White Racists

Pages: 1 2

Flash back twenty years to the Clarence Thomas hearings and every attack on him then and since has wound around two common points: He’s dumb and he’s oversexed. Now, twenty years later, the front-runner for the Republican nomination is being hit again by his leftist haters with those same two charges.

It’s possible to believe that the fact that the two accusations leveled against Justice Thomas just happened to play into traditional racist stereotypes was a coincidence, but that the same stereotypes are being used again against the second most prominent black conservative after Thomas on the national stage is more than just coincidence.

Once is a shot in the dark, twice is a pattern, and it’s an ugly pattern. Leftists eagerly tear apart women who accuse Democratic politicians of improper behavior and then suddenly become born-again feminists when there’s a black Republican to be taken down.

Anita Hill was treated as a hero, not because of anything that happened to her, but because she was useful to the Left’s cause. Seven years later, the women who stepped forward to accuse Bill Clinton of wrongdoing were jeered and demeaned for opening their mouths by the same politicians and activists who had presented Hill as a role model for women. Meanwhile, Kathleen Wiley, who accused Clinton of attacking her and was libeled for it by the Left, has expressed her support for Cain.

The unwinding is obvious at the fringes. Janeane Garofalo has accused the Republican Party of being the last bastion of white supremacy in the country. When Cain began to achieve prominence, she tried to deal with the contradiction by claiming that he was there just to cover up all the white supremacy. Now that he’s the front runner, and there are sexual allegations against him, she can resolve the contradiction by attacking Cain on the allegations and then pointing to the remaining white candidates as proof that the Republican Party is racist.

This is something that the Left does over and over again, turning black conservatives into a special target, and when it succeeds in hounding them out, then it has “proof” that the Republican Party is racist: “Where are all the minorities?”

Janeane Garafalo, who has a framed picture of herself with Bill Clinton, is the perfect poster child for leftist hypocrisy. She defended supporters of Hollywood pedophile Roman Polanski and claimed that Weinergate wasn’t Weiner’s fault but a distraction created by the media and Republicans; but now she suddenly has a “truly important” case to focus on.

The issue isn’t Cain’s guilt or innocence, which can only be determined by the evidence, not by pundits and commentators — the issue is the Left’s contemptible double standard on racism and sexism, which it exploits for its own benefit. The Left plays the race card against conservative women and the sexism card against conservative black men, not because it believes that racism and sexism are wrong, but because it’s a party built on the art of dividing and conquering along the lines of group identity.

If Cain, like Mel Reynolds, a former black congressman convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault, happened to be a Democrat, then the media would have been telling a completely different story. Reynolds, who was also convicted of bank fraud, received a special commutation of his sentence from Bill Clinton –  without even actually applying for it.

This is how Reynolds, a key figure in the rise of Obama, was greeted on his release by one Chicago newspaper. “Welcome back to `the world’, Mel Reynolds.”

Pages: 1 2

  • PatriotX

    You can always figure out a true villain’s deepest and darkest crimes by listening to his accusations against others.

    • Ken

      Exactly!!!

      • Herman Caintonette

        Your indictment of Team Horrorwitz is understood and acknowledged.

        • Western Canadian

          Your stupidity and dishonest is understood and acknowledged. And pitiable.

          • Western Canadian

            Sorry, that should be ‘dishonesty’. Actually, it should be something much harsher…

    • YankeeRabbit

      Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

      The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

      Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

      What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

      How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

      And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

      But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

      They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

      Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  • Amused

    Oh what a croc ……"runaway slaves " …what an imbecilic metaphor . Anita Hill was not paid to shut up , nor was she "a leftist " nor did anyone put her up to it . Greenfield has an ideologically driven over active imagination . The left does this …blah blah blah .The left does exactly what the right does .When it comes to party politics , the rules go out the window .Victims of sexual harrasment are usually outraged and powerless to do anything about it .The dullards here , like the above two posters , cannot empathize with a person whose ability to make a living or reach career goals are put at risk by not deffering to arsholes like Cain , Thomas OR Clinton .Clinton AND Thomas were both worthy of the criticism , and unfortunately lucky to weather the storm and move ahead with their own careers. Looks like Cain will not .
    Aside from the idiotic axioms of PatriotX .

    • Rifleman

      As with rape, I'll save my empathy for those that really are sexually harassed, rather than those who falsly accuse. Those that falsly accuse help those that rape and harass get away with it. Both rapists and false accusers play sick games with other people's lives, and I view them in much the same light. Now carry on with your blind flailing and silly insults.

      • Herman Caintonette

        I'm inclined to believe the lady, just as I did with respect to the Clinton incident. Men with power invariably behave badly, from David "Diapers" Vitter to Larry "Wide-Stance" Craig to Anthony "Over-Sized" Weiner.

        Frankly, Jimmy Johnson should be replaced. If Weiner endorsed a boner pill, he would have the package to prove it.

        • Rifleman

          Knowing the dp, I was inclined to wait for more info on the anonymous accusers, and that info so far has shown a pattern of accusations, so now I'm inclined to disbelieve them. Allred's Chicago accuser had the wrong words, demeanor, and body language so I was inclined to disbelieve her from the start. So far, as more info comes out, my suspicions of her are being confirmed as well.

          I've known enough women who really were raped, abused, and/or harassed, to spot the false accusers more often than not, and despise them as much as the rapists, abusers, and harassers.

          • Herman Caintonette

            I've been involved in that area, too. I saw nothing in Bialek's demeanor that suggests that she was faking it — though Cain was dissembling like a Bill Clinton.

            Cui bono? Bialek has nothing to gain by coming forward, unlike Paula Jones. Personal bankruptcies and lawsuits do not impeach anyone's cred. Hiring Gloria Allred makes sense, as no one is more experienced in that area of the law. Also note that Cain hired Lin Wood of JonBenet fame; should he be presumed guilty on account of the fact that he lawyered up?

    • marsconi

      I don't believe you feel Clinton worthy of criticism. You only use Clinton to bolster your credibility here. I'm betting you are like the many libs I talk to; you express some caution about Clinton but privately you adore him.

      • Herman Caintonette

        I don't carry a brief for Clinton; he is at the heart of OWS' grievances (that there is one set of rules for Platinum Citizens, and another for the rest of us). He should have done time for perjury, and Nixon should have done it for conspiracy.

    • aspacia

      Amused, you missed Greenfield's point: The Left attacks the Right for sexual misdeeds, but gives Democrats a pass for their misdeeds which is true.

      You also delve into the fallacious ad hominem attacks — just stick to the claim to gain credibility which are are rapidly losing with this poster. Similar to Flipper and other trolls, I will probably ignore any of your future posts because they are off topic.

      • Herman Caintonette

        Tell that to Anthony "Oversized" Weiner, who may have a future in Jewish porn flicks.

        The Right is hung up on sexual peccadilloes, which is why they invite criticism for their hypocrisy. Remember Jack "Borg-sex in a Cage" Ryan? The Left views what consenting adults do with their genitals in the privacy of their own sex clubs as their own damn business, but the Right goes nuts over a "wardrobe malfunction" that shows a nipple. You set your perverted standards and demand that the rest of us comply; it is only fair for others to point out your relentless hypocrisy.

        • astra

          You don't make sense.
          Privacy of a sex club is not comparable to a "wardrobe malfunction" that is televised.

          • Herman Caintonette

            I speak about unwarranted prudishness; the only ones worse are Muslims.

        • stern

          You sound jealous ….? Why else would you keep referring to Anthony Weiner the way you do? Are you perhaps "Undersized"? Ah yes, I think we have our name for you.

          • intrcptr2

            Well, he did tip us off at the outset, with the diminutive in his tagline.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Nope. It's just that everyone made fun of Weiner's weiner.

        • intrcptr2

          “perverted standards”??!?

          Um, in general, a monomgamous family is normative in the first place (Comparative anthropology notwithstanding). And until baby boomers decided to tell their parents to shove it, lifestyles and practices that we today exalt as enlightened and liberating were recognized as perverse and dysfunctional.
          Yes, people that seek power tend to abuse it. But accepting that ALL do is not only ignorant it is slanderous of those who don’t, especially those, like Reagan, who do not seek favors. It is also inherently contradictory of representative government. If no leaders are moral, then who shall we send?

          And anyway, failure of individuals does not render the corporate beliefs of anyone moot or hypocritical, unless of course you attack another for practicing what you preach.
          You may remember where the chips fell this year when your hero tried denying it was his fault; Reps condemning him, Dems supporting him, until it became laughably obvious what a scumbag he is.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Who is "my hero?"

        • aspacia

          I was talking to Amused not you Little Cain.

          I am part of what you describe as the Right and am nothing like what you claim. Sre referring to the idiotic prude Ashcroft covering the stature of a naked woman. Just as stupid as the pope emasculating numerous Vatican male statues. Or are you talking about the Jackson fiasco? You do realize than family's were watching the game and their children saw this. Do you have children?

          Look, I do not have a problem with the human body, what is wrong with it? Nothing. Most great art depicts the naked human body, so TFW? I could care less. Besides my other half and I never wear swimsuits in our secluded backyard. So what. He also has every Playboy since its first publication and my son was raised with my other half, albeit the Playboys were locked in a garage cabinet.

          You are misleading. Many on the Right were angry regarding Clinton attempting to create a pure socialist state in this land and they were stupidly investigating his private life. This was a waste of taxpayer's money. What he was rightly convicted of was perjury. Many on the right dislike elected leaders posting pictures of their genitals on line, rather tacky and shows a lack of judgement.

          Most Democratic leaders indiscretions are discussed then brushed under the carpet. We haven't heard much about Weiner lately.

    • Jobe

      This post must be a joke. It sounds like Hitler cautioning us against believing that the Jews are bad.

    • PETER

      If you are offended at work, quit!!! Start your own company and compete and put them out of business with your superior business acumen.
      I would not hire any person, male or female, that had a history of using the legal system except to defend himself. The same goes for any person who had EVER filed a sexual complaint.

      • aspacia

        True, a businessman was on Heidi Harris last week claiming he owned several taverns in town and currently has 7 sexual harassment lawsuits against him. He claims he will simply settle because each would cost him 100,000 in court costs. I will research his claim regarding the number of sexual harassment suits that are simply settled.

  • Rifleman

    Now it comes out that one of Cain's accusers can't remember doing the same thing at her next job, lol.

    This is all just an excellent display and lesson on msm/dp double standards and bias. Nice of them to shred their credibility yet again, and it's amusing to watch their supporters (like the one above) flail about in obvious consternation when it happens.

    • BS77

      Garafolo….not funny, not relevant…another leftist loser

      • johnnywoods

        You left out "second rate actress".

        • Herman Caintonette

          She's got scoreboard.

          • Western Canadian

            tatoo on her but??

    • Jim_C

      Really, rifleman? You think this is the "MSM"s doing?

      Guy is running for president, made it to front-runner status. What we know as a fact: Several years back his organization paid two women off regarding sexual harrassment allegations made against the man.Took Cain a few days to "remember" this.

      Do you really think this is liberal bias? Scandal has always been the newsman's best friend. Policy positions don't sell papers. Fox likes this story just as much as MSNBC.

      • johnnywoods

        Cain was not involved in this "payoff" as he recused himself and therefor may well not have known the details of said "payoff". Furthermore the "charge" does not prove the "offense" as many so-called charges were made in the 80`s and 90`s that were "paid off" rather than litigated . That chick in Chicago is a liar and I would bet money on it.

  • WildJew

    Daniel wrote: "Joseph Rainey, the first black congressman, and a Republican from South Carolina, was forced out of office by Democrats through voter fraud. (John Menard, the first black Republican to win a congressional election was not even seated.) Senator Hiram Revels, the first black senator and a Republican from Mississippi, was nearly kept out of office by Democrats who claimed that even a free black man could not have been considered an American citizen…."

    I wonder from what source or sources you gleaned these interesting facts about the Democratic party and its history of enslavement?

    • Herman Caintonette

      The Dixiecrats of yore are the Tea Partiers of today.

      • Rifleman

        Nope, they weren't called yellow dog democrats for nothing. They still think Black folks are inferior, that's why they hold them to lower standards than white folks, and they still use them on their plantation.

      • Steeloak

        Nah, they are still Democrats today. Tea Partiers reject racism and plantation politics.

        • Herman Caintonette

          So does OWS. But that didn't stop the Right from making that false accusation.

    • intrcptr2

      For your second point, I refer you to Google or Wikipedia; the history of Democratic racism runs right back to the ascendancy of Jackson in the 1820s. You may notice the sectional splits of the two parties in the election of 1860? Or maybe the opposition to Eisenhower’s initiatives in the 1950s?

      For your second point, I refer you to Google and Britannica, or perhaps Amazon.
      http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1869-john-willis-menard-speech-united-states-house-representatives

      I find it inconceivable really, that such a critique is possible.

      • Jim_C

        What happened to the once-solidly demoratic South? When did the South turn so Republican? Was it a new tax? Perhaps the abortion issue?

        Nope. It was the Civil Rights Act. "You realize we've (the democratic party) just lost the South." Lyndon Johnson.

        The original House version:
        Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
        Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
        Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
        Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

        The Senate version:
        Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
        Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
        Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
        Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

        Couldn't be more clear.

        • Chris Nichols

          Oh, the old Southerns switched parties cannard. Let me see if understand this, the Democrats were so enraged by the Civil Rights act being passed by a majority of Republicans, that in order to punish them, they became Republicans. Not one of those Southern Democrats in the House and Senate that voted against the Civil Rights Act switched parties. It was also filibustered by Robert Byrd, again, didn't switch parties. As far as Lyndon Johnson goes, he voted against the first civil rights act which was proposed by the Eisenhower administration, and was voted against by Lyndon Johnson while he was Senate Majority leader. He did take credit for it's passage in in164 however; which led to this quote from Johnson: " "I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." There wasn't one Southern Republican governor blocking the doors to the schools when a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower forced public school integration during the 1950s, they were all Democrats.

          • tony

            Excellent response Chris. The democrat plantation is alive and well today.

          • trickyblain

            Strom Thurmond didn't switch parties?

          • trickyblain

            And did you see the stats? Not a single sounthern republican voted for it. Not one. The racism stems from the South, not a political party.

          • Jim_C

            Yes, Chris, in the 1950s they were democrats. Geez, try to follow along, will you?

            Can you tell me why the South was so solidly democratic up until the passage of the Civil Rights Act? Can you tell me why no Southern Republicans voted for the CRA? Gee, what might have happened? (Please say "State's Rights," that's my favorite dodge).

    • johnnywoods

      Contact WallBuilders.com for books and videos on American history.

      • Herman Caintonette

        Barton isn't a historian, and he is spectacularly incompetent.

        • Steeloak

          He is extremely well informed and eloquent. You just don't like what he has to say.

        • johnnywoods

          He has a video entitled "American History in Black and White" which points out historical facts,not his own opinion. There are other resources available also which are not his work so he does not need to be a historian. Besides that what makes you an authority on history?

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    There is really no way a Daniel Greenfield can distance himself from a Janeane Garofalo. They are both really bad entertainers with wingnut political views. Sometimes I even confuse the two. I think Sultan Knish is going to lambast Fiona Apple for being skinny, and Janeane Garofalo is going to accuse Jack Valenti of being a leftist.

  • StephenD

    In America, we have lost our credibility to hold any moral high court on behavior regarding our politicians.
    When we elect a man whose associations include The Irreverent Wright, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn, The New Black Panthers and CAIR, we have lost any ability to moral efficacy. All the noise from the Press or the Dems is just that; noise. We get what we deserve.

    • Herman Caintonette

      Wright is no worse than his bat-guano-crazy counterparts on the Right, and Bill Ayers is indistinguishable from the terrorist Menachem Begin.

      At least, the French have made peace with their politicians' over-charged sex lives….

      • StephenD

        I really wish you wouldn't comment on my comments. It makes me feel compromised and dirty somehow. No offense.

      • Western Canadian

        Moral equivalence is not an argument, just a smoke screen. Not even close to a valid comparison.

        • StephenD

          Wait…what?

  • Herman Caintonette

    Greenfield: "The issue isn’t Cain’s guilt or innocence, which can only be determined by the evidence, not by pundits and commentators — the issue is the Left’s contemptible double standard on racism and sexism, which it exploits for its own benefit."

    To be honest — something the propagandists at FPM find against their religion — both sides employ a relentless form of hypocrisy. The Right believed Paula Jones because it was in their interest to do so, but viciously attack Sharon Bielek because it is in their interest to do so. Robert Bennett denounced Paula as "gold-digging trailer trash," and Bill Bennett is denouncing Sharon as having declared bankruptcy.

    The cases are substantially identical. The only evidence in the Bielek case is what she claims, and the only evidence in the Paula Jones case was what she said. The claims are identical: both men allegedly wanted a hummer, and were allegedly aggressive in their demands. Moreover, in both cases, we have a wealth of evidence showing that the accused were either unfaithful to their spouses (the Flowers tapes and the blue dress) or serial sexual harassers (Cain) and as such, it is more likely that the ladies were both telling the truth. And of course, both men dissembled to the point of comedy when they were confronted by the media.

    I don't know how you believe Paula Jones, and not believe Sharon Bialek. Unlike Jones, who sued Clinton for monetary damages, Bialek cannot benefit personally from coming forward, and can expect her reputation to be trashed by trailer-trash like Limburger and the Pillsbury Dough-Boy.

    I oppose Cain because he has shown himself to be an intellectual lightweight, even by George W. Bush standards and frankly, because he is absolutely unelectable. But I am amused by how the people who call the Left out for their double-standards resort to the same double-standards they detest in others. In the words of Jon Stewart, "That is, if I may say, some of the most free-range, organically grown, disingenous, ideologically marinated. un-self-awareness I've ever seen in the wild." http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/

    • WildJew

      You make strong arguments and charges of hypocrisy on the part of the right. If Cain survives these accusations, his political enemies will have been dealt a severe blow. If Cain is ultimately defeated by the weight of the evidence, I suspect the political right and conservatism will have been dealt another strong blow. I write "another" because conservatives, including Daniel Greenfield (sadly) circled the wagons around George W. Bush, even as he repeatedly lied about Islam and more egregiously became the first American president to make the establishment of a Muslim-enemy state a "formal goal of U.S. policy." When Bush unveiled his vision for Israel's division and obliteration only days after 9/11 Muslim-terror attacks, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's initial response to the this despicable Bush policy / turn was the following:

      " I call on the western democracy, and primarily the leader of the free world, the United States, do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient, temporary solution."

      CNN'S JOHN KING: What angered Washington most was Sharon's comparison to Europe ceding parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, suggesting that in its aggressive effort to court Arab nations for the coalition against terrorism, the United States was turning its back on Israel's security.

      ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The president believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel can have no better or stronger friend than the United States, and better friend than President Bush.

      KING: Secretary of State Colin Powell called Sharon once to voice the president's displeasure, then again later, after the prime minister agreed to issue a conciliatory statement.

      Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the Republican party establishment, conservative activists, etc., all circled the wagons around George W. Bush, his lies and his misguided anti-Israel policies for eight years, much to my chagrin. I believe Barack Hussein Obama is God's judgment on our party and our nation.

      Have conservatives internalized this lesson of not circling the wagons around evil-doers and wrong-doers? Time will tell. That is why this Cain controversy is critical. What have we conservatives learned?

      • Herman Caintonette

        I despise hypocrisy on the right and left. I'm not going to tell you that I support Israel to mollify the audience here; my view is that you are entitled to my honest views, even if you don't like them.

        • WildJew

          Why do (like both Ron and Rand Paul) oppose standing by Israel? You don't think Israel's enemies (who celebrated on 9/11) are America's enemies?

          • Western Canadian

            The idiot thinks that a nation meets the definition of a parasite…. Actually, lawyers come much close to meeting that definition.. The investment in israel is paid back many times over, with military intelligence, military and other research, oh why bother. HC is so full of left wing boiler-plate that he is a complete waste of time.

        • Beth

          "my view is that you are entitled to my honest views, even if you don't like them"

          Defenition for Arrogance: Herman Caintonette

          Related Words for Arrogance: haughtiness, hauteur, highhandedness, lordliness

    • astra

      "I oppose Cain "
      Please disclose: who is it you support?

      • Herman Caintonette

        At this point, Ron Paul. Where he is right, he has lots of popular support and where he is wrong, he is so bat-guano crazy that no one would ever let him implement his ideas. In short, he will do no harm.

        • WildJew

          That's absurd. Your view that Dr. Paul's dangerous ideas are so loony that no would ever let him implement them could have been said about Obama's loony ideals. That is what make you Paul-supporters so very dangerous.

          • Herman Caintonette

            I don't see Obama's ideals as particularly "loony." Frankly, he has cultivated a position squarely in the center; the Left is almost as upset with him as the Far Right.

            We need infrastructure repairs — badly. Why do the Republicans fight against this, and refuse to fund it through tax increases?

          • WildJew

            You don't think "spreading the wealth" (the redistribution of property and wealth as Obama would have it if he were a dictator) is not only loony but downright dangerous?

          • Herman Caintonette

            No. I view it as a practical necessity. Our economy suffers from a lack of demand, because Warren Buffett has no real need for a fourteenth Bentley. Our 10-year Treasuries are yielding less than 2%, which is an indication that there is too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities.

          • Chris Nichols

            Our economy does not suffer from a lack of demand it suffers from a lack of supply, and the federal government is doing everything it can to intentionally limit supplies of energy. This in turn leads to rises in the costs of just about everything else. You are right about too few investment opportunities, which is just luck because you don't seem to know what money is; however, the problem is no one is investing capital because they people know their taxes will go up to comply with more federal mandates, and just wait until Obamacare kicks in. Back to the not understanding money thing, it is not practical to spread other peoples wealth around, wealth has to be created. The government does not create a supply, nor a demand. On the contrary, Obama is punishing the wealth creators.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Drivel. Your ignorance of basic economics could fill the Grand Canyon.

          • Chris Nichols

            Please, elaborate. Because I don't think you know basic economics from a row boat.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Economic activity does not occur until and unless a sale is made. You don't appear to even understand that.

          • Chris Nichols

            And a sale can't be made until there is a demand for a product and that product is produced. You don't seem to understand that government doesn't produce anything, all they do is take from one person to give to another. You do bring up a good point, the states make 2 to 3 times as much on a gallon of gas than oil companies do and 18cents of every gallon goes into the federal highway fund, but they are always broke. In actuality, it all goes into a slush fund, like SS and medicaid taxes to pay off deadbeats, your solution is to give people with no interest in spending money on its intended purpose, more money. Nice work, sock puppet.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Government provides services which are essential to a capitalist system. Try doing business without roads, police, courts, and a common defense.

            And if you don't have enough money to pay for my better mousetrap, that demand will go unmet. An economy is like an engine: if it is too rich or too lean, it will stall. Give $20,000 each to 100 poor men, and they will buy 100 Fords; give $2 million to a rich man, and he probably won't buy that fourteenth Bentley.

          • WildJew

            Then you are a socialist or a Marxist (like Obama) if you support government redistribution of wealth.

          • Oleg

            Because Barry pissed away 850+ billion dollars on scams like Solyndra with his "Stimulous" plan. Apparently the infrastructure wasn't as badly in need of repair in 2009 as it was in 2011. Obama, a centrist? Compared to whom? Chairman Mao? Fidel Castro?

        • Steeloak

          Out of curiosity, which part of Ron Paul do you support? The 80% of him that is a small government, constitutionalist, free market, libertarian? Or the 20% that is a loony, conspiracy believing, we brought 911 on ourselves, kook? Or do you go for the whole package?
          Don't get me wrong, in the remote event that Paul is the Republican candidate, I will vote for him against Obama – even Paul would be 1000 times better than the dilettante we currently have. But I won't like it!

          • Herman Caintonette

            I'm all for his views on national defense; the Constitution does not authorize elective wars entered into under fraudulent pretense. I also concur with Barry Goldwater's view that the federal government has no place in our bedrooms, a woman's uterus, or eavesdropping on our telephone calls. Paul has been as good on that as anyone.

            I further maintain that the Constitution, by virtue of the treaty power and Commerce Clause, authorizes Congress to regulate health-care and even mandate it. The public commons should be robust, as it is a sine qua non of a functional capitalist system.

          • WildJew

            Would you have opposed America's entry into the second world war to help defeat Nazism on the side of the Allies? You think government has no basis for protecting innocent life or upholding moral values? Would you legalize murder, rape, theft, etc.? In time of war (let's say during the second world war) you would outlaw the government eavesdropping on potential enemy-citizens like the German American Bund or those sympathetic with our murderous enemies?

          • Herman Caintonette

            We almost entered into WWII on the Axis side. That having been said, a direct attack by a sovereign nation constitutes a casus belli.

            We weren't at war when Shrub trotted out the wiretapping program, and we're not really at war any more.

          • WildJew

            Charles Lindbergh was not the president then (thankfully), FDR was. What historians are you reading that suggest FDR almost entered the second world war on the Axis side since FDR was doing everything he could to help arm Britain / Churchill? You say we weren't at war when Bush trotted out the wiretapping program. You don't consider the 9/11 attacks an act of war? I do. Thus the need to wiretap potential Islamic jihadists within. The Taliban (which gave sanctuary to bin Laden / al Qaeda) was the governing authority in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was not operating in a vacuum. Nations states were financing / aiding al Qaeda. If a terror-supporting nation state finances and aids a deadly proxy that attacks another nations state, is that terror-supporting nation state innocent? Back to my original question, would you or would you not have entered the War on the side of the democracies against Nazism?

          • Herman Caintonette

            The wiretapping program was pre-9/11, and you are probably unaware of the Business Plot.

            Pearl Harbor was an act of war, committed by a nation-state that posed a direct threat to the U.S. By contrast, 9/11 was committed by a non-state entity, and one could also plausibly argue that it was in retaliation for fifty years of oppression and mischief in the region. Besides, it is quite possible that it was aided and abetted by our own citizens.

            Ask yourself: Cui bono?

          • Beth

            "9/11 was committed by a non-state entity"

            The OIC (made up of 57 states) is responsible for producing murderers.

            It was an act of war.

          • WildJew

            Exactly. 9/11 was committed by states. That is why we call these states, "state sponsors of international terrorism." As much as the government wishes to deny it, Saudi Arabia is a state sponsor of terrorism. It is the fountainhead for this murderous ideology (interpretation of Islam). Saudi / Islamic charity (zakat), up to the highest level of government financed al Qaeda.

          • Steeloak

            So, the loon part. Just wanted to know where you were coming from.

            The commerce clause does no such thing. It is precisely because the commerce clause has been abused, that government has escaped it's constitutional boundries and is out of control.
            The commerce clause was intended to prevent states from imposing tariffs & duties on interstate commerce. This had become a problem under the articles of confederation & was addressed by the constitutional convention, resulting in the commerce clause.
            Here is a good article about the history of the commerce clause & how it came to be abused. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp

          • Herman Caintonette

            The author is entitled to his opinion.

          • Steeloak

            Sometimes opinions match the facts. But then, you wouldn't know about that.

          • Herman Caintonette

            Et tu, Brute?

          • Steeloak

            Yeah, I hate to drive in that knife, but well – you asked for it.

          • Western Canadian

            And now he is re-writing the history leading up to the us involvment in wwII…. When is he taking on the kaiser??

