Today is November 7, 2011. I've been following the recent sexual harassment accusations from the 1990's against Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain. At first, there were three women who wanted to anonymously smear him this way, but apparently that just wasn't good enough. Now, there's a fourth one--the only one to identify herself, a Ms. Sharon Bialek--getting up in front of a camera and claiming that Mr. Cain sexually harassed her in 1996. She stood up there with known man-hating-feminist attorney Gloria Allred right next to her as she delivered her invective.
Say what you will about Herman Cain's policies. He's a conservative, an apparent (to me) religious wing-nut, and a successful corporate executive. I emphatically do not agree with several of his policies. And personally, despite his remarkable and laudable corporate success, I hope he does not become our President, due to those differences in policy.
But to attack him like this...well, we've seen that before.
It seems that if you really want to bring a man down in our country, you don't accuse him of theft. You don't accuse him of bribery. You don't even accuse him of murder. Oh, no...you accuse him of sexual harassment. The mere accusation will get more air-time and will do more damage to an American man's reputation--whether the accusation is true or not--than even a murder charge.
However, I noticed something more, something beyond that, something particularly disturbing to me.
First, it was done to Judge (now Justice) Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill was at first dismissed even by many feminists, given the facts. But after about six months, those same feminists decided this was a vehicle, a platform for them to shout on. Clarence Thomas thus became the object of their vitriol, despite very questionable claims by Ms. Hill. The facts of the case didn't change. So, what did?
I've read about several men since then who were falsely accused by women of raping them. They ended up in jail on a witness ID...several of which were released after years of incarceration, thanks to DNA evidence testing. These men were innocent! Yet, these innocent men spent years in jail for crimes they didn't commit.
We saw it again in June 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama won the Democratic Primary over then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. After this, Democratic, pro-feminist white women went nuts with fury, vowing to get behind Obama's opponent--Sen. John McCain, whose policies are drastically different from theirs--as a (false) act of "gender solidarity". They totally ignored the woman also running, Cynthia McKinney.
And now we have this set of allegations against Herman Cain. CNN just won't let it go.
The common thread here is that you have white women accusing/attacking black men. And in the cases of Clarence Thomas, Barack Obama, and Herman Cain, it's been by Democratic, so-called "progressive", white, feminist women. It seems that even now, in 2011, that hatred against those who look like my Dad is still very much there.
"Race card", you say? YES! Absolutely! You're damned right I'm calling race discrimination here! I'm doing it because that's exactly what's going on here.
If you're a successful black anything and want to serve in high office, it seems that Democratic, pro-feminist white women will oppose you using the most potent ammunition that they can muster, even if there's no proof. They know very well the destructive power of a sexual harassment charge against any man in today's America, ever since the Ellison vs. Brady case. That's why they use it.
Don't believe me about this bias? Being the son of a black man, I've been following this pretty closely on CNN to see what would happen. Just about every coverage of these accusations against Mr. Cain has featured a white female reporter, interviewing some "expert" (invariably another white female) and asking stuff like, "couldn't this cause a problem for him and his campaign?", followed by a "Yes, [insert interviewer's name], it could definitely cause a problem for him!" CNN has yet to show me one black person, other than Mr. Cain himself, being interviewed about this...and certainly not a black woman.
What's more, the only woman to identify herself is that holiest of holies, a blonde white woman (Bialek)...standing there with her feminist white female attorney (Allred). Can we say, "shades of the O. J. Simpson trial?" Here you have a blonde white woman accusing a highly successful, dark-skinned, black man of sexually violating her in some way. There is no proof, just allegations. And, of course, the timing for these accusations is right before the Republican nomination for their Presidential candidate.
Yet, Bill Clinton repeatedly got a "pass" from these same feminists when faced with similar accusations. Indeed, Bill Clinton did worse--he actually did sleep around on his wife. Where were these feminists then? What about the remarkable drop of news coverage against William Kennedy Smith, the late Ted Kennedy's nephew, for the (I believe false) rape charge in 1991? And the outpouring of sympathy and support for the three Duke University students who were falsely accused of rape in 2006, once the identity of the accuser was made public? I guess that's what happens when you're a fellow white person like those feminists are, when you look too much like their relatives. Those Duke U. students should never have been accused in the first place. That accusation was just downright cruel. But just reverse the racial identity of those students and their accuser...three black guys accused of raping a white woman....
And they still wonder why so many black mothers voted for Barack Obama in 2008 instead of Hillary Clinton?
Hmm...could that be part of it? Could they still be that bitter over Obama's win over Clinton just over three years ago? Are they really still that hateful of blacks?
And now, as the son of one of those apparently hated blacks, despite that my mother is white, I must now wonder what they think of me...would I be next on their hit list if, like Mr. Cain, someday I were to dare to run for office?
This, clearly, is bad, bad news.
So, what can be done about it? What do we, as Americans who don't agree with unfounded smear jobs full of unproven allegations, do about it?
We call them out when they do this to us, and we do it loudly. We don't let up until they back down. If necessary, we also sue them for defamation if we can. A few court cases and settlements costing false accusers a fair amount of money might actually get some positive change done. We have discussions and publish our views on our Web sites and those friendly to us.
And most importantly...WE GO VOTE. Voting is not just a right, but also a duty of everybody who is eligible. If you don't vote, then as far as this Air Force veteran is concerned, you don't have any business complaining when something doesn't go how you want it to. Like many others, I swore to "defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and I have not rescinded that promise. That includes your right to vote. EXERCISE IT! Vote your actual conscience! And if that means you would've voted for Mr. Cain before these unproven and mean-spirited allegations, then you should not let them sway you, even though I may disagree with your choice of candidate. You should continue your support of him, because that's your actual conscience.
Yes, this is a race problem, a race problem that feminist white women don't like to face. They will do anything to deny it while continuing their practice of it. Where is the last black anything that they've backed for public office? Don't tell me Obama, because we've already covered that (remember the "PUMA" group they formed after June 2008?). And I will call them out on it.
I'm just damned sick of this hatred of people like my Dad. The only color of blood I ever saw wasn't "black", "white", "yellow", "brown" green, or plaid...it was RED. To those of you who are accusing Mr. Cain like this...prove your case, or shut that anus that you mistakenly call a mouth. I'm tired of your attacks against us.