If ever there was an incompetent, unqualified, ill-prepared, inexperienced and incompetent Cabinet member in the NObama administration, it would have to be Eric Holder. Well, on second thought, maybe he's second to Tim Geithner, but it's a close race.
If you haven't been following current events, the latest trick in Holder's bag of Stupid Human Tricks is the lawsuit the US Department of Justice has filed against the state of Utah over its new immigration enforcement law. For some reason, Holder seems to think that the Utah law, along with the laws recently passed by Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina, violate the United States Constitution. He doesn't specifically say how, and after reading the laws themselves I can't figure out where he gets his ideas from.
Maybe he's getting them from the same group of morons who gave him advice on the "Fast and Furious" scam, I dunno.
In any event, Holder is now suing Utah and delaying yet another state's attempts to control crime within their borders. Yes, that's right, friends and neighbors, Utah is attempting to control crime, as are the other three states who have passed immigration laws. And before all of you bleeding-heart liberals out there start crying and whining and playing your sad song on your harps, here's how it works. I'll start from the bottom of the list and go up.
3) The number of illegals being incarcerated across the nation, specifically in the midwest states, is rising at an alarming rate. Why is that, you say? Well, it's like this: regardless of what other bleeding heart liberal organizations want you to believe, the population of our prison system is controlled not by the color of the criminal's skin, but by who commits the crime and gets convicted. It's a simple as that.
2) Crime in the states that have a high number of illegal immigrants is on the rise. Need proof? Just check out the stats provided by the states themselves, or if you're suspect of those stats because deep in your bleeding, liberal heart you just know that those states are "cooking the books" to justify their "illegal" laws, then check out the FBI stats and get ready for a shocker.
1) Entering this country without going through the proper procedures already set in place - in other words, entering this country ILLEGALLY is a CRIME in and of itself, which makes illegal immigrants CRIMINALS.
And since the NObama administration has done next to nothing to enforce the federal immigration laws already in effect, the states have chosen to exercise the rights guaranteed to them by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. All Holder and his band of merry idiots have done is try to find ways not to do their jobs; that, and come up with new laws that will make the immigration process "easier."
If it got any easier all it would take is the immigrant stepping foot across the border or stepping off the boat. If the process takes too long, don't pass a new law - fix what's broken and get the system working instead of wasting time and taxpayer's money by filing frivilous and unjustified lawsuits against the states trying to protect themselves.
The states of Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah have shown by their actions that they care more about the safety and security of their legal residents than they do about hurting the feelings of a bunch of criminals who want to do nothing more than come to our country, make money, send it home, and not pay taxes while sponging off of the local government's medical and educational facilities. (And if you think the last two aren't happening, you need to do some research, quick.) And before you liberals out there start playing the "they're just trying to find work and better themselves" song on your harps, let me tell you right now that I think that's crap. I'm all about finding work and bettering themselves, and if someone wants to come to this country for that purpose then I'm all for it. But do it LEGALLY so you don't take work away from LEGAL citizens, and most of all so you PAY TAXES like the rest of us to help pay for the services that you use. If you're not willing to do that, then just stay home because we neither want nor need your sorry ass here.
These states obviously care more about their citizens than the NObama administration does, and that is a sad state of affairs indeed. When NObama took office he swore an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and so far he's failed miserably at his job. Eric Holder is simply following the leader and is but one of a long line of dancing buffoons that is the NObama administration.
There are several upcoming events that I am most assuredly looking forward to, those being the completion of the investigation into the "Fast and Furious" scheme (which will, I hope, result in Holder's losing his job), the reviewing of "NObamacare" by the Supreme Court (which will result in the law being overturned, I hope), and the Presidential elections of 2012.
And you all know how I hope that one turns out.
IHC
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
What Do Fish, Houseguests, and "Occupy" Protesters Have In Common?
They all start to smell after two days. And after two months, I'm sure most of the protesters are pretty ripe right about now.
The "Occupy Wall Street" protest that started two months ago and spread across the nation and the globe was a good idea at the time it all started, and it sent a very important message to all concerned. That message was received loud and clear: the American people were sick and tired of being taken advantage of by those who are infected with the disease of "Corporate Greed." But as any Union member who's ever walked a picket line will tell you, after a while the protesters stopped being taken seriously and started to become nothing more than a nuisance that people wished would just go away. Such is the case with the "Occupy" protesters world-wide, and here in this country it didn't help the protester's image any when it was discovered and reported that former ACORN leadership was behind the so-called "unorganized" protest to begin with. (That's a topic I could devote a whole posting to, but I'll save that for another time.)
