A Broken Clock On Thanksgiving

This inspiring video was posted by Darin at Crusader Rabbit. I wished to share it, but with advice against thinking too highly of its author .


It's an "a broken clock is right twice a day" situation. I've long lamented that it's too bad the “former” radical Medved has to be such a consistent buttlicker of the likes of McCain. His stances are consistent to the point that he gives the appearance he aims to keep the "Progressive" Incrementalist inroads gained through the pressure provided by his old radical comrades, but does so by hiding out on our side. So he serves as a reminder that it is far better to be thought of as a decent sort of fellow rather than a very smart one.

He’s the sort that drove this site to hold a cash contest to replace RINO with an intentionally more uncomplimentary and fitting acronym. SKUNC was the result. The first letter stands for either Statist or Stooge, depending.

If only once a year we gather together to be thankful for whatever joy, large or small, we may have been granted, it is actually a major thing for which to be grateful.

So today I’ll grant Medved the label of Statist alone, grateful for his contribution to restoring, from the onslaughts of the Social Justice Cretins, the prestige that Thanksgiving deserves.

Smartest Clinton Cronies Employing Risk Management

Rank and file Democrats are most inclined to see the following as extremely random speculation. But the evidence that has arisen demonstrates how it is a well-considered surmise. Democrats, especially those currently planning to employ all means necessary to elect Hillary on November 8, would be well advised to consider it too.

My thinking that the smartest high placed Democrats have clearly seen the danger to themselves  began here before FBI director James Comey came out with his Friday morning announcement that the Clinton case was being reopened.

Then a few days after me, but before Friday, Fran Porretto published Political Hatred and Its Potential Consequences, which helps sustain the point I was making.

Yesterday, Saturday, Ed Bonderenka asked some questions about the Comey announcement and concluded "I believe Comey has seen something so damning that he IS actively trying to throw the election."

And shortly after that I saw the sensational headline ASSANGE EXPOSES HILLARY’S LIES: HACKERS AREN’T RUSSIAN, THEY ARE DEMOCRAT WHISTLEBLOWERS AND SHE’S KILLING THEM.

I actually watched the video interview of Julian Assange included in that click bait. Let me be clear. Mr. Assange was careful not to say he thought Hillary's camp had ordered the murder of Seth Rich. Nor did he agree when asked if Rich had been an informant of his. He responded that he protects the identity of his sources. However, in my opinion, he left it to be inferred quite a bit along the lines of that headline when he said with a very slow-paced delivery:

"Our sources face serious risks. That is why they come to us."
"A variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that sort of thing [Seth Rich] happens." 

Indeed, Director Comey may very well know all that Assange does, and as Ed opines, maybe even more and worse and with certainty.

We live after the history of the soviet union has been disclosed. A large number of Stalin's closest associates met a gruesome and untimely end. Even minor apparatchiks wound up there, some believing to the very end that their circumstance was somehow all a mistake: 'If Stalin only knew.' Thank you Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

It is quite possible, given the varied reports that have turned up in the emails, that many of Hillary's closest associates have indeed seen behavior that troubles them. Could any of them have discreetly set things in motion that reduces their risks while not being seen as doing so? Wouldn't some of you?

Anyone who refuses to consider that these are dangerous times is engaging in -- how should I put this? -- "fear management." As one person told me "it's not that I have my head in the sand, it's just that I don't want to know" without displaying a glimmer of realization how contradictory that was.

Indeed, the simplest way to phrase this seems to be

Those close to Hillary who've carefully leaked what we've been provided could be said to be engaging in risk management.

Those who can't bear to consider the far-reaching implications of what Assange said in the link's interview are likely engaging in fear management. 

The fearful ones are laying low because the scheming brain required to protect themselves and not get caught is outside their capabilities. They are the among the latter while the brainier comprise the former. 

Should the clever ones succeed, their actions will wind up protecting the ones who have not realized the danger heading towards them. And they will wind up saving the nation even if that is not the first or even fifth order of interest to them.  

To my way of thinking, Trump is a risk. But Hillary is the greater risk, and that appears to be the opinion of some of those most close to her -- and they are banking their lives on it.  

Here's hoping that before election day enough of the lower echelon apparatchiks of the Democratic Part machine come to understand the risk to themselves too. That goes too for many lame-brains in the GOP who clearly don't know which way is safest and have been backing Hillary.

