We expect Eric Holder to pony up and take responsibility for Fast & Furious (yet he now is playing the 'race card' ducking responsibility), but that's another story.
Now Ron Paul expects people to ignore the money he made off these news letters, to believe he never read them, and disavows their message.
Is it not you're responsibility to investigate what a Newsletter, published using YOUR NAME, is saying?? That you're just going to ignore them knowing full well they exist?
Yet it appears that may be exactly what is going on here.
Details are in the following story from the Blaze.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS RON PAUL CHANGING HIS STORY ON WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT THOSE NEWSLETTERS?
by Madeleine Morgenstern
GOP candidate Ron Paul is again under fire for incendiary racial statements mailed out under his name in the late 1980s and 1990s, though a past interview appears to be at odds with the Texas congressman’s most recent declaration that he knew nothing about the inflammatory comments at the time.
On Wednesday, the Texas congressman walked out of a CNN interview after correspondent Gloria Borger asked him about the content of the newsletters, which were called “Ron Paul’s Political Report,“ ”Ron Paul’s Freedom Report,“ the ”Ron Paul Survival Report“ and the ”Ron Paul Investment Letter.” When the issue was raised in 2008, Paul said he didn’t write everything that appeared in the newsletters, though they bore his name.
Among some of the writings were statements that said, “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal“ and ”If you’ve ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”
Paul denied Wednesday having written the statements, and said he didn’t know about them at the time.
“It’s 22 years ago. I didn‘t write ’em, I disavow ‘em, that’s it,” he told CNN. “I never read that stuff, I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.”
But those statements appear to be at odds with comments Paul made to the Dallas Morning News in 1996 when he was running for Congress and defended the writings, saying they were taken out of context.
“These aren’t my figures,” Paul said of the statement that 95 percent of the black males in D.C. are criminals. “That is the assumption you can gather” from a 1992 study from a criminal justice think tank.
He similarly did not refute the “fleet of foot” statement, which also appeared in 1992.
“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” he told the newspaper.
And in a 1995 interview with C-SPAN, unearthed by Andrew Kaczynski, Paul discussed his 10-year hiatus from Congress and what he had been doing in the private sector, among them putting together “a political type of business investment newsletter” — touting it three years after those statements appeared.
“It covered a lot about what was going on in Washington, and financial events, and especially some of the monetary events,” Paul said. “Since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject, that this newsletter dealt with it.”
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey observed, “For a man who now says that he didn’t pay any attention to the newsletters published under his own name for years, he certainly seems to be pretty conversant with its contents in 1995.”
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The hidden impact of Unions on its members.
While listening to talk radio, I heard a caller complain to the host about his anti-union stance. The caller was a 767 pilot working for American Airlines. His complaint was that he felt the host was painting Unions with the same brush which he felt was inaccurate and proceeded to explain why. He spoke of the financial troubles American Airlines had in the past and of how the pilot union and service workers agreed to sacrifice their incomes, ie a pay cut, to allow American Airlines to survive and the plan worked. Yet when things improved, upper mismanagement proceeded to take bonuses with no consideration towards making the union workers whole given their previous sacrifice.
Given such a scenario, anyone would agree that such a move clearly demonstrates selfishness and greed, and should be condemned from a moral standpoint.
Yet this is where Unions create their own problem by just existing. Given any non-union company, such a move would drive workers to consider work elsewhere, causing the company to suffer and possibly fail due to the loss of productivity. Meanwhile, job transfers are executed based on skills and experience. If you are a VP at one company, you aren’t pushed down in seniority to the level of a mailboy just because you decided to make a move. The same, however, is not true of union workers where any such move to another company would place that person at the bottom of the pecking order, losing pension status, seniority, and wages. So for all intents and purposes, Union jobs become a lifelong commitment to a single company or organization, where both must learn to function well together or they both go down with the ship. It also creates an atmosphere where each side adopts the suicidal attitude that the other side could not possibly survive with their cooperation, giving each a false sense of power, yet it is this very power, that when executed, can easily destroy the company altogether, as is currently occurring with American Airlines.
But the issue goes even deeper. To run a company fit to survive in a Capitalist environment, wages and benefits must determined by what the market dictates, and the hiring and firing of employees must be determined by management based on need and performance, not by the Union. This allows the company act at peak efficiency if properly managed or the company will lose qualified workers and/or its competitive edge.
When Union shops are introduced, benefits, wages, hiring and firing are determined by the Union with little to no consideration towards efficiency or to what the market can bear.
As a result, such companies are usually plagued with employing a percentage of workers who are poor performers, and benefits and wages can easily impair the company's ability to compete in the market place due to the inability to control costs or quality, which is what occurred with General Motors.
Unions tend to see themselves as necessary in order to protect the livelihood of their workers, yet in actuality, those workers would be much better off if they could function in a world free of unions, where they could seek the best pay, the best bosses, the best co-workers, staying clear of companies that don’t boast such assets, forcing those companies to fall in line with the rest of the market or fail, allowing the preferred companies and their environments to survive and be sought after as role models for other companies.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Five things the OWS protesters’ mothers should have taught their children but obviously didn’t
- Marybeth Hicks, Columnist The Washington Times (Excerpt)
• Life isn’t fair. The concept of justice - that everyone should be treated fairly - is a worthy and worthwhile moral imperative on which our nation was founded. But justice and economic equality are not the same. Or, as Mick Jagger said, “You can’t always get what you want.”
