The Anti-Gun Gun Trafficker Wannabe Gets Free Pass from Politico

No big story here, at least not for Politico, which probably should consider changing its name to The Libtard Bugle. Read on. 

 Breitbart News' Warner Todd Huston, reported on Thursday how the Democratic anti-gun State Senator from California, Leland Yee was arrested for--guess what--gun trafficking. I believe this story is as interesting as the Herman Cain sexual harassment scandal, don't you? Politico thought the Cain scandal deserved ink--they did about 90 articles on Herman in a two day period, which is more than an article an hour. I know the Larry Craig-playing footsie-with-a dude-scandal got Politico's writers in a moist state of frenzy. They covered it extensively. Google it to see.

Cain and the GOP Race-In or Out?

Herman Cain, a GOP presidential hopeful, in case you live in a cave, has an important announcement to make tomorrow. If you don't live in a cave, you probably know that Mr. Cain has been accused of sexual improprieties by three real women, and two who we can only assume are real, because they haven't actually shown themselves and their allegations have not been made public. 

The three that we do know about are made by women who have certain similarities: they both need money, have a history of litigation, and have nothing substantial to show proof that Mr. Cain is guilty of anything more than having made their acquaintance in the past. In fact, one accuser, Sharon Bialek, lives in the same building as David Axelrod, Obama's campaign strategist, but she will not be living there much longer as eviction proceedures have begun for her failure to pay rent in her luxurious $3,000 apartment.

Ginger White, the last accuser, is an alleged stalker of a woman she partnered with in a business. She was able to produce an autographed copy of Herman's book, but it said nothing in the greeting that could not have been said to a fan standing in line for an autograph.


All week long, Mr. Cain has been defiant of the charges he has endured, and has asked the public not believe everything they hear about him. He wants to clarify where his campaign goes from here. It seems like he plans to plow ahead with the campaign, and personally, I am glad to hear this--I was taught that a man is innocent until proven guilty, but there's no doubt that much of the public have already convicted him. Truthfully, I don't know if he's leaving the race, but I doubt that he has much of a chance in being the nominee--I think Newt will grab that honor, and personally, I'm hopeful that he does.

Newt is the man to beat, and is the most qualified, in my opinion. Conservatives want to condemn him for his stance on immigration, but if he planned to deport the eleven million or so illegal aliens, he would never be elected because he would lose the entire Hispanic vote. His plan seems logical and fair to those who have made the USA their home, have become taxpayers, community participants, and the like. And those who are recently here, will be gone. He is not naive or politically correct about terrorists, their demographics, and what needs to be done with the problem. Newt works for me--I know it may seem unfair to those immigrants who went the entire legal route, and I respect them, but it really is impractical to try deporting that many people. I also like that Newt has encyclopedic knowledge of foreign policy and, while his brain processes so much information, he seems to have slowed down his impulsivity and makes Obama look like a kid sitting in the back of his classroom playing with his iPhone.


Tweet

GOP Debate Number 895637

First question about last night's debate: why is Jon Huntsman even there? He's at point zilch in the polls and is more RHINO than Republican. But he has lovely daughters who support him and lend him a smidgeon of cred.

Scott Your-Time-is-Up Pelley

Now the debate. Scott Pelley from CBS, and Major Garrett, from National Journal, (and a mother who gave her son a somewhat mediocre ranking for a military position), moderated the debate, which lasted 90 minutes, 60 of which was televised and 30 of which was on the internet for those with longer attention spans. The questions were asked by these liberal moderators, and one minute was given for the answers with 30 seconds for follow-up questions by liberal moderators not satisfied they heard what they wanted to hear, or thought they could get the debaters to fight it out between themselves.


Herman Cain got the first question which was about Iran's weapon threat and what he would do about it. Herman basically talked about how he would involve the Iranian opposition forces within the country and help them fight back. Cain was clear that if push came to shove, he would not engage Iran militarily if they developed a weapon. For me, bad answer--they will use a nuke as quickly as they would use a prayer rug.


Mitt Romney was asked the same question by the Major moderator and he was clear that if Obama was re-elected, Iran would have a weapon; if Romney was elected, they would not. He also made it clear that he would do whatever was necessary militarily to stop weapons production. Good answer--I want a happy future without having to pray to Kukla, Fran, or Allah. After 30 seconds of trying to answer the question, Scott Pelley cut Mitt off then realized he was a jerk and apologized. Mitt kept his presidential smile intact and continued on in his Mitt-like way.


Then Newt was asked by Major Garrett about Romney and he tried to get Newt to attack him. But Newt refused to comply with the minor Major, and made it clear that every single person up on the dais would do a far better job running the country than Obama. Newt rocks when he isn't rolling.

Perry tried to speak about Iran but was disparaged by the moderator (I believe it was Pelley, but it doesn't matter since they both were as vacuous as a black hole). He made it clear that he could answer both the moderator's new question and the more important one as he sees it. Perry's answer, like Cain's was okay, but it was something that he could have gotten from a conservative newspaper, like the Daily Planet, since that may be the only conservative newspaper left.

Then we have Ron Paul, along with his enthusiastic and loud audience, The Pauliberalatos. They cheer when he speaks, and boo when anyone else does. They hang on every word he utters, much like baby monkeys hang onto mommy's udders when they suckle. But Paul, who probably wasn't much of a physician, would not be much of a president, heaven-forbid that would ever happen. He is the epitome of what a true RHINO is, and even said that if he is not nominated (speaking like the proverbial snowball in hell), he would not support the Republican nominee. This, to me, is an excellent reason to not have him speak at the Republican debates--he's not a true Republican.

About three days into the debate, the moderator asked Michele Bachmann her first question and her answer, about tactical strategy in Afghanistan, was spot on. Of course the moronic moderator Pelley, interrupted her, but that's to be expected on CBS, which stands for Consistent Balless Swill. Both she and Perry made it clear that Obama was wrong and dangerous to our troops for announcing to the enemy when the pullout would take place. Next thing you know, Obama will email Ahmadinejad the plans for our nuclear weapons systems and brag that he'll never be able to duplicate them.


For me, Newt won the debate, hands down. He consistently refuses to allow the left to dictate the rules of engagement in these debates, and his knowledge, encyclopedic information, and verbal acumen makes him stand out and makes him outstanding. 

Dumbest and Dumbester

I think a pretty cool guy once said, "He who amongst us is free from sin, should cast the first stone." Newt's past is laden with mistakes that men of power frequently make. Does that make them poor leaders? I don't think so. Does it make them bad people? Definitely no worse than many of us who refuse to cast stones. Oh, and while that goes for Newt, it also goes for Herman, who I still believe is totally innocent of all claims that were made without proof. The left, as I've said before, never needs actual proof--their proof is their feelings. And how can feelings be wrong? Just ask Roseann Barr and Michael Moore.





Tweet

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

The 4th Accuser Sharon Bialek

What is the one part of a man that gets him in the most trouble? Exactly--his libido. Herman Cain is being accused of having made inappropriate sexual advances on a bleached blond woman named Sharon Bialek (pronounces by Cain as "Blech"). She is the 4th woman to make such accusations but what about her?

Ms. Bialek has a history of financial and lawsuit problems. She has had tax liens, been a defendant in about 6 lawsuits, and has ongoing financial problems. Coincidentally, she and David Axelrod live in the same high-end Chicago apartment, attended the same  gym, but Sharon said she never said or did anything to or with Axelrod in the steam room or elsewhere in the gym, and that has nothing to do with the Cain situation. It is just an incredibly amazing coincidence and that's all.  She simply wants to set the record straight and have Herman lose any and all chances of being elected President of the United States of America after he admits all his wrong doing.

When Cain allegedly put his hand up Ms. Bialek's skirt, shoved her head toward his crotch, she implored him to stop by saying, "Why are you doing this? You know I have a boyfriend." That seems to me to imply that she would have gone further had she been flying solo in her life, but I can't prove it--but neither can Bialek prove her allegations. Of course, proof doesn't seem to matter in our society anymore--it's enough to be accused.

