"High-Tech Lynching"

Several weeks past, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain commented that he feared what he called a "high-tech lynching" because he was running for this country's highest office, remembering a similar incident involving another African-American conservative, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and what he went through during his confirmation hearings.  Like Thomas, Cain is besieged by claims of sexual harassment, this time by unidentified women during his term as National Restaurant Association (NRA) chair.  On October 30, 2011, the Politico website brought these allegations forward, but with no names, no specifics, just quoting "unidentified sources" and ran it as news.  Many people in "responsible journalism"--as rare as a spotted owl--felt the site went public too soon with a hollow story.  Despite Cain's bumbling of the situation, many people ignored the story (just as they did in the 90's when it was then-Presidential candidate Bill Clinton who had many women--more than the number that has come forward in Cain's case--claiming he harassed them).  Not withstanding, the liberals continued to trot out these unidentified women, a third one came forward last Thursday, then on Monday, November 7, a woman with a name and a face, Sharon Bialek, held a show press conference announcing Cain had went beyond just words, but went into actions, claiming groping took place in 1997.  There are several holes in this woman's argument, however:

• She is from Chicago, conveniently the home-base of the current president and most of his staff.
• Why did it take 14 years to come forward, and only then because Cain is a presidential candidate?  The statute of limitations has long expired on any criminal or civil complaint, and nothing was reported to the NRA, so there appears to be no other motive than personal destruction.
• Gloria Allred (who according to her, likes to be groped by the TSA) was at her side.  The only time Allred appears is for political gain/expediency...just ask Meg Whitman (by the way, where is Nicky Diaz, the illegal alien maid she trotted out with during that campaign, you haven't seen or heard from her since Whitman lost to Dianne Feinstein in the Senate race there...)

I have not declared support for any candidate in this race yet, but I get sick and tired of the media's hypocrisy in their handling of Obama and Cain.  Clarence Thomas said it best:

"This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

Thomas was exactly right.  Liberals do not want African Americans to become better off, they want them as perpetual victims from whom they can prey and get their votes each election (and through whom figures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton depend on for their "power"), and when one dares to make something of themselves, they destroy them by any means necessary because they will blow up the liberal beliefs about minorities being nothing more than victims.  Can you imagine these four women if they were claiming Obama did the same thing?  These women's personal lives would be displayed, sex lives exposed, and their reputations would be destroyed.  Sexual harassment is a crime and should not be tolerated, but when you use it for political and/or personal gain, it destroys the intent of what it was meant to protect, as Allred, Bialek, and the other three women claiming Cain harassed them are doing right now.  If Cain survives this, he should be at the top of the list for the Republican nomination, because he has already went through more vetting in a week than anyone else, including Obama, has in three years.

Occupy

All of a sudden it feels like we're back in the 1960s with the recent waves of protests from ideologically motivated young people against the "ivory tower" that is Wall Street.  The feeling amongst these young people is that they are the "99%" of those who aren't "rich" and that they should have a piece of the pie.  These sound like the same protests that occurred in the Arab countries and Greece in the spring...people wanting a handout, a.k.a. "distribution of wealth". 

On the surface, this sounds like a group of spoiled kids who think they should have immediate access to money, position, and power without earning it, "just because"--a recent trend among our youth egged on by their equally spoiled parents, who coddled them every step of the way to avoid being the "bad parent".  Look deeper, and you see the evidence of cracks in the country generated by class warfare, stoked by the Democratic party and their allies.  Note to the protestors:  A lot of so-called "backers" are starting to join your ranks, these are members of the labor movement (SEIU, etc.).  These people will eventually elbow you aside and take over your protests, as their dying movement needs a spark from something like this to make them relevant again.

