Liberals had a dim view of Herman Cain’s character long
before this week. They automatically ascribed bad motives to him
and to his GOP supporters. His political views couldn’t possibly be
sincere, they pronounced. He is clearly pandering to racists.
Democratic strategist Karen Finney summed this attitude up by
saying: “One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he
makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, 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’s a black man who knows his place.”

This is a rich charge, given that putting black
conservatives in their place is one of the chief preoccupations of
liberals. Holding black conservatives to a higher standard than
others in public life is a form of discrimination liberals have
perfected. They consider it very enlightened to ridicule black
conservatives, call them vicious names, even wish for their speedy
death. “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he
dies early like many black men do of heart disease,” pundit
Julianne Malveaux said about Clarence Thomas in the 1990s. “He is
an absolutely reprehensible person.” Liberals didn’t expel Malveaux
from polite society for this comment that might have even given
David Duke pause. Instead, they feted her in academia. These days
she is a college president at Bennett.

Regulating the blackness of black conservatives is the
divine right of liberals. And so almost anything Cain says or does
is fair game. A white liberal like MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell
feels so empowered by this divine right that he can question the
quality of Cain’s participation in the Civil Rights movement. Why,
he badgered Cain a few weeks back, didn’t you do more to promote
Civil Rights?

The exceedingly smug O’Donnell, however, couldn’t quite
bring himself to demean Cain as “minstrelsy” and musical.
For that task, he needed a black liberal and found one this week in
the single-name fraud Touré, a peddler of quasi-intellectual mumbo
jumbo and cheap shots that he regards as cutting-edge cultural
criticism. Using the pretentious patter of a Henry Louis
Gates, Touré unburdened himself of the deep

insight that “I think that Cain, interestingly, does not exist
without Obama preceding him.” Mortified by having to live under a
smart black man like Obama, conservatives needed to “right the
scales” with the elevation of a “lightweight” like Cain, said
Touré.

Unable to contain his brilliance, Touré continued that
there “is this constant minstrelsy aspect that he keeps bringing
up. This is not something that we’re just making up out of whole
cloth. He is the one who says he wants the Secret Service to call
him Corn Bread. He is the one who says things like ‘oh, shucky
ducky’ when he starts. This is deep black slang that he is using,
that we have not seen on a national public stage before.” This
sounds like a potential doctoral dissertation for Touré under Henry
Gates — the troubling implications of “shucky ducky” in American
politics.

Cain isn’t the first black man to run for the GOP
nomination, though one might think so listening to this nonsense.
In 2000, the Plato-quoting Alan Keyes ran for the GOP nomination.
Where does he fit into Touré’s analysis? Toure didn’t mention him
in his list of “serious intellectuals” who have run for president
even as he numbered Colin Powell, who didn’t run for president, as
one of them: “…Colin Powell, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, the
blacks who are running for president have presented themselves as
serious intellectuals…” Notice, by the way, that
he includes Jesse Jackson on the list. Apparently Cain
lacks the dignity, thoughtfulness, and moral probity of that former
aspirant.

Black conservatives just can’t win. Whether they are
“entertainers” like Cain or philosophers like Keyes, they are
marked down as “wacky,” as Maureen Dowd
described the two this week.

The left’s excitement over the sex harassment charges
dogging Cain can’t be explained by moral philosophy, unless
liberals plan to recant eight years of Clintonian apologetics. The
same people who still whine about the “prurient” Ken Starr are now
clamoring for the release of confidential files from twelve years
back. The less actual sex involved in a scandal, the more
interested liberals become in it, particularly if it taints a
conservative and even better if it taints a black one. Clinton’s
cavortings, fumblings, and passes in the Oval Office itself didn’t
interest them. Those were a “private matter.” But the Cain charges
have the potential to be disqualifying, they say.

Even if one were to put the worst possible construction on
the charges, they would constitute a relatively moral day for
Clinton. Nevertheless, Clinton’s boosters eagerly await the
appearance of Cain’s accusers. They want their Anita Hill. They say
that Cain is besmirching the good names of these women even though
the public doesn’t know their names yet. The press is working hard
to correct this injustice so that the names can be known and
properly besmirched.

