By The Right Scoop


According to the YouTube video, Herman Cain said this back in May of this year when he was asked if it was legal to issue a ‘shoot to kill’ order for Awlaki who is an American citizen. He said ‘no’ at the time, given that Awlaki is an American citizen:

I’ve looked for any comments from Herman Cain on the death of Awlaki but so far I haven’t found any. I’d be very interested to know if he still believes this.

***

UPDATE: Herman Cain is reported to have said at TeaCon this weekend that he did in fact support Obama’s decision to take out Anwar al-Awlaki:

HOTAIR – In a brief Q&A with our panel after his speech, Cain told the crowd that he fully supported Barack Obama’s decision to strike Anwar al-Awlaki.

According to Ed Morrissey, Guy Benson with Townhall.com was the one who asked him the question that yielded the answer above.

Personally I’m glad to know that he supports the strike that took out Awlaki. After all, we are at war with Al Qaeda and he most certainly was a member in high regard.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Anonymous

    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/10/03/herman-cain-is-right/
    Herman Cain is Right

    “The following exchange took place during an interview with Herman Cain conducted by The Atlantic in May:

    THE ATLANTIC: President Obama has said that he has the authority to assassinate American citizens if he’s declared them an enemy combatant in the War on Terror. Al Awlaki is one guy who is on the official government list where he can be taken out. Do you have any thoughts on that?

    CAIN: I don’t believe that the president of the United States should order the assassination of citizens of the United States. That’s why we have our court system, and that’s why we have our laws. Even if the person is suspected of being affiliated with terrorism, if they are a citizen of this country, they still deserve the rights of this country, which includes due process. Osama bin Laden was not a citizen of the United States of America. So I would not have changed the decision the president made in that regard. But if you’re a citizen, no, it is not right for the president to think he has the power to have you assassinated. No. He has the power to make sure you’re locked up, but you have to go through due process.”

    • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

      There should be a better procedure than the president getting to declare someone as an enemy. Even police must go through the court system to get warrants and so forth. Couldn’t the justice department seek a ruling from the courts declaring someone an enemy with all the evidence provided to the public for their scrutiny?

      • Anonymous

        Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution –
        “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

        • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

          Well, I think any American who witnessed his speeches, videos, etc. calling Muslims to jihad against America would qualify as witnesses to the overt acts of treason, right?

          • Anonymous

            An overt act is something supported by evidence. Someone making violent speeches and videos is not evidence of an act.

            There were no charges brought against him.

            • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

              Treason IS an overt act. And treason is defined as aiding, adhering to, and comforting the enemy, right?

              • Anonymous

                He is not just a criminal, but an enemy combatant. We don’t need warrants to fight NORKS, when they invade South Korea. Why? Because they’re ENEMY COMBATANTS. Just because he’s ALSO a wanted fugitive from federal law enforcement does absolutely nothing to diminish the fact that he’s an INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST, working with al-Qaeda to murder and/or enslave every American in the world (including YOU). Just as his nature as a criminal doesn’t protect him from being shot on the battlefield, his nature as an enemy combatant doesn’t protect him from being arrested, if caught on American soil. We (and Obama) are in NO WAY bound to arrest him, nor any other terrorist we encounter, or see through the eye of a Reaper.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BS3BDRR775GCSX5YFUL7ZBAU44 waterstar

            witnessing speech, videos, etc. is not the same as witnessing the ACT. Which by the way, where is the evidence to support the ACT. What ACT was he charged with anyway?? We don’t have any charges. Not saying he was not a BAD man. But there are heinous crimes occurring everyday by Americans to Americans, but even when caught they have a trial and all the evidence is brought forward with testimonies, all done by the rule of law. We the People are privy to all the details. If this does not concern you and others…then you need to wake up from your deep Sleeping Beauty nap!

            • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

              I came across this explanation online, and I think Awalaki certainly was aiding and comforting the enemy, particularly by providing them instruction and motivation for jihad:

              TREASON
              This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

              The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. (lectlaw.com)

              • Liberty Vids

                What you’ve given is not evidence of anything. Rather its the legal definition of treason. Nobody debates that. But there was never a trial. Al Alwaki was arrested by the U.S. government before and after 9/11. (A few months after 9/11 he was even invited to have dinner at the Pentagon.) With each arrest he was released based on a lack of evidence against him. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki) The most “damning” evidence against him was his giving encouragement to the Somalia jihadist group Al-Shabaab. But Al-Shabaab has taken no action against America. By contrast Obama gave aid and comfort to Libyan Al Qaeda leaders who have killed American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html) So if the government is going to go around killing people who have given aid and comfort to the enemy…..?

                • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

                  How do you hold a trial for someone living with the enemy in another country?

                  Did he do nothing to aid and abet enemies after he moved to Africa?

                • Liberty Vids

                  Well “banana republics” hold trials in abstensia. While that goes against the U.S. system of justice and fair play, it’s certainly better than extra-judicial killing. We’ve had civil trials of people in abstensia before (Osama Bin Laden for example) so it’s not totally unprecedented. As for evidence of him aiding and abetting enemies after moving to Africa, so far I haven’t seen any. I’ve just seen vague allegations in the media. The government and the media said he was guilty so by God he must have been guilty! It’s just like what they said about Richard Jewel. Only Richard Jewel hung around to defend himself and was exonerated.

                • Libertarian4tw

                  Easy, file charges then grant a letter of Marque and Reprisal for the CAPTURE of this American citizen.

                  Soon as he is afforded due process and is probably found guilty of treason, Game Over.