Thinking Beyond the Trump Headlines

Billionaire Donor: Rand Paul 'Alienated Anti-Establishment Voters' by Attacking Donald Trump

Rand Paul, like his father before him, is hardly a politician. We know that mainly because he's more apt to take a hard stance that his loyal followers adore but is not pleasing to a wider number of voters. But being a politician also implies that a man running to earn votes has the ability to assess a challenge for the loyalty of his followers. He senses he needs to find a way to work in stream with the challenge and to wait for a better opportunity to gain advantage. This headline shows how he's not even that much of a politician.

While "he's not like other politicians" is one of the things that has long made Paul attractive to Anti-establishment voters, it happens to be a glaring weakness when a Donald Trump comes along.

Trump came along and stole the Anti-Establishment baton from all other Republican (the alleged party of constitutionally constrained government) candidates in the field. It has been mostly the poor politician who lost ground. A better politician would welcome the newcomer to the cause (the anti-DC craze) and still keep himself relevant.

Ted Cruz, by comparison, has avoided the pitfall of a headline like this because he is a politician. And it appears that Ben Carson, while a political novice, has at least a politician's grasp of how not to alienate the one set of voters (other than the radical Left) who are most energetically involved in the politics of our time.


Donald Trump's great appeal to the Anti-DC base has been to say what is pleasing to their ear -- especially when he says things that they know that others are not nearly so bold to say loudly or even at all.


Many people opine how there's a reasonable chance that Trump is a stalking horse for the Clintons. How? He's running for the GOP nomination, not the Democratic one, right?

But what is even more important to the primaries is that there is even a greater chance that he's a stalking horse for sucking up air time for seemingly* principled conservatives: those who claim to defend against the growth of power centralized in Washington DC as the constitution was intended to do before the esquire-class nibbled away on DC's constraints.

If Donald Trump's message can drown out the messages of more principled candidates who hold views similar to the ones he gets applause for, and the GOP winds up nominating some milquetoast Prog Republican like McCain and Romney again, then his candidacy will have served as a stalking horse not only for party failure again, but more importantly for failure of reforming government that's grown too large and lawless. And it will then be no wonder, after the fact, why the SSM did its part to have aided his domination of air time and print columns.

But by then it will be too late to comprehend that the SSM would provide such a man (Trump or another possible pied piper) large gobs of free publicity, even if much of it is derogatory. When everyone is talking about Trump, who has time to left to discuss in depth -- give proper scrutiny to -- other Anti-Establishment candidates?

That is the hidden lesson to learn from this headline. The SSM is glad to help undermine any and all anti-Establishment types until there are none. Rand Paul did this to himself. The ways SSM will target the others remain to be seen. “We must all hang together or we will all hang separately.” (Ben Franklin.)

It's up to the rest of us who understand the threat to pass along this skepticism to others. I think a large number of us already are questioning why the media gives so much time to Trump. It's up to us to keep that question alive until the time for voting in the primaries has passed. If nothing else we need to see to it that the current domination of Trump does not lead to a GOPe getting the nomination and another Rat getting into the oval office.


---------------------
* The only reason I sound skeptical about the commitment of such conservatives is that I've lived too long not to be. It's one of the reasons I feel obligated to write warnings such as this. I don't need a 1955 university class in political science to have earned that skepticism: I earned it the hard way. There was a time that a politician who transgressed even a small promise could be embarrassed into altering course, or at least appear to alter course. But almost all politicians now are shameless (see my permanent assessment at the top right of this blog). For example, recall what Mitch McConnell promised Kentucky voters in his 2014 run for reelection ("we will defund obamacare" at the top) and his complete reversal the very day he knew he'd won. Or in 2010 what John McCain promised Arizona voters about his position on the border and how he betrayed their trust shortly after winning.

 I fear the 2015 variety political science class is far too biased against having skepticism of rapidly expanding government. Consequently I imagine I'm writing to a small audience in large part because the potentially larger audience has been trained to turn a deaf ear to the sort of warning I'm offering. Anyway, that's why I recommend, when saying good things about anyone running for public office, always modify principled with allegedly. It implies that I like the talk: now show me the walk.

Minor Leftists: Beware

George Orwell took great care to make it clear that apparatchiks (party members not part of the inner circle) are invariably tortured for sport by those for whom they helped obtain and keep power.

