- It would appear that Mitt Romney is, indeed, the front-runner for the nomination; that does not mean, however, that real American conservatives are thrilled with the prospect. Romney, I believe, is viewed by conservatives as a barely right-of-center RINO, a man who is known to flip-flop on issues for political expediency as well as one who is all-too-ready to compromise with those entrenched on the Left on key issues. That said, if it comes down to a choice between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, it’s a no-brainer. We may well find ourselves in the position of realizing that we can’t get everything on the first shot and that John Boenher’s statement this past August –”it’s going to take some time to turn this aircraft carrier around”–may prove to be both the practical course of action as well as somewhat prophetic.
- Rick Perry’s performances in the debates, to this point, seem to be revealing him as, at best, a not-ready-for-prime-time candidate and, at worst, one who carries political tenets that run sharply against the grain of a true freedom-loving conservative. His stances on in-state tuition for illegal aliens and the forced vaccinations of young girls reek of compromise for votes and/or monied political support. Following his announcement at the Red State Gathering in August, it seemed as though he began to view himself as the “chosen” conservative, and his reactions on stage to being seriously called to task on important issues have not been good. It appears as though his poll numbers are slipping and that Romney may, at some point, deliver a knockout blow, especially with the support of independents.
- While Michele Bachmann is steadily dropping out of serious contention for the nomination, it’s worthy to note that the mainstream media either did not go out of their way to destroy her in the vein of Sarah Palin or they failed to do so. Bachmann’s conservative political message of returning to constitutional constraints on government and a semblance of individual freedom has managed to resonate with a decent portion of the electorate. If she hadn’t made some reasonably boneheaded mistakes–i.e., claiming that the American Revolution began in New Hampshire and mistaking the anniversary of Elvis Presley’s death for the King’s birthday–she may have been taken even more seriously. In my opinion, though, the most important idea that she has espoused throughout her campaign–and one with which I believe the remaining candidates should pick up and run with–is the question she has asked: with the political climate being what it is right now, why should we “settle” yet again? Clearly, Mitt Romney resembles that remark.
- The emergence of Herman Cain is becoming more and more interesting. Cain is, without question, a real conservative. His rather extensive resume–which I have included at the bottom of this piece–proves that Herman is truly an impressive man. One of the first “negatives” pointed out by those who are either against him or unsure if they can commit to supporting him is the simple fact that he doesn’t have any political experience. To that, allow me to ask two simple questions: (1) What executive experience, in either the business, public or political world, did Barack Obama have prior to being elected president of the United States? and (2) Given what we’ve seen from career politicians over the past three years, do we really want someone in the Oval Office who views that office and its perks as just another aspect of the trappings of aristocratic life?
As some of the regular readers at America’s Right may be aware, once I began to understand the nature of the political threat coming to bear against America some four to five years ago, I became very politically active. Having a little boy running around the house will do that (although, to be fair, he’s not that little any more; at 13 he’s already taller than I am, but is still very much aware of what Daddy can bring to bear when necessary).
To that end, I took a sizable chunk of my life several years ago and wrote a book, knowing full well that as a man with no platform I wasn’t doing it to become a millionaire. Expressing my thoughts via the written word has always been what I can do, so I used what I could. All I wanted to do was to wake some people up and hopefully break even on my investment in the project (which I did, thankfully).
Jeff has been gracious enough to give me some room here on AR, and in exchange I’ve been happy to help him with the site in whatever limited way that I can. While I’ve been writing here, though, I have not stopped coming up with other writing projects that I think may make a political difference. I look at my efforts this way: even if I never manage to have any of the other work published, I can always slice up some of the work in an effort to illustrate some points for AR. I guess by recycling my own writing, that makes me really, really “green.” Who knew?
In any event, this all brings me back to Herman Cain. I had the opportunity to watch the interview that Cain granted to Lawrence “I am a socialist” O’Donnell, which for a man such as Cain is truly venturing into enemy territory. I have no doubt that MSNBC generally and O’Donnell more specifically asked for the interview simply because Cain is beginning to gain some serious traction and now may be in a position to pose a mortal threat to the established liberal “history” that has been fed to the general American populace over the past four-plus decades.
O’Donnell, in my opinion, made a grave, grave tactical error in that interview, one that I hope Cain exploits going forward even if he doesn’t ultimately get the nomination, simply because he has the opportunity to shake the ground of the liberal establishment and to wake up many African-Americans around the country. In my opinion, Herman Cain has the opportunity to continue the work of Barry Goldwater, a man who has wrongfully gone down in history as a racist. He was not only not a racist but was also way ahead of nearly the entire political structure of our nation when it came to race relations.
In attempting to take Cain to task for his comments that “blacks have been brainwashed” into voting almost exclusively Democrat for the past forty-plus years, O’Donnell unwittingly took the argument exactly to where it needs to go: the racial unrest of the mid-1960′s. Cain did an admirable job pushing back, but I felt that he didn’t respond with the real facts; he had a living opportunity to begin re-awakening history.
Consequent to a manuscript for which I did some research and sent out to a few people, I remembered the facts in a specific passage that I think need to be brought into the light. Our conventional history tells us that it was many of the Southern Democrats (“Dixiecrats”) of the mid-60′s who, feeling that the federal government was beginning to once again overstep its bounds with regard to the individual freedoms and states’ rights as laid out in the Constitution, switched party affiliation to the Republican Party in objection to the civil rights legislation that eventually passed in 1964. While that is true, several things need to be clarified (or, perhaps, re-clarified):
- Historically speaking, the party of questionably racist practices has always been the Democratic Party; if people would only do some actual research rather than swallowing unquestioningly like stupefied mimes the nonsense that is fed to them by their professors of higher indoctrination in addition to the mainstream media, they might be able to more readily come to this simple conclusion. Of course, the switch over to the Republican Party availed the truly leftist Democrats an easy opportunity to brand alleged “Southern Republicans” as the party of racism. The leftist Democrats continued to be the party of elitism and exclusivity which, unless I’m mistaken, are concepts against which the hippies are rallying on Wall Street.
- Given the shakeup in the fundamental differences between the parties that was taking place, one would expect to be able to predict easily the general and eventual congressional tally on the civil rights vote. That result will, no doubt, confuse and anger some people.
- Should Barry Goldwater’s role in the evolution of the civil rights movement once again be given a fair shake, I firmly believe that a lot of people are–possibly for the first time in their lives–going to stop to re-assess.
The vast majority of these points I covered in the manuscript that I’ve mentioned. Here’s the passage to which I was alluding:
Goldwater’s vote on the 1964 Civil Rights legislation – ah, now there’s something absolutely worth discussing, and, I can assure you, not for the reasons you might initially think.
To begin with, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not the first attempt of the era to legislate the everyday equality that had for the century since the abolition of slavery been denied blacks – it was the third. The Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 failed to make it to the president’s desk. Barry Goldwater voted in favor of both of those pieces of legislation, which illustrates an important part of his character. As David Pierre of Newsbusters points out,
“Yes, Senator Goldwater voted against the 1964 Act, but to brand him as racist, or to imply anything similar, is simply ignorant and unknowing of Goldwater’s career. The truth is that Goldwater had a rich history of championing civil rights, including his success in desegregating the Arizona National Guard before President Truman had even done so with the U.S. Armed Forces.
“Before he was a public official, Barry Goldwater integrated his family business. When he was a city councilman in Phoenix, he became a founding member of the Arizona NAACP, and he remained a proud member until his death. In the Senate, he strongly supported both the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. Although he eventually regretted his vote, his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based strictly on political ideological grounds. As a strong conservative, he believed that two of its sections, Title II and Title VII, unlawfully overextended the role of the federal government.”*
It would seem fair to say, therefore, that Barry Goldwater was, in fact, ahead of most everyone else when it came to Civil Rights. He may have voted against the 1964 bill – something that I’ll discuss in more detail momentarily – but so did two other prominent members of Congress – Al Gore, Sr. (sound familiar?) and the recently-deceased Robert Byrd, a former member of the Klu Klux Klan. In fact, former Democratic president Bill Clinton – a Southern, elitist Democrat – tried to explain away, to an extent, Byrd’s dark past:
“He was a country boy from the hills and hollers of West Virginia, he was trying to get elected,” Clinton said. “And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done, and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that’s what a good person does.”*
Geez….think maybe a Republican can get a pass like that one of these days?
In fact, it’s fairly obvious that the typical, everyday, politically-and-historically uninformed American (sadly, that would seem to comprise the vast majority of our voting populace) simply swallows the drivel and storyline regarding the Civil Rights movement that spills from the mouths of the mainstream media and the professors of higher indoctrination in our colleges and universities. More than likely, this little nugget will come as somewhat of a surprise:
“According to Congressional Quarterly, in the Senate, 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while only 69% of Democrats did. Twenty out of twenty-one southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. In the House, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act versus 61% of Democrats. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Johnson cited Republicans for their “overwhelming support” of the Act.”*
If one chooses to go and to look into the machinations that went into the passage of this legislation and the final voting tallies, he’ll discover that the majority of Republicans were in support of the final bill, while the majority of Democrats were against it.
Let me ask the reader this: based on everything you hear today with regard to the basic differences in the two parties, does what I’ve just pointed out to you make any sense?
It’s critically important at this point that the reader understand the very basic differences in the objections to the bill held by the Southern Democrats and Barry Goldwater. The “Dixiecrats” objected to the bill mostly on racial grounds, in that they feared that the federal government was once again intruding into the affairs of sovereign states and that a racial equality would be imposed on them unilaterally. Goldwater, on the other hand, objected to the 1964 version of the bill as a conservative; in other words, he objected to it on purely ideological grounds, in that he felt the bill overstepped the authority of a limited federal government according to the Constitution.
Imagine that – trying to uphold the law. What a novelty.
Goldwater specifically objected to Title II and Title VII of the bill, which he felt intruded on the rights of private citizens. Title II provided for equal access to what are generally regarded as “public places” (hotels, restaurants, etc.) but were privately-owned places of business. In order to get around the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the Democrats used “interstate commerce” (sound familiar?) to defend this portion of the legislation, arguing that blacks would be less likely to feel safe to travel to certain places if they felt as though they’d have less chance of being afforded equal access.
Title VII dealt with the concept of equal employment opportunities, specifically in the area of a black person’s ability to obtain employment without fear of discrimination. In order to re-shape this part of the discussion, the Democrats argued that the requirements for employment opportunities would have a “disparate impact” upon minorities, meaning that certain jobs would be more accessible to whites because of upbringing, environment, and previous opportunities. It would obviously be much, much easier to show that a minority’s civil rights had been violated in this fashion than to prove that a person had intentionally discriminated against another solely on the basis of skin color.
Goldwater viewed this as well beyond the reach of the federal government and was crossing the line into “legislating morality”, which, obviously, cannot be done. In essence, our country was beginning to experience the first arrival on the scene of the Thought Police. As Goldwater said some 15 years later in 1979,
“I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?”*
Consequent to all of this, of course, Barry Goldwater was largely branded a racist, and conveniently so. His beliefs in the value of individual liberty, American exceptionalism, and the ideals of the Founding Fathers were a mortal threat to the establishment of people who either sought to divide Americans and to pit them against one another or who wanted to ensure that the masses were kept away from their mountaintop perch. Goldwater had to be destroyed, and those people succeeded.
The way that I see all this – and this is just me – it seems that the Democrats as a collective mindset never really changed. They believed then and they certainly believe now that certain groups of people are “superior” and that others are “inferior”. This attempt on their part to impose an unspoken “caste system” on American society, however, now takes the form of political intolerance. While wrapping themselves in the cloak of moral virtue – no doubt still trying to overcompensate for their collective voting record on civil rights – they target anyone who has the unmitigated gall to identify him or herself as a “conservative”, or even worse, a constitutional conservative. For all intents and purposes, conservatives do not deserve constitutional rights. A conservative is, after all, only 3/5 of an intellect.
The African-American community really needs to look at the political party that dominates the large cities in which they reside, because based on the statistics that I presented earlier, it certainly seems that they ain’t lookin’ out for minorities.
Barry Goldwater, however, was – before almost everyone else.
Ronald Reagan, in his speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention, said that Barry Goldwater was America’s “last chance for freedom”.
Seems he was right.
Look, I’m not a political insider, but if I were able to offer advice to Mr. Cain, I’d advise him to go for the jugular. O’Donnell potentially opened up Pandora’s Box; it would be a shame if no one put a crowbar over it so that all of the Democrats’ demons could come flying out.
Herman Cain is now on the radar of the Liberal establishment. They’re afraid–really afraid–for the first time in a long, long time. They’ve been governing via fear, force, and the imposition of guilt for four decades. If I were in the Cain camp, my only advice would be that the time is now.
NOW, THE PROMISED C.V.:
What you may not know about Herman Cain … he’s not a career politician (in fact he has never held political office). He’s known as a pizza guy, but there’s a lot more to him. He’s also a computer guy, a banker guy, and a rocket scientist guy. Here’s his bio:
- Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics.
- Master’s degree in Computer Science.
- Mathematician for the Navy, where he worked on missile ballistics (making him a rocket scientist).
- Computer systems analyst for Coca-Cola.
- VP of Corporate Data Systems and Services for Pillsbury (this is the top of the ladder in the computer world, being in charge of information systems for a major corporation).
All achieved before reaching the age of 35. Since he reached the top of the information systems world, he changed careers.
- Business Manager. Took charge of Pillsbury’s 400 Burger King restaurants in the Philadelphia area, which were the company’s poorest performers in the country. Spent the first nine months learning the business from the ground up, cooking hamburger and yes, cleaning toilets. After three years he had turned them into the company’s best performers.
- Godfather’s Pizza CEO. Was asked by Pillsbury to take charge of their Godfather’s Pizza chain (which was on the verge of bankruptcy). He made it profitable in 14 months.
- In 1988 he led a buyout of the Godfather’s Pizza chain from Pillsbury. He was now the owner of a restaurant chain. Again he reached the top of the ladder of another industry.
- He was also chairman of the National Restaurant Association during this time. This is a group that interacts with government on behalf of the restaurant industry, and it gave him political experience from the non-politician side.
- Having reached the top of a second industry, he changed careers again.
- Adviser to the Federal Reserve System. Herman Cain went to work for the Federal Reserve Banking System advising them on how monetary policy changes would affect American businesses.
- Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. He worked his way up to the chairmanship of a regional Federal Reserve bank. This is only one step below the chairmanship of the entire Federal Reserve System (the top banking position in the country). This position allowed him to see how monetary policy is made from the inside, and understand the political forces that impact the monetary system.
After reaching the top of the banking industry, he changed careers for a fourth time.
- Writer and public speaker. He then started to write and speak on leadership. His books include Speak as a Leader, CEO of Self, Leadership is Common Sense, and They Think You’re Stupid.
- Radio Host. Around 2007—after a remarkable 40 year career—he started hosting a radio show on WSB in Atlanta (the largest talk radio station in the country).
- He did all this starting from rock bottom (his father was a chauffeur and his mother was a maid). When you add up his accomplishments in his life—including reaching the top of three unrelated industries: information systems, business management, and banking.
One cannot help but come to the conclusion that this is one impressive individual. The professional left, I can assure you, is coming to that realization now.