The lies about criminal behavior of HERMAN CAIN hurt him, and America, in 2011, in the 2012 election cycle. This educated guy, this business leader, this free thinker, this open book, this conservative American, is owed more than an apology (which has yet to be given) from the attention-craving Gloria Allred and the two lying women who made headlines claiming that Cain sexually harassed them (link: http://ow.ly/qF0QX).
Americans are owed better than this lowest of political tactics in the age of social media and in-the-moment news reporting. If leading Democrats had any lack of cynicism among them, they'd have discouraged the effect of these unfounded claims during the campaign. I know some pundits on either side were frustrated by this bad showing, but I heard not a leader among Democrats say a thing against it certainly not the first black in the White House.
This was, in a way, the tale of two black men: the Conservative Black Man and the Liberal Black Man. It allows a comparison of the behavior of media and the supposed spokespeople for black people -- Democrats and black "liberal" pundits. The way they treat Cain, and other non-leftist thinkers such as Ben Carson, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, is not compatible with their pandering habits toward blacks and other "special label" groups (minorities of whatever kind) in general. Yet, they give extra room to Barack Obama and ninnies such as former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (with a federal indictment on corruption charges and soon to be in court for it) and former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (convicted to 26 years for his office's bribery practices). Democrats and most of the mainstream media looked the other way in the midst of corruption by these last two fellows, until the story was essentially over.
Ruining the campaign of Herman Cain bolstered the left's authority and dominion over blacks in America. The great majority of our black community, it seems, were fine with it, too. Or, they simply didn't speak out against it. Too many are too happy to resent those who have known success to the extent of cheering even unreasonable attacks on the successful, black or not. Sadly, that's another thing that the rhetoric of the Democrats feeds.
Today's "liberals" (modern American leftists, really, sparsely liberals in any true sense) need some of those who are successful on their side, but can only win elections, as I see it, by pandering to the less-informed unsuccessful with promises of... ease without effort. The rhetoric of Barack Obama, especially during 2008 and since his presidency, have only made this cynical tactic of the Democrats more familiar. Not less. Not less, as Obama pledged the divisiveness would be. (He pledged a lot of things that proved to be nothing, didn't he?)
The minority pandering, low-information voter wholesaling, diversity rejecting (they accept diversity only on their terms, after all), status quo adoring, big government, control-addicted Democrats and their media pledges want to keep minority conservatives down, and that hurts America.
Their habit to passionately reject traditionalist, Constitutionalist, limited government, conservative thinkers, and especially those who think this way who are not old white men, hurt America's ability to get beyond the wrongs of racism and social and economic ruts that plague groups of people, black or not. Democrats claim to be the party of caring. Yet they have been proven to be the party of lies, spying, control, monetary abuse, budgetary disregard, growth in bureaucracy, and intolerance toward individualism.
Democrats and others of such thinking are, intentionally or not, pigeonholing people in certain special groups - race, sexuality, sex, regions, etc. - into easy stereotypes that suit them. In an official way. Everyone deserves the sense of liberty that America was founded upon. That's inconvenient for relativist leftists.
They are convinced it is their duty, as folks such as Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, prove again and again, to be the spokespeople for these groups, to take from others and give to those groups, to coddle them for the sake of the great statist plan. That's not American. That's utopian. It's absurd. It's anti-American.
Black conservatives have for a long time felt they needed to be quiet because Borg-like neighbors who are long entrenched in the pandering, Democratic race machine would think they were betraying race for their affinity for traditional American ideals. So much misinformation about conservatism persists that it's as if being a conservative was equivalent to being a slave salesman in Africa in the 1700s.
Modern Democrats, this current, bureaucracy-loving, conceited, elitist leadership of theirs, seek a wholesale plan to buy votes to take more and more liberties away from Americans in the name of helping everyone reach an equal playing field, with welfare politics, driving the poor to their side in a cynical effort to hold power by mob, rather than by principle or love of the citizen and the individual. They love the idea of the state being the leader of society in every way, it seems, not the servant of a free people.