No matter how you try to “level the playing field,” some people have better luck, skills, talents or connections that land them in better places. Some seem to have all the advantages in life but squander them, others play the modest hand they’re dealt and make up the difference in hard work and perseverance, and some find jobs on Wall Street and eventually buy houses in the Hamptons. Is it fair? Stupid question.
• Nothing is “free.” Protesting with signs that seek “free” college degrees and “free” health care make you look like idiots, because colleges and hospitals don’t operate on rainbows and sunshine. There is no magic money machine to tap for your meandering educational careers and “slow paths” to adulthood, and the 53 percent of taxpaying Americans owe you neither a degree nor an annual physical.
While I’m pointing out this obvious fact, here are a few other things that are not free: overtime for police officers and municipal workers, trash hauling, repairs to fixtures and property, condoms, Band-Aids and the food that inexplicably appears on the tables in your makeshift protest kitchens. Real people with real dollars are underwriting your civic temper tantrum.
• Your word is your bond. When you demonstrate to eliminate student loan debt, you are advocating precisely the lack of integrity you decry in others. Loans are made based on solemn promises to repay them. No one forces you to borrow money; you are free to choose educational pursuits that don’t require loans, or to seek technical or vocational training that allows you to support yourself and your ongoing educational goals. Also, for the record, being a college student is not a state of victimization. It’s a privilege that billions of young people around the globe would die for - literally.
• A protest is not a party. On Saturday in New York, while making a mad dash from my cab to the door of my hotel to avoid you, I saw what isn’t evident in the newsreel footage of your demonstrations: Most of you are doing this only for attention and fun. Serious people in a sober pursuit of social and political change don’t dance jigs down Sixth Avenue like attendees of a Renaissance festival. You look foolish, you smell gross, you are clearly high and you don’t seem to realize that all around you are people who deem you irrelevant.
• There are reasons you haven’t found jobs. The truth? Your tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks are off-putting. Nonconformity for the sake of nonconformity isn’t a virtue. Occupy reality: Only 4 percent of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4 percent, find a mirror and face the problem. It’s not them. It’s you.
Ed.'s Note: And their mothers likely directed them to a college that doesn't teach or understand Capitalism. The ones that do teach it are few and far between.
• Life isn’t fair. The concept of justice - that everyone should be treated fairly - is a worthy and worthwhile moral imperative on which our nation was founded. But justice and economic equality are not the same. Or, as Mick Jagger said, “You can’t always get what you want.”
No matter how you try to “level the playing field,” some people have better luck, skills, talents or connections that land them in better places. Some seem to have all the advantages in life but squander them, others play the modest hand they’re dealt and make up the difference in hard work and perseverance, and some find jobs on Wall Street and eventually buy houses in the Hamptons. Is it fair? Stupid question.
• Nothing is “free.” Protesting with signs that seek “free” college degrees and “free” health care make you look like idiots, because colleges and hospitals don’t operate on rainbows and sunshine. There is no magic money machine to tap for your meandering educational careers and “slow paths” to adulthood, and the 53 percent of taxpaying Americans owe you neither a degree nor an annual physical.
While I’m pointing out this obvious fact, here are a few other things that are not free: overtime for police officers and municipal workers, trash hauling, repairs to fixtures and property, condoms, Band-Aids and the food that inexplicably appears on the tables in your makeshift protest kitchens. Real people with real dollars are underwriting your civic temper tantrum.
• Your word is your bond. When you demonstrate to eliminate student loan debt, you are advocating precisely the lack of integrity you decry in others. Loans are made based on solemn promises to repay them. No one forces you to borrow money; you are free to choose educational pursuits that don’t require loans, or to seek technical or vocational training that allows you to support yourself and your ongoing educational goals. Also, for the record, being a college student is not a state of victimization. It’s a privilege that billions of young people around the globe would die for - literally.
• A protest is not a party. On Saturday in New York, while making a mad dash from my cab to the door of my hotel to avoid you, I saw what isn’t evident in the newsreel footage of your demonstrations: Most of you are doing this only for attention and fun. Serious people in a sober pursuit of social and political change don’t dance jigs down Sixth Avenue like attendees of a Renaissance festival. You look foolish, you smell gross, you are clearly high and you don’t seem to realize that all around you are people who deem you irrelevant.
• There are reasons you haven’t found jobs. The truth? Your tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks are off-putting. Nonconformity for the sake of nonconformity isn’t a virtue. Occupy reality: Only 4 percent of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4 percent, find a mirror and face the problem. It’s not them. It’s you.
Ed.'s Note: And their mothers likely directed them to a college that doesn't teach or understand Capitalism. The ones that do teach it are few and far between.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Cain shown to be telling the Truth
In 2008, the Discovery Channel aired, "The Secrets of Body Language". At the end of the program, the documentary introduced software which was being developed which is 95% accurate in detecting lies just by analyzing someone's voice.
That software is now available and was used on Herman Cain.
So what was the result?
Herman is telling the truth.
And as for Sharon Bialek? You guessed it. She is shown as not telling the truth.
That software is now available and was used on Herman Cain.
So what was the result?
