Herman Cain: Guilty or Not Guilty?
and Why Does it Matter?
False accusations should be punishable by law.
The recent attacks on Herman Cain, the swiftness of his “trial” by media, and his rapid exit from the Republican presidential primary race have left many bewildered. There lingers an uneasiness, as though a lynching had just occurred, and nobody objected.
There are two possibilities; that Herman Cain is guilty of recent accusations of sexual harassment and marital infidelity, or that he is innocent of these accusations. We simply do not know which is the case.
If Cain were guilty, that would be unfortunate. His moral integrity would certainly be blemished. However, to be fair, it must be pointed out that similar issues did not get in the way of Gingrich’s, Clinton’s, or JFK’s public careers. In a society that has just removed the ban on bestiality in the military, with the White House laughingly declining to comment, surely Herman Cain’s weakness would not be as staggering as such transgressions might have been in the past?
If Cain were innocent, however, then the extent of the coordinated slanderous attack on Cain would be historically significant and unnerving. If President Obama’s campaign was prepared to coordinate such a vicious and fallacious attack on an opposing candidate, that really would make a story dwarfing other stories of political ethical misconduct, including Watergate and the more recent Blagojevich affair.
In either case, a fundamental principle has also been violated, a person’s innocence until proven guilty.
Is Cain Guilty?
Does it Matter?
We have no idea whether Herman Cain was accused justly or unjustly.
But it is very worth finding out.
Not because we want to humiliate Herman Cain or to smear his reputation further, but because of the second possibility, the possibility of a political party intentionally smearing an opponent so viciously, a possibility which must be either eliminated or confirmed.
Determining the truth would answer some important and relevant questions.
Determining the truth could not just landslide, but avalanche the coming election.
Is Herman Cain just one more man with a common weakness, or are President Obama and his henchmen unnervingly audacious liars who are prepared to do anything without limits?
Democrats have often been accused of using unethical political tactics (Alinsky tactics). But just how far are they prepared to go?
Where is the media when some investigative journalism is really needed?
Why Might We Suspect Democrats of Smearing Cain?
In Wisconsin, Democrats have recently gone far beyond traditional political ethical boundaries in their struggle for power, including legislators fleeing the state in coordination to prevent the passage of legislation, city officials withholding police protection for conservative legislators when their lives are in danger, and liberals attempting to smear the reputation of conservative judges in order to unseat them. Justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court have perjured themselves, and if you believe the majority of the Justices (4 against 2), the Chief Justice may be guilty of slander and of perjury. No investigation of these matters has been initiated.
The behavior of most Democrat legislators in Wisconsin has departed from the norm drastically, with Democrat legislators chanting and shouting in unison in legislative chambers when they have been defeated in a vote:
You Tube: suits=Republicans, orange T-shirts=Democrats
Even President Obama has often been accused of lying more and more often.
The President’s lies about Obamacare alone are staggering.
One of the best-documented examples of President Obama’s repeated lack of truthfulness is illustrated graphically on YouTube, on the issue of inclusion or non-inclusion of abortion in Obamacare:
In the YouTube video, President Obama reverses his position totally and repeatedly, depending on his audience. As though unaware that he is filmed and that the films could be compared. A President who has an iPhone should be aware of the potential for comparison of his speeches on YouTube.
These facts make it natural to wonder how far would Obama and Democrats would go to discredit an opponent.
Why So Much Effort to Dispatch Cain?
The speed with which Cain was dispatched, guilty or not, reflects the perceived size of the threat he posed to President Obama and to Democrats.
Herman Cain, despite his famous Libya gaffe, is as intelligent as any previous President. His gaffes are no more serious than any previous President’s or candidate’s.
He appeals to conservatives, and he appeals to blacks.
Democrats, with the assistance of the media, have been playing the race card for a very long time. They succeeded in getting 96% of the black vote for Obama in 2008. Democrats constantly imply that they are the only party representing the welfare of the African-American population, and that Republicans are all racists.
Since blacks constituted 13% of the electorate in the 2008 election, a Herman Cain candidacy for president would introduce the potential to split that vote, and could shift as much as 6% or more of the electorate away from Obama. With race removed from consideration, voters might focus on issues and on performance. A successful businessman might prove to be a very attractive candidate in the present recession.
This could be why Herman Cain, guilty or not, was dispatched so swiftly by his liberal opponents.
Herman Cain’s Campaign Has Been Suspended; Why Not Just Leave It Alone?
Many like Herman Cain. He appeals to conservative common sense and ethical beliefs. Even if he were guilty as accused, it would not shock many that a man in a position of power had an unfortunate weakness. After Bill Clinton’s disgraceful conduct with a young impressionable intern in the Oval Office, little shocks anyone. The principal concern for me regarding Herman Cain had been whether he would be a sufficiently strong pro-life candidate. If he had satisfied concerns on that account by signing the SBA Pro-Life Pledge, I would have gladly voted for him.
Now, you cannot help but feel sympathy for Herman Cain and for his family regarding the public parading of allegations, whether true or false.
But we would all really benefit from knowing whether the allegations are true, in order to allay the suspicion that Democrats may have done to Cain on a national level what they tried to do to Justice Prosser locally in Madison, Wisconsin; to slander and libel an innocent man.
Justice David Prosser’s reputation was severely damaged, and just this week the news reports that he was hospitalized and will be out sick for one month (for an ailment that is sometimes stress-related).
We do not know the veracity or falsehood of the allegations made against Herman Cain.
However, based on recent events in Ohio and Wisconsin, where liberals spent $29 million to defeat the restriction of collective bargaining cuts, where $44 million was spent on recall of legislators who voted for the budget repair bill, where over $30million has already been spent on the recall of Governor Walker for implementing conservative policies, and where liberals launched a completely fallacious smear campaign against Justice Prosser; also based on Herman Cain’s denial of the charges, his accuser’s (Ginger White’s) questionable reputation and previous fabrication of charges against a business partner, and based on what was at stake (the reelection of President Obama), it is reasonable to believe that Herman Cain is yet another victim of escalation in Democrat use of “Chicago tactics” (Alinsky tactics). How much money would it take to influence several women to make a few public accusations without proof? Probably a lot less than the over $100 million mentioned above.
Does America still maintain “innocent until proven guilty,” or have we tolerated and participated in the media lynching of Herman Cain?
Equally important, is anyone interested in determining just how far Democrats are prepared to go to stay in power?
I doubt whether my liberal friends and family members would vote for Obama again if they knew that unethical, vicious and fallacious attacks on honorable men were being funded by Democrats.
There should be a mechanism by which false accusations, slander and libel are prosecuted as automatically as physical assault and theft are prosecuted. Verbal assault, slander, libel, and theft of good reputation are more damaging than physical assault or material theft. False accusations can destroy a person’s career and a person’s health, and should be punishable by law.
Related Article, 7/27/13: