It's Not Easy Being a Black Conservative...

...because we all know that they're lewd and dangerous and consumed with uncontrollable lust:
...the Politico begins a sincere effort to destroy the black guy running to be the GOP’s Presidential nominee. The opposition dump on Herman Cain has begun in earnest. Before getting into the details, let’s pay attention to what this means.

It means for certain that Herman Cain’s lead in the polling is real — very, very real. People are taking him seriously. Mr. Cain is about to spend a week in Washington answering questions and giving speeches. Someone wanted to make sure he has a miserable week.

The allegations are pretty straight forward. At least two women complained of sexual harassment by Herman Cain when he ran the National Restaurant Association. How did this play out? Well, the Politico says it learned about the allegations and then began putting together a roster of board members, etc. Someone tipped them off obviously.
Stacy McCain wonders why this is coming out now:
We know nothing about the accusers and the specifics of the accusations from a dozen years ago are reported rather vaguely by Politico: “episodes that left the women upset and offended” and “physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.”

All in all, it’s a long run for a short slide. Unless and until we have some specifics — including names, dates and places — my instinct is to agree with Gordon that this is “part of a smear campaign.”

Why are Cain’s enemies firing the thermonuclear component of their oppo-research arsenal so early? Generally speaking in such matters, you save your big stuff for later in the campaign.
Erick Erickson agrees that this isn't the typical smear campaign.

Why is Herman getting special treatment?

Professional associates, including a number of women, say this story doesn't comport with the sterling reputation of the Herman Cain that they know:

"such behavior would be totally out of character"

“That’s a shock to me...”

“not within his character”

“It’s not what I know of him...”

Cain’s treatment of women was “the same as his treatment of men. Herman treated everyone great...”

UPDATE: Herman Cain's wife, Gloria Cain

UPDATE II: Herman Cain said that this would happen, and that he would be prepared:
Cain predicted this would happen five months ago. As the Washington Examiner's Byron York reported in May:

But wouldn't liberals and Democrats still find a racially-based way to attack Cain? They certainly found a way to attack Clarence Thomas, the black, conservative Supreme Court justice.

"They're going to come after me more viciously than they would a white candidate," Cain responded. "You're right. Clarence Thomas. And so, to use Clarence Thomas as an example, I'm ready for the same high-tech lynching that he went through -- for the good of this country." Cain smiled broadly. "I'm ready for the same high-tech lynching."


This just might backfire, solidifying conservative sympathy for Herman Cain. Ann Coulter:

"I'm spitting mad about this attack on Herman Cain. Maybe he should be a the top of the ticket."

UPDATE IV: Cain: I was "falsely accused"
“In my over 40 years of running businesses and corporations, I have never sexually harassed anyone,” he told an audience at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

“I was accused — falsely, I might add. When the charges were brought, I recused myself, and allowed my general counsel and human-resources officer to deal with the matter.

“After a thorough investigation, it was determined there was no basis for the complaints,” Cain related.
UPDATE V: Cain: This is "a witch hunt"
Herman Cain called the accusations of sexual harassment against him “a witch hunt” and said he had been falsely accused while the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s.

Declaring at the National Press Club that he “would be delighted to clear the air,” Mr. Cain said that he is unaware of any settlements paid to his accusers.

“It was concluded after a thorough investigation that it had no basis...”
UPDATE VI: Cain details gesture that led to sex accusation...
...I made a gesture saying you are the same height as my wife. And I brought my hand up to my chin saying, 'My wife comes up to my chin.'" At that point, Cain gestured with his flattened palm near his chin. "And that was put in there [the complaint] as something that made her uncomfortable," Cain said...
UPDATE VII: Professor Jacobson opines...
This is a taste of the medicine the mainstream media ... has in store for the eventual Republican nominee... looked like Politico was out to get Cain, not just investigate a story. The view from above was quite clear...

I just watched Cain’s interview by Greta Van Susteren, and he was clear and persuasive that there was no harrassment.
UPDATE VIII: Limbaugh's remarks...

#OccupyAnarchy: What Lawlessness Breeds

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Wall Street protesters in Zuccotti Park battened down the hatches yesterday as the early October snow turned their tents into igloos, but the close quarters also made easy pickings for one predator. A sex fiend barged into a woman’s tent and sexually assaulted her at around 6 a.m., said protesters, who chased him from the park.

“Pervert! Pervert! Get the f--k out!” said vigilante Occupiers, who never bothered to call the cops. “They were shining flashlights in his face and yelling at him to leave,” said a woman who called herself Leslie, but refused to give her real name.

She said that weeks earlier another woman was raped. “We don’t tell anyone,” she said. “We handle it internally. I said too much already.”

With all the free loaders, free lovers, free Mumia's, free lunchers and free thinkers populating the OccupyAnarchy movement, which many on the Left hope to be the anti-Tea Party, one gets the impression that one thing the ReOccupyTheWhiteHouse movement doesn't need is more bad press, so there seems to be a conscious effort to keep these kinds of attacks quiet and sweep them under a rug.

Granted, the Occupy movement has spawned a "volunteer" security force of dubious origin and efficacy: part mob, part vigilante justice. But they have neither police powers or training. And, rather than pursuing a sexual predator until he is caught and deterred from repeating his offense, he is merely chased off to continue his perverse felonies again, either at another "occupied" area of the park or in society at large.

First, I think this sends a bad message about the OccupyAnarchy view of women. "Ladies: Lay back and enjoy it. Women who are assaulted or raped should be seen and not heard." In a rational world (not the protesters' strong suit), how would it not benefit everyone for every woman raped or assaulted to give a statement to the police and a description of the perpetrator so that the criminal can be apprehended? Is the movement so inured and enamored of breaking whatever laws they choose, that they empathize with other lawbreakers, no matter how odious?

We have seen the Occupy Anarchists disrespect the police, one man infamously defecating on a patrol car, and attacking the police and even rioting in some places. Compare and contrast with the Tea Party rallies. There was a police presence there, but the only incidents I observed or am aware of, involving the police at a Tea Party rally, was when a small element of miscreants from the Left showed up to protest against the Tea Partiers, to shout them down, or damage property.

There were no tents, no soup lines and above all, no rapes, sexual assaults, refusals to obey police orders or assaults on police officers.

Is OccupyAnarchy the Left's version of the Tea Party? It's looking like it. Will OccupyAnarchy motivate anyone to vote Democrat next Fall? Well, I think they can count on the rapist and sexual predator vote!

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Mitt in The Tank

"Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor..."

What will they think when they finally learn about Romneycare?
Among those Republicans who actually expressed an opinion on Romneycare, the results weren't even close: 23 percent said they had an unfavorable view of the law, compared with just 3 percent who had a positive view. That's a nearly 8 to 1 margin of opposition to the law that was Romney's signature legislative accomplishment as governor.

What's working to Romney's advantage, however, is that a whopping 70 percent of Republicans surveyed said they didn't know enough about the law to have an opinion. (Among all Americans, it was even higher at 76 percent.)
The history of "Dukakis in the tank."

George Will Pistol Whips Mitt Romney

On Sunday, George Will compared Mitt Romney to liberal Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis, the infamous robotic candidate for president who was pulverized by George H. W. Bush in 1988. (See the short video below for Will's comments.)

Tomorrow, George will stand apart from the rest of the elite GOP talking heads with some unvarnished truth on pretty boy Mitt Romney:
Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable, he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate: Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the tea party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming. Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from ‘data’ ... Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for THIS?
The normally restrained George Will reacts in frustration to his disappointment in Romney by writing in ALL CAPS.

I'm shocked.

Via Memeorandum.

UPDATE: The rest of Will's column is already out...
The Republican presidential dynamic — various candidates rise and recede; Mitt Romney remains at about 25 percent support — is peculiar because conservatives correctly believe that it is important to defeat Barack Obama but unimportant that Romney be president. This is not cognitive dissonance.

Federal Government Provides Life Support for RomneyCare

Think of RomneyCare as a federal welfare program for the health care system in Massachusetts. Because that's what it is...

Flashback Via Doug Ross:
State treasurer of MA absolutely shreds RomneyCare, which "has nearly bankrupted the state" and is surviving solely because of federal aid...

“If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office.

...[T]he state’s health insurance law…Cahill said, “has nearly bankrupted the state.”

Cahill said the law is being sustained only with the help of federal aid, which he suggested that the Obama administration is funneling to Massachusetts to help the president make the case for a similar plan in Congress...
Voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina should take note. After all, they are paying for RomneyCare along with all of the rest of us.

Catholic University Faces Complaint of Human Rights Violation by Muslim Students

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

I am not religious. I do respect the right of all peaceful religions to worship as their theocratic theological (religious) dogma would have them. How they worship, or the symbols of their religion do not affect me. Unless they are engaged in trying to force change in places they have no moral or legal right to do so.

Which is precisely why the following article reporting on Muslims attempting to force change on Catholic University {a private institution} because of alleged human rights violations should tick everyone of rational mind off greatly.

The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations that Catholic University violated the human rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers.

The investigation alleges that Muslim students “must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”

A spokesperson for the Office of Human Rights told Fox News they had received a 60-page complaint against the private university. The investigation, they said, could take as long a six months.

The complaint was filed by John Banzhaf, an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School. Banzhaf has been involved in previous litigation against the school involving the same-sex residence halls. He also alleged in his complaint involving Muslim students that women at the university were being discriminated against. You can read more on those allegations by clicking here.

Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.”

“It shouldn’t be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus,” he told Fox News.


Banzhaf said that it is technically not illegal for Catholic University to refuse to provide rooms devoid of religious icons.

“It may not be illegal, but it suggests they are acting improperly and probably with malice,” he said. “They do have to pray five times a day, they have to look around for empty classrooms and to be sitting there trying to do Muslim prayers with a big cross looking down or a picture of Jesus or a picture of the Pope is not very conductive to their religion.”


Garvey {the University President}, in his 2010 interview with NPR, addressed that issue.

“It’s just not something that we view as an activity that we want to sponsor because we’re a Catholic institution rather than Muslim,” he said.

Patrick Reilly, the president of the Cardinal Newman Society, an organization that promotes Catholic identity among Catholic schools, seemed stunned by the complaint.

“I don’t know what the attorney wants them to do – if he wants them to actually move the Basilica or if the Muslim students can find someplace where they don’t have to look at it,” he told Fox News.

Catholic University, he said, is a Catholic institution.

“One wouldn’t expect a Jewish institution to be responsible for providing liturgical opportunities for other faiths and I wouldn’t expect a Catholic institution to do that,” he said.

“This attorney is really turning civil rights on its head,” he said. “He’s using the law for his own discrimination against the Catholic institution and essentially saying Catholic University cannot operate according to Catholic principles.”

Read coverage from Catholic University’s student newspaper by clicking here.

the facts are:

A) Catholic University is a private institution of higher learning.
B) Students make the decision to attend Catholic University by their own free choice, even the Muslims who matriculate at CU.
C) Before entering the university all students, and their parents visit the campus and learn about the institution.
E) Given the above, all students {including the Muslim students} are fully aware of the conditions into which they are entering.

So, what's the problem? What moral or legal right do the Muslim students believe supports their {and their representative} position? What do they not understand about the choice they made, and how it would impact their lives while attending CU? Do they really believe their human rights have been violated, even given they made a free choice to attend CU?

What is even more disturbing is there are many who will side with the irrationality of their complaint. Truly disturbing. What once was largely a given in America, that one accepted the consequences of their free and independent decisions is rapidly vanishing. We can thank political correctness, accompanied by increasing thin skinned people for the change.

More @ The Conservative Guild

Via: Memeorandum

VIDEO: Peter Schiff Debates Zucotti Park Occupy Wall Streeters

By the Left Coast Rebel

This is simply just too cool. You can almost hear the collective "Occupy-I-am-entitled-to-everything-I-want-simply-because-I-have-a-pulse" synapses misfiring in the crowd as Peter Schiff engages them (poor saps have probably never even heard his viewpoint that he aptly expresses).

There are too many quotable moments from Schiff here, "WalMart doesn't hold a gun to their head" stands out to me:

I love how Allahpundit notes that Schiff pulls this thing off like an Austrian-school ninja.


More from Nick Gillespie at

"Did a corporation end slavery, or did the government end slavery?!?!"

That's the sort of question investment guru and radio show host Peter Schiff fielded as he debated Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters last week in New York's Zuccotti Park.

