If libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

Paul, as expected, did well in Iowa. His strong third-place finish is substantially better than he did in 2008, and his national poll numbers are twice what they were back then. Paul’s appeal is easy to understand. His antiwar message of limited government, low taxes and federalism have strong appeal, especially to young people who oppose the war on drugs, take a pro-choice position on abortion and support gay marriage.

Paul scares people who purport to embrace freedom but fear the responsibility that goes with it. Privatize Social Security? Serious change in Medicare? Call off the war on drugs? End government welfare? He actually believes in the Constitution, an amazing document that many Americans ignore, have not read or are apparently waiting for the movie version.

Paul speaks passionately and persuasively about abolishing the departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, the Interior, and Housing and Urban Development. He wants to take a machete to the size of government when many Republicans insist on using a pocketknife.

When then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson spooked Republican colleagues into voting for TARP to “save” our financial system, Paul refused. When President George W. Bush supported bailouts for the domestic auto industry, Paul opposed them. When Bush signed the prescription benefit for seniors, Paul considered it a wrongheaded expansion of an already severely unfunded entitlement program.

Republican opposition to Paul is also easy to understand.

He opposed the Iraq War. He preferred to deal with Osama bin Laden through “letters of marque and reprisal.” This refers to a constitutional provision that allows the government to offer a bounty and target individuals rather than nations — as if the problem were just a handful of bad people.

Paul does not believe that we are at war with Islamofascists. He believes that U.S. actions are responsible for our bad PR in the Middle East. He argues that those who wish to kill us by strapping on bombs and murdering civilians feel this way because “we are over there.” On the other hand, he called Islamic terrorists “irrational.” If they are irrational, how does it matter that “we are over there”? And if we were no longer there, would Ayman al-Zawahiri, now head of al-Qaida, abandon his publicly stated quest for a worldwide “caliphate”?

Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein interviewed several of bin Laden’s top lieutenants.

Hussein outlined al-Qaida’s strategy of seven phases — the first one beginning as an “awakening” for Muslims worldwide following the Sept. 11 attacks. The plan culminates with the “definitive victory” of “one-and-a-half billion Muslims” and the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate by 2020.

Bin Laden, in his 1998 fatwa against the United States, said: “The killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty for each and every Muslim to be carried out in whichever country they are. … We — with God’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill Americans.”

Paul expects countries and stateless actors to play nice and fair if the United States plays nice and fair. If every country played nice and fair, we would not need a military. He even said Iran would be justified in blocking the Strait of Hormuz — through which 20 percent of the world’s oil demand travels — in response to Western economic sanctions imposed to deter Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Do all libertarians feel as Paul does on foreign policy? Most do, but certainly not all. Is there room for a “9/11 libertarian” — one who thinks we are at war against a ruthless, determined Islamofascist enemy that could not care less about the Geneva Conventions?

Look in the encyclopedia under “libertarian.” If a picture of Republican Nobel economics laureate Milton Friedman is not there, it ought to be. President Ronald Reagan considered him a giant in the conservative movement. Over 50 years ago, Friedman argued the then-radical case for education vouchers. Friedman said the money for education should follow the child, rather than the other way around.

Friedman took no position on the Gulf War, but had no Ron Paul-like ideological objection to it. As for the Iraq War, Friedman opposed it. But there was dissent in the Friedman household. Friedman’s wife, also an economist and co-author of their seminal economics book “Free to Choose,” supported the Iraq War.

What about a Paul third party candidacy, since he is not seeking re-election to the House? He would likely siphon more votes from the GOP than from President Obama — and do greater damage to the GOP nominee than Ralph Nader did to Al Gore in 2000.

It is quite extraordinary what the rumpled, unpretentious 76-year-old OB/GYN has already achieved. Many Republicans now agree: If the GOP listened to Paul on domestic and economic issues, their “brand” would look a lot better.

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

Casey Stengel, a baseball legend who played on five teams and managed four, said: “It’s easy to get good players. Getting them to play together, that’s the hard part.”

What’s true in sports is definitely true in politics — even more so.

Many say that ’tis the season for GOP rivalry, but when does inference turn to infighting? When does public debate abandon solidarity? And when does friendly bantering turn into friendly fire that is fuel for our foes?

I know that we are in a GOP presidential race. I understand the tactics to win a regular election, but this is no typical run for the presidency. There is a progressive insurrection under way, and at the heart of progressives’ political warfare is the lack of conservative consensus.

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, told an audience in Iowa last week, “President Obama is legitimately and authentically a Saul Alinsky radical.” I completely agree, and so do most people who truly understand Obama’s origins and political philosophies. Even The New York Times, back in August 2009, wrote, “Saul Alinsky (was a) Chicago activist and writer whose street-smart tactics influenced generations of community organizers, most famously the current president.”

Alinsky’s bible for community organizers is “Rules for Radicals,” the principles of which can be viewed in almost every action of the left, including the present White House. For example, in the chapter on “power tactics,” the fourth tactic is: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.” Whereas conservatives regard congruity as commendable, Alinsky considers it an opportunity for raising disdain among the public and infighting among enemies, because no one can perfectly live up to his or her own message.

