Tonight Herman Cain spoke at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition and then answered a few questions from a panel. I’ve split the Speech from the Q&A and both are below.
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.
He sounds very, very Presidential!!
he is a PROFESSIONAL speaker .
He is definitely on a roll.
I haven’t listened yet, and I already know I like what he said.
Hey, y’all, that’s just a little bit of humor to liven up the place.
Now that Herman Cain’s a contender, it seems the ankle biters are giving Sarah Palin a rest.
Well, she deserves it, since she has been pulling a heavy load and requited herself very well with her success… she’s still standing and talking and making a decisive difference in the public discourse.
So, now it’s Herman Cain’s turn to stir up the snakes in the grass ankle biters.
That’s nice, but Palin needs to be fighting to ensure Romney doesn’t get the nomination-he’s a disgrace and must be stopped
That’s nice, but…
Who has suggested that Palin is not “fighting,” as you wrote.
I trust her political instincts; the same instincts that kicked butt in Alaska… in her OWN party no less.
However, I get your tacit and deeper substantive point, on which we have agreement, I think.
Name names, clarify issues, ask, no DEMAND substantive responses to specifically articulated bullet point items.
When Romney responds that what he wrote in his book about this or that issue is what he has ALWAYS said, he is obfuscating, some call it practicing “taqiyya” politically.
Some call it flip-flopping. I call it versatility of conviction.
I call it a “loser”, or “standing for nothing” or being a “douche-bag”, so to speak.
If Romney is the nominee the majority of Conservatives will stay home and the party will fracture like Joe Biden at a press conference.
So to speak…
Yes, there are many ways of saying it.
I like “versatility of convictions” because the hoity toity multisyllabic sound of it helps the nose up elite get in touch with the reality based perspective of the hoi polloi , the rest of us.
However, if the rest of the Republican candidates stumble, and if Palin stays out, and the choice is 4 more years of BHObama’s “fundamentally transformed America” into a collectivist commune, I’m voting Romney… for ONLY 4 years.
I don’t vote for RINOs, sorry Charlie or Art.
Cain or Perry will beat obama as will Romney, except I thought we all learned our lessons after that loser McLame. Enough with the mush-head phony, establishment GOP types.
I can’t tolerate 4 years of Romney because its not that far off from obama. If obama wins, it will be due to the failure of the GOP to nominate a Conservative and then we’re all lost anyway, so put on your gas mask and take to the streets.
However, as is said about atheists and fox holes.
Just as there really are NO atheists in fox holes when you’ve been shot and the blood is oozing out and you look up at your buddy who’s trying to stop the bleeding until a medic arrives and you say, Oh God…,
… so there really are NO stay-at-homers who care for the future of America who stay home, but instead they go to the voting place and when you look down at the vote sheet and see only Romney’s name listed, and you look up and say, Oh God, bless America, again, please…
…and you vote for America, and God’s blessing, again, regardless of which RHINO’s name is listed.
No, in my experience most call for their Mother first.
If you think that Perry’s conservative. . I may need to know what your definition of Conservative is. CAIN. . all the way.
You may not like Perry for one reason or another. But that does not mean that Perry is not a conservative.
Mark Levin has come out and said that Perry is a “strong conservative.”
Michael Reagan has said that Rich Perry is the most Reaganesque candidate running for president.
Favoring illegals may work in Texas, but when I am paying full tuition for my CITIZEN daughter to attend college in Texas while illegals get a hefty break – – – well that spells RINO to me.
What break are they getting?
Illegal immigrants receive a tax subsidy of $23,000 a year (using the University of Texas as a baseline) or $115k all together if you consider that most students take more than 4 years to graduate. College is not free. In-state tuition is subsidized by the state, while out-of-state tuition is the full cost of attendance. When somebody attends a school on in-state tuition, that means that tax dollars are being sent to the school to cover the full cost of attendance.
Unfortunately, I’m forced to agree. I despised, and continue to despise, McCain. This last presidential election, I was going to NOT VOTE, because I liked Obama, just as little. When I did vote, I voted for PALIN, and I made that abundantly clear to anyone that had anything to say about it. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY, and that distaste for him is so deep, and extends across so many levels, there is no vice presidential candidate that could change that, not Palin, not West, not Rubio, not Bachmann, not Cain. The VP really can’t do crap that the president doesn’t let them do, because the president has ultimate control over all policy. If it comes down to these bad choices, Obama or Romney, I’ll just be staying home. For a while, I really developed a hatred for this country for voting for Obama, and it took a long time to get over that. Giving me a choice between bad and worse, again, only sets the stage for it to return.
Vote vs. don’t vote…
If Romney is the Republican nominee, don’t think of it as a vote for Romney in the general election… think of it as a vote for God’s blessing of America, again, to stop the idiocy of BHObama’s vision of America as a “collectivist commune” of equal individuals vs. individual excellence.
In that sense, Romney, or ALL RHINO’s are merely political bumps in the road.
You leave them behind.
Stop with the gibberish.
The answer is NO! Conservatives aren’t carrying establishment weight. Give us a Conservative nominee or we stay home and the party gets fractured.
We’ll then mount a campaign to impeach obama and stop everything he does with the Senate and House.
The answer is YES!
Why don’t “you” stop with the gibberish.
Are you a political novice or an experienced operative whose been fighting on the front lines like Ralph Reed of Faith and Freedom Coalition?
Why don’t you tell him about your wisdom about “or we stay home and the party gets fractured” nonsense.
So, stay home and pout.
You’re 100% my way or NO WAY is the loser way.
Dig in the dirt.
Do the wise thing, not the what-makes-me-feel-righteous nonsense of the stay-at-homer.
THAT is the way of the weak, not the strong in spirit.
Think about M_J_S.
Your animus is not productive, it’s an example of shallow thinking about political realities.
You are a typical establishment moron.
Either we get a Conservative on the ticket or the party and the country is lost. Period. Electing a RINO will do nothing to change our country’s situation.
Typical shallow response…
When someone is losing the debate, they slip and slide into the shallow end of the intellectual pool and use “moron” or some other nonsense word.
Since I’m a good teacher, by nature, not by profession, let’s try it one more time.
The issue is NOT vote FOR Romney over the other candidates.
The issue is, “if”… “if”… “if”… Romney is elected as the challenger to BHObama, vote for the RHINO.
Do NOT vote for the one who has already revealed that HIS vision for America is a “collectivist commune” with the “individual” relegated to a simple “cog-in-the-wheel” tool of the state.
I’m moving on for conversation with substance, not whining.
Not very smart M J S. There won’t be anything left of this country if you allow Obama another term. I get you but be wise.
Not very smart Dax. So we should delay the inevitable with a Romney administration? There will not be HARDLY anything left under Romney either.
We will pick up seats in the House and take the Senate. We can shut down obama if not throw him out.
The point is being missed. The majority of the GOP, some 75%, do not want Romney the RINO, they want a Conservative.
The media will turn on Romney soon enough.
You are EXACTLY right. When people like Art say “take one for the team and if Romney is the nominee vote for him”, I say for what? Because he’s not obama? That’s not enough anymore.
Romney will DO NOTHING fundamentally different. Sure the economy will get better, but it will do that with very simple changes. What about the bureaucracy? Downsizing government? Stopping spending, etc, etc. The BIG STUFF?
Romney won’t do any of that, so WTF? The point is we have to ensure ROMNEY DOESN’T GET THE NOMINATION!
If the country’s going down, I’m not going to be a part of helping it.
Poor choice of words…
At least use the ” ” quote marks correctly.
You know I never used those words.
I expected substance from you M_J_S, not error.
So, stay home and pout… and vote for BHObama by staying home.
I’m moving on to conversations of substance, not whining.
Why don’t you work on wearing pants and stop living in your mother’s basement Art.
Conservatives are not settling for Romney if he is the nominee. THEY WILL stay home.
Yes, we will stay home in 2012. I’m not afraid of another 4 years of O, although it would not be good. But Romney would cause a rift in the GOP that may not ever heal.
With Romney winning the GOP nomination and of course losing to O, there will be serious grumblings for a third party.
The split must come sooner or later.
“We understand now, we’ve been made to understand, and to embrace the understanding… that who we are *is* who we were. We desperately need your strength and wisdom to triumph over our fears, our prejudices, ourselves. Give us the courage to do what is right. And if it means civil war? Then let it come. And when it does, may it be, finally, the last battle of the American Revolution.”
— John Quincy Adams, movie: Amistad
Amen to that.
I’ve served in uniform before, I’ll do it again.
…and for that matter, there’s no need of a uniform. I may be only one, but I’m one more they’ll have to kill to stop me fighting for my country. These @#$%^&* commies have been working under the radar for the last 60-80 years to destroy this country and everything it stands for. Now they believe the end is in sight; that they have all but achieved victory – and they may be right – but that last 10 percent is the real b1tch. When the SHTF, they’ll see just what happens when real, patriotic Americans are backed into a corner.
You are right on target, MJS, and there is no need to pipe dream alley of HOPING for change under a Romney admin. If that man is nominated, I will not allow myself to go against my integrity as a TRUE conservative. We need drastic house-cleaning measures in place and a President who carries a large sweeping broom to get the job done, and not someone who will be willing to continue the same old process of moving dirt around to hide in the corner just to present the illusion (from a delusional disposition) that things are fine, no way, no how, and not on my watch. I am EXTREMELY frustrated by the media establishment and RINOs who pontificate and think that they are intellectually competent enough to pick winners and losers, without listening to the voices of many Americans struggling to make ends meet. Come down off your stomps all of you supporters for Mr. Jekyll and Hyde Romney and stop fracturing our damn party that may jeopardize our great nation of trying our best to endure another four years of Obamacare or, yes, you are absolutely correct, ROMNEYCARE. Can’t have it, folks!! The bleeding has to stop now. Good night and keep the faith and the fight, MJS! Our country is depending on it. Well, one last thing, it is critically serious , my friends, and frankly speaking, if your genetic-infused arrogance is clouding your judgment, you may wish to reevaluate your position and how it will evolve in a rapidly changing world where I am certain this mentality and attitude will be in perilous conflict. Think about, and say no to Romney…NOW!!!!
Man, you’ve got your head screwed on straight.
We need more fighting Conservatives, Levin-ites like you and me, to take it to not only the other side, but the establishment that is SUPPOSED be on “our side”.
Fight the good fight of the faith.
Gotta agree with M_J_S on no way will I vote GOP regardless of who the candidate is. Romney is just another career politician who will be (like all presidents for decades now) a mere puppet-head for the lobby/special interest groups who put him in office. To me, Cain is the only “real” candidate I see in this race. Got his own money, speaks (while yes, he does make rookie mistakes, not as smooth as his career politician competition) straightforward, he’s charismatic and an excellent communicator, and his is also willing to admit if he made a mistake and correct it/himself, and … if he is lacking in full knowledge in any given subject (i.e: foreign affairs) he admits he needs to study the situation more and surrounds himself with knowledgeable people to learn from. It would be 13 months before he got in office, he is very intelligent, I believe he is plenty capable of being well informed on any and all subjects a good president need to be by then.
How can you claim that Romney is a career politician?
He has been in the private sector his entire life and was an elected official for only 4 years.
You make a point, I admit – he IS less “career” than the majority of the candidates, yes, in terms of years in the game. But when I watch him and listen to him I hear the same old polished, measured rhetoric. I prefer a guy like Cain who has less polish, and more realism in his speech–rookie mistakes and all–and is not the groomed product of a family tradition of politics.
By the way, I am not in the tank for Romney.
In the past, I have said that I would never vote for him. Unfortunately, I may end up eating those words.
LOL, I appreciate your candor! One thing we can ALL say is that there is some spice and variety in this race … even if Cain is not nominated, he certainly brings some interest to the debates and gets everyone talking about nuts and bolts issues. Then you got Gingrich hardly involved in all the attacks, counterattacks, punches and blocks going on with all the others, focusing mostly on the need to bring the Obamanation era to an end … I admire that about him.
Cain is an inspirational speaker, unpolished as far as he is still on the learning curve in answering questions that he has to backtrack on to get the answer and has only the “9-9-9” plan as a starting point for his ‘nuts and bolts’ to get the economy back on the prosperity track.
I very much like Newt’s solid plans for the changes we need right now. I like his all inclusive energy plan. Doing away with the EPA and other depts in govt and regulations that have been crippling American businesses and workers.
Newt has the knowledge and intellect that he can use from day 1 of his presidency to reverse what the present occupant of the WH has done without having to do much studying on where to start and what to do. Something that the other candidates, especially Cain, don’t have.
Newt has not gotten involved in the squabbles that the others have because he knows that sticking to the issues with a real plan is what is important to us. He is smart enough to know that we need a solid adult leader who is well informed and well educated enough to make the sudden and relentless reforms in govt to turn back the Socialist/Marxist agenda that zerO has implemented that is taking this country down.
Newt would squash zerO in any debates right from the very start. Something that any of the other candidates would have to work very hard at doing because of their lack of knowledge and because they just couldn’t pin zerO’s ears to the wall as effectively as Newt could.
I think before the primaries start, we will see Newt rise to the top of the pack.
These kinds of forums only help us see more clearly who the strongest candidate is. I would like to see more of this kind of format to have each candidate be able to present themselves and their ideas at.
Thus far, it has been the Liberals who have been winning the GOP debates.
You make some good points. I like Newt a lot, too – for a lot of the same reasons you put forth. But you have to wonder if he’s even got a shot with being so far behind (so far) in the polls.
What would you say to a Romney Pres/Cain VP ticket? That would give Cain 4-8 years of the “experience” his critics claim disqualifies him as presidential material.
If Cain can learn to choose his words more carefully I think it might work.
They will go after Cain in the same way they did with Palin….. “How can we let someone with so little experience or knowledge be one heart beat away from the presidency.”
He better be a quick study so he does not give off the same vibes that Palin did.
Agreed. The past couple weeks his gaffs have cost him. Will be interesting to see how well he responds, learns, rebounds, and conducts himself over the next (I think absolutely crucial for him) month or so …
I feeling like Cain has the secret support of the Democrats and the left. H’e the obvious character foil for Obama. You don’t want some one as quick-witted and knowledgeable as Newt on the stage with bumbling, stuttering, bed-wetter Obama and you don’t want someone as tough and confident as Perry on the stage with spindly, chicago-stick man Obama.
No. Cain is the best choice the Left can make. Kindly, fatherly, doddering, forgetful, poor of speech… A nice man does not require “gutting” to defeat him. Just acknowledge his presence, excuse his grandiose, over-simplified, child-like solutions and vote for the tyrant. Cain is the means of his own defeat.
I am glad most conservatives are not like you.
Yes, we want a more conservative candidate than Romney. But getting rid of Obama has to win over your hurt feelings.
Romney in 2008 was endorsed by Mark Levin. Romney’s national chairman was Jim DeMint. Romney won the endorsement of Herman Cain.
In 2012, if Romney wins the nomination he will have the support of conservative leaders from every influential organization. He will again be endorsed by Levin, DeMint and Herman Cain. Romney will be endorsed by Rubio, Alan West and all of the Tea Party heroes in Congress.
Mitt Romney will also have the endorsement of Sarah Palin, who weeks ago admitted: “Could I vote for somebody like Mitt Romney. Yeah!”
2008 seems like a lifetime ago, and the endorsements were against McCain not for Romney I think.
And I’m glad most 6 year olds are more intelligent and mature, than you. You’re the idiot, if you think that voting for someone that is fundamentally the same as someone else is a change, and I’m fully aware of who Mark Levin endorsed. However, unlike you, I don’t vote for people, because voices from the TV and radio tell me to. I don’t need them, nor you, to tell me how to vote, or who to vote for. Romney is a RINO, just as bad as McCain, if not worse. He is an advocate of social medicine, just like Obama. He is a liar, just like Obama (if you look at his selective editing out of certain passages from his book). He’s a global warming extremist and cap-and-trade hawker, just like Obama. He loves playing kissy face with the psychotic Hodren. So does Obama. In fact, Obama loves playing slap and tickle with Holdren so much, he gave him a job. He flip-flops like a beached fish, just like KERRY. The Tea Party (of which I’m a member) opposes, him, too:
Believe me: your silly, ignorant-assed opinion and sarcasm matters only to stupid people [i.e.: YOU].
As for Palin, if she supports him, she’ll be holding her nose while she does it:
Again, I’m glad not every village idiot is like you. I, on the other hand, am not a milquetoast weakling like you are, and will fight to see the most Conservative candidate come through. I will work in campaigns, if necessary. You? You’ll keep being a stupid, stinking sheep, listening to what the voices on the radio tell you to do, and doing their commands. You’ll settle for whatever POS politician slides down the poop chute into your hands, and hold him up as your champion, even if it has no fundamental difference from the guy you claim you want out of office so bad.
Most conservatives will back Romney if he is the nominee, just like Reagan backed Nixon in 68 and 72.
If Reagan had encouraged conservatives to sit out those elections, Reagan never would have been able to win the presidency one decade later.
1: You don’t know “most” of anything. Unless you’re Doctor Who and have been to the future to see it, and have taken a scientific survey, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
2: Apparently you don’t learn very fast. I do quite clearly remember telling you that I don’t take marching orders from anyone, including Reagan. The only time I took orders from Reagan, it was because he was my Commander in Chief, ordering me to arm up and kill people, an order with which I cheerfully complied. Neither he, nor you, will tell me how, or when, to vote. If I do, or do not, vote, that’s my business. Furthermore, Romney is no Reagan. Reagan was the modern prototype of a True Conservative. Romney is nothing but a True RINO, and there’s nothing special about him, even in that regard.
You can vote for a baby killing (pro-“choice”), gay agenda loving (won’t sign promise to opposed gay marriage), socialist (RomneyCare, the creators of which were consulted to create ObamaCare), who embraces the Communist Manifesto demand for increased taxation of the rich (as he criticizes a flat, fair tax as being for “fatcats” [which would include him]). You can vote for Obama White, all you want. I couldn’t give two sh*ts. As for your asinine mentioning of Reagan, do you really think Reagan would support Little Lord Fauntleroy?:
“We don’t intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.”
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers. Don’t give up your ideals, don’t compromise, don’t turn to expediency — and don’t, for heaven’s sake, having seen the inner workings of the watch — don’t get cynical.”
“Let our banner proclaim… and if there are those who cannot subscribe to these [conservative] principles, then let them go their own way.” — President Ronald Reagan
You must be ignorant if you think I “told” you how to vote.
I simple stated that most conservatives will back the GOP nominee. DeMint will. Palin will. Cain will. Rubio will. Alan West will. Rush will. Levin will. Beck will.
You of course are free to vote for whomever you choose.
Nobody is “telling you” to do anything.
(Is your tin foil hat a little too tight?)
M J S, you and Jaynie 59 concern me. Both of your regular comments seem extremely negative to the point Im doubting that either of you are conservatives. Everyone on here don’t waste your time arguing with these two.
While I enjoyed the intellectual stimulation about substance with both, today with M_J_S and previously with Jaynie59 briefly, the point is eventually reached where there’s no there there to continue with substance.
The “tell” in this intellectual card game is the name calling and the innuendo without substance, that is, opinion without substance.
So, time to move on.
That’s right, we tell it like it is.
I won’t be questioned by some punk named “Dax”. Solid conservatives will not allow a Romney administration because it is what Newt describes as either shooting yourself in the head OR WOW we can cut off our own leg and vote for Romney.
What fun that would be for the GOP. A watered down RINO or obama. No thanks, I’ll stay home and watch All in the Family re-runs.
I rest my case.
I agree! If Palin decided not to run & her agenda is totally different from Romney’s agenda, she needs to really fight so that he wont win the nomination!
Whew! Love me some Cain! Yes. We. Cain!
Cain / Bolton or Gingrich 2012!
President Cain. Sounds a damn sight better than President Ohole.
ANY of them sound better than the SCOAMF. I’m torn between Cain and Gingrich…I suspect Gingrich would make a great President, but he has spent many years in the minority in Congress, and I fear a certain mindset takes hold after so long. That would explain his past tendency to consort with the enemy. I just wonder if he has changed?
Dave, why do you give obama the dignity of upper-casing his name?
Newt is a man who can and has LEARNED from his mistakes. In other words he may have been mis-taken in the past but he has never mis-spoken.
Keep it up Mr. Cain! Keep. It. Up.
This Man has a Plan! It is up to us to support him! It is time we had real change in this country! We must take this country back!
Well said – it’s about time some of these rogue agencies received an attitude adjustment. Damn, HC’s on fire tonight!
In the next election… the GOP is going to have to put someone who has the same values of Ronald Reagan in order to defeat Obi
Scoop – THANKS for posting this series of speeches
I feel a lot more confident than I did a month ago
This is a great service and I hope everyone on this site passes around this info
What I especially noticed is that the number of comments on each candidate anecdotally reflects the standing of each candidate
—– I feel that Cain will knock O’blablas socks off
—– Perry will have trouble as usual – He is not showing well
—– Gingrich will also grind O’blabla into dust
—– Bachman will have some trouble in a debate – Although she would be a
“pit bull” and will wear anyone down –
—– Ron Paul is a bit over the top in some ideas – Although I agree with some
ideas – he is too radical
—– Romney – a no show – is flipping too much – Where is he anyway?
BUT any one of them could beat O’blabla because they all have ideas that make sense
and O’blabla is imploding
Help GET THE WORD OUT – Send http://www.therightscoop.com/
to FIVE Republican friends today
(please don’t bother with Democrats – they obviously won’t listen anyway
besides being annoying)
Great Posts – Thanks again
The Government MSM is salivating a Cain & obama showdown . obama wins .
aaah….aaah…..uummm…..aaah…aah I you sure Obuma wins? lol. aaaah…..ummm….aaaaah……aaah.
Google the video of Herman Cain owning Bill Clinton over healthcare q & a. The smooth talking bill had to politely get out of the conversation. Herman Cain will make Obama eat his Telepompter!
Exactly…. the 2012 Election is a repeat of the 1980 Election between Ronaldus Magnus and Jimmy Carter—- Reagan only gained the lead less than a week before the election.
Second to the 2012 election, it has similarities to the 1992 election, given it will not be about party line bs as 2008. It is going to be about “whether or not if you are better off than you were 4 years ago”
Where’s Ron Paul’s video?
Excellent. Thanks for posting RS.
Cain just said he would let me use regular lightbulbs. Please Please Please, can he become president? Please!!! I want my incandescent lightbulbs back!
It is both a symbolic and substantial issue and so simple to grasp. The Central Government has been whittling away at the Constitution for over a century. We the People are the only ones to stop them. The Republican branch of the Central Government cannot even stop them from taking away our choice of light bulbs.
CFLs were their secod choice, they would have legislated wearing sweaters in the house but Jhimminy Carter beat ’em to it.
There’s another advantage of the 9-9-9 tax that nobody has mentioned.
Critics are attacking 9-9-9 because it taxes even the poor, but that is precisely what makes it so good.
The fact that the tax effects EVERYONE means that if a future administration tries to raise the rate, you will have the ENTIRE population rising up to oppose it.
As it stands now, the graduated tax system makes it easy for government to raise the rates in the higher brackets without facing too much opposition from the population.
Making the tax system flat means that raising the rate will be felt by everyone, and likely be opposed.
Here’s an example: A few years ago in Canada, Stephen Harper ran his campaign on the promise he would drop the national sales tax by two percents. Two measly percentage points, and it won him the election!
Imagine a future administration trying to raise the rate by even a few points. They would never do it, because they would know that it would cost them their seat!
Another advantage – excellent point…
The 9-9-9 plan, or any plan that has a flat tax, “… taxes even the poor, but that is precisely what makes it so good.”
It makes it so good in at least 2 ways.
– It is fair and balanced.
– It’s foundation is independence.
Anybody who has done any reading about the history of the “progressive” graduated income tax, “the MORE money you make the MORE percentage they take,” knows that it was only 1 of the 10 original planks in the 1848 Communist Manifesto.
The graduated aspect creates “dependence” on BIG Gov sticking it to the rich, and 9-9-9 creates “independence” from that dependence mindset.
Talk about “set the people free” in a fair and balanced way, 9-9-9 with the flat tax aspect is IT. Steve Forbes’ idea is still valid too.
THAT is why including the poor in the tax system is fair and honorable for them, so that they, uh, yeah, ALSO have “skin in the game,” and they ALSO pay “their fair share” with a 9% rate.
The new mantra could be, work and save because “the MORE money you make the MORE percentage the do NOT take?
And, concomitant with that is your point that “you will have the ENTIRE population rising up to oppose it.”
They will oppose a percentage increase… BECAUSE even the poor will have the incentive of working for financial independence from BIG Gov… and poverty.
They will know that since their percentage of tax will NOT increase as they become wealthier, they will uh, now I like this word, “graduate” into a higher income bracket but NOT a higher tax bracket.
Let’s hear it for helping the poor “graduate” and become free and have some “skin in the game” of their personal independence from BIG Gov and a lower income.
– – – – – – –
Here is a very quick intro to the Communist Manifesto 10 planks –
>> Read it all here – http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html
Abolition of property in land and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. … .
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
– Corporate Tax Act of 1909
– 16th Amendment, allegedly ratified in 1913
– Revenue Act of 1913, section 2, Income Tax. … .
Abolition of all rights of inheritance. … .
CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND REBELS. … .
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State … .
Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. … .
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State … .
Equal liability of all to labor. … .
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries … .
Free education for all children in public schools … .
I’m on limited bandwidth, so I had to choose which of these speeches to watch. I went with Cain and Gingrich.
Cain sounds positive, intelligent, and capable. I wish he wouldn’t spend so much time on describing the Declaration and Reagan. We DO need those reminders, but he does it very. slowly. and. . .deliberately. Which sounds awesome, but leaves very little time for telling us what he plans to do.
And I do like his plans, all except the NST, which I hope never gets considered.
I’m leery of “making abortion illegal” as a Presidential statement. That’s a serious battle that can interfere with a campaign. Reagan’s technique is the clear winner, and Cain didn’t follow it. Defunding it every place it’s funded, and overturning Roe v. Wade would have been solid statements all by themselves. I don’t think he had to announce what sounds like a plan to make it illegal. So I think he stepped on it, there.
The proper answer on which energy policy was the biggest mistake is the ending of drilling in the Gulf. Yes, the light bulbs thing was stupid. Stopping drilling is stupid on steroids. Of course, he got a great crowd response with it, so he may be on to something.
I like him for the Candidacy. I wish Newt had a way to get past all his terrible negatives. If Newt comes up with a way to make it hard for the Dems to make points off of his earlier life, and his falling for the frauds at the IPCC, then I could switch to the Newt bandwagon. But I don’t see that happening, so instead I’d like Herman Cain to get Newt on board, somehow.
Newt only does what his CURRENT wife allows him to do.
She keeps “it” in her purse.
Wasn’t the mandatory light bulb bill passed under BUSH , not Obama . I will have to go research ..
Let’s just say the elephants can’t even get into herd formation for something as crystal clear an intrusion into our individual liberties as a light bulb ban.
. catchy flashy jingles and moving the chairs around on a sinking ship is not going to save this nation . one day it was 999 , then it was 999 to you and 333 to them , now I hear it is 999 to you and 901 and sweeteners and special exceptions and there now will be “DECIDERS” . the FEDERAL GOV”MENT deciders to pick winners and losers and mandates . does anyone call that “FREEDOM .. and under his plan the “empowerment” affirmative action programs are going to continue as before, which have ony feathered the pockets of Maxine Waters types and did not change anything on main street .. GOODNESS ..
What?! The 999plan has always been the same. Go to Herman Cain’s campaign site and read 999 plan yourself. It Has Never Change! IT’S THE CRITICISM OF 999 plan THAT CHANGES, FLIP FLOPS, EVERYDAY AND EVERY WEEK!!! The 999 plan is solid!
I like Dennis Miller’s take on Cain’s 999 Plan. The taxman comes to you door asking for taxes and you reply, NEIN NEIN NEIN.
AWESOME!!! Lol!! I’m google that! I got to see!
He is the best of the bunch
And Herman Cain OWNS the bus
State Media is all abuzz with how Cain has destroyed his chances with his stance on abortion.
Once again the elephants let the Leftists frame the debate and the outcome.
How is Cain being pro-choice a result of the Leftist narrative? Other than them pointing it out? Cain is on record saying he is personally opposed to abortion and in this speech made it clear he thinks abortion on demand should be illegal. But he is also on record saying it’s personal choice if someone breaks the law and has an illegal abortion.
That’s what he has said.
This man gives a helluva speech. There would no problem transitioning him into TV president.
And no TOTUS?
I like Herman and would certainly support him if he gets the nomination. His speech was good, although parts of it are overly familiar. When he listed America’s strengths (The Declaration, Constitution, military…) and “America’s ability to change,” I was waiting for him to give some credit to the AMERICAN PEOPLE. He should have commended the people in this country who are (or should be) responsible for the structure of our government which Herman believes is one of our strengths. Yes, the government “of the people,” but for decades there has been so much power centralized in D.C. that our own gov’t has weakened the very people who elect those elitists. I want to hear him say that he would like the people to reclaim their authority — their strength — because if the people don’t see how many liberties have been taken and how many more the central gov’t will take going forward, we will just become weaker, and so will the USA. Without the determination and never-say-die attitudes of the “people” revived, we will just continue our slide into an oligarchy. I want a president who trusts the people and then goes about encouraging them (and the gov’t that is supposed to represent them) to do what is right for our future.
I like Herman a lot. His speech was good, although parts of it are overly familiar. When he listed America’s strengths (The Declaration, Constitution, military…) and “America’s ability to change,” I was waiting for him to give some credit to the AMERICAN PEOPLE. He should have commended the people in this country who are (or should be) responsible for the structure of our government which Herman believes is one of our strengths. Yes, the government “of the people,” but for decades there has been so much power centralized in D.C. that our own gov’t has weakened the very people who elect those elitists. I want to hear him say that he would like the people to reclaim their authority — their strength — because if the people don’t see how many liberties have been taken and how many more the central gov’t will take going forward, we will just become weaker, and so will the USA. Without the determination and never-say-die attitudes of the “people” revived, we will just continue our slide into an oligarchy. I want a president who trusts the people and then goes about encouraging them (and the gov’t that is supposed to represent them) to do what is right for our future.
Has anybody noticed that Herman Cain said in the Q&A portion that he’s for a constitutional marriage amendment, when just six days earlier on Meet the Press he was against it?
Also, you should check out his interview with David Brody immediately after he delivered his remarks to the Faith and Freedom coalition:
He says that he supports a constitutional life amendment as well. That’s like the diametrically opposite position to his statement on Piers Morgan on Wednesday that “the government shouldn’t get involved in all these social decisions.”
social decisions = individual – family decisions. As a country we can make clear definitions of what something means like marriage or personhood like Gingrich mentioned yesterday. This is not going to affect individual decisions, it will just clarify for everybody living here what is what. We live in a society now where the word sick now means great, so our goal should be to clarify for everybody. In social decisions like Mommy-baby at risk & rape pregnacy cases these are individual-family decisions even after the clarifications are made.
Making something a constitutional amendment is not the same as “getting the government involved.”
We “get the government involved” in far too many things that are not only a bad idea to do, but are unconstitutional as well.
First you change the constitution. Then you involve the government to meet constitutional requirement. They are two separate things.
ummm On Meet the press they did not talk anything about marriage in that interview.
Regarding interview below seems very clear, he’s talking about signing new laws as president & affecting people thru showing them beauty of life. if you believe in life and a bill gets to your desk and you support you will sign it.
Let me quote directly from the Meet the Press interview:
MR. GREGORY: A couple more. Same sex marriage. Would you seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage?
MR. CAIN: I wouldn’t seek a constitutional ban for same sex marriage, but I am pro traditional marriage.
MR. GREGORY: But you would let the states make up their own mind as they’re doing now?
MR. CAIN: They would make up their own minds, yes.
And his statement on the life amendment is also clear:
David Brody: “Are you for some sort of pro-life amendment to the constitution that in essence would trump Roe v. Wade?”
Herman Cain: “Yes. Yes I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it. That’s all I can do. I will sign it.”
Does Herman Cain know that Presidents do NOT sign Amendments to the Constitution?
Repeat- Amendments will NOT come to his desk and he will NOT have the opportunity to sign it or veto it.
Don’t most high school kids with one government class know this?
IMO, he is showing that he is not ready to be president. (He’s a great guy and a true conservative, but not ready for prime time.)
The Constitutional Amendment Process
n recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President.
He can sign it, but it means nothing. Cain would have no say in the matter.
For me, it is hard to comprehend that a person running for president, and who could even possibly be a serious contender would not know this.
It’s far harder to accept that so few sitting, elected officials know anything at all about the Constitution. But it’s obviously true.
I doubt that they do.
thanks for bringing over, I did not remember talk on that but yes he has change view as seen on the cbn response
His CBN response about marriage was somewhat misleading:
Herman Cain: “I think marriage should be protected at the federal level also. I used to believe that it could be just handled by the states but there’s a movement going on to basically take the teeth out of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and that could cause an unraveling, so we do need some protection at the federal level because of that and so yes I would support legislation that would say that it’s between a man and a woman.”
When he says he “used to believe” it was a state issue, you naturally assume that he changed his mind a long time ago. But he was still opposed to a constitutional marriage amendment a mere SIX days ago! It’s as if he decided to reconsider his position right before he was set to meet with a bunch of social conservatives.
It’s just like Newt Gingrich, who said on Meet the Press that he supported an individual mandate, and then the very next day he said anyone who quotes his Meet the Press interview is a liar.
I hope he is not misleading people, I would suggest he is more like me and not used to talking these issues (like constitutional ban for same sex marriage & constitutional marriage amendment, to me two different things but from reading in the forums here are these the same thing? My thinking is why would we put an amendment that bans same sex marriage, I would instead difine marriage being betwen man and woman and that’s that. Again I’m not used to talking these issues but I’m learning) and like somebody mentioned here not on sure footing on the process. All this will matter, for a voter the decision will be who can I trust, who will stand on values and principles and has a concrete plan forward.
The federal gov’t already has a law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It’s the Defense of Marriage Act. However Obama has told Holder to not defend it in court, which in itself is illegal because they are both supposed to uphold the laws of the land, not just the noes you agree with.
that is the problem, isn’t it. The country makes laws but people in power don’t follow up. They play games with the public. Congress is not doing its job and the judicial is amending the constitution as they see fit. The pro-life & pro-marriage crowd wants the Constitution to include specifics but at the end of the day if we don’t hold people accountable for breaking their oath and laws this circle just keeps going round.
Because marriage is a religious ceremony/event, a constitutional marriage amendment would contradict the first amendment… referring to “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The marriage amendment would elevate religions where only men and women can marry over religions where same-sex marriages are allowed.
I am by no means in supportive of same-sex marriages… I married my wife because as a commitment to her and God. Government played zero part in it (although the tax breaks are nice). Why the heck does government demand to be a part of this commitment?
Ron Paul does an Albert Pujols imitation and hits three home runs on Meet the Press:
This is the difference between someone who has depth and understanding and someone like Herman “I misspoke” Cain, who has only surface-level intelligence.
Classic pinch hitter: weak on defense.
I was just watching a town hall meeting in Iowa with Ron Paul. A questions was asked what he would do if there was another 911. In summary, Paul answered that his response would be different but tougher. He would have made sure it was done right and complete and not done any nation building. His full answer his much better.
He also pointed out that there is a provision in the Constitution to handle individuals (such as in piracy). He is willing to use private special forces if the situation was appropriate in the same way Ros Perot did to save his workers.
Also Rick Santorum said on the Hannity show that he believes that Ron Paul’s foreign policy understanding is deep and that even though their are views are completely different “at least you have someone you know that …” would pass the Hilary 3am morning phone call test.
Sarah Palin also acknowledge the value of Ron Paul’s statement that Obama had better be more careful in the way he interjects US forces in other government affairs.
Last but not least. The strongest foreign policy is one that will remove the biggest threat that the US has, which is the economic threat. No point peeing your pants over Iran with what the US is up against in the next few years. The Mexican border is number two threat considering that is where the terrorists are already coming through.
It sounds like RP wouldn’t pussyfoot around, wasting time on nation building and policing. He’d get the job done quickly by letting troops concentrate solely on the mission, and get them out again as soon as it’s accomplished. This doesn’t sound like someone that would be weak on defense.
“Best defense is a good offense.”
Although when applied to national security, that policy is expensive and destructive. But bringing it back to economics… countries that benefit from free trade with us typically don’t pick fights with us.
That would also be a motto to use only when you are at actually at war – a declared war by congress. I know you agree Tanner, but some don’t realize you can’t have an offense strategy for every little nation that says boo! to you or rattles their sabers.
Yes we Cain. Great stuff. His speeches seem a bit repetitive and recycled though. Needs to work on that.
Wasn’t George Bush pro-life and nothing new on life came out of his administration? We have a candidate that his main issue is to get the IRS off our back, defend plan parenthood and all other gov support on abortion. We are going to past that up for another George Bush which is Newt, Romney etc, hurrah?!
So many people here seem to have made up their minds…Can’t we just delay a while until the debates are a little farther down the road? If Herman can over-come his mental stutterer and tendency to cover his tracks, that will be revealed. Romney will probably continue to bruise himself badly by his flip flops and maybe Perry will find his voice and his balance.
There is no good purpose for conservatives to pound each other or the candidates. Be patient.
He loves Allan Greenspan? lost my vote.Sorry. I now know where he stands.BIG GOV!!
Also guess Ron Paul didn’t speak either.
I believe Cain is the ONLY candidate that can beat Obama. I believe he will be our next President! The attacks against him have escalated; the other side fears him!
God bless Herman Cain. May he put our troops and our vets FIRST!
This man has my respect and support 110%
I love it when he gets serious, because these times call for serious action and intentions.
Join other followers