Tag Archives: Herman Cain

Media Worried Iowa is ‘Too White’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Is Iowa racially incorrect?  In an interview with Republican strategist Michael Murphy, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News had the audacity to allude to an unnamed critic who is supposedly dismissing Iowa because it’s “too white.”

What we do know is that A.G. Sulzberger of the New York Times recently wrote this: “Iowa has long been criticized as too much of an outlier to be permanently endowed such an outsize influence in shaping the presidential field. Too small, critics say. Too rural. Too white.”

Apparently, the critics Sulzberger cited dismiss the fact that regardless of how many white people live in Iowa, the Republican field would have included an African-American candidate had the liberal media given Herman Cain the same benefit of the doubt they extended to a white man named Bill Clinton when he was accused — and subsequently proven guilty — of much more.

If not for the media blowing Herman Cain’s alleged and uncorroborated philandering into a major story, the Iowa caucus wouldn’t have been “too white” because Cain, who happens to be black, would have been on the roster.

As caucus voters in Iowa headed to the polls to vote, it appeared as if the media, consisting mostly of white liberals, were gearing up for the Obama 2012 effort by taking steps toward conjuring up pre-election visions of “too white,” toothless, cross-burning racists.

Instead of asking pertinent questions about issues that impact America’s future, the mainstream media wastes precious time fueling the melanin meter and measuring skin tones against a liberal color chart.

Remember how, in tandem with Democrats, the media worked day and night to make sure the words ‘Tea Party’ were synonymous with racist?  Apparently, that same group doesn’t think it’s important to question the widespread expressions of anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street, or query Obama on how he plans to reconcile fostering class warfare with promoting national unity.

Yet Andrea Mitchell did feel it was imperative to raise a phantom question based on claims by an unnamed “critic” that the caucuses in Iowa weren’t accurately representative of a diverse/secular/urban America.

Regardless of these supposed ‘white, Christian, rural’ drawbacks, in 2008 Iowa helped put Barack Obama in the White House.  Wonder whether Andrea Mitchell’s mysterious critic thought Iowa was failing to represent America in 2008?

For the record, there are only 14 states with smaller populations than the Hawkeye State of Iowa, and due to rural flight, 61% of Iowans now live in urban areas. Iowa is largely Christian, and more than 90% white.  Thus, according to critics in the media, Iowa is too white…too Christian, and although less rural, still too rural.

Sad but true, the America that the media promotes is one categorized only by race and class.  Liberal media elitists like Andrea Mitchell want the majority of Americans to believe that secular urban dwellers who choose to contribute to NARAL instead of tithing to a local church are the underrepresented majority, when in reality they are not. The nation’s largest population may live in urban areas, but America is still largely white and Christian.

It wasn’t white Christian Iowans that registered irrelevant racial implications via an anonymous critic – it was Andrea Mitchell representing the liberal media.

Maybe Andrea Mitchell can answer a question for all Americans: Why isn’t the same liberal media, giddy with joy and tripping over each other to reveal the identities of Herman Cain’s accusers, as eager to reveal the identity of the person concerned with a socially conservative state like Iowa being “too white” to represent people of color in Obama-friendly blue states?


The Eloquence of Obama’s Inaction

Originally posted at American Thinker

Purposeful inaction is a form of passive-aggressive behavior.  Doing or saying nothing is still doing something.  William Shakespeare once said:  “Action is eloquence.”  Barack Obama is considered by some to be an eloquent speaker, but the President’s rhetoric is meaningless when his hollow words, regardless of how well-executed, are followed up with inaction.

In the past, Obama has been quick to remark on issues and events of which he disapproves.  Unable to contain himself, oftentimes uncontrolled frustration and disdain inappropriately spill out in public forums.  If the President senses rejection, he responds contemptuously by expressing unsolicited opinions.

Case in point: Everybody knows how Obama feels about the Tea Party movement, whose members he referred to with the vulgar sexual slur “tea baggers.” It is also no secret as to the President’s dismissive, mocking attitude toward the Fox News network.

Priding himself as the champion of equality, Barack Obama is quick to step forward in defense of those victimized by what he perceives to be racial insult.  If an incident involves race, without forethought the President has been known to assign blame before gathering facts.

Yet when a barrage of racial slurs victimized Herman Cain, Obama said it all when he failed to step forward to condemn the hostility directed toward the first conservative black presidential candidate.

Early on, the Obama administration warned America to be on the lookout for certain individuals the government felt posed a threat to the nation’s safety. A Homeland Security document was issued that described potential terrorists as: ex-military, those who respect and defend the unborn, Americans in favor of secure borders, evangelical Christians, and Second Amendment-rights advocates.  In other words, Tea Party members.

By choosing to ignore ‘Occupy’ Washington DC activists shoving an elderly woman down a flight of stairs while chanting “Hey, hey, ho, ho, corporate greed has got to go,” the President sends a louder message to America than any government attempt to identify and define conservative views as the root of potential terrorism.

Despite all his rhetoric, Obama has never spoken louder than what he hasn’t said about what’s going on all over America with the ‘Occupy’ movement.  As the growing brand of miscreant activism devolves into a conglomeration of squalor, crime, sickness, death, and disrespect for all that is good, America’s usually chatty and opinionated President is suddenly at a loss for words.

Occupy Boston activists take over the Israeli consulate, protesters throw fits demanding free food from private business owners and the Campaigner-in-Chief is busy pushing an unpopular, politically motivated jobs bill and focusing on the 2012 election.