          • Anonymous

            Name one war where we had to call witnesses to fight.

            • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

              I think I was referring to the treason issue. (Can’t remember, too many threads in Disqus). Either way, I don’t think treason really matters in this case.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Skinner/100000598231323 Brian Skinner

        In the constitution it says during time of war and during a time of inserrection and the pubic safety is at stake Habeus Corpus may be suspended. Alwaki had his Habeus corpus suspended.

        • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

          So who ultimately has the authority to suspend habeus corpus?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Skinner/100000598231323 Brian Skinner

            President Lincoln did it by himself and then later he got congress to do it.

            • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

              I think having Congress do it is far wiser.

        • Anonymous

          He had his Habeus “corpse” suspended all right… in a million different pieces. ;)

        • cabensg

          Wow! Never thought of that. I like it. Of course that wasn’t all that was suspended.

          Did you hear what Cheney said about Obama using policies the Bush administration put into place. The reporter ask Cheney if he thought the Obama administration owed the Bush administration an apology. Cheney agreed as did his daughter Liz. Of course hell will freeze over before that happens but heck it’s nice to see it on the record.

      • Anonymous

        Again, you haven’t read a single thing people have written about that, have you? Who are you, who is so arrogant, that you believe your Constitution should have effect overseas in nations with no extradition treaty? Or are you suggesting we endanger American Soldiers, Marines and Sailors by sending them on violent, dangerous extraordinary rendition missions to every hole people like you would send them to, with Miranda warnings in their hands? This is not Hollywood Boulevard, LA County. The police have no jurisdiction out there. United States Army MILITARY Police have no jurisdiction, in Yemen. Courts do not determine how we fight wars. The Supreme Court did not tell our Soldiers and Marines how to fight in Europe and the Pacific, and I’ll be DOUBLE damned, before I allow people like you to give them the spurious power to. And NEITHER DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

        http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/50563.html

        You have to be an out-and-out IDIOT to think you fight a war with arrest warrants.

        • Anonymous

          Flying robots!

          Awlaki is definitely not in Kansas anymore.

        • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

          Virus, I have come to the rather rational conclusion that the Constitution has nothing to do with Al-Awlaki. He was on foreign soil, supporting our enemies, he was a regional commander for Al-Qaeda. He became an enemy combatant, regardless of citizenship. It would be like an American soldier going AWOL and joining the Taliban. We wouldn’t worry about arresting him and charging him with treason. We would just kill him. And I am okay with that.

          • Anonymous

            Well, the Constitution does have something to with it, actually, even with him being overseas and waging war. The Constitution gives the Commander-in-Chief the power to secure America’s national security through the use of force. That is precisely what Obama did, and he did not violate the Constitution in doing it (for once in his career). The next guy he wants to send FLYING ROBOTS after that’s a member of al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian “Authority” (i.e.: PLO/PFLP), Taliban, etc., I’ll be in full support of that, too. I just hope that next time, they’ll mount 20mm Vulcan on the Reapers, so they won’t have to keep using missiles and rockets.

            • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

              I meant, the Constitution has nothing to do with the argument that it was wrong for the US government to kill Awlaki without a trial.

        • Libertarian4tw

          VirusX,

          As an American citizen you are afforded inalienable rights. One of these is due process in the 5th amendment. Laws change in other countries, so if another nation finds you guilty of their laws, however frivolous they might be, then you are at their will. When the US deals with a US citizen, no matter where they are in the world, then the individual is afforded the RIGHTS of the US constitution.

          We should have charged the American terrorist with treason, then issued a letter of Marque and Reprisal to CAPTURE this transient terrorist. It would have cost less and we probably would have captured him.

      • Anonymous

        I prefer to leave that determination to our military. The AUMF declares who we are at war with, and then the military code conscribes the general rules of engagement. Our military leaders use that information, coupled with military intelligence, to determine targets. This is how it works, even though sometimes they are incorrect. War is not perfect, and sane people allow for collateral damage, with full knowledge of the pain and suffering it implies.

        Those who lead the opposing force are valid targets in war–always–and that trumps any claims to citizenship, ambassadorial status, oaths of fealty, or membership in peacetime organizations.

        • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

          Came across this, written by Lawrence Auster:

          “The treason clause in the Constitution is irrelevant to this case. The clause has to do with a legal proceeding in which a man is accused of and tried for treason. In this case, a non-uniformed combattant located in a foreign country was actively instigating jihad mass murder attacks on America. He was not an adherent of any government. He was not a U.S. citizen who was fighting under a foreign flag against the U.S. and had come under our power, a case in which a treason charge would be appropriate. He was the equivalent of a murderous pirate, a person outside any law, not loyal to or under the jurisdiction of any country, waging war against and causing the deaths of Americans. He simply needed to be killed, and he was killed.”

          • Anonymous

            Interesting. He’s essentially correct. But it goes one step further. If you switch to another country’s flag and stay there, without acting on their behalf while still under your own flag, then you haven’t technically committed an act of treason. You have just become an enemy combatant.

            Mercenaries fight for pay under some other flag. As long as they don’t break any laws here, or commit acts against the USA, they are able to ply their trade. There may be some states or territories that prevent them from doing so, I don’t know. The Constitution doesn’t prevent such a career.

            (As an aside, I can think of no aspect which would entail or require renouncing citizenship while doing something like this.

            Some German-Americans who were born in the USA went to fight for Germany in WWII. They were treated as enemy combatants as far as I know. I doubt they filed some form with the State Department officially renouncing their citizenship, first.)

            • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

              Mercenaries committing acts specifically against the US could be tried for treason if arrested, right? But they could also, under US law, be shot first without questioning, right?

  • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com On The Mark

    If it were true that an American citizen cannot be an enemy combatant, then his answer would be correct. However, since even an American citizen can, in fact, be an enemy combatant, then American citizenship cannot be the ultimate criterion.

    However, in the context of the upcoming presidential election, this is by no means a deal breaker for me.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/MVKB24PATKM3BXCRTLD62FUKK4 Richard

    Herman Cain is getting “soft”.A traitor is a traitor , american or not,and should be shot on the spot.Especially when the traitor’s intentions is to kill other americans.

    • Liberty Vids

      So if Obama declares you to be a traitor and says he has “secret evidence” against you, should he be able to have you shot on site? There is a reason why the founding fathers spelled out treason in the constitution instead of having it left to interpretation. They had seen tyrants declare their political enemies “traitors” and killed without trials. Besides, why didn’t they arrest Al Alawki when they had him dining at the Pentagon when Bush was president?

  • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

    Oh, Herman…lately you’ve been saying things, especially regarding racism, that make me pray you are just playing the game to attract black voters. And now this nonsense about arresting Awlaki. By fighting with our sworn militant enemies, he made himself an enemy of the state, guilty of treason and deserving nothing less than death.

    • Anonymous

      This comment was made back in May. Not sure that changes anything, but keep it in context.

      • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

        I don’t care when it was made. He believed it strongly enough to speak public about it.

        • Josh

          And if you were told that Iran has a nuclear missile pointed at us, I am sure your opinion would be to strike first. If afterward, you found it was a fake, you would retract your decision. Cain, when presented with all of the facts, makes good conservative decisions. He will NOT have all of the facts to create a solid foreign policy until he is in a position to receive the intelligence reports. Until then, he continues to be outspoken about what he believes at the time. I, personally, find that refreshing instead of hearing someone repeat over and over again that they cannot answer at the time.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BS3BDRR775GCSX5YFUL7ZBAU44 waterstar

            What I find REFRESHING is someone that is NOT a FLIP FLOPPER. First he says he doesn’t support an audit of the Federal Reserve, then he says he supports an Audit of the Federal Reserve. Next, he says he supports TARP, then he says “”I thought TARP was going to be an opportunity for the government to allow any bank that needed to to restructure its balance sheet,” Cain said. “But it didn’t. It only picked its friends. That’s when I turned against TARP.” FRIENDS HUH? Isn’t he friends with the FEDERAL RESERVE, I mean he’s a former friend, uh! uh! I mean former Chairman of the Federal Reserve. First he supported it, then when it didn’t “stop the bleeding” he said it was bad. Then he supported the 2008, NOW, he says he opposes the bailout TODAY!. YOU GETTING THE PICTURE YET?? All these can be found in Youtube and online articles. MASTER PANDERER that Cain is.

            NO CHANGE WITH HERMAN CAIN!!!

            What I find very REFRESHING is CONSISTENCY!! That would be RON PAUL 2012!!! Wake up people!!

            • Josh

              Yeah, another Paulite with false facts against a fellow party member. Here we go again…
              Cain NEVER said that he was against an audit of the Fed. He said that he did not believe that there was anything to be found. He said he was OK with an audit, but never called for one.
              Cain supported TARP in its initial language. Even you have to agree that since all the TARP funds were not used, they did not spend according to plan. Once Cain learned of the bailouts and cronyism, he FLIPPED. Good for him.
              Cain is not the FEDERAL RESERVE.
              You can bash and whine all you want. I will not bash Ron Paul, because unlike you, I am not obsessively following “my master”. I have been vetting Cain since he announced and have not found any reason to believe that he would destroy America. If I did find something, he would be out like an old pizza box.

          • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

            I wouldn’t retract my decision to strike first if I believed I made the decision based on the best information available.

            I just don’t think there was a question in anyone’s mind that Awalaki was a traitor to America based on his behavior and speech and the fact that he was knowingly and willingly helping the mujahideen against America.

            • Josh

              I agree that Awalaki is a traitor and should have been targeted. However, I have had the opportunity to research the facts. Cain was on the spot.

        • cabensg

          Like all the politicians they don’t keep themselves informed and up to date and like the morons who voted for Obama still get their news from the main stream media. They better get their campaign workers online to find out whats going on before they go for these interviews. Better still they need to listen to Rush every day.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Skinner/100000598231323 Brian Skinner

      Herman had no way of knowing if what the interviewer was saying was true. It was an appropriate response. I still am not sure I believe Rick Perry’s story regarding this.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BS3BDRR775GCSX5YFUL7ZBAU44 waterstar

        How can Herman Cain not READ the Patriot Act? There’s no excuse for anyone running for office to not be well-informed enough to make decisions that effect the lives of millions. He flip flops all over the place AFTER he realizes that he’s wrong. I don’t need a leader like that. I don’t want someone that has no kind of insight and is a self thinker. Instead he’s a follower and will say anything to get elected.

    • Liberty Vids

      Natassia, I’m confused. In one post you say:

      “There should be a better procedure than the president getting to declare someone as an enemy. Even police must go through the court system to get warrants and so forth. Couldn’t the justice department seek a ruling from the courts declaring someone an enemy with all the evidence provided to the public for their scrutiny?”

      But in this post you seem to be saying that Al Alawki was “already guilty”. So should Americans declared by the government and the media to be traitors have some type of due process or no? We look down on banana republics that try people in abstentia, but even that seems an improvement over what Obama is doing.

      • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

        There is enough evidence, I think, that any court would find him guilty of treason. I am not particularly upset with his death, but I understand the ramifications of our government’s actions and believe the process can be greatly improved with less power in the hands of a single man (or woman).

        • Liberty Vids

          Fine. Have a trial. But I have seen “public evidence” evaporate in these cases. Case in point is Randy Weaver or Richard Jewel. In both cases the government and the media made both of those men look like “terrorists”. If they could have been conveniently assassinated before having any kind of a hearing would the truth have come out? It’s the precedent that’s the most important thing, and that’s what gets lost in looking at specific cases like Al Alwaki. As you said, that kind of power shouldn’t belong to a single man or woman.

          • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

            Awalaki made himself look like a traitor to the general public, the government be damned.

            • Liberty Vids

              Actually the media made him look like a traitor. The media made Richard Jewel look like a terrorist. The media made Randy Weaver look like a hatemongering killer. The media made the Branch Davidians look like a dangerous child killing doomsday cult. Maybe Al Awlaki was a traitor. Maybe he wasn’t. But it’s not enough to find someone guilty via the media and then execute him through extra-judicial killing. Considering how I don’t trust the media, that’s not the kind of America I want to live in.

              • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

                In 2009, wasn’t he a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda?

                I mean, doesn’t that qualify as treason?

                • Anonymous

                  We have absolutely no need to invoke treason in his case. Besides, treason is an act of betrayal made while still portraying yourself as being on the side you commit that act against. It requires a very strong case. I’m not even certain who has standing to bring the charge, other than the military.

                  Benedict Arnold was a very successful leader of men during the Revolution. But he allowed himself to be corrupted, and while still maintaining his leadership role as a General in the Continental Army, committed an act of treason.

                  Awlaki left the US to become an enemy combatant. That’s an entirely different concept, and it trumps all other associations and prior commitments, as far as his validity as a military target is concerned.

                • http://escapingmediocrity.wordpress.com Natassia

                  Ah, I see. Forget treason. It doesn’t matter in this case. What matters is that he became an enemy combatant.

                • Anonymous

                  Well, that’s a rational analysis. The Supremes could say otherwise, if it comes before them.

  • Anonymous

    Can someone help me here? If the USA has NOT declared war on militant jihadists, which I do not think they have, then his death could be deemed unconstitutional? I am being serious and only serious inquiries please!

    • Anonymous

      Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution – “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

    • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

      3seven’s article is good, but you should also look up the original text of the two AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) acts signed while Bush was in office. They have some open-ended items that means we will track them all down and defeat them.

      As long as they do not sue for peace, and continue to ignore our requests to stand down, we are at war.

    • Anonymous

      I should add that the AUMF fulfills congress’ role in the Constitution, as a declaration of war. It doesn’t matter what the act is called, or how the partisans spin it.

  • Anonymous

    Scoop, is it “Pile-On-Cain” day? He’s inexperienced at being dissected in the public eye & that is definitely a hurdle for him to overcome. He’s made some errors & will continue to make errors. I guess maybe you’re trying to get them out before the opposition does, but for cryin’ out loud… Most of your page is dedicated to spotlighting Herman Cain’s verbal misques. We Conservatives are going to have to acknowledge that we aren’t looking for a Messiah – most of us already have One. We need a human who is up to the task of POTUS. Mr. Cain is not perfect & we’re not going to find anyone who says everything perfectly. That candidate doesn’t exist. Let’s just not eat each other up in these primaries so that NO ONE is electable!

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

      Sorry, I don’t control when items make the news. And also, his comments about Perry and the n-word rock wasn’t an ‘error’. He willfully made those comments.

      And regarding this post, it’s just part of the vetting. He put himself on the record and I’ve also updated with his most recent comments on the issue. People can decide what they will.

      But if you believe that candidates shouldn’t be vetted, even candidates that we like, then you are probably at the wrong place.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t really disagree with anything you’ve said – it was really just an observation & at the moment I wrote the comment, 5 or 6 stories about Cain were on the Home Page. I agree that he stepped in it with his comments about Perry. I also agree that he stepped in it with some of his “foreign policy” statements/ignorance. I’m not even 100% sure this is who I’m supporting at the moment. Of course I want our guy or gal vetted! I just don’t want our side to continually chew up & spit out every candidate. My only point was that no matter who we end up with, he/she will have some issues. (I.e. Perry/Immigration, Romney/Romneycare & global warming, Sarah/Leaving Gov & high negatives, Cain/Inexperience in politics, Gingrich/global warming & healthcare, Christie/Immigration, healthcare, etc.) We just have to decide what we can live with. I feel pretty sure that most of our candidates would eat Barry for lunch. My goal is the same as yours – get our country back with the right leader! I love your site & have sent many of my friends here. So I guess you’re stuck with me :)

  • Anonymous

    Cain told the crowd that he fully supported Barack Obama’s decision to strike Anwar al-Awlaki.

    Cain’s presser at TeaCon Midwest

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/02/video-cains-presser-at-teacon-midwest/

    RS, you know more about the hotair site than I do. Maybe you can check this out.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Skinner/100000598231323 Brian Skinner

      good catch. This proves my contention that Herman Cain did not know who Anwar Awlaki was when that guy asked him that question.

      • Anonymous

        I’m hoping RS can get confirmation on this, but it wouldn’t matter if it’s factual. Cain would say it was taken out of context or misconstrued as he does with every flip flop.

    • Anonymous

      RS, Thanks for verification on his comment. I’m happy he flip flopped in this case, but that is not unusual for him. Bottom line on all his flip flops is he has to wrong on 50% of them. Batting .500 would be great in baseball, but sucks in running this country.

      • http://fishygov.wordpress.com FishyGov

        What’s Obama batting william?

        • Anonymous

          He strikes out every time he comes up to bat, but replacing him with another loser won’t win the game for the country.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve read you a number of times and your animus toward Cain is certainly evident. Given your record, it can be assumed that a a real conservative in the Presidential GOP lineup would be off your voting list. And I say this because Cain is one of the few candidates willing to attack the tax structure. It is fair to say that you would enable another RINO to double down on the onerous progressive tax system through the Tax Code.

            Aside from stating how to deal with 50% of workers paying no taxes, I will restate to you what you failed to respond to previously:

            You have not proven that he’s (Cain) incorrect. You have only proven that he has yet to answer for it. There’s no disputing the fact that 9% of a SS check means less money than 0%. No argument from me there. On a small amount of income, 9% is a lot. Let’s just hope he clarifies. What you have proven, however, is how much a mess taxation and it’s unintended consequences have for the population as a whole.

            Personally I am unwilling to “kick the can further down the road” because someone screams that he now has to pay 9% where before he paid nothing. I hope you can acknowledge how self-serving a position that is when the whole country is reeling under trillions in deficits and trillions more in debt and because of it business is grinding to a halt, uncertainty leads to malaise in growth… I mean the negatives are unending.

            Would you be happy if SS was increased 11% then taxed back at 9%? You’d have a little left over even. That’s a solution, is it not?

            Sorry… slagging Cain on this is wrongheaded IMO. The stakes are too high to keep things as they are.

            Again what is your better solution?

            • Anonymous

              You have not proven me incorrect on my comments about Cain throwing the people that was forced to participate in our present system for close to half a century under the bus. The stakes with the morons plan are much too high for the millions of people that will be forced to redistribute their wealth to the wealthy. Since the phony claims his plan is revenue neutral, where do you think the huge savings for the wealthy will come from?

              Again, prove me wrong on my facts. That challenge goes out to you and anyone else, including Cain.

              I’m not running for the presidency so I’m not expected to come up with a better solution, but for sure it wouldn’t be a plan to redistribute money from the people who for half a century paid into this system and in many cases barely survives just to give to the wealthy. For you to think this is right is self serving.

              People supporting Obama also feared the truth, just as you do with cain.

              • Anonymous

                Here my friend … brush up on the “redistribution of wealth” make the rich pay nonsense. The rich are not responsible for the poor being poor.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ&feature=player_embedded

                You are poor in a system already geared toward you with SS entitlements… the very thing you want to keep, yet you are obviously unhappy with it because it’s not enough. What I don’t like is dishonesty… the kind of dishonesty that blames “the rich” for your situation. The honest thing to contemplate is rationalizing the system and putting it on a sustainable and sound footing. Because SS will go bankrupt by 2037. There’s no shame in being poor on SS. What’s a shame is thinking it can continue as is. You reject real solutions to it’s change… and change it must.

                The deficit, much less the debt, can’t be covered by the “soak the rich” narrative you hold so dear. The fact is… something has to be done. And freeing up market forces out of the hands of high spending entitlement progressives who infect the economy now is the only option. And conservatives who tackle the SS issue have said repeatedly that SS won’t be touched for those in or entering the system. That’s the Ryan plan.

                • Anonymous

                  ” The deficit, much less the debt, can’t be covered by the “soak the rich” narrative you hold so dear. ”

                  I’m totally against raising the taxes on the rich.

                  I don’t support redistribution either direction.

                  As to being unhappy with SS for me, I’m happy with it, but that’s because I worked until I was 68 to have enough to live on. I’m unhappy with a plan that would steal the money I earned by paying into it for 52 years.

                  Sadly there are millions of people who need every penny they receive on SS and still have to sacrifice either food or medicine, and that is the people you want to take from. That is extremely selfish of you.

                  No I wouldn’t be happy if they increased SS by 11% and then taxed it at 9%.

                  Leave the system alone for the people that are in it or about to enter into it.

                  What does the Ryan Plan , which I support, have to do with the moronic Cain plan. Cain’s plan affects people on SS in a very negative way.

                  As to the clip, I have watched it and shared with others. And 1000s of others

                  During the time I worked they increased the SS tax 21 times and just like you, I said the money won’t be there for me when I retire.

                  Also you comment that I blame the rich for my situation, that is false. The wealthy provided the jobs for me for 52 years that allows me to get by.

                  I’m just against a pizza guy wanting to take any of the money I earned toward SS to advance his political career.

                • Anonymous

                  William, thanks for your response …Ok… good… we are on the same page in a number of things. I have heard Cain proclaim that people like you in your situation would not lose what they have. So this is where my disagreement with you lies. I see so many clips and soundbites and couldn’t find where he said it however… hopefully it will crop up again.

                  It’s your “redistribution” talk that led me to draw conclusions… particularly where you talk of the rich in this comment: “The stakes with the morons plan are much too high for the millions of people that will be forced to REDISTRIBUTE their wealth to the wealthy.” (emphasis mine)

                  That’s a false premise. And it’s used ALL THE TIME by the cultural warriors. Not taxing someone is NOT redistributing wealth. Similar to those who say a tax cut is a tax expenditure. This thinking is only in the mind of a liberal. A tax cut only becomes a revenue problem when spending is not reduced to match tax cuts. I’m all for personal retirement accounts like the ones proposed by Cain. These are the solutions that will work, and are the very same basis of our Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs, similar to your 401Ks)

                  The very fact that taxes have to be raised, or lowered PROVE that the SS scheme is NOT a trust account… that SS is covered by general revenues. This is the cardinal sin of runaway governments. I’m from Canada… and we have the same problem, it’s just not as serious yet as in the US, but it’s coming.

                  So in short… something must be done and Cain, instead of being anathema to you, should be a hero… because he is the only one consistently talking about it with solutions. And I do think you are mistaken… he is not touching the system for those already there or just entering.

                • Anonymous

                  Have you done the math instead of listening to Cain? Think for yourself.

                  I’ll give you the info.

                  My annual income is 19,500.
                  My annual expenditures are 19,000 approx.
                  My 19,500 annual income exempts me from paying income tax since it is all from SS and is less than 25,000. I’ve posted info from SSA previously.

                  How would imposing a Federal Sales Tax on me not hurt me, and millions of other people?

                  He also wants to impose a 9% Federal income tax on the 19,500

                  A 9% Federal Income Tax would take off 1755.00 dollars from my annual income of 19,500 leaving me with 17,745. That wouldn’t cover my expenditures and no, I shouldn’t have to lower my expenditures because Cain wants to change the system for the people that were forced to participate in it for close to half a century.

                  The 9 % sales tax on the remaining 17,745.00 I would have after the federal income tax would come to 1597.05.

                  My total taxes would be 3352.05, where there was no tax before.

                  Would that hurt you if it applied to you?

                  Well it applies to millions of people on SS.

                  Don’t take my word for it, or Cains.

                  Use the calculator on your computer and do the math yourself.

                  People try to say I would be compensated for the 3352.00 annually I would pay out by the lower prices I would have to pay. That’s hogwash. When we had 4.00 per gallon gas, food prices sharply increased because of higher transportation costs at all phases. When the gas prices sharply declined, the food prices stayed at the higher rate. It’s naive to think they will lower the prices when their expenses drop. They just increase their profit.

                  When the commodity prices, including gasoline sharply increased, food prices almost immediately shot up.

                  Now gasoline prices for the month have declined by 12.42% for the month and food commodity prices have also sharply dropped. Corn has dropped from a high of 799.00 hundred bushel to 587.99 hundred bushel in the past few months and prices haven’t dropped at the grocery store. Same with other food products.

                  Something needs to be done to reform taxes, but this is not the answer.

                  Taking money from the wealthy and giving to people that never worked is one place where they could reform the tax system.

                  The Earned Income Tax Credit that gives people a refund of many times what they paid into income tax is wrong. It rewards people that only worked a short time during the year at the expense of the wealthy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Skinner/100000598231323 Brian Skinner

    I don’t think Herman Cain knew who Anwar Alwaki was. If the man explained that he was the guy in Yemen making bombs overseas he would have answered differently.

    • Anonymous

      I respectfully disagree. Cain will say anything he thinks will make him more electable at the time. Also if he didn’t know who Anwar Alwaki was, that says a lot about him. For pizza call Cain. For president do your research. In 2008 people voted for a pig in a poke and ended up with a skunk.

      • http://fishygov.wordpress.com FishyGov

        I wouldn’t have know who he was either unless you said, “Anwar Alwaki, the leader of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula”. Without their descriptive titles it’s just alphabet soup to me with these lesser operatives.

        • Liberty Vids

          1) You’re not running for POTUS so it doesn’t matter if you know or not.

          2) Treason is treason. It shouldn’t matter if this was a “lesser operative”. Is the standard going to be “assassination of U.S. citizens is okay but only if you’re high enough up the food chain?” When Herman Cain was asked about this TWICE he was told each time that this was a citizen that the president said should be killed. Common sense would say that the allegations against the target would be serious.

          3) So far Awlaki hasn’t been proven to be anything. All we’ve got are some allegations and some vague internet postings. There’s no more evidence against Awlaki now then there was against him when he was being invited to have dinner at the Pentagon.

  • Anonymous

    It would have been much more difficult to try and arrest Awlaki and endangered U.S. lives in the process. And I could only imagine the media circus that would follow. No, when he decided to flee the country and actively fight against the US government in my mind he renounced his citizenship. It was best to drop a bomb on his head and be done with it. This sends a message to all the terrorists we have the means and the will to get you no matter where you are.

    And for the record I still like Cain even if I disagree with him on this.

    • Anonymous

      I think all that proves is that he can be charged with treason. So if feels or thinks that you or I have taken up arms against the Gov. then he can come shoot me? That would mean that everybody who owns a fire arm could come under scrutiny. No? Just askin’

  • Anonymous

    He’s a Terrorist because my Government said he’s one and we don’t need trials to subject that evidence to scrutiny

    • Anonymous

      Nope. Not in a war.

      You go over and interview all the players so we can have the sort of perfect world scenario your statements imply we have. That way all the US Citizens can be processed one way, and all the actual Iraqi citizens one way, and all the Afghanis in Afghanistan another way, and all the illegal alien fighters, yet another way.

      Then figure out how to tell a bomb how to tell the difference.

  • Anonymous

    This guy is dead and good riddance, but it’s sure weird how nobody here trusts Obama to spend money but you all trust him implicitly when it comes to the targeting and killing of an American citizen. Obama provided no evidence, no due process, Al-Awaki was not on a battlefiel­d and he was not in the act of committing a crime. Since all the evidence is secret and he was never charged in any crimes, all we can assume was Al-Awlaki was killed for hate speech. So everyone here is comfortable give Obama legally unlimited power with no checks and balances to target for killing US citizens? You give any President the power to do this he is no longer a President, he’s a King.

