Who Would Herman Cain Pick?

Dream Team

That may well turn out to be the biggest question leading to the nomination of Herman Cain, a back-to-back offering of Black candidates. Got a problem with that? Too bad, it may be reality on the horizon, so I would beseech any White Supremacist readers to reconsider your views.

Herman Cain is gaining momentum and could set a record as an American first; no, not the first Black president, but the first of any color to attain the Oval Office with virtually no political experience. Can't happen, you say? Uh-huh, I used to believe the same thing, but hasn't Barack Hussein Obama come through on at least one promise, that being "change"?

Yes, I would tip my hat in that regard.

Obama was only the third U.S. Senator to win a general election for President of the United States directly from the Senate, sharing that distinction with John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding. Good company, but such that would now be recoiling in horror at what their new inductee hath wrought. However, Obama has achieved that which the others never considered; opening the field for the best candidate over the established crop, and our nation is once again ready to cast off old customs in the spirit of desperation.

Would it require desperation to elect a man like Herman Cain? In a purely political sense, I would say yes, but I believe that the electorate has had its fill of the unknown, trusting that Obama was a new ray of hope even as they have seen those hopes dashed by the machinations of a master manipulator. Obama made promises to deliver goods to which he held no title.

Herman Cain, on the other hand, is making lofty promises as well, but ones that bear no similar traits as the gossamer vows offered by Obama. Cain is holding out as candy the opportunity that all Americans have come to expect, sans the alleged guarantees that Obama pledged. If any further explanation is required on that topic, I'm afraid that you, the reader, simply can't understand.


Suffice it to say that Herman Cain may be the only member of the current crop of candidates who actually comprehends the desires of ordinary Americans, no matter what color he may be. No one that I know is asking for anything other than to be left to their own devices with as little government interference as possible. They want to be able to succeed or fail at their own discretion. Is that so bad?

Which brings us to the title question: "Who would Herman Cain pick?", as in, a running mate. Should Cain win the nomination, it would be on the whims of the electorate closely aligned with the same philosophy while the entire middle of the spectrum would be skeptical of a political neophyte in the Oval Office. (Again, that's already been tried, with disastrous results).

But what if a second attempt was all that remained available to an electorate ready to explode? Would our neighbors shun a new path simply because its direction was unclear, despite the end they see rapidly approaching downstream? For instance, let's suppose that Herman Cain was standing at the bow begging for an oar; would we be reluctant to deliver it to him and accept a rocky fate out of uncertainty?

I would be happy with Herman Cain at the helm, and if it meant someone like Newt Gingrich reading the charts, great! The Captain makes the ultimate decision but often relies on the expertise of his navigator. No better man is there than Gingrich, a seasoned House negotiator and himself an eloquent speaker, pardon the pun.

If Cain could set the course and have Newt available to avoid the anomalies therein, who could ask for anything more? While there is little doubt that our local "news" stations or papers would do their utmost to convince us otherwise, I'm committed to the fact that most of us have moved beyond the daily feeding cycle of those sources in determining our futures.

For the first time in my life, I am beginning to believe that we may actually have the chance to elect the best person to lead us, regardless of political pedigree. If Herman Cain can maintain his current stature in the polls and ultimately win the nomination, America would be faced with a 2012 choice between Obama or Cain. The irony is too delicious, and on so many levels.

Sphere: Related Content

Why it Works in Texas

Written by SleeplessByTheSea

Longest serving governor in
Texas' history

Over the past month, I have received several requests from friends in other places for my opinion of our governor. Here's my answer. Rick Perry is a decent man, despite the fact that he is a career politician. He didn't start out that way. 

He started out as a hard working young lad, on his Dad's ranch. Then he joined the USAF, served, and worked his way to the rank of Captain.  He attended Texas A & M University, and later entered the world of politics. He is a family man, married with two grown children, and he is a professed and practicing Christian.   

