Yes, Where There is Video Smoke, There is Herman Cain!! Go Herman!!

Where there’s smoke there’s (Herman Cain on) fire?

by J. James Estrada    at  The American Thinker

“Yes, Herman Cain, leading in some polls for the Republican presidential nomination race, is taking some heat for his Internet ad that features his campaign manager taking a puff on a cigarette.  As Rush Limbaugh reported today, the liberal media is stoking the fire on this story, including CNN’s John King and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.  They are flabbergasted that a man smoking is in an ad for a candidate running for President. For his part, King called it “reprehensible.” Have they forgotten that President Obama is a smoker?

We are waiting for left-leaning celebrities to burn Cain for this as well. But do they really have credibility in this fight?  Here is a list of celebrity smokers with photos.

Pay special attention to Darryl Hannah, Susan Sarandon and Matt Damon, out-spoken supporters of President Cool (KOOL?) are they all.”

Click here for the ad shown on ABC.    

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/herman-cain-ad-features-smoking-staffer-14811916

Comment from Glenn:   I am not a smoker.   I have never smoked a puff of anything in my life.   I was lucky enough to have had asthma badly  as a child and a mother who smoked only in the bathroom and when she partied with my dad.    My dad smoked 3 packs of unfiltered Lucky Strikes every day  from age 15 to 60 when he had to quit cold turkey.   Mother died at 90 and my dad at 86.   I am 77.

I hated the aura of smoke which always covered my dad.   Even after a shower this good man  would light up and contaminate the air.   He fought and fought his addiction to nicotine.   I learned early to respect his condition and my mother’s warnings.

I hate cigarette smoke.   I do not hate smokers.  But, I never thought I would be writing this entry regarding some dumb  political ad starring a smoker…..Until I actually saw one……Herman Cain’s ad featuring one of his staff leaders requesting public support for this special American interested in becoming the 45th President of the United States.

I do not know the intended purpose of the ad.   I do know that the Herman Cain smile at the end of the video is a million dollar smile and  a smile with intent and one I am likely never to forget.   I am still smiling while recollecting.

Go for it, dear rebel.   You make  the American in me beam again.

Control Freak Obama Wants to Prepare Your Taxes While Taking your Earnings

Erik Paulsen is my Congressman in Washington.   He is a Republican who represents a suburban area west of Minnepolis.   He is a reliable Scandinavian,  not one particularly persuaded by the Swedish penchant for boring Socialism but  exciting Islamic violence against Swedes in the old country.  

Unlike Islamic fanatics, Erik and his families before him are New Country…real Americans.   Furthermore, I suspect he is Norwegian from the spelling of his name.

Below is another article articulating the   peculiarities of the foreigner in the American White House, Barack Hussein Obama who is determined to destroy America’s democratic fabric.   He is one of those Marxists destined   to herd the American population into the corral of planned and controled  equality…….with the foreigner or someone more leftward  doing the planning and controling, while the president gives speeches and collects campaign money from Wall Street and Hollywood.

Like those  Scandinavian countries so anxious to  relieve  their citizens of adult responsibilities and liberties, Mr. Obama has another catchy  plan for us Americans…and Representative  Paulsen has passed on  the following ‘notation’ of this Obamarule for our support:

“Want to hear about the latest tax proposal from President Obama?  It seems the Obama administration’s idea of tax reform is to get the government into the business of preparing tax returns.   The Obama Administration has embraced the idea of the “Simple Return” – where the IRS prepares your tax returns and sends you the tax bill.

Allowing the IRS to do your tax return is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.  This proposal would require a massive expansion of the IRS.  The IRS would face a conflict of interest between collecting the most taxpayer dollars possible and fairly filling out tax returns.  Currently, the burden to challenge a tax return rests on the IRS.  This proposal would place the burden on the taxpayer to challenge the IRS if they disagree with the IRS’ prepared return.

The only thing simple about the “Simple Return” is the way it simply fleeces taxpayers.  That’s why I am cosponsoring H.R. 2528 which would prohibit the IRS from getting into the business of preparing tax returns.  We cannot allow the IRS from further intruding into the lives of regular citizens.”

Despite the present poll information Barack Hussein Obama is favored to win a second term unless a spectacular opposition works overtime to save American from his Marxist gifts to create human misery, inertia and ennui.

Erik writes:

“Want to hear about the latest tax proposal from President Obama?  It seems the Obama administration’s idea of tax reform is to get the government into the business of preparing tax returns.   The Obama Administration has embraced the idea of the “Simple Return” – where the IRS prepares your tax returns and sends you the tax bill.

Allowing the IRS to do your tax return is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.  This proposal would require a massive expansion of the IRS.  The IRS would face a conflict of interest between collecting the most taxpayer dollars possible and fairly filling out tax returns.  Currently, the burden to challenge a tax return rests on the IRS.  This proposal would place the burden on the taxpayer to challenge the IRS if they disagree with the IRS’ prepared return.

The only thing simple about the “Simple Return” is the way it simply fleeces taxpayers.  That’s why I am cosponsoring H.R. 2528 which would prohibit the IRS from getting into the business of preparing tax returns.  We cannot allow the IRS from further intruding into the lives of regular citizens.”

Thomas Sowell: Campus Thought Police and the Difference between Words and Deeds

The Media and ‘Bullying’

By Thomas Sowell    at Investor’s Business Daily

“Back in the 1920s, the intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic were loudly protesting the execution of political radicals Sacco and Vanzetti, after what they claimed was an unfair trial. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote to his young leftist friend Harold Laski, pointing out that there were “a thousand-fold worse cases” involving black defendants, “but the world does not worry over them.”

Holmes said: “I cannot but ask myself why this so much greater interest in red than black.”

To put it bluntly, it was a question of whose ox was gored. That is, what groups were in vogue at the moment among the intelligentsia. Blacks clearly were not.

The current media and political crusade against “bullying” in schools seems likewise to be based on what groups are in vogue at the moment. For years, there have been local newspaper stories about black kids in schools in New York and Philadelphia beating up Asian classmates, some beaten so badly as to require medical treatment.

But the national media hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Asian Americans are not in vogue today, just as blacks were not in vogue in the 1920s.

Meanwhile, the media are focused on bullying directed against youngsters who are homosexual. Gays are in vogue.

Most of the stories about the bullying of gays in schools are about words directed against them, not about their suffering the violence that has long been directed against Asian youngsters or about the failure of the authorities to do anything serious to stop black kids from beating up Asian kids.

Where youngsters are victims of violence, whether for being gay or whatever, that is where the authorities need to step in. No decent person wants to see kids hounded, whether by words or deeds, and whether the kids are gay, Asian or whatever.

But there is still a difference between words and deeds — and it is a difference we do not need to let ourselves be stampeded into ignoring. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech — and, like any other freedom, it can be abused.

If we are going to take away every Constitutional right that has been abused by somebody, we are going to end up with no Constitutional rights.

Already, on too many college campuses, there are vaguely worded speech codes that can punish students for words that may hurt somebody’s feelings — but only the feelings of groups that are in vogue.

Women can say anything they want to men, or blacks to whites, with impunity. But strong words in the other direction can bring down on students the wrath of the campus thought police — as well as punishments that can extend to suspension or expulsion.

Is this what we want in our public schools?

The school authorities can ignore the beating up of Asian kids but homosexual organizations have enough political clout that they cannot be ignored. Moreover, there are enough avowed homosexuals among journalists that they have their own National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association — so continuing media publicity will ensure that the authorities will have to “do something.”

But political pressures to “do something” have been behind many counterproductive and even dangerous policies.

A grand jury report about bullying in the schools of San Mateo County, California, brought all sorts of expressions of concern from school authorities — but no definition of “bullying” nor any specifics about just what they plan to do about it.

Meanwhile, a law has been passed in California that mandates teaching about the achievements of gays in the public schools. Whether this will do anything to stop either verbal or physical abuse of gay kids is very doubtful.

But it will advance the agenda of homosexual organizations and can turn homosexuality into yet another of the subjects on which words on only one side are permitted. Our schools are already too lacking in the basics of education to squander even more time on propaganda for politically correct causes that are in vogue. We do not need to create special privileges in the name of equal rights. ”

Is Obama’s American Marxism the Female Security Blanket vs. the Male’s Drive to be Free?

I believe that it is……Why wasn’t Steve Jobs,  Miss Stephanie Jobs?