Schiff is no ordinary observer. As the prinicipal of the financial firm Euro Pacific Capital, he's a full-fledged and unapologetic member of "the 1 Percent." As an outspoken radio show host (listen online here) and commentator, he not only predicted the housing crash and financial crisis, he railed bank and auto-sector bailouts as they were happening. Schiff believes that capitalism offers is the only hope for young, frustrated people to have a vibrant and prosperous future (get information on his latest book, How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, here). So he went to Occupy Wall Street to engage and debate the protesters.

Touring the Occupy Wall Street scene in New York with a sign that read "I Am the 1%, Let's Talk," Schiff spent more than three hours on the scene, explaining the difference between cronyism and capitalism, bailouts and balance sheets, and more.

"The regulation we want is the market," said Schiff. "That's what works."

Via Memeorandum.

PS: I apologize for my absence here at LCR -- I'm busier than I have been in three years... major props to Proof, Wes, Les and RightKlik and Chris W. for holding down the fort here. Thanks, guys!

Occupy Portland Fears it has Lost up to $20,000 in Donations

By Proof

What is it they say? "There's no honor among thieves!"

Organizers of Occupy Portland say they fear as much as $20,000 donated to the group through a PayPal account has disappeared. They also say the group's finance committee has hijacked the demonstration's Internet domain name and filed for incorporation against the wishes of the group's decision-making body.

Decision making body. Yeah, the "general assembly" (some assembly required). So, the individual protesters are getting their stuff ripped off around the country, some occupiers are more equal than others when it comes to "spreading the wealth", and now we have factions fighting over the name of the movement and the internet address where the goodies flow from.

It's like watching one of those Mad Max movies, except, instead of a post war apocalyptic break down of societal norms, we have a group of malcontents who were in the process of rebelling against societal norms when thieves, other criminals and the homeless started agreeing with them.

Welcome to Anarchy 101. Other than "Eat the rich" and "Forgive my student loans", there is little cohesion to these ranks of rank amateurs and ranker political noobs. If one wants to siphon off cash and another wants to take control of your Internet domain name, who's to stop them? And if the "general assembly" of Portland decides to act contrary to a decision of occupy Wall Street's general assembly, who decides who is right? These people can't even manage a bread line without drama, resentment and the type of acrimony generally reserved for Glenn Beck! The food police were even raising their own posse comitatus to chase off the vagrants and others deemed not politically pure enough to receive of the occupiers' largesse.

The longer this "movement" continues, the more fractious it will become. Will they legislate their own rules? Adjudicate their own laws? Enforce their own punishments?

Good luck with that! Anger against the unfair treatment and injustice from the establishment will be replaced with anger against the unfair treatment and injustice from the leaders of the movement. The hardcore homeless and the charlatans gaming the system will stay. Eventually, I think the majority will realize that it is easier to reform the old system than to build a new one from scratch.

H/T Mememorandum

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan: Digging Down A Little Deeper

By Frank Hill

What is the MAIN reason why Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan has resonated so soundly with the Republicans lately?

And it has absolutely nothing to do with his race in case you haven't noticed that already.

How can there be so many 'white racist rich Republican people' in the nation and at all the country clubs around the country when Herman Cain is now leading white-as-Sunshine Bread Mitt Romney in the GOP presidential race?

Here's the answer: 'The 9-9-9 Plan is NOT the current convoluted and corrupt US income, payroll, excise, estate (death), corporate tax system!'

'There just has to be a better way!' the primary voters on the Republican side are screaming at the top of their lungs.

Truth be told, this is at the heart of the Tea Party movement, the huge increase in registered and actual Independent voters across the nation and many Democrats as well.

The only people who seem to 'love' the existing tax code are the people who have learned to game the system and make full use of all the exemptions, loopholes and tax favoritism; the labor unions and guys like Chris Matthews of 'Hardball' and George Soros.

Wouldn't you love to see their tax returns to see if they are paying their 'fair share' according to the tax rules and not sheltering one thin dime anywhere!

Here's what the 9-9-9 Plan appears to do, although more details are 'forthcoming' which should have been prior to its publication:

1) Establishes a 9% flat rate income tax on all taxpayers.
2) Establishes a 9% national sales tax on all transactions, not just at final consumer purchase level but at every transaction in-process.
3) Establishes a 9% corporate income tax rate on all US corporations.

Embedded within this new regimen are the following assumptions of which you need to be apprised:

1) No deductions (except for charitable deductions) at the individual level. Including home mortgage interest deduction. Including mortgage interest for your second, third and fourth homes.
2) No deductions at the US corporate level rate. Including health insurance premium deduction; oil and gas depletion allowances; and ...oh goodness gracious! There are close to 10 million words in the US Tax Code right now detailing hundreds of thousands of special tax breaks and favors that would be

K Street lobbyists in Washington, DC will be joining the 'Occupy Wall Street' crowds in tents. Not by choice but because they will be unemployed and their PACs will be dissolved. No corporate tax code to find loopholes in/No lobbyists needed/No PACs to pay for incumbent-protection programs.

3) All current federal payroll, excise, estate (death), sales, gas taxes would be repealed. You would have zero $ taken out of your paycheck ever again for FICA, UI, and presumably, for your share of the health care premiums provided by your employer because they most likely would stop paying for your insurance once this huge deduction is wiped out.

You would be on your own to find the best insurance plan you could on the open market. Or you could join the purchasing co-ops supposedly being set-up by Obama Care....unless it is not funded by Congress, which doesn't appear likely at the point.

4) No taxes on capital gains, investment or dividend income or other personal savings accounts. You will be free to invest in whatever business, stock, real estate or gold program you want without ANY concern or regard for possible taxation down the line.

5) What happens to the employer matching share of the FICA payroll taxes and the health care premiums they no longer will have to pay? Well, it being the free enterprise system and all that, presumably the corporations and company owners could try to just keep all of that sudden-found windfall for themselves in terms of retained earnings and profits.

As long as every competitor does the same, there will be spectacular profits on the order of which American business may not have seen for a century.

But what happens the day one competitor cuts his price to gain market share? Everyone else will follow suit in short order. Revenues and profits will start to compress down to some new 'normal' level similar to what they were before this new tax reform tsunami hit.

What happens the day one of your competitors decides to use some of that new-found wealth to pay one of your workers more money to come work for him/her? You either match it or lose a great employee. And if the others see that you are unwilling to pay more money to keep them, they will start to leave in dribbles and then in droves.

In short, no one really knows for sure what will happen when and if a seismic change in tax policy hits America after the Inauguration of our 45th President, Herman Cain in 2013. The preliminary very negative projections have been done by the self-professed and designated 'non-partisan' Tax Policy Center which is hardly such a creature. It is comprised of tax policy wonks from the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, neither of which has ever been very kind to radical tax reform ideas mainly because they like the current one just the way it is.

Most economic and econometric forecasts used in Washington are not 'dynamic' but 'static' meaning they can only focus on changing one variable at a time and can't predict very well what changes in human behavior will be to different incentives and policy changes. There is no way to accurately forecast what businesses will do with their extra cash. There is no way to really know exactly what someone will do with the extra cash in their pocket after these changes are made.

Our gut tells us that this 9-9-9 Plan has all the markings of setting up a titanic national debate in 2012 that we desperately need to have out in the public. On the one hand, you will have President Obama defending the old and archaic and sclerotic current tax system, when you would think he, as a young, energetic President would be for something 'different' since this one doesn't work very well.

On the other, you may have another African-American, Herman Cain, promoting the most drastic and dramatic tax reform effort in America since the Kemp-Roth tax cuts advocated by President Reagan in the early 1980's.

Let the games begin.

(Editor's Note: Frank Hill's resumé includes working as chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole and Congressman Alex McMillan, serving on the House Budget Committee and serving on the Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. He takes on politics from a fiercely independent perspective at the blog Telemachus).

Occupy Wall Street Kitchen Staff Protesting Fixing Food for Freeloaders

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
No soup for you!

Irony (and hypocrisy) Alert! It's getting harder to tell the homeless drifters and grifters apart from the whiny yuppie protesters!

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff
launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.

For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.

"Organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad..." This is the idea of "roughing it" among the 99% who have it tough?? And then to think that common people who are merely homeless or maybe just released from jail might consider themselves as part of the 99% who are not the country's wealthiest individuals...where on earth would they get that idea?

As the kitchen workers met with the "General Assembly" last night, about 300 demonstrators stormed from the park to Reade Street and Broadway, where they violently clashed with cops

The "General Assembly"? Who do these guys think they are? The U freakin' N??? Already elements of #OccupyMom'sBasement are coming apart at the seams. How do you equally distribute, (share the wealth, if you will), all the money donated by Soros and others to keep Obama@OccupyWhiteHouse afloat? Why does one group get to watch movies on a "huge flat screen TV" purchased with the community's cash, while others scrounge for quarters to do tons of wet laundry? And now, poachers in the food lines.

The bourgeois roots of the Occupy Wall Street mobocracy are nowhere more apparent than here. Yes, they carry their iphones and laptops down to the protest against the mean and evil corporations, except for the ones they can't live without, and they sit in front of the banks that loaned them the money to get their Ivy League educations, like the ingrates you'd expect them to be. But as much as they like to say they represent 99% of the country, just make sure they're PLU (people like us). Why is that? Is not the homeless guy part of the 99%? Does he get a vote in how the "community's" money is spent? If not, then, why not?

Organizers took other steps to police the squatters, who they said were lured in from other parks with the promise of free meals. A team of 10 security volunteers moved in to the trouble-prone southwest section of Zuccotti Park in a show of force to confront them. “We’re not going to let some members of this community destroy the whole movement,” a volunteer said.

Hey! Here's a thought...why not issue a photo ID??? More than a faint whiff of hypocrisy (masked, no doubt by a myriad of other more unpleasant odors) at #Occupy Wall Street, et. al.

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at Proof Positive

James Carville May Have It Right For Once

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

James Carville, you know the man, Mary Matalin's democratic husband. We all know Mary is by far the brighter of the two and probably keeps him around for entertainment value.

Today, for the first time in my blogging journey I ran across something he offered up that actually made some sense. So, I decided to pass his quote on with some additional commentary from POLITICO, as well as yours truly

"Everything worries me in this environment. Nobody’s gotten elected with these kinds of numbers. So, I’m worried in the general election. I profoundly admit that. Again, Romney’s just making a technocratic kind of confidence argument, and he’s really kind of a windsock of a guy. If you don’t like his position on something, give it a day he’ll change it."

James is right, nobody gets elected with the kind of numbers Obama is sporting these days. Indications are the economic situation is not going to improve much before November 2012. Naturally this has democrats seriously worried.

POLITICO goes on to highlight Carville's remarks further.

To some extent, underscoring concern helps gin up the Democratic base and crystallizes the fact that there will be a nominee fairly soon, after months of a slow-moving race.

Carville, in addition to panning Mitt Romney, broadly trashed Rick Perry, and said that Herman Cain "is not going to be the president of anything. Herman Cain goes out and he got a 999, and it’s 909, and he’s like changing area codes. The guy can’t even figure out what his position on abortion yet, which is kind of a basic issue. He gleefully professes ignorance on foreign policy. Again, I’m not, but if I were a person, if I had a conservative world view and I was looking for our next election to have somebody to articulate that view, I would be unbelievably disappointed. Herman Cain is a salesman. I mean, he’s not trying in one sense. He’s just trying to get some attention. He’s not going to get the nomination."

Carville is probably correct in his assessment Herman Cain, the executive of Godfather Pizza is unlikely to get the republican nomination.

Anyone who analyzes Perry's record can only come to the conclusion the big hair ex democrat is as much a part of the problem in conservative politics as Obama is in democratic politics. Perry certainly wouldn't bring the change America needs.

Romney is still a force, although it is difficult to understand why. Given his flip flops and close ties to corporate America one would think everybody would recognize he is merely old establishment with a younger look.

Which leads to the question... Who is the real conservative (with libertarian principles) that is offering real change as well as possessing an in depth understanding of constitutional government? The answer of course is Congressman Ron Paul.

If we are interested in a real and deep shift in direction. If we truly are desirous of addressing and ending crony capitalism, corporatism, taxpayer funded bailouts, reducing our deficit and national debt, as well as curbing and ultimately cutting the growth of the MIC then Ron Paul must be our man.

Via: Memeorandum

Karl Rove Attacks Mitt Romney With His White Board

Karl Rove discusses Mitt Romney's vulnerabilities

Karl Rove, Mitt Romney's biggest fanboy, admits that Mitt faces a challenging climb to the GOP nomination. But as usual, he ends his discussion on a positive note:

"Mitt's starting to slip in the polls, but he might be able to hang on to front-runner status if he gets some personality coaching and a spinal transplant."