This is where Alinsky’s fifth rule follows and applies: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” And the best missile in that arsenal is the friendly fire (ridicule) caused within the enemies’ own camps.

The goal is “conflict among themselves” — what Alinsky calls “power cannibalism,” “a road from which there is no turning back” because it “permits only temporary truces.” Indeed, according to Alinsky, they will suffer a form of selfish implosion while attempting to appear selfless as “individual units attempt to exploit the general threat for their own special benefit.”

Alinsky concludes, “Here is the vulnerable belly of the status quo.”

Tragically, by their infighting, the GOP candidates are playing right into Obama and Alinsky’s hands. The fact is that while the majority of GOP candidates think they merely are competing for the prize of the nomination, they are running exact plays from Alinsky’s playbook, often pitted by the mainstream media and the White House, who are playing them like pawns, with their questions, accusations and innuendoes.

Consider how the Alinsky scorecard has read just recently.

According to The Associated Press, last week, former Massachusetts Gov.

Mitt Romney’s camp “announced a $3.1 million TV ad campaign in Iowa beginning (Dec. 9) that includes the new commercial assailing Gingrich on a host of fronts.”

On the other hand, look at what Gingrich said at a Nov. 28 town hall meeting in Charleston, S.C.: “I do approach this whole campaign, I think, differently from everybody else. We have a number of friends who are also running. We have no opponents except Barack Obama. I think that’s very important. I think (Abraham) Lincoln was very wise, as was captured in a book called ‘Team of Rivals.’ … Literally everybody who was his opponent ended up in the Cabinet because he needed all of them in order to be able to put together the political power during the crisis that we faced. I would say the same thing. I don’t know of a single person currently running who wouldn’t be a very effective member of an administrative team and who doesn’t have real talent and, in some way … a unique strength. So I don’t have any opponents on the Republican side.”

Now, you tell me, which type of leadership is going to win us back the White House, one that rallies the country or one that divides the house?

The Republican presidential candidates are not the only ones being duped to Alinsky’s schemes; many of the conservative media and much of the public are, too. While we slander our own presidential candidates within the borders of our First Amendment rights, we inadvertently abandon the strategy to win the White House.

Every conservative I know agrees that any GOP candidate would bring better leadership than that which we currently have in the White House. I firmly believe that our candidates’ positive attributes outweigh any of their negatives.

With about three weeks until the Iowa caucuses, it’s high time that we quit allowing the left and even our own preferences and prejudice to polarize us any further. It’s time we lay down our egos and our innate bent and fight to unify for our republic’s sake. It’s time we elevate our own preferred candidate without trashing the others. It’s time we turn the tables and beat the progressives at their own game by overturning their own rules — Alinsky’s “rules”!

If we are going to win the war for the White House, it’s going to be solely in our ability to rally together and keep our scopes on the current occupant of the White House, not by aiming at one another.

So let’s flood the media and blogosphere with discussion about the strengths each candidate possesses. Let’s keep the focus on real solutions to get this country back on track. Let’s live out the acronym TEAM and show progressives and the world that “together everyone achieves more,” namely winning back the White House and Senate and maintaining a majority in the House of Representatives, which would save our republic.

United we stand; divided we most certainly will fall.

Follow Chuck Norris through his official social media sites, on Twitter @chucknorris and Facebook’s “Official Chuck Norris Page.” He blogs at http://chucknorrisnews.blogspot.com. To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CHUCK NORRIS

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

Herman Cain is out. He “suspended” his campaign for the Republican nomination for president this week after a fifth woman made allegations against him. This time, an Atlanta woman claims she had a 13-year-long affair with the former CEO. As with the four other women who made allegations of sexual harassment — two still unidentified — Cain denies ever having done “anything inappropriate.”

Then why quit the race?

Quitting means five unmitigated liars — not just unmitigated liars but, as Cain suggests, coordinated liars — ran him out of Dodge. If the man who would be commander in chief abandons ship because a handful of liars said awful, unprovable things about him, the nation is better off without him trying to lead it.

Cain, after all, marketed himself as a genial but tough, no-nonsense, bottom-line guy who overcame hardship unimaginable by most Americans. He was born and raised “po,’” — too “po’” to be poor — and promoted himself as a leader who defied the odds and fixed two failing businesses.

Cain now plays victicrat — someone who points fingers at all but himself. Lord knows, Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and other non-liberals wrestle all the time with the bias of the liberal mainscream media. But Cain is in a poor position to whine about the media being out to get him. Cain enjoyed the support of plenty of conservative voices on talk radio and cable television, and in conservative online and print outlets. Many properly pointed to the double standard of greater scrutiny placed on any Republican/conservative. Many raised questions about the veracity of the accusers. Cain benefited from a deep bench of cheerleaders, many of whom kept cheering long after they should have stopped.

Cain even played the race card. When asked whether race had a role in the sexual harassment allegations, Cain said, “I believe the answer is yes, but we do not have any evidence to support it.” But Cain, as with President Obama, benefited because of his race.