It has been claimed that the world of the alpha-male’s dominance over his ‘tribe’ in the  humanoid and early human cultural story met its downfall when the members of the ‘tribe’ gained enough language to plot in groups to usurp his strength and power.     No longer would this alpha guy have to become the toughest,  strongest, and smartest to fuck first and most often with whomever, whenever in the mood in a ‘tribe’ of obedient but jealous males who knew their place.   Alpha-females suffered the same fall from power.

The human male has been  born a killer, and sexual predator, a protector,  a builder with a creative mind…….who by nature created musical instruments, pyramids, canals, locomotives, telescopes, jets,  and governments  and acquired  the responsibility to pass such discoveries on to his  following generation…..  ……HIS inventions and HIS discoveries often, if not usually, occurred despite   peril he faced  for his own life.   

It is the human male who  is inherently possessed with drives to be free to investigate and explore.   Human males extol Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, not females.    In the male’s  temptation for the curious, he cannot avoid wonderment in his quest to understand.  

The human female has not been born with a drive to build ,  explore, and pursue answers to the unknown.   She was born to seek security, safety,  so she can nurse and protect her young.     She can kill, but has not been born to kill as a human drive.  Instead, she fascilitates and organizes what is .    By nearly every cell  in her genetic material, she is driven      to dream and seek security and appreciate the ‘cute’.  She believes in romance.  The guy checks out the reality.

Romance versus reality.    Dream vs Structure.   Fascilitate vs. Discover.   Security vs. Liberty.   Obama Marxism vs. American Democracy.    Government Directivess  vs. Private Enterprise.  Equality vs. Individual Creativity.   Compare further with  your own observations.

Perhaps the most striking changes in the past generation or two in the   Western nations have occurred with   the feminizing of the national institutions to satisfy Marxist political pressure to force  EQUALITY of all,  whether in Britain, Germany, Cuba, or the United States.      Creating new solutions, new ideas, and new ‘products is male arising from his drive to problem solve to satisfy his native curiosity.

Little boys were exploring when  sticking hairpins in electric wall plugs, not little girls.   We played with fire and chemistry sets and building blocks.   Of the many insanities of Leftwing Dogma taught in Western Societies’ schools of Marxist learnings, is the falsehood that the human female and male are behaviorially the same except for socialization.

The automatic  from the female is feelings; a fullfilment of romance;  from the male comes the question,  can it be measured and be made useful?

When normal marriage occurs, that is one male married to a female, nature tends to blend the innate in both male and female…..resulting, ideally, in sharing and shaving off some edges causing tolerance.   It’s the single human animal which is more likely to become fanatic and potentially dangerous.  

It is the single female that will embrace Security at all cost,  politically and  culturally, and so, has come to embrace Obama Marxism.   The human male must be taxed out of his liberty and drive to create ideas and products.

New ideas and products cause trouble   in the female plan of the romatic ideal, especially among the single….her  sea of Peace, her  dream of Romance and  her safety within the walls of   Controlled Equality, a world without profits and winners.

A Marxist dictatorship to control Equality however,  is a male invention where   the single female and feminized male and their  declared  victimhoods of “all” sexes,  can live under its governance.   For a short period of time until fiscal bankruptcy or male revolution…..and total cultural collapse.

Why do Republicans run such lousy campaigns? Are they governed by Marxist-Democrats too?

Barack Hussein Obama is the most incompetent president on every front of presidential responsibility.   He has solved NONE of any of the most serious problems the nation faces.

The economy is in ruins, primarily by his hand with help from  the Marxist-Democrat Congress since 2006.   The entire  collapse of the housing industry and ensuing financial meltdown is directly in the lap of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and lefty Democrats over the past decades to force corruption on bank loans to blacks or face Civil Rights’ prosecutions.   Thank you very much, Jimmy Earl Carter!

The country’s identity is in ruins.   The president is racist and Marxist trained, sensitive about everything Islam,  and is cold and distant from anything resembling Christianity.    A Marxist cannot be a Christian and a Marxist if truth be told.

The borders are in worse disarray yet.   Obama prefers fighting the American states and American law  trying to cope with these law-breaker immigrant foreigners and the financial burnens and crimes  they cause,  rather than the illegal non citizen immigrants they are.

Barack Hussein Obama’s leadership is corrosive on every front.   Only his ego smells roses among those elected.  

Yet, why do Republicans run such terrible national campaigns?   Are they too just another industry run by leftwingers….like the nation’s education system, labor organizers, mass media,  legal industry including the courts of ‘justice’ they control, entertainment industry, and religious industry run by lefty priests and pastors of the National Council of Churches, Islamists, and atheists?

