Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ITS OFFICIAL! Herman Cain's Campaign is Done -- Stick A Fork In It !
The Lid ^ | 07/20/2011

Posted on 07/20/2011 1:28:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Herman we hardly knew you. On first hearing about Herman Cain's candidacy it was exciting. What a resume, good on the stump, conservative ideals, worked for the federal govt but really became famous as a business executive who turned around companies in trouble...heck he saved Godfather's Pizza and I love pizza, that alone gave him extra points in my book.

Cain showed so much promise, he was good on the stump and was even better during the first debate, but now his campaign is dead, he may not know it yet but all that's left is for it to fall over. The cause of death is the same as so many presidential campaigns before him, known in the Latin as Bardus Superstitiosus Orationes (stupid bigoted statements).

The first hint that Cain's mouth did not have a self-control switch is when he announced that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet. Now a president's cabinet is supposed to act as his closest advisers, and he should be able to pick whoever he trusted most to fill those positions. But making a public claim that he will pick his advisers based on religion even if it were true, showed problem with his brain's "Warning You Are About To Say Something Really, Really Dumb" switch.

Cain seemed to back off that original statement last month, he started saying that he would appoint Muslims as long as they stated their loyalty was to America. He supported that by saying he would make that same loyalty judgment about all of his appointees, no matter what the religion. Something that sounded reasonable if it was the first thing he said, but coming after the "won't appoint Muslims at all" comment, it seemed hollow. As long as he didn't make the same mistake again the Cain campaign was still alive.

But sufferers of Bardus Superstitiosus Orationes usually find a way to become repeat offenders, and Herman Cain is no different.

This weekend Herman Cain was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. The former Godfather Pizza Executive doubled-down on his opposition to a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and he showed a disturbing lack of knowledge about the first Amendment to the constitution.

“Our constitution guarantees separation of church and state,” said Cain. “Islam combines church and state. They are using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their mosque in the community and people in the community don’t like it. They disagree with it. Sharia law is what they are trying to infuse.” Cain makes the same mistake that the ACLU types every year around Christmas. There is no Constitutional separation of Church and State. This is what the first amendment to the constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. See not there! Whether you agree with the ACLU that there should be a separation of Church and State or not, any first year law student should know the original reason for the religion part of the first amendment was to keep the Federal government from trying to control religion. Many of the individual states already had an "official" religion, and the founders were worried about the Federal Government supplanting that local authority.

Like many Americans, I have a problem with Muslims who wish to make Sharia law public policy, the civil rule must take precedence over everything. However Sharia law being observed within the context of a Mosque is allowed under the Constitution as long as that law is subservient to civil law. Remember the amendment is supposed to protect the religion from government, not the other way around. Constitutionally the above statement would also be true if the words Sharia law were removed and Halachic Law (Jewish religious law) was substituted. It does not mater of there are parts of fundamental Sharia Law are particularly brutal as long as the government enforces the fact that a particular code of religious law is subservient to civil law no one will be allowed to be brutalized and everyone's right will be protected.

So Herman Cain is wrong about the constitution here, and even worse that little speech filter failed him again. But Cain wasn't done (if you cannot see two videos below click here):

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CAIN: They could say that. Chris, lets go back to the fundamental issue that the people are basically saying they’re objecting to. They’re objecting to the fact Islam is both a religion and a set of laws, Sharia law. That’s the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes. The people in the community know best, and I happen to side with the people in Murfreesboro.

WALLACE: You’re saying any community, if they want to ban a mosque?

CAIN: Yes. They have a right to do that. That’s not discriminating based upon religion.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

We are supposed to be protecting religion from government. Despite his protestations Herman Cain is saying the Mosque is not allowed to be built because is a Muslim place of prayer. If Murfreesboro wants to ban the building of the Mosque, could a different community be allowed to ban the building of a Synagogue, Catholic Church? That is simply not allowed in the American Constitutional system. I am not an expert in the Murfreesboro case, there may be a very valid reason for stopping the Mosque construction, but Herman Cain did not present one on Sunday.

And even worse for the Cain campaign, when paired with his earlier faux pas, Cain was beginning to look like a real bigot.

Here's the real confusing part. Corporate America today his the ultimate home of political correctness. During my last stint working for "the man" at Viacom, there were regular sensitivity classes for sexual, racial and religious discrimination. Not only were there classes but there were memos, booklets, hats and special meals at the company cafeteria. The most important lesson the onslaught of training tried to impart on the employees was it didn't matter what the person who made the statement meant, it was only important how the person who heard the statement took it. It makes one wonder how the hell did Herman Cain make it through the Corporate world without learning to keep his mouth shut? It's scary that the guy has never learned to guard his tongue against making insensitive comments.

For those of you who think Cain's lack of a quality control speech filter should not hurt his nomination chances answer this. If Cain can't control himself when talking about Muslims or any people who may be different, but people whose votes he wants, how can he control himself during difficult negotiations with China? Or Russia? Or Saudi Arabia?

Here's another question for those of you who like me, feel that belief in the founder's vision of the Constitution is important for the eventual nominee, if Herman Cain does not understand the founders intentions behind the First Amendment, doesn't it make one question his knowledge of the rest of the constitution?

Today Herman Cain gave his reasons that Mitt Romney could not win. His first reason was one of the primary reasons I would have problems supporting Romney during the primary season, Romney care. The second reason was very troubling, Cain didn't believe a Mormon could win in the south.

Forgetting politics for a moment, this is the same country that just three years ago did what most people though was impossible, we elected someone who was half African-American as President, an event that as an African-American who has faced discrimination much of his life, Herman Cain should appreciate. Is he now using religious discrimination as a reason Romney should not be nominated?

If Herman Cain's campaign was not dead after his discussion with Chris Wallace on Sunday, its dead now and quite frankly it deserves to be dead. After showing much promise, Cain has shown a total lack of verbal control a failure of basic political skills.


TOPICS: Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: acidrant; cain; hermancain; meantomuslims; offmeds; potus; yiddropstenlids
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 last
To: SeekAndFind

I notice the author was not proud enough of their work to put their name on it.


81 posted on 07/20/2011 3:31:00 PM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It appears that you are in dire need of some education about Islam and Sharia Law

A Short Course on Shariah & the Muslim Brotherhood

1. What Is Shariah?

2. How Does Shariah Define Jihad?

3. ‘Civilization Jihad’ – the Muslim Brotherhood’s Potent Weapon

4. True Lies – the Paradox of Debating Shariah

5. Taqiyya – A Concept of Deceit that Security Professionals Must Know

6. Slander – How it is Used and Abused Under Shariah

7. How Shariah ‘Blasphemy’ Laws are Being Imposed On Us

8. What is the Muslim Brotherhood and How Does it Operate?

9. Genesis of the Muslim Brotherhood

10. Movement of the Muslim Brotherhood into the West

11. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Westward Infiltration

12. The Muslim Brotherhood in America

13. The Holy Land Trial: On the Trail of the Muslim Brotherhood

14. The Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Strategic Plan’

15. Penetration of the US Government: A Case Study

16. Mapping the Muslim Brotherhood in America

17. Who’s Who in the American Muslim Brotherhood

Islam is a warrior’s code, not a religion.

Islam Explained in Layman’s Terms

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here’s how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 5.2%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77..5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today’s 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world’s population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

82 posted on 07/20/2011 4:04:23 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Allowing Islam into America is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elendur

The only way it could be banned is by changing the constitution. Unless the courts ruled it a danger to society because of it’s preachings. And I see Christianity banned before Islam is.


83 posted on 07/20/2011 4:52:45 PM PDT by Terry Mross (I'll only vote for a SECOND party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Sufism is a branch of Islam. Though not all Muslims, particularly the more extremist types, agree.

Just like some Christians don’t consider Catholics or Mormons to be “real” Christians.


84 posted on 07/20/2011 7:24:59 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie
History will find Herman Cain’s warnings to be vindicated...

Just as Winston Churchill was vindicated, when he was the lone voice in the wilderness warning the world about Hitler.

85 posted on 07/20/2011 7:27:20 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sport

See the guy on my Freeper page. I know he is the exception and not the rule. I also know he wasn’t an American. But he would have made a better American than 98% of Muslims.


86 posted on 07/20/2011 7:33:08 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
A religious test must be determined by the legislative branch. That would be akin to the age requirement for president.

Cain saying that he won't appoint a Muslim to a position in his administration is no more a religious test than me claiming I wouldn't appoint a left-handed Lithuanian.

Personally I wouldn't appoint anyone from a liberal controlled state that didn't have to sense to leave and take their taxes with them.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

87 posted on 07/20/2011 7:40:35 PM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Seems to me that what Cain is saying is a populist view.

If he recieved more exposure the polls would reveal it.

He has nothing to lose by being more outspoken and gaining more msm attention.


88 posted on 07/20/2011 7:52:26 PM PDT by right way right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
No, it wasn't, it was to prevent the federal government from establishing a mandatory religion, or just one financially supported by the taxpayers. States were free to do that, and many did at the time.

AND JUST WHY did the founding fathers not want the government to establish a mandatory religion?

Was it because they feared the religion would then be used to control the government?

Are there any examples you can think of where the government has established a mandatory religion? Like countries in the middle east?

In those cases, does the government control the religion, or the religion control the government?

89 posted on 07/21/2011 10:41:59 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Corporate America today is the ultimate home of political correctness. During my last stint working for "the man" at Viacom, there were regular sensitivity classes for sexual, racial and religious discrimination. Not only were there classes but there were memos, booklets, hats and special meals at the company cafeteria.

...maybe that reason, he can't / won't support Cain, the author has been badly kitty-whipped in his profession.


90 posted on 07/21/2011 10:56:29 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (You do not have to smear (Pharaoh / Imam / DumboEars) Obama w/ lies....the truth does a fine job. :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Are there any examples you can think of where the government has established a mandatory religion? Like countries in the middle east?

England, France, various German states, Sweden and many others were known to the founders. Basically the wanted to be able to practice whatever religion they wanted, as well as not being forced to support another. Almost every largish country in Europe had, at least at one time, either mandatory religion or mandatory support of the state religion, save Switzerland. Either at the time of the founding, or not that long before. They were aware of the , Musselmen too of course. that little thing about the Barbary Corsairs was heating up about the time the Constitution was written. But the pirates had been doing their thing long before.

But the Musslemen were far away, in distance and in culture. The European Monarchies were not. l

91 posted on 07/21/2011 11:58:05 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Stick a fork in what? 9 Weeks of continuous sky-high positive intensity scores? lol


92 posted on 07/23/2011 3:43:56 PM PDT by taraytarah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

My niece is married to a muslim. He’s a lazy, self-serving, bum who wears designer clothes, hangs out at the gym and coffee shop, and spends all his money on himself. He contributes nothing to the household. Does no repairs, lawnwork, etc. He has no concept how a real man takes care of his family. He’s a typical muslim loser who has not even made an effort to assimilate. My niece buys all the food and clothes for her and their child. She wants out of the marriage, but she’s afraid he’ll take the child away.


93 posted on 07/26/2011 7:02:54 PM PDT by sneakers (EAT YOUR PEAS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson