Liberalism, Conservatism, and Herman Cain
November 8, 2011 at 7:52 AM 6 comments
Dictionary.com provides a meaning for the word “liberal.” It is “favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.”
Really? I think too many “liberals” have completely missed that, by a long shot. In fact, it is very clear that in many ways, liberals are only liberals when it comes to their pet projects, like abortion. When we are dealing with gun rights, liberals are extremely narrow. They want guns gone, completely outlawed. If we allow that, then the only people who actually have guns will be the criminals and they will then understand that unless they are up against a law enforcement official, they will generally not be resisted by the average person.
Or let’s take the fact that liberals don’t like conservatives. Liberals – for as much as they claim they are in fact liberal – want to impose more laws on people. They want to make guns more difficult to get. They want to create laws that make it easier for someone to have an abortion.
Conservatives, generally speaking, want less governmental intrusion. Liberals might say they want that, but unfortunately, the only way they know how to reach that goal is through legislative measures.
Because conservatives do not want more government control and liberals essentially do, it is easy to see why the word “liberal” as applied to them is an oxymoron. It is also easy to see why they don’t like conservatives.
Let’s take Herman Cain for example. Supposedly, in 1997, Herman Cain (who is married to a very beautiful woman and has been for 40 years), sexually harassed three…no wait, four women. The latest alleged victim stated that she didn’t come forward then because she didn’t have a job. Now that others have come forward, it has made it easier for her to do so. Of course, Gloria Allred is close behind, as she was with the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas “high-tech lynching” (in Thomas’ words).
The sad reality is that there is no proof of any sexual misconduct by Cain. However, in today’s overly politically correct society, if a woman simply comes forward to claim sexual harassment, it must be true. How fair is that to the man, who may or may not be innocent? Moreover, how is it even possible to determine the truthfulness of the situation? Should everyone undergo a lie detector test? They’re not fool proof. Should the subjects in question be hypnotized, or given “truth serum”?
The bottom line is that because someone is accused of something, people generally tend to believe that there must be at least some truth in the matter. We all tend to think that, unfortunately. When someone is arrested and charged with something, we tend to think that the police have done their job well and arrested someone who is actually guilty of the crime for which he/she is being arrested. We don’t know that though until all the evidence is presented.
I will admit that I have rushed to conclusions. Originally, I thought Bill Clinton was completely innocent, only to find out that he wasn’t. I originally believed that O.J. Simpson was guilty and I have not changed my mind.
I recently read of the sex scandal at Penn State and unfortunately, I am of the opinion that the three men involved are likely guilty to some extent. They may not be and they deserve a fair trial. In this particular case, there were reports made to people who could have done something, but did not. There are victims who have given specific information.
As far as Herman Cain is concerned, he may be guilty. I would like to think that he is not and the reason it is easier to believe he is not guilty is because he is the frontrunner of the race for the GOP presidential nomination. If he was nobody, at the back of the pack, I do not honestly believe that this would be happening to Cain. In that sense then, it is all politics.
Since Gloria Allred is involved, I’m also skeptical. I guess I shouldn’t be because she specializes in this type of case, yet with the Anita Hill debacle, Hill was completely unconvincing to me. In fact, she lacked the emotional baggage that often comes from being sexually manipulated or in some way, pressured to do something that you don’t want to do…or lose your job.
It seemed too convenient then with Clarence Thomas (a conservative) and it seems too convenient now with Cain (a conservative). The fact that this occurred in 1997 and it has never come out makes me believe that this is way too convenient.
At least one of the women was given some sort of settlement in exchange for her silence. Now, she wants to be able to talk about the incident. If she is allowed to talk, then she should have to give her settlement back since part of the agreement meant that she would not discuss it.
It is difficult for me to believe that a man who purportedly loves his wife as Herman Cain does and has been happily married for 40 years could have done something like this and not have been found out by anyone.
Look, no one really knows what happened with Cain and those women. Their charges could all be true. The reality though is the fact that all of this coming out now is nothing but politicizing events for the purpose of ruining someone’s chances to become president.
I think though if we were to compare Mr. Obama’s problems with Herman Cain’s, it wouldn’t compare. Once again though, the media is being undeservedly good to the Obamas by siding with them, and taking them out of the limelight.
We hear less and less of “Fast and Furious” which resulted in the deaths of Americans and Mexicans. Laws were broken. Criminal liability exists. Yet that does not concern the news. What concerns the news is the allegations that Cain sexually harassed four women.
I really don’t care what their excuse is for not talking prior to this. The fact that they are talking now is purely political and anyone who would deny this is a liberal who doesn’t like conservatives, especially when they have a chance of unseating Mr. Obama, whom many consider to be America’s messiah.
But lo and behold, what do we have here? Apparently, just days PRIOR to accusing presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexually harassing her years ago, the fourth woman accuser – Sharon Bialek – was photographed at a Tea Party event WITH Herman Cain. Witnesses said she HUGGED Cain and talked with him (whispering in his ear) for a bit. Here’s the photo with the link to the actual story:
That is absolutely astounding, isn’t it? Here this woman, who said the reason she did not come forward prior to this was due to the fact that she was “embarrassed” was apparently not so embarrassed that she found it difficult to hug and converse with the man who allegedly sexually harassed her!
I bet Gloria Allred didn’t see THAT coming. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Look, here is the reality folks: politics will ALWAYS play a part in any election, especially when you’re dealing with the highest office of the land. Gloria Allred and her cronies are only interested in bringing down conservatives. They WANT “liberals” (remember, that’s an oxymoron) to remain in office because special interest groups like women’s groups, gay and lesbian groups, and others get what they want – Socialism, Marxism. Conservatives want LESS governmental control, while liberals want MORE of it. So much for being liberal and wanting people to enjoy more freedoms. The liberals want to legislate our land to death.
If you look at the photo above, please note that Bialek is right NEXT to Cain, with her arm around him. She did not choose a position that would have put her on the OUTSIDE of Cain. She is right next to him. For goodness sakes, how authentic are her claims and why should we NOW believe that in spite of the fact that she alleges improprieties?
The political machine runs rampant over people. If this woman’s story is now suspect because of how she acted toward Cain during the above event, then we must also suspect the other women.
The reality though is that Cain was/is the frontrunner. Dirty politics played a part in removing him from that position. If Romney or someone else becomes the frontrunner, the spotlight will shift to them and we will then learn of the dirt (alleged or real) in their closet.
The most troubling aspect of all of this though is how the media consistently grants Mr. Obama a complete pass. Doesn’t matter what he is accused of or alleged to have done or not done. It simply does not matter.
Until that aspect of “reporting” the news changes, it will be difficult to believe anyone coming forward with any accusation against someone who is conservative.
Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: accuser bialek hugged cain days before accusing him, cain is being set up, cain is now the media's whipping boy, cain's high tech lynching, herman cain and sexual harassment.
6 Comments Add your own
Leave a comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
StudyGrowKnow 
1.
Simon | November 30, 2011 at 7:00 PM
Ok Fred thanks for the name calling. I am actually a life-long Conservative, but by Australian standards, which would make me appear much more liberal than you who seems to be on the extreme right-wing of the political spectrum. Re Obama, I don’t love him that much, but I probably seem a supporter to you by the simple fact is I don’t think he has done as bad a job as you American Conservatives think. The total inability to give the guy credit for anything, coupled with the tendency to believe all these crazy conspiracy theories about him such as his birth certificate rubbish, is what shocked most Conservatives around the world.
Re bin Laden He is the President, and it was his call to violate Pakistan’s neutrality to attack its West-Point equivalent to kill Osama. Whilst you give him no credit for that guttsy decision, be sure you would heaped the blame if it all gone wrong. Bush, Rove and other key Conservatives game him much credit – why can’t you?
Re Libya, it may have been a ‘kenetic military action’ as if that is a criticism. War is merely politics by other means, and he toppled a dictator that Regan and other Conservatives were after for decades without losing a single American life.