Who are the idiots that ‘advise’ Republicans running for national office?    What conservatives would be so dumb as to engage in these pirannha feasts called ‘debates’?    What  pollsters would advise any normal human being  on any subject, in a nation whose population is so void of knowledge, so ignorant of nearly anything yesterday and this morning, so shallow in values that in two days when polled they would have elected Obama in a landslide the day  Osama bin Laden was sent to sea?

Pollsters advise?….NEVER….but report the fickled tunes of the people, yes.   Let the candidate run his show and educate the voter.   And God Bless Herman Cain for being different……..until he flashed ahead and seemed advised by a pollster.   Why should he allow himself to be morphed into a Romney?…….or worse yet, an Obama?

Here is an article I found at Pajamas Media written by  David P. Goldman, “Why the Republicans Won’t Talk about Foreign Policy.”

“At an off-the-record briefing for a conservative think tank this week, a top Republican pollster explained to a frustrated audience why Republican candidates won’t talk about foreign policy. A quarter of Americans, the pollster explained, have lost their jobs in the past year, or have a family member who has lost a job. In the worst-hit cities the proportion is much higher, peaking at 39% in Las Vegas. When you’re five paychecks away from bankruptcy — that’s the median position of American workers — and terrified about losing employment, you don’t want to hear about foreign policy. It’s fine to kill Bin Laden or Gaddafi, but then Americans would like to see our troops come home. They are tired of the Iraq war. It’s not that it hurts Republicans to talk about foreign policy, but their pollsters are telling them that people just don’t care.

I respect the pollster in question, but I think he’s wrong. The electorate doesn’t always know what it wants to hear, until it hears it, and the job of political leadership is to lead. My old mentor in Republican politics, the late supply-side pundit Jude Wanniski, liked to say that the electorate was like a diamond in the rough: there is always an optimal way to cut the diamond, and a political leader has to know just where to place the chisel.

During the past month I’ve been on the talk radio circuit, and if this grass-roots medium is any reflection of the American mood, foreign policy is very much on the minds of voters, particularly Republican primary voters. Talk radio isn’t a bad focus group. It’s not a scientific sample, and I have no pretensions to political forecasting. But Americans are not so insular that they ignore the threat of terrorism under the sponsorship of a nuclear-armed Iran. And Israel’s security is a matter close to the hearts of conservative voters, especially (but not only) the evangelicals, who comprise more than a quarter of all registered voters.

The pollsters’ caution that “it’s the economy stupid” is not entirely misguided — economics clearly is the biggest issue in the election — but Republican reticence on foreign policy can’t be blamed entirely on what the candidates hear from focus groups. In the previous thread  on bombing Iran, one poster — clearly a person very well informed about the workings of the national security establishment — asked why it is that the establishment rejected military action against Iran so vehemently. I referred him to an April 2010 essay for Tablet magazine in which I argued that the security establishment had staked its reputation on stabilizing Iraq, and worried that an attack on Iran would turn the region into a chaotic mess, just as Admiral Mullen warned in his 2009 Charlie Rose interview.

The Republican mindset remains rooted in the “Bush Freedom Agenda,” the Wilsonian illusion that with enough money and firepower, America could build democracies in the Muslim world that would be friendly towards the United States. But that has failed miserably. Iraq has turned into an ally of Iran, and may turn into its puppet. Our best ally in the Muslim world, the feckless Hosni Mubarak, has fallen and left in its place a chaotic, Islamist-leaning disaster in Egypt. The vicious, corrupt but pro-Western Tunisian government is gone, and an Islamist party with a violent history will almost certainly rule in its place after this week’s elections. Turkey’s supposedly moderate-Islamist government vies with Iran to sponsor Hamas and threatens war against Israel (and yet we hear Hillary Clinton warning Iran not to interfere in Iraq because “we have a NATO ally in Turkey” — have worms eaten her brain?).  Pakistan sponsors terrorist attacks against American embassies, and we warn, and warn, and do nothing about it.

Admiral Mullen was right: if we take serious action to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, either through bombing (as I propose) or through active subversion of the regime (as Michael Ledeen proposes), Iran will use all the power it has accumulated through our years of inaction to create chaos in the Middle East. So be it: the strongest power is best positioned to benefit from chaos, and the strongest power is still the United States of America. If we abandon the illusory goal of stability, and assert American security interests aggressively, we will find that the fault lines in the Middle East can work to our benefit as well.

Republicans should demand of their candidates that they take a no-compromise position on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They should pledge to use force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. No nation-building, no occupation army, no Mr. Nice Guy — just the raw exercise of American muscle. And the American public will stand up and cheer.”

Comment:   Maybe  conservatives should run David P. Goldman against Romney and Obama?

The Blind Leading the Blind at Obama’s NEH and in the American Education Industry

 by Scott Johnson in Ideological Leachcraft, Quotations from Chairman Jim…..at PowerLine

Quotations From Chairman Jim, digital edition

Jim Leach is the Obama administration’s chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the subject of this long-running series. The NEH has now posted Leach’s remarks last week at the Digital Public Library of America Conference. In these remarks Leach touches in passing on the subject of illiteracy “in the citadels of academia” or, as I have called it in a previous installment of this series, educated illiteracy. Leach’s remarks on this subject remind me of Epimenides’ famous paradox of self-reference. Epimenides was the Cretan who asserted: “All Cretans are liars.” Consider Leach’s conclusion:

“Despite not knowing exactly what to expect, facilitating this revolutionary advance in the democratization of ideas may be the greatest no-brainer policy option this great center of democracy is confronted with at this fractious time in our politics. Just as we need an infrastructure of roads and bridges, we need an infrastructure of ideas.”

Sic, as they say.

Cowgirl Hillary Pumps Up Wuss, Schoolboy Obama’s ‘victory’ over Khadaffi: “We came….we saw….he died”

Posted  by John Hinderaker in Middle East, Obama administration         at PowerLine

Barack “Macho” Obama?

“Hector “Macho” Camacho was a boxer whose name lent itself to an irresistible, and entirely appropriate, nickname. Somehow, “Barack Obama” doesn’t trend “macho.” But that hasn’t stopped our president and his supporters from beating their chests over successful killings of certain anti-American targets. Hillary Clinton’s “We came…we saw…he died” is perhaps the most ludicrous comment ever attributed to an American Secretary of State. Remember when the Democrats were appalled by George Bush’s “wanted, dead or alive” reference to Osama bin Laden? Bush was a reckless cowboy! That was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Now, it is any port in a storm for the Democrats, and they are busily portraying Obama as the next thing to a drone operator, if not an actual member of Delta Force.

Within reason, I am in favor of killing our enemies. But you really have to laugh: did Obama run as the scourge of Arab terrorists? As the president who would not only continue nearly all of President Bush’s anti-terror policies, but step up targeted assassinations? And seek to overthrow Arab governments in countries like Egypt and Libya? Not only that, but drive anti-American dictators like Gaddafi into the desert where he would be hunted down, beaten and shot to death? To cries of jubilation from the Democratic Party?

I paid pretty close attention to the 2008 election, and I don’t recall any of that being part of Obama’s platform. Then there is Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, which looks more than ever like an embarrassment. Do you think that when the Nobel committee awarded the prize to Obama at the outset of his presidency, they anticipated that Obama would become the chief proponent of targeted assassination, and the instrument–if you believe his administration’s claims–of the overthrow of multiple foreign governments, with sometimes grisly results? Whose Secretary of State would say of a deposed head of state, “We came…we saw…he died”? No, I don’t think so either. What is happening here is that the Obama administration’s policies have been a complete failure in every realm, so out of desperation, he and his minions are looking for success wherever they can find it, even though it may contradict their own basic beliefs, not to mention their campaign promises.”

Comment:   Why is it that everyone seems to forget, Obama has professionally  never been more than a university schoolboy?     He hid in the shadows when legislating…..practicing the word ‘here’ as if still in grade school answering the teacher’s  role call.  

But, he has a mouth and wears neat, and promised “Change”.      He is  empty of  knowledge and wisdom.   The Hollywood and Crony Capitalists that spend millions to keep Obama from collapsing,  add to the rot of the society and  the presidency.  America  is in decay primarily due to this  irresponsible marriage of the Democrat Party’s   Marxists and the crony Capitalists who keep them alive,  for they see the president for the schoolboy he is, mouth and all……but he is theirs, and America be damned, they will prop him up with his  racism and class warfare.