I don't think Cain would have been nominated for the GOP candidate, but if he was, I would have voted for him over Obama in a heartbeat. But now I suspect that he will have to bow out of the campaign, even after his press conference, scheduled to take place in about an hour. I am going to watch the conference and finish my thoughts on this submission. As it stands now, Cain is tied with Romney in the polls, but this might be subject to change rather abruptly. 

Briefly, and on a lighter note, President Obama's microphone picked up a brief conversation he had with French President Sarkozy in which the Frenchman said  
"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar." Rather than defending the leader of our best Middle East ally, Obama responded: "You're fed up? But I have to deal with it all day." This is Obama's default position in foreign policy where he appeases our enemies while sticking it to Israel. I guess this really wasn't a lighter note, but it needs to be discussed in the election, I believe. The only question I have is whether or not Obama actually knew his mike was on--I almost believe he did and this was his way of telling the Islamic world that he's cool.


Getting back to Herman Cain and the allegations, the press conference begins
Held in Scotsdale, Arizona, Mr. Cain introduced by Lin Wood, his attorney, of Jean Binet Ramsey fame.  He spoke about how as he represented  victims of sexual assaults, and never "paraded" them in front of the media. As he spoke, Mr. Cain stood by and watched the presentation as Mr. Wood explained how memories fade after 14 years, and witnesses disappear. Now Mr. Cain has to respond to heresay and rumors, without the chance to cross-examine his accusers, Wood explained.

The Big Winner-a liberal lawyer

Mr. Cain spoke--he appeared somewhat sombre and used notes, which he pointed out that he didn't normally use. "I have never acted inappropriately with anyone, period." He stated that he didn't know who his accuser is and didn't recognize her name. He said he is running and not backing off--he is doing it for the American people. He also attacked how the media is "beating [me] up." He spoke about how his accuser is a troubled woman and how the democratic machine is using her.


I felt sad for Herman as he spoke, perhaps because I think his campaign may be doomed, but we shall see if this is going to be the case. Funny, but  I believe he told the truth. I believe he is innocent because the bastards haven't proven him guilty, have they? 


I like that Mr. Cain spoke out to protect his family and told the media that if they want to attack, they attack him, not his them. That's a man. He spoke about his reputation that he worked to build up for 40 years. I like that he stayed on point about the fact that we have much bigger problems in our country. I think he nailed this, but I hope the public agrees.


A man is innocent until proven guilty--that's the American system of law. There are no facts, just an unfactual accusation. Bialek has not ruled out to making money from this situation in the future, and that gives me pause.




Tweet

A Cain Mutiny on the Horizon?

Sharon Bialek: "Just trying to help other women"

A man is innocent until proven guilty. A politician is guilty until proven innocent. This is a classic case of his word against her word--the case of Sharon Bialek against Herman Cain. There had been previous anonymous allegations, but now we have an actual person making the accusations. Mark Levin asked if Cain was a Democrat, would these allegations have been made? I doubt it. Whether these allegations are true, is almost irrelevant to what the outcome will likely be, which will be the sinking of the Cain ship, and there likely will also be a Cain mutiny by his staff.

Allred doing it her way as Hillary Clinton

Bialek is being represented by Gloria Allred, a twice-divorced, high profile attorney who is often seen on TV commented on legal cases. She represented Amber Frey, a witness is the Scott Peterson case, and sued the Boy Scouts of America for excluding an 11 year old girl in a case referred to as "gender apartheid." She also sued the Sav-On Drugstore chain for having the audacity to have a separate seciton for boys and girls. There are other cases, too numerous to mention, but for those interested, you can Google Gloria Allred and read all about her pursuit of blurring the gender differences between boys and girls, men and women. After completing your research of this litigation machine, you may wonder whether her middle name might be Sue.


I don't know how Herman Cain is going to go on campaigning from here, but perhaps he can consult with Bill Clinton and be provided with some pointers. Perhaps if Mr. Cain became a Democrat, all would be forgiven.  Herman has denied these allegations, but it doesn't look good for the guy.

What hypocrisy.



Tweet

Bill Clinton, Sex Consultant

Herman Cain has his hands full with problems being hurled at him by anonymous women who claim he has been sexually inappropriate with remarks and/or demonstrations, or that they just made them feel uncomfortable, or whatever. Mr. Cain blames the Perry campaign for spreading these lies, and the campaign denies it totally, just as Cain denies the allegations.  A third anonymous woman has also come forward, and claimed a similar occurrence happened to her, but she never reported it and is reluctant to give her name. Justin Beiber is also having similar problems with a woman who claims he fathered her child in a bathroom after a concert he gave, and he too denies this claim and plans to continue giving good concert.

Maybe Bill Clinton can come (no pun intended) to their rescue, just like he did with Anthony Weiner when he got snagged with his Weinerish body photos on Twitter. Maybe Bill can also help Julian Assange, the Wikileaks leader, with his sexcapade allegations. Cain, Beiber and Assange can then have bumper stickers that say, "I'm a friend of Bill's." 

Justin Beiber

On a funnier note, Occupy Everything But a Job is still going fast and furious. Oakland's mayor, Jean Quan, who originally gave the protesting bagovonds her blessings, soonafter took those blessings away and replaced them with teargas and police muscle. However, she had a change of heart, a wont for liberals to have, (when it's a conservative, it's called 'flip-flopping'), and she allowed the mob of slimeballs to return to the park, repitch their greasy tents where they could have sex with abandon, and protest things they cannot even spell.

Hey baby, whas your name?

In the wild and wacky world of terrorism, Viktor Bout was convicted of trying to sell weapons that would be used to kill Americans. Bout had little to say to the press and will likely be spending the rest of his days in the slammer.  On a more serious note, Linday Lohan is also going to jail where she will likely get better treatment than Viktor Bout, as she had no inclinations to kill Americans, just perhaps, her career. This is her 5th jail sentence and she will report on November 9th. It's expected she will not serve much time in the hoosegow because of prison overcrowding. Lohan will likely spend about a day or less in the slammer, which, hopefully will not interfere with her glamorous life. She has a photoshoot for Playboy, psychotherapy for her substance abuse problems to attend, and then plans to rendezvous with Bill Clinton when she's a free woman. Wait, that isn't true.

Viktor Bout mugging camera

Solyndra, Sun Power, Beacon Power, green jobs, Fanny & Freddie, OWS and Obama. Can things get more screwed up? Just saying.

 

Tweet

Vetting Cain--What About Obama?

Welcome to the big leagues, Mr. Cain. Now that the left believes you're a viable candidate, you will be their favorite target. You wisely pointed that out when you said you have a target on your back, but now everyone can see it and you might just be feeling the arrow sticking out from the bullseye.

I have always believed that our system of justice is the best in the world, that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but how many people will give Cain the benefit of the doubt? It seems to be human nature to believe a person is guilty of what he or she is being accused of, or else, why would they be accused of wrongdoing in the first place, and that's the shame of it. 

Many conservatives will probably write Herman Cain off as a potential candidate for the Republican presidential nomination due to accusations that he made two unidentified women "uncomfortable" over what seems like, in one case, an innocent comment about the woman's height, and  for reasons unclears as yet, in the other case. This is incredibly ironic and if it weren't, would be comical.

If Cain happened to be a Democratic president, these charges would be laughed at, considered trivial, and not worthy of discussion. After all, look at the list of Bill Clinton's girlfriends and mistresses: Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gina Gershon, Belinda Stronach, Julie Tauber McMahon, Naomi Robison, Maria Furtwangler, Elizabeth Hurley, Heidi Klum, Eleanor Mondale, Markie Post, Sharon Stone, Patricia Duff, Sally Purdue, Elizabeth Gracon, and Dolly Kyle Browning, just to name the ones we know about, according to Ranker.com and National Enquirer. It is only when the target is a conservative that charges of ethical misconduct grows legs. 