Has he done everything right in Texas? No!  Of course not. Nobody is right all of the time.  But, he has the leadership skills to guide our state in the right direction, and that is what is paramount in a leader. Most of us here in Texas don't pay a whole lot of attention to the everyday workings of our state for the simple fact that we rely on those we've elected to do what we hired them to do. And, when they don't do it, we replace them. 

The fact that Perry is now the longest serving governor in our state, now serving in his 3rd, 4 year term, ought to tell you that he is a successful and reliable leader. Our state is solvent, and our state is growing. It's been growing since I moved here back in the early 70's. It's a trend simply because our state affords people to live their lives, to do what they want, without being over-taxed or over-burdened by government. 

Texas is big, and we have a lot of everything here, from the windswept plains of west Texas, to the large, sprawling skyscraper buildings that define our big cities. Many of us here are implants. We came, we saw, we stayed. We have many, many millionaires here, but not nearly as many as we do lower income families, many of which have relocated here from not only our southern border, but abroad.  ( I am referring to the legal ones, mind you!). 

We get along in an amicable fashion, and go about our own business of living and raising our families. The millionaires provide most of the jobs and the citizens reap their rewards, and are able to provide for their families, and plan for their future. Perry wisely knows that bringing new businesses into our state only enhances the the employment climate for the entire state.  

When we personally met Gov. Perry at a luncheon gathering last fall, he told us how they were continuing to work hard to bring in businesses that were looking to relocate, such as Caterpillar.  And just last year, the new Toyota assembly plant opened just south of San Antonio. You don't see our governor outsourcing any jobs, and you never will!

Perry is a reliable, proven leader, not afraid to tackle hard tasks. Some of the skills that I feel make him a good leader are his convictions. (He believes what he says, and he's not afraid to say it.) And his religion; he is a man of faith and not timid about sharing it and relying on it.  He does not force his faith on others, but is willing to encourage it. 

I mention above that he's not afraid to admit mistakes. He made one a few years ago about trying to insist our young girls were required to have a vaccine against a deadly disease which caused uterine cancer.  Our citizens set him straight. That was crossing a line, and he admitted his error. That is not easy for a politician to do.  But, it is admirable when they do. 

Perry believes in relying on your own resources. He would not be allowing other countries to have leases to them, rather than us reap their benefits.  He also believes in less government in our lives and as few taxes as possible to keep what government we have running smoothly. We have no income tax in Texas, and Perry doesn't plan on changing that.

If this all sounds like an endorsement for Perry, I guess it is.   I see him as the best candidate that has been willing to tackle the mess in DC to date.  And I believe he'd do everything in his power to stick to his word.  What you see with Perry is what you get.

Sphere: Related Content

The Redcoats Are...Leaving

A Strategy of Failure

America is once again a territory in the middle of a battle for control, just as it was nearly 300 years ago, only this time the battles are fought in the press and not in the fields. The reason that we find ourselves at this juncture in our history, however, is that the true patriots who secured this land for us have been cavalierly discarded by a segment of our population and our representatives as doddering old men.

Any contemporary politician who declares that our Constitution is a "living, breathing document" should be viewed as a heretic and laughed off the stage, but we are way beyond the likelihood of that happening. In fact, we'd be fortunate just to witness a casting off by our team of the one-sided rules of engagement  that have been foisted upon us in a broken agreement from the left.

We have adhered to the rule of civility for decades (reference the failed "high-road" campaign of John McCain in 2008) while the Democrats have played the role of Lucy holding the football -- yet again -- for Charlie Brown. We approach a new campaign season with the hopes that our faith in fairness will finally be rewarded. But Lucy always yanks the ball away at the last minute.

In a strange and ironic way, the Republican party has operated in the same fashion as the Redcoats of the Revolutionary War, strictly clinging to their rule of formation in a misguided belief that virtue could defeat ferocity combined with treachery. As we line up in beautiful and righteous rows of formation, our enemies pop up from behind rocks and trees and shoot us dead. (All apologies for the "over the top" rhetoric, but some analogies really do need to be made).

Texas Governor Rick Perry -- after weeks of speculation -- has finally announced his intention to run for the office of president, and he has come out of the gate like Secretariat, sprinting and snorting from the outset. He has spoken plainly and boldly, even drawing a rebuke from the man I believe he will ultimately supplant as our president. The media has been rendered all but slack-jawed, and our liberal counterparts in the electorate, outraged.

The bullies are suddenly whining that we are not "fighting fairly". They cry over the fact that we have not only learned their tactics, but we are about to perfect them.

To that, I can only beam and say loudly, "Good! It's about darned time!"

As we fight to regain that which we bravely won from the British so many years ago, I can't help but marvel at the irony of our circumstances as we go. Patriots fought an enemy that adhered to a rigid doctrine of honorable battle, and it cost that enemy dearly. Today, we are the Redcoats, but we are finally learning that our tactics have been flawed, and we are adapting. As Rick Perry recently declared, the left won't like us no matter how we behave, so we might as well fight like they do now.

We have allowed them to force us to fight a gentleman's fight while they back us into a corner and hit below the belt and head butt. It's almost like a professional wrestling "match", where the referee -- the media -- is always distracted while the bad guy breaks the rules, but happens to look just as the good guy retaliates out of frustration.

The Rolling Stones had a hit song in the 1970's called Street Fighting Man. Two lines stand out, at least figuratively:

Hey! think the time is right for a palace revolutionBut where I live the game to play is compromise solution

The TEA Party  seems to have the right idea, and the power to back it up. No longer can Lucy be trusted to hold the football. Oh, she can hold it for as long as she wants, but Charlie Brown -- the Republicans -- must refuse to even fake an attempt to kick it. Ignore it, which is what the TEA party advocates. The media be damned...the Redcoats are leaving, and we're gearing up for an epic battle for the 2012 election.

Rick Perry was chastised by this administration recently for saying that Fed-head Ben Bernanke's printing more money would be treasonous. Obama admonished him to watch his mouth, and even some more timid Republican participants shuddered at the "tone" of the comment, saying that it might have been over the top. But consider the notion that massive counterfeiting would collapse an economy if left unchecked, and printing genuine -- albeit worthless -- paper money is tantamount to sabotaging an economy.

Couple that with former vice president Al Gore's shrieking that George W. Bush "betrayed this country! He played on our fears!!", and the hypocrisy is crystal clear. Perry is merely an early candidate for the office...Gore was one term removed from office when he bellowed those words, and yet the media and Democrats -- redundant, I realize -- were silent.

Fighting fairly has gotten our heads broken, folks. It' time to abandon the bright red uniforms, break formation, and take to the trees. The fight is on. As General Washington might have told his troops, "Don't waver in the face of apparent defeat, men. Have faith, forge on, and we will persevere".

Charge. The fate of America depends upon it.

Sphere: Related Content

Ron Paul: The New Leftist Media Sacrificial Lamb

The Right Wing version
of Dennis Kucinich

They're at it once again, this allegedly objective media, in doing their very best to select the Republican nominee to face Barack Hussein Obama for us, the conservative Republicans sworn to see a one term deal for the aforementioned. Just as they foisted John McCain upon the electorate in 2008, the media is already positioning Ron Paul to be our next contestant.

With all due apologies to his son, Rand Paul (R-KY), father Ron is already being groomed for failure by a media dedicated to a continued Obama administration. In other words, we run the risk of being "McCain'ed" again.

I nearly joined the parade a few weeks ago, privately wondering if the time might be right for someone of Paul the senior's pedigree, for while it is undeniable that I tend to agree with most of his fiscal doctrine, once he veers off onto the anti-military exit, my trip is done. That much became ever clearer to me as I watched the debate last week. Ron Paul -- at least in my mind -- understands the dangers to this nation via the Federal Reserve and it's treacherous tentacles, but with two sons currently serving in the military, I find his rhetoric reprehensible where our fighting kids are concerned.

The point is, I was able to regain my senses rather quickly based on nothing more than Ron Paul's carriage in the debate. I then must wonder how many never even saw that debate, much less any other public video pronouncements by the congressman from Texas. Sarah Palin's biggest problem has been her speech pattern, and that has provided much fodder for her critics, both serious and comedic. However, her prose has been thus far unassailable, while that of the congressman only removes the sound of his voice while leaving the tone unscathed.



The Next Strawman?

 For the 2008 election, the media handed us John McCain, perhaps due in large part to his reticence to rumble. While Ron Paul was actually the media's runner-up for the job in late 2007, he was still much too unpalatable to a majority of the Republican electorate, and so McCain became the mule the liberals would ride to the polls -- or have us ride, as the case turned out.  Yet the whole time the media was herding McCain to the convention, they were preparing a case to knock him down once the nominee.

Now, however, with the emergence of the TEA Party and its deep roots in conservatism, the media is once again dusting off Ron Paul in the hopes of handing him the Republican nomination for 2012. In an AP article on Sunday, August 14th titled Once a fringe candidate, Paul shaping 2012 race, Philip Elliott makes the case for Paul by attempting to make him an easier sell to an electorate desperate to make Obama a one-termer. They believe that we're ready for a Ron Paul. Or at least they're counting on it.

It's quite telling, meanwhile, that more acceptable candidates to the right are excoriated by the same media suddenly so enamored of Ron Paul. Rick Perry was set upon by both pundits and politicians the moment his head appeared in view, and Michele Bachmann is a favorite target of a decidedly misogynistic press corps, much in the same fashion as was Sarah Palin.

At times, the left exhibits the traits of tactical genius, but their downfall is always the continued reliance on a successful strategy long after its effectiveness has expired, and an oft-times underestimation of the opposition. Combine that with the relatively new existence of the TEA Party -- really little more than an affirmation of conservative unity -- and it's clear that Republican voters will not readily fall for another presidential piñata party come 2012.

Sphere: Related Content

Kumbaya and the High Road

McCain Tried Nice. It Failed.

Today at New York Harbor, with the Statue of Liberty as a backdrop, former governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman, announced his candidacy for President of the United States. So far, so good. Then he started speaking, and I had a feeling of dread and deja vu of the campaign of John McCain in 2008.

McCain, if you'll recall, refused to street fight in that losing proposition, insisting that even attendees at his speeches remain "civil", and while Obama personally remained above the fray, his surrogates -- both in the campaign and in the allegedly neutral press -- were ruthless. When McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, it got downright vicious.

And lest we forget, that same press was instrumental in steering McCain to the nomination. That's our fault, America. Not again.

This time around we need a candidate and a team that is not afraid to point out Obama's flaws, and that goes for policy as well as ideology. Obama is anathema to traditional American values, and he has assembled both a cabinet and a team of unelected appointees, or czars, that share the same disdain for what made this nation great. If we can't muster a challenger willing to stand behind that statement, we are doomed, plain and simple.

A Mitt Romney or a Jon Huntsman, for example, will not have the temerity to remind the electorate of Obama's past associations with Ayers and Wright, or of his murky past. They would most certainly be too timid to point out some of Obama's appointees and czar choices. Therefore, I will now.

Let's start with Obama's choice of "Safe Schools" czar, Kevin Jennings. Mr Jennings is the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education. He's also a gay activist who has been tirelessly promoting homosexuality in our public school system for over 20 years. In 1990, Jennings co-founded the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teacher Network (GLISTeN) in Boston. Two years earlier, as a teacher in Massachusetts, Jennings counseled a 15-year-old boy who had confessed to a sexual relationship with an older man to wear a condom when having sex.

That's Obama's "Safe Schools" czar. How does that stack up against your values?

Madman at the Helm

As part of policy, Obama has been steadfast in his belief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), using such nonsense to promote a "green" energy agenda as a means to further subjugate our citizenry. One of his foot soldiers is his "Science Czar" John Holdren. Holdren was appointed as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, a rather lofty sounding title. One would assume that Mr. Holdren is a man of great intellect and scientific prowess by virtue of such an important role. Not so fast.

In 1977, John Holdren -- who is now making decisions that affect the lives of every American -- co-authored a book titled Ecoscience. According to Zombietime.com, Holdren has some extremely radical views on how to "save the planet", and they don't bode well for its human inhabitants. (Please do click on the link because Zombietime has documentation that refutes any potential claims of selective reporting).

From Holdren's book, some of his bullet points include some frightening views.

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; 

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; 

• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; 

• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. 

• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force. 

Naturally, Holdren and his co-authors, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, cried foul over the exposure this book received, claiming that the age of the tome rendered it insignificant in light of the trio's "changed views" over the subsequent decades. That may appear to be a reasonable defense if this was some obscure work that was perhaps read by a limited audience, but that is far from the truth. This work of horror was a college textbook, and therefore required reading.

That's Obama's "Science" czar. How does that stack up against your values?

Doesn't This Speak Volumes?

Let's also remember the people who support Barack Hussein Obama, including those who officially campaigned for him. Not to mention his Socialist advisors who have since departed, like Anita Dunn and Van Jones.


Any new candidate can use the current associations of the man currently occupying the White House with ease, using Ayers and Wright as seasoning if desired. The failed policies of Obama speak for themselves, but shouldn't. Our candidate needs to have the fortitude to point out the danger facing America if they have a chance of convincing me that they actually cherish this country.

I want no part of sing-a-longs and hugging; I want a determined, no-holds-barred intervention, one by a patriot willing to sound bad early and lead well later. And above all, I want to give the press a reason to return to their senses, unafraid to actually report the truth rather than curry favor with a narcissistic ruler.

Correction...above even that, I want America back.

Sphere: Related Content

Sixteen Years of Cainsian Economics



The Antithesis to John M. Keynes

 The more I learn about Herman Cain, the more I love his history and policy, and while I would love to see him take the reins of leadership in America, I'm still not convinced that he'd garner enough of the vote. It's not because I doubt his appeal or ability, but because I doubt the fortitude of my fellow citizens behind the secrecy of the voting booth.

There are still some who wouldn't vote for the man if he had a patented, copyrighted cure for America's ills posted online. That is sad, but not enough to preclude him from winning the Big Chair. No, that obstacle would be placed by well-meaning people who are not concerned about Herman's color, but rather about the potential of wasting their votes on someone who historically has little chance of winning with virtually no prior political experience.

Considering that only four U.S. Presidents have ever been elected directly from the Senate with no demonstrated executive track records, the idea of a virtual outsider winning the White House seems less likely than porcine aviators. While Herman Cain certainly has demonstrated an economic acumen , his is an expertise in dealing with a board of directors rather than two houses of Congress. This could have a severe potential to reduce his electoral viability.

Thumbs Up to a Perry Run

There is news just breaking, however, that could portend to be the vehicle to get Cain his insider credentials even while he helps to turn this giant fiscal ship away from the waterfall. Real Clear Politics is reporting that Texas Governor Rick Perry may be inching toward the 2012 race. For Perry's part -- and that of his inner circle -- the report "comes as a surprise" as they all deny any plans for the Governor to toss his hat in the ring.

This exercise is, therefore, mere wishful thinking and speculation, a great big "what if". So let's examine the possibilities...indeed, what if?

Rick Perry succeeded George W. Bush as Governor of Texas and has been a strong leader of that state ever since, having become the first ever to win three consecutive four-year terms. Perry's platform, in a nutshell, is one of a strong defense (especially on the border), fiscal restraint and personal liberty. Critics will complain that he's espoused some conflicting positions, but I would challenge them to produce a single candidate who has not at some point in his or her career.

If Perry actually decides to run for President, based on what we already know, he would be nearly invulnerable in the primaries, although it is still much too early to determine since the field is as yet unformed. What of his chances in the general election, though? That may be a much taller order to fill, and one that could possibly be bolstered by a running mate such as Herman Cain.

Herman Cain, like Governor Perry, has a tremendous following among the Tea Party, and as such is considering his own run at Pennsylvania Avenue but, as noted above, he faces a steep uphill battle. What if Cain was tapped as a running mate, however, by Rick Perry should the latter win the nomination? The two together would prove to be a most formidable duo against Obama in the general election regardless of who Obama settles on for a running mate (assuming that Joe Biden will be replaced at some point).

If a Perry/Cain administration could extricate the nation from the maelstrom its now swirling in, it is not inconceivable that Cain would enjoy eight years of first-hand experience in the White House. And if given a prominent role in shaping the fiscal policies of a President Perry, could ultimately end up being the first black president to actually help America. That would not only be a welcome respite from the misery we have endured of late, but would repair the damage wreaked by Obama to future candidates of color.

Here's hoping that the old axiom -- "where there's smoke, there's fire" -- is true, and that Perry is seriously considering a run. If that does happen, it would be incumbent upon us to strongly suggest Herman Cain as a running mate.

Keep your fingers crossed, America.

Sphere: Related Content

Mr. Hyde Returns

A Lovely Couple

It's official; I am done with Newt Gingrich. He's a nice enough fellow, of that  there is little doubt, but he has in the past proven at times to be too nice. Then again, so was Dr. Jekyll, which leaves one to genuinely wonder if Newt is bipolar.

In 1994, during Bill Clinton's presidency, Gingrich spearheaded the Republican revolution that saw that party win the House for the first time in forty years. The victory also propelled him to the Speaker's chair. As a result, a frothing Liberal coalition was formed which immediately set about the task of the demonization of the "ultra-right-wing" Gingrich. And it was mostly made possible by Newt's bitter opposition to the Clintons' designs regarding health care.

Then, a mere eleven years later, Gingrich angered the base that once revered the historian and all-around bright guy, the guy they saw as the hero who had slain the Clinton health care dragon. In 2005, when Hillary was first dipping her toes in the presidential waters, Newt and Hillary were suddenly "an item", appearing together at news conferences and on talk shows, with Gingrich singing adoring praises for the first woman presidential wannabe.

An Extremely Odd Couple

In May of 2005, the New York Times reported on the gushing words of Gingrich being lavished on Mrs. Clinton. It was portrayed then as a virtual kumbaya, and that's what it was. In one part of the article, the Times makes a pertinent point as it relates to Newt's current presidential aspirations, albeit prophetically. Just about midway through the article, the Times states:

As it turns out, Mr. Gingrich and Mrs. Clinton have a lot more in common now that they have left behind the politics of the 1990's, when she was a symbol of the liberal excesses of the Clinton White House and he was a fiery spokesman for a resurgent conservative movement in Washington.

I must confess, I am also guilty of forgetfulness in my zeal to see Newt run this time around. I also forgot about another stunning event a few years later, when Gingrich took to the couch with Nancy Pelosi who -- destined to be the speaker shortly thereafter -- actually makes Hillary look like a Rush Limbaugh dittohead.

In an advertisement to beseech our government to "do something" about Global Warming, Gingrich once again slept with the enemy by espousing a silly concept that he would later counter in a Congressional hearing. The video is here.



Two years later, Gingrich published  A Contract with the Earth, which set off another kabuki dance in which Liberals praised him and Conservatives gasped. In 2008, just a year later, Gingrich published Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less. That tome had his newfound friends on the left questioning his commitment to the environment and the cause. Newt was fast becoming a human pendulum. In 2009, he pushed further to the right, testifying before a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on "climate change" legislation in which he ripped Al Gore's ideas to shreds and challenged the former Vice President to engage in discussions on the matter.

Suddenly, Newt was ours again, but only for a while.

Just yesterday on the May 15th Sunday Meet the Press, Gingrich assaulted the Republican plan touted by Paul Ryan as "right wing social engineering", and endorsed a government mandate that citizens be required to purchase health insurance. As this country is slowly being dragged back to its senses by the Tea Party movement -- as evidenced by the mid term elections -- we're now not only fighting a formidable Progressive monolith...we're fighting the man who was once described by the New York Times as a "fiery spokesman for a resurgent conservative movement in Washington".

No thank you. I will not speak or write well of Newt Gingrich again until he is well past the age of a viable Presidential candidacy. He is a smart man and an excellent historical mind, but I do not want such a man anywhere near the Oval Office.

Sphere: Related Content

The Cain Mutiny

The "Moses" of our Time?

If there is one unalterable truth in America, it would be that Blacks are expected - no, commanded - to vote for Democrats. To violate that edict would be viewed as a form of sacrilege amongst ones peers, and criminal in the eyes of the elite hierarchy.

While Barack Obama was not the first Black candidate for president of the United States, he was certainly the first to garner the support he needed beyond the demographic guaranteed under conventional expectancy. Obama enjoyed the support of an entire segment of the population too elated to realize that they were mere tools, combined with a media campaign designed by those who aided in the sale of Black integrity.

For the past half century, alleged saviors have presented themselves - through nothing more than self proclamation - to lead Blacks out of "bondage", only to keep them penned in for the harvest of their  continued reliance. The promises continue to spew forth, the masses continue to hope, and nothing ever changes. The worst part of it all is, nothing was ever designed to change.

How odd it is, then, that the Tea Party movement, branded by the Liberal elites as a "racist organization", may ultimately prove to be instrumental in the long-awaited freedom for all from the scourge of racism, and the stranglehold the Left has had on the dialogue surrounding that tender subject. Democrats brandish the term like a weapon in order to bludgeon their foes who have a better solution; actual liberty.

Since an overwhelming majority of Blacks are Christian, it is perplexing that they are more politically aligned with the Godless Left. That is certainly not a call to an evangelical type of ideology, but a more practical application of a rather generic mindset of moral behavior. Those of us who believe in God in even the most peripheral sense are more apt to lean right. And while it must be excused for the populace to choose Obama as the first Black president based on simple opportunity and probability, it is now time to admit the mistake.

I have argued that Barack Obama may have "spoiled the soil" for subsequent Black candidates, and that assessment may hold true yet. But there is a potential candidate who may have the ability to overcome that problem, and his name is Herman Cain.

Herman Cain is a very successful businessman who made his way in life from humble beginnings. He forged his own success while shunning the life of too many of his peers who chose to believe the lie that they were being held back by a White majority afraid of the possibility of future competition. They were being held back, alright, but by the very people who claimed to want to help. Liberals were afraid of losing a dependent constituency. Conservatives saw potential for future partners.

With 2012 looming, and Barack Obama already threatening to inflict four more years of him on us, those old fallacies are still waiting as arrows in the Democrats' quivers. If a White candidate runs against him (and that particular field seems pretty anemic at the moment), it will be child's play to let those arrows fly, and our electorate will more than likely lap up those lies like kittens do milk.

Herman Cain and Americans for Prosperity

There is a benefit to the precedent that is Barack Obama, however; he bucked tradition by being the most unknown, most inexperienced candidate to ever assume office. Herman Cain is not a politician, but is very well known in the business world, and has a proven track record. He is a problem solver with little patience for mere finger-pointing. And he is fiercely devoted to the very same principals that made the Tea Party possible. He's also a card-carrying member, if there is such a thing. Those "racist Tea Partiers" embrace him.

Which leads us to the title of this exercise. Why The Cain Mutiny? That answer is rather simple; if Herman Cain can garner enough traction and actually secure the Republican nomination in 2012, he could conceivably draw Black Americans away from their captors into the fold of those with whom they privately agree but have been conditioned to loath. What if Herman Cain can win the nomination, free the Black portion of our electorate from the shackles they've willingly worn all these years, and set our listing ship of State aright? Wouldn't that heal many old wounds?

As a parting notation to any readers who may harbor ill will towards Blacks for archaic reasons, I beseech you to think. This will happen, despite your hatred. It may not be Herman Cain, but it is inevitable that it will happen. If you love America as much as your myriad tattoos suggest, make that time now. Herman Cains don't come along very often, no matter what color they may be. There is time before the election. I would suggest a suspension of hostilities in favor of a protracted examination of this man. And it would help to have a unified base going in, should Cain win the field.

Sphere: Related Content

The Wall Unanticipated



Progressive Kryptonite? 



And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,  

Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?

"It came without ribbons! It came without tags!

"It came without packages, boxes or bags!"

And he puzzled three hours, `till his puzzler was sore.

Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before!

"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.

"Maybe Christmas . . . perhaps . . . means a little bit more!" - Dr. Seuss

 Exactly what is it about that Constitution, anyway? So close were the Progressives to rendering that old parchment moot, only to be thwarted in the eleventh hour, that there are thus far unsubstantiated reports of heads actually exploding in the land of alleged academia. For nearly five decades, the march was inexorable and the path devoid of obstructions. Success was as doubtful as a subsequent sunrise.

What has happened to the brilliant plans of the Liberal Progressives that once seemed as certain a reality as old age? The most obvious answer is the Tea Party and a spirit that refuses to die, the same spirit that has been mocked ever more boldly by its critics as time wore on and confidence waxed. It is precisely the reason for the analogous reference to Dr. Seuss's How the Grinch Stole Christmas.



Not Going According To Plan

 As the Grinch stood atop the mountain with Max, his subservient pooch, expecting his insidious actions to finally break the spirit of the Whos in Whoville, he was devastated to witness that all of his nefarious work had proved fruitless, failing to dampen the joyous celebration taking place below in spite of his work.

The real world sometimes mirrors fiction, it has been said, and so it has now. Congressional Democrats, poised to finalize the plan set forth in the 1960's, have suddenly found that their formerly sedentary foes were not dead, but merely dozing. The media are represented by Max, who participated in the attempted ruin of Whoville, albeit with regrets. I realize that such a comparison is much too kind to today's excuse for journalism, but one I make nonetheless.

When Obama put his signature to the monstrosity of his dream law, universal health care, it was presumed to be the final nail in the Conservative movement's coffin. As it turns out, it was more like throwing cold water on a sleeping citizen, which would account for the necessity of an allegedly triumphant president to continue to travel the country in order to sell it -  the very law he had just signed - to the American people. We demanded a refund.

There's an old joke with the theme, "...and that's when the fight started." This one started when the Democrats - in their final, frenzied assault on the Constitution - began telling us that that document didn't really mean what we believed it to mean. The gloves finally came off when their victory dance left footprints all over it.

Oh, they insisted upon displaying a false bravado, with Obama threatening to veto a repeal by Congress. Even the media (we'll call it "Max") tried to assist, insisting that such a repeal would be futile and a horrible waste of time because of its chances of succeeding. No matter, the Tea Party-fueled members of Congress will not be deterred, and will ultimately choke off the funding for ObamaCare if that's what it takes.

Through all of this, the Liberal Progressives kept waiting for us to buckle, to crack under the weight of their momentum. They tried to smear the Tea Party members, lied about the tone of the rallies, and failed to substantiate a single claim. Even Andrew Breitbart, who offered $100,000 to anyone who could provide audio or video of the alleged racial slurs hurled at Black congressmen, still has his hundred grand.

Just when the Tea Party was supposed to falter and display the horrendous characteristics of angry, white racists, they instead did something amazing; they sang. They sang, they smiled, and they cleaned up after themselves, all the while maintaining a calm civility that infuriated the supposed intellectuals who could not fathom their own failure after so much seeming success. And then the Tea Party helped the sane regain control.

So it stands to reason that, despite the majority still enjoyed by the likes of Harry Reid in the Senate, there is a very real chance that vulnerable Democrats will desert the sinking ship and join in the repeal. I'll bet the Left never saw this one coming.

Sphere: Related Content