President George W. Bush described the low learning expectations placed on inner-city students as “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” It applies here. The Republican Party deeply wants the country to know it is not run by fat, bald, racist white men wearing sheets and hoods. That’s why Republicans pounced harder than anyone on former Sen.

Trent Lott, R-Miss., and denied him a leadership position when he made allegedly “racially offensive” comments.

It’s why some otherwise sober Republicans actually urged former National Security Advisor and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell to run for the GOP presidential nomination in 1996. Never mind that Powell once bashed the GOP’s Newt Gingrich-inspired Contract With America as “a little too harsh, a little too unkind.” Or that Powell supports gun control and race-based preferences, and is pro-choice on abortion. Powell, of course, later supported Obama for president.

Cain, simply put, was unprepared for the big time.

He gave a mind-numbingly contradictory “answer” on abortion — wanting it outlawed, but wait, it’s really up to the woman. Huh? Cain fretted over whether China might someday get a nuclear bomb — something the country has had for almost 50 years.

When asked how he would have handled Libya, Cain almost slipped into a coma: “OK, Libya (long pause). President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gadhafi? Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say, ‘Yes, I agreed,’ or, ‘No, I didn’t agree.’ I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason: (pause) Nope, that’s a different one. Um … (long pause) I gotta go back (pause). See, uh (pause), got all this stuff twirling around in my head. Specifically, what are you asking me, did I agree or not disagree with Obama?”

Businesspeople, whether Cain or Donald Trump or H. Ross Perot, tend to look at the Washington, D.C., “dysfunction” and view it as a “problem to be fixed.” Trouble is, the debate over whether to raise taxes, how to deal with the debt and deficit, how best to create jobs, whether the government should ‘invest” in “green technologies” reflect deep ideological divisions in the country.

It all started out so well, didn’t it? The Herminator tells blacks who vote monolithically for the Democrat Party: I am a proud black American — and a conservative. I believe in limited government, low taxes and do not believe that the country owes anybody anything, no matter one’s race or ethnicity. So stand up and leave that Democratic plantation. But when the attacks come, cut and run.

The genial, well-liked Mr. Cain learned that the fight for power can turn hard, dirty and quite nasty. As Yogi Berra might have put it, “If you can’t stand the heat, don’t blame the kitchen.”

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

When Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., announced his intention not to seek re-election after a 32-year career, not one of the nightly news broadcast network anchors found time or space to mention either Frank’s central role in the housing meltdown or his congressional reprimand. Not one. Similarly, an Associated Press article headlined, “Democratic Rep. Barney Frank Announces Retirement,” mentioned the reprimand, but nada on Frank and the housing collapse.

ABC called him “one of the most familiar, powerful and colorful characters on Capitol Hill.” NBC said, “Among his legacies — besides his legendary sharp tongue — he was the first member of Congress to publicly acknowledge he was gay, back in 1987.” In a nearly 30-paragraph press release — uh, news article — headlined, “Barney Frank, a Top Liberal, Won’t Seek Re-election,” The New York Times sanitized, purged and whitewashed.

The “all the news that’s fit to print” newspaper, America’s most influential, left out a few things.

Frank relentlessly defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the “government sponsored entities” at the center of the housing meltdown. National Review editorialized: “It is as a champion of a different kind of pay-for-play operation, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that the congressman did the most damage to the country.” Economist Thomas Sowell wrote last year, “No one contributed more to the policies behind the housing boom and bust, which led to the economic disaster we are now in, than Congressman Barney Frank.”

Sowell explains: “His powerful position on the House of Representatives’ Committee on Financial Services gave him leverage to force through legislation and policies which pressured banks and other lenders to grant mortgage loans to people who would not qualify under the standards which had long prevailed. … With the federal regulators leaning on banks to make more loans to people who did not meet traditional qualifications — the ‘underserved population’ in political Newspeak — and quotas being given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more of these riskier mortgages from the original lenders, critics pointed out the dangers in these pressures to meet arbitrary home ownership goals. But Barney Frank counter-attacked these critics.”

Whom did Frank blame when the housing meltdown — and Freddie and Fannie’s role in it — became obvious even to Frank? “Right-wing Republicans,” he said.

The Big Three nightly news anchors and the Times also managed to avoid any mention of Frank’s congressional reprimand for fixing the parking tickets of a male prostitute.

“Representative Frank,” writes National Review, “was reprimanded by the House for making misleading statements to a Virginia prosecutor on behalf of the prostitute — whom the congressman eventually put on his own payroll — and for having fixed dozens of parking tickets on this behalf.” Frank denied knowing that his lover, a convicted drug dealer, was running a prostitution business out of the congressman’s house.

The boyfriend, however, insisted that Frank knew about it.

But wait, there’s more. NR also notes: “(Frank) was sexually involved with a Fannie Mae executive during a time when he was voting on laws affecting the organization. The final cost of the Fannie/Freddie bailouts will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the real damage that the organizations did to the U.S. economy — and the world economy, for that matter — probably is incalculable.”

UCLA political science professor and economist Tim Groseclose estimates that the pro-liberal mainstream media add 8 to 10 percentage points to the ratings of a Democratic candidate in a typical election. The bias comes in many forms, including simply leaving relevant things out, thus helping to shape public opinion that aids Democrats and hurts Republicans.

The coverage of Frank’s retirement shows how this is done. How would consumers getting their news from ABC/NBC/CBS/Times learn that Frank was reprimanded by Congress? They wouldn’t. How would consumers getting their news from ABC/NBC/CBS/Times learn about his central role in the housing meltdown? They wouldn’t.

At a 43 percent Gallup approval rating, President Barack Obama presently governs with the worst approval rating at this juncture of any president since Harry Truman — including Jimmy Carter, whose popularity temporarily spiked after the Iran hostage crisis. Imagine where Obama’s numbers would be if the media did not serve as a public-relations arm of the administration.

But thanks to the media’s love and support, the bullying Congressman Frank gets to leave Congress with his head high instead of what he deserves — the deep and widespread scorn of the American people.

But there’s worse news.

The ranking Democrat who stands to inherit his position on the powerful House Financial Services Committee is none other than hyper-lefty Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Waters is currently under an ethics investigation for not disclosing her financial interest in a community bank for which she successfully obtained a bailout. After accusing, without evidence, oil companies of price fixing, she threatened to “socialize” them — or, as she explained to the oil execs, “Basically, taking over and the government running all of your companies.”

On second thought, maybe Frank wasn’t so bad.

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Everything demanded by the Occupy Wall Streeters — whether “free” health care, a “world-class education” or a “guaranteed living-wage income regardless of employment” status — costs money.

When a CEO makes a lot of money in the private sector, it is because his company — rightly or wrongly — values that CEO’s services at that price. To say it is “not right” that a CEO makes (fill in the blank) times more than the janitor is to say it is not right for the marketplace to set wages. If the marketplace ought not set wages, then who or what should?

Most people work for the private sector, which cannot exist without profit.

Is the OWS objection to bank bailouts on the grounds that government should not protect businesses from the consequences of their actions? Or is the objection that bailouts should be for everybody?

We already have a huge welfare state, with entitlements — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — the biggest expenditure of the federal budget. Europe’s welfare state is larger, with a slightly smaller “gap” between the rich and the poor. Yet its citizens also take to the street to denounce inequality. Puzzling, isn’t it?

No one can legally ask about the immigration status of a public school student, so Americans and non-Americans, including illegal aliens, receive a K-12 public education at taxpayers’ expense.

Per-pupil spending for public education increased 49 percent from 1985 to 2005. Community colleges are cheap, and many states guarantee a junior college graduate admission to a public four-year college.

The physical advantage that men possess over women is an increasingly small advantage — given the decline of labor-intensive jobs and the technology that makes it easier for machines to do hard, dangerous, repetitive work.

There are more tenants than landlords, which thus exemplifies the stupidity of “rent-control” laws. Rent-control laws disproportionately benefit the non-poor because the elite pull strings, work the system and are better connected than the poor. All of this matters when items of scarcity (in this case, apartments) are dispensed by government dictates rather than through prices.

Government possesses no money of its own. It raises money by taxing, by borrowing or by printing.

The bigger the government, the smaller the private sector.

Individuals can spend their money more wisely, efficiently and more humanely than can government.

People value and spend their money more wisely when they acquire it by their own efforts — also known as work. There are real-world, direct consequences on you for squandering your own money, as opposed to when government squanders the money of its people.

Government employees enjoy job security unknown in the private sector and are often paid more than their private-sector counterparts. Greed?

People spend their money more humanely because they won’t waste as much of it. Consider that to deal with “the poor,” the federal government has a vast array of agencies, programs and policies. But only about 30 cents of each dollar designated for the poor actually gets in the hands of the recipient. Contrast this with the United Way, Salvation Army and other private charities where 90 cents of each dollar donated gets to a beneficiary.

Americans agree that some people — whether faultless or irresponsible — need assistance, if only occasionally. The only issue is how they will be helped.

Americans are the most generous people of any industrial nation. We give more of our time and money than do the Germans, British and Japanese. Note that those states have a bigger public sector than we do. Maybe they feel they gave at the office.

The U.S. Constitution isn’t just any ordinary document. It is the contract between the government and its people, the ones who empower government and who — once upon a time — expected the Constitution to restrain government, not empower it.

Government’s involvement in housing caused the meltdown — not greedy Wall Street bankers. The same Occupy mindset caused the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, placed on human growth hormones by President Clinton, who pushed banks into lending to poor credit risks and allowed Wall Street to play with taxpayers’ money.

There is no bad guy. It’s not the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist or the Maltese Falcon. There is no evil entity, snorting steam from his nose, standing in an office full of Nazi memorabilia, staring out the window with the cityscape view, laughing: “Ha! Ha! Ha! Pretty soon, all this will be mine. Mine, I say!”

Life has never been so good, with so many choices, with so many more conveniences, so much less danger of dying from disease, with so many choices for entertainment and affordable travel.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul. But at some point Peter begins to feel taken advantage of.

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

Charles Krauthammer of Fox News: “Do you think that race, being a strong black conservative, has anything to do with the fact you’ve been so charged (with sexual harassment)? And if so, do you have any evidence to support that?”

Herman Cain: “I believe the answer is yes, but we do not have any evidence to support it.”

Playing the race card is vulgar, whether done by Al Sharpton or President Barack Obama — as he did to contain the Rev. Wright scandal. Especially when, as here, the complainant admits he lacks evidence. If Cain were not a front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination — a shock probably even to him — the media wouldn’t bother. But when the quest goes from curiosity to conceivable, the scrutiny increases exponentially. And who knows how the media got the information, possibly from one of Cain’s presumably non-racist GOP rivals.

Cain can — and should — complain about the media’s hypocritical double-standard, however. There is a real-world, apples-to-apples comparison to examine whether, as a conservative, Cain is being subjected to harsher treatment: the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

During the heat of the 1988 race for the Democratic presidential nomination, rumors surfaced of Jackson’s alleged numerous and rampant instances of infidelity. He was, for a while, his party’s front-runner.

Democratic Underground, a left-wing website, recalls, “(After) Jackson won 55 percent of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the front-runner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates.”

Unlike Cain, Jackson actually won several primaries and caucuses — and finished second in pledged delegates, beating out rivals such as future Vice Presidents Al Gore and Joe Biden.

To blunt whispers of Jackson infidelity, his wife, Jackie, warned Life magazine: “I don’t believe in examining sheets. That’s a violation of privacy. If my husband has committed adultery, he better not tell me. And you better not go digging into it because I’m trying to raise a family and won’t let you be the one to destroy my family.”

Whether the media feared being accused of racism or whether it feared Jackie, there were no “establishment media” stories on Jackson’s alleged sexcapades. That is, until years later, when Jackson admitted fathering a child with a staffer to whom he paid money for a house and who received monthly payments.

Black conservatives — along with white male Christian conservatives and child molesters — remain one of the few groups to which the usual rules of civility and restraint do not apply.

Consider these recent comments about Cain:

“(Cain) really doesn’t want to be overtly associated with African-Americans.” — MSNBC’s Martin Bashir on Cain’s failure to appear at the Martin Luther King Memorial dedication.

“I think that (Cain) makes that white Republican base of the party feel OK, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he is giving that base a free pass, and I think they like him because they think he is a black man who knows his place. And I know that sounds harsh.” — MSNBC Democratic strategist Karen Finney.

“(Cain) needs to get off the symbolic crack pipe and acknowledge that the evidence (of racism in America) is overwhelming.” — Princeton professor Cornel West.

“There is this constant minstrelsy aspect that (Cain) keeps bringing up. … And yet Cain allows the GOP to have this sort of force where it’s like: ‘Well, we’re not racist. We are supporting this black man.’” — Time.com contributor and author Toure.

Left-wing black journalists (a near redundancy) absolutely hate, hate, hate black conservatives. A few years ago, a black former policy advisor for President George W. Bush resigned after being arrested for stealing from retail stores. Los Angeles Times journalist and contributing editor Erin Aubry Kaplan wrote: “I don’t support conservatism in its current iteration, and I support black conservatives even less. … Here is a man who, like most black conservatives, has had to do an awful lot of personal and political rationalizing to pay dues. … It’s hard to imagine that such compromises and cognitive dissonance don’t exact a psychological toll at some point.”

Chicago Tribune’s John Kass, after the revelation of Jackson’s love child, finally acknowledged the double standard and the media-imposed no-fly zone over Jackson: “For years, Jackson has been treated kindly. Here’s my explanation. In the media, we’re white people, mostly, and mostly suburban born, mostly Democrats, terrified of being called racists, even if the charge comes from a hustler. Black reporters don’t want to become targets, either.

“So news organizations skip timidly around Jackson’s finances, though we’ve known his race baiting has carried a price tag. …

“Through this condescending bargain, this queasy media pact laced with white liberal guilt and white liberal racism, the crafty Jackson has prospered.

“His profile increased, while other black voices, those with legitimate yet differing views, were diminished.

“We didn’t want true diversity. We wanted it easy. We used him. And he used us.”

Yes, the media do indeed put front-runners — all of whom willingly enter the political fray — under an intense microscope. And properly so. But not all microscopes are created equal.

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

The Occupy Wall Street folks tell us to blame Wall Street for the nation’s financial troubles. Notice the no-fly zone over President Barack Obama. Where are the anti-President Barack Obama signs or the verbal chants denouncing the President? Imagine the protests/sit-ins/rallies/mass marches on Pennsylvania Avenue — not Wall Street — if after two years of Republican White House leadership, America remained stuck on over 9 percent unemployment!

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and President Barack Obama say they sympathize with the protestors. Of course, they do. After over two years of reckless spending, the inflationary printing of money, massive “stimulus” that failed to “save or create” 3.5 million jobs, green technology “investments” in soon-to-be-bankrupt companies whose investors donated to and raised money for the President’s election and unpopular bailouts, the dismal results are in.

What to do?

Find a scapegoat — provided it isn’t Freddie, Fannie or the Community Reinvestment Act, the real culprits behind the housing meltdown. No, Wall Street will do nicely. Just keep Obama’s name off the list of grievances:

“Greedy” investment bankers? Obama’s second chief of staff, William Daley, previously worked as Midwest chairman for JPMorgan Chase. Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, worked as an investment banker and pulled down $18 million in two-and-a-half years.

Bailouts? President Bush bailed out financial institutions, and Obama raised the ante, bailing out more companies, including GM and Chrysler.

Federal reserve? Obama reappointed Fed Chair Ben Bernanke.

Most Americans aren’t buying the blame Wall Street nonsense.

One in three likely voters, according to The Hill, blame Wall Street, while 56 percent blame Washington. A USA Today/Gallup poll of all Americans found that 30 percent blame big financial institutions, with 64 percent pointing the finger at Washington. Thirty percent is still a frighteningly big number for such irresponsible scapegoating.

Yoko Ono, John Lennon’s $500-million-net-worth widow, offered her support: “I love ‘Occupy Wall Street’! John is sending his smile to ‘Occupy Wall Street.’ I am sending my love to ‘Occupy Wall Street.’ We are all working together. You are letting the world know that American activists are doing this. That gives them inspiration and encouragement. That is very important now for the United States and the world.

As John said: ‘One hero cannot do it. Each one of us have to be heroes.’ And you are. Thank you. …”

Given Ono’s support for those opposing excessive greed, how does she explain away the $500 million? According to the reaction to my Facebook post on the question, not very well:

“I am betting she doesn’t keep all her money in a mattress! You think she would pull all her money out of the banks or out of Wall Street? Not likely.”

“Let’s not forget that her late husband wrote the Marxist anthem ‘Imagine’ while living in a Park Avenue penthouse. ‘Imagine no possessions …’”

“She is a rich lib … she did not earn the money she has. Thus she does not understand like most liberals what they are complaining about. Someone should ask her … ‘Hey Yoko! Thank you for working hard to keep d memory of John going. … But d money u have now … is it easy to keep, do u have bills to pay. … who made your clothing … how about d limo? Private home, vacation home … do u shop at Walmart with d regular folks … or at Target? U going back to ur castle in New York? How much will u give to d US Treasury?’”

“Here’s a line John forgot to put in his song, ‘Imagine there’s no liberals. It’s easy if you try.’”

“Yoko Ono!! She’s still around???? Is she taking some of those nuts back to her house for shelter? Oh wait. … They expect only US to walk the walk while they just talk and talk and talk … and go back to their alternative universe they live in. …”

“If she never sings again, that’s gift enough for me.”

“But she worked hard for her money … oh … never mind.”

As for erasing the “wealth disparity,” the protestors have their work cut out for them. A 2006 study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research looked at wealth distribution worldwide. Defining “wealth” very broadly as the sum of all assets — not just financial assets — minus debts, the study concluded that the top 10 percent of the world’s adults control about 85 percent of world’s household wealth. The top 10 percent of Americans own 69.8 percent of their country’s wealth. In Switzerland, the top 10 percent own 71.3 percent, and in France it’s 61 percent.

Meanwhile, on the West coast, an “Occupy L.A.” protestor who identified herself as a Los Angeles Unified School District employee knows exactly whom to blame: “I think that the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve — which is not run by the federal government — they need to be run out of this country.”

Hey, at least she didn’t blame Yoko.

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

As I recently tweeted (@chucknorris), I read through the book “The Miracle of Freedom: Seven Tipping Points that Saved the World,” by Chris and Ted Stewart. I highly recommend it.

Immediately afterward, I started reading their other book, “Seven Miracles That Saved America,” and I have been equally inspired by it. But it has prompted me to wonder: Is there an eighth miracle coming and needed to save our republic again?

It seems somewhat audacious to point out seven pivotal moments in America without which America wouldn’t be America. But it’s hard to argue with the Stewarts on the critical events that they’ve expounded upon and argued for masterfully, especially from our vantage point and with their compelling evidence. Hindsight is certainly 20/20.

There’s no doubt that America has teetered on the brink many times in its history. Where would we be if the dial of circumstances had been turned just slightly on the following seven events alone — those they address in the book? Where would we be if the outcomes had not been as they were?

—Christopher Columbus’ improbable discovery of America.

—The epic survival of the first English colonists at Jamestown despite the onslaught of starvation and other fatal foes.

—Gen. George Washington and the Continental Army’s Battle of New York during the Revolutionary War.

—The astounding conception and formation of the United States Constitution.

—Abraham Lincoln’s plea with the Almighty that turned the tide of the Civil War at Gettysburg.

—The astonishing events that altered the course of the Battle of Midway in June 1942 during World War II.

—The extension of freedom around the world because Ronald Reagan’s life and presidency were spared miraculously after an assassination attempt.

The Stewarts make a compelling and inspirational case that those crucial events were not coincidental, but providential. The authors asked the question, Has God repeatedly intervened in the affairs of men and preserved the United States of America? Atheists would argue “no.” But the Stewarts and I and millions of other Americans would answer with a resounding “yes.” No doubt, America, God has shed his grace upon thee.

I’m reminded of a quote that was brought up in their book by Benjamin Franklin, who often is pitched in progressive circles as one who didn’t believe in the Almighty’s intervention in human affairs. But Franklin was particularly eloquent on the matter and the power of prayer in government, as he addressed those who attended the Constitutional Convention:

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard; and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.

To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

It’s a question that needs to continue to ring from the corridors of Congress to the halls of the White House, our public schools and homes: “And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?”

(In November, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on HR 13, legislation introduced by Rep. Randy Forbes to reaffirm “In God We Trust” as the official motto of the United States and support and encourage its display in public buildings and schools. Please contact your representative to support the legislation.)

Readers might not agree with every angle of the authors’ conclusions, but no investigator of world civilizations can deny the exceptional origin, history and nature of the United States of America. The Stewarts make a statement in the book that sums up most patriots’ feelings about our country: “No man is perfect, and neither is any nation. Yet, despite our weakness, we are still, as Abraham Lincoln said, the best nation ever given to man. Despite our faults, this nation is still the last, best hope of earth.”

How contrary those sentiments appear to be to those of our current president, in light of his global apologies for America, lack of spirit for American exceptionalism, denial of America’s Judeo-Christian majority and promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

President Barack Obama has kept that promise. He is carrying out his agenda and mission. And if he’s allowed another four years in office, I believe there will not be a remnant of our republic that he and his administration will have not overturned.

That is why I also believe we need an eighth miracle to save America — a providential and pivotal moment that spares our country from falling off into four more years of the Obama transformational abyss.

The chapter has not been written. But a decade down the road, will our hindsight reveal that inspirational and historical miracle? My wife, Gena, and I hope and pray so.

In my next column, I will explain what I believe that eighth miracle could be. Forgive the anticipation. But until then, will you imagine for yourself what that eighth American wonder might look like?

I feel as if we are standing at a crossroads similar to that at which George Washington stood when he wrote to James Madison in 1786, just a few years before the first president’s inauguration: “No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was ever more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.”

Follow Chuck Norris through his official social media sites, on Twitter @chucknorris and Facebook’s “Official Chuck Norris Page.” He blogs at http://chucknorrisnews.blogspot.com. To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CHUCK NORRIS

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

What to do about Herman Cain?

This question goes not to the Republican Party, where “establishment” candidates like Mitt Romney privately dismiss Cain as lacking the experience, gravitas and resources to beat President Barack Obama and then to soundly govern the country.

Herman Cain is not going to be the GOP nominee.

Without a serious star-power staff, a ground game, chits to be called in by the candidate or the candidate’s influential network of friends of influence, the “fat cats” sit on their checkbooks until and unless they believe their horse can win. A serious presidential candidate is not one who, like Cain, breaks from campaigning for a book tour timed to coincide with his unlikely quest for the White House.

No, Cain is a clear and present danger to the Democratic Party — and their invaluable near-monolithic black vote. Cain says things like: “African-Americans have been brainwashed” into voting for the Democratic Party; “If you (Wall Street protestors) don’t have a job or you’re not rich, blame yourself”; “People sometimes hold themselves back because they want to use racism as an excuse for them not being able to achieve what they want to achieve”; and “I don’t believe racism in this country today holds anybody back in a big way.”

How do some influential left-wing blacks react? Not well:

Cornell West, professor of black studies at Princeton: Cain needs to “get off the symbolic crack pipe.”

Harry Belafonte, entertainer, civil rights activist: “He’s a bad apple, and people should look at his whole card. He’s not what he says he is.”

Tavis Smiley, PBS host and NPR broadcaster, simply writes off Cain’s comments as “ridiculous or crazy.”

But Cain threatens to change the race-card game in ways that even those who voted against Barack Obama hoped he would do: Put the stake through the heart of the nonsense that white racism still holds people back. Instead, Obama sides with a black Harvard professor who badly mistreats a white Cambridge cop who was just doing his job. Obama tells an author that racism fuels the opposition to ObamaCare. Obama says nothing when comrades ranging from former President Jimmy Carter to Jesse Jackson Jr. to Morgan Freeman defend Obama by blaming racism.

Now comes Cain.

He calls his economic program 9-9-9. But Cain’s real number is 95. That is the percentage of the black vote captured in 2008 by Obama.

What if someway, somehow, the Republicans captured over 35 percent of black presidential vote, as the GOP did as recently as 1956?

Cain asks this question: Why do blacks, in 2011, vote Democratic? Answer: because a) they falsely believe racism remains a serious threat and b) that Republicans are bad people who wish them ill. Neither of which, says Cain, is true. Blacks are more anti-abortion, more pro-traditional marriage and more pro-vouchers for inner-city parents than the typical non-black Democrat. A bad economy, made worse by Obama’s tax-spend-regulate, welfare-state mentality, means blacks suffer disproportionately.

This argument makes Cain a walking refutation to the black victicrat “leaders” who speak about the “plight” of the “black underclass,” and who attribute legitimate policy differences to “racism.”

Cain represents a hardworking, up-from-the-bootstraps, financially successful, plainspoken Republican Southern black man who believes America in 2011 and America in 1960 are two different worlds. Worse for the grievance crowd, Cain calls out the Democratic Party for fostering a victicrat mentality and creating a sense of entitlement.