Herman is telling the truth.
And as for Sharon Bialek? You guessed it. She is shown as not telling the truth.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
How the Cain Accusers' History does matter.
*** Update *** 3:34 pm
Bill Kurtis from CBS was quoted on WLS 890am saying the following regarding Ms Bialek...
Click => WLS full interview
“She has a history.”
“There is a lot more to this story.”
“I can assure you that there will be far more to this story.”
“Let’s put Herman or Sharon in the car and say their roles may even have been reversed, given her track record here.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:00 pm
The frustrating thing is that in reality, we shall never know the truth. As such, we have to work with we have and what we have is rife with questions of character.
This morning,Joel Bennett, the lawyer for Karen Kraushaar, held a press conference to announce...a press conference. In short, more pathetic grabs for the limelight. We are assured her allegations are serious, but still fails to disclose those details. No, we must wait for the press conference, which shall include Kraushaar, Bialek, and possibly one or both of the other two accusers.
Taking a step back, it sure seems like the accusers and the lawyers have decided single accusations aren't effective enough to try and ultimate declare Cain guilty via the court of the media that they now must band together and create further media circus.
Keep in mind, only one has presented any details, and did so with a smile and emotion that doesn't correlate with someone who was sexually assaulted.
So let's take a deeper look at Bialek and Kraushaar:
Sharon Bialek
The Chicago Tribune published an article regarding her history. In the article, her fiance and father say they stand by her.
Well, of course they do! Why would this reporter expect otherwise? But let's look at the key information reported concerning her character in general as reported by the Tribune.
"However, the man she is now engaged to said she did not tell him about her history with the former Godfather's Pizza CEO until Friday night, when she told him she was going to New York for the news conference."
Records show she twice has filed for personal bankruptcy, first in 1991 and then again in 2001. In the latter case, she claimed $5,700 in assets and more than $36,000 in liabilities. Among the creditors seeking payment was a management firm demanding back rent of $4,500, four credit card companies and a lawyer asking for his legal fees.
The IRS filed a tax lien against her in 2009 for nearly $5,200. In August, the Illinois Department of Revenue claimed Bialek owed the state more than $4,300, including penalties and interest, relating to income taxes from 2004, according to county records.
Court records also show creditors took legal action against her during the past decade, including at least one lawsuit filed in Cook County.
Allred described her client as a "registered Republican," though Bialek does not have an active voter card in Illinois, election officials said. The state does not allow voters to register by party
Her father, Chester Bialek, said he did not know about his daughter's allegation until Monday. Reached at his home in Arizona, he said he was surprised by the revelation but supported her decision to come forward."
Click => Chicago Tribune
So ask yourself, if you are on the warpath to 'expose the truth', why would you fail to tell your father or at least, your fiance! Keep in mind, she confronted Cain back in Sept, supposedly
trying to get him to admit his wrong doings.
Now consider, Karen Kraushaar, who works for the Obama Administration. Today, the AP did their homework, surprisingly, and dug up some interesting background.
"Karen Kraushaar, 55, filed the complaint while working as a spokeswoman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department in late 2002 or early 2003, with the assistance of her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who also handled her earlier sexual harassment complaint against Cain in 1999. Three former supervisors familiar with Kraushaar’s complaint, which did not include a claim of sexual harassment, described it for the AP under condition of anonymity because the matter was handled internally by the agency and was not public.
To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Kraushaar told the AP she considered her employment complaint “relatively minor” and she later dropped it.
“The concern was that there may have been discrimination on the job and that I was being treated unfairly,” Kraushaar said.
Kraushaar said Tuesday she did not remember details about the complaint and did not remember asking for a payment, a promotion or a Harvard fellowship. Bennett, her lawyer, declined to discuss the case with the AP, saying he considered it confidential. Kraushaar left her job at the immigration service after dropping the complaint in 2003, and she went to work at the Treasury Department.
Details of the workplace complaint that Kraushaar made at the immigration service are relevant because they could offer insights into how she responded to conflicts at work. She now works as a spokeswoman in the office of the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.
Details of the workplace complaint that Kraushaar made at the immigration service are relevant because they could offer insights into how she responded to conflicts at work."
Click => AP report
Ask yourself, how likely is it that she would not remember the details of her incident with Treasury, as far as what she asked for? Yet she can describe her multiple incidents with the 'monster', Herman Cain.
The ask yourself about the character of someone who gets in a car accident, can't travel to work, yet blames her employer for not allowing her to work from home, as if her misfortune is their problem.
Bill Kurtis from CBS was quoted on WLS 890am saying the following regarding Ms Bialek...
Click => WLS full interview
“She has a history.”
“There is a lot more to this story.”
“I can assure you that there will be far more to this story.”
“Let’s put Herman or Sharon in the car and say their roles may even have been reversed, given her track record here.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:00 pm
The frustrating thing is that in reality, we shall never know the truth. As such, we have to work with we have and what we have is rife with questions of character.
This morning,Joel Bennett, the lawyer for Karen Kraushaar, held a press conference to announce...a press conference. In short, more pathetic grabs for the limelight. We are assured her allegations are serious, but still fails to disclose those details. No, we must wait for the press conference, which shall include Kraushaar, Bialek, and possibly one or both of the other two accusers.
