Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

Democrats Celebrate the Fall of a Black Man. Again!

In Opinion on December 3, 2011 at 3:09 pm

I neither know, nor have an interest in knowing, the truth about Herman Cain’s past dealings with women.  (See previous post)  I also did not support his candidacy for the GOP nomination, but that is not relevant to my point.

I have a habit of watching MSNBC and reading Huffington Post, so I can see how progressives and liberals react to events and to sample their thinking in general.  Today, there is an undignified, happy and, I sense, vindicated tone to their response to Mr. Cain’s withdrawal from the presidential campaign.

Why should anyone celebrate this outcome?

If he’s guilty as charged, what a sad situation for the women involved.  Shouldn’t we be saddened by the failure of a high-profile man to behave himself honorably.  Let’s hope he can get his life right, be forgiven by his god and, if possible, make peace with his family and the others involved.  But, nothing to celebrate or be happy about, right?

If he’s innocent, then a good man’s reputation has been soiled, and many lives have been affected negatively and irreparably.  So, again . . . nothing to celebrate, right?

Please view your own and your friends’ commentary on this topic in that light.  Yes, character matters, but elections aren’t supposed be such a high-stakes game.  For winning to be worth creating this much carnage tells us that our government is out of control.  Our government is exercising too much power over our lives and, worst of all, attracting players who covet that power more than they covet their own peace of mind.  Such men have harmed and, unstopped, will destroy this country we love.

  1. Shit opinion written by a shithead. Obama 2012

  2. This is an interesting read:

    Herman Cain grew up in the democrat south. In an environment where another young black boy, Emmett Till, from Chicago visiting relatives in the democrat south, was lynched for looking at a white woman in public:

    Today, racist democrats have convinced themselves that the true racist heart of democrats beats in all Republicans so democrats have been attempting to use those things that have long tickled the dark, racist hearts of democrats, black men with white women. Therefore, for weeks we have experienced the democrats attempting to pull off a modern day “Emmett Till lynching” from pages out of the Book of democrat Party Racism.

    Racist democrats believing Republicans are racist believed that if a “blonde haired, blue eyed, white woman” claimed Herman Cain (Emmett Till) talked to her and she felt he forgot his place, Republicans would turn on him. When Republicans didn’t respond like our typical racist democrat they repeated the process and got another “blonde haired, blue eyed white woman” to claim Herman Cain (Emmett Till) grabbed her head and tried forcing it between his legs and stopped when she asked him to stop and she stayed in the car asking him to drive her home or to the hotel.

    When open and fair-minded Republicans did not react like racist democrats they tried it again and again. democrats always project their racism onto everyone except democrats, where the racism they see in others actually lives in its historical home.

    democrats have been attempting to symbolically lynch Herman Cain with the “blonde haired, blue eyed white woman” that caused democrats to lynch Emmett Till. This behavior shows the true nature of the democrat party and their racist heart that still beats a racist beat in 2011. Racist democrats attack Herman Cain because he has made a good life for himself, forgetting the place racist democrats have assigned to him and all black Americans in our society; to live in poverty, surrounded by violence and crime, in every democrat controlled urban plantation in America. Breaking the bonds of slavery to the democrat party is the crime Herman Cain must be punished before other black Americans are encouraged to break free.

    • Years ago Vernon Jordan, an old civil rights laywer from the south spoke about how Jim Crow democrat party operatives in the south during the 1960’s would plant a sympathic white woman in a civil rights organization for the purpose of one night being alone with a civil rights leader in order to claim while they were alone, he sexually attacked her to discredit and blunt the influence of that civil rights leader. Vernon Jordan said because this was a known tactic of racism democrats he never met with a white woman who askedto see him in an impromptu meeting alone at night. There had to be witnesses to the “in the spur of the moment” meeting.

      Today, the racist democrat party has co-opted many of the old civil rights leaders and have made most of them wealthy from becoming agents of the democrat party, the same democrat party that forced Rosa Parks to sit on the back of the bus. The same party that lynched 3500 black Americans and 1300 Republicans over the issue of black equality. The same democrat party that is the only American political organization that has a history of terrorism to murder American citizens and political opponents.

      What was done to Herman Cain has a long history in how racist democrats operate to cause, “the Fall of a Black Man, Again!” This historical information is not absurd, it is relevant for the understanding of current affairs in its proper historical context.

  3. Open your eyes. The last paragraph is the point. It’s not about Herman Cain. It’s about the political process and the fact that the stakes are too high because the government is too big.

    I said in the second sentence of the post that my opinion of Mr. Cain was not relevant, and you proceed to rip him apart.

    Thanks for making my point.

    • What country has produced the most wealth, brought the most people out of poverty, has cured the most diseases, and otherwise improved the human condition more than any other country, region, nation, tribe or village ever? The USA, founded upon a document with very clearly delineated and limited government powers and built upon the fundamental idea that the individual is sovereign.

      It is not responsive to suggest that “no government” would be worse than less. I didn’t suggest NO government. I made the point that I think smaller government, less intrusive government is better because freedom is the most powerful force on the planet. You may argue that point by saying that you are for more government and less freedom (if you like) but it’s a head fake to attempt to refute my argument by means of a non-sequitor about government of various sizes having failed at accomplishing perfection. It’s also true that some sprinters are slower than others; that is not an argument for encouraging slower sprinters.

  4. What did Herman Cain do? Lining women up to charge that Herman Cain sexually harrassed them does not prove sexual harrassment. If anything it only proves Herman Cain as an adult male liked and spoke to adult women. And, it suggest that Herman Cain was an approachable, friendly, perhaps, too friendly person who got close enough to help a woman and developed a friendship, perhaps a relationship with this woman who turned on him not because Herman Cain was harrassing but helpful and supportive. This seems to be the commong theme of all the women who came forward against Herman Cain. He was helpful, friendly and supportive of them. But, no concrete,tangible evidence has been presented. Yet, the liberal media took this and ran with it to create a “sexual harrassment” narrative to surround Herman Cain and drive him from the race.

    This is the only thing that’s been established about Herman Cain and his past of sexual harrassment and affairs with adult women. Ginger White produced, “Some…intriguing details [of their 13 year affair]: According to White [to prove she and Herman Cain have been engaged in a 13 year sexual affair she established the following two pieces of evidence]

    [Herman] Cain gave her autographed copies of his books, writing, “Miss G, you have already made a ‘big difference!’ [And] Stay focused as you pursue your next destination” in one, and “Friends are forever! Everything else is a bonus” in the other.”

    If Politico and other liberal, progressive, so-called, news agencies looked into Obama’s lifelong friends, his school records and grades, his past girlfriends and personal relationships, his medical and health records, his activities and statements as a community agitator … er … organizer, if Politico did this then what they did to Herman Cain would be viewed as fair and balanced. But, we all know Obama is handled with kid gloves and any Republican is given an anal exam. We have no idea who Obama is. It’s like he was created in a laboratory with no past, no personal history. Obama is the Man from Nowhere. This is why stories on Herman Cain have done more lasting damage to Politico then Poltico could have possibly done to Herman Cain. We all know Herman Cain had as much chance of becoming president than Obama … and … me. Or, a snowball in an oven. The difference is how the liberal, mainstream media selects to report on Obama, me and Herman Cain.

    The American public understands that Politico and other liberal, progressive media are doing serious damage to our selection process by not doing to Obama what was done to Herman Cain and all other Republican candidates for the office of president.

    • I don’t care how many women have seen Mr. Cain’s private parts. For the umpteenth and last time, that’s not relevant. I’m talking about the disastrously high stakes of the political game – address that or go somewhere else with your drivel.

    • You wrote: “What you have said is untrue, in that you have intentionally or unintentionally, omitted information. Herman Cain was involved, as the accused, in several sexual harassment suits, where the companies in question felt obligated to settle financially with the women rather than face prolonged legal battles.”

      Can you clearly state what Herman Cain did to sexual harrass any woman at the workplace? Most sexually harrassed women would not seek out for contact the man sexually harrassing them for help and assistance. Then, later claim he was sexually harrassing them. Their own behavior contradicts their claim. Their tale of being exually harrassed by Herman Cain starts out with him being a friend and transforming into a foe. And, this behavior in Herman Cain only presented itself for a few years in the 1990’s then stopped.

      When the women spoke to the media what in their story made you accept their claim of sexual harrassment other than them saying that they were sexually harrassed? What proof was presented? In their story of their past friendship and positive exchanges with Herman Cain, that were told to establish how they came to know him, what did they say that made him seem like the “sexual predator” these womem claimed he was? Or, did their set up for the reason they knew Herman Cain contradict their later tale of being sexually harrassed by the same man? Or, did these women unintentionally reveal that Herman Cain was foolish in choosing to become close to devious, exploitative women in the modern workplace? Should this be a cautionary tale for other men?

      • My point is that the truth is un-knowable to any of us absent a time machine. That’s why I attempt to form an opinion about the situation that stands up no matter which story is true.

        Mr. Cain may be qualified to be POTUS – and he may not be. This story isn’t dispositive on that question regardless of his guilt/innocence. (I’m assuming that he might have had a couple of ‘foot-faults’ in the sexual arena, not that he was ever truly abusive. THAT would disqualify him from the high office of the POTUS.) Rare is the man who has never offended someone – there are a few dozen men who, were they not better gentlemen, would have punched me in the nose. Does offending a woman belong in some special category?

        My reason for bringing up Mr. Cain is to make the point about the size of government and the consequentially out-sized stakes of politics.

      • Pilgrim – I meant to also say that your point is well-made and if forced, with a gun to my head, bet my life on being right or wrong, I’d agree with your assessment of the situation. It is also true that I don’t care what I think about that question. What I think doesn’t matter, really.

  5. I hope China surpasses us. The only way that can happen is if they’re free, and if they are I want them to be wealthy. Since there are more of them, it is only natural and moral for me to want their economy to be bigger than ours. People in the USA are not becoming more poor, but they are decreasingly free – that is limiting the creation of wealth – government CAN NOT produce wealth.

    Singapore is not intrusive – look at the indexes of freedom and you’ll see Singapore and (to a lesser extent now) Hong Kong.

    The China ‘effectiveness’ you cite is about to show its underbelly. The economy is not real, it is propped up by government subsidies that mis-allocate capital (fast trains are not a priority for a developing country – they are a symbol of government largess and of a government trying to look like it is in control and doing “modern” things. How does a fast train help a starving child in Mongolia?

    I guess you are that intelligent American who should tell the rest of us how to think? If China is your model, I hope no one listens to you.

    • Never claimed that my research or statements are exhaustive on any topic. I am interested mostly in and the pieces in question are about economic freedom.

      Your opinion about China is pre-mature. The rose will be off that bloom very shortly. Inflationary pressures are beginning to show that the government spending is not sustainable – productivity and serving actual, as opposed to perceived, needs is the only way to make an economy thrive. I don’t need to go to China to know that government control of the economy doesn’t work. There are plenty of examples in history that teach me that lesson. Visiting China and taking the government approved tour doesn’t prove that they are ‘succeeding’ any more than visiting Dearborn, Michigan will tell you that the Detroit region is doing well.

      I call anything that is irrelevant “drivel”. If you have not said China is a model in those exact words, you have suggested we have a lot to learn from them – what else could you possibly mean by “extremely effective”?

      I have not attacked you, I’ve noted your misdirection and your own tendency to ignore a point while pretending to refute it. If I say 2 + 2 = 7, and you say 2 X 3 = 8, you’ve neither disproved my point nor made a good one of your own. I’d rather you say “you idiot, 2 + 2 + 4.” That would be helpful.

  6. Some companies fork over cash because they decide that it is in the best interest of everyone if a certain woman or man work elsewhere, not because an executive is at fault. That doesn’t even account for the possibility that the company might decide that, even IF the executive is innocent, the damage to their reputation and the legal fees necessary to defend the executive are worse than paying the employee to go away – that’s usually the reason for the confidentiality clauses, by the way – not to keep the truth from coming out, rather to keep the lies from doing unnecessary damage.

    I’m not suggesting I know who is telling the truth in the Cain situation, just answering your question about why would a Co. “fork over money”

    • You’re passing judgment on a matter where you don’t possess the necessary knowledge to do so. $30,000 is not significant to NRA. A couple meetings and memos and the lawyers would send them a bill for about $50k.

      You also make the error that 2 or 3 or 4 (or a half-dozen) is a series of date points. You have no facts directly related to those allegations. Where you do have a ‘series of data points’ is in the behavior the women involved.

      See here > (you won’t like the source – hold your nose and read with that open mind you claim to possess.

  7. She makes the point that there is more evidence to undermine their accusations than there is to support them. I repeat, I have no idea or interest in knowing the truth. In the context of this discussion, don’t give a rat’s ass whether Mr. Cain is a lout or a perfect gentleman. Re-read the last paragraph of my post – that’s the only one that matters. The rest of it is merely a build-up to that point. Stay on topic. My reference to her column was only a response to your use of the phrase “series of data points”.

    • This is the last time I’ll waste my time responding to you. You’re an argumentative cuss, and it’s not worth the effort.

      She makes the point that, in case of the Cain accusations, there is nothing but the veracity (or lack) of the women who make the accusations and there is no more, indeed much less, reason to believe the women than to believe Mr. Cain – that’s a statement she backs up with lots of data that is not dependent on one’s opinion of Mr. Cain.

      I said that I don’t care (in this context) who it telling the truth – How can I not care? Because it is impossible for me to know, so I don’t care and will not waste time or speculating about something that is unknowable to me.

      I make no factually inaccurate assumptions. The criticism of Cain may stand on it’s own and may not be an indictment of the governmental structure. But, that is not the point I tried to make. The point I made is that the willingness of people to destroy a man without indisputable evidence tells me that the stakes are too high, and I translate that to mean that government is too big. That is not meant to be a fact, it is meant to be a hypothesis, an opinion and a basis from which to form conclusions about decisions that affect the size of government.

      I’m tired of your parsing my words and attempting to make them say or mean something that a reasonable, fair reading of them does not convey. Please go play your game with someone else, so that I don’t have to be rude by ignoring you. This is, after all, my site. I have to read and monitor it. You don’t – you can go bother someone else, for the love of God, please go bother someone else, because you don’t know how to have a discussion, you only know how to argue or find fault with someone’s opinion or point of view – extremely tiresome.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: