- 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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.”
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.