What happened to the man who dropped everything to rush to Tucson, Arizona to address a single act of random violence against Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords that took the lives of six innocent people? There at the podium, the President cited Scripture, talked about children splashing in rain puddles, called for national civility, and predictably used the incident as a platform to unjustly accuse his political enemies.

Wasn’t it Barack Obama who once said, “We will never forget the selfless courage demonstrated by the firefighters, police officers and first responders who risked their lives to save others?”  Yet at ‘Occupy Wall Street,’ when an EMT fractured his leg after being callously shoved into a ladder by an irrational protester, rescue workers were prevented from transporting the disturbed aggressor to the hospital by a hostile human chain. Obama, proud signer of the First Responders bill, had nothing to say.

In addition to a tuberculosis outbreak in Occupy Atlanta, a respiratory virus they’re calling “Zuccotti Lung,” a norovirus also known as the winter vomiting virus, has infiltrated the camp on Wall Street. According to a New York news organization, “The damp clothing and cardboard signs wet with rain are also breeding grounds for mold. Some protesters are urinating in bottles and leaving food trash discarded throughout the campground, providing further opportunities for nastiness.”  What’s next, cholera?

Does Obama care? People’s lives and public safety hang in the balance and the man supposedly focused on a healthier America remains silent. In Vermont and California, body bags are being occupied while a seemingly oblivious President chooses to do and say nothing.

Instead, Barack Obama fritters away precious time on frivolous campaign junkets, tours classrooms in Pennsylvania, attends fundraising dinners, and delivers remarks at events like the National Women’s Law Center’s Annual Awards dinner.  As American cities devolve into open-air sewers, giant Petri dishes where ‘give us more’ squatters multiply in a broth of hostility, hate, and envy, the President is all about the vital work of deciding whether or not to tax Christmas trees.

In fact, right about the time Obama flew off on a nine-day $9 million Asian tour, a suicide took place in ‘Occupy’ Burlington and gunshots fired into a crowd killed a protester in Oakland.

By comparison, based on Barack Obama’s tolerance of widespread incivility it appears the Tucson call for mutual respect may have merely been a plea for civility towards Barack Obama. Otherwise why would he fail to condemn a movement that has become a melting pot of shootings, deaths, tuberculosis outbreaks, alleged rapes, anti-Semitic aggression, lewd conduct and more?

The master of liberal didactic artistry may not realize it, but in a way he has returned to teaching. This time the lectern is positioned squarely in the middle of America and the lecturer is speaking loudly without uttering a word.

Hopefully, the nation is conscious and aware, because whether America rises or falls as a nation clearly hinges on our citizens recognizing the message conveyed by Obama’s non-verbal lessons and deliberate inaction.

If Shakespeare was right and “Action is eloquence,” Barack Obama’s silence and purposeful inaction are in fact a distinct action – and the President of the United States has never been more eloquent.

Liberal Lynchers and Other Purveyors of Perfection

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

If a conservative threatens the left, or more specifically, if the conservative is a black male who is perceived to have strayed off the Democrat homestead, the left has a method to discipline wanderers that includes dredging up offended women to hurl unsubstantiated accusations against men whose reputation and moral character are generally unscathed.

Based on a “right to privacy” mindset, liberals of both genders rolled their eyes whenever the subject of Clinton’s adulterous behavior was broached.   Yet those who applauded a debauched, cigar-smoking President who had messed around with an intern in the Oval Office suddenly become holier-than-thou when the finger of unconfirmed sexual impropriety points in the direction of a black conservative politician.

The most recent scandalous charge to arise is against Republican presidential nominee frontrunner Herman Cain, whose conservative message, if it catches on in the black community, threatens to shake the foundation of Obama’s African-American base.  The accusation?  Herman supposedly sexually harassed “at least two women in the 1990s.”

The alleged offense took place around the same time that present-day sanctimonious liberals were busy defending Bill Clinton’s cavorting with a woman in a blue Gap dress instead of his wife, the woman in the blue pantsuit.

Now, the very people who waved off Clinton’s misbehavior seem more than willing to believe 20 year-old accusations leveled against a faithful family man by a couple of nameless, faceless, now- middle-aged opportunists.

It must be that the left, desperate to stop the runaway Cain train, felt it was time to pull out of the shadows not one, but two women to accuse Herman Cain of “sexual innuendo and physical gestures,” although the affronted parties did admit Cain’s actions were not “overtly sexual.”

Supposedly, the National Restaurant Association’s CEO’s offending comment was: “You are the same height as my wife.” Based on the benign nature of the statement, Mr. Cain could have asked the duo if they wanted extra cheese on their pizza and the left would have found a way to twist the comment into a sexually insulting remark.

In response to the charge, Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon said the politically liberal press is “dredging up thinly sourced allegations.” Gordon contended that the report includes “unsubstantiated personal attacks” and said that the left, unable to attack Herman Cain’s policies or message, is “casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that [when they were made] never stood up to the facts.”

Truth is, what’s going on has nothing to do with the left’s concern for female sensibility, nor is the debate over whether Herman Cain is guilty of making a bawdy comment in the 1990’s (something every adult, regardless of gender or political persuasion, has done).   Instead, the Cain controversy has everything to do with Democrats sending a message to their African-American constituency.

Herman Cain’s accomplishments, life and message are alien to everything conveyed by the left to those trapped within a system that ensures Democrat political power.