Taking a step back, it sure seems like the accusers and the lawyers have decided single accusations aren't effective enough to try and ultimate declare Cain guilty via the court of the media that they now must band together and create further media circus.
Keep in mind, only one has presented any details, and did so with a smile and emotion that doesn't correlate with someone who was sexually assaulted.
So let's take a deeper look at Bialek and Kraushaar:
Sharon Bialek
The Chicago Tribune published an article regarding her history. In the article, her fiance and father say they stand by her.
Well, of course they do! Why would this reporter expect otherwise? But let's look at the key information reported concerning her character in general as reported by the Tribune.
"However, the man she is now engaged to said she did not tell him about her history with the former Godfather's Pizza CEO until Friday night, when she told him she was going to New York for the news conference."
Records show she twice has filed for personal bankruptcy, first in 1991 and then again in 2001. In the latter case, she claimed $5,700 in assets and more than $36,000 in liabilities. Among the creditors seeking payment was a management firm demanding back rent of $4,500, four credit card companies and a lawyer asking for his legal fees.
The IRS filed a tax lien against her in 2009 for nearly $5,200. In August, the Illinois Department of Revenue claimed Bialek owed the state more than $4,300, including penalties and interest, relating to income taxes from 2004, according to county records.
Court records also show creditors took legal action against her during the past decade, including at least one lawsuit filed in Cook County.
Allred described her client as a "registered Republican," though Bialek does not have an active voter card in Illinois, election officials said. The state does not allow voters to register by party
Her father, Chester Bialek, said he did not know about his daughter's allegation until Monday. Reached at his home in Arizona, he said he was surprised by the revelation but supported her decision to come forward."
Click => Chicago Tribune
So ask yourself, if you are on the warpath to 'expose the truth', why would you fail to tell your father or at least, your fiance! Keep in mind, she confronted Cain back in Sept, supposedly
trying to get him to admit his wrong doings.
Now consider, Karen Kraushaar, who works for the Obama Administration. Today, the AP did their homework, surprisingly, and dug up some interesting background.
To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Kraushaar told the AP she considered her employment complaint “relatively minor” and she later dropped it.
“The concern was that there may have been discrimination on the job and that I was being treated unfairly,” Kraushaar said.
Kraushaar said Tuesday she did not remember details about the complaint and did not remember asking for a payment, a promotion or a Harvard fellowship. Bennett, her lawyer, declined to discuss the case with the AP, saying he considered it confidential. Kraushaar left her job at the immigration service after dropping the complaint in 2003, and she went to work at the Treasury Department.
Details of the workplace complaint that Kraushaar made at the immigration service are relevant because they could offer insights into how she responded to conflicts at work. She now works as a spokeswoman in the office of the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.
Details of the workplace complaint that Kraushaar made at the immigration service are relevant because they could offer insights into how she responded to conflicts at work."
Click => AP report
Ask yourself, how likely is it that she would not remember the details of her incident with Treasury, as far as what she asked for? Yet she can describe her multiple incidents with the 'monster', Herman Cain.
The ask yourself about the character of someone who gets in a car accident, can't travel to work, yet blames her employer for not allowing her to work from home, as if her misfortune is their problem.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Herman Cain stands trial in Bias Media
Innocent until proven guilty? Not in the world of media. Yet there are some who are trying to even this out so I've tried to gather viewpoints you might not hear, and present them to you for your consideration.
November 1st, Politico breaks the story, with no details, from an anonymous source.
Later the Washington Post publishes a story from their interviews with the Lawyer for the woman. The lawyer is demanding the NRA waive the woman's confidentiality agreement so she may come forward and tell her story. The only problem...she has not spoken to that lawyer, and does not want to come forward.
Problem #1: The Lawyer had made no attempt to even contact the NRA. The Washington Post even stated: "In a statement the Restaurant Association said that it had not been approached by Bennett but that it would respond as appropriate."
Problem #2: Washington Post: "Herman Cain's accuser wants to tell her side of the story, lawyer said." Yet this woman doesn't want to go public, which they even print in the same article. Yet a few paragraphs later in the story we are told "she's wary of her name becoming public, and that she is discussing with her family whether to make her story public."
And most importantly, Problem #3: A quote the Washington Post conveniently omitted from their story, the very next day, Nov 2. "Because the case is more than a dozen years old, Bennett," the woman's lawyer, "said he no longer has the file nor does he have the confidentiality agreement. He said that he had not even remembered the name of the Association official who his client had accused. He said he doesn't remember going to the Association offices. He thinks the matter might have been handled over fax and telephone quite expeditiously."
So the Lawyer acts like the woman is crying out to come forward, but the damn NRA hasn't released her from her confidentiality agreement. The woman says she doesn't want to go public. And, the Lawyer remembered nothing of the case or Herman Cain.
Click => Politico and Washington Post 'Reporting' Discrepancies
So who's pushing the buttons here?
Move forward and we discover there are two more woman now, yet those two don't want to go public either.
So now we have 3 women, no names, no details, and boatloads of media coverage and a man declared guilty who now must prove his innocense.
Par for the media? Actually no. Consider this.
1994 Jennifer Flowers comes forward and gets 16 seconds on ABC.
1997 Kathleen Willey acusses Clinton of sexual assault in vivid detail and gets 3 news segments. Keep in mind there are 5 major news networks.