So when things ran the logical course that they were destined to run and both the officials in the affected cities and the people in those cities started getting tired of the protesters, the public officials started moving them out. The protesters immediately cried, "You're violating our First Amendment rights!" which is, of course, bullshit.
So let's take a look at the First Amendment and see just why that defense is bullshit, shall we?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The areas of the amendment which the protesters are citing are the parts concerning freedom of speech and the right of the people "peaceably to assemble." Some will tell you it's also about petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances, but since no one submitted any kind of written petition or motion to any branch of any government in connection with the protests that I'm aware of, I'll throw the BS flag on that one.
So do the protesters have the right to stand out in public and display their displeasure in both words and signs? Absolutely. You can say whatever you want about the government, voice your displeasure and opinions as much as you want however you want, and as long as you're not libelous or defaming anyone with your words you may rest assured that you will NOT be arrested for voicing your displeasure with the government. After all, THAT is what this particular part of the First Amendment was aimed at, you know - the Colonists were tired of getting arrested by British soldiers for simply talking bad about the King, so they made this the first - and most important - of the Bill of Rights.
And in voicing their opinions and displeasure, do the protesters have the right to gather in groups and shout as one? Sure they do - as long as they do it PEACEABLY and do not break any laws doing it.
Having said all that, one cannot help but wonder why anyone with an ounce of common sense would say that the protester's rights under the First Amendment were being violated when the municipalities around the globe started kicking them out and arresting them. The First Amendment guarantees the protesters the right to assemble and speak their minds, but there are several things it does NOT give them the right to do, such as:
Camp out overnight in a city park where camping is prohibited by local ordinance.
Throw rocks, bottles, and plates at police.
Take a dump on police cars.
Take a dump on the American flag.
Use the bushes of said parks as toilets.
Break into and occupy empty buildings.
The protesters have done all of these, and are therefore in violation of local laws and do NOT fall under the protection of the First Amendment. Any first year law student will tell you that.
All of this aside, I think the thing that strikes me the most about the protests is this: where are these people finding the time to protest for two months? Oh, I see, you're unemployed - of course, that's why you have the time!
Hey, here's an idea for ya: instead of sitting on your ass protesting for two months, why not do it for a few days and then devote the rest of your time looking for a job?
Oh, I see, you're one of those mindless "Michael Moore followers" who think that they're entitled to what I worked my ass off to get without having to work for it yourself. You think you're entitled to get what you want for free, and that the government should just hand it over to you - after taking it away from me.
Well, I got some bad news for ya, skippy - it don't work that way, no matter what Michael Moore tells you. (And here's a shocker for ya - Michael Moore is one of those "1%" folks you've been bitching about for the past two months, although he doesn't want you to know that.)
So I suggest you stop waiting for the gravy train to stop at your front door, get off of your dead ass and go get a job - THEN you can legitimately complain about how bad the government is treating you.
In the mean time, you need to just STFU and go away.
IHC
The "Occupy Wall Street" protest that started two months ago and spread across the nation and the globe was a good idea at the time it all started, and it sent a very important message to all concerned. That message was received loud and clear: the American people were sick and tired of being taken advantage of by those who are infected with the disease of "Corporate Greed." But as any Union member who's ever walked a picket line will tell you, after a while the protesters stopped being taken seriously and started to become nothing more than a nuisance that people wished would just go away. Such is the case with the "Occupy" protesters world-wide, and here in this country it didn't help the protester's image any when it was discovered and reported that former ACORN leadership was behind the so-called "unorganized" protest to begin with. (That's a topic I could devote a whole posting to, but I'll save that for another time.)
So when things ran the logical course that they were destined to run and both the officials in the affected cities and the people in those cities started getting tired of the protesters, the public officials started moving them out. The protesters immediately cried, "You're violating our First Amendment rights!" which is, of course, bullshit.
So let's take a look at the First Amendment and see just why that defense is bullshit, shall we?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The areas of the amendment which the protesters are citing are the parts concerning freedom of speech and the right of the people "peaceably to assemble." Some will tell you it's also about petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances, but since no one submitted any kind of written petition or motion to any branch of any government in connection with the protests that I'm aware of, I'll throw the BS flag on that one.
So do the protesters have the right to stand out in public and display their displeasure in both words and signs? Absolutely. You can say whatever you want about the government, voice your displeasure and opinions as much as you want however you want, and as long as you're not libelous or defaming anyone with your words you may rest assured that you will NOT be arrested for voicing your displeasure with the government. After all, THAT is what this particular part of the First Amendment was aimed at, you know - the Colonists were tired of getting arrested by British soldiers for simply talking bad about the King, so they made this the first - and most important - of the Bill of Rights.
And in voicing their opinions and displeasure, do the protesters have the right to gather in groups and shout as one? Sure they do - as long as they do it PEACEABLY and do not break any laws doing it.
Having said all that, one cannot help but wonder why anyone with an ounce of common sense would say that the protester's rights under the First Amendment were being violated when the municipalities around the globe started kicking them out and arresting them. The First Amendment guarantees the protesters the right to assemble and speak their minds, but there are several things it does NOT give them the right to do, such as:
Camp out overnight in a city park where camping is prohibited by local ordinance.
Throw rocks, bottles, and plates at police.
Take a dump on police cars.
Take a dump on the American flag.
Use the bushes of said parks as toilets.
Break into and occupy empty buildings.
The protesters have done all of these, and are therefore in violation of local laws and do NOT fall under the protection of the First Amendment. Any first year law student will tell you that.
All of this aside, I think the thing that strikes me the most about the protests is this: where are these people finding the time to protest for two months? Oh, I see, you're unemployed - of course, that's why you have the time!
Hey, here's an idea for ya: instead of sitting on your ass protesting for two months, why not do it for a few days and then devote the rest of your time looking for a job?
Oh, I see, you're one of those mindless "Michael Moore followers" who think that they're entitled to what I worked my ass off to get without having to work for it yourself. You think you're entitled to get what you want for free, and that the government should just hand it over to you - after taking it away from me.
Well, I got some bad news for ya, skippy - it don't work that way, no matter what Michael Moore tells you. (And here's a shocker for ya - Michael Moore is one of those "1%" folks you've been bitching about for the past two months, although he doesn't want you to know that.)
So I suggest you stop waiting for the gravy train to stop at your front door, get off of your dead ass and go get a job - THEN you can legitimately complain about how bad the government is treating you.
In the mean time, you need to just STFU and go away.
IHC
Thursday, November 10, 2011
When Does a "Christian" NOT Act Like a Christian, Redux
I took a trip on the "Stupid Train" last night, and I'll be the first to admit it. You'd think by now that I'd know better than to get invovled in a religious discussion on Facebook - or anywhere else, for that matter - but sometimes I'm like the big, old, large mouth bass sitting in the shade under a sunken log. If you dangle the bait in front of me at just the right moment, I'm gonna bite. And that's what happened last night.
A former - emphasis on the word "former" - Facebook friend made a post about how his state had just had a vote on a law that would spell out once and for all that life began at the moment of conception, and he was disappointed that the law failed to pass. He claims to be a devout Catholic and a "Christian," so of course he was all in favor of the law because that would be a stepping stone to getting Roe v. Wade overturned. Well, somewhere in the post he made a reference to something being unconstitutional, and that did it - that was the bait that I couldn't ignore.
Religion I can ignore; start spouting your ignorance about what the Constitution does and doesn't say, and I'm gonna jump in with both feet.
So in any event, two of his "Christian" friends joined in the conversation, and one of them wasted no time in proceeding directly to the "insulting" phase of what a "Christian" does when you disagree with them. The converstation had turned to the Holy Bible, and I voiced my opinion on that topic as well. (And if you've read my previous postings in this blog, you know what my opinions are.) The other person then posted something about my needing to go buy "The Complete Idiot's Guide To The Hebrew Bible," or something like that, followed by her - yes, her - opinion that I was not the "expert" on the Hebrew bible. I politely told her that no, I wasn't an expert on the Hebrew bible, that I never claimed to be, I never referred to the Hebrew bible but the Holy Bible (specifically the King James version), and that I never even knew a "Hebrew" bible existed. That pretty much put an end to that conversation, although the sarcasm from this so-called "Christian" was clear.
But things with the second poster, a male this time, got really nasty really quickly. This "Christian" proceeded directly to the name-calling phase of how a "Christian" acts when you disagree with them, calling me "a total dumb-ass." My reply was to ask him if this was how a true Christian acts towards others, and then I told the originator of the thread, "Nice "Christian" friend you've got there, John." (His name really is John, by the way.)
Up until now John had been pretty quiet about everything, but that was to change in another thread that was running along the same lines that I had also posted in. Then Johh took it upon himself to judge me according to HIS beliefs, telling me that he had "serious doubts" about my "devotion to being a Christian," after which he proceeded to regale me with a Bible lesson that ran somewhere along the lines of six or seven paragraphs long. I had already told him that I didn't believe most of the Old Testament, so guess what John did? Yep, you guessed it - started quoting scripture at me from the Old Testament!
As I've said before, like THAT'S gonna work...
But the part that really chapped my ass about the whole thing was not the quoting of scripture part; what got my dander up was when John climbed up on his holier-than-thou, religious high-horse and proceeded to talk down to me like I was some lower form of life, some ignorant heathen who needed to be "saved" because he was "worried about my soul." And YES, he really did say that.
If you know me by now, you can pretty much guess what my reaction was. If not, then let me sum it up for you.
I asked John just who the hell he was that HE should judge ME based on HIS religious views and not MINE. I then told him that my relationship with God was none of his business, and that he shouldn't worry about my soul because me and God had that all taken care of. I also said a few more things along the same lines, but I think you pretty much get the idea by now.
I then went to my home page in the preferences section and blocked John across the board so I never have to hear from him or be subjected to his holier-than-thou attitude and mundane preaching and Bible-thumping again.
So once again not one, not two, but THREE so-called "Christians" follow the same steps that folks like them always follow when they encounter someone who disagrees with them, and by now you'd think I'd know better.
As I've said before, I have no problem with other people's beliefs, I really don't. If you believe it and it works for you and makes you feel good, then that's great - I'm happy for you, I really am. But the moment you climb up on a "holier-than-thou" pedastal and start judging ME by YOUR beliefs, telling me that I'm a sinner, that I'm going to hell, and all that other crap - well, at that point I'm gonna turn on you like a rabid dog and tear you to shreds.
And those of you who know me - and I mean REALLY know me - know that I'm really, really good at that. (Hey, I was a basic training instructor at one time, remember?)
Then again, if I'd just learn not to bite at the bait when it's dangled in front of me I wouldn't have this problem, would I?
Oh, well, I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks, huh?
IHC
A former - emphasis on the word "former" - Facebook friend made a post about how his state had just had a vote on a law that would spell out once and for all that life began at the moment of conception, and he was disappointed that the law failed to pass. He claims to be a devout Catholic and a "Christian," so of course he was all in favor of the law because that would be a stepping stone to getting Roe v. Wade overturned. Well, somewhere in the post he made a reference to something being unconstitutional, and that did it - that was the bait that I couldn't ignore.
Religion I can ignore; start spouting your ignorance about what the Constitution does and doesn't say, and I'm gonna jump in with both feet.
So in any event, two of his "Christian" friends joined in the conversation, and one of them wasted no time in proceeding directly to the "insulting" phase of what a "Christian" does when you disagree with them. The converstation had turned to the Holy Bible, and I voiced my opinion on that topic as well. (And if you've read my previous postings in this blog, you know what my opinions are.) The other person then posted something about my needing to go buy "The Complete Idiot's Guide To The Hebrew Bible," or something like that, followed by her - yes, her - opinion that I was not the "expert" on the Hebrew bible. I politely told her that no, I wasn't an expert on the Hebrew bible, that I never claimed to be, I never referred to the Hebrew bible but the Holy Bible (specifically the King James version), and that I never even knew a "Hebrew" bible existed. That pretty much put an end to that conversation, although the sarcasm from this so-called "Christian" was clear.
But things with the second poster, a male this time, got really nasty really quickly. This "Christian" proceeded directly to the name-calling phase of how a "Christian" acts when you disagree with them, calling me "a total dumb-ass." My reply was to ask him if this was how a true Christian acts towards others, and then I told the originator of the thread, "Nice "Christian" friend you've got there, John." (His name really is John, by the way.)
Up until now John had been pretty quiet about everything, but that was to change in another thread that was running along the same lines that I had also posted in. Then Johh took it upon himself to judge me according to HIS beliefs, telling me that he had "serious doubts" about my "devotion to being a Christian," after which he proceeded to regale me with a Bible lesson that ran somewhere along the lines of six or seven paragraphs long. I had already told him that I didn't believe most of the Old Testament, so guess what John did? Yep, you guessed it - started quoting scripture at me from the Old Testament!
As I've said before, like THAT'S gonna work...
But the part that really chapped my ass about the whole thing was not the quoting of scripture part; what got my dander up was when John climbed up on his holier-than-thou, religious high-horse and proceeded to talk down to me like I was some lower form of life, some ignorant heathen who needed to be "saved" because he was "worried about my soul." And YES, he really did say that.
If you know me by now, you can pretty much guess what my reaction was. If not, then let me sum it up for you.
I asked John just who the hell he was that HE should judge ME based on HIS religious views and not MINE. I then told him that my relationship with God was none of his business, and that he shouldn't worry about my soul because me and God had that all taken care of. I also said a few more things along the same lines, but I think you pretty much get the idea by now.
I then went to my home page in the preferences section and blocked John across the board so I never have to hear from him or be subjected to his holier-than-thou attitude and mundane preaching and Bible-thumping again.
So once again not one, not two, but THREE so-called "Christians" follow the same steps that folks like them always follow when they encounter someone who disagrees with them, and by now you'd think I'd know better.
As I've said before, I have no problem with other people's beliefs, I really don't. If you believe it and it works for you and makes you feel good, then that's great - I'm happy for you, I really am. But the moment you climb up on a "holier-than-thou" pedastal and start judging ME by YOUR beliefs, telling me that I'm a sinner, that I'm going to hell, and all that other crap - well, at that point I'm gonna turn on you like a rabid dog and tear you to shreds.
And those of you who know me - and I mean REALLY know me - know that I'm really, really good at that. (Hey, I was a basic training instructor at one time, remember?)
Then again, if I'd just learn not to bite at the bait when it's dangled in front of me I wouldn't have this problem, would I?
Oh, well, I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks, huh?
IHC
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
How To Tell When a Liberal or a Demoncrat is Scared Shitless Of You
So how can you tell when a liberal or a Demoncrat is scared shitless of you, anyway? Simple: they try to railroad you with a character assassination, that's how.
Such is the case with Herman Cain, a man who has risen in popularity so quickly and with such speed that his campaign has been dubbed, "The Cain Train." This man came out of almost nowhere, and in the past few months he has risen to the top of the ranks of GOP contenders with a speed that can only be described as alarming. His success is due to several things, all of which strike the right chords with the people of this nation, both in and out of the GOP, who are tired as hell of the same old shit coming out of Washington and the bumbling ineptitude of our current President. While the other GOP contenders have been scrambling to find a way to keep up with him, some of the members of the Demoncratic party have realized just what a credible and probably unstoppable threat Cain truly is, and were scrambling to find a way to eliminate him.
In all of the political world, there is nothing that will destroy a candidate faster and more thoroughly than an accusation of sexual harrassment, and it is this dirty trick that someone in the liberal and/or Demoncratic camp has come up with.
Before I really get up on my soapbox, let me say a couple of things: first, most of what follows is my opinion based on what I have heard on the news and what I believe just because it's what I believe based on my own life's experiences. Second, I believe that Herman Cain is completely and totally innocent for one reason: he said so. And considering what he has to lose - which is everything - I see no reason why he should lie. So I believe him, just as fervently and completely as those who believe Sharon Bialek, his accuser, and for the same reason - because she said so.
Having said that...
Anyone who knows anything at all about sexual harrassment will tell you that it is by far one of the easiest and most damaging charges to bring against someone. Even if you manage to prove your innocence, the stigma stays with you and the damage is, in most cases, irreparable. The definition of the term is so broad, so all-encompassing, and so open to interpretation and misinterpretation as to defy description. For example, if I were to compliment a female co-worker, telling her "that dress looks really good on you," according to the broad definition of the term I have just committed an act of sexual harrassment for which my company will fire me on the first offense. To you and I, all I did was compliment a woman on how she looks, but to others I've committed what amounts to the cardinal sin of both the business and political world - I've committed sexual harrassment! It's just that easy.
The other thing about sexual harrassment is that it's so easy to believe and so very hard to disprove, because when it comes right down to it, unless you have a witness and the act is so overt and blatant as to be obvious to anyone but a blind man, it all boils down to the woman's word against the man's. And nine times out of ten, the woman is the one who's going to be believed, because a woman just wouldn't lie about something like that, would she? Take Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, for example: Thomas was nominated in 1991 for the Supreme Court, and everything was going smoothly until someone in the Demoncratic party and/or the NAACP decided to derail the train - at that point they trotted out Anita Hill, who claimed that Thomas had sexually harrassed her ten years before when she worked for him. A media frenzy ensued, and when it was all over Thomas won his appointment to the Supreme Court by a margin of only four votes - the narrowest margin since the 19th centry. The train derailment had failed, but it was close.
History has a way of repeating itself, and it's doing so right now with Herman Cain and Sharon Bialek. This whole thing stinks to high heaven, and here's why.
If this really happened like Bialek says it did, why did she wait fourteen years to report it? This incident supposedly happened when Cain was the head of the National Restaurant Association and she approached him looking for a job. If he had in fact truly "groped" her and made "unwanted sexual advances" to her, then why didn't she report him then and there and get his ass fired? At the very least, the settlement from the lawsuit she could have filed would have set her up and ended her well-documented financial difficulties (I'll get to that shortly, trust me). But no, she said nothing, not until fourteen years later when Cain is running for the GOP nomination for the office of President of the United States. So why did she wait this long, you ask? Simple.
Because it never happened. And now that Cain is a "big fish," he's fair game and a much more juicy and interesting target. The bigger the fish the bigger the settlement, and Bialek has concocted this blatant lie to win herself a nice, big, juicy settlement.
And speaking of settlements and getting paid, Bialek and her attorney - the infamous man-hating and "women's rights activist" attorney Gloria Allred - were very quick to point out on "The Today Show" this morning that Bialek was not getting paid by anyone to come forward, and had not sold her story to anyone.
Yet. I'm betting next month's paycheck that when this is all over she'll be selling her story so fast it'll make your head spin, whether she's successful in her smear campaign or not. Tell me I'm wrong, I dare ya. After all, this is a woman who has filed for personal bankruptcy twice, so to say that she needs the money is the understatement of the year. She sees Herman Cain as nothing more than a personal gravy train, and she wants to jump on board.
Oh, wait, there is one more thing she may see him as - a threat to NObama in next year's elections. Did I forget to mention that Bialek is a registered Demoncrat and a documented NObama supporter? Gee, isn't that a funny coincidence...
Now, about Gloria Allred...in the first place, this woman has the professional morals and ethics of a vulture. I personally also think she's a man-hater, or at least has an obsession to prove to the men of the world that her balls are as big as theirs. She also has a long, long history of filing sexual-based or sexual harrassment lawsuits against men. Here's a short sample of some of the people she's sued:
She sued the Boy Scouts of America when they wouldn't admit an eleven year old girl. (It's called the "BOY Scouts" for a reason, Gloria.)
She sued the former Sav-On Drug Store chain for having a separate boy's and girl's toy section.
She sued the all-male Friar's Club of Beverly Hills when they wouldn't admit a woman to their ranks.
She sued Dodi Fayed for breaking off his engagement with Kelly Fisher when Fayed became involved with Diana, Princess of Wales. (The only thing that stopped the lawsuit was the death of Diana and Fayed in Paris.)
She sued Arnold Schwarzennegger for sexual harrassment when he was running for Governor of California in 2003. (Arnie's a Republican, you know.)
She sued Rob Lowe for sexual harrassment.
There's a pattern here; do you see it?
Oh, and did I fail to mention that Allred is a registered Demoncrat and a vehement NOBama supporter, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign?
Gee, there's that funny coincidence again...
As for the unnamed woman who made a similar charge against Cain when he was with the NRA and took a settlement some years back, well, it's like this: taking a settlement doesn't mean that the accused is guilty. In many cases a company will offer a settlement not because the allegations are true, but because they want to avoid either the expense of a long trial or the negative publicity that such a case would invariably generate. All we know about this previous "incident" is that a woman made a claim and a settlement was reached, and that's it - we know nothing else because the lawyers for both sides agreed to a confidentiality clause, which means that neither side can discuss the terms of the settlement.