Glenn Beck predicted the US would have protests similar in nature to the Greek and Arab Spring ones earlier this year, and he is right on the money, and while I agree with their right to peaceably assemble (granted in the first amendment), it's the other elements that make me a little concerned about these protests, and remind those who are dismissing these as a bunch of college kids with nothing more to do than "cause trouble", their numbers are growing, and their message (flawed that it is), is resonating with more and more people, and we need to watch this carefully.

The Five-finger plan to get out of this debt mess...

The current debt ceiling crisis continues today, with the Congress (mainly the Republicans) sending plan after plan (especially their well-thought out plan to "Cut, Cap, and balance") up, only to be shot down by the Democrats and President Obama, who threatens to veto any bill the Republican-controlled House sends up, despite him whining on TV on Monday, 7/25 that both sides need to compromise.

Now, Obama is threatening not to pay out Social Security, Medicare, and military pay/benefits after the August 2 debt ceiling deadline, claiming the government doesn't have money to pay them.  Let's debunk this scare tactic to grandma and grandpa as well as our soldiers right now.  The President and Treasury Secretary (tax-cheat Geithner) have the power to make payouts from available funding.  According to reports, the government takes in around $220 billion per month in tax revenues.  They can pay out social security (around $80 billion), interest on the debt (another $80 billion) and the remainder (around $60 billion) will take care of Medicare/Medicaid and the military, but nothing for the "pet projects" and overseas aid.  The actual amount of outlays per month for the government is in the neighborhood of $500 billion.  Can you see a problem here?

The country is tired of all this debt that has been run up (and while both parties are responsible, Obama's debt has equaled that of his 43 predecessors combined and is more than double the debt when George W. Bush left office) and demands action, which is why the Democrats were routed in the 2010 mid-terms.

Seeing all this, I (borrowing a phrase from the show Big Brother), propose a "five-finger plan" to help this country get out of this mess.   All of these are to be Constitutional Amendments to avoid the endless lawsuits by affected liberals that will come if these were just laws, and I know Congress would never consider it because it makes too much sense, but, here goes... 

1)  Amend Article I, Section 7 to require the country have a balanced budget each fiscal year, that a budget be proposed by April 1 of each year for the upcoming fiscal year (that starts in October), no loopholes be permitted to go 'round the requirement

Effect:  This will prevent the country from continually racking up debt by balancing its' books--remember, 49 of 50 states (sorry, Washington State) require their state budgets be balanced, so why not the federal government?  Further, this will require a budget be proposed early in the session so we don't have these government shutdowns because Congress failed to act on their requirement to have a budget in place.

2) Amend Article I, Section 7 to permit the President to have a line-item veto, to strike from budget bills items that are ridiculous and unnecessary, which would then require a two-thirds majority of both houses to override.

Effect:  This will stop the pork-barrel spending cold.  Can you imagine a congressman having to vote to override a veto for a project dealing with the lifespan of a tadpole or a "bridge to nowhere", then having to stand for re-election with that on their record?

3) Amend Article I, Section 7 to require the government maintain an emergency fund for genuine national emergencies (such as 9/11 or natural disasters such as hurricanes/tornadoes/floods) that would be set aside in the budget (1% of total anticipated revenues).

Effect: Most states already have a "rainy-day fund" that is used in the event of a state emergency, why can't the government have one?

4) Amend Article I, Section 8 to include in the clause dealing with the public debt that any budget surpluses incurred be used to pay down the debt first, then use for the emergency/rainy day fund.

Effect: This will ensure that any higher revenue will go to paying down the debt first instead of higher entitlement or pork-barrel spending.

5) Amend Article I, Section 7 to require a two-thirds majority of each congressional body be required to raise any taxes.

Effect: The two-thirds requirement will prevent Democrats from immediately wanting to start talking tax increases we don't need.  For those who argue the wealthy should pay more, I submit that even if you tax them at 100% of income, that won't even scratch the surface of the $14 trillion debt we have.  Where do you think the rest of it will come from?

By going the constitutional amendment route, this also takes Obama out of the equation, as the President has no say-so in constitutional amendments.  The government can't seem to get a plan in place, how about this one?  If these are passed by the requisite 2/3 majority and sent to the states, I'm sure we can get the 38 required states to allow this to happen.  If not, there's always Article V that allows 34 states to propose a convention to consider amendments to the constitution.

Can the 14th Amendment be used to overrule Congress...

Numerous left-leaning blog and news sites have been reporting on a possible "out" for President Obama in the current debt impasse with the Republican-controlled House.  First, I find it interesting that liberals actually read the Constitution much less agree and abide by it, but that's another matter. 

First, let's read the section the liberals are referring to, it is Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868:

'The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

What the left is saying is that the President has the authority to use this clause of the amendment to indicate there is NO debt limit and that he can continue to run up the debt without congressional action, thereby avoiding a default (which is questionable in itself...) and a showdown with Congress.

But the left actually read the ENTIRE Constitution, they would have noticed the following clause in Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power To borrow Money on the credit of the United States."

Meaning that the Congress, NOT the President, has the authority over the country's debt limit.  In fact, there is NOTHING in Article II that gives the President any authority over the "purse strings", as that authority lies solely in Congress.  If the President attempts to go 'round Congress by using the 14th Amendment clause (which was actually intended to ensure the debt incurred by the United States during the Civil War was not questioned, while disavowing any debts ran up by the Confederate States Government or the slaveholders' claims of lost money due to the 13th Amendment) this would create a constitutional crisis that would be worse than any "default" of the United States, and cause a bitter division within the country as well as the Congress. 


I would like to see the debt issue resolved, but I feel that until the country gets their fiscal house in order, the debt limit should NOT be raised "just because"; instead the country needs to cut back, just like any home would when their income is less than their expenses.  The Republicans need to stand fast and not cave into the Democrats, as this would the repeat of the mistakes made by the Republicans of 1982 and 1990, who were promised more cuts than spending and it ended up being more spending than cuts, and cost George H.W. Bush his second term in 1992.  If they cave, Obama will win a second term because the anger by the conservatives will result in a third-party candidate, which will split the Republican vote and guarantee an Obama win in 2012.  So, for the GOP, hang tough, the people are behind you, regardless of what the MSM, the President, and Democrats in Congress will tell you.

Michelle Bachmann and the music industry..

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is running for President on the Republican ticket this year.  Her rallies are attended by many people who are interested in her straight-talk and her "tea-party" beliefs in minimal government, low taxes, and reduced spending.  Most politicians when they make appearances use background music to "set the tone" for her appearance and her speech.

But there is a troubling double-standard (just like others when Republicans are involved...), in two recent appearances Bachmann has used the song "American Girl" by Tom Petty and "Walking on Sunshine" by the 1980's one-hit wonder band Katrina and the Waves.  In both cases the artists involved were unhappy with Bachmann using the songs and threatened legal action unless she stopped.  Similar issues happened to John McCain in his 2008 campaign (Jackson Browne was the one in question here).  Yet Barack Obama and Bill Clinton used pop songs (Clinton's campaign theme was "Don't Stop" by Fleetwood Mac) and nothing was said. No fees were paid by either Dems or Repubs for the use of these songs, so what's the big deal?  The answer is quite simple:  Most musicians are liberals (just like most of Hollywood) and do not believe in anything conservative.  I guess Bachmann would want to use country songs (where most of them are conservative) or Ted Nugent's catalog (including "Little Miss Dangerous", which the media and the liberal left feel Bachmann is) for her campaigns in the future.

This is another example of the hypocrisy and the out-of-touch feeling most musicians and Hollywood actors/actresses are showing to the common American.  They support all the liberal policies of "tax the rich" when they themselves are in that same category and will be paying the higher taxes along with other Americans of like-income levels.  I will no longer be listening to any of these artists (exercising my right to choose) just as they have exercised their right to complain about who uses their recordings.