Ron Paul and those Newsletters

I will preface my comments by saying that I find nothing in the newsletters that were racist. The sentiments in the newsletters were certainly abrasive. I believe that every individuals has the right to criticize other individuals of any race for their moral shortcomings. Further, rational prejudices should be discussed freely regardless of the race of the speaker.




Here is something I wrote over at DailyPaul.com in response to the video above.

Ron Paul needs to realize that not one of those who are bringing up the newsletters actually believes that he is a racist. Therefore, it means that the newsletters mentions are meant to throw him off his game and inject a negative perception in the minds of voters.

Case in point, is Erick Erickson who brought up the newsletters on the Boortz show this morning. After reading what seemed like a prepared piece. Erickson basically said that he didn't believe that Ron Paul was a racist; he just believes Ron Paul is nuts. The obvious translation is that the newsletters are simply for voter consumption, but the actual media announcers who mention it don't believe Paul is a racist. The enemies of Ron Paul are opportunistic in their ploy to stop him.

The way forward is for Ron Paul to preface his answers with the statement that the media doesn't want him to win. His usual answer that he did not write them and disavow them is in order. Further, he should attack the very premise of racism and tie it to how both political parties have betrayed the American people. The sentiment should be that judging someone on the basis of race or political party is an error. The true issue is whether the person is consistent, accurate in predictions and focused.


Finally, he should invoke the words of Christ by saying that as a Christian he is bound to treat his fellow human beings in the same way he would treat Christ. He should also say, "surely all human beings are the wonderful creations of God."

Rush Limbaugh vs Ron Paul

The headlines after the Fox News GOP presidential debate in Sioux Cuty, Iowa had an addition with Rush Limbaugh going after Ron Paul.  One headline read:

Limbaugh Blasts Ron Paul For ‘Running To The Left Of President Obama’ On Iran

Rush Limbaugh never proffered any argument to deflate Ron Paul's sentiment. Rush basically ridiculed Ron Paul's voice and suggested that Paul evaded a question. The claim that Paul is left of Obama on foreign policy presupposes that a Neocon foreign policy of militarism is conservative. However, Neocons have never been conservatives and never will be. The truth of the matter is that being cautious going into war and having a declaration of war is the wisest thing to do. It's constitutional. It's conservative.

Michelle Bachmann desperate for Herman Cain Supporters

The ABC aired GOP presidential debate from Iowa, which was held on Saturday 10th, December was very interesting. Of all the candidates, Michelle Bachmann was the lone person to mention Herman Cain. In fact, she had nice things to say about Herman Cain. Evidently, her invocation of Herman Cain is desperate and in vain effort to wins some of his supporters. Let's just hope that it's too late for Bachmann to garner more support.

Big Dog: Ron Paul 2012

Herman Cain broke Michael Savage's Heart...Aw

During a flight of fancy, I tuned in to the Michael Savage show on Thursday, December 1st. I was amused when Savage admitted that Herman Cain had fooled him. Savage went on to say that as hard as it was to admit, he had thought of Cain as serious and upright. Obviously, Savage is one of those idiots who prefers partisanship to careful observation. The defense of Herman Cain was a knee jerk reaction by some Republican and Conservatives. 

I actually listened to what Herman Cain had to say. I even took note of his debating style or the lack thereof. I was immediately struck by how incoherent, dishonest and defensive Cain could be. Herman Cain is a pseudo-Uncle Tom as I have declared many times. A real Uncle Tom is a black man who is fooled by whites. However, Herman Cain is fooling whites and not the other way around. 

Cain remains one of the most ignorant and disgraceful men to ever run for the presidency of the United States.       

Newt Gingrich for Amnesty

Newt Gingrich recently made a statement that if favors some illegal migrants remain in the U.S.

The punishment for entering or staying in the U.S. illegally is ultimately deportation to one's native country. Newt is saying that he proposes a selective criteria where some illigal migrants are allowed to stay and work in the U.S. Therefore, the punishment for illegal migration is waived for some by allowing them to stay and work in the U.S. The foregoing is the very essence of what an amnesty is.

To suggest that one has good reasons to forgive illegality in no way precludes amnesty. An illegal migrant who has deep ties in the U.S. is considered a sacred cow under Newt's plan. However, anyone who would live in country that does not afford them legal rights is taking severe risks. In short, the U.S. government never promised them a rose garden.

Of course, Newt Gingrich'S proposal of the odious "Red Card" is meant silence the objections of many in the Republican party that fear that immigrants are more likely to vote Democratic if given a chance. The policy of allowing a foreigner to work and pay taxes in the U.s without even the possibility of them applying for citizenship is dubious. In fact, it takes taxation without representation to new heights. Further, it would mean an underclass of residents who would never truly be integrated or even loyal to so-called American values.


The possible problems with the "Red Card" are that the workers would have children who would be U.S. citizens. The workers could also marry Americans and gain legal status that way. The Democratic party or other groups could seek and be successful in modifying the law to allow such workers to vote.


In the end, the worker program that Newt proposes also increases the size of the federal workforce. After all, it would take a few thousands functionaries to police and administer such a program. What kind of conservative openly advocates expanding the federal workforce. You guessed it, a Republicrat flip-flopper.

Mitt Romney for American Imperialism

I watch the CNN national security debate, which was held at DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. Mitt Romney responded to the sentiments of the esteemed Congressman Ron Paul. Romney acknowledged the divergent foreign policy ideas of Ron Paul and president Barack Obama, but he also cited what he believed to be similarities. Apparently, Romney believes that Obama is an anti-imperialist, which is nonsensical. How could one compare Ron Paul and Barack Obama? Obama takes orders from NATO and the United Nations while Ron Paul affirms American sovereignty and, eschews involvement in NATO and the United Nations. No comparison.

Mitt Romney says he wants U.S. military dominance through-out the world. Why? He says there are nations that want to oppress others. Now, if one has the strongest military in the world, would that not mean imperialism, which is a form of oppression? The only way to know you have the strongest military in the world is to be an aggressor nation and win wars.

One could have a strong military that is purely defensive as is the case with China at present. The use of submarines, ICBMs, an air force and the like would do the job. The policy of having bases bespeaks an empire and aggressor nation status.

The president of the United States is not tasked with being an imperialist, but the protection of the American people. It's called national defense for a reason.

Newt on the Laura Ingraham Show

On Tuesday or Wednesday, I was listening to the Laura Ingraham show. Her special guest was presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Laura asked some very piercing questions. The first that stood out to me was when she asked what Newt had to tell the people of Iowa in light of the mailers being sent detailing his despicable treatment of women. To this, Newt answered that in an election campaign folks ought to expect some negative news about a candidate. Of course, Newt evaded the question. Yes, the content of the mailers was negative, but were they true? Newt does not deny the truth of the mailers.

The second question of note is about his work for Freddy Mac. Of particular note was Newt's comments that after being the House Speaker it was an example of free enterprise for him to have contracted his services to Freddy Mac. Before the said comment, Laura pointed out that had he not been House Speaker he would not have been awarded the contract. My position is that reaping the benefits of having had  and by virtue of being a elected or civil office holder is not  exactly free enterprise. 

Newt used his former government position to get a contract with a government agency in order to influence government functionaries in the legislature to be favorable to a government agency. If the foregoing is Newt idea of free enterprise, then he would keep that shit to himself. 

Newt Gingrich is the flavor of the week. Sweet to the mouth and bitter to the belly. May his fall come quickly.

Herman Cain: Clueless on Foreign Affairs

Herman Cain was like a pompous and pretentious illiterate at a spelling bee contest. Why in the world would a man who wants to replace Obama not have an intelligib­le opinion on the Libyan battle?


Moreover, there is no one other than Ron Paul who has can contrast himself on foreign when matched with Obama. The criticism of Romney, Newt, Bachmann and others are weak and beside the point. Unless there is a strong contrast GOP candidates can't best Obama on foreign policy.

The GOP nonsense that Obama does not support Israel is weak. The fact is that support for Israel is bolstered by the congress. Even if a president wavered in support of Israel it would be of no consequenc­e.

Ron Paul correctly states that toppling a dictator most often results in states that are even more dangerous to American interests. Further, there was no declaratio­n of war and U.S. vital interests were not in play. Also, Paul is critical of the U.S. waging war because of a mandate from a foreign organizati­on or power. Agree of disagree, Ron Paul has been the most potent critic of Obama's foreign policy.

Online Polls Controversy

The very idea of an online poll is for individuals who frequent a website to vote. The poll is not meant to be scientific. The poll is for people who visit the site. The fact that Ron Paul supporters are adept web surfers does not discount the fact that we are real individuals. An online poll is not scientific, and the attempt to deny surfers an opportunity to vote because one does not like the way they vote is ridiculous.

