Is Herman Cain a 21st Century Ronald Reagan?

Herman Cain is surging in the polls and gaining the attention of more Americans, perhaps even garnering vaunted "first tier candidate" status.
  



And why not?  He's a brilliant, articulate man with executive experience.  He knows how to lead and manage and he has the successful track record to back it up.

Fred Barnes has written a thumbnail sketch profile of Herman Cain based upon his review of Cain's autobio:  This is Herman Cain! My Journey to the White House.  Barnes' article, Raising Cain, is well worth five minutes of your time.  He compares and contrasts Cain's background with that of the current White House occupant.

Unlike Obama, Cain's upbringing was stereotypically American and one shared by millions of blacks in this country.  Both parents worked, his father had three jobs, they were discriminated against, and they went to Church on Sunday.  Despite the hardships, Herman's parents taught him to love his country, love his fellow man, and to work hard and believe in himself.

This particular paragraph in Barnes' article stopped me in my tracks...

His upbringing may explain his gift for delivering a conservative message with a friendly face, as Ronald Reagan did. “I also like to smile, laugh, and have fun with people,” he says.

Of all the candidates in the field, Cain is perhaps the most Reaganesque. Folksy and eternally sunny, he has a talent for delivering a serious message with a smile and good humor. You can just tell he has a love and respect for his fellow man, and that he enjoys the give and take of the campaign trail. He has a lifetime of experience and he has spent years writing and talking about the great issues facing America.

Herman Cain could once again put a friendly face on American conservatism.

Fractured Banking

"As Europe's Crisis Grows," The New York Times frets, "suddenly, over there is over here." 

They are right. We live in an interconnected world. It used to be said that when the US sneezed, Europe (or Japan or South America) caught a cold. Now, it goes both ways, since we have so much money invested around the world, and the stewards of all this money are batwinged dastards who have suborned sovereign nations into their dark schemes.

A crucial mechanism linking financial players in the United States to the problems in Europe involves credit default swaps, those insurance-like products that did so much damage during the 2008 financial crisis. (Think American International Group.)

Billions of dollars in swaps have been written on sovereign debt, guaranteeing that those who bought the insurance will be paid if Greece or other countries default. But since these instruments trade in secret, investors don’t know who would be on the hook — as A.I.G. was in its ill-fated mortgage insurance — should a government default or a bank fail. (NY Times)

What the international financial insurers need to be told is that they’d better make good on it or they’re going to jail. Same for the bankers who loaned irresponsibly knowing that governments would bail them out or print them more money once they blew through their allotted portion.

Fractional Banking is Fractured

The first problem is that banks are loaning out money they don’t have, essentially creating money out of thin air. The second part of the problem is the exotic financial instruments that allow companies to gamble with money they don’t have and to write insurance policies full of promises they can’t keep.

If this were just financial giants screwing one another, who would care? Unfortunately, it’s not. Central banks of sovereign nations fund all of this high-flying chicanery, which really means you and I are the ones who pay when a bankster shoots craps at the casino.

Paul Volker warned us. He was the Fed Chairman who cleaned up Carter's mess. Obama hired him on to much high hope and fanfare when he first took office, and then promptly ignored him because he was crapping in the punchbowl.

Is Limited Purpose Banking the Answer?

Christophe Chamley and Lawrence Kotlikoff wrote a great little paper entitled, Limited Purpose Banking - Putting an End to Financial Crises.  Muchas gracias to Conservatives on Fire for turning me on to this little Gem.  Chamley and Kolitkoff's solution?

They propose restricting banks to traditional banking, and putting similar restrictions on brokerage houses and insurance companies.  Presumably, this would let the high fliers continue flying, they just would have to do it outside of our financial system and without the taxpayer-funded safety net.
 

Please go read the article.  It is very short, and his entertaining analogy explains those exotic instruments known as credit default swaps.

Progressives Hate the US Constitution

Harold Myerson gazes upon our gridlocked government and asks, “Did the Founding Fathers Screw up?”

The short answer is, “No, you dimwit. They planned it this way!” I do feel ashamed lecturing my elders, but it is so true that there’s no fool like an old fool.

Scratch a progressive, and you will find a goose-stepping totalitarian just below the surface

The current impasse between the Republican House and the Democratic president and Senate has only highlighted what is a chronic—indeed, constitutional—condition: Just as the American people have a bias for action, the American government has a bias for stasis. […] Much of the developing world now sees China and its model of capitalist authoritarianism as more efficient than the creaky workings of democracy. (The American Prospect – Harold Myerson)

That’s the way our government was designed to function, Harold. I know lefty statists like you look longingly towards China, admiring the virile collectivizing of their slave workers and making the trains run on time, but their per capita GDP barely ekes out Turkmenistan, with economic marvels Angola and The Cook Islands still outpacing them.

Bold action in the lives of the citizenry should spring from the citizenry, not a government politburo. This is America!

Meyerson bemoans the fact that “national consensus” is so difficult. Again, that is by design. Our founders set up a non-authoritarian government that was supposed to point itself outward, taking care of the big stuff and international issues so the states and the people could reign sovereign over their own lives. The federal government now bristles with horrible tools and instruments of opression pointed inward, demanding we march lock-step to its tune.

Those who look towards DC and shout “Do Something!” haven’t been paying attention. Look around you! And behold the Feral Government’s handiwork. They did a whole lot of somethings, tens of trillions worth, and they don’t have the money to pay for it.

“Do Nothing!” Should be the command. Or at least we should put DC in time out until each regulator, bureaucrat and politician has read the US Constitution and understands the concept of enumerated powers and limited government.

Like letting your young boy keep and care for a frog or turtle to prove he is worthy of having a higher-order pet such as a dog, government should first prove itself worthy of handling international relations, protecting the borders, regulating the value of our currency, guarding the US Treasury, and maintaining basic infrastructure. So far, it has failed miserably, and has thus proven it has no business expanding operations, especially going so far as to regulate the individual lives of free people.

I thank God we have the constitutional bulwark of checks and balances. FDR breached them, after cousin Teddy, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson sapped the foundations, and we are worse off because of it.  Progressive rats and cockroaches have weakened out constitution with a million nibbles and snarks, but it still survives, albeit in a weakened state.

If you think things are bad now, could you imagine the North Korean horror show this nation would now be if the progressives had their complete control to impose their twisted, liberty-hating will?  We’d be living in crowded city centers eating arugula, our automobiles confiscated, while the cognoscenti continued to enjoy their country manors, large carbon footprints and jet-set lifestyles.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely executed for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~ C.S. Lewis

Awlaki's Dead. Justice Served?

Liberals are up in arms over the Al-Awlaki killing. And so are many conservatives...

I posted a quick link on this topic yesterday supporting the president, and ended up getting a lot of pushback.  Even Fuzzy Slippers disagreed with me, and that doesn't happen too often.

The discussion got so good here at Western Hero that I requested a cease fire on the topic and decided to do an entire post on it today.  You can read yesterday's comment thread here.

Uber liberal Glenn Greenwald sums up the case against Obama, leveling the charge of Due-Process-Free Assassination:

No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.

This controversy involves two questions. One of law, and one of motives and legitimacy. Let's look at the legal issue first, since it is the more important of the two.

The Law

Which is operative? The fact that he is an enemy combatant? or the fact that he is an American criminal suspect? That's what this comes down to.  And it's clear that the US considered him a combatant, not a criminal suspect, since as Greenwald says, no charges were filed against him.

The editors at National Review make a compelling case in Obama's favor. Awlaki was a self-described enemy of the United States who joined Al Qaeda (AQ).  The United States took him out in a military action authorized by congress.  No subpoenas and no charges required:

The conduct of warfare, including targeting decisions, is inherently an executive function. In this instance, moreover, executive war powers are bolstered by a sweeping congressional authorization of military force that contains no limitations based on citizenship or geography. We don’t ask the courts to evaluate every strike we make against Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan or Iraq, nor do we inquire about their citizenship. (NRO - Al-Awlaki's Just Demise)

Were it otherwise, all AQ would have to do is station an American traitor at every outpost and on every convoy to legally thwart our drone strike program.

Awlaki Renounced his Citizenship

Finntan did his usual yeoman research and provides the following results (Finn's words are italicized):

Loss of nationality, also known as expatriation, means the loss of citizenship status properly acquired, whether by birth in the United States, through birth abroad to U.S. citizen parents, or by naturalization. As a result of several constitutional decisions, §349(a) of the current Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") provides that U.S. nationality is lost only when the U.S. citizen does one of the specified acts described in INA §349, voluntarily and with the intent to give up that nationality.

"taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof after having attained the age of eighteen years."

"entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serves as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;"

"performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship."

"committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of Title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of Title 18, or violating section 2384 of Title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction."

