You are here
5 Reasons Herman Cain is Unfit for the Presidency
You wrote this. Only a communist or an egomaniacal lunatic would desire to vote on their own stuff.
Click "Okay" and close this before someone sees this.
1. Cain Ignorant on Arab "Right to Return" Propaganda That's Really Meant to Destroy Israel
Herman Cain was on Fox News Sunday in May. When Chris Wallace asked about the Arab propaganda movement to give Palestinians the "Right to Return," Herman Cain indicated that he was ignorant of the propaganda intricacies of that policy. The entire duration of the Barack Obama administration has been openly hostile towards Israel. There is some indication that the 2012 election will not repair this travesty if Herman Cain is the Republican nominee. He's not smart enough on the issue to turn things around. And if you believe he'll hire smart people around him, look at his record of hiring loons to run his presidential campaign.
Cain's ignorance on the intricacies of Arab propaganda against Israel, particularly the so-called "Right to Return" reveals how little Cain is prepared to direct a conservative foreign policy. "Yes, but under – but not under – Palestinian conditions. Yes. They should have a right to come back if that is a decision that Israel wants to make…. I don't think they have a big problem with people returning," Cain said. See video:
2. Herman Cain will Require "Loyalty Oath" for Muslim Appointees
Appealing to the fringe right nativists, Herman Cain suggests that in order for a Muslim to serve in his administration, he will require them to take a "loyalty oath" to the United States. How will this go over in a general election? Transcript of Herman Cain on the Glenn Beck TV show on Fox News:
GLENN BECK: You said you would not appoint a Muslim to anybody in your administration.
HERMAN CAIN: The exact language was when I was asked, “would you be comfortable with a Muslim in your cabinet?” And I said, “no, I would not be comfortable.” I didn’t say I wouldn’t appoint one because if they can prove to me that they’re putting the Constitution of the United States first then they would be a candidate just like everybody else. My entire career, I’ve hired good people, great people, regardless of their religious orientation.
BECK: So wait a minute. Are you saying that Muslims have to prove their, that there has to be some loyalty proof?
CAIN: Yes, to the Constitution of the United States of America.
BECK: Would you do that to a Catholic or would you do that to a Mormon?
CAIN: Nope, I wouldn’t. Because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions. I know that there are some Muslims who talk about, "but we are a peaceful religion." And I’m sure that there are some peace-loving Muslims.
(Source: The video below: )
3. Herman Cain is Soft on the Second Amendment
On CNN, Herman Cain proposed a position on the Second Amendment (the federal right to bear arms). In an exchange with Wolf Blitzer:
BLITIZER: Let’s talk about gun control. Do you support any gun control?
CAIN: I support the Second Amendment.
BLITZER: So you don’t? What’s the answer on gun control?
CAIN: The answer on gun control is I support, strongly support, the Second Amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
BLITZER: Should states or local governments be allowed to the gun situation . . .
BLITZER: So the answer is yes?
CAIN: Yes. The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.
(Source: CNN Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer Oct. 18, 2011 .)
When confronted at a meet and greet after the Blitzer interview, Herman Cain refused to clarify his remarks that states can regulate guns, or impose gun control:
That the federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms completely escapes Cain, as he stakes a position to the left of Al Gore, suggesting that state law should be allowed to override federal law if a state desired to ban all firearms. Herman Cain apparently isn't aware of the Supreme Court ruling in Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago. In this 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the Second Amendment applies equally to the federal government and to individual state governments.
4. Herman Cain is Confused about the Fifth Amendment
In a May 2011 interview after the first Fox News Debate, Herman Cain said that terror suspect Anwar Al-Alwaki, an American citizen, should not be unilaterally assassinated by the CIA without due process, as Al-Alwaki was in a drone strike. "He should be tried as an American citizen," Cain said, emphatically. Here's the video:
Later, at the TeaCon conference in Chicago of Tea Party activists at the end of Sept. 2011, Herman Cain reversed his earlier declaration, in variance with the Fifth Amendment, and declared that he supported President Obama's drone strike to kill Al-Alwaki:
I will not delve deeper into the whole "was it Constitutional" argument. The point is that Herman Cain is clearly confused about the Constitution, and vagrantly flip-flops his positions depending upon his audience. Herman Cain sounds so Romney-esque. Or, rather Barney Fife-esque.
5. Cain Doesn't Know What's In the Constitution, but Demands that You Do
A common refrain of those supporting Herman Cain (neo-Constitutionalists) is that we all must "read our Consitution" and then they wave it in everyone's face. But when a so-called Tea Party leader named Herman Cain demands that his audience knows the Constitution, it helps if that leader actually knows what's in the Constitution.
Here is Herman Cain "educating" the masses on The Constitution:
"We don’t need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America, we need to reread the Constitution and enforce the Constitution,” Cain said. “And I know that there are some people that are not going to do that, so for the benefit of those that are not going to read it because they don’t want us to go by the Constitution, there’s a little section in there that talks about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence, a beautiful document in itself, but not binding law of the land. I won't link to the source. Google it.