Posts Tagged ‘sexual harassment’

Sexual Harassment Firestorm And The True Problem That Has Been Mocked By The Left: It’s Something Called ‘Sin’ And ‘Our Sin Nature’

November 30, 2017

I’ll just say up front where I’m going with this.  We obviously have a problem with sexual harassment and abuse, but if you think Republicans are bad, just realize that Democrats are proving themselves to be truly evil.  You won’t find a story describing the number of Republicans facing charges of harassment or abuse compared to the number of Democrats currently facing those charges because there are a LOT of Democrats currently facing those charges and the media protects and shelters Democrats just as they did when Bill Clinton was being accused of these things and much, much worse.  And, to continue,  if you think it’s bad in America, go to a country that does not have a Judeo-Christian tradition to see what sexual harassment and abuse truly looks like – and you will be shocked at how good America is by comparison.  I am going to submit to you that the problem is sin and our sin nature, and that sexuality is deep within the beast that is man, and the only way to get the man to reign in the beast is to literally scare the hell out of him.  Which is impossible when that man has been steeped in a worldview that ridicules hell.  Again, sexuality burns hot and deep in the beast that is man; and if there is no God, if there is no heaven and no hell, then there is nothing – NOTHING – beyond your opinion versus my opinion.  A partisan vote or a media propaganda poll or for that matter a legitimate vote or opinion poll among human beings has NOTHING to do with what is right or wrong: a majority doesn’t make right any more than might makes right.  But when we return to the realization that yes, we ARE all truly created in the Imago Dei, and that male and female He created us, then we have the basis for not only returning to a culture that veers back from the vile sexual values that secular liberal human progressives have been perverting us into, but a true foundation built on God and upon eternal truths that are truly right and there are things that are truly evil.  And that abusing a girl or a woman created in God’s image is in the category of evil even if a lot of people disagree.  We have a degenerate problem and we desperately need a transcendent solution.  That’s my synopsis.

It wasn’t all that long ago that Vice President Mike Pence made a statement that shouldn’t have garnered him anything but respect and even praise, but instead resulted in widespread ridicule and condemnation: he said that he would not be alone with a woman not his wife and would never attend any event with alcohol if his wife were not with him.

And he was actually condemned and demonized for that.

The liberal Washington Post argued as it’s headline title that “Pence’s unwillingness to be alone with a woman is a symptom of a bigger problem.”  And stated:

It’s easy to make jokes about, and it’s also easy to argue that this is nobody’s business but the Pences’. But there’s a deeply troubling worldview at work here, one that has profound implications for policy — and we’re already seeing it play out at both the state and federal levels.

Let’s take just a moment to consider this pair of rules Mike Pence has for himself. He obviously thinks that every interaction he has with a woman is so sexually charged that it’s safe to be around them only if there are other people there, too. Unless someone might be drinking, in which case even the presence of a crowd isn’t enough to prevent … something from happening. There’s little distance between that perspective and that of the ultra-Orthodox Jews who refuse to sit next to a woman on an airplane, or the fundamentalist Muslims who demand that women be covered head to toe to contain the unstoppable sexual allure that renders men unable to control their urges.

That was March 30 of this year.

Pence was stating that he would never allow himself to be in a position where he could harass or abuse a woman, nor would he ever allow himself to be in a position where he could ever be accused either rightly or wrongly for having harassed or abused a woman.  He would represent himself as a man of integrity.  And truly despicable people slimed him for it.

May I offer something that no liberal progressive will never comprehend called “moral clarity”???  The accusation that Mike Pence stating that he made a moral decision to govern his own behavior is akin to Islamic culture forcing women to cover themselves displays a degree of such moral idiocy and frankly such political bias that it is so far beneath contempt to be unreal.  When it comes to morality and moral decency, liberal progressives are literally both schizophrenic and psychotic.  They have no grasp of moral reality whatsoever.

What Mike Pence did is wrong, not allowing himself to be alone with a woman who isn’t his wife.  Restraining his own conduct that way.  Far, FAR better to be a liberal like Matt Lauer and have a damn button on his desk he can push to lock a door so he CAN be alone with a married woman who is not his wife and rape her until she passes out.

All the moral wisdom and moral clarity of liberalism in one bite.

The Washington Post is a discredited partisan witch-hunting band of propagandist hacks, but let’s take the roof off of what they were claiming in light of the avalanche of sexual harassment charges that began since one of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors got revealed as basically a serial rapist.

I’m going to say a few things about Roy Moore now: first being that, very unlike Democrats with first Al Franken (even with photographs of the turd in the act proving his guilt) and then John Conyers (who acknowledged his guilt in a legal settlement for sexual harassment), Republicans IMMEDIATELY distanced themselves from Roy Moore.  Oh, no, you did NOT have a Majority Leader Mitch McConnell attempt to justify Moore hanging around the way we awkwardly watched a Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi try to justify the unjustifiable.