1999 Juanita Broaddrick comes forward and gets 1 news segment.
After that, no more reports surface until May of that year when Clinton secured a defence attorney.
How about Herman?
In less than a week, 3 annonymous sources accuse Herman of harrassment, providing no details, and the media coverage?
Over 60+ news segments as of 11/6/11 and growing.
Kathleen Willey talks about Herman and Clinton
Then we come to 11/7/11, with Sharon Bialek coming forward, with a smile.
Now let's dissect her story...
Why would Cain ‘upgrade’ Bialek’s hotel room and then take her out to eat at an Italian restaurant, then ask Bialek "why are here" ? What did she tell Herman Cain in the first instance, about why she wanted to meet him, as in when first contact was made over email or by phone?
She's says she met Mr Cain at 6:30pm in the hotel bar. What's amazing about this is this happened over a decade ago, and she remembers the exact time they met. I have had many life changing events happen in my life, some were time specific, like my wedding, yet unless I still had a copy of my Invitation, I couldn't tell you when they occurred.
Why would he take her to the NRA to show her around if she had already worked there before?
If he was hitting on her in the hotel bar, why would she get into a car with him and go to a restaurant?
Now consider Sharon's actions.
Why is it necessary for Sharon to make contact with Gloria Allred, a Lawyer known for being an ambulance chaser as well as being radically Left? There is no active case, nor will there be a case.
The physical description of what happened in the car raises questions. She said her put his hand on her leg and attempted to grope her while simultaneously pushing her head into his lap. Beyond the physical impossibility of this, she neither makes mention of him being exposed. So if you picture the seen, it would appear like the most awkward game of twister one might ever see. Not to mention the physical impossibility of her being able to move her arms up to unzip him, if she were prone to accepting such advances.
Sharon describes an incident of being molested and doesn't contact the police, she doesn't tell her boyfriend, or her mentor the details because she was too embarrassed. Yet she has no problem going public with the details now, to people she doesn't know? Doing so, mind you, with a smile, showing no anger, or distress?
She can remember 6:30pm, but she has to read the incident via a script? Something such as the incident she described would be emblazened upon someone's memory.
Consider Marion Jones, the Olympic Runner accused of steriod use. Her first press conference, when she lied about using steriods, she read from a script, showing no associated emotion. When she did her second press conference, where she admitted the truth, she used NO Script, and her emotion poured out, crying as she did so.
Sharon smiled, showed no anger, was composed, showing no trauma, no emotion. And when she finished her story, she called Herman out, with a smile, to tell the truth.
Meanwhile, the NRA lifted any restrictions regarding confidentiality so that the 3 anonymous women can come forward to tell their story, yet all have refused.
Now she appears on Fox's American's newsroom with Martha Maccallum. During the interview, Martha asks her why didn't she approach him via email, phone whatever. Sharon replies she didn't believe such an approach would go well, which is why she went to Gloria Allred. However, she did approach him at TEAcon last month back stage, giving him a big hug, talking privately to him, then storming off. Some say this proves her case. The only thing I see is a bribe gone bad. Why would you hug a man who molested you, privately, backstage?
skip to minute 4:00 of the following video
WIND Chicago, Amy Jacobson, said,"They hugged each other backstage in a full embrace like old friends. She grabbed his arm and whispered in his left ear. She kept talking as he bent to listen, and he kept saying “Uh, huh. Uh, huh.” I don’t know if what she was giving him was a sucker punch, but he didn’t put his arm down while she was talking to him." Jacobson also stated "“It looked sort of flirtatious, I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.”
It was also pointed out that "Sharon also said she was anxious to meet Cain again and had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago. But she never mentioned he had sexually harassed her.”
Click => Chicago Sun Times
Also, Martha brings up an excellent point. Why meet at a hotel, have drinks, go to a restaurant, etc to discuss a job opportunity? Is it necessary to fly out to have such a conversation? Or at least, why do anything beyond go to his office?
Martha also points out she lives in the same building as David Axelrod.
Gloria states Sharon is a registered republican. That doesn't mean anything. My wife is a registered democrat, but she's not voting democrat.
So, does this add up to you?
Sources:
Sharon Bialek accusations
Questions about Sharon's Story
November 1st, Politico breaks the story, with no details, from an anonymous source.
Later the Washington Post publishes a story from their interviews with the Lawyer for the woman. The lawyer is demanding the NRA waive the woman's confidentiality agreement so she may come forward and tell her story. The only problem...she has not spoken to that lawyer, and does not want to come forward.
Problem #1: The Lawyer had made no attempt to even contact the NRA. The Washington Post even stated: "In a statement the Restaurant Association said that it had not been approached by Bennett but that it would respond as appropriate."
Problem #2: Washington Post: "Herman Cain's accuser wants to tell her side of the story, lawyer said." Yet this woman doesn't want to go public, which they even print in the same article. Yet a few paragraphs later in the story we are told "she's wary of her name becoming public, and that she is discussing with her family whether to make her story public."
And most importantly, Problem #3: A quote the Washington Post conveniently omitted from their story, the very next day, Nov 2. "Because the case is more than a dozen years old, Bennett," the woman's lawyer, "said he no longer has the file nor does he have the confidentiality agreement. He said that he had not even remembered the name of the Association official who his client had accused. He said he doesn't remember going to the Association offices. He thinks the matter might have been handled over fax and telephone quite expeditiously."
So the Lawyer acts like the woman is crying out to come forward, but the damn NRA hasn't released her from her confidentiality agreement. The woman says she doesn't want to go public. And, the Lawyer remembered nothing of the case or Herman Cain.
Click => Politico and Washington Post 'Reporting' Discrepancies
So who's pushing the buttons here?
Move forward and we discover there are two more woman now, yet those two don't want to go public either.
So now we have 3 women, no names, no details, and boatloads of media coverage and a man declared guilty who now must prove his innocense.
Par for the media? Actually no. Consider this.
1994 Jennifer Flowers comes forward and gets 16 seconds on ABC.
1997 Kathleen Willey acusses Clinton of sexual assault in vivid detail and gets 3 news segments. Keep in mind there are 5 major news networks.
1999 Juanita Broaddrick comes forward and gets 1 news segment.
After that, no more reports surface until May of that year when Clinton secured a defence attorney.
How about Herman?
In less than a week, 3 annonymous sources accuse Herman of harrassment, providing no details, and the media coverage?
Over 60+ news segments as of 11/6/11 and growing.
Kathleen Willey talks about Herman and Clinton
Then we come to 11/7/11, with Sharon Bialek coming forward, with a smile.
Now let's dissect her story...
Why would Cain ‘upgrade’ Bialek’s hotel room and then take her out to eat at an Italian restaurant, then ask Bialek "why are here" ? What did she tell Herman Cain in the first instance, about why she wanted to meet him, as in when first contact was made over email or by phone?
She's says she met Mr Cain at 6:30pm in the hotel bar. What's amazing about this is this happened over a decade ago, and she remembers the exact time they met. I have had many life changing events happen in my life, some were time specific, like my wedding, yet unless I still had a copy of my Invitation, I couldn't tell you when they occurred.
Why would he take her to the NRA to show her around if she had already worked there before?
If he was hitting on her in the hotel bar, why would she get into a car with him and go to a restaurant?
Now consider Sharon's actions.
Why is it necessary for Sharon to make contact with Gloria Allred, a Lawyer known for being an ambulance chaser as well as being radically Left? There is no active case, nor will there be a case.
The physical description of what happened in the car raises questions. She said her put his hand on her leg and attempted to grope her while simultaneously pushing her head into his lap. Beyond the physical impossibility of this, she neither makes mention of him being exposed. So if you picture the seen, it would appear like the most awkward game of twister one might ever see. Not to mention the physical impossibility of her being able to move her arms up to unzip him, if she were prone to accepting such advances.
Sharon describes an incident of being molested and doesn't contact the police, she doesn't tell her boyfriend, or her mentor the details because she was too embarrassed. Yet she has no problem going public with the details now, to people she doesn't know? Doing so, mind you, with a smile, showing no anger, or distress?
She can remember 6:30pm, but she has to read the incident via a script? Something such as the incident she described would be emblazened upon someone's memory.
Consider Marion Jones, the Olympic Runner accused of steriod use. Her first press conference, when she lied about using steriods, she read from a script, showing no associated emotion. When she did her second press conference, where she admitted the truth, she used NO Script, and her emotion poured out, crying as she did so.
Sharon smiled, showed no anger, was composed, showing no trauma, no emotion. And when she finished her story, she called Herman out, with a smile, to tell the truth.
Meanwhile, the NRA lifted any restrictions regarding confidentiality so that the 3 anonymous women can come forward to tell their story, yet all have refused.
Now she appears on Fox's American's newsroom with Martha Maccallum. During the interview, Martha asks her why didn't she approach him via email, phone whatever. Sharon replies she didn't believe such an approach would go well, which is why she went to Gloria Allred. However, she did approach him at TEAcon last month back stage, giving him a big hug, talking privately to him, then storming off. Some say this proves her case. The only thing I see is a bribe gone bad. Why would you hug a man who molested you, privately, backstage?
skip to minute 4:00 of the following video
WIND Chicago, Amy Jacobson, said,"They hugged each other backstage in a full embrace like old friends. She grabbed his arm and whispered in his left ear. She kept talking as he bent to listen, and he kept saying “Uh, huh. Uh, huh.” I don’t know if what she was giving him was a sucker punch, but he didn’t put his arm down while she was talking to him." Jacobson also stated "“It looked sort of flirtatious, I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.”
It was also pointed out that "Sharon also said she was anxious to meet Cain again and had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago. But she never mentioned he had sexually harassed her.”
Click => Chicago Sun Times
Also, Martha brings up an excellent point. Why meet at a hotel, have drinks, go to a restaurant, etc to discuss a job opportunity? Is it necessary to fly out to have such a conversation? Or at least, why do anything beyond go to his office?
Martha also points out she lives in the same building as David Axelrod.
Gloria states Sharon is a registered republican. That doesn't mean anything. My wife is a registered democrat, but she's not voting democrat.
So, does this add up to you?
Sources:
Sharon Bialek accusations
Questions about Sharon's Story
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Article from MailOnline
A very privileged protest: Wearing $300 jeans and from some of the most exclusive schools, the children of the one per cent out for a good time at Occupy Wall Street
By PAUL BENTLEY and MICAELA MCLUCAS
Last updated at 5:23 PM on 11th October 2011
They have branded themselves the 99 per cent, camping out in New York's financial district to protest against corporate greed and financial inequality.
