No Cain Do
I haven’t been doing much of anything with my blog for a long time for myriads of reasons but now I can no longer stay silent. I am forced to speak out and am using this venue to do so.
Up until maybe three or four weeks ago, I was back and forth with who to support for the Republican presidency next year. In one sense, none of the current 9 candidates vying for the White House really deserve the presidency because virtually none of them have called Barry out on his constitutional ineligibility for the presidency, let alone his bogus and fraudulent use of a Connecticut Social Security number and fraudulent Selective Service registration. A couple of them offered verbal tidbits (given the insignificance of their public statements, revealing their identities is not necessary) on Barry’s bogus birth certificate but essentially they are all mum on the issue. Despite my sore disappointment with that, I wanted to see if someone could come reasonably close to where I stand and think on the issues. And I finally thought I found that person.
But first, without going into too much detail, here’s a synopsis of why I have rejected the following candidates. I haven’t covered all of them but here are the primary players and my reasons for turning them down:
- Mitt Romney – this page totally covers it. Not one Christian or conservative should back him for these reasons. And this has zilch to do with his Mormonism, which is no issue for me as president, though I firmly believe it is a cult. The Constitution does not mandate a religious test. Romney should be rejected on the issues alone. I could vote for him if he was pro-life and pro-family. But he is not.
- Rick Perry – see here, here, here and here, sufficient enough to shoot him down.
- Michelle Bachmann – her past position as a tax lawyer is somewhat problematic but constitutionally speaking, the duties, obligations and qualifications listed in our U.S. Constitution are described as “he”. Our blessed document is gender neutral on senators and Congressmen but not so on the president. I believe the Founding Fathers never foresaw the day a woman would aspire to the highest office in the land. When the world’s “panic” button is about to be pushed, I want a strong man to make that decision to do so. Given a woman’s emotional makeup, I believe the attractive Minnesota Congresswoman would not have the clear and unobstructed thinking necessary for it. The president must be a man, end of story.
- Ron Paul – this is in one sense a very tough one as no other presidential candidate in recent memory champions liberty and the Constitution as this Texas legislator has. I cherish Ron Paul for this very reason alone. I firmly support his view that we must bring our troops home from across the world. America really should not be in other nations unless first attacked. We must make America indestructible as our late great 40th president firmly sought to do. However, someone who fails to recognize the threat of Islam to America and the world terribly frightens me and lacks serious vision to be our commander in chief. His vote to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell not once but twice is also appalling since he is a medical doctor by trade and his F grade on immigration all but seals my decision not to vote for him.
- Newt Gingrich – our former Speaker of the House is intelligent, mostly conservative and held his one during the recent Republican Party debates. But the biggest concern I have, the same one the president of World Net Daily does (the column is worth reading for other reasons, many of which I agree and some of which is already documented above), is his position on global warming. He also has his marriage failings but politically speaking, anyone whose view on a subject like this comes even remotely close to Al Gore poses real concerns for me.
- Rick Santorum – the former Pennsylvania senator is virtually unrivaled when it comes to his solid pro-life and pro-traditional marriage stance. He has taken multiple bullets for the pro-life and pro-family cause and without apology or compromise. His past debate with California Sen. Barbara Boxer on partial birth abortion is one for the pro-life Hall of Fame (the You Tube video associated with it is here but note that the sound quality is quite poor). His immigration grade, however, is as Ron Paul’s, per Numbers USA (big problem) and that likely stems from his Catholic upbringing. He’s also too pro-war for my liking as he backs the missions Mr. Paul wants to remove us from. But on moral values, second to none.
The others – Buddy Roemer, Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson – no need to cover them as they have no realistic chance to win and Huntsman and Johnson are already undoable.
That leaves the one candidate who, for about a month now, I warmed up to and frankly, even got me juiced. In fact, I can’t recall a candidate in years that got me so excited.
That man is Herman Cain.
Most of the controversy surrounding his otherwise exciting campaign stems from his 9-9-9 plan to scrap the current tax code. While I have my own concerns about it, I do defer to him and the fact that certain facets of economics can be a little complex for my thinking. However, because the past director of fiscal policy of the well respected Cato Institute helped write Cain’s plan, along with the writer of this column who was a financial adviser in the Reagan Administration and who praises the plan, I figured that if these guys think it’s good, it’s going to be a benefit and boon to the nation’s economic climate.
My personal opinion is that a 10% sales tax on everything (except for food, clothing and medicine) and the abolition of the IRS and the tax code will do the trick because if 10% is good enough for the Lord, then why should the federal government get more? A 10% sales tax eliminates all tax cheats and ensures illegals in this country pay their fair share. I’d like to make sure that zero income gets taxed and all businesses have zero payroll tax.
But that aside for the moment, I’m content with the Cain fiscal outline for America.
Up until now, I’ve had few issues with the Cain campaign. I got pumped when I heard the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO state that he would not allow Muslims to be part of a Cain Administration (yes, I know about the religious test issue but I believe that is done away with when viewing the position of Islam as an ideology and not a religion) and that he would support an electrified fence to secure our porous borders.
But now he has, as the new political term goes, “walked back” his comments (noted here).
I am curious as to how Cain will be able to differentiate so-called peaceful Muslims from the so-called radicals. After all, since the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to lie if there is a benefit to be gained in some way, I’d like to know how he thinks he’ll be able to accomplish this task, should he win the presidency and indeed appoint them. Last I checked, there are various versions of Muslims but only one Koran. That’s a problem.
As for Cain backing off of the electrified fence, he should have simply stated what America’s premier sheriff and hero recently said about it and ran with it. No need to back off. We need a deterrent at our borders and if such a fence is good enough for Sheriff Arpaio, it should be good enough for Cain. Arpaio doesn’t apologize for what he does with the illegals in his jurisdiction and neither should have Cain.
However, now we have problems, big problems. Watch this two minute video before proceeding.
In short, my support for America’s first real legitimate black president is ground to a halt.
In short, this position is unsupportable. This position is no different than someone saying he or she is pro-life but he or she cannot impose their decision or choice on others.
Cain’s choice of words here is “directive“.
I watched the video several times to see if I missed something. I don’t believe I did. Though the first few moments of the video appear to be redacted or simply missing, I hear a man initially telling me that he’s pro-life without exception, meaning no rape or incest. That thrilled me, considering so many politicians, both at the state and federal level, want to sound moderate by saying they have rape and incest exclusions. There’s no need for that because it’s never right to willfully kill a baby since babies never commit crimes. A simple explanation of birth facts closes the door to this left leaning argument. Yes, it goes without saying that a rape or incest victim who is pregnant will need tons of support, counseling and love. Such should be given in abundance and without question or delay. But in good conscience, no one should tell her to kill the child she’s carrying.
This is what is so sad. Cain says life begins at conception. It’s so heartwarming to hear that, only to be followed by the statement that abortion is a family matter to be decided without a government directive. That’s what the left and some on the mushy right say, adding that it’s a decision to be made with the woman’s or family doctor.
Can you say disconnect?
As a result, Cain has waded into the thorny issue of when is it OK, if at all, to limit when during a woman’s pregnancy that it’s permissible to abort and whether government should have any say-so on the matter. Should an abortion be permitted at 6 weeks? What about 3 months? What about 6 months? Is it OK to abort right up to birth?
Once you take an objective law, don’t kill, and replace it with something like, “well, it’s OK to kill babies in the womb because they are not yet born and thus not human beings“, then you have transformed it into a subjective law, decided by one’s personal whims instead of steadfast eternal principles. That’s why when we play God like this, laws that tell us not to kill human beings outside the womb, not to maim them, not to steal, not to lie, suddenly become common place and permissible in society.
In case you haven’t figured it out, those examples are outlined in the 10 Commandments. Any wonder why far left groups like the ACLU want to get rid of them?
The fact is this. Government does tell us to do things like pay your taxes, drive safely, buckle up, don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t pollute, etc. There are many good arguments to made to halt some of those things, like getting rid of our tax code and seat belt laws, both of which I firmly agree need to be scrapped. But the point here is that government does have a voice in our lives. And shouldn’t it have a voice in deciding the greatest liberty issue, whether an unborn child has the right to live?
Governments also place restrictions on what we do with our own bodies. Despite the questionable wisdom of overly aggressively enforcing some of our drug laws, for which I somewhat embrace Ron Paul’s position, we are told not to input certain substances like marijuana, crack, meth, heroin, etc. If these laws are viewed to be for the good of everyone in our nation, how much more laws telling women that they cannot deliberately kill a child housed in their bodies? The issue here is we’re talking another human being inside another, one of the key arguments liberals find so anguishing to accept.
The second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence reads “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness“. Is Cain willing to exclude those who may still be residing inside of a woman’s body in the name of abortion being a family matter? If so, then we’re not all created equal. And if so, then this issue becomes the equivalent of embracing slavery. And who in their proper faculties is willing to embrace that mindset today?
There was no president in recent decades who was more pro-life than George W. Bush. He had an error filled presidency, filled with too many big government initiatives. But one thing he stood tall on and that was life. True, his greatest legacy would have been to publicly declare that Roe vs. Wade be reversed and that Congress should pass a ban on abortion to do so. Next to that, he could have issued an executive order that the federal government would no longer subsidize taxpayer money for this grewsome inhumane act of humanity. But thanks to his administration, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA), a ban on partial birth abortion and a fetal pain disclosure measure all saw Mr. Bush’s signature. He fully believed in a “welcoming society”.
Oh, no doubt, President Bush could have done more for life, much more. But contrasted to the 100 pro-death bogus prez sitting in the Oval Office today, Mr. Bush did much for unborn humanity. And you clearly could see it whenever he was present around children.
A woman has lots of latitude to do as she wishes with her body and absent her doing anything to interfere with someone else’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, she is free to do as she pleases. And if she, just as with a guy, as part of her free spirit wants to have lots and lots of sex, she can go ahead and do it. I am, of course, not recommending that as that business really belongs in the confines of marriage. But as far as legislating and restricting such activity, any such actions fall outside the purview of government.
However, when a woman becomes pregnant, her previously virtual unrestricted liberty now becomes restricted for a 9 month period, or at least should be under a morally functioning society. During that time, she is not free to take drugs and poisons to kill her baby under penalty of law. She still has a so-called “right to choose”. But that choice is restricted to keeping her baby or consigning it up for adoption. However, based on Mr. Cain’s interview with CNN yesterday, one could easily infer that abortion is among those options because, as he says, government should not interfere with such a family decision.
And if that’s the case, then Mr. Cain’s position has much in common with that of the current occupant in the Oval Office, even if Mr. Godfather claims life commences at conception. Given Barry’s long time pro-death record, starting with his horrific voting record as Illinois state senator and being the only one who opposed BAIPA at the state level, the thought of only being somewhat pro-life gives me occasion to be repulsed.
Mr. Cain recently was one of two GOP candidates to refuse to sign the Susan B. Anthony group pro-life pledge (the other was Romney). Given his statements that he was pro-life from the moment of conception, I personally wasn’t terribly put off by it. There are lots of pro-life groups out there and the SBA group is just one of them. And personally, I’m not a big SBA fan but not because of their pro-life position, though I won’t elaborate.
But now Cain’s refusal to sign this pledge, especially for the reason given, does not wash with me. In fact, it’s almost to point of the Clintonesque “it depends what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”. It’s not supportable in any way, shape or form. It’s not acceptable.
And it’s non-negotiable with me, period. Barring a sincere 180, I’m likely done with Cain.
Does mean I will turn to the most pro-life candidate in this race, former Sen. Santorum? Likely not. Given his current poll numbers, he consistently ranks at the bottom of the pack or well near it so his chances of getting the nomination are slim to none. And given his weakness on immigration and his support for our wars, this does not endear me to want to throw my support to him. I also feel he would not do very well on the economy in contrast to the non-politician in this race who has a steady history of success at all levels.
I want a candidate that combines the articulations and brains of Herman Cain, the liberty-driven message and mind of Ron Paul without the libertine aspects (though he is solidly pro-life), and the moral convictions of a Rick Santorum. But sadly, I see none out there.
So who or where do I turn to now? Well, I reckon the drawing board. And I weep at that.
Editor’s Note: This will likely be my last post for quite some time as our Internet and phone service are scheduled to be shut off next Wednesday for non-payment. With virtually no money or income coming in and this family’s sad and long standing inability to find an employer in our area to hire us (no doubt Obamacare has something to do with it), we will be forced to go offline indefinitely. We refuse to beg for financial assistance but if anyone out there likes articles like these, wants to see more of them coming and can help pay a $300 bill, feel free to note this in the comment section below or e-mail me at theobamacrisis at ymail.com. Thanks and God bless.