"“You can demonstrate all you want to on Wall Street. The problem is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
~Herman Cain
Please click the pic
Posted on 10/07/2011 9:02:40 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Jason Pye
October 7, 2011
Back in May, Herman Cain answered a few questions from Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic dealing with Libya and civil liberties issues. Cain’s answers on the USA PATRIOT Act were disappointing; and quite frankly, showed a severe lack of respect for the Fourth Amendment, especially for someone that supposedly wants to restore the Constitution.
Oddly though, Cain rejected the idea of a president authorizing the death of American citizen, as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, without due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Here the relevant part of the interview (Friedersdorf’s questions are in bold):
President Obama has said that he has the authority to assassinate American citizens if he’s declared them an enemy combatant in the War on Terror. Al Awlaki is one guy who is on the official government list where he can be taken out. Do you have any thoughts on that? Is it a good policy because it allows us to take out Americans who may have joined Al Qaeda? Or is it a bad policy-
Well first of all, this is the first that I have heard - you’re saying it’s okay to take out American citizens if he suspects they are terrorist related. Is that what you said?!
Yes, that’s what I said.
I’ve got to be honest with you. I have not heard that. I had not heard that’s something that he said. I don’t believe that the president of the United States should order the assassination of citizens of the United States. That’s why we have our court system, and that’s why we have our laws. Even if the person is suspected of being affiliated with terrorism, if they are a citizen of this country, they still deserve the rights of this country, which includes due process. Osama bin Laden was not a citizen of the United States of America. So I would not have changed the decision the president made in that regard. But if you’re a citizen, no, it is not right for the president to to think he has the power to have you assassinated. No. He has the power to make sure you’re locked up, but you have to go through due process.
What about other people who are locked up? Where should we try terrorists when we capture them? Military tribunals? The court system?
I firmly believe it should be military tribunals. I don’t believe we should clog up our court system trying terrorists. They’re not citizens of the United States. They are a threat to the United States. I think they should be tried by military tribunals. The process would move a lot faster, and we are much more likely to get the proper judgment against these people who have killed many of our citizens, and who have a desire to kill more of our citizens.
While Cain was unaware of the situation in question — a troublesome revelation in and of itself, you can see that there is no ambiguity in his answer, even if the American citizen in question is engaged in terrorist activities, as Cain says, “they still deserve the rights of this country, which includes due process.”
But this week, just days after Awlaki was killed without due process, Cain expressed support for President Obama’s action and denied that he ever said anything to the contrary (emphasis mine):
During a brief phone interview this afternoon with The Weekly Standard, Cain responded to questions that have been raised about his positions on the war on terror and taxes.
Asked why he had backed off his opposition to the U.S. military’s targeting Anwar Awlaki, the al Qaeda terrorist and American citizen who was killed Friday by a drone strike in Yemen, Cain denied that he had ever opposed taking out Awlaki.
“I never said that [President Obama] should not have ordered [the killing]. I don’t recall saying that. I think you’ve got some misinformation,” Cain said. “Keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there trying to make me sound as if I am indecisive.”
Uh, we didn’t have to try, Mr. Cain. You’re doing a pretty good job of making yourself sound indecisive. Of course, this isn’t the first gaffe Cain has made on foreign policy issues. Remember, he bombed Chris Wallace’s question on Palestinian “right of return” during a visit on Fox News Sunday and other answers on foreign policy questions have been essentially that we’ll have to elect him to find out what he believes. Unfortunately for Cain (but thankfully for the rest of us), it doesn’t work that way.
Cain has also been backing himself into a corner on Rick Perry. It’s become obvious that he’s not Perry’s biggest fan, it seems for political reasons more than anything else, as evidence by overplaying his hand on the hunting camp story that was recently brought to light.
During an interview yesterday with the National Journal, Cain said that he’d consider the vice-presidential spot on the ticket with any of his rivals…except for Perry:
Herman Cain said Thursday that he would consider an invitation to join an eventual Republican presidential nominee as a vice presidential candidate — unless the nominee is Rick Perry.
[…]
“I would not say no to being vice president of the United States,” Cain said. “But it would depend upon who got the nomination. I will support who gets the nomination. I know I have said that there are some people right now who I cannot support, but I wouldn’t say no to it. I could say yes. But it has to be someone who I believe I can complement them in their job by being able to bring my skills to the table.”But, Cain told the National Journal, “Quite frankly, based upon Governor Perry’s position on some issues, I would not be comfortable being his vice presidential nominee.”
Cain said that while he hasn’t “totally gone through all of [Perry’s] positions, but a lot of positions I have questions with” including “being soft on the border, issues relative to tuition for children of illegal aliens.”
Interestingly, Tax Hike Mike Huckabee held a similar position as Perry on in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants, but that didn’t stop Cain from sending Huckabee $2,300 during the 2008 primary.
We’ll have more on Cain later. Stay tuned.
Stop with the tired “He ran a pizza chain” line. You’re either too dishonest or too ignorant to look at Cain’s entire adult experience.
But he's all for a Texas version of both and calls us "heartless" when we disagree with him.
No sale.
Well thank you very much HiTech! I am pretty smart, aren’t I!
And while I won’t do your reading and research for you, I do have some advice for you as you do your thing here on Free Republic:
http://youtu.be/OAvhgFyqzik
I am happy for you that your line “below which you cannot vote” allows you to support Perry. Mine, however, is not that low.
Thanks for reiterating the fact that in Texas, Americans in 45 other states are second class citizens to illegals.
But it does allow the illegals a path to legal citizenship. Basically, you want to pay in-state tuition, you need to become legal also. So, you go to high school for 3 years, you sign up to get legal, you can pay in-state tuition.
My kids attended their entire primary and secondary careers in US schools; thirteen years. If they had enrolled in a Texas University, they'd have paid out-of-state tuition.
What about Americans being second-class citizens in Texas don't you understand?
Seriously? That is what you are mad about? That Texas doesn't grant in-state tuition rates to non-state residents? So Texas should give in-state rates to non-tax payers in your book? And do you require that all 50 states should do the same for Texans as well? Texas has no state income tax so our colleges are supported with property and sales taxes that illegals here DO pay. We can't kick them out, we have to educate them, we have to provide them medical care and we gave them an incentive to come out of the shadows, tell the USCIS that they are here, change their status and start contributing to the state they are otherwise a draw on and you're mad because people who contribute nothing to the State of Texas have to pay more to get educated by the State of Texas?
Give me a break! You do understand that getting a college degree in Texas will never benefit an illegal, they can't use it. The only people who can are the ones who can change their status and the majority of the people swimming across the Rio Grande are not going to be able to get their status changed. This benefits those who are here that entered the country legally but have over stayed their visas or lost their jobs, or many other reasons why they have become illegal, many of whom are simply waiting their turn for the USCIS to get around to them and that can take forever since 9/11. You should do some research into the issue instead of assuming Rick Perry is standing at the Rio Grande with a towel and a UT Catalogue. Regardless of what Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and now Herman Cain want you to believe, you can not fence the Rio Grande, it is the US Government's fault people are flooding across our border and they are not doing it to get a $151 discount at our Jr. Colleges.
Take heart Fred.
In Pa, Texans don't get in-state tuition. That teaches 'em.
The fact that you don't understand why people would be upset about this says everything anyone needs to know about your politics. Illegals are rewarded in Texas vis a vis Americans.
Your claim that they're paying taxes entitles them to this benefit is ridiculous. The studies by serious economists show that illegal immigration is a small, but measurable net drain on the US economy, and a larger, much more serious drain on the economies of border states.
They aren't paying anything when all aspects of their costs to the economy are accurately tallied. They're a net negative.
But even if they weren't, elevating them over American citizens -- whatever the feel good arguments you OH SO COMPASSIONATE Texas "conservatives" are making, and however small the costs is wrong. It's an affront to the rule of law, and the fact that the Plyler decision is wrong isn't any excuse to pile on more injustice.
Incidentally, I'd suggest all you Texicans get on message: one of the answers I've been given in response to this is that residents of Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and a few other states also enjoy discounted tuition in the Lone Star State ... hmmmm ... so those non-residents are paying sales tax in Tejas? How exactly does Tejas levy a property tax on them?
Please.
You're doing something that's morally unjustifiable. It's not lessened because so few avail themselves of it, it's not lessened because some Americans are "graciously" put on the same footing as illegals, and it's not lessened because of a Federal Court decision that all Americans have to live with. All 50 states have to abide by Plyler vs. Doe. Not all of the rest are encouraging illegals by granting them benefits that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution for other Americans.
Stop making excuses and put an end to it. And stop calling those of us who see it for what it is "heartless." That's BS.
Thank gawd we're heartless dastards in the Commonwealth.
:-)
I'll look past your belief that insulting Texans by suggesting we are somehow un-American because we don't give non-tax payers tax payer's rates somehow wins you support, and just address your questions. Illegals do pay state taxes every time they buy something and by being renters the same way everyone else in Texas pays them. As far as a few residents of Texas border states, they do get in-state rates based on economic contributions to our state. Some are deals where states assist Texans secure the US Border, some involve commerce and power purchase from Texas and others are based on proximity that causes them shop in Texas thereby making them tax payers.
The Law does not give other Americans a disadvantage at Texas schools, being non-Texas residence give them that disadvantage, the same disadvantage Texans have in other states. No state anywhere in this country gives in-state tuition to non-residence, it is the residency requirement that makes them eligible and they meet it. Every child in the country is capable of meeting those requirements if they want to come to our schools, all they have to do is get their parents to move to Texas.
I understand that you don't like the law, I don't like it either. I personally think it gives colleges too much power on deciding who is complying and that it should be done case by case so we know that it is helping the people we intended to help not just hoping that it does. But don't characterize it as something its not and don't think that it's OK to question the patriotism of Texans just because you don't like a law they past. We're in the fight which is more than I can so about the majority of Americans who think the problem is "a bunch of Mexicans are stealing their lawn mowing jobs" and contribute by bitching about Rick Perry. Our tax dollars are going to secure the border when they should be going to our classrooms and our roads. It's our cops who are risking their lives and its our citizens that are taking gun fire from across the border. We've got 1.1 to 1.2 million illegals in this state thanks to the un-willingness of the US Citizens to demand that the US Government does its Constitutional duty to stop it. You want to help then help us force the Government close the border because it's not Rick Perry who shut down the electronic frontier, it wasn't Rick Perry who sent the National Guard home, and it damn sure wasn't Rick Perry who is arming them, it is Rick Perry that is using our state dollars to try to stop it.
As for the excuse that this is a residency requirement: PUH-LEAZE. These aren't residents; they're squatters. A bad court decision doesn't justify a bad decision made by the polity.
As for this especially idiotic remark:
We're in the fight which is more than I can so about the majority of Americans who think the problem is "a bunch of Mexicans are stealing their lawn mowing jobs" and contribute by bitching about Rick Perry.
You haven't been paying attention on FR very long if you think this is the problem, or even the perception of the problem by any serious conservative. Illegals are a net drain on our entire economy, and they are causing an enormous distortion of our political process and institutions.
Given the demographics of leftards, if there were no illegals in the US, or if they had been dealt with properly in 1986, the country would be far to the right of where it is today, and in ten years the Democrat Party would be relegated to (just barely) New England-only status. We are allowing leftists to import millions of left-wing voters whose political history has transformed a country rich in national resources and free of many of the pedestrian obligations of advanced nations by the prosperity of its superpower neighbor into a Third World shiitehole.
Given its natural endowments, there is simply NO excuse for the status of Mexico. This is Colombia on our southern border, and its people continue to elect the same commies and criminals generation after generation. They are and will do the same thing here. Texas is a big state, so maybe you haven't been to Pecos or El Paso lately, but I have. FYI: that isn't really part of "Texas" any more. I've also done work in Northern Mexico, and I see very little difference North or South of the Rio Grande.
No one concerned about this issue thinks the problem is Mexican gardeners. Get a clue.
I didn't say it was the conservative perception, but clearly it is the majority of Americans' because if they had a clue what was happening at our border there would be people with pitch forks and torches at the White House and Congress. And yeah, I know the border, I own property close to Zapata. I know the border and I know what we're dealing with here and the issue isn't school tuition. There is a civil war on our border and the people flooding across it are running for their lives. If this was happening anywhere else in the world there would be UN refugee camps set up but instead we've got Democrats that hope to make them voters and Republicans scared to death that the Left will succeed and don't want to offend them. But Perry isn't one of them, he is fighting the border war and your using one small issue that happened 10 years ago before 9/11 to frame his entire position on immigration. The intent of that law was to let children who are eligible to become legal residence who grew up in Texas be able to finish school without having to wait for the USCIS to finally get around to changing their status, not to let ever person who swam across the Rio Grande to get into college because that wouldn't benefit them and it wouldn't benefit Texas.What Perry said was stupid, he should have been prepared to defend it, his mistake was thinking that people actually understood the law and the intent of the law and for that he should be slapped, but calling him limp on immigration and on the border is just not true.
Obviously, logic is not one of your stronger points.
"“You can demonstrate all you want to on Wall Street. The problem is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
~Herman Cain
Please click the pic
And this is different from describing them as heartless exactly how?
I'm not a Cain guy, so defending him isn't of much interest to me. It's an offensive remark, but it isn't the standard ploy of the Democrats. Perry's mischaracterization was.
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.