*Parody alert*

Update (via The Other McCain):
When the insiders try to dictate our political choices, by anointing some candidates and dismissing others as “not up to the task,” it is directly analogous to economic planners attempting to substitute their own preferences for the free choices of consumers in the marketplace. And just as economic planning destroys the essential vitality of the free market, so too do these interventions by the political elite destroy the essential vitality of the grassroots.
The central-planning model of politics — which dominated the GOP when Karl Rove was at the White House and Ken Mehlman ran the RNC — is deeply implicated in the Republican “brand damage” problem that led to landslide victories for Democrats in 2006-08. It was only with the rise of the Tea Party in 2009-10 that the conservative movement recaptured the momentum it lost during the Bush/Rove/Mehlman era.

Lies, Damned Lies And Polls

By Chris W
The Libertarian Patriot

As a baseball fan, I'm a stat geek. Even before "Moneyball" became vogue I would often get in great discussions with other fans about players and always attempted to use statistics to back my point as did others to back theirs. What you see with your eyes is often deceiving and can skew your perspective, but the numbers don't lie.

Well the same goes with politics and polls. You can watch the debates and read the press but there is always a slanted perspective.

Case in point; this write-up by CNN on the polls of the first 4 states to have a say in the GOP nomination. If you believe what the pundits say or take a quick look at the numbers, either Mitt Romney or Herman Cain is the presumptive nominee. But if you look a little deeper that is far from a given; Undecided/NOTA is giving both lead horses a run for their money.

Take Florida for example. In the Sunshine state Romney has a double digit lead over Cain, 30-18%, which is pretty impressive but Undecided/Nota sits at number 2 with 24%.

More impressive is in the former Massachusetts Governor's back yard of New Hampshire where he has a huge lead, 40-13%, over the Pizza man. But that pesky Undecided/NOTA is again in second with 19%.

It's only until you get to Iowa, Romney 24%/Cain 21%, where Undecided/NOTA is in third at 14% and South Carolina, Romney 25%/Cain 23%, and Undecided/NOTA is third again at 15%.

What's even more amazing is that in all 4 states only roughly 30% of those polled stand firmly behind their chosen candidate.

[I'd also like to point out that in my home state of Arizona, which has scheduled it's primary for February 28, Undecided/NOTA is in a statistical dead heat with Romney and Cain. Undecided/NOTA 25%, Romney 25%, Cain 24%.]

My point is, this thing ain't far from a done deal yet and it's anyone's game. Even a complete dark horse like former NM Governor Gary Johnson is one or two good media cycles away from the nomination.

Stranger things have happened.

Via Memeorandum

Frightened by his own shadow, Romney runs from the fight...

In the all-important battleground state of Ohio, Mitt Romney has proven again that he's not up for a tough fight:

June 2011: Mitt casts a shadow...
My friends in Ohio are fighting to defend crucial reforms that the state has put in place to limit the power of union bosses and keep taxes low. I stand with John R. Kasich and Ohio’s leaders as they take on this important fight to get control of government spending. Please visit for more information.

October 2011: Mitt runs from his shadow...
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney stepped into the middle of the charged battle over organized labor in Ohio on Tuesday ... but he would not say whether he supports or opposes the specific measures.

"I am not speaking about the particular ballot issues," Romney said, only after repeated questions from reporters. "Those are up to the people of Ohio. But I certainly support the efforts of the governor to reign in the scale of government. I am not terribly familiar with the two ballot initiatives. But I am certainly supportive of the Republican Party's efforts here."
Conservatives react:
  • Right Scoop: "This is EXACTLY why I refuse to support Romney for the nomination. He is nothing more than a political opportunist..."
  • Red State: "Typically, when a politician stands for nothing except his own election, he winds up not getting elected."
  • Drew at Ace: "Why would Republicans in Ohio who are working their butts fighting the good fight here come out and work for a guy who won’t support them?"

Where's the ever-impartial Karl Rove when a front-runner needs some tough love?

Update: Romney's link to takes you to the mother lode of information on union reforms (Issue 2). Romney now says he's sorry for all the "confusion" he created. Does this count as a gaffe? Or does a gaffe only count if it comes from a "not Romney" candidate?

Update II:

Ace tries to explain:
1, he didn't do his homework here, and really the one thing I like about Romney is that he does his homework, so when he doesn't, it leaves me wondering what good he is at all.

2, not sure of what his previous statements were, he was cautious and disciplined and tried to offer a lukewarm response that he calculated, quite incorrectly, would get no press at all and would not cause him any consternation.

3, the Trouble with Romney. This last point illustrates why a lot of people are having trouble rallying to Romney. I am not going to knock caution and discipline per se...

But there's a point at which caution, which is defensible, becomes pure timidity, which is not. And it's worrying that, having forgotten his programmed strategy/position points, his natural inclination wasn't simply to say "Of course I support these reforms!"

I would add this:

4. Romney probably had done his homework, but was seeking to distance himself from good reforms (reforms that he had publicly supported only four months ago) because those reforms are now down in the polls.

Update III: Linked at The Scratching Post. Thanks!

The Real Reason Washington and NATO Went to War Against Gaddafi in Libya

By: Wes Messamore

"It might all certainly seem puzzling to the casual observer. Gaddafi was warmly welcomed into the world community in 2003 after announcing an end to his “weapons of mass destruction” programs. George W. Bush called Gaddafi “an important ally in the war against terrorism,” and the U.K.’s Tony Blair echoed these same sentiments. The U.S. and Gaddafi maintained close relations ever since, often using Libya as a destination point for the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program to “interrogate” terror suspects off the record and offshore in third world countries (a program that the Obama Administration has publicly admitted to continuing after taking the reigns from Bush and company).

So why the sudden regime change in Libya?"

Read my entire article at The Silver Underground to find out why.

Mission Accomplished in Iraq!

By Proof

Have you heard President Obama on his (premature?) withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

THE LONG WAR in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year.”

Will come to an end, Mr. President?? So, if you were to withdraw all the U.S. troops from Germany by the end of the year, would you say that World War II will come to an end this year, too? Would you like to take credit for that, too?

Just checking.

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Occupy Wall Street Learns How The Real World Works

By Chris W
The Libertarian Patriot

Oh the irony; OWS has their own 1%.

It appears that our collectivist friends in the Occupy Wall Street movement are learning a basic lesson in governance, causing a rift between the haves and the have-nots.

According to the NY Post, the movement's Finance Committee has built a war chest of $500,000 but is slow in distributing funds to those in the group who are needing money to provide basic services, while at the same time spending it on lavish, non-essential items meant to placate the masses.

Sound familiar? Is it only a matter of time before we hear that those holding the purse strings are using the funds for their own gains instead of what they were intended for?

NY Post
Even in Zuccotti Park, greed is good.

Occupy Wall Street’s Finance Committee has nearly $500,000 in the bank, and donations continue to pour in -- but its reluctance to share the wealth with other protesters is fraying tempers.

Some drummers -- incensed they got no money to replace or safeguard their drums after a midnight vandal destroyed their instruments Wednesday -- are threatening to splinter off.

“F--k Finance. I hope Mayor Bloomberg gets an injunction and demands to see the movement’s books. We need to know how much money we really have and where it’s going,” said a frustrated Bryan Smith, 45, who joined OWS in Lower Manhattan nearly three weeks ago from Los Angeles, where he works in TV production.

Smith is a member of the Comfort Working Group -- one of about 30 small collectives that have sprung up within OWS. The Comfort group is charged with finding out what basic necessities campers need, like thermal underwear, and then raising money by soliciting donations on the street.

“The other day, I took in $2,000. I kept $650 for my group, and gave the rest to Finance. Then I went to them with a request -- so many people need things, and they should not be going without basic comfort items -- and I was told to fill out paperwork. Paperwork! Are they the government now?” Smith fumed, even as he cajoled the passing crowd for more cash.

The Finance Committee dives on whatever dollars are raised by all the OWS working groups, said Smith, and doesn’t give it back.

The Comfort group has an allowance of $150 a day, while larger working groups, like the Kitchen group, get up to $2,000.

“What can I do with $150?” said Smith. “We have three tons of wet laundry here from the rainstorm -- how do I get that done? We need winter gear, shoes, socks. I could spend $10,000 alone for backpacks people need. We raise all this money. Where is it?”

Pete Dutro, 36, a Brooklyn tattoo artist who is getting a master’s in finance and sits on the Finance Committee, said big purchases like Smith’s can’t get immediate approval.

“We don’t have the power for that. They have to go to the General Assembly. If it’s approved, we pay out that amount and make sure everything is accounted for,” he said.

Within the next few days, the Financial Committee will release a detailed report, he said.

Yesterday, a huge flat-screen TV went up in Zuccotti Park for a movie night and pajama party with popcorn. Organizers hoped it would attract new recruits -- even as some long-timers complained that the movement was getting too diffuse after yesterday’s lackluster showing at a police-brutality event in Union Square that barely attracted 50 participants.
Via Memeorandum

The Lesser of Two Evils is Still... A Crock of Muddled Thinking

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

I saw it again today.
"If you vote for "X" over Obama, you're just choosing the 'lesser of two evils'. And the lesser of two evils is still evil."

I mostly hear it about Ron Paul, usually delivered in a vaguely smug and condescending tone. "X" is only different in degree from Obama, (in this area or that) therefore if you vote for anyone but "Y", you are choosing evil."

This facile argument is deeply flawed. It takes a statement which is true and weds it in unholy matrimony to an assumption which may be (and generally is) completely false, but the true statement gives it some semblance of truth.

While it is true that when you choose the lesser of two actual evils, you are choosing evil, it does not follow that every time you choose between a lesser and a greater good, that any of your choices are evil.

Voltaire, pointed that "The perfect (or the better) is the enemy of the good." If you reject everything or everyone that isn't perfect, you reject all (or in the case of the Paulites, nearly all). If you compare candidates on a scale of one hundred where one hundred is the perfect conservative and President Zero is, by some coincidence, zero, maybe your candidate comes in at an eighty five, but that doesn't mean that the other candidates, who may only come in in the seventies or low eighties, are "evil". That is a mere verbal "sleight of hand", where one directs your attention away from what is real and shows you what one wants you to see.

Please banish the "lesser of two evils" argument from your discussions. It only muddles the very important discussion of which of the flawed* individuals running for President, on both sides, will be the greater good for our nation. He or she, I guarantee you, will not be perfect.

I intend to vote for the person who will bring greater good to this country. Part of the ability to bring this greater good, is the ability to get elected first. A "perfect" candidate who cannot get elected can sit on the sidelines for four years and say, "See? I told you so!", but that will not stop the harm being done to the republic in the meantime.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Those who call "evil" that which is not evil are enemies of the good as well.

*See: Original sin

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan: 'Is It 'Wacky' or 'Constitutional'?

By Frank Hill

We have heard some pundits say that Herman Cain's '9-9-9' plan is a 'bad idea'.

'Compared to 'what'?', you have to ask yourself.

And you have to ask the brain surgeons such as Chris Matthews of 'Hardball' who deify themselves as the arbiters of all that is good about this great nation of ours.

(Why do the images of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to mind on the rare occasions we happen to catch Mr. Matthews harrumphing on a channel hardly anyone watches anymore?)

'Just how flipping 'great' is the current US progressive income tax system working out for ya, Chris? With all the loopholes and exemptions, it looks like a case of moldy Swiss cheese that is crippling the ingenuity and vigor of the American economy, especially now when we need clarity and certainty to get our economy going again'.

We heard Mr. Matthews sniff and snuffle and look down his nose at those who 'dare disagree' with him about how the 'grand tradition' of American public policy has 'long been the progressive tax system where people who earn more pay more of their income in taxes for the privilege of living in this great country of ours.' (paraphrased)

Oh, really?

Where in the US Constitution does it say anything about the vaunted 'progressive income tax system'?


Where does the 'progressive income tax system' come into play in the Declaration of Independence, The Emancipation Proclamation or maybe even going back to the Magna Carta, all of which are 'freedom' documents of the nth degree?

Let's take a step back into time and think about what the early settlers of America and the Founding Fathers were thinking when they were forming this new great land that we have inherited from them and their sacrifice and labor:

'Well, after we pioneer our way from the East Coast into the Midwest and fight all the Indians and the French soldiers and conquer this land, let's make sure we institute the 'progressive income tax system' so all of the people who took those risks pay more of their income for the things the rest of us all want.'

(Overheard at the crossing of the Delaware on a freezing cold Christmas night in 1776)

'You know, George (Washington), after we surprise the British here on Christmas day, we think the best thing we can do for this new republic we are fighting to start is to institute the 'progressive income tax system' so primarily only the rich people will pay for most of the huge public sector we are sure we are going to need down the road.'

Nothing could be further from the truth. They were fighting for freedom, plain and simple.

Much of that freedom was tied into being freed from the capricious taxation decision-making of King George III who seemingly popped out new taxes on the colonists like popcorn from a Jiffy Pop Popcorn aluminum bubble.

You know what the very first order of business was in the very first Congress in 1789?

Finding a way to pay for the new Republic.

You can look it up in the Congressional Record in the Archives in the basement of the Senate Dirksen Building. Page 1 of Volume 1 starts out with the call to order and then dives right into the issue of instituting and raising revenues to pay for the new country through import taxes.

What are 'import taxes', class?

Right. 'Consumption taxes' based on the importation of goods from overseas.

And who would be more likely to buy expensive perfumes from France and fine linens from England in 1789 America?

Correct. The rich people. The more they bought, the more taxes that were collected for the young republic.

Talk about 'progressive'! We have a feeling that the wealthy back then paid perhaps 75-90% of all import taxes whether they were consuming the goods or importing them and then re-selling them to the general public.

Here's an interesting 'fact' that many people, including the savant Mr. Matthews, don't know:

In 1805, President Thomas Jefferson reported to Congress that revenues from import taxes in 1804 totaled $11.8 million for the past fiscal year. Expenses totaled $8.7 million for the young nation.

The surplus in 1804 was $3.1 million. Which is about $80 billion in 2012 terms.

All of the revenue back then came from import taxes. It stayed mostly that way in America up until the Civil War when Abraham Lincoln instituted an income tax to help pay for the Union side of the things in that bloody war.

Which was summarily repealed in 1872 after years of heated debate. Income taxes were revived in 1894. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the income tax to be unconstitutional in 1895.

Congress proposed the 16th Amendment in 1909 to make the income tax constitutional and it was ratified in 1913.

Here is the entire text of the 16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
It says absolutely nothing about the 'progressive' income tax system. It could be a flat tax. In fact, the first income tax system under Lincoln was a 'flat tax' of 3% on any income above $800 earned in a year so there is some precedent for the flat tax from one of our 3 greatest Presidents, yes?

So for over half of our nation's history, import 'consumption' taxes were the way we funded virtually all of our federal government's activities. 'Consumption taxes' have always been a part of the US landscape ranging from import taxes to excise taxes to sales taxes.

They all work the same. And guess what? They all produce far more income from people who buy more goods and purchase large consumer goods such as Bentleys than from people who purchase 30 year-old used Gremlins. If they were applied to new mansions as a true consumption tax would work if truly universal, a person buying a $10 million home might pay 9% in a consumption tax to the federal government at closing.

Today, he/she pays zero to the federal government for a purchase of a new home. Or a Bentley.

More later on the details of the 9-9-9 plan as we get the chance to study it in more detail.

But the operative question we want to leave you with today is this:

'Are you willing to keep putting up with a bankrupt and corrupt current federal income tax system? Or are you willing to try something simpler and more transparent and direct?

If you answer affirmatively to the second question, you need to take a deeper look at Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan.

(Editor's Note: Frank Hill's resumé includes working as chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole and Congressman Alex McMillan, serving on the House Budget Committee and serving on the Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. He takes on politics from a fiercely independent perspective at the blog Telemachus).

Ron Paul... The Libertarian Republican Presidential Candidate, and Brightest in the Field

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Rep. Ron Paul, the long shot candidate for president. A member of the Republican party {why I haven't a clue} who is by far more Libertarian than Republican. A man who is different from your typical politician. Who unlike Romney, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Santorum {did I forget anyone?} is consistent in principle and his understanding of our Constitutional foundation.

A man who could, if given a shot have a profoundly positive impact on the health of the nation. He is not beholden to the power structure in the party of R. Nor is he warmly in bed with the monied Wall Street monied interests. He understands the need for monetary reform and has been instrumental in exposing the need for oversight of the Federal Reserves. And he sees the definite and immediate need to reign in the MIC.

Paul may not be the perfect candidate. In fact it is very likely there is no such thing as the perfect candidate. After all, candidates are human and thus perfection is not possible. And, for my liberal friends out there the same would apply to Ayn Rand ... ;)

Seriously, Paul may represent the best chance to change the nation's direction and point it to a positive path for both economic and social growth. Which I suspect is precisely why the establishment, both political and business will do everything in their power to misrepresent his ideas and insure he becomes only a footnote in American political history.

He's a long shot, but he is worth taking a serious look at. That would include reading his book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, in which he concisely lays out his principles and provides insight into what he would likely do if he were the leader of the free world.

Paul was recently in Newton Iowa where he visited a wind turbine blade manufacture and briefly outlined his views on limited and responsible government.

Newton, Ia. – Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul toured a wind-turbine blade manufacturer here and outlined his views on limited government to about 25 employees Friday afternoon.

Paul, a Texas congressman with strongly libertarian leanings, argued that good-intentioned efforts by the federal government to provide food, shelter and medical care have left Americans dependent and unproductive.

“It’s well-intended,” Paul said of government social programs, “but the truth is that you have to produce in order to live better. The tragedy in our country is that we’ve changed the conditions such that it’s very hard for us to be a productive country.”

The solution, he said, is to return the state to a far more limited role that merely ensures an environment in which the free market can thrive.

Reducing federal spending is also critical, he said. To accomplish a $1 trillion cut to annual spending, Paul said he would draw down U.S. military involvements in other nations and slash defense spending. Troops now stationed in Germany, South Korea and elsewhere should be brought home and put to work in their own communities, he said.

“It has to quit,” he said of military spending. “That’s why I take a bold stand. I’d cut the spending. I’d cut the overseas. I’d cut a lot of this militarism overseas.”

Beyond that, Paul said, the United States must undertake fundamental changes in its economic and monetary systems.

“Unless we look at this as a big picture looking at currency reform, tax reform, regulatory reform in order to restore confidence in the economy, we’re going to continue to get poorer,” he said.

The message was politely received by the plant employees, many of whom came off the factory floor still wearing their safety glasses to hear him speak.

Employee Douglas Barcus, of Newton, said he didn’t entirely share Paul’s views, but appreciated his libertarian perspective and the simple fact that he was different from the typical Republicans and Democrats on the national stage.

“I know he’s been in politics a long time, but he does seem like an outsider,” Barcus said. ”He’s outside the beltway, you know? The mentality of Washington D.C. and all the politics, whether Democrat or Republican, they’re just all the same. I don’t see much of a difference anymore.”

Responding to a question about this week’s Republican debate, which was notable for the contentiousness displayed by candidates, Paul was frank about his distaste.

“I can tell you that after the first 45 minutes I was tempted to walk off that stage,” Paul said. “I thought it was disgusting.”

The number of debates and their tenor indicate a demand for theatricality in politics, Paul said, that perhaps indicates a lack of seriousness about the process.

“These TV shows where they beat up on each other, I think that’s what the people like,” he said. “They enjoy this. They think it’s a game they’re playing.”

For a brighter future for America.

Via: Memeorandum

Warning: This Campaign May be Toxic to Your Political Health

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Earlier this month, Claire McCaskill (D- Not the Sharpest Knife in the Drawer), disappeared with "prior commitments" (like getting re-elected) when Obama came to visit St. Louis. In Virginia and North Carolina, Democrats like Tim Kaine,former Democratic National Committee chairman and governor, Democratic state Sen. Phil Puckett, were running away as well.

In September, Democratic state Sen. Phil Puckett distanced himself from Obama after his Republican challenger started calling him "Obama's man in southwest Virginia". In southwest Virginia, House Minority Leader Ward Armstrong is having a tough political fight. One of his solutions? Stay away from Barack Obama,.

Sometimes, in politics, they talk about a politician's "coattails", how a lesser candidate can be carried into office by virtue of the fact that the top of the ticket was strong enough to draw votes for other members of the same party. More rarely, they talk about "reverse coattails", where a poor candidate drags others in his party to defeat.

Democrat politicians fear Barack's coattails in 2012. As well they should.

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Herman Cain on Abortion Within The Context of Rape and Incest

Piers Morgan asked a question about abortion within the specific context of rape and incest:

"But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?"

Herman Cain said the following:

... it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.  Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

It sounds to me like Cain is saying that within the context of rape and incest, government should stay out of the decision.  Cain gave a nearly identical response to the question of abortion to save the life of the mother, so I wasn't particularly surprised by this.  Here's what Cain said on Meet the Press:

MR. GREGORY:  What about abortion?  You want to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Could you support or condone abortion under any exceptions at all?
MR. CAIN:  I believe in life from conception, and I do not agree with abortion under any circumstances.
MR. GREGORY:  Exceptions for rape and incest?
MR. CAIN:  Not for rape and incest because...
MR. GREGORY:  What about life of the mother?
MR. CAIN:  Because if you look at, you look at rape and incest, the, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options. If it's the life of the mother, that family's going to have to make that decision.
MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.  But you can--would you condone abortion if the life of the mother were...
MR. CAIN:  That family is going to have to make that...
MR. GREGORY:  You won't render a judgment on that.
MR. CAIN:  That family is going to have to make that decision.

The MSM is presenting this as a sort of schizoid conflict of opinions, and it's created a firestorm on conservative websites.  What do you think?

Here's the video with a poll below:

Counter-Tweet of the Day

Via Legal Insurrection, the Tweet of the day:

A tweet like that calls for a counter-tweet:

Analyzing the Media as the Media Analyzes the GOP Primary

By: Wes Messamore

A vigilant patriot has to keep a close eye, not only on the power brokers in politics, but the information brokers in media who tell us what to think about politics. To that end, one of the most important and interesting reads you might make all week is's in depth study on the media's perception and coverage of the GOP primary: "The Media Primary." Enjoy!

-Hat tip: Memeorandum

Stop Yelling and Pay Attention: The grassroots "Left" and "Right" are saying the same thing!

Posted by: Wesley Messamore

"At a time when Americans seem more divided than at any point since the Civil War, two grassroots protest movements, the Tea Parties and Occupy Wall Street protests, signal the possibility of a major realignment in American politics along the lines of massive shared opposition to the domineering financial sector and its corrupt counterparts in government…"

Read the entire article at The Silver Underground.

Romney Made Iowans Pay

One-term wonder Mitt Romney is proud of his accomplishments as Governor of liberal Massachusetts. He's particularly proud of his health care "reform" law.

Here's the best kept secret: Massachusetts isn't paying for it! The state has been able to shift the majority of the costs of RomneyCare to the federal government.

Do voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina know this?

RomneyCare: The Big Lie

"Let me tell you this about our system in Massachusetts: 92 percent of our people were insured before we put our plan in place. Nothing’s changed for them. The system is the same..."

~ Willard Mitt Romney

Actually, quite a bit has changed for the people of Massachusetts since Mitt Romney signed the Massachusetts health care law in 2006 (with Ted Kennedy standing over his shoulder). Here are the facts:
Shortly before his plan became law, Governor Romney claimed that "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced. And we will need no new taxes, no employer mandate and no government takeover to make this happen." Nothing could be more completely divorced from the truth:
  • With RomneyCare in place, state health care expenditures have risen by $414 million.
  • The federal government has spent an additional $2.418 billion on Medicaid for Massachusetts.
  • Medicare expenditures increased by $1.426 billion.
  • Under Romney's health care law, the cumulative increase in the cost of health care has come to $8.569 billion, so far.
  • Employers "who employ 11 or more full-time equivalent employees" and do not make a "fair and reasonable contribution" to their employees' health insurance are required to pay a fine.
  • Mitt Romney increased taxes the moment he signed RomneyCare.
Here's the best kept secret: Massachusetts isn't paying for it! The state has been able to shift the majority of the costs to the federal government.

More troubling facts:
  • More emergency room crowding: Despite reassuring predictions to the contrary, wasteful "low severity" ER visits continue to skyrocket.
  • The number of people "gaming" the state’s health insurance system (by purchasing coverage only when they are sick) quadrupled from 2006 to 2008.
  • RomneyCare increased single-coverage employer-sponsored insurance premiums by about 6 percent.
  • As a direct result of Romney's proudest achievement, low-to-medium earning families often suffer financially when they work harder to earn more money.
The future of RomneyCare:
Why is Mitt Romney so proud of RomneyCare?