    • Steeloak

      The difference is quite clear, it has to do with the track record of the person being accused.
      In Clinton's case, he was a notorious womanizer and mysogynist.
      In Cain's case, there is no blemish on his record other than these obvious politicaly motivated accusations.
      People who knew Clinton well expected him to behave in the manner he did, hence the "Bimbo Eruptions" team on his campaign staff.
      People who know Cain well say that the man being described by his accusers is not the Herman Cain they know.
      There is absolutely no hypocrisy in this, the two men are not even remotely compareable in their behaviour.
      As for Bialek, the facts coming out indicate she is desperate for money and has a long history of financial misdeeds. The other known accuser that has come forward publicly seems to be a serial complaint filer.
      While I'll be the first to grant that men of wealth & power are often skirt chasers (JFK,Teddy K., Clinton, Edwards, Hart), the evidence just isn't there yet to indict Cain. Given the character of the man, he must recieve the benefit of the doubt.

      • WildJew

        Time will tell if you are right. What will you say if you are (in the end) proven wrong? That is why I have tried to be cautious. I like many of Cain's positions, including his stated policy toward America's friends and our enemies. I listened to Cain when he sat in for his good friend, radio talk show host Neal Boortz, who has steadfastly refused to endorse Cain. The public knows little to nothing about Cain, unlike Clinton who had a very public record as an elected official; and a troubling one at that, like Obama in other matters Cain has no public record because he has held no elective office. Cain is a virtual unknown. Witnesses are critical. If there are credible witnesses (not merely one witness) who are willing to testify publicly, then we will have a better idea what, if anything, transpired.

      • Herman Caintonette

        She's not suing Cain, and the fact that she filed for bankruptcy in 2001 does not imply that she is in desperate need for money. By your metyric, the gold-digging Paula Jones's claims can be questioned, whereas Bialek's may not.

        At least seven people have come forward and said that they witnessed acts by Herman Cain. By that standard, you can't draw a salient distinction between Cain and Clinton. Karen Krushaar is gainfully employed, and has nothing to gain by coming forward, apart from an attempt to defend her reputation.

        You will say anything to defend Cain, like so many other Rightards, because he is one of yours. If you believed Paula, you have to believe Sharon Bialek.

        • Steeloak

          There is no evidence at this point, only accusations by parties that have not been substantiated. Only 2 have been identified at this point and both have troubling histories that taint their claims.

          Bialek has money & legal problems that would be solved by her media fame – she knows she's got nothing that she could sue over. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-h

          Krusharr seems to have a penchant for filing harassment claims (her claim against Cain is laughable in it's vagueness). It would seem too, that she has a preference for working in Democrat administrations, so there may be a partisan angle too. http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-accuser-filed-

          Paula Jones got $850,000 that kind of money is not paid out on baseless claims.
          Krusharr got $45,000, typical of a settlement of a baseless claim.

          I won't "say anything" to defend Cain, if anyone can come forward with real evidence proving any of these allegations I won't support him.
          Until then, I support a good man who is being slimed for political reasons.

          • Herman Caintonette

            How does she make money off of this? She's not exactly going to be offered a spread in Playboy….

            Paula Jones got $850k because the defendant was Bill Clinton, and he would be better off just paying the lady. The spectacle would have been epic — helle, it was.

          • Steeloak

            Are you being dense on purpose?
            She'll get money for interviews, book deals, fees for public speaking, TV & Movie rights, etc, etc.

          • WildJew

            OK. All fair points. We'll see what transpires.

      • Jim_C

        What about the payoffs to the two women who alleged sexual misconduct against him in the 1990s?

        You don't pay women off just because you've made an inappropriate innuendo. You pay them off when something really untoward happens.

        Now Clinton does provide an interesting contrast. In his case, the accusations were flying from everywhere, and he fessed up to Flowers (unlike Cain's ladies, she was willing)–and got elected. So there was a certain level of fatigue at the industry that grew around hating Clinton and made careers for the likes of Ann Coulter .The "bimbo eruption" fatiguein effect insulated Clinton, though not when he was just a candidate.

        Even Republican sources are now saying Cain has a reputation for liking the ladies.

        It's just a matter of time before the party says "Enough, let's get on with Mitt Romney's campaign already."

        • Steeloak

          If you were even minutely familiar with the hostile legal environment that companies are in, you would know that it is far cheaper to pay a settlement when you have done nothing wrong, that it is to fight it out and prove your innocence in court. Companies are shaken down all the time with phony claims & they pay up because the legal deck is stacked against them.

          Until we overhaul our court system and implement loser pays, this will continue.

          • WildJew

            "Until we overhaul our court system and implement loser pays, this will continue…"

            I absolutely agree with this concept. A false or a "violent / malicious" witness (in the law of Moses) paid with his or her life.

          • Jim_C

            But if the claims are valid? That's the problem.

            I take your point; but you and I are not attempting to run for president. Quite frankly, Cain has "suddenly remembered" too many times already.

    • Western Canadian

      ‘Strong evidence’? Not even close. Accusations are not evidence. Even a shyster like you should know that.

      • WildJew

        You could be right. It may not be strong. I think you are wrong about potential witnesses / accusations.

        ev·i·dence   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
        noun

        Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

    • Western Canadian

      Bialek is assured of financial security, from multiple hard left benefactors…. You might have the ability to pretend otherwise, but most people probably don’t.

  • WildJew

    I have been cautious on the Cain saga. Both sides make compelling arguments. There are some (not many) on the right who are publicly skeptical of Cain's account. One is Jennifer Rubin who writes a column called "Right Turn" in the Washington Post.

    Tea Party / Red State activist Erick Erickson wrote of Rubin: "I have known Jennifer Rubin for a while and really like her, but I am terribly befuddled about her Washington Post blog “Right Turn.” It has descended into advocacy of getting the traitor Jonathan Pollard out of prison….There are few conservatives within the actual conservative movement who are paying attention, but the bulk of those who are do not want Pollard released. They want him hanged or shot as a traitor to his country.

    "I realize there are people who believe our alliance with Israel outweighs every other consideration and they are forced to make logical leaps to defend or mitigate Jonathan Pollard’s actions…."

    Later Erickson wrote: Rubin "has nothing in common with conservatives other than hating terrorists. A conservative friend says she’s best understood as ‘Likud’ rather than Republican or conservative. There’s nothing wrong with being Likud, but one ought to be honest about it."

    In this morning's Post Rubin wrote (in part): There’s really no way to adequately describe how downright weird Herman Cain’s news conference was today. There was Cain referring to “Herman Cain,” a throwback to Bob Dole’s frequent use of self-referential third person. There was the part where he told us that there may be other allegations — but those will be false. Memorable, too, was his insistence that the claimants are all anonymous, when in fact two women have been identified by name. Then there was the ranting and raving about the media, although Sharon Bialek came forth with no media filter. I sorta liked the part where he conceded that there was no “definitive” — definitive in the sense of “any” — proof that he was the victim of a conspiracy.

    In a way, this was a fitting downfall: The slick ex-talk show host undone by his own rambling. He was no longer charming. He was desperate and entirely unbelievable. Forget the presidency. Forget becoming a conservative icon. Cain succeeded only in leaving the impression that he may be a bit off his rocker…

    Read it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/po

    • Herman Caintonette

      Again, my post disappeared. Funny how that happens….

      • WildJew

        No. Your post is just above mine.

  • Guest

    Now just a minute, do you actually expect the looney liberal lackeys to play fair? Do you really think they will be logical? Do you really expect them to objectivly use facts?

    You are expecting way too much. So what if they call us racist. Nothing new here. Go on the offense and move along.

    • Herman Caintonette

      The Left LOVES Cain, who would lead the GOP to a 49-state loss. Why would they go after him? The media loves a sex scandal — possible felony violations of campaign finance laws by the Cain camp is a more important story — and will ride it as long as they can. Remember Fox in the Condit scandal? All Chandra, all the time. Condit was later cleared, but that didn't stop Roger Ailes from going ape-guano…

      • Chris Nichols

        Really, 49 state loss, you can predict that this far out? Which state will he win. Just Georgia? Wow, that's some fantastic prognosticating. Since some polls have a generic Republican beating Obama.

      • Guest

        I think you missed my larger point. I couldn't care less about Cain. It does matter who it is. The libtards will always lie,cheat, name call,etc to further their agenda, while conservatives will stay on Rocked back on their heels playing defense. They should ignore and make irrelevant all ignorant liberals. I will gladly be called a racist before an illogical and pathetic liar.

    • Jim_C

      I would personally love it if Cain got the nomination because he's clearly a lightweight who will get steamrolled. It's not going to happen.

      As for racism, you are absolutely right. It is an extraordinarily easy accusation to make, nd an extraordinarily easy excuse to hide behind. That's why Herman Cain posits it as an excuse every chance he gets. "Why are they after me? It can't be that I'm a front runner with a history of paying off sexual misconduct allegations, so it must be because I'm black and they don't like that."

      Something Obama has NEVER done.

      • Chris Nichols

        What the hell are you talking about, Obama plays the race card every chance he gets, along with his wife.

        • Jim_C

          Prove it–when and where?

          You can SAY it, but you can't show it–ANYWHERE.

          • Western Canadian

            HIs comment while hustling for the white house, about how people were going to be told that he’s not like the other presidents on the folding money, he has a different name. And by the way he is black.

            Slightly paraphrased, but obama all the way. You lose.

  • Herman Caintonette

    Guy Benson (Townhall; quoting Cain campaign manager Blockhead: "I mean, just at the press conference it was brought up that the — Karen Kraushaar come out as one of the women. So we've come to find out her son works at Politico, the organization that originally out the story out.":…

    Except. [that the accusation is] just flat-out false. In fact, it's wrong in every way imaginable, with the possible exception of spelling. Karen Krauschaar is one of the original Cain accusers who, until yesterday, remained anonymous. In an attempt to discredit her, Block went after her son, whom he "confirmed" works for Politico. He was presumably talking about DC-based reporter Josh Kraushaar. Aha! A conflict of interest! Two problems: Josh is not related to Karen, and he works for National Journal, not Politico. This is simply embarassing."
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/11/09

    The National Journal tends to lean right. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009030011

    .

    • Jim_C

      Oops! More proof Cain is just not ready for prime time.

  • GTELL78

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

    • Ghostwriter

      GTELL78,you are disgusting. Your statement sounds like something from 1911,not 2011.

  • Out2Sea

    I just remembered something. Herman Cain ran for the GA Senate in 2000, why didn't all these "victims" say something then ?

    • Herman Caintonette

      Because he was a nobody who barely registered a pulse.

  • Jim_C

    Another "nice try" by the polemicists of FPM which will be believed by a very small number of Caucasian people. But keep it up–it does amuse.

    Just know that at this point it's all about the book deal/speaking gig so long as Cain appears in that favorite pop conservative guise: the victim. His chronic unpreparedness to even run for president shows through every day; all we're doing now is waiting out his portion of the news cycle, press conference by press conference in the silly way we have of pretending people like Cain, or Bachmann, or Palin were ever serious contenders.

    Waiting for the inevitable day when Newt and then Perry throw their weight behind Romney.

  • BLJ

    Garafalo is a dog. She is also a no talent loser. Perfect member of the Left. I would love to see all of these bleeding hearts libs dropped into the real hood.