Help restore the United State of America and save yourselves whist there are still others with whom you may ally (if they'll have you). In light of all that transpired during the 20th Century under totalitarian regimes, do not take Martin Niemöller's warning lightly (short version).

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Medved: For the Record

Readers here know that I castigated Michael Savage and David Horowitz for their part in fueling the racial issue divide in the George Zimmerman trial. What you may not know is that in comments at Liberty's Torch I stated the following: "I expect that Michael Medved (and the rest of that Judas goat's suspect Salem Broadcasting stable) cannot be far behind."

Well, he didn't go that far, but can it still be said he is, indeed, not far behind.  I ask your honest opinion and why.

The first hour of the Michael Medved show today (July 10) was devoted to taking calls on the GZ trial. I want to state for the record that Medved did not go so far as the other two.

I wish I had a transcript to review what I heard him say on his own and in reaction to callers. But since I do not, and won't pay for a podcast to get one, I ask you to rely on my own memory (that comes and goes since I tend to become distracted with my own thoughts in reaction to what I hear.) Still, my memory is often pretty accurate even when not precise.

Yes, Medved 'deplored those who raise racial tensions as have been on display here.'

Furthermore, I would bet big money that his call screener did not permit callers on to add to the hour the important news released only a few hours ago by Judicial Watch that reveals that the Obama DOJ has been actively fomenting racial tensions since Zimmerman shot Martin.  It would undermine what I believe to be his real intentions but for which he would never admit (unless this was his turn to be the radical.)

So in typical "Progressive" fashion, he let the DOJ and other two talkers carry the heavy load while he made appeals for the rest of us to play it cool and not rise to the bait.

Another way to look at this is found in the typical Leftists tactic of the Moral Marshmallow. One or two make the crazy, then fade into the background so they can't be questioned. Those who remain out front argue that you didn't hear what you just heard, and besides, it would be wrong to react violently to violence. And like this news that the call screener never allowed on air, it's as if it never happened so he doesn't have to deal with it in a timely fashion.

In other words, this was not Medved's turn to be in your face to us commoners, it was his turn to downplay the danger us commoners feel because his compatriot "former" Leftists had said what he vehemently denies matched his intentions.

The betrayal by "conservative" talk radio continues. It is my most fervent wish that others start critically observing such inconsistencies and help me shed light on these fifth columnists.

**Update**
Velociman came up with a fine way to weigh DOJ's involvement:

"This is the most stunning abuse of the police power of the state I have ever witnessed. And John Mitchell is the disgraced Attorney General? This is the United States of America. Your top cop does not agitate mobs and foment bloodlust against a private citizen." [Emphasis in original]

Thought Crime and Mental Illness -- Updated

There are way too many out there who do not know their history, even recent history.

In the Soviet Union, those who opposed or were accused of opposing or were suspected of opposing the Soviet regime would be investigated. If it pleased the apparatchik in charge, the person investigated could find himself in a mental institution overnight. Over the week; turned to months; turned to years. All due to a report of suspicions.

Remember that and pass it along in light of the following I just heard on the radio reminded me of it.
Mark Taylor sitting in for Dennis Prager, reported that Obama was planning a crack down on firearms via executive order. And that in that plan it was rumored (from "credible sources" he said) that Obama would include "'suspected' of being mentally unsound" as justification for seizing guns (particularly from vets).  That being the case, nobody will be safe.

'being charged with it is all it will take for the Feds to swoop in, kick down the walls looking for firearms... Obama's executive order would be acted upon if you are charged with being unsound by anyone: your ex; the neighbor who is feuding with you; an employee you fire. And on that pretext they will be knocking on your door. That's the word we have.' -- Mark Taylor:

Be accused of behaving in an unstable manner and be accused of being in possession of firearms and....

What more do I need to say? How about: remember the title of this post.

• Be in opposition to the ever enlarging federal government  
• ➤ be suspected of thought crime.
• ➤ be accused of being mentally unstable. 
• ➤ expect a loud knock on the door in the wee small hours.

That is history. Work at keeping it from being repeated. The pile of skulls wrought by all the little criminals and all the little lunatics combined is insignificant compared to the pile of any one of the police states of the last century.

**UPDATE**
An afterthought.
Police state:

a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures.