But on the ground at the epicentre of the Occupy Wall Street demonstration, a closer look at some of the impassioned protesters is starting to suggest that while many of them have genuine grievances, all may not be completely as advertised.
The flash of a designer belt, a watch or even, in one case, a huge wad of cash reveals many activists are not quite so hard done by.
Financial inequality? One of the young men camping out flashes a wad of cash
Tight knit: Among the group are now a growing number of privileged college students
Among the hardcore of well-intentioned protesters sleeping rough in Zuccotti Park are also the children of the wealthiest 'one per cent' - taking a break from classes at private schools to show their solidarity... and join the fun.
As millionaire celebrities pledged allegiance to the protesters despite very healthy bank balances, MailOnline spoke to youngsters who have joined the movement, many of whom study at colleges which cost their parents up to $200,000.While they dress down to blend in, the youngsters' privileged backgrounds are revealed by glimpses of expensive gadgetry or the absent minded mention of their private schools during heated political debates.
One student, who did not want to be named, admitted she had been sleeping at the protest site with her boyfriend despite living in nearby TriBeCa, a neighbourhood which is home to many of New York's A list celebrities.
While she is not camping out, she studies at Bard College in Manhattan - a private school which charges fees of up to $200,000 for a four-year degree.
Other youngsters - some of whom as young as 16 - travelled from afar to make the most of a day off high school because of Columbus Day.
Hard life: A group of college girls at the site. Some spoke of attending Bard, a private school which charges $200,000 in fees
Day off: Schoolchildren took advantage of Columbus Day to make the trip to New York
One of the students who joined in, an arts major at trendy Parsons design school in New York, flicked through pictures on her pricey laptop as she sat on the park floor.
Another listened to a speech and chanted along with furious activists while wearing a pair of True Religion jeans - which are marketed on their website at about $300.
Elsewhere, a huge crackdown on Occupy Boston’s second campsite by hundreds of police officers saw around 100 protesters arrested in Massachusetts and their tents and personal belongings reportedly thrown into bins.
They were arrested early this morning after they ignored warnings to move from a downtown greenway near where they have been camped out for more than a week, police said.
Back in New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is among those of the belief that many of the protesters are simply there for a good time.
On Monday he said he will allow Occupy Wall Street protesters to stay indefinitely at their Manhattan village - suggesting they will eventually leave because many have only camped out there because of the warm weather.
But he added that they will only be allowed to stay in Zuccotti Park as long as they obey the laws.
'The bottom line is - people want to express themselves,' Mayor Bloomberg told the Wall Street Journal before the Columbus Day Parade. 'And as long as they obey the laws, we’ll allow them to.'
He said he had 'no idea' how long the demonstrations will last - but added: 'I think part of it has probably to do with the weather.'
No money? One of the young revellers gets out his wallet while talking to another man, both of whom are smoking drugs
Joining the party: Revellers roll cigarettes with huge amounts of tobacco
In other U.S. cities the Occupy movement continued to grow as the ethos of the Wall Street protests spreads across the country.
Thousands marched through the streets in downtown Chicago, Illinois, yesterday in protests that snarled rush hour traffic.
Chanting 'We are the 99 per cent' and 'Tax, tax, tax the rich' demonstrators gathered outside the Chicago Art Institute to protest at a cocktail reception held by a U.S. futures industry trade group.
Others marched outside a luxury hotel near to where the American Mortgage Bankers Association was holding a meeting downtown.
Police estimated a crowd of around 3,000 protesters at the events, organized by the 'Stand Up Chicago' coalition under a banner of reclaiming 'our jobs, our homes and our schools', according to the group's website.
'We really want to highlight the role the financial industry has played,' said Adam Kader of Arise Chicago, an interfaith workers' rights group and part of the coalition.
'They're here in our backyard, so this is the time to send a message about how we're really hurting,' he added, saying the demonstration would focus on foreclosures, unemployment and lack of public funding for key services.
Exercising their rights: Rose Caulfield, centre, participates in a public yoga session in Zuccotti Park on Monday
Bored? Many of the protesters played games on their cell phones throughout the day
Got enough gadgets? One of the young female protesters plays on her phone while resting her legs on the laptop she has taken with her for the stay
Designer: A man at the gathering wore True Religion jeans, which cost more than $300, while a glamorous young girl came in trendy knitwear
Nice shoes: Big spenders gave themselves away with wardrobe choices
Twenty-six demonstrators, many wearing Chicago Teachers Union T-shirts, were arrested when they linked arms and sat down in Monroe Street, chanting 'Save our schools, save our homes!' They were ticketed and released.
Another demonstrator was arrested and faces a charge of battery on a police officer.
Nearby, a crowd chanted 'Shame on you!' to members of the Futures Industry Association who peered out from a balcony of the Chicago Art Institute, where they attended a party.
On the streets, despite mostly orderly marching and chants, anger was the common element among the crowds of protesters.
'I've got loads of loans,' said Wedad Yassin, a student at Benedictine University in Lisle, Illinois, who was among the protesters.
She said she wanted a fairer tax system that 'stops putting our taxes towards war' and invests in education.