Socialist or Marxist? You decide

Republicans need to learn how to fight back and call out Democrats on their hypocrisy. We never seem to do that--we avoid it  to avoid looking petty. Maybe we need to become petty and call out the left--like Obama for saying he should be a one-term president for not improving the economy, for passing policies that have not worked, even though he complains about not being able to pass policies. The employment rate in this country is worse with the stimulus of Obama's, than it was before the stimulus. 

2008 White Voter Intimidation Squad 

But more importantly, was Obama ever vetted before he became president? Do we know his college grades? Who paid his Harvard tuition for him? Who his relationships were with prior to marrying Michele? What his college thesis was about? His relationships with Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and the New Black Panthers? 


No--somehow the mainstream liberal media did not vet Obama at all. In fact, once he became the Democratic nominee, they blindly got behind him, and look what he has done to our country, and how he has treated our allies.

Tweet

OWS Goes Viral and Fungal, Plus More Random Thoughts

A fungus among us

Occupy Everything has become a fungal problem. The media talks about crony capitalism as the driving force of OWS, but that's a mistake--it's an oxymoron to put the two terms together. Cronyism is the problem, capitalism is not. Capitalism is the system where goods and services are provided for more money than it takes to provide them; it's that simple. Cronyism, like Obamaism, is when a system that is in place is abused--in the former, it's capitalism being abused, in the latter, it's the presidency.

Do you know what hypocrisy looks like?

People who protest capitalism are losers. Worse, they are spoiled losers because they are used to being handed things by mommy and daddy and are not used to actually going out and working for "stuff." They have iphones, computers, Kindles, maybe even student loans, and a place to live--often at their parents' home, but they never actually went out to work themselves to pay for their "stuff." They are not willing to hunt the food they eat--they expect to be able to shop for it (more likely have their benefactor parent shop for it) and cook it for them in a mass produced oven or microwave oven. Everything they own or eat is obtained by them through the vehicle of capitalism. Yet they condemn the system that feeds, clothes, and entertains them. They protest at Rupert Murdock's home but not George Soros, the leftist, anarchist, anti-American atheist who has bet against the American economy at the expense of it.

Ms. Amerika

This only goes to show what idiots the OWSers are--but if you're reading this, you likely already are aware of that fun fact.


The big question is, will the fact that the Democrats are supporting and kissing up to the OWS full metal jackasses, hurt them or help them come 2012? I believe it depends on how many confused liberals will vote. (I know that confused liberals is an oxymoron, but I had to say it.)

Obama said that he wanted to bring the country together, not split us apart. He seems to often do the opposite of what he says. Just a few days ago, he praised a judge's approval of a $1.2 billion settlement for black farmers brought by a judgment against the USDA, which he called "another important step forward in addressing the unfortunate chapter in the USDA's civil rights history." This call to color awareness is common with Democrats as they so frequently use the race card with Republicans. But Democrats never admit anything about their racial issues when it makes the media. When Shirley Sherrod made the news (Fox News, that is), with her racially motivated statements about a white farmer, this tidbit was glossed over by Democrats. You may remember her words, but I posted the video here to refresh your memory, in case you forgot what she said. Racism is an ugly thing that goes both ways, and Obama and his administration, exploits it to the max.


Since Abraham Lincoln first began the USDA, which he called the "people's department," it has had a strong Democratic leadership, especially of late. Dan Glickman, a Democrat, headed the agency under Bill Clinton's administration.  In 1997 a class action lawsuit was filed by Timothy Pigford, a black farmer, for discriminatory practices. So if Obama is going to speak to racial discrimination, he ought to speak about his party, the party responsible. That isn't to say Republicans are blameless, but certainly in these cases, the Civil War, and most others, they are.  But Obama would never want to split Americans apart by party, so I suspect he just forgot to mention that little piece of information.

I heard that Herman Cain has come back in support of his 9-9-9 plan. I think he's right to defend it as such. To tweak is weak, I always say. Well, okay, not always, but in this case I believe he needs to stand by his idea, even if it isn't exactly the numbers that will work--the public doesn't want a wishy-washy flip-flopper--we have one already. I also like that Cain stood behind Martin Block, his campaign manager, who took a drag from a cigarette at the end of an ad for Cain. Obama might have thrown the guy under the proverbial bus, as they say, but Cain simply said that it was "Martin being Martin." The guy has character.

I strongly believe that whoever wins the Republican nomination should be supported by all of us who want to get the country back on track. Socialism is not working, in spite of what our fustian leader says, and splitting us apart as a nation is not going to make our country better. 

Tweet

The Fox-Google Republican Debate

"Not payin' for illegal's education is heartless"

I just finished watching the Fox-Google Republican Debate. I feel this was the best one of the three debates. I can't help but like Newt and his directness and intelligence when he finally gets the chance to speak. Michele Bachmann wore red, indicating that she was feeling her oats, and I thought she also made some good points. She was in the Spin Room afterward and spoke with Sean Hannity, explaining her thoughts on immigration and how she would seal off the border whereas Perry is too moderate on this issue, and it doesn't sit well with conservatives--Bachmann may just get back some of those people that Perry won over before he joined the debates.

Perry and Romney slugged it out, as predicted, but I think Perry was kind of flat, and when he spoke about the 32 year old woman who had cervical cancer and who approached him about her dilemma regarding her health care, I didn't think he was being genuine. In fact, it seemed like he was doing his Texas rodeo thing of throwing the bull. But the worst thing he did was to say that people who were against supporting college funding for illegal aliens were heartless. Romney destroyed him with his comeback and Perry deserved the beatback. I cannot believe any normal conservative would not see it as unfair for illegal aliens to pay in-state financial rates for college and out of state Americans pay $100 thousand more for tuition--not only does it not make sense, as Romney put it, but it isn't fair.


One thing that came out of this debate, that should be perfectly clear to anyone who is fairminded, is how the Fox News team handled the questions. Nobody on the panel did a Brian Williams and editorialized their left wing agenda with such a snarky question as he did over the death penalty (see video). Nobody went gently into the night with softball questions like the liberal media did with Obama in his run for the White House. It was a fair debate with questions coming from the public and the panelists, and overall, the debaters handled it well.

While it doesn't appear that any of the candidates are ready to jump off the bandwagon, I thought Johnson should have considered it; but after seeing a Fox poll asking who people believed won the debate, Johnson actually did a lot better than I would have guessed, and came in second with about 14% of the vote--a total surprise as I thought he appeared nervous and unsure of himself. What do I know?


I like Ron Paul, not as a candidate, but as an uncle. I can see him telling me his thoughts about the world, and I could listen to him for hours, then I would use what is useful and discard what was crazy with his thinking. For example, his beliefs about Iran are not accurate and his permissiveness regarding their nuclear program are incredibly dangerous. Iran is a clear and present danger, a nuclear threat, and populated by a suicidal people who believe they will get to heaven by killing us. Not a good idea to say they have the same rights as the rest of us to have nuclear weapons. I rest my case with Ron Paul (notice how you never say only his last name because it's also a first name).


Rick Santorum seems like a bright guy, but when he speaks, he looks pained. I always get the impression that he's constipated. But Santorum had the guts to give an opinion on Iraq and Afghanistan and would continue our efforts there--you don't have to agree with him to see that he is, at least, a guy with principals.

Herman Cain rocks, but I don't believe he has a chance in getting the nomination. If he did, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. His "9-9-9" plan actually sounds interesting and rather practical--I just wonder if it would work. I like the straightforwardness of his approach and his sharp answers. I worry, however, that he'd get eaten up in the political arena if he became president, and I suspect I'm not alone in that thinking.


Well, that's the way I see it for now--this will likely change as time shows us the flaws and inconsistencies of the candidates. For now, I'm going with Romney, but that's just for now. He is probably the best choice to beat Obama, and Obama must be beaten if this country is to succeed and not go the road to socialism. Sarah Palin waited too long to jump in, I believe, and she would be too much of a distraction at this point. I think it will be important to discover who she ends up endorsing, so let us wait and watch.

I'd love to know what you think.  




Tweet