Cain’s straight talk makes him stand out in debates. He is now close to cracking the “top tier” of candidates. Clearly, lots of people have begun to listen. What if blacks start listening?

Cain believes what former slave Booker T. Washington wrote a mere 35 years after slavery ended:

“When a Negro girl learns to cook, to wash dishes, to sew, to write a book, or a Negro boy learns to groom horses, or to grow sweet potatoes, or to produce butter, or to build a house, or to be able to practise medicine, as well or better than some one else, they will be rewarded regardless of race or colour. In the long run, the world is going to have the best, and any difference in race, religion, or previous history will not long keep the world from what it wants.

“I think that the whole future of my race hinges on the question as to whether or not it can make itself of such indispensable value that the people in the town and the state where we reside will feel that our presence is necessary to the happiness and well-being of the community. No man who continues to add something to the material, intellectual, and moral well-being of the place in which he lives is long left without proper reward. This is a great human law which cannot be permanently nullified.”

Or, as Cain puts it, “I left the Democrat plantation a long time ago.”

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

“The way I think about it is, you know, this is, uh, you know, a great, uh, great country that had gotten a little soft, and you know, we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last, uh, couple of decades. We need to get back on track.” — President Barack Obama.

The gall is breathtaking, even from a man who as a presidential candidate said, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”

This from a President who, in chastising the rich, said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

This from a man who, during the brief time he actually worked in the private sector, represented a black woman who accused a bank of redlining her out of a loan. The proximate cause of the housing bubble and meltdown is the notion that the “underrepresented” deserve a home, whether or not they qualified under traditional lending criteria.

This from a man who told a Toledo plumber that government should “spread the wealth around” by taxing “the rich” and giving the money to others, because “it’s good for everybody.”

This from a man who blasts any suggestion that young people just might be capable of investing a portion of their Social Security contribution into an account that they manage. Former Congresswoman and vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, in opposing the idea, fretted for those who lack “the knowledge and the wherewithal” to handle the responsibility.

This from a flip-flopper who initially opposed the 1996 welfare reform — legislation that resulted in a 50 percent reduction in the welfare rolls, and without a corresponding increase in teen pregnancy. Then-state Sen. Obama called President Bill Clinton’s support of the federal bill “disturbing,” and a year later — on the Illinois state Senate floor — he said, “I probably would not have supported the federal legislation.” A decade later, when presidential candidate Obama was asked if he would have signed or vetoed the ’96 reform bill, he repeatedly dodged the question, insisting that he looked to the next 10 years, not the past 10 years. Then his campaign began running ads touting the reduction of welfare cases made possible by the 1996 reforms.

This from a man who blames corporations for “shipping jobs overseas,” yet shows no concern for the high corporate tax rates — rates that would be unnecessary were the federal government to actually stick to the handful of duties permitted by the Constitution.

This from a man who thinks it’s the government’s job to “invest” in “green jobs of the future” because the private sector cannot be trusted to take risks.

To the extent America has gotten “soft,” Obama can’t mean working hours.

The average American works longer hours than other people in the industrialized world, including the Japanese, the Germans and the British.

Nor does Obama, by “soft,” mean the growing and unsustainable reliance on government. In 1900, government, at all three levels — federal, state and local — took about 10 percent of the American workers’ pay. Today, if one assigns a price to unfunded federal mandates imposed on the states, government’s take approaches 50 percent. Obama and his party encourage government growth and expect Americans to depend on it for health, welfare and retirement. These are, they tell us, “human rights.”

So, let’s recap the President’s playbook.

Step one: Pursue a three-year course of extracting higher taxes; mandating costly new regulations, not least of which — in ObamaCare — represents a breathtaking expansion of federal power; and pass an FDR-like nearly trillion-dollar “stimulus” package.

Step two: Enact “look, we’ve done something!” regulations to “rein in Wall Street greed” — regulations that have nothing to do with the Freddie/Fannie/Community Reinvestment Act housing meltdown. Sign “credit card reform” laws that prevent bankers from raising fees on “the defenseless.” Never mind that banks roll their eyes and find other ways of keeping profits up. Funny how these bankers and other businesspeople seem not to consider their actions crooked. They think they operate in a competitive marketplace and owe a fiduciary obligation to shareholders to maximize shareholder return.

Step three: Let the investment community know that — because they represent the enemy — they’re a piggy bank from which government can extract more and more without, of course, eroding the business community’s willingness to risk capital. Expect the “greedy,” “taxed-too-lightly” business community to absorb the higher taxes and costly regulation — and yet continue to make the same hiring and investment decisions even as the White House vows to impose even more regulations and raise taxes even higher.

Step four: After succeeding in undermining economic growth through left-wing, redistributionist, government-can-capably-invest-in-green-jobs-of-the-future policies, accuse the business community of engaging in risk avoidance. Hammer them for “sitting” on “$2 trillion” in money. Tell them they should “get off the sidelines and expand. … Get in the game.”

Step five: Finally, accuse the American people of failing him, not the other way around.

We end with another quote from then-newly elected Barack Obama: “I will be held accountable. … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 LAURENCE A. ELDER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com