I think Al-Awlaki personally made his position quite clear. He hasn't been an American citizen for years and it doesn't take a court or judge to formally renounce your citizenship. It can occur automatically based on your words, writings, or actions.

The Legitimacy Question

Many Right Blogistanis are questioning the president's motives, and I understand that based upon his past actions. However, this was a deliberate action with diligent legal review and it was carried out transparently, as befits a democracy. We can examine the unclassified information, and our lawmakers can review it all.

The only difference here is that the Justice Department also reviewed the plans because of the anticipated uproar over killing an "American."

That Justice Department review was just the last step in a standard review process that is routinely performed daily for all kinds of military and CIA strikes. Discrediting the whole operation just because a tainted Justice Department was involved is committing a fallacy known as Circumstantial Ad Hominem, where one asserts that because an entity is wrong on some issues, it is wrong on all issues. That's just not logical. Would two plus two no longer equal four because Adolph Hitler had once gotten that simple math problem correct?

The Case is Clear:  It was a righteous shoot

This was not an extra-judicial assassination carried out at presidential whim, and it sets no legal precedent that would allow a president to order American citizens killed at will.

Awlaki rejected his country of birth and renounced his citizenship, throwing his allegiance and aid to an enemy of America that congress has authorized the president to prosecute military action against.  President Obama transparently and with due legal diligence authorized a military strike against a military target.  Regardless of citizenship status, Awlaki made his bead, and now he's dead.

God Bless America 

Please visit the links below for other viewpoints:
Just a Conservative Girl - Are we going to follow the constitution?
WMR - Obama:  Warrior or Assassin
Left Coast Rebel - Terrorist Assumes Room Temperature

News links:
WaPo - The White House's Drone Policy
CBS - Justice Memo

Saturday Reading

Yeah... It's a boring headline, but so what?  Everybody's tuned into football, leaf peeping, or enjoying the Indian summer.  Here are some interesting links I collected but ended up not blogging about.

Why Ron Paul Will Never Be Elected President

Praise Allah, we schwacked another turd in a turban who has been plotting America's destruction.  As a bonus, he was a traitor to America as well.

Instead of celebrating, Ron Paul called it an illegal assassination.  That's not presidential; unless you are president of an America-hating turd-world nation.  Dr. Paul is awesome on banking, economics and small government, but he loses me when he starts talking crap like this.


How Money Works

If you want a quick lesson on international currency, how one goes up and others down, and just what it means to have the dollar as the reserve currency (and why losing reserve currency status could be a good thing), read this article:  FP - An Exorbitant Burden

Ve hav Vays of making you stop talking...

Even Liberals are Fed Up with TSA.  Advice Goddess Amy Alkon, no conservative but a great blogger, has accused the TSA of rape.  In true Chicago fashion, HeimatlandSicherheit Kommissar Janet Napoleonitano looks on approvingly as the accused TSA groper threatens to file a defamation lawsuit against blogger Alkon for writing about the incident.

How to Balance the Budget

John Stossel explains how to balance the federal budget

Cosmetology Cartel Kills Jobs
George Will tells a true story that illustrates how government regulation protects big business and guards the prerogatives of special interest cartels, killing jobs in the process.

Clearing out the job-killing regulations would give us an immediate economy stimulating jobs program without the half-trillion price tag.

Finally, the Quote of the Week

The honor goes to the plain-spoken and always on his A-Game, 98ZJUSMC

I never brag about my paltry foreign adventures, but our leftist friend Ducky will nonetheless zero in on them from time to time, for some strange reason.  On this particular day, he was chiding me for my service in Colombia, a beautiful country full of wonderful people and an excellent military and police force.

How much did we pay you to guard the pipeline in Colombia?

98ZJUSMC Responded:

But, everything's just ducky when Shanks McMulligan, Lightbringer of the Receeding Oceans, Possessor of the Magic Key, Guardian of the Idiot Realm and purveyor of Keynesian economic nonsense pulls off another teleprompter enabled coup of Fordian dimensions.

Gays in the Military was not about Gays in the Military

Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been officially repealed

The strategy gay advocates inside government used to allow gays to serve openly in our armed forces was revealing (Yes, it was an inside job). The fanfare, the open advocacy of the gay lifestyle, indoctrinating the troops into the gay agenda and criminalizing dissent, carving out another protected, special-rights group for gays.  The government did not have to do all that to simply allow gays to serve.

The Department of Defense, with the concurrence of Congress and the President could simply have removed all laws from the UCMJ that criminalize homosexual acts and been done with it. Period. But no, this was not about gays in the military; it was about nationalizing gay marriage and shoving the acceptance of homosexuality in everyone’s faces and forcing us to bow down at the rainbow altar.

Gays in the military was about federalizing gay marriage by first boxing in the DoD. Step 1 is complete, now comes step 2...

NORFOLK, Va. — A gay rights group kicked off the repeal of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay troops with a protest outside the world's largest Navy base that called for an expansion of benefits for gay and lesbian military members.

"Same sex couples can't live on base together, they don't have medical benefits, they don't have travel allowances, they don't have housing allowances. They don't even have the right to be notified if their partner dies in battle." (Gazette.com)

Nor do unmarried opposite sex couples. You've got to be married to get those bennies, and the advocates know that. They have pitted the federal government against itself. In the name of fairness, DoD must now grant these benefits to every boyfriend and girlfriend. That will never happen.

Here's what will happen: A phalanx of well-funded lawyers will bring a suit against the federal government, forcing the DoD to accept gay marriages (Which are five times more likely to involve infidelity than hetero ones) and treat them the same as traditional ones.  And they will win.

* Late breaking news!  Now the trannies want in on the deal.  I don't know about you, but if someone can't find their gender with both hands I don't want them handling explosives and having other military members rely on them for mission success.
...................................
I have no problem with gays serving, but Western Hero co-blogger Hugh Farnham does, creating an editorial split.  Here's his take:

With the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, many military bases are getting copies of LGBT newspapers - for free. This is to help the gay base population to adjust to the new order of things. Hugh Farnham thought he'd help them out with this  (Right click and download to embiggen):

Progressives in Retreat

View From the Ridge

The Hopium cloud has dissipated. Only the foul stench of overripe progressivism hangs in the air. Americans having caught pungent nosefuls and are recoiling in horror

Conservatives are now the single largest ideological group in America, according to Gallup.

The Wisconsin Democrats scampering across the state line to Illinois in a futile attempt to dodge reality turned out to be an apt metaphor of the state of American Progressivism. It is in collapse.  On the run.  Reviled, discredited, angry and sullen...

I get the impression that progressives really do believe we should all just fall in line and let the philosopher kings implement Plato's Republic.  I think ordinary Americans sense it as well, and they are repelled. I know I am.

Al Gore as Metaphor:  A Global Collapse

I think progressivism may be facing a global rejection as well. Oh, it will always be around, and could even achieve a new ascendancy thanks to unrepentant global financial predators, but for now it is facing a shameful repudiation, encapsulated nicely in the the discredited "Climate Change/Global Warming" movement.

Gore has the Midas touch in reverse; objects of great value (Nobel prizes, Oscars) turn dull and leaden at his touch. (Walter Russell Mead)

Remember just a few short years ago, before the scandals and the lies, when serious people took the Global Elmer Gantry and his International Climate Change Road Show seriously...

Don't worry children! Reverend Al Gore of the International Church of Gaia will release his chakras! He will sell you carbon credit indulgences so that you may atone for your enviro sins. So throw your trillions and your economies into the volcano so that the earth's temperature will be juuuust riiiight!

The third world kleptocrats volunteering their oppressed masses to play the role of Lazarus in this opera of the absurd, begging for scraps at the table of the rich nations, in order to shame them out of their billions, was a nice filigree.

Here's a hint. Anyone or any organization employing the word "global" or "world" in a serious manner should be avoided. Categorically so when spinning fairy tales about the world being tooooo hot....

Especially when just 20 years ago the cognoscenti told us it was tooooooo cold!

Professor Walter Russell Mead sums up Gore's (and progressivism's) credibility problem:

But grave as that danger is, Al Gore can consume more carbon than whole villages in the developing world. He can consume more electricity than most African schools, incur more carbon debt with one trip in a private plane than most of the earth’s toiling billions will pile up in a lifetime — and he doesn’t worry.

A father of four, he can lecture the world on the perils of overpopulation. Surely, skeptics reason, if the peril were as great as he says and he cares about it as much as he claims, Gore’s sense of civic duty would call him to set an example of conspicuous non-consumption. This general sleeps in a mansion, and lectures the soldiers because they want tents. (The Failure of Al Gore)

Gore's Global theater of high drama has descended into farce, an emblem of the High Church of Progressivism, and Al Gore is its apotheosis.  

Walter Russell Mead - The Death of Global Warming

Walter Russell Mead - The Failure of Al Gore: Part 1

Walter Russell Mead - The Failure of Al Gore Part Deux