People like Herman Cain certainly get in the way of that.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Mike Moore on Assange rape, he and Keith Olbermann put it in quotes
O-blubber-man Suspends His Own Twitter Account
Julian Assange: the Wikileaks leader encourages a military member's crime, flaunts himself as a hero for freedom of speech, when he is more accurately an anarchist or an all-points agitator. And there's this:
Julian Assange: the Wikileaks leader encourages a military member's crime, flaunts himself as a hero for freedom of speech, when he is more accurately an anarchist or an all-points agitator. And there's this:
Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold [one woman, Miss A,] down in a sexual manner." ... Here are the charges as reported by the UKPA:
The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity". The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.
Since I cannot watch Olbermann and not shower afterward, via The Blaze, I learned that filmmaker -- and often crass, far left mouthpiece -- Mike Moore was an Assange apologist on Keith's show, for the rape charges. Olbermann was not against the view. He then suspends his own Twitter account due to people twee-ttacking him for agreeing with Moore.
This time Moore, and months earlier it was Whoopie Goldberg soft-talking the underage rape charges against the Polish Holocaust survivor turned director turned pervert turned cowardly runaway.
What's wrong with some allegedly intelligent, logical, rational, and talented lefty loons -- and others? -- excusing the act of rape?! I was getting tired of Goldberg's presence on "The View" long ago, but I've written her off as an unnecessary distraction since her "it's not rape-rape" comment. Clue?! And Moore, never-Moore -- not even on my Netflix cue any more.
This time Moore, and months earlier it was Whoopie Goldberg soft-talking the underage rape charges against the Polish Holocaust survivor turned director turned pervert turned cowardly runaway.
What's wrong with some allegedly intelligent, logical, rational, and talented lefty loons -- and others? -- excusing the act of rape?! I was getting tired of Goldberg's presence on "The View" long ago, but I've written her off as an unnecessary distraction since her "it's not rape-rape" comment. Clue?! And Moore, never-Moore -- not even on my Netflix cue any more.
- jR
McCain addresses CPAC, and I got to thinking
McCain is not too old, Obama is not too Black (or not Black enough), and Hillary Clinton is not too female.
Welcome to the 21st Century, when Black people, women and old men can actually do things the rest of us can do. (What about Huckabee? C'mon -- see note at bottom.)
Now that that's out of the way, here's some of what I think -- not that you asked.
Here's a few of McCain's words, from comments to a conservative group:
Note: If you think Huckabee can win it, you live in a different country than me. Reality is knocking, and Divisiveness is not standing next to him. McCain just whipped Divisiveness' butt, around the corner, and old dirty "D" is running to Rush Limbaugh's house to have an emotional breakdown with Ann Coulter on Rush's couch. (Mind you, Huckabee is no friend of Divisiveness, but he is not going to be president. Not this time around.)
You have heard me say before that, for all my reputation as a maverick, I have only found true happiness in serving a cause greater than my self-interest. For me, that cause has always been our country, and the ideals that have made us great. I have been her imperfect servant for many years, and I have made many mistakes. You can attest to that, but need not. For I know them well myself.
McCain also has a strength of character and wealth of experiences that make is all too much more capable than the other contenders. Like him or not, personally, this is the case. Propaganda will contort that, but it is why he became so popular since the 2000 election.
WHO'S SCARY AND WHO IS NOT
What we need to be concerned with, from here on out, is the differences between the people running for the White House. Who is a Commander-in-Chief? Who is able to think for themselves without alienating a majority of people? Who will work with the other side of the aisle (and has proven, both right and wrong, to be able to do so).
Why did Hillary Clinton
chose to move to a state in which she never before lived, to run for a high office from that state when she had never before held a high (elected) public office? Why is it she did not choose to lead from a seat won in Arkansas, or in her home state of Illinois? Certainly I am not the only one that has trouble with that! Clinton chooses, of all places, New York State -- the Land of the Elitists. Creepy!
chose to move to a state in which she never before lived, to run for a high office from that state when she had never before held a high (elected) public office? Why is it she did not choose to lead from a seat won in Arkansas, or in her home state of Illinois? Certainly I am not the only one that has trouble with that! Clinton chooses, of all places, New York State -- the Land of the Elitists. Creepy!
Whose approach in this campaign smacks of the right to be president more than the desire to serve the country? Not McCain's.
As an independent-minded, registered Republican, I ask you: which candidate's campaign reminds you of the "establishment" that was quietly apparent as GW Bush ran for the office? I think it is Clinton whose interests we should be wary of. Hers is far more a candidacy of expectant, dynastic ascent than the McCain campaign. Now, I do not expect everyone to agree with me on that, naturally. I just would rather express my feelings about it and have you react (or simply bristle in disgust) than leave it be.
I like Barack Obama, but he has not matured enough, and I am not ready for someone so young as president. He will serve honorably in the senate, but he is no JFK (which is both to his credit and to his discredit, for a variety of reasons). The presidency, of course, is not just one man's job, but a whole administration, with a White House staff, a Cabinet, directors of
this and that, etc. Still, I do not see Obama as ready for it.
this and that, etc. Still, I do not see Obama as ready for it.
I am far more ready for a true war hero who suffered and yet still dedicated his life to serving, to be president. Right now, I think that is EXACTLY what this country needs. I cannot write this with a straight face, but: McCain should have won in 2000 (I can hear the groans, and the comments that Gore did win... enough).
TODAY, TOMORROW, NOVEMBER
George W Bush will not go down as the worst president in our history. He will not go down in history as the leader-hero who brought us all together after the tragedy of September 11, though. History remembers Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor and into WW II as the great leader who brought us to war and did not provoke us into strangling each other, and our allies, in the midst of it.
Perhaps it is unfair and even (in some opinions) ridiculous to suggest it, but Bush seems to have been granted permission to be president by the establishment, the movers and shakers his father has been so deeply involved with. G W Bush had the backing of the big political machine some have mistakenly called Destiny.
I think we have had two mediocre presidents for the past 16 years. I don't despise either one of the men, as they both have their good qualities. As presidents, though, they were not exactly doing the business of the people the way I would expect it to be done. If those presidencies were movies, I wouldn't even rent the DVDs -- I might sit through them once they made it to TV. (I would have fast-forwarded through the Lewinsky thing and quite a few other stupid parts!)
SEE IT IN THEATERS, OR WAIT FOR THE DVD?
McCain is known for his efforts to work on change that brings politics down to street level: fighting for campaign finance, against budget and legislative "pork", and more. Perfect? Hardly! Untested? Of course he's tested -- he's been in the wide public eye for at least a decade! Able to lead? Of course!
McCain may not be Lincoln, or JFK, or Reagan, or Roosevelt, or Truman. But he won't be as frighteningly untried as Obama or as unbelievable and divisive as Clinton (Ms. Clinton). It is not unreasonable to suggest that some conservatives actually hate McCain. That is not just politics talking, that is some kind of eery intolerance. I would rather ally myself with McCain than hateful, spiteful, myopic people, thanks. I think it showed great decency and reason for GW Bush to push recently
for wide (far-right conservative) support of McCain, as McCain has been as supportive as he could be of Bush for eight years. That's part of GW's good side.
for wide (far-right conservative) support of McCain, as McCain has been as supportive as he could be of Bush for eight years. That's part of GW's good side.
I believe McCain will serve us as a president we can respect, and one that other nations will respect. Isn't that the optimal necessity? We can beat on out Congress all day about local issues -- we need a president who will assure other nations can respect us again.
McCain can be president. We can make sure by assuring that voters are going their thing in November.
Did you know that Democratic voters, so far in the primary and caucus votes, are far outweighing Republicans, in voting numbers? John McCain is not going to win by turning Dems and Independents alone. People need to VOTE for the best person to win.
Feel free to pass this rant along. To people you like, or to people you don't like. Either way, or both!
Or, at least, remind those who care about this country's fate that voting actually does count and maybe they should do it in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)