Clearly Cain, who boldly claimed he left the “Democrat plantation long ago,” needed an attitude adjustment. Thus, what better time to drag out the political execution playbook and commence with the “high-tech lynching” that Herman Cain predicted would be forthcoming.

The tactic is not a new one, and black politicians should pay heed to the predictable response that takes place when men like Herman Cain point out the futility of liberalism.   When a black conservative gets too close to the truth, the response on the left is to attempt to destroy the character and reputation of anyone who might successfully influence wavering blacks to ideologically stray.

In the Democrat economy, conservative principles, especially those espoused by a wildly successful self-made black leader whose political style is charming and natural, threaten Democrat control over millions of Americans held captive for generations to an entitlement system surrounded on all sides by barbed chicken wire provided compliments of liberal policy.

Black conservatives who refuse to be tamed open the gate and show a way towards freedom for those held in economic and social servitude for generations.   Which is why those notorious for ignoring well-documented sexual impropriety by an undisciplined philanderer like Bill Clinton feign piety over unproven sexual allegations against black conservatives like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain.

Thus liberal lynchers, well aware that baseless accusations go a long way toward marring the reputation of political opponents, are more than willing to place the rope of false accusations around the neck of any black man refusing to submit to the status quo.

As a means of corralling potentially uncooperative black voters, Democrats publicly prod wandering black conservatives back toward the plantation with unfounded threats and allegations that place the guiltless on the defensive.  Therefore Democrats, who typically stand in solidarity with morally bankrupt liberals, are more than eager to use contrived righteous indignation as a means to execute the type of “high-tech lynching” that every black conservative poised to assume a position of power is eventually destined to endure.

Barack Obama ‘Acting Stupidly’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Without saying anything, Barack Obama’s silence speaks louder than all his empty words. The President who likes to define himself as a champion of racial equality and promoter of civility has thus far stood by in silence as liberals attempt to lower the stature of Herman Cain by portraying him as a conservative version of Stepin Fetchit.

By failing to address the prejudicial remarks directed at Herman Cain, the President of the United States is revealing a side of himself that reeks of a form of discriminatory selectiveness that should further discredit his claim to be the purveyor of civility and racial justice.

Who can forget the President’s response to the supposed prejudice leveled against Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates? Without the benefit of all the information surrounding the incident, Barack Obama rushed before the cameras to publicly condemn Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer Joseph Crowley and insinuated that, due to the color of his skin, Gates was the target of racial profiling and victimized by ‘stupidity’ on the part of law enforcement.

Recently the President spoke at the dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.  It was there that he described Dr. King as “a black preacher with no official rank or title who somehow gave voice to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideals, a man who stirred our conscience and thereby helped make our union more perfect.”

Yet, while Herman Cain, a man who fits a similar description, is whacked by MSNBC analyst Karen Finney with a verbal billy club and drenched with a fire hose of mean-spirited rhetoric that described him as merely a “Black man who knows his place” – Barack Obama has remained silent.

Where is the President’s usual predictable indignation?  Why no public correction or call for mutual respect?

At the Martin Luther King Memorial dedication, in an attempt to portray himself as a great black leader, Obama didn’t hesitate to put a self-referential spin on the narrative of Dr. King’s life, saying: “Even after rising to prominence, even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. King was vilified by many, denounced as a rabble rouser and an agitator, a communist and a radical.”

Barack Obama had the temerity to place himself on the same level as Martin Luther King Jr. and yet, soon after, he stood by while left-wing pundits with zero content of character made racially humiliating comments about Herman Cain that were based solely on the color of his skin.

Thus far, Obama hasn’t said a word.  He has neither corrected, condemned, nor cited mentor Saul Alinsky, whom he quoted at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial dedication when he said, “We can’t be discouraged by what is. We’ve got to keep pushing for what ought to be.”

Maybe the President also believes that if a black American such as Herman Cain is a conservative,  he should know his place and that, especially in politics, they are nothing more than a stereotype, a caricature.

When not diminishing the memory of Dr. King by pretending to be much like him, Barack spends some of his off time making the rounds collecting campaign contributions in Hollywood.  In the meantime, liberal comedian David Letterman is on a mission to replace GW Bush with Herman Cain as the newest late-night-created Republican stammering idiot.

If any of the Letterman “Top Ten Signs Herman Cain’s Campaign is in Trouble” were applied to Barack Obama, the left would be picketing the Ed Sullivan Theatre and demanding an Imus-style resignation.  If the butt of Dave’s jokes had been named Henry (as in Professor Henry Gates), Obama would never have stood for Letterman implying that Henry was “less fun-crazy and more crazy-crazy.”

It doesn’t end there either.  In the name of fairness and economic equity the President, who insulted Tea Party activists by referring to them as racists and by using the vulgar sexual slang term “tea baggers” to describe American citizens, has yet to condemn the behavior taking place within the ‘Occupy’ movement.

So far, Obama has not disassociated himself from a protest infiltrated by prostitution, public masturbation, filth, violence, and people fighting over money, blankets and food, nor has he called for civility from a nationwide movement presently populated by ingrates that scream police brutality after defecating on the bumpers of squad cars.

Which brings us back to Obama’s disingenuous attempt to convince people that he possesses a measure of righteousness that sets him apart from mere mortals.

When it benefited him politically and he wanted to paint the right as impolite, he hosted a civility conference in Tucson Arizona, quoted Scripture, and called for a measure of tolerance he demands for himself but is unwilling to extend to anyone else.

