The truth about Herman Cain and the recent charges from the Left.

In this post, I am going to give you my opinion as to the sexual harassment accusations against Herman Cain. Read this opinion before going to the article, found in a Left Wing rag called Politico. Know that this is a 20 year old story, and involves Cain when he was head of the National Restaurant Association. If I mention "the board," I am referencing the governing board of this association. As an effort at being brief, here is my "bare bones" summary. You will be the judge. Understand that there are no more details to this story other than those referenced in my summary, below.

• The headline to this article is "Herman Cain accused by two women of inappropriate behavior." Understand that it is The Politico that transitions from "inappropriate behavior" to "sexual harassment." I think that is significant.
• From the Politico piece, we have this: “I happen to know there were sealed settlements reached in the plural. I think that anybody who thinks this was a one-time, one-person transgression would be mistaken,” this source said." But the article, then, immediately begins talking about one woman; it mentions a second woman but never gets into any detail whatsoever. The "facts" of this story are about one woman accusing Cain of "inappropriate behavior," not sexual harassment."
• When you read the article, make note this caveat: the woman making this charge admits that she “might be the subject of another embarrassing story involving a presidential candidate.” Of course, this does not involve Cain, because he was not a presidential candidate back in the '90s.
• Proof that this is a single complaint is found in the article, itself. From the last page of this report, we have this quote: “Information about the incidents was apparently closely held, even among association board members. But one woman’s complaint apparently did make its way to at least some figures on the governing board when, at an association event, one board member got word that a female employee had complained about Cain’s advances, according to a source who was at the event. The source said the board member asked the woman directly about the episode and was told that Cain had invited her up to his suite at a prior association event.”

Conclusion: one simply cannot read this article without making note of its disregard for anything that is substantial or verifiable. It starts with "inappropriate behavior" and moves quickly to "sexual harassment." It pushes the notion that more than one woman is involved, yet, details the complaint of just one woman. It admits that this "one woman" may have been involved in another story, involving another individual - making her a "gold digger(?)." And, it asserts that money was paid, yet, never assumes that Herman Cain paid that bill or even knew about a settlement. In fact, the immediate past president (following Cain) of the board was not aware of this circumstance ("scandal" and/or payment), at all. In the end, this story is a caustic nothing burger, drummed up by a Leftist organization believing that the ends justify the means.*

* Don't believe me about "ends and means?" You should read Rules for Radicalsby Saul Alinsky. Chapter Two, in that guide for radical reformation, is all about the use of "ways and means." We should never, ever, believe anyone on any matter, who comes from a Rules for Radicals background. That includes Hillary, who was an intern for Alinsky and wrote her B.A. thesis on the life of Alinsky, or, Barack Obama who taught the theory of radical reform at the University of Chicago and used the principles of Rules for Radicalsin his business of community organization.

Understand that the strategy of "the ends justify the means" allows one to lie, pay people to lie, forge documents, and do whatever is necessary to accomplish the "accepted and proper goal." This is the very reason Politico is not to be trusted . . . . it thrives on the politics of Rules for Radicals.

It is "Chapter two" that gave rise to a political strategy knows as "deracialization." I wrote on this, back in 2008. You are probably reading about this for the first time, here.

Here is a definition of sorts from MegaEssays.com: "The term "deracialization," when applied to American electoral politics, refers to the conduction of a political campaign by a black candidate in which racial issues and themes are minimized, if not avoided completely . . . . .This is done to increase white electoral support, and the candidate is usually running for a position in a district that has a white majority.

You may want to do research on this subject. It had everything to do with the Obama campaign in 20007-2008. The "white man" (code for "conservative without regard to ethnicity") wants to here about patriotism,

Finally, putting aside the nonsense of the article, itself, I would caution against accepting as factual, any details added to this story by Politico. The Leftist "news outlet" had its chance with the article's publication. After the fact, they are claiming that many women are involved, that five digit payoffs are in view, that they (members of Politico's crack reporting team - read "members on crack"), went "coast to coast" in preparing this article.

Speaking of crack, why did Politico not pursue Obama's admitted use of cocaine and his refusal to reveal the donor list of those contributing more than $400 million to his '08 campaign -- a secret list to this day? "Politics" my friends. I am thinking "The Politico" should change its name to "The Political."