CAIN DENIES REPORT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

LYNCHINGS of ‘Conservative’ BLACKS by the LAMESTREAM MEDIA BIGOTS continues: Herman Cain, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas...  Why this is happening (again):

Three recent polls conducted by Fox News, CNN and CBS News have Herman leading the race to the White House

An exclusive POLITICO report published Sunday night alleges that at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about multiple instances of inappropriate behavior exhibited by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain during his tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s. Cain’s campaign has since denied allegations.

Sources told POLITICO that the women complained that Cain had exhibited sexually suggestive behavior towards them, and that they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts in the five-figure range to leave the association. The payouts were reportedly made on the agreement that the women would not speak about their departures.

A Cain spokesman told POLITICO that the candidate indicated to campaign officials that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the restaurant association’s general counsel had resolved the matter.

Video:  Geraldo Speaks With Cain Campaign Spokesman

POLITICO approached Cain in person on the sidewalk Sunday morning while the candidate was leaving the Washington bureau of CBS news following an interview on “Face the Nation.” POLITICO writes of the tense confrontation that progressed:

“He was then asked, ‘Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?’

He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, ‘Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?’”

POLITICO claims to have known about the allegations against Cain for weeks, and has put together accounts of what happened by “talking to a lengthy roster of former board members, current and past staff and others familiar with the workings of the trade group at the time Cain was there.”

After questions from POLITICO regarding the allegations, Cain campaign vice president for communications emailed the publication on October 24, writing that any dispute about Cain’s conduct at the restaurant association “was settled amicably among all parties many years ago.”

Cain was president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association from late 1996 to mid-1999. Several board members of the National Restaurant Association mentioned in POLITICO’s story told the publication that they had never heard about any complaints regarding Cain making unwanted advances, and said that such behavior would be out of character based off of their experiences with the executive.

In a statement to The Associated Press Sunday night, Cain‘s campaign said that the POLITICO report isn’t true and represents unfair attacks.

Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon said the political press was “dredging up thinly sourced allegations” from Cain’s tenure leading the trade group in the 1990s. Gordon said the report includes  “unsubstantiated personal attacks” and said the press is “casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts.”

Remember what they did to Clarence Thomas? Here we go again.

Posted on October 30, 2011 at 9:47pm by Christopher Santarelli at the Blaze

BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HEAD: OBAMA IS ‘FANATICAL’ & ‘MARXIST’ — I ONLY VOTED FOR HIM ‘BECAUSE HE’S BLACK’

Harry Alford is the president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. And boy is he entertaining. He’s also not a fan of many of the business positions Democrats have taken.

You might remember him for his fiery exchange with call-me-Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in 2009, when he accused the senator of infusing race into a congressional hearing:

Video:  Senator Boxer Accused of Race Politics

Today he joined Laura Ingraham on her radio show to talk about Obama’s business policies. He started with this:

“Obama wanted the National Black Chamber to dance to his music and have blind allegiance to his crazy programs and agenda, which are totally anti-business. We are a pro-business organization. So we have to stand on the side of business, and the benefit of our members, which are black entrepreneurs.”

Eventually he got to calling Obama and the administration “Marxist” and “fanatical.”

“They might as well put on the brown shirts and swastikas,” he said.

But that’s not all. Alford also admitted he only voted for Obama “because he’s [Obama] black,” a move he now regrets.

“That is a lesson I will take to my grave,” he said solemnly, later saying Obama is “wrecking” the country and is “dangerous.”

You can listen to the entire, extremely opinionated interview below:

Video:  The Laura Ingraham Show - Black Chamber of Commerce CEO blasts "Marxist," "Brownshirt" Obama

(H/T: RCP & the Blaze)

Larry Elder

Democrats' Hypocrisy on Race -- When Will People Wake Up?

Here we go again.

A Republican official, this time a member of the Orange County, Calif., GOP central committee, stands accused of -- racism!

Her crime?

She forwarded, to a circle of friends, an email depicting an image of a family of chimpanzees, with the superimposed face of President Barack Obama over the baby chimp's face. The caption read, "Now you know why no birth certificate." The national media soon picked up the story with the implicit "GOP-is-bigoted" story line.

Given her position as a central committee member, America's ugly history of demeaning images of blacks and the Democratic Party's unfair but calculated characterization of the Republican Party as racist, the official exercised poor taste and bad judgment. She has apologized. But many demand her resignation.

This is a teachable moment.

The Democratic Party has lost the "white vote" in every presidential election since 1964. Democrats attribute this to white racism. Yet in 2008, when a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll asked whether voters would refuse to vote for a qualified black for president, only 3 percent of Republicans said "yes." More Democrats -- at 4 percent -- than Republicans admitted refusing to vote for a qualified black for president. Republican presidents have appointed more blacks to positions of authority than have Democrats. Of the black members of the House of Representatives, the only ones from majority white districts are Republicans.

Democrats are in trouble. Most Americans reject their left-wing agenda: bigger government; the refusal to address the need for entitlement reform; high taxes; anti-business regulation; anti-choice in education; pro-amnesty/porous borders; appointment of social-agenda-driven liberal judges; job-killing "climate change" hysteria; and the naive and dangerous strength-through-peace approach to foreign policy.

What tool does the Democratic Party often resort to in order to win elections? The race card.

As recently as 1960, the GOP attracted 32 percent of the black vote. Without the now-monolithic black Democratic vote, the Democratic Party could not survive. So it recruits and retains black voters by calling white Republicans "racists" -- and by calling black Republicans "sellouts."

We suggest black voters ask four questions:

First, why are Republicans painted as the bad guys and Democrats the good guys on the issue of civil rights?

The GOP is the party of Lincoln, a party founded to oppose slavery. The GOP, over the objections of the Democratic Party, backed the 13th, 14th and 15th constitutional amendments that freed blacks, granted blacks citizenship and granted blacks the right to vote, respectively. For over 100 years, Democrats fought against civil rights legislation, often reversing pro-civil rights legislation passed by Republicans.

Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan, once called the "terrorist wing of the Democratic Party." It was Southern (SET ITAL) Democrats (END ITAL) like Alabama's Gov. George Wallace and Birmingham Commissioner of Public Safety "Bull" Connor who opposed integration. As a percentage of the party, more Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.

Second, since good education is the ticket to the middle class, why does the Democratic Party force children to go to government schools with a 50 percent urban dropout rate -- while refusing to give the parents a say in the matter?

Third, how has government dependency helped black Americans? Since Democratic President Lyndon Johnson launched the pro-welfare-state "war on poverty," poverty has flatlined. But the percentage of black children born to unwed mothers -- many living in government-dependent households -- has increased from 25 percent to 70 percent.

Fourth, why is there a double standard that protects Democrats who make racially insensitive or racist comments? Here are just some examples:

Jesse Jackson called Jews "Hymies" and New York City "Hymie-Town." He apologized. Case closed.

Black Democratic former U.S. Rep. Diane Watson never apologized for her Ku Klux Klan-like attack against a black political opponent: "He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."

Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said of then-candidate Obama, he's articulate and "light-skinned" with "no Negro dialect" unless he wants one.

Former President Bill Clinton, in attempting to dissuade Ted Kennedy from endorsing Obama, said, "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel said of Republicans, "They don't say 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore, they just say 'let's cut taxes.'"

Donna Brazile, Al Gore's former campaign manager, said Republicans "have a white-boy attitude."

Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton told a black audience that the Republicans run the "House ... like a plantation -- and you know what I'm talking about."

The GOP should also demand an apology.

It should demand an apology from Democrats who play the race card to divert voters from the destructive effects of their wrongheaded policies. It should also demand an apology from their co-conspirators in the media for allowing them to get away with it.

Now, let us all continue the pursuit of a society based not on color of skin -- but on content of character.

The Ten Things You Can't Say In America, Revised Edition

What's Race Got to Do with It?: Why It's Time to Stop the Stupidest Argument in America

Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies and the Special Interests That Divide America

"The Future of Capitalism" - Capitalism Could Fail

President Obama: Neo-Marxist The topic: "The Future of Capitalism." Time magazine, to discuss this, assembled a "stellar cast." One such "honoree" works as a Public Broadcasting Service/National Public Radio host. The tax dollars produced by the capitalism he criticizes help pay his salary. (The irony was apparently lost.) At least other "business roundtable" panelists -- commentator/publisher/author Arianna Huffington and singer John Legend -- make their money the old-fashioned way, by enticing consumers to buy what they sell. "I don't think that left to its own devices," the taxpayer-supported broadcaster/pundit said, "capitalism moves along smoothly and everyone gets treated fairly in the process. Capitalism is like a child: If you want the child to grow up free and productive, somebody's got to look over the shoulder of that child." Good grief. Every dollar spent by government is one less dollar spent by taxpayers. Money comes from somewhere -- taxes, borrowing (taxes on layaway) or printing, which, if not offset by productivity, causes inflation, a stealth tax on everyone. Who can spend, save or invest more efficiently and humanely, you or some tenured bureaucrat in D.C. who's never run so much as a hot dog stand or lent himself out as a United Way volunteer? Private enterprise is the most proficient job- and wealth-creating "system" ever designed. But many, if not most, Americans think only government can and should build and run "infrastructure" and that government "investment" creates jobs of which the private sector is incapable of creating. Really? People point to President Dwight D. Eisenhower's construction of the interstate highway system. It is, they say, an example of both an appropriate and productive federal government expenditure and an obviously legal role of the federal government necessary to spark economic growth. In the early 1900s, a businessman, Carl Fisher, owned the Prest-O-Lite headlight company. He organized an association to finance coast-to-coast paved roads so that motorists could drive both day and night, ideally using his headlights. The association soon disbanded, when Congress passed the Federal Road Aid Act of 1916. What would have happened had government not built an interstate highway system? A consortium of truckers/gas stations/hotels/motels/roadside restaurants would likely have built one with their own money in order to make more money. They would have charged tolls for maintenance. Motorists actually using the roads would bear their costs. Private business built the first leg of the New York subway system. And it made money -- at least before local government used taxpayer money to build competing systems and undercut the fare charged by the private operator. Tax dollars hid the true cost, allowing the city-owned service to charge less. Ultimately, the private operators sold out to the city. Did Eisenhower have the constitutional authority to build the interstate highway system? Yes, but not to improve economic development -- and he knew it. In fact, the official name of the interstate highways is the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and DefenseHighways. Ike argued that the country needed paved highways to move missiles around to protect the country. From a military standpoint, the argument was dubious. Missiles could be launched from fixed positions, as technology continually increased range, speed, accuracy and power. The Founding Fathers identified a handful of allowable federal duties, not least of which is national security. But what about economic development? President James Monroe cast his only veto when Congress appropriated money to expand the Cumberland Road -- even though the road went through and would have helped his home state of Virginia. The Constitution, said Monroe, prohibits spending money for this purpose. Rather than expanding "entitlements," they must be dealt with -- and eventually ended. What about selling land (the fed is by far the largest landholder) and using the proceeds to pay for current and near-term obligations to Social Security and Medicare -- with a view toward complete eventual privatization? What about private charity instead of Medicaid? What about a free market approach to making health care more accessible and affordable? This means IRA-type accounts; cutting health care insurance regulation; allowing nonlicensed practitioners to perform tasks now done only by government-licensed doctors and other medical practitioners -- which shuts out competition and keeps prices high; allowing health care plans to be purchased out of state; allowing individuals to deduct their health care premiums as businesses do now; and adopting an English-style "loser-pays" legal system, which would likely minimize the incentive for doctors to practice expensive "defensive" medicine. Even if all of this makes sense, the toothpaste is out of the tube, right? So let's just try to stop things from getting worse. Unraveling the welfare state can be done. Indiana, for example, just leased one of its highways to a private consortium that charges tolls for maintenance and profit. Obama's anti-capitalist, Big Government, command-and-control economic vision exceeds mere "childishness." It is dangerous. After 100-plus days, the jury reached its verdict. Obama is a neo-Marxist. By Larry Elder

Investment guru Marc Faber says the financial system must be cleansed to save capitalism.

"I think the final low in markets will occur when the system is cleaned out," Faber told CNBC.

Unless that happens, "the way communism collapsed, capitalism will collapse," he says. "The best way to deal with any economic problem is to let the market work it through."

He sees the Federal Reserve and other central banks continuing to print piles of money. And the outcome won’t be pretty.

"The U.S. government for sure will go bust,” Faber says. “That I guarantee you. Not tomorrow, but it will go bust."

He isn’t optimistic for the fate of the global economy either.

“I don’t think that the global economy will recover anytime soon,” he says. “And we have to define what a recovery is.”

If economic output drops far enough, a mere revival of inventories can push growth up a bit, creating a mild rebound, Faber says.

“I take 2006 and early 2007 as the peak of prosperity in this long cycle, and I don’t think we’re going back there anytime soon.”

Many other experts share Faber’s bearish view of the global economy.

“The debate will continue on whether it’s going to be a V, U or L-shaped recession,” former World Bank president James Wolfensohn said at a recent conference.

“My own judgment is that it’s more likely the latter. I don’t believe we’ll get a quick fix any time soon.”

By: Dan Weil – NewsMax

The 100-Day Assault on America

Has it really been 100 days?

Aided by an eagerly compliant Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media, and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.

Obama -- to use one of his favorite expressions -- doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses, and even deficit-running states. Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" -- whatever that means -- from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.

Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" -- whatever that means -- 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number. Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" -- whatever that means.

Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam -- that eminent, well-regarded banker.

Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight." Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.

As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages -- are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.

Did the President, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes. Will the President's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes. Will the President's budget really double the national debt within a few years and then increase still more beyond that? Yes. Do the President and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe that they can "modernize" health care, thus "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.

America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something. Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism -- or, at least, we used to.

Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders -- at least in America -- have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System? Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages? Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.

Now let's turn to Job No. 1 -- national security. We no longer call the War on Terror the "War on Terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The President embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour. To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the President flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing. What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.

The President offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclenched their fist." The President even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays. What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."

Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy. What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, attempted to launch a long-range missile. The President condemned the act. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.

On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.

At least he looks good.

By Larry Elder - a syndicated radio talk show host, contributor to TownHall.com and best-selling author. His latest book, "What's Race Got to Do with It?" is available now.

Related Articles:

• More on "The black-white divide in Obama's popularity"
  
• The black-white in Obama’s popularity