If Hollywood liberals promise to put cash in Obama’s 2012 campaign coffers, he casually overlooks demeaning comments directed toward Herman Cain by asinine comedians because what would otherwise be viewed as racially-tinged humor may instead help advance his cause.

If a group of deadbeat derelicts squat in public parks and proceed to behave like savages, if the signs they carry support “sharing the wealth” and condemn the wealthy, and in time for the next election hold the promise of swaying the general public toward liberal policies, then by saying nothing the President, America’s self-proclaimed purveyor of non-discrimination and equal rights, is condoning rape, racism, and barefaced anti-Semitism.

By exhibiting selective indignation and failing to address the negative racial remarks directed at potential presidential opponents, supporting the nationwide disgrace that is the ‘Occupy’ movement, and choosing to associate with liberal comedians who make Herman Cain the butt of racial jokes, President Barack Obama is proving he doesn’t understand the responsibilities of his role, or understand his place as a leader.

‘Breaking’ Herman Cain

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Democrats continue to maintain that by electing Barack Obama, they alone were the pioneering influence in addressing the dark stain on our nation’s history called racism.  The day after the 2008 election, African American writer Shelby Steele penned an article entitled “Obama’s post-racial promise.”

Steele argued that one reason Barack Obama won the election was that the idea of electing America’s first black president “tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism.”  In other words, for whites tired of being accused of racism, electing Obama provided a viable avenue of escape.

Despite the historic milestone that was reached when Barack Obama was elected, the left felt it necessary after the fact to stand guard in the “Who’s a Racist” watchtower, declaring their party the self-appointed Racism Police.  Ironically, what is more evident than ever before is that the left’s relentless defense of blacks has revealed the dark underbelly of the very intolerance they pretend to decry.

Shelby Steele argued that the election of Barack Obama assuaged a measure of white guilt; but the truth is that Democrats putting a black man in the Oval Office had little to do with skin color and everything to do with leftist political ideology. The very people who heralded the nation’s rising above a historical stigma are now instigating a deeper, wider division by redefining racism as political disagreement with Obama.

In fact, with the next presidential election hovering on the horizon, what is being proven is that while the motivation for electing Barack Obama in 2008 may have been an attempt to triumph over racism, with Herman Cain now rising in the polls, the hollow nature of racial acceptance by the left is being exposed for the ruse it is.

Presently, the bad news for African-Americans is that the only thing worse than being a white Obama detractor is being a right-leaning black. Cain’s candidacy confirms that if in 2008 Barack were a black conservative running against a white liberal, rather than being portrayed as a harbinger of “post-racial idealism” Obama would have been labeled an Uncle Tom.

What liberals fail to recognize is that, in much the same way they voted for Obama to supposedly embrace post-racism, assigning the title of racist to anyone who disagrees with liberal policies uncovers something ugly within themselves.

Democrats try to imply that black conservatives supporting Mr. Cain do so only because they identify with a deep and abiding self-loathing. The way Herman Cain is being characterized, it’s apparent the left still expects blacks to think less of themselves — an assumption that, if even suggested by someone on the right, would be immediately declared definitive proof of Republican racism.

Recently, MSNBC’s liberal race-baiter, Ed Schultz, suggested that Cain just tells racist whites what they want to hear and maligned him for mentioning potential running mates like Jim DeMint (R-SC), whose words the left have pseudo-linguistically-analyzed, finding hidden racist undertones where none exist.

In a perfect example of ideology determining the presence of prejudice, the supposedly color-blind liberal Schultz claimed that DeMint used “racist language in his opposition to ObamaCare.”  In post-racial America, the South Carolina congressman is accused of  “dark racial discourse” because he said, “If we are able to stop Obama on this [health care law], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

Director of Afrikaner studies at Lehigh University, Dr. James Pearson, concurred with Schultz.  Pearson interpreted the words “it will break him” as an “old southern racist term…used to destroy, mentally and physically, slaves.”

Clearly, the post-racial left is obsessed with transforming American politics into a perpetual test. Every word spoken by critics is summarily subjected to a filter where a benign word like “break” now implies approval of oppressive slavery. What Ed Schultz and liberals like him fail to recognize is that applying the “racist” rubric to every conservative utterance is, in essence, an attempt to “break” black candidate Herman Cain.

Yet its liberals who insinuate that Herman Cain is a man so self-hating that he gives “folks a pass” on racism. Those who make such peculiar accusations reveal themselves to be the true racists that Shelby Steele suggested had chosen to vote for Obama based on an unspoken promise to not hold the perception of racism against them.  Yet racism is what shapes liberal opinion of a man whose conservative politics weaken their concepts of authentic blackness and whose race is secretly held against him by those on the left regardless of race.

By saying “It’s almost as if this guy is trying to warm up to them and tell them what they want to hear,” Schultz calls into question the black presidential candidate’s veracity, honesty, and commitment to foundational principles.

Is that how Democrats view all black men, or just Herman Cain? The left seems convinced that Cain panders to “white Republicans, who don’t like black folks,” which ends up being evidence of insidious racism that implies blacks are somehow unlikeable.  Moreover, it suggests Herman Cain can’t think for himself and hasn’t the ability or character to possess core convictions of his own.

Listening to Ed Schultz, one would think the confident, articulate Herman Cain is a race-baiting manipulator who uses empty words in his quest for power and uses as stepping-stones the overburdened shoulders of his own people.  Sound familiar?

The MSNBC drone also believes Cain does a “disservice to his race” by denying that “racism in this country today holds anybody back in a big way.” What Ed Schultz, who most certainly voted for Obama, fails to acknowledge is that if Obama had been uneducated, he would never have been elected president, proving correct Cain’s premise that education, not skin pigmentation, holds black Americans in bondage to poverty and low achievement.

The left continues to portray Democrats as something they are not, and do so by attempting to point out non-existent racial hostility on the part of political adversaries. Yet despite the effort, something the left didn’t anticipate was that the candidacy of Herman Cain, not the election of Barack Obama, would end up exposing the party where America’s true racists reside.

Liberals prove Shelby Steele’s premise to be true — their support of Barack Obama holds little weight or evidence of racial reform on their part.  It’s all about power and ideology.  If that weren’t so and lasting change had really taken place, being at odds with Obama wouldn’t be considered racism, nor would smearing potential black presidential candidate Herman Cain be so widely accepted by the left.

‘Hermaneutics’ Cain-Style

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Herman Cain winning the Florida straw poll is encouraging.  It means an honest, straight-talking non-politician can cut through the flowery rhetoric and be taken seriously.  While all eyes are on Rick and Romney, Herman is busy transforming “grass-roots popularity into strong showings in national polls.”

In the end, it’s more than a long shot that the ‘Hermanator,’ a Baptist minister who enjoys singing the occasional Gospel hymn and whose favorite dish is the “Godfather’s combo with extra cheese, sausage, ham, onions and peppers, [washed down] with an icy Coke,” would actually have a chance to win the Republican nomination.

Still, if one were to fantasize about such a scenario, many pleasant ideas come to mind which, if they were to materialize, could inject some humor into a nation that Mr. Cain says needs to “lighten up” and have a few laughs.

Right out of the gate, the first thing that would be striking about a Herman Cain vs. Barack Obama presidential race would be the comparison between Barry dragging out and setting up two Teleprompters to answer a few questions and Herman standing next to him, hands in his pockets, pithy retort at the ready.

On jobs, the President’s usual approach is to attempt to razzle-dazzle with flowery rhetorical proposals that sound good on the campaign trail but, in practice, don’t work.  Herman’s method is to listen to his opponents, look at the crowd, smile, and off-the-cuff respond to half-baked ideas with: “It’s time to get real, folks. Hope and change ain’t working. Hope and change is not a solution. Hope and change is not a job.”

After watching Bobble Head Barack turn from right to left reading what someone tells him he believes off a scrolling Teleprompter, oh, to be able to watch Herman Cain lean over a debate podium and hear him say, “We need a leader, not a reader.”

A “Yes We Cain” versus a “We thought we could, but then we didn’t” run-off for the White House between the man from Georgia and the man from God-knows-where would certainly create mass liberal confusion, because instantaneously the race card would have to be moved to the bottom of the deck.

Oh, but wait! Obama had better not remove the race card too fast. Herman identifies with racists in a way, because as a black man he knows the racism issue isn’t about skin color.  On the left, racism is defined as: “People who oppose Obama,” and in the past Mr. Cain has in fact admitted, “I guess I’m a racist.”

The confusion surrounding having two black candidates for president would make for interesting theatre.  Take for instance Black Panther poll watchers standing guard for racial equality.  How would they know whom to wave their clubs at on Election Day?  Do the Panthers intimidate whites voting for Obama or blacks voting for Cain? How would they figure out who is voting for who?  What a quandary.

Prior to winning the Florida CPAC straw poll, Mr. Cain articulated his intent to replace the tax code with a 999-tax plan where, across the board, he would implement “9 percent tax on businesses, personal income and sales.” If, in the aforementioned fantasy, Herman and Barry get to debate taxes, when it’s the President’s turn to articulate his views on taxes Herman could hold a “999” poster board upside down in front of the camera and America will instantly know where and from whom Barack’s tax philosophy gathers its inspiration.

A perfect retort to Obama touting, blaming and refusing to accept responsibility for failed policies would be for Cain to pose a question to America: “How’s this guy workin’ out for you?”

Who can forget the first lady opining on Obama’s ‘share the wealth’ view of the world, saying, “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

Oh, what sweet irony it would be to watch Obama grapple with Godfather’s Pizza’s successful CEO who saw pie as a symbol of success, not an emblem of imposed sacrificial socialism. A person who, since leaving what he calls “that Democrat plantation” a long time ago, found out that if an individual refuses to adopt the usual liberal victim status, miraculously there’s more than enough for everyone to have a whole pie – if a person is willing to work for it.

Sweeter still would be to hear how cancer survivor Herman Cain would respond to Barack laying on the Obamacare user-friendly insurance language, heartstring-manipulation banter about 32 million+ uninsured, talk of $980 billion in 10-year costs, mandates, and everything else included in Obama’s gargantuan government power grab.

At a recent Republican debate, the potential presidential nominee succinctly boiled down all the healthcare drivel to one concise and grateful sentence when he said: “If Obamacare had been fully implemented when I caught cancer, I’d be dead.”

Mr. Cain has repeatedly proven that when truth is in the mix there is no need for theatrics, or Hermanator hysterics. Cain’s legendary “I’d be dead” comment not only applies to himself as a cancer survivor, but regrettably also predicts America’s future if Barack Obama manages to somehow slickly speechify himself into a second term.

Herman Cain may not be the perfect candidate but, then again, who is? Moreover, Mr. Cain getting the Republican nomination, unfortunately, is doubtful.

However, reality does not diminish the fact that this patriotic man is the master of a unique style of political “Hermaneutics.” In few words, Herman Cain clearly articulates the extent of death, doom and destruction a second term would impose on a nation already reeling from three years of Barack Obama’s perverted brand of “Hope and Change.”

Partisan Heartbreaker Tom the Petty

Originally posted at BIG Hollywood

In an effort to further promote the message of love, peace and the type of compassion intrinsic to all dedicated liberals, Alec Baldwin, a paunchy comedian with anger issues, called attention to what he feels is Michele Bachmann’s inability to articulate by inarticulately spewing obscenities in the Minnesota congresswoman’s direction by way of Twitter.

Within seconds of Michele announcing she’d decided to launch a bid for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, it became clear that not one iota of liberal negativity toward conservatives has abated.

Over the past few days, the rock world has joined the fun by publicly stepping forward in an effort to send a message to the latest object of targeted political ridicule, Michele Bachmann. The goal is to drive home the point that liberal rock musicians disapprove of both Bachmann’s politics and audacity in thinking she actually has a chance to send honorary rock star Barack Obama back to Chicago.

Following Alec Baldwin’s Twitter tirade, Tom Petty, a Mad Hatter in sunglasses, decided it was his turn to deny Bachmann, without explanation, the use of one of his hit songs. Petty is so anti-GOP he forbade Michele Bachmann from playing  “American Girl” as a musical backdrop to her announcement to run for president.

Apparently, the last thing Tom Petty wants to be associated with is writing the signature anthem that could accompany a female Republican candidate on the trip from Minnesota to the White House.  So, to prevent that from happening, the rocker sent a three-word message to Michele: “Cease and desist.”

It’s doubtful that Tom Petty would decline $275 per person ticket proceeds based on who concertgoers supported in the last election. Yet, rock musicians who refuse, due to partisan politics, to let conservative candidates use songs for campaign backdrops forget that many of their fans are conservatives.

It’s no secret; Tom Petty isn’t a fan of the Right. When George W. Bush ran for governor of Texas, the genial GW pulled a Michele Bachmann and complimented the songwriter by using “I Won’t Back Down” as a campaign song. The unappreciative Petty had his publisher warn the campaign that using the ballad could send a false impression (Heaven forbid) that Petty endorsed Bush, and ordered the gubernatorial team to pull the song.

Tom Petty is one of a large herd of liberal singers and songwriters who sell their wares like capitalists on steroids to anyone and everyone, but when a conservative candidate identifies with one of their songs, out of fear of being perceived as leaning to the right hawkers of concert T-shirts and tacky glassware suddenly become all partisan and possessive.

Yet when Democrats like Black Socks Spitzer of New York and John ‘My-Wife-Has-Cancer-While-I’m-Having-an-Affair’ Edwards used Heartbreaker music as campaign anthems, Tom the Perpetually Petty fully endorsed both Lotharios using the extremely apropos “Won’t Back Down” ditty.

The “You Can Call Me Al” and “Don’t Stop” crews are proud to have signature songs associated with Al ‘Crazed  Sex Poodle’ Gore and impeached adulterer Bill Clinton, but Sarah Palin shaking hands and hugging babies in time to “Barracuda” irked female rock group Heart so much the duo threatened a lawsuit if Sarah didn’t pick another tune.

Truth is, in the world of rock and roll, the liberal malady is endemic. In the 1980’s Bruce Springsteen took on the Gipper over Reagan’s use of the song “Born in the USA.” During the 2004 presidential election, in an effort to save the USA from a second Bush term, Bruce partnered with über-liberal left-wing group MoveOn.org to headline a star-studded caravan of whiners in a Vote for Change Tour.

The 2004 MoveOn.org/rock-and-roll effort failed and Bush won reelection, which proves there are more Republican voters than liberals realize.  If, as a group, conservatives boycotted downloading music from iTunes and stopped buying concert tickets, many artists who feel comfortable insulting Republicans for sport would definitely take a hit in the pocketbook.

Then again, one has to wonder if someone like Bruce Springsteen even comprehends the concept that the people he slurs with his political invectives have the monetary power to affect The Boss’s bottom line.  After all, didn’t Springsteen say Obama “speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years?”

Even still, the liberal Step Away From the Song list goes on and on: Pretty boy Jon Bon Jovi told Sarah Palin not to use “Who Says You Can’t Go Home.”  The Foo Fighters and Van Halen dissed John McCain; Bruce Hornsby felt Sean Hannity’s use of his song “The Way it Is” shouldn’t be the way it is; and rock group Rush informed Rand Paul he’s no “Tom Sawyer.”

By now, Republicans should know better than to provide ammunition for the left by failing to stringently follow copyright laws and respect property ownership rights. Yet, a politically partisan situation still presents an opportunity to learn a profound lesson for those on both sides of the political aisle.

Liberal musicians should understand that having a fan base largely made up of those without the ability to pay $1.99 to download a song or lay out close to three bills for a concert ticket isn’t going to ensure their rock star lifestyle for very long.

For those heartbroken by Petty Heartbreaker, conservatives must take their eyes off the “Yes We Can” free-for-all where liberal politicians sway and wave in time to music amidst showers of balloons filled to capacity with Democrat hot air.  It’s time to realize the same standard does not and will never apply to Grand Ole or Tea Party candidates. Just because liberal musicians become gazillionaires with the help of Republican fans doesn’t mean those same rich rock stars will show appreciation by treating conservative candidates with respect.

