Conservative Black man Herman Cain should be flattered by his accuser's smear tactics. It means that the Leftist media are actually threatened and taking his candidacy far more seriously than they would like to have us believe. They are using the allegation of him as a "Serial Sexual Predator" because they can not use their other favorite weapon--the "Racism" charge or "Borking" (original intent) as it is affectionately known in Progressive circles.
The reason Mr. Cain should be flattered is that he is in very good company: another Black Conservative Judge Clarence Thomas (Anita Hill) and Founder Thomas Jefferson (Sally Hemings) are two men who have been savaged by the left using similar weapons.
Here it is twenty years later, almost to the day. The Left is once again threatened by a Black Man embracing the Constitution. Which, they rightly view as direct Sunlight, garlic, a sliver bullet and stake through their cold dark socialist hearts. Mr. Jefferson's reputation has suffered for over two centuries for embracing the same philosophy.
The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle didn't work, in part, because it was clear from the onset that the orchestrators were the "Batman & Robin" duo of serial womanizers: Teddy Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) and Christopher Dodd (D-Waitress Sandwich). Their grimy fingerprints were all over the charges. As, (legitimate) feminist
Camille Paglia's take, a week after the Thomas Confirmation Hearing, indicates (although, she does not name names):
"Anita Hill is no feminist heroine. A week ago, in the tense climax of the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings into the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, the important issue of sexual harassment, one of the solid innovations of contemporary feminism, was used and abused for political purposes."
Thomas Jefferson is another mater. He more than any other Founding Father, as the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, represented the conscience of true Enlightened Liberal thinking. As such, his reputation, in particular, had to be destroyed by the Left. The modern Leftist's version of "Liberalism" is not based on the Greek enlightenment of Aristotle. But, it is rather based on the "self-enlightened", "self-policing" dogma of George Fox.
Didn't you ever wonder why modern leftist liberalism seems more like religious fanaticism?
The Jefferson smear perpetrators' work was begun by the Scottish "scandalmonger"
James T. Callender (1802). He had previously launched a vicious smear campaign against Federalist President John Adams in the 1800 Presidential Election, which Adams lost to Jefferson.
Callender was imprisoned for nine months, for smearing our only Federalist President, under Adam's Sedition Act. Jefferson pardoned and freed him after his victory but failed to appoint him, as payment, as Postmaster of Richmond. For this slight, Callender created the highly improbable fiction that Jefferson was having sex and children with his property, Sally Hemings. Callender's original smear was ignored by the public at the time. It was, however, later resurrected by two Leftist "journalists"
Prof. Annette Gordon-Reed (1998) and author
Fawn Brodie (1974).
Contrary to what you think you know, there is less than a 1 in 24 probability (much less - when one considers personal behavior of all of the potential perps.) that this allegation is true. It is far more like that Jefferson's Brother Randolph or one of his sons was (were) the likely father(s) of some of Sally's children. Contrary to popular rumor but based on the DNA evidence, only Eston Heming's could have had
any possibility of any "Jefferson" paternity.
From the Scholar's Commission Report on the Jefferson-Hemings Controversy:
"There is reasonably credible evidence based upon eyewitness testimony that Jefferson's nephews Samuel and Peter Carr admitted paternity of at least some of Sally Hemings' children, and the DNA tests show only that they could not have been the father of Eston".
I urge all responsible Americans to read the
Scholar's Commission Report in its entirety. It is a textbook-roadmap for "how" these smears operate. These smears follow a typical pattern:
- An original allegation - by someone who correctly or incorrectly believed that he or she was entitled to some dubious "quid pro quo" arrangement for his/her benefit.
- All allegations are based unaccountable witnesses or un-provable (either way). All have disreputable third party "witnesses" whose allegations are based on sketchy second or third hand information. All have at least a hint of Blackmail.
- Always the retention of smarmy attorney by the smear's perpetrator or instigator. The attorneys most often bring the alleged wrong to our attention.
- All revolve around the publication, promotion of book, newspapers or TV show or a current or future book or TV deal. (This will be how the pay off will be made to Ms. Bialek (if successful), in the Cain example or maybe, she just likes being "Media queen of a Day".) In any case her bio should give everybody pause. Ditto, the ambulance chasing Karen Kraushaar who seems to have made another career in this nasty business in addition to her government job.
- There is always a Media Feeding Frenzy. As if the mere "Fact" of the Frenzy" were evidence of the Truth. The only "Truth" is that there is unsubstantiated fresh meat in the water for the self-serving media sharks.
- Always an avoidance of the "Target's" VI Amendment Right to confront his accuser and a speedy trial induced search for the truth. (Usually, the damage has been fatal to the target's reputation and his/her moment has been lost.)
- All benefit the Statist's agenda. (Clinton/Jones/Lewinsky scandal being the very rare exception.) The Clinton/Wright/Carville/Begalia counter punch smears follow the rules of the statists' agenda.
Ms. Paglia continues:
"America is still burdened by its Puritan past, which erupts again and again in public scenarios of sexual inquisition, as in Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. If Anita Hill was thrown for a loop by sexual banter, that's her problem. If by the age of twenty-six, as a graduate of the Yale Law School, she could find no convincing way to signal her displeasure and disinterest, that's her deficiency. We cannot rely on rigid rules and regulations to structure everything in our lives. There is a blurry line between our professional and private selves."
After watching the
Gingrich/ Cain "Lincoln/Douglas Style" Debate, it is clear to me (because of the way the MSM avoided mentioning it); that the last thing that the current political ruling class wants is two Conservative articulate Presidential Candidates, one Black--one White, sitting down and arguing the merits of specific solutions for the Country's benefit in a calm, sane and thoughtful manner.
It is their worst nightmare.
Last night Mr. Cain made a very good case for himself but I do think he did not quite "close the door" on this mess. We will just have to see. In any case, Mr. Cain would do well to learn from Ms. Paglia's observation about Justice Thomas' victory over his accusers:
"In this case, the sexual harassment issue was a smoke screen, cynically exploited to serve another issue, abortion rights. Although I am firmly pro-choice, I think there should be no single-issue litmus test for nominees to the Supreme Court. And the strategy backfired. Thomas, who had seemed bland and evasive for the prior hundred days of the hearings, emerged under fire with vastly increased stature. He was passionate, forceful, dignified.
Make no mistake: it was not a White House conspiracy that saved this nomination. It was Clarence Thomas himself. After eight hours of Hill's testimony, he was driven as low as any man could be. But step by step, with sober, measured phrases, he regained his position and turned the momentum against his accusers. It was one of the most powerful moments I have ever witnessed on television. Giving birth to himself, Thomas reenacted his own credo of self-made man."
I would suggest that this is great advice from an "honest" Feminist. Who, as it turns out, would have been far more appealing to Thomas Jefferson, as an accomplished intellectual woman than the probably illiterate Sally Hemings.
In the meantime, the Main Stream Media should try to
just once to live up to the rules of behavior that they have held Penn State Coach Joseph Paterno responsible for [i] and all the rest of us. Particularly, when it is one of their own.
Do I have to recount all of their rancid sacrificial meat?
______________________________________________________________________________
[i]--As, I understand it - Mr. Paterno is no saint in this matter but he at least did his duty by reporting the despicable behavior of his subordinate to higher authorities. Who did nothing.
But the unanswered question is: Who bears the Lion's share of the blame for over-sexualizing American youth at such an early age?