And the last time I looked, in THIS country you were innocent until proven guilty, and a settlement proves neither guilt nor innocence.
The question now is whether or not the "Cain Train" has been derailed by this despicable and treacherous scheme concocted by the liberals and Demoncrats who are scared shitless of Herman Cain. To be honest, I think Cain hurt his case by taking two or three days to address the issue; he basically made the same mistake NObama made when he stalled for two years before finally giving authorization for the release of his full birth certificate - all you do when you stonewall is make people think you're hiding something. Cain finally did hold a press conference today in which he addressed Bialek's accusations by stating "it simply did not happen," but the damage may have already been done. I hope not, but time will tell.
In the mean time I will continue to believe Herman Cain when he says Bialek is a liar, and I most certainly will vote for him in November 2012. And I hope Bialek, Allred, and the low-life, scum-sucking, scab-picking, knuckle-dragging inbred liberal Demoncrat assholes who thought up this smear campaign rot in hell.
But I'll settle for Cain winning the election. Now THAT is "change we can believe in!"
IHC
Such is the case with Herman Cain, a man who has risen in popularity so quickly and with such speed that his campaign has been dubbed, "The Cain Train." This man came out of almost nowhere, and in the past few months he has risen to the top of the ranks of GOP contenders with a speed that can only be described as alarming. His success is due to several things, all of which strike the right chords with the people of this nation, both in and out of the GOP, who are tired as hell of the same old shit coming out of Washington and the bumbling ineptitude of our current President. While the other GOP contenders have been scrambling to find a way to keep up with him, some of the members of the Demoncratic party have realized just what a credible and probably unstoppable threat Cain truly is, and were scrambling to find a way to eliminate him.
In all of the political world, there is nothing that will destroy a candidate faster and more thoroughly than an accusation of sexual harrassment, and it is this dirty trick that someone in the liberal and/or Demoncratic camp has come up with.
Before I really get up on my soapbox, let me say a couple of things: first, most of what follows is my opinion based on what I have heard on the news and what I believe just because it's what I believe based on my own life's experiences. Second, I believe that Herman Cain is completely and totally innocent for one reason: he said so. And considering what he has to lose - which is everything - I see no reason why he should lie. So I believe him, just as fervently and completely as those who believe Sharon Bialek, his accuser, and for the same reason - because she said so.
Having said that...
Anyone who knows anything at all about sexual harrassment will tell you that it is by far one of the easiest and most damaging charges to bring against someone. Even if you manage to prove your innocence, the stigma stays with you and the damage is, in most cases, irreparable. The definition of the term is so broad, so all-encompassing, and so open to interpretation and misinterpretation as to defy description. For example, if I were to compliment a female co-worker, telling her "that dress looks really good on you," according to the broad definition of the term I have just committed an act of sexual harrassment for which my company will fire me on the first offense. To you and I, all I did was compliment a woman on how she looks, but to others I've committed what amounts to the cardinal sin of both the business and political world - I've committed sexual harrassment! It's just that easy.
The other thing about sexual harrassment is that it's so easy to believe and so very hard to disprove, because when it comes right down to it, unless you have a witness and the act is so overt and blatant as to be obvious to anyone but a blind man, it all boils down to the woman's word against the man's. And nine times out of ten, the woman is the one who's going to be believed, because a woman just wouldn't lie about something like that, would she? Take Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, for example: Thomas was nominated in 1991 for the Supreme Court, and everything was going smoothly until someone in the Demoncratic party and/or the NAACP decided to derail the train - at that point they trotted out Anita Hill, who claimed that Thomas had sexually harrassed her ten years before when she worked for him. A media frenzy ensued, and when it was all over Thomas won his appointment to the Supreme Court by a margin of only four votes - the narrowest margin since the 19th centry. The train derailment had failed, but it was close.
History has a way of repeating itself, and it's doing so right now with Herman Cain and Sharon Bialek. This whole thing stinks to high heaven, and here's why.
If this really happened like Bialek says it did, why did she wait fourteen years to report it? This incident supposedly happened when Cain was the head of the National Restaurant Association and she approached him looking for a job. If he had in fact truly "groped" her and made "unwanted sexual advances" to her, then why didn't she report him then and there and get his ass fired? At the very least, the settlement from the lawsuit she could have filed would have set her up and ended her well-documented financial difficulties (I'll get to that shortly, trust me). But no, she said nothing, not until fourteen years later when Cain is running for the GOP nomination for the office of President of the United States. So why did she wait this long, you ask? Simple.
Because it never happened. And now that Cain is a "big fish," he's fair game and a much more juicy and interesting target. The bigger the fish the bigger the settlement, and Bialek has concocted this blatant lie to win herself a nice, big, juicy settlement.
And speaking of settlements and getting paid, Bialek and her attorney - the infamous man-hating and "women's rights activist" attorney Gloria Allred - were very quick to point out on "The Today Show" this morning that Bialek was not getting paid by anyone to come forward, and had not sold her story to anyone.
Yet. I'm betting next month's paycheck that when this is all over she'll be selling her story so fast it'll make your head spin, whether she's successful in her smear campaign or not. Tell me I'm wrong, I dare ya. After all, this is a woman who has filed for personal bankruptcy twice, so to say that she needs the money is the understatement of the year. She sees Herman Cain as nothing more than a personal gravy train, and she wants to jump on board.
Oh, wait, there is one more thing she may see him as - a threat to NObama in next year's elections. Did I forget to mention that Bialek is a registered Demoncrat and a documented NObama supporter? Gee, isn't that a funny coincidence...
Now, about Gloria Allred...in the first place, this woman has the professional morals and ethics of a vulture. I personally also think she's a man-hater, or at least has an obsession to prove to the men of the world that her balls are as big as theirs. She also has a long, long history of filing sexual-based or sexual harrassment lawsuits against men. Here's a short sample of some of the people she's sued:
She sued the Boy Scouts of America when they wouldn't admit an eleven year old girl. (It's called the "BOY Scouts" for a reason, Gloria.)
She sued the former Sav-On Drug Store chain for having a separate boy's and girl's toy section.
She sued the all-male Friar's Club of Beverly Hills when they wouldn't admit a woman to their ranks.
She sued Dodi Fayed for breaking off his engagement with Kelly Fisher when Fayed became involved with Diana, Princess of Wales. (The only thing that stopped the lawsuit was the death of Diana and Fayed in Paris.)
She sued Arnold Schwarzennegger for sexual harrassment when he was running for Governor of California in 2003. (Arnie's a Republican, you know.)
She sued Rob Lowe for sexual harrassment.
There's a pattern here; do you see it?
Oh, and did I fail to mention that Allred is a registered Demoncrat and a vehement NOBama supporter, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign?
Gee, there's that funny coincidence again...
As for the unnamed woman who made a similar charge against Cain when he was with the NRA and took a settlement some years back, well, it's like this: taking a settlement doesn't mean that the accused is guilty. In many cases a company will offer a settlement not because the allegations are true, but because they want to avoid either the expense of a long trial or the negative publicity that such a case would invariably generate. All we know about this previous "incident" is that a woman made a claim and a settlement was reached, and that's it - we know nothing else because the lawyers for both sides agreed to a confidentiality clause, which means that neither side can discuss the terms of the settlement.
And the last time I looked, in THIS country you were innocent until proven guilty, and a settlement proves neither guilt nor innocence.
The question now is whether or not the "Cain Train" has been derailed by this despicable and treacherous scheme concocted by the liberals and Demoncrats who are scared shitless of Herman Cain. To be honest, I think Cain hurt his case by taking two or three days to address the issue; he basically made the same mistake NObama made when he stalled for two years before finally giving authorization for the release of his full birth certificate - all you do when you stonewall is make people think you're hiding something. Cain finally did hold a press conference today in which he addressed Bialek's accusations by stating "it simply did not happen," but the damage may have already been done. I hope not, but time will tell.
In the mean time I will continue to believe Herman Cain when he says Bialek is a liar, and I most certainly will vote for him in November 2012. And I hope Bialek, Allred, and the low-life, scum-sucking, scab-picking, knuckle-dragging inbred liberal Demoncrat assholes who thought up this smear campaign rot in hell.
But I'll settle for Cain winning the election. Now THAT is "change we can believe in!"
IHC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)