Perhaps Cain is lying and he did speak improperly to these
women, though that would still fall well short of the Clinton
standard. Remember, “competence” alone qualifies one for the
presidency; crummy character doesn’t matter. Also, Clinton taught
the nation that “lying ” about sex and alleged sexual harassment
(Paula Jones) is no big deal. The press knew Clinton sexually
harassed his way through Arkansas and didn’t care. A few female
reporters, so grateful to him for protecting their right to
abortion, indicated they wished to be harassed too.

Cain enjoys no such ideological immunity. He is an odious
black conservative who threatens the left’s monopolistic hold on
blacks. Also, he is some kind of pro-lifer, which means he is
anti-woman from the start. Political figures are to be judged by
the content of their ideology, decrees the left. The seriousness of
a charge is determined by the rightness of a public figure’s
political views. A Ted Kennedy was entitled to a mulligan or two
after an unwelcome advance since he had done so much to help women
already.

Not so with Cain. The left can’t rest until black
conservatives are put in their place.

View original post.

First lady Michelle Obama the other day railed at “the few at the top,” who do all sorts of bad things. A few months ago, we began hearing of the “1 percent” who are responsible for the current economic mess. “They” apparently make all their money at the expense of the other 99 percent. Are they the same as last year’s villains, who had not paid “their fair share” while making over $200,000 in annual income?

Do they include the greedy doctors, who, the president once asserted, recklessly lop off limbs and yank tonsils for profits? Is my urologist a dreaded one-percenter? He found out what was causing my kidney stones but probably makes good money. Was a nearby farmer one, too? I bet he makes over $200,000 but, like many other growers in this area, has found a way to produce beef and cotton more cheaply and efficiently than farmers in almost any other part of the world, thereby enriching his county, state, and nation.

View original post.

Well.

“Conservative” Iowa radio host Steve Deace is in the news
cycle accusing Herman Cain of sexual harassment — specifically
saying,
according to Politico, that Cain had
said “awkward/inappropriate things… to two females on
my staff.” Deace also said he was concerned about “the fact the
guy’s wife is never around.”

The American Spectator contacted
Deace directly tonight to ask two questions:

1. What did Herman Cain say to the woman or women on
Deace’s staff?

2. Was Deace present when Cain did whatever
“awkward/inappropriate things” Deace is accusing him of?

This evening Steve Deace responded as follows, his
response printed in its entirety:

No one affiliated with our radio program has anything else
to say about Herman Cain’s awkward and inappropriate
comments made to our staff referenced in a recent
Politico story beyond what we have already said.

Sadly, those comments are no more inappropriate and
awkward than Mr. Cain’s multiple positions on the
sanctity of human life, his support of the TARP, his
not knowing China already has nuclear weapons, and his
refusal to defend marriage. The fact that someone so
uninformed and morally inconsistent has made it this
far in a crucial Republican presidential primary, only
to finally be vetted by his personal life, is an
example of why so many Americans have lost faith in the system.
Instead of debating issues we debate cults of
personality. This sort of personality-driven politics
helped Obama get elected four years ago, and look how
well that turned out.

Steve Deace

The response has also now hastily gone up on the Deace website.

One doesn’t have to support Herman Cain or anyone else in
this race for the GOP nomination to realize quickly that Mr. Deace
seems to have a political axe to grind against Herman
Cain.

To make the accusation — and then go silent to let people
imagine the worst (is Herman Cain, like Bill Clinton, running
around America leaving a trail made up of a woman accusing rape,
another saying he groped her in the Oval Office, a third saying he
dropped his pants and asked her to “kiss it” — is the height of
moral irresponsibility. Mr. Cain may or may not have the experience
to sit in the Oval office. He may or may not have good positions
from a conservative point of view on any number of
issues.

But whether he’s president or not, this is spectacularly
unfair.

And Mr. Dease, now having walked himself and his Christian
beliefs all the way out on a limb, perhaps needs to have another
look at the 9th Commandment.

That would be the one about bearing false
witness.

Mr. Deace somehow believes this statement of his, also on
his website, will be ignored. It reads:

If you have courage and convictions, your new soul mate
will be Steve Deace. He delivers.

What Steve Deace apparently delivers is Establishment
make-believe decidedly without the courage of his convictions. If
Herman Cain sexually harassed the Deace staff in Deace’s presence
– or otherwise — step up. Who, when, where, what was said.
Otherwise, it’s fair to ask of Deace:

What would Jesus do?

Not this.

Read original page.

I missed the Occupation of Europe by a few years so I’m
delighted to have an opportunity to Occupy America. Hey, it’s a
start. Today America, tomorrow China!

Critics of Occupy Wall Street (also Boston, Denver,
Oakland, Dubuque, etc.) claim that the protesters have no stated
goal, which could not be further from the truth. The current
movement is a major advance in protests — the first all-purpose
grassroots protest in American history, which very neatly serves
everyone’s purposes — mine anyway.

Former protest marches, sit-ins, love-ins and the like
were much too narrowly focused for me on specific outrages –
segregation, women’s inequality, anti-Vietnam war, that sort of
thing. Good causes, I’m sure, but not enough to get me really fired
up. I was never able to take part in any of them, for one reason or
another (inclement weather, a dental appointment, something always
came up), but the Occupiers have come up with a brilliant catch-all
solution that allows everyone to get anything bugging them off
their chest immediately.

This is a far more efficient way to protest major
problems, and I commend the organizers for coming up with such a
perfect tactic that suits every trouble — one size fits all. Can’t
get a home mortgage loan? Credit card interests rates too high?
Boss not appreciating you? Grocery prices going through the roof?
Spouse refuses to listen to you? Cost of movies and sports events
out of sight? The kids ignoring your advice? Wait time to see a
podiatrist too long? Leaf-blowers and plastic shrink-wrap driving
you nuts?

Folks, if any of those things are bothering you, it’s time
to grab your tent and get yourself down to your neighborhood
Occupiers location. There is one near you. If not, it isn’t too
late to begin your own protest site. Go to Occupiersunited.com to
find out more. Be the first on your block to establish an official
protest area and get on local TV. Learn to become a community
organizer, which could put you on the path to the White House.
Become a talented on-site cook. Perfect your outdoor survival
skills under blizzard conditions. Find new markets for T-shirts,
posters, coffee mugs, and trinkets. Yes, people, great career
opportunities await you!

In the past, as I say, I tended to sit out political
demonstrations of every kind (though I did once put a “Ban the DH”
sticker on my bumper), but the Occupy Whatever people showed me
that even I, a lifelong non-protester, could be roused into action
by taking a stand against whatever riled me — and, to my delight,
I found that not necessarily just one cause, but several, could be
taken care of in one fell swoop. Talk about catharsis.

So I made a list of stuff that’s been bugging me lately
and was surprised how long it was — 136 matters in all, starting
with noisy TV commercials. When I contacted officials at Occupy
Main Street (a wholly owned subsidiary of Occupy Wall Street), they
said that there was a limit of a dozen issues per month that one
person could protest against. “Otherwise, this thing could really
get out of hand,” they emailed me.

“We prefer major issues,” they said, “but whatever’s
troubling you may be included. The more the merrier. We have a
fairly lax policy here.” They said it wasn’t necessary for me to
run my issues past them. “Just show up and hand out fliers. Hey, it
gets you out of the house, and of course, like in the ’60s, it’s a
great way to meet girls.”

“That’s a good enough provocation right there,” I
said.

Read original post.

One of the largest landslide elections in the history of the United States took place one year ago today. Free-market Republicans, riding a wave of public anger at bailouts, stimulus, and big-government programs, swept into power, capturing 63 seats and control of the U.S. House of Representatives, not to mention six U.S. Senate seats and over 675 state-legislative seats all over the country — with control of 21 state legislative chambers shifting to GOP hands. It was a truly historic landslide that the American people rightly expected would put an end to the Obama agenda that had been fundamentally transforming America before our eyes. Politicians and pundits alike looked on in awe. But one man was unconvinced: Barack Obama.

The day after the election, Obama held a press conference to spin the meaning of the historic landslide. He explained: “I think we’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years relitigate arguments that we had over the last two years.”

Keep reading this post . . .

Read original post.

Nancy Pelosi has taken hyperbolic statements to a new level today with this sound bite.

For Democrats, preventing federal funding from being used to pay for abortions, something specifically refuted as a possibility during the healthcare reform debates, will produce this result.