'Obama talks about there's going to be some answers to the education problem, but I don't see it,' Ms Yassin said.
Big name: Singer Kanye West visits demonstrators with Occupy Wall Street on Monday in New York
Appropriate? Millionaire Kanye West wore a massive gold chain and wrist jewellery at the site
Big sign: A child lifts up a banner which towers above his small frame
Sending out a message: Many of the protesters were there for political reasons - but not all
Protesters arrived by the busload, including many Chicago Teachers Union members who climbed off yellow school buses that parked near police barricades.
Andromachi Koumbis, an elementary school teacher, said she showed up because she was unhappy with what she termed 'tampering' with the Chicago teachers labor contract that will add hours to the school day.
'I don't mind longer hours if it's done right,' she said. 'It's funny that they say kids first, and then they bail out big corporations.'
In Des Moines, Iowa, dozens were arrested on Sunday night at the city's first occupy protest, including a former Iowa state representative and a 14-year-old girl.
Video from the event shows police officers dragging or carrying away some protesters. Others were escorted away with their hands zip-cuffed, the Huffington Post reported.
Police swooped on the protesters on the Iowa statehouse's west lawn for 'trespassing'. The area closes to the public at 11pm, officers said.
All but one of them have pleaded not guilty to charges and some said they believed the police had used excessive force.
Sally Frank, a Drake University law professor who has been working as a legal observer on behalf of the protesters, said she believed the police had gone too far and that the arrests had violated constitutional rights to freedom of assembly.
She told the Huffington Post: 'There was a level of force that was used that I have not seen before in Iowa, and I've been doing legal support for protesters since 1990.'
Sergeant Jana Rooker, a spokesman for the local sheriff's office, told the Huffington Post around 40 people were arrested for trespassing and various other charges.
Former state representative Ed Fallon was among the first to be taken away, and a 14-year-old girl was taken to a juvenile detention centre. She was released around 1.30am on Monday morning.
Happy to be here: The youngsters are said to have descended to join in on the carnival atmosphere
Protest tourism: These youngsters made the journey from Long Island, where they go to school
Hand in hand: Two of the young revellers, holding hands as they relax together
Copping off? Numbers are swapped as one of the youngsters pictured leaves the site
Back in New York's financial district, the atmosphere around the protests has become increasingly debauched as more and more youngsters join.
Conspicuously living among the politically active in the makeshift village in Zuccotti Park are now also opportunistic junkies and homeless people - making the most of the freebies on offer.
Some of those camped on the site have been smoking marijuana in plain site, despite the strong police presence in the area.
Protesters said the site smells like a sewer and the free condoms have given visions of what the Woodstock festival was like. In one shocking picture, a man was seen defecating on a police car.
'Most of the kids are trust-fund babies. They don’t need to be here,' Andre, a 40-year-old activist told the New York Post. 'I’ve seen some making out, having sex. It doesn’t look good.'
Ironically, many of the wealthy youngsters are planning a 'Millionaires March' - to confront some of New York's wealthiest tycoons on Tuesday.
Between 400 and 800 protesters plan to march to the homes of NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, conservative billionaire David Koch, financier Howard Milstein and hedge fund mogul John Paulson.
Park life: Protesters at Zucotti Park in New York were in good spirits as demonstrations continued
Painted support: Occupy Wall Street protesters gather in New York's Zuccotti Park where they have been sleeping, eating and planning protests
Flesh: Some entertained themselves by taking their tops off and painting their bodies
Despite their ire against the wealthiest Americans, some of the elite one per cent have been spotted trying to align themselves with protesters over the past few days.
Kanye West was spotted earlier on Monday, supposedly lending his support to the demonstration.
The rapper -whose song 'Gold Digger' is an ode to poor girls who want his money - is estimated by Forbes to have earned $16million over the past year - making him the third highest earner in the hip-hop industry at the moment, trailing only P. Diddy and Jay-Z.
The singer - who once famously stated 'George Bush doesn't care about black people' in a Hurricane Katrina appeal - was pictured in New York wearing a customary gold chain and gold grill on his teeth.
A very modern protest: A design student scrolls through photographs on her pricey laptop
High tech: A protester takes time away from chanting to play on his iPhone, while another shows off his smiley-face headphones
Modern: A woman protester uses one of her gadgets to send out a message to the one per cent
His appearance comes after the site was visited by actors Mark Ruffalo, Susan Sarandon and Penn Badgley.
Other famous names who visited the New York site on Monday included Russell Simmons, co-founder of Def Jam records, and civil rights campaigner the Reverend Al Sharpton.
The protests against the state of the U.S. political and economic systems have now spread to more than 25 cities - from Sacramento to Seattle, Anchorage to Atlanta and Mobile to Minneapolis.
Saw and Lethal Weapon actor Danny Glover was at the Occupy LA protests in California at the weekend - and Ben & Jerry's ice-cream also got behind the national movement this week.
Famous faces: Russell Simmons, left, co-founder of Def Jam records, speaks to a member of the media during the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, while actor Danny Glover, right, was at Occupy LA at the weekend
Famous name: Actor and activist Susan Sarandon visits the protest and the 'No Comment' protest art show in the former JP Morgan building across the street from the New York Stock Exchange on Monday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)