal Reserve, much less abolish it.  What difference does it make if you lower taxes, but keep spending high and print the money to pay for the expenditures?  You end up paying more because of inflated prices.

In conclusion, I hope that many people can through Cain’s con job and realize that they were hoodwinked.  Then they will be able to be prevented from being hoodwinked by the other clowns.

Thursday, October 07, 2010

I Bid You a Jew



CNN Fires Rick Sanchez for Supposedly Anti-Semitic Comments

In this politically-charged, politically correct environment, if you make one silly or off-hand comment and you are fired!

First Helen Thomas is forced to resign for saying that Jews should go back to where they came from.  She was a perfectly good reporter who asked tough questions of both Republicans and Democrats.  I think that they were both happy to get rid of her.  My comment was, when this story broke, that if I was a Jew living in Israel, I would leave because I wouldn’t want to be killed!  This is a perfectly understandable position to take given the frustrations over the conflict in the Middle East.  Despite an immediate apology, she was gone. 

Then Laura Schlesinger was next.  Giving people advice that they should avoid a situation which they can’t handle was enough to get her fired.  This time it was the Jew who was bid "adieu".

Finally we have Mr. Sanchez.  He said that CNN is run by Jews who have discriminated against him and that John Stewart is a bigot and one of those rich Jews who grew up not knowing what it was like to live in poverty.  He also scoffed at the notion that the Jews are “an oppressed minority”.  Of course in all of the media reports about this story, none of them ever consider whether what Rick said was really true or not.  If what you say is offensive, the truth doesn’t matter.  And it’s not just whether it is offensive, but who is it that is being offended and who it is that said it.   What if CNN really is run by Jews?  Has anybody bothered to look closely at the men and women in charge there?  Has anybody done a serious comparative analysis of the Jews' media...uh I, mean news media... to see if there is a pattern of bias in media outlets which have an inordinate number of Jews in positions of power?  Does the truth matter anymore?  And doesn’t it make a difference whether we are talking Jew by religion or Jew by race?  If we can have a discussion about whether Islam or certain misguided sects of it can be a religion of peace or of hatred, why can’t we have a discussion about whether Judaism or certain misguided sects of it can be driven by greed, shrewdness, or be overly biased toward its own interests?

Monday, April 05, 2010

It is time to stop the smears!

Saturday I posted a video of Tea Party Leader Dana Loesch's comments on the attempt by an interviewer to portray the Tea Party Movement as fringe fanatics, instead of average Americans concerned about the growth of government and the loss of individual freedom. Today a hat tip goes to Jack Cashill, who reported in an www.Cashill.com article, “How Quickly Spread the Tea Party Smear,” and in on a YouTube video (below) the apparent collusion of a reporter and a major newspaper (Kansas City Star) website and the Left to smear the Tea Party Movement. The video is another expose showing the bias, malpractice, and dishonest 'journalism' displayed by much of the opposition (formerly mainstream) media today.

Cashill claims, "The left has been using race-based agitprop for a century. The media conspiracy that emerged from the (Tea Party) Capitol Hill protest (Saturday March 30th) on the Obamacare vote is a classic case of the same." I agree wholeheartedly!

Monday, July 20, 2009

Bigoted Barbara Boxer Behaves Badly

Harry Alford accuses Sen. Boxer (D-CA) of racial animus


I heard the audio of the YouTube video embedded below on a talk show on Friday. Then I found the video on the NewsBusters.com website along with an audio interview with Mr. Alford by radio talk show host John Ziegler. Both interesting and revealing recordings are embedded below.









Michael Eden in his StartThinkRight blog has an excellent article, "Barbara Boxer Caught In The Act Exhibiting Classic Liberal Racism," which elaborates on Barbara Boxer's bigoted behavior. Here is how Eden opens his article describing Boxer's attitude toward Mr. Alford during the hearing:

It’s liberal racism. And liberal racism is multiculturalism, pluralism, identity politics, moral relativism, a profound hostility to American exceptionalism, and the most cynical kind of demagoguery for partisan political benefit all rolled into one incredibly self righteous package.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Sotomayor's Supreme Slurs

Cartoon by Henry Payne as found at Townhall.com 7/16/09
.
Cartoon by Glenn McCoy as found at Townhall.com 7/16/09
.
Cartoon by Chip Bok as found on Townhall.com 7/16/09
.
Cartoon by Henry Payne as found on Townhall.com 7/17/09