Re the spread of the Muslim Brotherhood, are you saying you supported the previous US stance of supporting brutal dictators who kill their own people? Bush Senior may supported that, but Bush Jnr himself refused to continue supporting brutal dictators – remember Iraq and Saddam?
Re Obama Care, it was a great legislative achievement, even if you don’t agree. The irony is that Australia’s Conservative champion Prime Minister John Howard introduced a similar measure about a decade ago as a Conservative policy.
I do really like Cain, especially his 9-9-9 tax plan and his proposed Chilean social security plan (which is similar to Australia’s long running private superannuation pension scheme).
I also agree with your comments about serial adultery shouldn’t be a factor for President, but the fact remains it will sink still his campaign because IT WILL matter to the Evangelical base of the GOP. My point remains, if Cain goes, will Romney or Gingrich received the same support from the 33 million Christians who are needed for any Republican to win the Presidency?
Re Cain’s women, I suspect that it is a very scary thing coming forward and admitting to an affair or sexual assault, because you have people in the national media, such as the author of this blog, who effectively call you a liar. I suspect these women were not willing to damage their own reputations when Cain was a nobody, but couldn’t keep silent when he suddenly became the front runner for the race for the Presidency. Cain should sit a lie detector test if he is innocent.
In point, I don’t love Obama, I just don’t think he is that bad, or the worse President since Jimmy Carter as you claim.
LikeLike
2.
modres | November 30, 2011 at 7:40 PM
Yes, I get it – you don’t think Obama has done a bad job. Again, you do not have him as the primary leader of your country. You don’t live here, Simon and because of that, unless you dig for it, the only news you hear is slanted in his favor.
Regarding the conspiracy theories – ask yourself why any individual would spend roughly one million dollars of TAX PAYER money to keep his private life PRIVATE? Would Bush have gotten away with that? Would ANY conservative have gotten away with that? Nope. Whether or not the conspiracy theories ever pan out is beside the point. Obama has spent a good amount of time and money to hide things. One naturally asks WHY?
You’re right – I give the man no credit because I don’t think he cares one iota about this country. I think he hates white people. He admitted that he “had” a coil of rage toward whites but apparently, he has since put it behind him. That is just too difficult to believe that an avowed racist of any ethnicity could deal with their racism in such a way. Try looking up “Ulsterman,” “Benjamin Fulford,” “The White Hats” and then tell me with a straight face that Mr. Obama is no longer a racist.
As far as what Bush did, haven’t you heard? He has been charged with war crimes by a number of countries. What do I think about Bush? I wasn’t impressed at all. He didn’t leave office with the economy in a good place. In truth though, he had little help from Congress since for most of his second term, the cards were stacked against him politically.
Bush’s reaction to 9/11 was to attack Iraq because the latest intel at the time indicated that this is where the plot originated. Were we told the truth? No idea.
Rove and other “key Conservatives” did not give him “much” credit. They gave him credit for doing what was necessary at the time. You say it was a gutsy move. Whatever, Simon. Again, this is where you show that you have tremendous respect for the man.
You think Obamacare is a “great legislative achievement”? Then again, you’re not having to foot the bill for it if it is upheld by the Supreme Court. I find it unconscionable that the first thing Mr. Obama did after gaining the highest office in the land is to get something past that will take billions (if not trillions) of new taxes to pay for, as if America at that time was not already hurting enough. I resent the fact that there are so many liberals and socialists who believe that our government should be in the business of entitlement handouts.
The women who have come forward to claim sexual harassment (or more recently, had an affair for 13 years) have a lot to gain by doing so. The timing seems so odd to me. Of course, it is because he is running for president. Whether I believe them or not likely does not cause a ripple in their thinking.
You said,”I suspect these women were not willing to damage their own reputations when Cain was a nobody, but couldn’t keep silent when he suddenly became the front runner for the race for the Presidency.”
That statement actually makes no sense at all. I guess I’m missing the point about how they would be damaging their own reputations when Cain was a nobody, but now that he is “somebody” the chances of their reputations being damaged is minimal? You just finished saying that “it is a very scary thing coming forward and admitting to an affair or sexual assault, because you have people in the national media, such as the author of this blog, who effectively call you a liar.”