The online poll is supposed to make a visit to a given site fun and engaging. Indeed, the way most visitors vote should be of no concern of a website owner. After all, the rational goal is to draw traffic to a website to cash in on advertising through site visitor statistics. The mere fact that the foregoing reasoning does not hold shows that a lot of websites are fronts for a particular presidential candidate.

Ron Paul Wins Iowa Straw Poll Of GOP Presidential Candidates

Ron Paul won a straw poll in Iowa and came in a close second in Alabama. Here is a comment I left over at the HuffingtonPost.

Congratulations to Ron Paul and all those who want to restore the American republic. It's interestin­g that the article mentions that the campaign bought attendees tickets. I wonder where the campaign got money. How did the campaign get people there to vote? I reckon this means that the money bomb where thousands donated to the campaign was good for something. The dedication of Ron Paul supporters must be quite intense for them to turn out to vote in a poll where the malcontent­s would surely try to discount Paul's win.

Oh Lord, Jeffrey Bitchin' about so-called Anti-Semitism

Jeffrey Lord, the resident idiot, over at The American Spectator, blogs about what he sees as the anti-Semitism of some of Ron Paul's supporters. Lord visited dailypaul.com and claims that he could not help noticing certain comments.

The problem with Lord's supposed outrage is that he does not validate his sentiment that the comments are anti-Semitic. The comments focus on putting America first and they highlight the negative aspects of the Israeli state. Zionism is a form of statism, so it's no surprise that Ron Paul supporters are against it.

Lord uses the term anti-Semite as a cuss-word as most paranoid Jews do. Apparently, no criticism of Israel or the actions of individual Jews is ever objective or logical, if Lord is to be believed. That sentiment represents a sort of enduring sin where Jews could do no wrong, and every criticism of Jews could only come from tainted Gentiles who are animated by hate.

I guess when Mark Levin insults other Jews he is an antI-Semite too. Or, is it the case that only Jews could criticize Jews?

Lord should keep in mind that not all Jews are Zionist. Plus, the Talmud flattering to non-Jews.

Michelle Bachmann drinks Trump's Cool Aid

Lately, Republican candidate Michelle Bachmann has been rubbing shoulders with Donald Trump. The results of their canoodling could be witnessed at the CNN Western Republican Leadership Conference debate, which occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada. Like Trump, Michelle thinks that countries that were preemptively attacked by the U.S. should reimburse the U.S. for costs associate with destroying their people and infrastructure.

The idiocy and depravity of such a sentiment is overwhelming. Here is the transcript of what Michelle Bachmann said:

COOPER: Time. Congresswoman Bachmann... [...] Should we cut foreign aid to Israel?


BACHMANN: No, we should not be cutting foreign aid to Israel. Israel is our greatest ally. The biggest problem is the fact... that the president -- the biggest problem with this administration in foreign policy is that President Obama is the first president since Israel declared her sovereignty put daylight between the United States and Israel. That heavily contributed to the current hostilities that we see in the Middle East region.


Cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. Being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. We should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.


Now, I need to add something on this issue of negotiating for hostages. This is a very serious issue. For any candidate to say that they would release the prisoners at Guantanamo in exchange for a hostage would be absolutely contrary to the historical nature of the United States and what we do in our policy. That's naive; we cannot do that. The United States has done well because we have an absolute policy: We don't negotiate.

The imperialistic conceit of Michelle Bachmann is disgusting. The supposition that there is some implicit liability for countries that were attacked by the U.S. to reimburse the aggressors costs is superstition. Bachmann seems to be saying that the U.S. is fighting wars based on altruism and not for national defense. Furthermore, she believes that the U.S. definition of liberation is sufficient for all peoples of the world. Trump is rubbing off on Bachmann, and she is more of ass for it.

Patrick Buchanan is terrified...

Patrick J. Buchanan is mostly right when he says that changing demographics is bad news for the Republican party and possibly whites. This is so, because in the next few decades there would come a time when the American state would not be controlled by whites, but by non Caucasians.

The white supremacists of all temperaments are uneasy about all of this. The state was used to enforce and enshrine white supremacy and privilege. The big question is what would happen to white interests when the state is controlled by mostly non-Caucasians.

As Bob Marley would say, "Guiltiness rest on their conscience."

Herman Cain Incoherent on Abortion

WTF!

Rush Limbaugh's Big Gaffe

Rush Limbaugh gave a great plug to Ron Paul economic plan. However, Rush made a big gaffe when he said that Ron Paul stole the ideas from him and anonymous Republican or Conservatives.


"Now, these are not really Ron Paul’s ideas. On this program I myself have suggested freezing spending at 2008 levels. Let’s freeze spending back to Clinton’s years. Paul is stealing that idea. Cutting the EPA? We’ve long been an advocate of this … eliminating whole bureaucracies. But nobody on our side has ever seriously proposed this and Ron Paul is going to. "

Ron Paul is older that Rush Limbaugh. In fact, when Ron Paul ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988, he was calling for a reduction in the Federal government and spending. Consequently, prior to 1988 Ron Paul had been advocating Federal spending cuts. Rush Limbaugh is out of place. He needs to respect his elders and get back to reality.

Herman Cain is a Liar

Herman Cain claims not to know about Neocons yet he names only Neocons as individuals who are helping him on policy or who he would have help him. Cain is a liar or worst he is a naive ignoramus as Bill O'Reilly has alluded to. Bolton, Kissinger and McFarland are figurehead Neocons. Perhaps, Cain should read Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It," then he would realize by deduction that he himself advocates a position that he cannot give a name to.

ITEM #1:

MR. GREGORY: But you're familiar with the neoconservative movement?


MR. CAIN: I'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement. I'm familiar with the conservative movement. And let me define what I mean by the conservative movement. Less government, less taxes, more individual responsibility.


ITEM #2:

MR. GREGORY: What about foreign policy advisers? Who, who has shaped your thinking about the U.S. in the world and foreign policy?


MR. CAIN: I've looked at the writings of people like Ambassador John Bolton. I've looked at the writings of Dr. Harry--Henry Kissinger. KT McFarland, someone who I respect. So...

MR. GREGORY: Would you describe yourself as a neoconservative then?

Herman Cain's Dirty Rhetorical Habits

Herman Cain has a nasty rhetorical habit of accusing his prompters of misquoting him or fabricating something he said. The problem is that most of the time Cain does it, he is the one who is being less than truthful. His tactic is obviously to throw his prompter off their ground and a reflective defense mechanism when he is uncomfortable with the replay of his words.


During the Bloomberg TV debate, Herman Cain, said that Ron Paul was misquoting him on the question of whether or not he thought that an audit of the federal reserve was necessary. However, it has been shown that Cain did in fact call Ron Paul supporter ignorant for wanting to audit the fed and suchlike.



Herman Cain was his classic self when he appeared on the October 16th "Meet the Press" Sunday morning talk show with host, David Gregory. The relevant part of the show's transcript is below:



MR. GREGORY: Here's a general question. You said you wouldn't rely on wise men, so-called wise men, when it comes to foreign policy views, although you mentioned Henry Kissinger just a moment ago, that you're familiar with his writings. Generally speaking, you know, what, what you have as a great strength, I think to many, is no government experience. But you have no government experience whatsoever, and you want to do some big things. Explain that vision. I mean, would you bring outsiders in to Washington? Would you eschew the establishment of Washington and do things in a completely different way, maybe like Jimmy Carter?

MR. CAIN: Don't use Jimmy Carter as the example.

MR. GREGORY: Perhaps not ideologically.

MR. CAIN: Not ideological--don't--that's not a good example. Secondly, I don't recall saying I would not use wise men and wise women. My philosophy on...

MR. GREGORY: You wrote that in your book. "I won't lean on so-called `wise men' as other commanders in chief have done."

MR. CAIN: Well, let me explain what that means. I'm going to have a combination of people that are outside government and people that are inside government. As much as I and others talk about many of the problems that are perceived outside of Washington as what's going on inside Washington, D.C., there are some good people inside Washington, D.C., holding elected office that I am going to lean on and I'm going to call upon. But I'm also going to bring in people who understand, understand defining the right problem, knowing how to put--surround yourself with good people, and then putting together the right plans based upon some guiding principles that I have established throughout my career and I will establish as president.


There we have it. Cain always tells his prompter that he can't recall or he did not say that very things that he did say. In the above, Cain admits that he said something he claimed not to recall saying. I reckon the author of Cain's book was the usual ghostwriter.

In the end, Herman Cain's debating style is a liability ton him. Indeed, his dirty rhetorical habit shows that he is easily put on the defensive.

Herman Cain on Illegal Immigrants

According to the NY Times, Herman Cain wants an electrified fence on the border and the use of lethal force if necessary. I would imagine that North Korean border policy has many similarities. The prospect of gunning citizens of a key trading partner and ally is mind boggling. Of course, it may be the hope of Herman Cain to use the fence and armed personnel as a deterrent.

Interestingly, attempting to enter the U.S. illegally is not a capital offence. Therefore, for someone who is running for president to advocate killing illegal immigrants on the border is a disqualification. Yes, Cain mentioned that illegal immigrants have killed Americans once inside the border and that border guards have been attacked. Apart from the self defense and justice his position is deplorable.

UPDATE: Herman Cain said that his plan was a joke on Meet the Press (10/16/2011).

Cain's 9-9-9 plan sounds like Obama's Yes-We-Can

Cain's 9-9-9 plan sounds like Obama's Yes-We-Can. By this I mean, it would be sweet to the mouth but bitter to the belly. The slogan lulls the unsuspecting electorate to sleep with its simplicity. However, the tax code is not an issue for simpletons. Moreover, giving the federal government an additional revenue stream, which it could raise is a very dangerous.

Cain says he would veto any bill that increases any individual 9% tax when he is president. Someone rightly asked if Cain would be president forever. Cain further said that he would insist that any move to increase the tax be done with a super majority in the Senate or whatever. Cain should know that Congress has a poor approval rating for a reason: rational distrust by the electorate.


The CS Monitor has a telling article entitled: Herman Cain 9-9-9 sticker shock? 18% sales tax possible in some states.

I believe 9-9-9 is a trojan horse for big government. Surely, such a tax plan would reduce effective demand in many states.

Michelle Bachmann is the dark horse

It's my belief that Michelle Bachmann would survive and rise in the polls in the coming weeks. I am yet to be satisfied that her positions and desirability have precluded her from gaining the GOP candidacy.

Now, Herman Cain is on the rise by his tax plan and his lack of funds are a liability. Mitt Romney remains a Mormon who is under suspicion of being a liberal. Newt is has too much baggage to continue and every believes he has too much baggage. Rick Perry is now Alice in Wonderland. He has lost his bearings and would continue to falter. Santorum is not too charming and he does not inspire confidence that he would beat Obama.

The two left are Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann. When the dust would have cleared only two candidates could survive the conservative test in my view.

Brown signs California Dream Act

On October 8th, 2011 the Los Angeles Times reported that California governor Jerry Brown signed the California Dream Act into law. The legislation "granted illegal immigrants access to state financial aid at public universities and community colleges..." Why any state would enact such a law eludes me.


The usual criticism is that such financial incentives ignore federal law by encouraging and condoning illegal migration. Further, out of state U.S. citizens and legal resident still have to pay out of state tuition. Consequently, illegal immigrants enjoy benefits that some citizens and legal residents don't. Not to mention the fact that the state of California is running on a deficit budget. The question is why give freebies to individuals who don't deserve it in a time of scarcity?


The proponents of state's rights would say that California has the right to make such a concession to illegal immigrants. Fair enough. Just like the federal government, the government of California eludes the fact that reality always bites the deficit spender in the butt. Sooner or later the state would be broke and be forced to raise taxes and cut spending. I would imagine that the very individuals who benefited from the subsidization of illegal immigration would move to another state with the education they got thanks to the late great California.


According to the LA Times 'Brown downplayed the cost to taxpayers. He said the California Department of Finance estimates 2,500 additional students will qualify for Cal-Grants as a result of the Dream Act, at a cost of $14.5 million." Of course, all the estimates ignore the a potential increase in illegal immigrants to California. Additional students will qualify on top of the 2500 figure because there is an incentive for illegal immigrants to move to California. The problem of enumerating illegal immigrants (the college bound and other)remains despite Jerry Brown's estimates.

The Pathetic attempt to smear Iran and save Holder

According to Associated Press "The Obama administration accused Iranian government agents Tuesday of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States and immediately used the thwarted plot to ratchet up sanctions and recruit international allies to try to further isolate Tehran."


Of course, it's okay for the United State government to assassinate individuals in foreign nations and kill innocent individuals in the process. However, when it comes to a supposed plot by another nation to do the same thing, then a grave sin has been committed.


The question is what Iran had to gain from the act? Also, why was the plot so shoddy in operational details whereby Iran could not have denied involvement had it happened? Why is the Iranian government being punish for the conspiracy when no evidence was cited that the government itself was involved?