For those on the right, the salient point is this: liberal politicians are never denied rights to artists’ theme songs; quite the contrary, they are encouraged to use them. Conservatives politicians should not be so naïve as to assume similar rules apply to the likes of Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.

With that in mind, Bachmann and Harley-riding Barracuda Palin should rethink forgoing the mud wrestling fight Michele claims the media is itching for and hit the ring to work out which lady will seek permission to claim Carrie Underwood’s “All-American Girl” and whose anthem will ultimately be conservative rocker Kid Rock’s “Born Free.”


The Cocoa-Puff Challenge

Posted at Renew America

Lieutenant Colonel Allen West (R-FL) can hardly host a town hall meeting or public event without being harassed by rowdy protesters who resent the Florida Congressman’s conservative politics.  West’s events are regularly disrupted by “sunshine blowing” CAIR activists, former Air America radio hosts, Robocall campaigners, and confused white women who mistakenly criticize West over issues they actually agree upon.

Always the gentleman, Allen West has even been accused by Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) of wearing “extreme disrespect as a badge of honor.”  Debbie believes West “thinks it’s ok to objectify and denigrate women.” Rest assured, if such an outrageous accusation was hurled in Barack Obama’s direction the media would interpret it, as a racial slur, insinuating that the accuser believes the hip-hop culture, notorious for “objectifying and denigrating women,” is endemic to all men of color.

Funny, when Debbie made the remark the NAACP and Al Sharpton didn’t demand an explanation for such a racially narrow-minded, Harry Reid, “light-skinned-lack-of-Negro-dialect” comment. Maybe it’s because besides having coffee and donuts with Joe Biden the left is otherwise occupied with identifying and rooting out every trace of explicit and “‘implicit’ (or unconscious) prejudice” wherever it manifests.

The left-wing media, together with the Democrat Party, work in tandem to keep the issue of prejudicial intolerance alive, even going so far as to say that public rejection of a healthcare policy instituted by the first African-American/bi-racial president is rooted in racism. In liberal circles, it’s understood that when Americans reject health care reform, it’s not loss of quality and choice or the threat of rationing or denied benefits that cause a negative public response, it’s purely a melanin issue – just ask racism Geiger counter Chris Matthews.

If increased numbers are a true measure for success and if Newt Gingrich calling Obama “The most successful food stamp president in American history” resulted in Newt being labeled a racist, why wasn’t the liberal female who bombarded Allen West with “coded racially-tinged language” also accused of racism?

Those on the left have redefined a “racist” as any person who disagrees with a black liberal’s policy. If a white American opposes anything Obama says, does, or bumbles – it’s automatically defined as racism.  Remember Jimmy Carter, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning ex-President who simultaneously expressed the opinion and instigated racial tension by saying that those with differing opinions who stand “against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American?”

Even black presidential hopeful Herman Cain recognized the absurdity of such a statement when he said: “People who oppose Obama are said to be racists – so I guess I’m a racist.” Yet a similar logic is never extended toward black conservatives when liberal whites oppose their politics, because men like Colonel Allen West and Herman Cain don’t count due to their Uncle Tom status.

It could be that the media ignores slurs directed toward Allen West because according to the left’s standards he’s been spared the same level of mean-spirited racial attacks as those suffered by Barack.

Think of it – West has had zero debate surrounding his place of birth, which was Atlanta Georgia; religion, which is Christian; or missing college transcripts from the University of Tennessee, Kansas State or US Army Command and General Staff Officer College.  Not one single person has mentioned West’s pastor or cast aspersions on his race or background by linking him with radical associates.

Moreover, unlike Obama, thus far Mr. West has avoided bigoted questions surrounding racial hot potatoes like government spending and health care reform.

Nonetheless, the black Florida Congressman did receive a “non-toxic” albeit suspicious “white powder substance” in the mail.  He had his Social Security number disclosed in a Democrat Party “opposition mailer,” and coincidentally managed to settle in a town with the slavery-suggestive name Plantation, Florida, all of which could have been but is yet-to-be interpreted as color-driven bigotry.

One possible reason the issue of race is ignored for some and over-emphasized with others may hinge upon affiliation with Tea Party activists with whom the African American Allen West identifies.  If racist tendencies are determined purely on acceptance or rejection of all things Obama then according to liberals, even disagreeable black politicians can be racists, especially if associated with the Tea Party, which liberals are convinced is one hood short of the Ku Klux Klan.

Allen West, a victim of attacks that would certainly be interpreted as racist if his political persuasion tended left, shared his observations on the subject of media dismissal of what would be deemed racism if it were happening to Barack Obama: “I find it interesting that in all of these instances, the media simply dismissed the incidents. One might wonder – is it open season on a principled black conservative?  I wonder what the reaction would have been if I were a Democrat?”

Truth is, in an effort to take the spotlight off a seething boil called the Obama presidency, the media is gearing up to make race the central issue in the 2012 campaign. The game plan is to brand everyone a racist, including black candidates whose politics don’t align with President Obama’s, while at the same time dismissing what would otherwise be considered offensive if directed toward the President.

For example, on Fox News, liberal talk radio host/ Fox contributor Alan Colmes told Jamie Colby and Republican Tea Party pundit Angela McGlowan that both Herman Cain and Allen West were “Coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs®.” Racist watchdog Colmes never mentioned Sugar Pops® or the diverse multi-colored cereal Trix® and thankfully refrained from adding Count Chocula® to the mix.

Inane silliness aside, if the Obama race-baiting left refuses to discontinue the insanity then the right needs to demand equal time.  For starters, why not stipulate that racially-tinged slurs tying together brown cereal and being cuckoo with black conservatives be publicly acknowledged as racism by those who blindly throw around such baseless allegations.

Moreover, if the left insists on using a bizarre “food-stamp-president” paradigm to identify racists, then references to Cocoa Puffs and allusions to hip-hop mentality should certainly qualify for inclusion in the bigotry blame fest. The bottom line is this: If liberals make rules based on absurd criteria, black conservatives should be willing to help expose their illogic by demanding the left submit to the same standards to determine what is and is not racism that those on the left demand of everyone else.

The Next Black President?

Originally posted at American Thinker

When Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, even those who opposed his liberal policies secretly had a fleeting moment of patriotic pride. America had elected our first African-American president. Finally, our nation had overcome the injustices of the past and “the dawn of a new day” had arrived where most Americans were no longer judging or being judged based on skin color.

Regrettably, the feeling of national dignity was short lived.  As it turned out, Barack Obama’s goal was to get “others to think [more] highly” of Barack Obama than the nation whose citizens he was elected to lead.

What a shame. Truth is, the most unfortunate aspect of having Obama as America’s first black president is that it is Obama who is America’s first black president.

If only the first choice had been an outstanding man of color like Allen West or the spectacular Herman Cain.  Both are patriotic individuals who love and recognize their country’s greatness.  Moreover, despite the reality of past injustices, unlike Barack Obama, Cain and West choose to dwell on the benefits of individual responsibility, unlimited opportunity, and patriotic allegiance to America.

One thing is for sure:  No one could ever accuse the outspoken Herman Cain of disagreeing with Barry purely because of skin color. Cain is bold as a lion and unafraid to debate Obama on the merits of conservative philosophy. In his 2011 CPAC speech, Mr. Cain rightly identified the three liberal tactics of “shifting the subject, ignoring the facts, and name-calling,” which Cain “bundles together with the acronym ‘SIN.'”

Many believe the man who some refer to as the “Hermanator” could be President Obama’s “worst nightmare — a business mastermind, a natural problem solver and a black man of ‘substance’ who says he would ‘take the race card off the table’ in a challenge against Obama as the GOP presidential candidate in 2012.”

Herman Cain is not in danger of being accused of prejudice because he called ObamaCare an “absolute disaster.”  As an African-American man, Herman cannot be labeled a racist just because he believes the nation he loves is being strangled by “too much regulation, legislation, and taxation.”

When Herman Cain encourages all Americans to “stay informed,” because “stupid people are ruining America,” he’s not wrong, and he’s not saying it because he’s prejudiced against blacks. Bigotry isn’t what inspires Herman Cain to praise knowledge as “our greatest weapon in this fight.” When Mr. Cain says “mediocrity is not in America’s DNA,” he isn’t referring to whites only.

Besides the forthright Herman Cain, the other potential African-American Barack Obama-challenger is the newly elected freshman representative from Florida, Colonel Allen West.  West is so impressive that he now “represents a district that voted for President Obama in 2008 and Sen. John Kerry in 2004.”

Newly elected Allen West’s conservative message has already made him a target of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. West’s crime?  Expressing what the left would define as a racist opinion:  That America is presently in the business of making “more victims” and will not survive if we continue to foster Obama’s “bureaucratic nanny state.”

The keynote speaker at the 2011 CPAC, Colonel West did not exploit podium time to harp on racial, social or economic ‘injustice,’ but instead spoke of tried and true conservative concepts like “effective and efficient constitutional government, peace through strength, and staying true to…American values.”

West’s speech touched upon the tragedy of American culture being “subservient to multiculturalism,” the need for America to promptly dispose of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the travesty of granting Constitutional rights to terrorists, and how the United States must always remain faithful to Israel.

During West’s speech, the retired Army Lieutenant Colonel did not make his audience repeat catchy phrases or mislead anyone into believing he’d pay mortgages or fill their tanks with gasoline.  West did not kowtow to unions, lobbyists, or abortion advocates, nor did he read from the Koran, make promises to discuss anything with any dictator “without preconditions,” or depend on a teleprompter to jog his memory into recalling what were supposed to be the core convictions of his heart.

Instead, during his CPAC keynote speech Allen West focused on truths like how “liberal progressivism” has failed all over the world. He devoted a sizable portion of the discourse to social issues, and emphasized faith in God and opposition to liberal stances on abortion and gay marriage. West, whose people are presently being targeted by what is tantamount to black genocide, took a shot at Obama’s sentiment toward unwanted pregnancy, saying, “I do not believe having a baby is punishment.

But perhaps the most insightful thing Allen West shared was his belief that “A dawn of a new America” yet awaits our nation as long as we remember “[h]istory has a way of teaching … very bad lesson[s] if we don’t listen.”

The fact that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States was proof positive that the lessons of history, though hard and brutal, had been learned. Unfortunately, at the ballot box Americans yielded to the wrong influence and chose a president based on something besides character and substance. Many falsely believed that when America’s first black president placed his hand on Lincoln’s Bible, it was the “dawn of a new day.” Instead, Obama ushered in new heights of racial division and a level of liberalism unprecedented in American history.

Now as 2012 approaches, new voices offer a message of genuine “hope” and positive “change.” On the horizon, the “dawn of a new America” approaches and with it comes a unique opportunity to replace America’s first black president with a man who, secondary to being a patriotic American, just happens to be black.

%d bloggers like this: