Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Arizona State Senator Lori Klein: "Herman Cain Didn't Do It Because He Didn't Do Me!"

"Herman Cain Didn't Do It Because He Didn't Hit On Me!"

Those were essentially Arizona State Senator Lori Klein's sentiments, although she didn't really phrase it that way.  In an interview with CBS News, Klein spoke of her friendship of 12 years with the GOP candidate stating that he has "never been anything but a gentlemen - and I am not an unattractive woman."

Not to be mean but has Klein looked in a mirror lately?  She is an elderly politician who points firearms at reporters.  Not quite the example of physical (or emotional) beauty.

This argument is about as ridiculous as Cain's defense of his alleged actions when stating that there were many, many other women that haven't accused him of sexual misconduct.

She also added that in politics "we want a virgin to do a hooker's job."

Considering she is a politician, she basically admitted that she was a prostitute, so why trust a prostitute about the reputation of another aspiring prostitute?

Herman Cain's "Friends With Benefits"


"Wasn't Black Walnut enough for them?"

When it was first announced that there was a woman claiming Herman Cain acted inappropriately towards her and that she was paid off by the National Restaurant Association to go away, it was somewhat plausible to consider that the NRA was just covering their bases by avoiding a potentially costly legal issue from a false claim.

When it was discovered that there were multiple women who were paid off the old saying of "when there's smoke there's fire" started to sound more true.

When even more women stepped forward claiming Cain acted inappropriately, Cain's wife had a sudden media absence and then appeared on Fox News shortly after saying that Cain was a sweet husband that would never do such a thing and that she knew nothing of the previous accusations, things were pretty apparent - Cain was lying big time.  I don't know about you but if I was accused of sexual harassment my wife would be the first person to hear - not the last.

Fast forward a couple weeks and some slipping poll numbers and now there is a woman has come forward with more than a non-disclosure agreement or a statement from her then boyfriend backing up her story - she has an autographed "friends with benefits" bookrecords showing dozens of phone calls and text messages, and stories that can most likely be corroborated with a little research such as comparing receipts, plane tickets, and phone calls to Cain's known whereabouts at that time.

What was Cain's response?

Before the story even broke Cain addressed the media acknowledging yet another woman would step forward alleging a long time affair and that while he knew this woman, they were nothing more than friends and anything else was a lie.  This might be believable if it weren't for all of the other women who have stated otherwise.  What is even more alarming is that this relationship lasted until recently.

Atlanta's Fox 5 team reported:
An Atlanta businesswoman is breaking her silence, claiming she has been involved in a 13-year-long affair with Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, FOX 5 senior I-Team reporter Dale Russell sat down with Ginger White, who had a story to tell.

“I'm not proud,” White told Russell. “I didn't want to come out with this. I did not.”

White was worried a political tsunami was headed her way. So, she decided to head it off, by confessing she was involved in a 13-year-long affair with presidential hopeful Herman Cain.

“It was pretty simple,” White said. “It wasn't complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship.”

Ginger White says she met Herman Cain in the late 90s in Louisville, Kentucky, when as president of the National Restaurant Association, he made a presentation. She was impressed. She says they shared drinks afterwards and he invited her back to his hotel room.

“’I'd like to see you again,’” White said Cain told her. “’You are beautiful to me, and I would love for us to continue this friendship.’”

She says in his hotel room, he pulled out a calendar and invited her to meet him in Palm Springs. She accepted, and she says the affair began.

“He made it very intriguing,” White told FOX 5. “It was fun. It was something that took me away from my humdrum life at the time. And it was exciting.”

She says he gave her his newly-published book, Leadership is Common Sense, and he wrote: “Miss G, you have already made a 'big difference!’ Stay focused as you pursue your next destination."

She says during the next 13 years, he would fly her to cities where he was speaking and he lavished her with gifts. She says they often stayed at the Ritz Carlton in Buckhead and dined at The Four Seasons restaurant. She says he never harassed her, never treated her poorly, and was the same man you see on the campaign trail.

“Very much the same, very much confident, very much sure of himself,” White said, describing Cain. “Very arrogant in a playful sometimes way. Very, ah -- Herman Cain loves Herman Cain.”

When his new book, CEO of SELF, came out in 2001, she says Cain once again autographed it for her writing, "'Friends are forever! Everything else is a bonus.'"
White had said that she had come forward because of the way the other women were being treated by both Cain and the media.

“It bothered me that they were being demonized, sort of, they were treated as if they were automatically lying, and the burden of proof was on them,” she said. “I felt bad for them.”

What is possibly even more interesting is the response from Cain's attorney, Lin Wood: "No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life."

Not only is his attorney not denying a sexual relationship with Ginger White, his lawyer is essentially lumping the sexual harassment claims as being the same as a consensual relationship and should therefor not be questioned, which makes it appear all more damning for Cain.

This most recent accusation when considering Cain's bizarre defense of the other allegations - earlier in the month Cain told reporters there could possible be more.

“There will probably be others – not because I am aware of any, but because the machine to keep a businessman out of the White House is going to be relentless,” Cain said. “If they continue to come, I will continue to respond.”

While other Republicans are calling for Cain to drop out - probably because of the negative press he is bringing to not only him but to the entire field, as well as the lack of coverage to the other field - Cain has decided to stick around, or at least as long as his wife wants him to stick around.  Considering his wife has allowed him to run past the first couple waves of sexual misconduct, Cain will probably be in it a little longer.

Update - Looks as if the Black Walnut may have realized his web of lies have gotten too complex to handle.  According to sources, Cain is now "reassessing" his campaign due to this latest allegation.
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain told his staff Tuesday morning that he is reassessing his candidacy and will make the decision whether to remain in the race in "the next several days."

Cain's campaign has been plagued by sexual harassment allegations, and Monday a woman came forward alleging a 13-year affair with the candidate.

The Des Moines Register has more quotes from the Tuesday morning conference call. Cain reportedly told about 90 staff that the latest affair story might create “too much of a cloud” around his campaign.

"If a decision is made, different than we should plow ahead, you all will be the first to know,” he said. "Now with this latest one we have to do an assessment as to whether or not this is going to create too much of a cloud in some peoples' minds as to whether or not they should support us going forward."

He went on to deny the woman's story as he did Monday when it broke.

Cain's Iowa campaign chairman, Steve Grubbs, told the AP that the allegations have hurt Cain's fundraising and taken a toll on his family. Still, Cain will continue his campaign for now and deliver a foreign policy speech in Michigan on Tuesday.
What is interesting is that Cain's Iowan campaign chairman, Steve Grubbs, told the AP that these allegations have hurt Cain's fundraising but if you recall after the first allegations were made Cain's chief of staff touted his fundraising, stating that they had an extremely good day right after the Politico report raking in around $250,000 in one day, and that his campaign had raised $9.4 million in 41 days.

Does this sound like the foundations for a pullout from the race?  Will Cain later blame lackluster fundraising and distraction from the greater message - his 9-9-9 plan?  Did Mrs. Cain finally have enough with her husband's dalliances?

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Bachmann's Fairness Hypocrisy

Free market principles are the greatest except when they are applied to certain people.  Take Michele Bachmann - she is polling at four percent but when it came time for the most recent debate and an email sent by CBS' political director John Dickerson leaked out saying Bachmann wasn't going to be asked as many questions as the other candidates and that she was "nearly off the charts," Bachmann's campaign replied calling for the firing of the "piece of shit" Dickerson and cried that she would not receive fair treatment.

Imagine that - a candidate polling in the single digits wants fair treatment from the majority, to be given equal air time to express her views.

Out of curiosity, what has Michele Bachmann had to say about Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine?

Bachmann claimed Net Neutrality was the administration wanting "to silence the voices that are opposing them."

According to Bachmann, the Fairness Doctrine would inject an opposing viewpoint into a broadcast when someone who does not like what they are hearing could simply change the station.
In contrast to its name, the Fairness Doctrine would effectively ensure that the liberal viewpoint is promoted on the air to give a "fair and balanced" take on important issues of the day. It's a ridiculous notion, as today we are blessed with a myriad of news outlets and formats: cable news, the internet, and satellite radio, to name a few. If you don't like what you're hearing and find it biased, you can change the station and you will surely find something to your liking. What the Fairness Doctrine is about is the popularity of conservative talk radio.
Doesn't this sound like Bachmann's argument regarding the debates?  She wants to be given fair treatment and equal time with the candidates in the lead?  She wants to be able to express her viewpoints to the same population as Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, or Herman Cain.

Doesn't that sound a bit hypocritical?

If Bachmann didn't like the treatment (or lack thereof) she perceived she was receiving at CBS, why didn't she go somewhere else?

Bachmann also felt slighted because of the memorable debate moments involving her. Her political handler Keith Nahigian claimed she was treated unfairly because of the things she supported, like her enthusiasm for waterboarding.    

“While Michele has been onstage at tonight’s debate demonstrating strong leadership on foreign policy and national security, we received concrete evidence confirming what every conservative already knows – the liberal mainstream media elites are manipulating the Republican debates by purposely suppressing our conservative message and limiting Michele’s questions,” he said. “[W]e need to show the liberal media elite that we won’t stand for this outrageous manipulation. Help us fight this affront by sharing this with your friends.”

“[W]e will NOT stand for this pathetic attempt by the liberal media to manipulate the Republican primary process by limiting Michele’s conservative message for Republican primary voters,” he continued in an email to supporters. “ALL AMERICANS should be offended by this blatant attempt to manipulate the nominating process. Primaries are about voters, NOT the media elites. This is OUR primary and we will fight this blatant attempt to suppress Michele’s conservative message.”

Again, back to Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine. By rejecting those to things would essentially be for manipulating the average American voter. Hypocrisy?

I also found it interesting that Nahigian was upset that Bachmann's conservative message was allegedly being hushed, but then what was up with the several other conservatives on stage? Did anyone hear John Huntsman complain about his moderate message being hushed in the primary process?

Also, is it the Christian thing to do to call someone a "piece of shit?" I thought Bachmann was running a pious campaign...

Monday, November 14, 2011

Michele Bachmann Wants Us To Be More Like China???

The Republicans just had another one of their debates this weekend and it was an another opportunity for the candidates to offer their brand of lunacy, and this time Michele Bachmann did not disappoint - in the debate when talking about social programs, Bachmann used China as an example of who America should follow.  Apparently Bachmann believed China is the model of capitalism and personal responsibility.

This is what she said:
The "Great Society" has not worked and it's put us into the modern welfare state. If you look at China, they don't have food stamps. If you look at China, they're in a very different situation. They save for their own retirement security…They don't have the modern welfare state and China's growing. And so what I would do is look at the programs that LBJ gave us with the Great Society and they'd be gone.
Cassie Murdoch from Jezebel pointed out that Bachmann hypocritically defends Medicare and Social Security on her website.
Unfortunately, many Americans have been unduly frightened by scare talk about alleged attempts to potentially eliminate these programs. Michele understands the concerns of seniors who have been frightened into thinking that their Social Security could be taken away. As President, she will ensure that any reform to Social Security or Medicare will only affect those 55 and younger, and she will work to find a way to ease the next generation into a program that is solvent, fiscally responsible, and empowering to the individual. Michele has also pledged to protect Medicare by repealing Obamacare.
Medicare and parts of Social Security were part of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society."

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

The Lies Of Sand Lake Hills - The Meetings

Updated November 13th, 2011!

It has been sleepy here in Sand Lake Hills, Florida, for several months since a judge ruled the non-profit acting as a master association for all of Sand Lake Hills lacked any authority to do so - for over twenty years. Unfortunately the board and members of Sand Lake Hills Section 2 Homeowners Association are still a bit delusional. While they may have opened back up their secret meetings they have decided to rewrite history and try and paint the situation favorable for them.

At the last meeting, held May 18th, 2011, the corporation, for the first time in years, allowed every homeowner in every section to attend their once secret meetings. They decided to host this meeting to inform the neighborhood that they lost their lawsuit, sort of. The board president, Ted McDonald, proceeded to explain that the judges' ruling was a bit unclear and that the ruling only applied to one property. The president also stated that they did not have the authority to threaten people with lawsuits for not paying their "maintenance assessment."

How unclear was the judge's ruling?

The judge wrote that the "Section Two HOA was not authorized to enforce use restrictions in section three after December 10th, 1985."

The judge said nothing about the corporation lacking the authority to enforce the use restrictions on just one property.

Anyway, the HOA somewhat admitted defeat but continued to contradict themselves claiming they were not trying to become mandatory but then stated they were waiting for "clarification" to proceed with forcing non-members to pay their corporation.

While these lies were less obvious, McDonald had a real humdinger when he started explaining  they started holding secret meetings because trouble-makers were causing a disruption and preventing business from being conducted.  McDonald lamented the change of venue because the previous location, the Dr. Phillips Library, was free.  This is different then what the association told the homeowners right after they started holding their meetings in secret.  In the November 2008 issue of Sand Lake Hills Living, the board claimed Orange County started charging for use of the meeting room at the library.

Here is a little video detailing the lies:

Why would this corporation lie to the homeowners of Sand Lake Hills about not only their meeting location but in regards to other things, too?

For instance, during the May 18th meeting, Treasure Denise Crotty talked endlessly about the neighborhood's common properties yet during the court proceedings the association admitted there were zero common properties. (This lie will be the focus of another video)

Basically, the Sand Lake Hills Section Two Homeowners Association, Inc. held secret meetings to prevent information regarding the lawsuit from spreading to the neighborhood so they could continue soliciting homeowners for membership and forcing non-members to pay their corporation.

Update - I had just noticed something on Sand Lake Hills' website.  According to their homepage, they had announced the date, time, and location of their next meeting on November 2nd, giving 17 days notification.  This is not true.

I had visited their website on November 2nd at 4:27 PM as well as 11:01 AM November 3rd and 11:20 PM November 6th.  It was not until Tuesday, November 8th, that I noticed the website had been changed, giving non-member homeowners only 8 days notice - it is safe to assume that the association gave more advanced notice to the membership because they state in their online proxy form that there was a mailed notice.

Why would the board lie about when they posted the notice on their website unless they were trying to misinform a certain percentage of the homeowners in order to prevent those whom they disagree with from attending, namely non-member homeowners or those members who were led to believe they were required to join.

The deception continues to grow...

Sunday, November 6, 2011

A Lesson On The Laffer Curve For Big Government

Dan Mitchell decided to touch upon economic theory as a way to attack the current push for revenue increases, but his economics lesson seems to be very lopsided and I will explain why after this excerpt from Mitchell's post.
One of my frustrating missions in life is to educate policy makers on the Laffer Curve.

This means teaching folks on the left that tax policy affects incentives to earn and report taxable income. As such, I try to explain, this means it is wrong to assume a simplistic linear relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. If you double tax rates, for instance, you won’t double tax revenue.

But it also means teaching folks on the right that it is wildly wrong to claim that “all tax cuts pay for themselves” or that “tax increases always mean less revenue.” Those results occur in rare circumstances, but the real lesson of the Laffer Curve is that some types of tax policy changes will result in changes to taxable income, and those shifts in taxable income will partially offset the impact of changes in tax rates...

There’s lots of data here, but pay close attention to the columns on the right and see how much income tax was collected from the rich in 1980, when the top tax rate was 70 percent, and how much was collected from the rich in 1988, when the top tax rate was 28 percent.

The key takeaway is that the IRS collected fives times as much income tax from the rich when the tax rate was far lower. This isn’t just an example of the Laffer Curve. It’s the Laffer Curve on steroids and it’s one of those rare examples of a tax cut paying for itself.

Folks on the right, however, should be careful about over-interpreting this data. There were lots of factors that presumably helped generate these results, including inflation, population growth, and some of Reagan’s other policies. So we don’t know whether the lower tax rates on the rich caused revenues to double, triple, or quadruple. Ask five economists and you’ll get nine answers.

But we do know that the rich paid much more when the tax rate was much lower.
Mitchell argues that tax revenue increased because tax rates decreased from 70 percent to 28 percent and that the administration, wishing to raise tax rates, will effectively reduce the amount of money the IRS would collect.  There is one problem with Mitchell's use of the Laffer Curve - while tax revenue may increase from a tax cut, cutting taxes too much would have the same effect as raising taxes too much.

Now consider the numbers Mitchel cited as proof he is right - 70 percent and 28 percent.  This is approximately where they would appear on the graph:

What does this mean?

According to Mitchell's economic theory of choice, tax revenue would be maximized by utilizing a tax rate increase to roughly 50 percent (or theoretically any number greater than zero percent and less than 100 percent).  Considering the periods of economic prosperity in the nineties and that tax revenues dropped after the implementation of the Bush tax cuts, one could pretty much argue that a rate lower than 28 percent would not yield higher revenues.

Based on the numbers Mitchell presents as proof lower rates would increase revenue, here is another depiction of the Laffer Curve:

Why won't Mitchell admit that increasing taxes even a little bit won't hurt the economy?

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

To Fee Or Not To Fee...

Bank of America is dropping its controversial debit card fee, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Consumers slammed the bank after it announced in September that it would charge customers $5 per month to use their debit cards for purchases starting in 2012.

Bank of America is the latest to back away from charging a debit card fee; the bank's decision comes just hours after SunTrust Banks and Regions Financial Corporation, two of the country's largest banks, announced that they would be dropping their fees for debit-card purchases.

Previously, SunTrust had charged some of its customers $5 a month for debit card purchases, and Regions had been charging some customers $4. Neither bank will impose those fees going forward, and customers of both banks will have their fees refunded, according to the WSJ. Officials at both SunTrust and Regions acknowledged that consumer backlash played a role in the decision to abandon the debit fees.

Bank of America, SunTrust and Regions are only the latest major banks to back off from debit card fees, which have proved wildly unpopular among customers. JPMorgan Chase said last week that it's not going to charge a fee for debit card use after testing the program for eight months. Wells Fargo also said last week that it would drop its $3 debit card fee, according to the WSJ.
I find this reversal interesting because these banks decided to introduce their fees at the same time and within hours these banks decided to drop such fees.  Seems suspect if you ask me.

Not every bank decided to gauge their customers.  Some saw the fees as an opportunity to steal disgruntled customers away by pledging not to introduce such ridiculous use charges.

It is also questionable as to whether or not the introduced fees would have violated law.  While federal law caps per charge fees a bank may charge, the one time fees now dropped would have topped those caps for consumers who rarely use their cards.  Regardless, these banks' reputations have suffered even more so because of this ordeal, not like they care.