Herman Cain Isn't Really Black

Some liberals apprently don't believe Herman Cain is really black, because he is a successful conservative.

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain isn’t “black enough” for liberals? Should he be smoking crack and slamming and hating whites, should he not be a business success, but a welfare-dependent, whining failure, to be an “authentic black” to racist Democrats?

Black conservatives face racism from liberals, particularly black liberals:

But for black Americans the choice of political party appears predestined. It seems liberals but more specifically black liberals have carved in the ten black commandments that “thou shall never be a Republican.” These same black liberals also refuse to submit to the fact that not all blacks think alike.

With black conservatives like Congressman Allen West, Congressman Tim Scott and Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain debunking this insulting stereotype, many black liberals have resorted to racist name calling to protect the myth that Democrat policies help blacks. Cain has been target number one on their list.

Here is an example of liberal "tolerance":
 
Apparently, all members of an "oppressed minority" must think identically or else they are "self-hating" or they are not actually part of that minority.  Herman Cain has been called an "Uncle Tom" and an "oreo," among other things.  He is very successful, despite much adversity.  His success should be admired, and I would think he would be a good role model.  But no, his success apparently makes him "not black."  So, no black people are capable of being successful?  Racists.

UPDATE: I should also mention Janeane Garofalo and her belief that Herman Cain's campaign is designed to deflect accusations of racism of conservatives.

On Wednesday night, she slammed Republicans, conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts, calling them racists. As you’ll recall, she said the following back in August (about Cain):

“[He's] in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherit in the Republican party, the conservative movement, the Tea Party certainly.”

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air makes this observation on "the supremely irrelevant Janeane Garofalo" (h/t The Blaze):

 this clip encapsulates perfectly how intellectually vapid the Republicans-are-racists argument truly is.  If African-Americans don’t do well among Republicans, it’s evidence of racism, and now if theydo get support among Republicans, that’s also racism. It’s an unanswerable assertion that not only is completely circular in its logic, it’s also lunacy. Basically, Garofalo is kind of like a cult member who insists that every data point supports her religious belief, regardless of whether it contradicts with other data points that are also used in defense of groupthink. 

Obama Panders to Gay Leftists, Herman Cain Speaks Up on Booing of Gay Soldier at Republican Debate

At a recent US presidential debate, a gay soldier asking a question of Rick Santorum was booed by an audience member.  The booer was subsequently rebuked by the surrounding audience and later by Santorum.  In a recent speech President Obama made to gay leftist organization Human Rights Campaign (HRC), he used the booing at the debate as a way to portray Republicans as anti-gay.

Barack Obama last night hit out at his Republican rivals for staying silent when a GOP debate crowd booed a homosexual soldier who asked a question.

During a highly combative speech to an audience of 3,000 gay rights activists, the president said: 'You want to be commander in chief? 

'You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient,' 

Recalling the boos soldiers Steven Hill received on September 22 during his videotaped question, which was filmed in Iraq, Mr Obama said: 'We don't believe in standing silent when that happens.'

To loud cheers and a standing ovation at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, he went on to say: 'We don't believe in a small America. 

'We believe in a big America - a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America - that values the service of every patriot.

I am glad that homosexual soldiers can now serve openly in the US.  Personally, I don't see the utility in the ban.  If someone wants to defend their country, their sexual orientation should not be taken into account.  Honourably serving gay soldiers are every bit as heroic as any other honourably serving soldier, in my opinion.  And the military (any military) requires discipline and adherence to the strict rules, and any soldier, including gay ones, should receive the proper punishment for breaking the rules if they do.  Other countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and Israel, allow for openly homosexual soldiers to serve, without much problem.  I am not one to champion most "gay rights" issues, but I do believe there was an inequality in DADT.  Leftist gay rights zealots certainly didn't help in the repeal effort, as usual, with their ludicrously radical activism.

DADT may have been an unjust policy, but that does not mean that DADT proponents are anti-gay or homophobic.  In fact, I sympathize with them to an extent given the outrageous behaviour of some gay people and activists.  The military is certainly no place for that (but, hopefully the discipline required of military members would have prevented that behaviour, and I would assume most gay soldiers would be above that behaviour anyway).

My favourite US presidential candidate, Herman Cain, has spoken out on the issue of the booing at the debate.

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain says that he should not have stayed silent after the audience [sic] at a recent GOP debate booed a gay soldier.
The Georgia businessman told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that it would have been "appropriate" for him to have defended the soldier. None of the candidates at the Sept. 22 forum responded to the booing. 

But Cain also suggested that the audience may not have actually been booing the soldier. "Maybe they were booing the whole 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal more so than booing that soldier," told ABC's "This Week." "But we didn't know that. So that was not the time to try and decipher."

After watching Herman Cain on Fox News this morning, I was impressed, yet again.  This is a man who directly answers questions asked of him.  And I applaud his speaking up about the booing incident.

Herman Cain is simply way out of Obama's league.  Obama's campaign strategy appears to consist of nothing other than attacking Republicans.  Cain's strategy appears to consist of proposing ideas of how to fix the USA's problems.

Rhetoric, Fear and REAL Hope and Change

I can't get past Obama's rhetoric.  Many, many other people have pointed out what a hypocrite Obama is.  He promised post-partisanship, but it seems like every speech he makes contains some sort of vilification of Republicans (not to mention "millionaires and billionaires," and my personal favorite, "corporate jet owners").  Obama might have his rhetoric and the obsequious media to rely upon, but the reality of reality should hopefully be enough to evict Obama from the White House.  Obama's and the media's rhetoric cannot be enough to obfuscate the facts (low unemployment, high inflation, et cetera) when so many people are well aware of them, and since they are having such a profound effect on peoples' lives.

Any prosperity loving citizen of a Western nation should support the Tea Party Movement, given how inextricably linked the US's economy is to that of the rest of the world.  I really hope Americans nominate the right Republican to challenge Obama.  I do not believe a RINO like Mitt Romney would be able to effectively curtail government spending, and everyone in the Western world should be paying close attention.  It is too early to determine who the right candidate is, in my opinion, however.  At this point, I would probably support Herman Cain.  I think someone with leadership experience in the private sector may be the perfect person to deal with what the next president will inherit from Obama.  Yes, it would be a risk to elect an outsider, but, at this point, it would be a risk that is well worth taking.  Having said that, I would not support Herman Cain completely at this point.  It is too early.  And, if either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio enters the running, well, they are just too damn good not to support.  But that doesn't look like it will happen.

I am a concerned Canadian.  I am also a university student with a very tight budget.  I don't need a stagnant economy to make things more difficult than they will already be.  I don't have nearly as much at stake as most Americans, but the prospect of another Obama presidency, which will almost inevitably lead to an economic crisis the likes of which Americans haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression (if my amateur reasoning can be relied upon), and hence one the likes of which Westerners haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression, frightens me.

UPDATE: After re-reading this, I realized the last sentence didn't make any sense, so I fixed it.