Archives for November 2011
In case you didn’t know from comments he made in earlier part of his campaign, Herman Cain doesn’t like Muslims. During a recent speech, which was covered by Chris Moody for Yahoo News, Cain explained his ease when his learned that his oncologist was a Christian, despite a funny sounding last name:
He begins with a story about how he knew he would survive when he discovered that his physician was named “Dr. Lord,” that the hospital attendant’s name was “Grace” and that the incision made on his chest during the surgery would be in the shape of a “J.”
“Come on, y’all. As in J-E-S-U-S! Yes! A doctor named Lord! A lady named Grace! And a J-cut for Jesus Almighty,” Cain boomed.
He did have a slight worry at one point during the chemotherapy process when he discovered that one of the surgeon’s name was “Dr. Abdallah.”
“I said to his physician assistant, I said, ‘That sounds foreign—not that I had anything against foreign doctors—but it sounded too foreign,” Cain tells the audience. “She said, ‘He’s from Lebanon.’ Oh, Lebanon! My mind immediately started thinking, wait a minute, maybe his religious persuasion is different than mine! She could see the look on my face and she said, ‘Don’t worry, Mr. Cain, he’s a Christian from Lebanon.’”
“Hallelujah!” Cain says. “Thank God!”
The crowd laughs uneasily.
Even though Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) decided against a primary challenge, it doesn’t mean that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is out of the woods. It looks as though State Sen. Dan Liljenquist will make a run against Hatch, according to a recent interview:
“God bless Orrin Hatch for his service to the state,” he said in the interview. “But we have a different philosophy on what the federal government should and should not do.”
Previewing what would likely be a line of attack against Hatch in a campaign, Liljenquist said Hatch was “advocating in the early nineties for the individual mandate, that the federal government role was to drive people into insurance products.”
“To me, I’m looking for leadership. And I haven’t seen it,” he said.
Liljenquist, who studied at Brigham Young University and later went to law school at the University of Chicago, said entitlement reform would “absolutely” play a major role in his campaign if he runs.
Liljenquist has endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for president.
“In the state of Utah, Romney is very well respected for what he did on the Olympics,” he said.
Liljenquist said he and his wife will make a decision about getting in the race by the end of the month and an announcement will be made by early next year.
The biggest consideration is how a campaign will affect his six kids, he said.
I need to offer an apology. For the last couple of months I’ve been highly critical of the Occupy Wall Street movement, accusing them of being violent, misbehaved, clueless social malcontents. However, in light of recent events, I’ve concluded I was wrong, and we should embrace the philosophy of government enforced equality for all. No more disparities in anything we do or have, just an equal distribution of everything to everyone.
I had this epiphany a few days ago while watching ESPN and coverage of the NBA lockout, now nearing its 150th day. What it boils down to is multi-millionaire owners and multi-millionaire players arguing over who gets the biggest piece of a multi-billion dollar league revenue pie. I realized that all of this bickering could be resolved by implementing the demands of equality espoused by the Occupy Wall Street protestors.
So here’s the deal…since President Obama wants to increase taxes on “the rich” who need to “pay their fair share” so that we can “spread the wealth”, we simply set the maximum NBA player salary at the level Obama defines as “rich”, which is $200,000 for an individual. That is $50,000 more per year that what it takes to be in the Top 5% of income earners in this country (a threshold which starts at just under $160,000). In fact, that will be the salary for EVERY NBA player, because it is immoral to discriminate simply on the basis of talent, productivity or some other performance-based metric. Just because one player was not born with the natural talent of another player, or refused to succumb to the oppressive dictates of some evil corporation (after all, the NBA is basically a big corporation) with its constant demands to maintain physical fitness and practice all the time, doesn’t mean they should be punished.
While many observers are focused on Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, who appear to be the main obstacles to Mitt Romney winning the Republican primary, Ron Paul is making his own push in Iowa and New Hampshire. Brent Budowsky offers his two-cents on the state of Paul’s campaign over at The Hill’s Pundits Blog:
There are now multiple polls that show Ron Paul has gained support and has a legitimate chance to come in first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire. I would now call Ron Paul one of three front-runners in both Iowa and New Hampshire alongside Mitt Romney and a third candidate, currently Newt Gingrich. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, which he might, all bets are off. Also, most analysts miss the fact that many states have open systems where independents, and in some cases Democrats, can vote for a Republican nominee. This could give a further boost to Paul.
It is now time to give Ron Paul the attention he deserves in debates and throughout the political community.
The campaign gets very interesting if Newt Gingrich joins Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Donald Trump in collapsing, which would give Paul a head-to-head contest with Romney.
I am not predicting Ron Paul is nominated, I am suggesting he deserves to be treated with the respect of now being a serious contender to win first or second place in Iowa and New Hampshire. I have always predicted that Paul will ultimately be one of three finalists for the Republican nomination, which will become a three-person race, with Ron Paul one of the three.
As was noted in yesterday’s GOP Presidential Power Rankings, Newt Gingrich is coming on strong as he appears to be latest anti-Romney emerge from the pack. The latest numbers in the race from Gallup only serve to emphasize that point.
Here is how the field looks right now:
- Newt Gingrich: 22%
- Mitt Romney: 21%
- Herman Cain: 16%
- Ron Paul: 9%
- Rick Perry: 8%
- Michele Bachmann: 4%
- Jon Huntsman: 1%
- Rick Santorum: 1%
- Other: 1%
- None/No opinion: 18%
As you can see in the chart Gallup provided in their report of the poll numbers, this has been anything but a normal primary as the GOP electorate — though primarily tea party influenced and more conservative voters — moved back and forth between whatever Flavor of the Month has been put before them.
Unlikely Bachmann and Perry, Cain isn’t dropping off very far; despite the recently surfaced allegations of sexual harrassment. Most Republican voters aren’t bothered by those stories. They should, however, be very concerned at how his campaign has handled them and the frequent gaffes and lack of knowledge on policy issues that would come before him in the White House.
Another reason Cain has managed to hang on is due to some distrust of Gingrich among conservatives and tea partyers, which is understandable.
You can now have United Liberty delivered straight to your Kindle whenever we update for 99 cents per month. You can subscribe via the Amazon store on search for us on your device.
It certainly isn’t news that Rick Santorum doesn’t care much for gay people, and he certainly doesn’t lie outside of the mainstream Republican view on gay marriage. What is slightly unorthodox about Santorum’s approach is his view of the government’s role in changing society. Fearful of the “consequence to society of changing this definition” of marriage, the former senator believes that government should have an active role in molding society’s view of gay marriage. Proof of that came when he was asked if he thought he could combat an increasing acceptance of gay marriage:
Christopher Patton, a Gary Johnson supporter, stopped Santorum as he approached his table and asked the candidate if he really felt he could “turn back the clock” on progress for gay marriage, considering that some polls show that a majority of Iowans under 30 years of age support it.
“Yeah, I do,” he replied.
It’s one thing to be intolerant of something and even to speak out against it publicly in an effort to persuade others – everyone is entitled to freedom of speech – but to use the power of government to force the masses to adhere to your set of morals is the textbook definition of bigotry.
If you ever think that we have too much of a nanny state here in the US, and are looking for something, anything, to make you feel good about it, then I have good news for you: the European Union is worse.
I mean, these are the guys who have banned claims that drinking water can prevent dehydration:
EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.
Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.
Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.
“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.
“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”
NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.
The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible.”
A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.
Everyone expects the Super Committee, a panel tasked with coming up with $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, to be a colossal; though unsurprisingly. While we may have our preferences on how to deal with our deal with the debt crisis, no one should cheer the lack of consensus that seem to have a stranglehold on Washington now that our national debt has exceeds a staggering $15 trillion.
Over at The New American, R. Cort Kirkwood goes through the numbers:
It’s official. The U.S. federal debt has crossed another unbelievable line: $15 trillion.
The Treasury Department reported the news on Wednesday, and various sources are reporting different figures for the level of debt person and per family.
But the discrepancies between those figures are a distinction without a difference. The United States of America is drowning in debt. And it may never recover.
Terence P. Jeffrey, a veteran budget reporter and columnist for CNSNews.com, reported that the new debt per family, based on the Census Bureau’s estimate of just more than 76 million families in the United States, is $197,579. Jeffrey calculates the debt per person worker in the private section at $160,545.
Those figures drop just a little using numbers from the U.S. Debt Clock. It reports that the debt per taxpayer is about $133,373, while the debt per citizen is about $48,000. It reports a debt per family of about $182,000, based on an estimate of about 82.5 million families.
While I haven’t gone out to interview the Occupy crowd or anything, I think it’s safe to say that many who are “occupying” various locations throughout the nation are not likely to be Ayn Rand fans. However, what many of them are espousing when it comes to capitalism would only find disagreement from Rand on one factor. She would tell them that what they’re lamenting isn’t capitalism.
I was watching Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 and watching the antics of characters like James Taggart and Orren Boyle, once again holding in my disgust, and thinking about how many in the Occupy Movement argue against just that sort of thing. I, and most of my United Liberty colleagues (and probably all of them), find little to disagree with on that front. Orren Boyle and James Taggart aren’t capitalists. Sorry folks, but they’re not. They are the epitome of what is called “crony capitalism”.
A capitalist has no problem destroying competition, but through competition. They want to beat them by being better, cheaper, faster, or whatever it takes. Generally though, capitalists know that there’s usually room for more than one or two providers anyways, so there’s no need to kill competition. They even tolerate the young upstarts, because they know they’re better, cheaper, and faster than the new kids…or else they will need to be to fend off that competition. No barriers for entry are needed. Keeping your customers incredibly happy is barrier enough.