I do not know why the definitions do not all note that a police state is impossible when anyone else but the authorities have weapons, but it ought to be clear enough. As even Mao, the tyrant who murdered the most subjects (to date), confessed, "All power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

As a matter for tactical consideration, I'd say it's long passed time our side of the battle consistently called out the other side for its craving for a police state.

Goading Time

♫Goading in the morning,
Goading in the evening,
Goading at suppertime,
That's our chief executive,
Goading us all the time.♪

Yours truly and an as yet undisclosed friend have been playing with this idea of adapting the McGuire Sister's old hit Sugartime to serve as a warning to independent Americans so they are reminded how badly they're being represented and are thus being goaded into badly thought out reactions by Angelo Codevilla's ruling class and its Agency of Lies. I will end this warning with one of yesterday's examples.

But first a reminder that the following is not an avid endorsement of a personality. No matter how tedious it can become, I must regularly make this clear. You all know why I don't trust the most ardent radio talkers: because they've got their niche and they want to keep on the good side of those who permit them to broadcast. They have a conflict of interest that is lacking in independent bloggers such as moi.

However that does not mean they do not provide valuable services. We should be grateful for each nugget, but we should retain some cynicism. We can't keep the personalities honest, so we must be wary.

Thanks to David James at CNSnews.com, I became aware of another good Mark Levin rant.
(Note Mr. Levin's words near the end about weasels.)

Let nobody declare – without loads of caveats – that the Republican Party will provide the answer to the growth in power of the Anti-American Statists. We TEA Party types will be dragging its leaders kicking and screaming (to where?) before we can gain any real control of the Republican Party – or bury it by transforming it into the Party of America Revitalized.

From Levin: Scalia Understands Obama's 'Catch Me If You Can' Immigration Game

“The core argument that the administration made was that there had to be one rule, an enforcement policy when it comes to immigration. And, while it argued that in front of the Supreme Court a week and a half ago the president of the United States issued his fiat. One rule? What happened to the one rule? What happened to the consistency? What happened to Congressional preemption?

“Here’s what [Justice] Scalia understands. Here’s what he understands. Obama is playing a game of ‘catch me if you can.’

"The Supreme Court hadn’t even ruled on the Arizona law yet. But it’s a process, a gradual process. They have their arguments. They have their this, they have their that. They have their process. They write their opinions. They have to be printed, they have to be issued.

“But Obama knows, that while he’s sitting there waiting for these decisions, he can take unilateral action. Because the court has already ruled even though it hasn’t issued its ruling. Congress can’t do a damn thing because the Democrats control the Senate, and we have weasels running the house.

"So who’s gonna catch him? Nobody. Catch me if you can.”

It Makes No Sense Only If You Believe the Lies of Liars.

The prequel to today's May Day destruction was reported at JWF this morning. I chose the following reported comment on the destruction in San Francisco as revealing of how tolerant this nation has become in large part because so many are kept in ignorance to the real meaning of words [emphasis added -ed.]

“They’re coming through the Mission, where there aren’t any corporations, just a lot of small businesses, which is what they’re all about,” he said. “It doesn’t make sense.” -- words of a political naif

It doesn't make sense only if you do not understand that Marxists hate the MIDDLE CLASS. Only they use the French term for middle class: "bourgeoisie."

• Marxists (bums without real work) stage violence in the streets 
• at the expense of real workers, 
• to further the aims of the Ruling Class 
• and the aims of their Wealthy Class backers (to reduce the wealth of the middle class so that they cannot afford to crowd the wealthy out of their favorite vacation spots.)

This is not rocket science. This "it doesn't make sense" are the words of a child.

There are simply too many "adults" (or use the old polite phrase: "people above the age of majority") who were never warned not to talk to "strangers."* Nor to heed their own wariness when noticing strange behavior. Nor seem to learn why even after being victimized time and time again.

When offered goodies from a man with a smiling face who strangely seems unconcerned while monsters are circling behind him, an adult knows to be looking for the exits while fingering his weapon.

-----
*Strangers meant as limited to a sense of strangeness: that is, sensing odd behavior as strange and rather than dismissing the sense, taking precautions as your own senses warrant.

Michael Bloomberg -- Beyond Dhimmi?

Suggested by today's JWF post No Fun City: NYC Eyes Happy Hour Ban

Excerpts:

• “Welcome to Michael Bloomberg’s dreamstate.” …
• “Heck, why not just ban alcohol entirely.” 

Then casually recall his unexplained vehemence for the Ground Zero Mosque.


Hey? Did Bloomberg secretly convert to Islam? 
Will some reporter quiz him: "Well, what do you say to that charge Mr. Mayor?"

Yeah sure. Rouse me when you hear that question, please.

Beware the "Free" Offer

For months now I've been getting phone calls from "The Gas Company." Each time a computer voice asked me "Is Mr or Mrs Pascal Fervor" there to hear of a 20% discount? Of course it mispronounced my name. So I was inclined to hangup.

This last time I had some time available to learn more; so I pressed "1" instead of hanging up.

The voice then said:

"We need to find out if you are eligible. We will ask you a few questions. Be assured your answers will be held in the strictest confidence."

So I answered the questions (IIRC, there were only 3). Then the voice chirped:

"Congratulations. You are eligible to receive a 20% discount on your gas bills"

Uh huh. Wait for the "but" I'm thinking... I did not have to wait long.

Almost all of the conditions it stated was okay with me -- except for the last one.

Can you guess what it was?
The answer is below the break. Tell me if you guessed correctly as to what the stinker was.

Review: Danger to Conservatives If Romney Is Candidate

It occurred to me to review the accurate warning (contemptuously derided by at least one prestigious blogger in whom I now place little trust) that I made the day after McCain clinched the GOP nomination in February 2008. The following excerpt from Beware The Wrath of 'Cain
applies not because Romney is as capable of anger as McCain, but because he is "Progressive" who doesn't love conservatives even when he could use help from them.

And when McCain goes down, our hopes for many very good GOP congressional candidates will be lost too, as a matter of course.

But it can get even much worse than that. And that is why I felt compelled to write this.

For when McCain self destructs, I am virtually certain he is not going to blame himself. He is going to blame conservatives. Thus picturing the following assuredly is not too hard.

From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.

Yes, I know: That scene from Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan, is about as melodramatic as anything ever produced by Gene Roddenberry. But it captures the kind of fire that McCain must have had to endure all that he did at the Hanoi Hilton.

I am daring to risk your displeasure to raise this alarm due to the fact that I believe he can still draw on that fire. We will not like how he'll use it should he think he has not received enough repayment over the years for all he endured. This is where his demand for high office gets tacky. How is it possible that we owe him even up to and including turning over to his unpredictable vicissitudes the signatory protection of cornerstones of the republic itself? Such as protecting the First Amendment. But he feels he deserves the presidency.

As self-centered as his anger has been at times, what must we be ready for should he not get that which he believes he deserves? It is simply too likely that the angry McCain will once again emerge. That McCain will not be content to go down alone in this, his one "last chance."

Because conservative Congressional delegates are vastly more important to our interests than leftist ones, we must not forget to get out the vote. And because McCain will control the purse strings of the GOP from now until the elections, now is the time to prepare to get out the vote (GOTV) on our own.

So, once again, why do we need to be prepared? We must be prepared for the likelihood that McCain's wrath will go full blown. Once he's convinced that he cannot win, and because he already seems poised to blame us for it, then we must prepare now that he will for spite hold back GOTV funds (and Lord knows what other mischief). There will be nothing we can do about it then should we fail to prepare for it now.

I am sorry, but this man's recent history demands that we have a plan B.

We need be prepared to Spock our warp drive so it can propel our conservative ship to safety. We must be prepared for just that time when 'Cain believes that he's gonna fail. For by God or the devil, he'll be damned if he doesn't try take us with him.

Be prepared.

The Only Bad Publicity Is No Publicity

I warn you again about how much the Right is being manipulated into backing the two most Establishment candidates.

Talk radio is as conservative as its sponsors and the handful of radio groups will permit it to be. Yes, they will SAY things that you like because those good thoughts all come from you.  But when it comes time to put their money where their mouths have been, they will go with those who have gained their allegiance by permitting them to go on and SAY all those nice things so that you will buy their books. Making each of them very wealthy,

You know in your bones that's how the system works. Accept it.

Once you accept that, then you know that cronies back both the Left and the Right, so you have very good reason to be more skeptical over the way this is playing out.

• Yes, Romney is the most country club of GOP candidates.

• Yes, Gingrich is being gang-attacked. I also feel like defending him when the attacks are over the top. But I did that for G W Bush too even though I detested how Statist and Left pleasing (and them never acknowledging it) he could be.

Please look at all this bad blood publicity for what it is: Providing name recognition for Gingrich and Romney.

Rick Santorum basically has had the oxygen in all of the recent debates sucked away from him. Stolen on behalf of R & G by the guiding hand of the moderators and later bickered over all over the map. That all starts and continued with MSM The Agency of Lies -- it deciding who get the oxygen.

I know I am not going to persuade any of you. But let me state this for the record:

R & G are losers for us. They will either lose to Obama like McCain did, or they will become care-takers of the burgeoning state so that the Left can do in 2014 what they did in 2006 -- claim that the GOP is bad for America.

Name recognition buys at least half of the votes. That and fear that only "He can win." The resultant candidate would then only offer the non Leftist American the choice of voting for the radical Obama or a GOP Progressive. That is not a good choice. THAT IS NO SENSIBLE CHOICE!

I don't get where anyone thinks that Newt is not a Progressive. And if you know he IS a Progressive, WTF? "He can win" is what saddled California with the gawdawful Schwarzenegger instead of the best candidate, McClintock.

As you suffer from either Obama's 2nd term or under either of these Progressives, please remember I warned you. Maybe you can then tell me why you didn't heed me. Okay?

Did That Really Come From Newt?

When I reproduced the money bomb email in yesterday's post, I scrubbed off the "From" line along with the "To" line. Sorry about that.

I was asked, half jokingly, by more than a few people whom I told of the email

"Are you sure that came from Gingrich?"

It's a fair question given all the political dirty tricks that  have transpired in the past and seem to be on the increase.

Why would the Gingrich campaign deliberately send out an email that plays to the stereotypical charge that "Gingrich is a bomb thrower?"

I have no idea. Ask them.

Here's the line I left off yesterday (since added).

Subject: Money Bomb: Deliver the Knockout Punch
From: Newt Gingrich <campaign@newtgingrichforpresident.org >

I really wish the question did not feel like a joke. That is because the targets of the joke are all those who legitimately wish to restore the dream that is America.

Manipulated

South Carolinians sure have my sympathy today. You are the latest subjects to be manipulated. I surely hope you understand.

If I learned nothing else from Orwell, I learned that the Statist regime winds up running its own opposition. And you believe our current situation is dissimilar?

Scam Detector Report

FYI, FWMOIW.

The email in question is titled "37 Things You Should Hoard..."


Our first warning (and in no way the most glaring) to be wary comes from this line in the email.

Click here to learn the 37 food items that FEMA should be buying…

In reality, this is what you will find to be true:

Click here to find out how to learn the 37 food items that FEMA should be buying…

The implication of the email's wording is that you will be told. The reality is that the sender is selling the information. Quite understandable, but it is not what he said.

So now I'm posting this to tell you that no matter how good is the information the man is peddling, the manner in which he has chosen to get his message out matched several of the unsavory tactics used by door-to-door salesmen of an earlier era.

I do not recommend clicking on this "video" link. (I've not included it; I'm just saying if you receive the email (once, or several times as in my case).   If you do click over, there are several other tactics that become evident, some of which you definitely will not like. I'm not going into detail here as the vendor may go back in and make fixes to better hide the traits that tripped my warning bells.

If you want to know what I saw, ask me via email. There are maybe a half dozen I have a list of 9 other tells I'd be happy to share with my regular readers.

Some Pros and Cons On Herman Cain

This is an edited version of what I posted at Redbaiter's place

For Herman Cain Critics- Difference Between Sales Tax and VAT

Summary:

Redbaiter is correct. Mr. Cain's critics are wrong to call his 9% sales tax a Value Added Tax. However, in concert with his proposed flat 9% corporate tax, it is adding taxes along the way that are ultimately paid by the consumer -- you and me. I discussed the other drawbacks which really need a good sounding and for which really are not being aired in these debates. It makes me shudder to see the issues I raise below not raised to national prominence.

What Rick Perry Did Not Say

• He did not say we need a candidate who will call out the Marxist in the White House. 
• He did not say we need a candidate who will reverse the Democratic Slave Party's enslavement of our grandchildren.
• He did not say we need a candidate who is unafraid of the Slave Party media Agency of Lies.
• He did not say we need a candidate
  • who will keep our borders secure and
  • who will glory in our American culture and defend it from multicultural suicide, and
  • who will end the EPA running roughshod over every aspect of our lives.