    • Josh

      I, for one, do not trust Obama to ride a tricycle the right way. I do, however, trust the military leaders as they are close to the battlefield and put themselves and their men in harm’s way. If they decided that Al Quacko had to die, then I have to agree with them. If we don’t want this to happen anymore, we need to pull out of the Middle East. Why are we in Libya again? I was just wondering…

  • Anonymous

    And for everybody saying “When he took up arms with Al Qaeda he lost his right to citizenship” you’re wrong. The State Department was forced to announce there are no laws on the books saying the government can revoke US citizenship based on affiliation with an overseas terrorist group.

    • Anonymous

      Oh, he can stay a “citizen” if he wants. It’s just that as an enemy combatant, he gets the additional “right” to be killed for his cause, as an act of war.

      That takes precedence.

      You can go read his far-flung body parts a miranda warning or something.

  • Anonymous

    Remember back when Bush was criticized for detaining US citizens without due process? Ha! Obama now assassinates them without due process. Hope and Change!

    • Anonymous

      But hey, no detaining!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BS3BDRR775GCSX5YFUL7ZBAU44 waterstar

    PANDERING, FLIP FLOPPING LIAR!!!!!

    NO CHANGE WITH HERMAN CAIN!!!!!!!

  • Liberty Vids

    Herman Cain got this right, before he knuckled to political correctness and got this wrong. It’s funny how SOME conservatives who don’t trust Obama to run healthcare or fix the economy, trust Obama to be judge, jury and executioner. Are teocons so full of amnesia that they forget the Obama administration recently called them “terrorists” have they forgotten the MIAC reports that called people who support the constitution “terrorists”? If the administration can, without any hearing, just put someone on an “assassination list” then what’s going to happen when it comes for YOU?

  • Jack Bryan

    I encourage everyone here to read the following two articles:

    Ron Paul editorial in the NY Daily News yesterday
    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/10/02/2011-10-02_an_unconstitutional_killing.html

    Kevin Williamson in National Review from last year on Awlaki
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278845/assassin-chief-kevin-d-williamson

    IMHO Awlaki, who or what he represented, means nothing. The way in which he was killed means everything. If one looks to history, whether it be the Civil War, WWI, or WWII there is always the attempt by the executive to circumvent civil liberties and the constitution. It is doubly dangerous that this has gone on since 9/11 due to the open-ended nature of the GWOT. Considering that the current administration has already declared that so-called “right-wingers” are a greater terror danger than your “Islamo-facists” I don’t see how anyone here can be celebrating this latest travesty.

    • Anonymous

      Honestly Jack it’s not a travesty, it’s a matter of treason. However, is it a move for political points by Obama?? Maybe. But IMHO…..Awlaki, gave up his citizenship in two instances.

      1. When he left the USA to be a leader for Al-Qaeda.

      2. The fact Awlaki called out attacks on our citizens several times, is no different than let’s say someone from the 60’s deciding to join the USSR and attempt several attacks on our country/citizens. Back then, do really think they would of wanted to put such person to trial!?

      He joined the enemy, therefore he IS the enemy and no longer a US citizen. PERIOD!!

      • Jack Bryan

        Again, this isn’t about Awlaki. He’s dead and no one will mourn him. The question is whether the President should have the power to unilaterally assassinate anyone, much less an American citizen. If you read the Williamson article above you’ll note that even Reagan signed an executive order banning assassinations (presumably of foreigners). The fact that the definition of “terrorist” could really mean anybody who disagrees with the govt, that should give you some pause.

    • Anonymous

      Well, we typically start by saying something like, “about damn time!”, followed by “God bless the men and women of our military, and thank them for their service.” Then we drink a toast to them, and have another round celebrating the latest entrant to hell. I’d even high-five the President on this one.

      That’s not how everyone does it, but it works for lots of us, so now you know.

      Ron Paul refuses to learn about the origins of al Qaeda. Based on that alone, he’s not qualified to render an opinion worthy of publication.

      • Jack Bryan

        And as usual you’re totally missing the point. Perhaps you might change your mind when the govt assassinates somebody you care about, which now that the precedent is set will happen inevitably.

        • Anonymous

          Oh, I’d say it’s highly evitable. No one I care about is trying to kill us.

          Moving inexplicably from the class of “people trying to kill us” to the class of “people who aren’t” when referencing the ethics of wartime acts is just one example of the flawed logic here. I won’t bother with all the rest.

          • Jack Bryan

            Awlaki was a traitor. Nobody’s disputing that. Here’s the question: why didn’t they strip Awlaki of his citizenship first? Last year Rep. Charles Dent (R-PA) had a bill that would’ve done just that and got no support. Why? Because they wanted to assassinate Awlaki while he still had his citizenship to set the precedent.

            • Anonymous

              Well, if you’re going to pretend to know what they were thinking, you should just go all the way and declare they want to kill us all, take our wallets, and turn our homes into their own private hunting reserve. Maybe throw in something about what they want with our blood. Might as well make a bestseller story while you’re at it.

              Fact is, we don’t need some law or amendment giving permission to “strip citizenship” from enemy combatants. Enemy combatants get killed. Their rights as citizens can be enforced after they fulfill their duty to die for their side in combat.

              It’s not our fault that the Constitution is a document to protect living people who want to be here, and not trying to kill us. The dead have to fend for themselves.

              • Jack Bryan

                The Constitution and Bill Of Rights is to protect we the people against them the government. It’s supposed to make life difficult for those in power. In our system the means are just as or even more important than the ends. I feel free to speculate on the motive in this instance because history has shown that this govt will freely trample all over your rights to achieve supposedly noble ends. In reality I believe those in power are only concerned with one thing: enlarging and enhancing their own power, and usually at your expense.

                • Anonymous

                  I agree with the last part, but I don’t think we need to know or care about motive in how they act. We just need to put them in a situation where they are compelled to act wisely.

                  Not letting them go after enemy combatants is counter to that plan, in my opinion.

                • http://twitter.com/Hozee2 Hozee

                  Jack, I have been into it with friends since this happened. I simply asked them if they thought that Hitler ran around saying we should kill all the Jews prior to taking power. The foundation must be constructed before the structure is built. No one is saying that this man was a saint or even anything but despicable. That isn’t the point. The point is that when you agree with circumventing the rights of one, you lose your argument against circumventing the rights of all. It is not a stretch of the imagination to see that what happened in Nazi Germany to the Jews is showing similarities in America in respect to Muslims today. My question to everyone that thinks the assassination is justified is simple. Who’s next and what will be the next excuse?

    • Anonymous

      Who cares about that scumbag? You honestly care for one minute about a terrorist wanker that got smoked by modern technology? I say,” Yipee!”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OEC4AE3R37J4IMONXVUA7T6LRI Thomas O'Harris

    Nazi fucks…

    • Anonymous

      Aren’t you supposed to be on WallStreet protesting with the other nutjobs?

  • Anonymous

    Change Al Awhacki to John Dillinger, the one from the FBI most wanted list, then bring em in dead or alive and what do you have, a dead criminal (conspirator). That Herman Cain wasn’t sure of who he was being asked about in may, now he knows, and gave his answer on saturday in light of what he has learned in the mean time, is no flip-flop it just attests to Cains sense of fairness IMO.

    • cabensg

      I have no quarrel with Cain’s changed view of killing the rat but I do expect him to get with the program as far as interviews with the liberal press. Number 1 never accept their premise in a question. If they can’t or you can’t verify it don’t answer it. This is what happened with the stupid rock story about Perry from 30 years ago. It was an outright lie and Cain answered (as all good Republicans do) like it was gospel. It’s time for these candidates to start vetting the press instead of the other way around.

  • cabensg

    If the treasonous rat had been on American soil where he could have been arrested then arrest him and give him due process, but he wasn’t so I agree with it being done after the fact but it presents a slippery slope, one I wouldn’t trust this regime or any politician with. If you get my drift.

  • cabensg

    Jeez Jack, I can understand why you’d think this way with this regime but I think this is just a little over the top. We know Obama’s evil and his plans are evil but even Obama knows when it won’t fly and unless your an Awlaki there ain’t gonna be no assassinations…I hope.

    • Jack Bryan

      Sorry, did you mean to reply to me?

  • Anonymous

    Cain is wrong. If an American citizen moves to a foreign land and takes up arms against his country he loses the rights normally afforded to a US citizen. Now, if he voluntarily turns himself in, then I agree he should be given those rights. In cases like this, where he failed to do so and continued to wage war against America, he has to face the consequences of death.

    • http://twitter.com/Hozee2 Hozee

      I’m just a stupid country hick….you mind telling me exactly where you find this in the constitution? Please tell me just when this law was passed? Anything, anything at all so you don’t sound so full of crap.

  • Anonymous

    Herman Cain is all over the map on national defense and foreign policy. He is extremely weak in these areas. I have emailed his campaign with suggestions to help him improve. These weaknesses will sink his campaign if he does not get a clear picture and cogent national defense and foreign policy platform. He has already bombed when Chris Wallace asked him about the Palestinian “right of return.” (Admittedly, Chris Wallace asked this question to play “gotcha,” and I called Wallace on it). The point is that the MSM will be looking to make Mr. Cain look bad again in this area. I encourage you all to send Mr. Cain a message and encourage him to do his homework.

  • Anonymous

    So I wonder if the Administration stripped Awlaki’s citizenship and declared him a traitor and charged him with treason? I doubt it, but it could have happened. That would have solved the problem out right. I’m glad that Awlaki’s dead but it is has now raised that question. And more importantly what is the Administrations response to questions of unconstitutional actions (although they have ignored others) of breaking the law in that citizens are afforded the right of a speedy and fair trial (yes, I know he was in Yemen). They offer that to actual non-citizen terrorists in GITMO but not to Awlaki? If they had him pin-pointed how come he couldn’t have been detained (and perhaps killed in the ensuing firefight)?

    Does anyone know who has the power to strip a citizen of their citizenship?

  • Anonymous

    Why do we as serious voters care to hear how a candidate changed his position, because he is now running for president? It seems that some voters just want to hear their candidates change their positions to make them feel warm and cozy. If a person is on record saying that they believe a certain way, and then they flip-flop, why does that make their current stance authentic?

  • http://twitter.com/Bobby_Breeze Bobby P.

    I’m the reporter who interviewed Herman Cain in May. You can see the FULL interview with Cain and Gov. Gary Johnson in re: al-Awlaki on abovetopsecret.com –

    http://media.abovetopsecret.com/media/7935/The_Truth_Is_Viral_Premier_Episode/

    I also interviewed citizens on the street in Charlotte North Carolina – now this was back in May remember – and interestingly, I could not find a single Obama supporter who would go on camera. Those who did however, all agreed that Obama’s contract on al-Awlaki was unconstitutional.

    OP, please incorporate the above link to the full interview into your story, crediting Bob Powell reporting for Abovetopsecret.com. Thank you.