At this point the story around the plot is ridiculous. The only parties who benefit from the plot are the U.S. attorney general and other arms of the state that want to weaken Iran.

Ron Paul wins Values Voter Summit straw poll

Ron Paul has won yet another straw poll. Indeed, he delivered a powerful speech before an audience at the Values Voter Summit presidential straw poll. Paul discussed how debt, overspending and economic woes take a toll on the family. He also correctly cited the fact that many military families are broken because soldiers are gravely affected by war psychologically, physically and financially. Underlying this sentiment is Paul's view that many of the wars being fought now are unjust and unnecessary; a sentiment that I endorse. 

Of course, the malcontents are saying that straw polls are irrelevant. Some have even gone far enough to claim that the Paul campaign was too effective at getting supporters to vote therefore something morally wrong must have taken place. 

To my understanding, a straw poll is a simulation designed to gauge the level of support for a candidate in an area and around a time period. The mere fact that supporters would show up to vote in a nonbinding election is indicative of what likely to play out on an actual election day. Moreover, the winner of a straw poll normally gets to dominate the news cycle for a few days or weeks.

It would be mistaken to say that straw polls are useless when the case of Herman Cain winning the Florida straw poll meant more media coverage for him and his subsequent upswing in polls. 

Ron Paul winning the straw poll should mean more positive media coverage. In this sense, winning the poll is vital to a candidate that has few advocates in the mainstream media. 

The critics would argue that the Paul campaign bought the straw poll or they stuffed ballots by busing voters in. All of the foregoing is speculation by incredulous Ron Paul haters. What is fact is that Paul has a high level of support, which translated into actual votes. It matters not how the voters got to the venue; all that matter is that they were there. Ron Paul got values!

Congratulations to Ron Paul and special thanks to those who voted for him.

Omaha Considers Allowing Legal Immigrants to Register Guns...Finally

According to the Omaha World Herald, Omaha Police Chief, Alex Hayes, submitted a memo to the city council on Friday 30th, September proposing changes "designed to make city regulations consistent with state and federal gun registration laws — while adding a section that encourages voluntary weapon registration."

Of course, the City of Omaha, Nebraska was incredibly short-sighted to have restricted the legal immigrants from registering firearms in the first place. The state of Nebraska allows legal immigrants to legally own guns. However, a Nebraskan city with a sizable legal immigrant population disallowed it.


The Omaha police chief said that the changes were in the pipeline for some time now. He even suggested that a lawsuit filed against city was negligible in influencing his or the city's decision. Quoting the Omaha World Herald again,"The lawsuit was filed by the Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association and Armando Pliego Gonzalez." Indeed, Armando Pliego Gonzalez is reported as saying that "It's a good thing. We have been trying to do something" by KETV NewsWatch 7.

I really hope that the Omaha city council changes the ordinance and allows legal immigrants to register firearms. Surely, it's the right thing to do.

Grammatically Correct

I suffer from the condition known as 'reading from memory instead of what is one the screen'. Therefore, isolated grammatical errors would all be corrected within 72 hours of a posting date.

Anwar al-Awlaki was assassinated.

Anwar al-Awlaki the accused terrorist propagandist and plotter was assassinated in Yemen on Friday 30th, September. According to reports al-Awlaki was killed by a CIA drone strike. Of course, the Muslim hating and blood thirsty avengers of the empire are gleeful at the news. However, wiser men and women such as Congressman Ron Paul have pointed out that a U.S. citizen was executed without first being afforded a trial.

I now quote some of Paul's comments to NBC news while in New Hampshire campaigning for the 2011 GOP presidential nomination:

"Al-Awlaki was born here; he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.”

"I think what would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who we were pretty certain that he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."


I agree wholeheartedly with Ron Paul in his assessment and concern. Now, those who think otherwise could only muster three types of responses.

1) Claim that al-Awlaki was not a U.S. citizen or ceased to be U.S. citizen because he criticized the state and advocated taking up arms against the state.

2) Claim that the U.S. Constitution does not preclude the extra-judicial killing of a U.S. citizen in all circumstance of which this case is representative.

3) Claim that the means justify the ends. Also, make the case that the law cannot keep up with the complexity of the threats that are faced by the U.S. Therefore, the president must act to eliminate threats as needed.