The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.

This would be news to the sponsors of the amendment since it very clearly states that the opposite is true:

Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced last week that the Protect Life Act, H.R. 358, will be considered in the House of Representatives on Thursday. The measure would amend President Obama’s Affordable Care Act to reflect the Hyde amendment by prohibiting taxpayer dollars from funding any health plan that includes coverage of elective abortions.

]]> http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/pelosi-%e2%80%9crepublicans-will-allow-women-to-die-on-the-floor%e2%80%9d/feed/ 0 http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-vs-jobs/ http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-vs-jobs/#comments Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:00:00 +0000 Admin http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-vs-jobs/ From NRO Articles:

The last week brought us a striking contrast that tells us much about the current debate over the direction of this country.

On one hand were the perpetually aggrieved protestors of Occupy Wall Street. While much of the media, desperate to find a liberal counterpart to the Tea Party (remember coverage of the state-house takeover in Wisconsin?), tried to pretend that this was an organic and leaderless uprising by middle America, the reality was that most of the demonstrators were the same motley crew that regularly shows up to demonstrate against the World Bank or G8 meetings, their ranks bolstered by union activists, MoveOn.org, and the Obama front group Organizing for America — not to mention the usual collection of filthy-rich movie stars who flew in on private jets and then climbed into waiting limousines to show up to denounce the filthy rich.

Keep reading this post . . .

]]> http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-vs-jobs/feed/ 0 http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/why-your-bank-is-charging-more-fees/ http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/why-your-bank-is-charging-more-fees/#comments Wed, 05 Oct 2011 15:00:36 +0000 Admin http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/why-your-bank-is-charging-more-fees/ From NRO Articles:

There are many observations that can be made about President Obama’s remark Monday to ABC News that businesses “don’t have some inherent right just to get a certain amount of profit if your customers are being mistreated.” In and of itself, this comment reveals much about his beliefs and knowledge (or lack thereof) on economics, consumer choice, and the private sector in general.

But in the context in which it was made — Bank of America, Citi, and other banks’ recently announced debit-card and checking-account fees for consumers, which they are charging to recoup losses from the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law’s price controls on debit-card fees charged to retailers — what must first be said is that he was lecturing the wrong set of Fortune 500 corporations. The price controls were added to the law by an amendment from Senate majority whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.).

View original article.

]]> http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/why-your-bank-is-charging-more-fees/feed/ 0 http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/obama%e2%80%99s-terrorist-dilemma/ http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/obama%e2%80%99s-terrorist-dilemma/#comments Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:00:01 +0000 Admin http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/obama%e2%80%99s-terrorist-dilemma/ From NRO Articles:

I agree with the Obama administration’s decision to kill the American-born al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki. What I can’t fathom is why the administration agrees with me.

Here’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta responding to complaints from the ACLU over the “assassination” of an American citizen without due process: “This individual was clearly a terrorist. And yes, he was a citizen, but if you’re a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. And that means that we have the ability to go after those who would threaten to attack the United States and kill Americans.”

View original post.

]]> http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/10/obama%e2%80%99s-terrorist-dilemma/feed/ 0 http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/09/obama%e2%80%99s-labor-department-blasted-in-public-comments-over-dangerous-%e2%80%98persuader%e2%80%99-proposal/ http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/09/obama%e2%80%99s-labor-department-blasted-in-public-comments-over-dangerous-%e2%80%98persuader%e2%80%99-proposal/#comments Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:00:10 +0000 Admin http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/09/obama%e2%80%99s-labor-department-blasted-in-public-comments-over-dangerous-%e2%80%98persuader%e2%80%99-proposal/ From RedState:

Last week, the public comment period closed on the Obama Labor Department’s proposed regulatory change to alter a 1959 law that would make employers and their service providers (attorneys and various consultants) file financial disclosure statements and make personal information public, all in order to give union bosses hit lists of individuals and companies to target. Prior to the closing of the public comment period, there were nearly 6,000 comments—4,000 of which came within the last ten days or so as more people became aware of

]]> http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/09/obama%e2%80%99s-labor-department-blasted-in-public-comments-over-dangerous-%e2%80%98persuader%e2%80%99-proposal/feed/ 0