  • mrbean

    Let's talk about Barack Obama and his homosexual acts with at least three people. Ken Penn is one and Obama and Axelrod were sued by a male prostitute over the drug use as well as what? a “blow job” in the back of a limo outing. Obama met Larry Sinclair in 1999 from Nov 3 to Nov 8 in Chicago, illinois in the back of a limo he smoked CRACK and had a oral sex affair with Larry Sinclair! The mom of Donald Young is speaking up in Chicago, illinois! Donald Young was another GAY lover of Obama who was conveniently murdered just before Obama was elected! Hey maybe someone should ask Janeane Garafalo if it is really Obama who is a real TEABAGGER!

  • mrbean

    By the way Bill Clinton is a felony rapist. It has been thoroughly documented about his lip biting assault and rape of Juanita Broaderick. The man is a pig. Imagine the President of The United States masterbating in the Oval Office in front of a young troubled woman he was over twice as old as. Dirty old man Bill Clinton.

  • guest

    This is Republicans doing this, may be the guy from Texas. The Democrats would have pulled this 3 days before the election. How much money did those women get for doing this? They sure were ugly skanks. I would love for one to stand up and say she was offered money to do this. I would hope Cain has better tastes. Kennedy sure did. Any bets on any of it being true?

    They are running scared about this guy. Call the Texas Gov. for details.

  • Ralfy_Deumont

    "Anti-Racists" like to say Diversity is “freedom” for non-Whites to enter White living space and “mix in” with whomever they wish.

    However, White people are not allowed to refuse this freedom, so it is the "Anti-racists" diversity we are FORCED to accept.

    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

    ONLY white countries are being targeted for a blended humanity. ONLY white children are suffering because of it. Only white people are expected to pretend that race is just a social construct and open their borders to massive numbers of third world, non-white immigrants and assimilate with them.

    Anti-whites want all white countries to be blended, brown countries: white genocide via mass non-white immigration and assimilation.

    Genocide is genocide, whether accomplished by bullets, mustard gas, or mass immigration and social engineering.

    Anti-racist is really just a code word for anti-white.

    • Indioviejo

      You fail to see the rampant racism in ALL of humanity. It is and always will be alive and well. The multicultural brainwashing going on in our P.S. is confusing and guilt driven.

  • mrbean

    The women whose complaints Herman Cain attacked in a news conference Tuesday are planning to counter with a news conference of their own, attorneys for the women said Tuesday night. "My client has decided to hold a joint news conference with as many of the women who complained of sexual harassment by Herman Cain as will participate," said Joel P. Bennett, the Washington lawyer for Karen Kraushaar.

    Yassah, dem whitey wiggers dun gonna hold sum knda clusta fu*k an dis beez cause dat black man Cain dun stray fum dah democratic plantation an it bezz oaky tah tell whuppa lies abouts him.

  • trickyblain

    The following question, courtesy of the Bush campaign, was put to South Carolina Republicans in the 2000 primary:

    " Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child?"

    The very real possibility that this was all dug up by one of Cain's Republican opponents totally escapes the author?

  • aspacia

    I keep thinking about Strauss-Kahn. He is a slimeball, but so is Sarcozy. SK was probably set-up by Sarcozy because he was his chief political rival.

    Many ask what have these women to gain? How about a Swiss or Cayman Island bank account.

  • GeoffHolden

    It`s pretty disgusting to watch the republicans fawning over Cain just so they won`t be called raaaycist by the anti-white cult members.

    C,mon guys,we`ve got the goods on the anti-white cultists:

    Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives alike say I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  • Alan James

    This is what happens when you elect a Black man who is a Democrat to be President of The United States. That,s it. I don,t like his slime politics at all.

    he is a good speaker but thats it.

  • Richard

    Until Ubama, where were all the Black Democrat presidential candidates?

  • Herman Caintonette

    If you've had two bottles of Mogen David before you read him, I imagine that he might almost seem brilliant, but this article is an epic fail, for reasons stated elsewhere.

  • stern

    Oh dear, good old "Undersize" is having trouble coming up with anything sensible to say.

  • aspacia

    True, I forgot about Edwards.

  • Jim_C

    I seem to recall Edwards's scandal as highly reported. Who covered up for him?

    The Senate and Clinton? We were talking about the media.

    Speaking of Clinton, his "bimbo eruptions" were big news from the minute he began campaigning. Gary Hart went down via the MSM.

    Scandal is scandal. It sells papers and that's all there is to it. I know it's default for conservatives to play the victim card, but come on.

  • Steeloak

    He didn't hesitate to ally with the French against the British. That is a misrepresentation of Washington's beliefs.

  • Oleg

    Oh look, the closet anti semite strikes again!! But Hermie hides it behind code words like "Isreal" and "Zionist" rather then using the "J" word. Oh he derided someone on another thread for using the "J" word and claimed that OWS has the backing of many prominent jews, the new version of the bigot's refrain "Some of my best friends are "X".
    "Oh all of the worlds troubles, or at least the mid East's troubles, would disappear if it weren't for Isreal", and "Isreal meets the clinical definition of a parasite" You sir, and I use the word sir loosely, are a bigot along with that disgusting, fecal stained, diseased, drug infested, movement of anti semetic thugs, known as the OWS, that you continously champion.

  • WildJew

    Washington, in his Farewell address, did not advise us to avoid "foreign entanglements." Read his address. Try again. You are parroting Ron Paul who likewise is ignorant with respect to Washington's words.

  • WildJew

    It is indeed a part of our American system of justice that person is "presumed" innocent until proven guilty. As is the case with much conventional wisdom, I question this article of faith. When a man or woman is accused of wrongdoing — I do not presume them either guilty or innocent — I presume they are accused.

  • Jim_C

    Doesn't change the facts.