Firstly, al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico. He is a natural born U.S. citizen. As well, criticism of the government or even calling for an armed revolt does not relieve an American of citizenship. A charge of treason is not a letter to the editor but a legal judgement. It has not been made.


Second, the analogy whereby the police are compelled to kill a suspect to protect their own lives or that of others is not germane in this case. Al-Awlaki was not an imminent threat to the U.S. Further, a police officer who discharges his weapon or kills someone must prove that he acted within law. The U.S. government has not presented any evidence to prove that Al-Awlaki was an imminent threat.


Thirdly, giving the president the luxury of ignoring the Constitution and executing U.S. citizens without a trial is a danger to all of us. The definition of terrorism is very malleable (Patriot Act!)and could be used against anyone. The quest for revenge or justice should not lead to the negation of the very article that makes justice possible: the Constitution.

Further Reading:
     The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality by Glenn Greenwald

Janeane Garafalo, Herman Cain and Racialism

Janeane Garafalo made some curious comments when she appeared on Keith Olberman's show. She regurgitated the Democratic narrative that minorities and women who support the GOP suffer from countless maladies. Of note is her comment that:



“I believe Herman Cain is in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherent in the Republican Party, the conservative movement, the tea party certainly, and the last 30 years, the Republican Party has been moving more and more the right, also race-baiting more, gay-baiting more, religion-baiting more.”

As someone who has been called an Uncle Tom myself, I am well aware of the vacuous nature of the charge. Even so, Garafalo has not validated her contention at all. Her recital of Democratic urban legends is preaching to the choir.


The fact remains that the media focused on two GOP contenders to the near exclusion of others for many weeks. Rick Perry had a fall from grace around the same time that Herman Cain had a good debate performance, and this led individuals to pay greater attention to Cain. The media did as well.


Herman Cain has a very compelling life story that cannot be diminished by tacky pizza jokes. Moreover, his views are for the most part staple GOP vote seekers.

I would contend that Herman Cain was underrated from the start. He is now only getting the attention that he deserves. From all indications he is reaping the rewards of greater attention. All the talk about GOP voters trying to mask racism is a classic case of moving the goalposts. On one hand it is assumed that the GOP are brazen racists who don't give a damn. Yet on the other hand, one is told that the GOP supports a black man, so as not to appear racist. Who in the world is the GOP trying to impress by doing the latter is beyond me.The accusation of racism is begging the question; it's assumed that the GOP are racist and every thing that seems to validate that assumption is trumped up. 

Many African Americans have beliefs that are clearly in line with the GOP. For instance, Christian faith, immigration, abortion, gay marriage and national defense. There is no categorical imperative for an African American to be a Democrat. To suggest that there is foolish. Garafalo would be hard pressed to say that Frederic Douglas and other black Republicans were anyone's puppets. To even suggest that someone the likes of Booker T. Washington suffered from Stockholm Syndrome is demeaning. In fact, such examples along with Herman Cain rubbishes the argument that blacks can't be affirmative Republicans.

Herman Cain: Black Voters 'Have Been Brainwashed Into Not Being Open-Minded'

Herman Cain was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer recently and he had the occasion to say that members of the African American community "have been brainwashed into not being open-minded, not even considering a conservative point of view." Of course, when Blitzer mentioned that he used strong language to express his sentiment Herman Cain slyly moderated his position. Cain went on to say that not all black people were drinking Democratic cool-aid and the like.

Now, I think that Cain is guilty of condescension to African-Americans. Surely, he does not give African Americans credit when it's clearly due. One wonders if Cain has had any debate with other blacks of Democratic leanings. If he has, then he would know that most blacks who have any interest in politics know full well why they don't support the Republican party. The supposition that blacks blindly support the Democratic party is false and demeaning. Perhaps, Cain thought he would score points with GOP voters if he said that.

Surely, both sides of the political spectrum accuse each other of being brainwashed. Underlying the sentiment of elitism and implied intellectual collectivism is the view that blacks should have common interests, and that said interests are best served by supporting one political party. However, blacks are not a monolithic demographic at all. Therefore, expecting a synching of political ideology is wishful thinking.

In the end, the majority of blacks support the Democratic party because they are courted by the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans. Moreover, blacks tend to support the welfare state and other Democratic pet ideas. Further, strides in civil rights have been attributed to the Democratic party; thus, it is supposed that the continuation of civil rights rest with the Democratic party. As well, most black politicians are Democrats, so it's easier to identify with a Democrat.