So because Cain is NOW a “somebody,” they are more willing to damage their reputations? Why? Because of the notoriety and potential book deals, etc. So, in effect, when Cain was nobody, they had a lot more to lose and far less to gain. Now that he is a “somebody,” they have a great to gain and little to lose.
For goodness sakes, Just Beiber is accused of fathering a woman’s yet-to-be-born child. Did you believe her the moment that became public knowledge?
Sure, Cain could take a lie detector test, but they are not even admissible in a court of law because of their inherent inaccuracies.
You know Simon, it is very difficult to read any of your comments without sensing a snide attitude on your part. Maybe it’s just the way you write, but there always seems to be some “dig” that you manage to inject into your responses.
You said, “I don’t love Obama, I just don’t think he is that bad, or the worse President since Jimmy Carter as you claim.”
Based on your position and what you have said about Obama many times, I think you DO really like the man and have great respect for him. Why else would you give him props as often as you do?
LikeLike
3.
Simon | November 29, 2011 at 11:23 PM
Herman Cain’s presidential hopes appears to be on the rocks, now that 5 different women have come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct. As to claims of a media conspiracy, my understanding is Fox News in Atlanta broke the last woman’s story. It appears that leaves Mormon flip-flopper, secret liberal Romney or the serious adulterer Gingrich.
Romney and Gingrich have supported pro-liberal Obamacare-style health care policies, flip-flops on abortion and pro-illegal immigration stances. With Cain likely to go soon (for the avoidance of doubt I thought Cain had great ideas), there doesn’t seem to be much pickings for the ‘Family and Christian values’ party of the GOP.
Isn’t there any hope for GOP at the next election?
Will the conservative base, and in particular the Evangelical base, be willing to come out and passionately support a Romney or a Gingrich?
Does Obama actually embody the traditional GOP values of Family and Christianity, together with values of strong national security (he did kill Osama and win the war in Libya) and pragmatism (he is routinely criticised for comprising too much with Republicans), compared with his likely future opponent Romney or Gingrich?
Fred, I would be interested in a piece from you on your views re the respective GOP candidates, particularly from from the Evangelical base is likely to do or not to do for the 2012 election.
LikeLike
4.
modres | November 30, 2011 at 7:11 AM
It is interesting how much I get this sense that you really like Obama. If you like him that much, please take him to Australia!
I think it is also funny that all these accusations arise with respect to Herman Cain when…? As he runs for president of course! Not ONE of these women thought it important to voice their concerns publicly before, but now that there was a possibility that Cain might actually gain the GOP nomination, they come out of the woodwork.
I’m not sure what to believe, but it is making it more difficult to believe Cain. That said, why has there been NO focus on Mr. Obama? Why has the liberal media downplayed EVERYTHING that has been brought up? Why has no one like Gloria Allred stepped out from under a rock to destroy Mr. Obama’s credibility? Simply because he is a Socialist and for some asinine reason, this is what the liberals want in power.
Liberals, socialists, Marxists, and communists hate the idea of the United States Republic continuing as it has been.
Based on alleged immorality of Cain, should J. F. K. been president with all of his womanizing? Should Bill Clinton have actually remained in office?
The point is simple. It is impossible to find ANYONE who is purely qualified to be president.
However, even in your response I note that you have simply tossed off all GOP contenders and tried to make it sound as if no one can hold a candle to Obama. I am sick of this attitude. Obama is the worst president this country has had since Jimmy Carter. He’s a joke and yet I still see people with “Obama in 2012” bumper stickers on their cars.
You said, “Does Obama actually embody the traditional GOP values of Family and Christianity, together with values of strong national security (he did kill Osama and win the war in Libya) and pragmatism (he is routinely criticised for comprising too much with Republicans), compared with his likely future opponent Romney or Gingrich?”
I have to say that even for you, that is the most asinine thing I have ever read from you. Obama embodies the traditional GOP values of family and Christianity?! What, are you kidding me?
As far as killing bin Laden, word is he did it kicking and screaming. Winning the war in Libya?! It was a “kinectic military action,” remember? He never got Congressional approval to enter that “war.” As far as winning it, all he did was depose a dictator. Guess who is trying to be executor of ALL the money from Libya? Hilary Clinton.
What Obama has succeeded in doing is allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to spread like wildfire!
As far as compromising with the GOP, give me a break. He is always BLAMING them for not getting things passed even though the things he wants passed are little more than stimulus packages that do not create REAL private sector jobs.
Simon, every time you write, it seems like you have no real clue about what you are writing about – sorry to say. I just don’t get you at all.
LikeLike
5.
Simon | November 14, 2011 at 12:24 AM
Fred, I think the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ as used in politics are now far-removed from their original meanings. I agree these terms are now often oxymorons.
The Left-side of politics is now liberal on social issues but conservative on economic issues. The Right-side of politics are liberal on economic issues but conservative on social issues. The only ‘true’ liberals left are the Ron Pauls of the world, who want Government out of people’s bedrooms and businesses. Both sides of politics seem to otherwise pick and choose when they are liberal or conservative (e.g. Republicans seem to be big believers in socialism and big government when it comes to military spending and agricultural subsidies; Democrats on welfare and health). Unfortunately, whilst there are a few true liberals like Ron Paul left, all the true conservatives seem extinct.
Interestingly, the original ‘conservatives’ (which I count myself as belonging), founded by Edmund Burke and Benjamin Disraeli, were mainly about preserving the society against the many revolutions of their day by maintaining the social order. They achieved this by a type of social contract between the rich and poor via the concept of noblis oblige – the rich owed a responsibility to the poor (known as the concept of ‘One Nation Conservatism’). This involved promoting a type of government-controlled welfare state and protection of the institutions of State that maintained social cohesion (e.g. Church, monarchy and military). It unashamably involved strong government intervention in both economic and social issues (known as ‘Paternalist Conservatism’). Finally, it was about removing ideology from politics in favour of pragmatism and real politick through incremental reform.
It was Regan (in the US) and Margaret Thatcher (in the UK), influenced by such poison as Ayn Rand, who turned these historical ideas of conservatism on their head. The traditional conservatives, such as Burke, would be horrified by the so-called ‘conservatives’ of today, especially in the US. They certainly would not have supported the rampant consumerism, individualism, small-government, extreme market economics, de-regulation and ideological partisanship seen today.
Re Cain, I agree he appears to be a guy with great ideas (especially his 9-9-9 tax plan) and it is very wrong for him to be tried by media in advance of any formal charges. I agree it is very sad that today as you say, “The bottom line is that because someone is accused of something, people generally tend to believe that there must be at least some truth in the matter.”
However, Fred in fairness are you perhaps coming close doing this yourself? After all, what about your articles citing unsupported and untried allegations against Obama, including birther claims (which unlike Cain were even subject to Supreme Court oversight and thrown out) or most recent blog about Larry Sinclair. I actually think Obama is more a conservative, according to the traditional political understanding of the word, than the other Republican primary contenders.
LikeLike
6.
modres | November 14, 2011 at 2:31 PM
Regarding Cain and Obama, there is a huge difference. Mr. Obama has actually broken the law on several occasions – that is fact though it seems that too many people prefer to ignore it. Most recently, he chose to ignore a Congressional subpoena. If I did that, I would have been arrested.
There are a multitude of examples of Mr. Obama’s “above-the-law” attitude and more continues to come out. The problem is that the liberal media is exceedingly slow about reporting it, if at all.
Frankly, I’m surprised about your attitude (though I probably shouldn’t be). Maybe you’re more interested in trying to catch me in a mistake, but it is difficult to believe that you are completely unaware of Mr. Obama’s legal missteps.
As far as Larry Sinclair, I was pretty clear about his allegations. If he is wrong, he needs to be sued and jailed. If he is correct, then Mr. Obama needs to be impeached.
Larry Sinclair’s book is in print. He has leveled the charges and provides a good deal of potentially incriminating evidence against Mr. Obama (phone numbers, names, etc.). The women who have been paraded in front of the media have offered nothing substantial besides their allegations.
LikeLike