Why didn't Rick Perry say these things in this ad? Because he is not that candidate.

Check his record of things like ignoring the border in his own state. Check that he campaigned for Al Gore (1988). (Gee, I wonder if he's really flipped on global warming even now?) Yes his state is booming in comparison to the rest of the country -- but he was also blessed with a very conservative legislature due in large part to the heavy lifting of Tom DeLay.

Bottom line: Rick Perry looks too much like George W Bush -- not simply in physical appearance -- and that my friends is NOT a good thing.

Herman Cain's Fed Ties

"Herman Cain, former Chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza and radio talkshow host" is how Fox News Channel* host Brett Baer introduced him to America at the first candidates debate.

Given its perceived influence in the political world, why was Mr. Cain's more significant chairmanship -- of the Fed Reserve Bank of Kansas City -- not mentioned?


Did you know? Do your friends know? Of those who believe Cain looks good, do they know? Mr. Cain became a member of the board of directors of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank in 1992 and was its chairman for about 18 months beginning in 1995.

During the debate, no mention of the Fed and its involvement in our economic malaise and inflation was questioned. Did the audience polled by Frank Luntz on Fox News immediately following the debate know of Cain's ties to the Fed when they declared him the winner of the debate? I would bet that the answer is nearly 100% "No."

New Media members: this is a bit of information that needs airing and Herman Cain needs to be probed about before he advances further in his quest of the GOP presidential candidacy. Surely the media will pound him on it after he is nominated. We need to cynically question Mr. Cain's role in and support of the Fed before the Left gets to do it.

Wait too late to test Mr. Cain on this connection, and the anti-Obama, anti-Statist American voters will not have a candidate we are happy with.

*The entire MSM is untrustworthy and appears to be silent on this subject-- for now. Just because Fox News Channel is more balanced than other news outlets, that does not it put its motives beyond question. FNC is a subsidiary of Newscorp. Its Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch is neither American nor in favor of enforcing our border with Mexico. FNC may appear to be less Leftist, but it still is operated with the approval of many of the same customers who sponsor the rest of the MSM Agency of Lies.

**Update**
LOL: Less than an hour after I posted this, at 8:10AM PDT Glenn Beck began interviewing Mr. Cain on his radio program.

He asked, “You were a member of The Fed?”[emphasis by Mr. Beck]
Mr. Cain answered it cagily, saying that was in the days when "Alan Greenspan would not permit politicization of the Fed." Mr. Beck did not press.

Questions will remain here. For instance, Mr Cain was strongly against auditing the Fed last year presumably after it had been “politicized.”

"Hate" In This Postmodern Time

Be very careful about ascribing hatred to those who disagree with your point of view, or faith, or view of what is evil. Frequently those who claim others are haters are themselves looking to excuse their own hatred of the alleged haters.

This is the nature of the message delivered by the MSM Agency of Lies. There is no end to the number of people who claim they know what is in the heart of others.* They are aiming to get common folk to hate each other. For the Agency of Lies to do otherwise runs the risk that all the rest of us would ally with each other to defeat the despots.

Love God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and all your might. And love your neighbor as yourself.

*My efforts to define the "new" morality keeps hitting this snag,  That is because I think it may appeal to the decent who adhere to God-based morality to use evidence to ascertain what is driving others to do evil. And I fear I might do more harm than good. How much evidence must be present to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual is a hater of humanity? I do not yet know the answer to that question.


The battle against the "new" morality could very well be fought and won with words if the words that define it are well enough presented. I am neither fool nor vain enough to believe that a single word could make all who've been misled see the light. But it may well be possible to reduce the number who are deluded by striking upon the most enlightening phrases.


Better to try and fail than to never have tried at all.

Tide, Mudflats, and Quicksand

Le Mont-Saint-Michel, France

There are places where the tide pulls so far out one finds it hard to believe it will ever return. All that lays revealed may only be mud, yet that mud proves its allure every day.

Still the tide inevitably returns,often swiftly. It's so easy to be stranded out there. And that is even if one is not trapped in the insidiously numerous pockets of quicksand.

I have put together a slide show of  about 65 stills that were shot over about 12 hours.  Frames 25-30 were shot seconds apart to show the speed of the advance. Because wave action is miles away,  the advance is steady and relentless as it surrounds and cuts off higher mud.

It and a few explanatory notes (plus another man's art show I added late) are below the break.