Now, Roy Moore’s people have poked some serious holes in many of the accuser’s verifiable statements.  Interestingly, I wouldn’t mind if the entire case against Moore stood or fell on the alleged yearbook signature that it is claimed Moore signed in the high school yearbook of the woman making the most serious accusation.  Her attorney, famous legal hack Gloria Allred, refuses to allow ANY legitimate unbiased inspection of that yearbook, acknowledges as an officer of the court that she refused to ask her client if she actually saw Roy Moore sign her yearbook, because the answer might destroy her case, and refused Wolf Blitzer’s repeated demand to claim whether or not the signature is legitimateMultiple other witnesses have specifically refuted the account of a different Roy Moore accuser who claims Moore sexually assaulted her behind a restaurant.  There comes a point when maybe you’ve got a valid right to question 40 year-old claims of sexual abuse that come out one month before a critical US Senate race when one side claims to have evidence that it WILL NOT release to prove or disprove assertions.

Amazingly, ABC News immediately “reached out” to all 52 Republicans for their reaction to the allegations against Roy Moore.  I could find no example of any major media outlet attempting to pin down THE 46 Democrats and the 2 supposedly “independents” who always cast their vote with the Democrats on their reaction to Al Franken and the numerous allegations against him.  Some of which are evidenced by PHOTOGRAPHS of Franken IN THE ACT.  The Republican example was THE very top hit on the page to answer my Google search.  Whereas I looked through six pages of Google hits when I changed the search phrase from Senators Republicans respond Roy Moore to Senators Democrats respond Al Franken.  The closest thing I could find was from a source called “”  Which pointed out that at the time of its article, not ONE Democrat Senator had called for Al Franken to resign.  Rather, the only call was for a “Senate ethics investigation” which has never ONCE failed to expel a Senator since 1861 no matter how heinous any Senator ever acted.  For the record, the one “journalistic” news agency that most definitely did NOT “reach out” to all the Democrats in the Senate over Al Franken was ABC News which immediately played that trick to Republicans over Moore.

It’s this shameless trick the mainstream media plays over and over again, dating back to Walter Cronkite and even way before Old Man Walter who we found out was a doctrinaire liberal and slanted the news like a doctrinaire liberal before another doctrinaire liberal named Dan Rather tried to falsely frame George W. Bush with doctored documents.

The reason Republicans are so often utter cowards is because whenever anybody says or does anything offensive in our culture, you can bet that the media will cavalry itself over to every single Republican for a reaction and force them to go on the record fer or agin.  You never see that behavior with the media when the offensive words or deeds would embarrass Democrats.

But wait, you say.  Liberalism means respect for women.

Tell that to Al Franken and his now six so-far sexual assault accusers.  In uberleftist California, tell that to the 140 women who have described “a pervasive culture of misconduct in state government” by liberal Democrats such as Raul Bocanegra and Tony Mendoza.  Tell that to the multiple staffers of Rep. John Conyers.  Oh, wait, I’m sorry, fellow black Democrat James Clyburn says all those women were all white, and you know how them cracker bitches all lie.  So scratch them because Democrats are now as racist as they are rapist.  It was because cracker bitches are all stupid liars that prompted House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to give an utterly incoherent defense of ConyersBut she’s been a holier-than-thou faux feminist Democrat who only sees evil in conservatives all her life.

Or we can take a trip down the pages of history and tell the story of liberals’ championing women.  Tell that to “the Lion of the Senate,” Ted Kennedy, who abandoned a woman to horribly and slowly die alone in the dark and cold of a watery grave.  A better term for Senator Kennedy would be “the senator of sleaze who was a drunk sexual bully.”  Tell that to Bill Clinton, hard-core sexual predator and rapist as even the New York Times is being forced to acknowledge by the standards that liberals tried to exclusively apply only to others.  We can take that same memory train when liberal progressives FIERCELY defended rapists and even child rapists like Roman Polanksi – who was adored and defended and celebrated and eulogized after drugging and sodomizing a 13-year old girl (something Roy Moore has not been accused of doing, fwiw).  Hey, let’s watch Hollywood adore this child rapist and tell me the likelihood of whether Judge Roy Moore who didn’t sodomize any young girls to the best of my knowledge would get such an ovation from this crowd:

“But he’s… he’s an ARTIST!” the left says. You know, because Beyoncé shouldn’t be forced to write or sing music condemning homosexuality the way that other artists like wedding photographers and bakers and custom-designers ought to be forced to condone the homosexuality that flagrantly flies in the face of their Christian biblical values. Because “art” is subjective, you see, and only liberalism qualifies as the sole critic of “art.” Mind you, Hollywood has been as racist as they have been religiously bigoted, with back-to-back years of all white nominees until political correctness forced them to pick some token negroes.

You have to apply a different standard to liberal progressives.  They’re better than everyone else, you see.  They deserve special treatment.  In fact, the class that creates “entitlements” are “entitled” to special treatment.  I know that Hitler ruined the term “master race” for everyone, and so we have to come up with a different name to describe what liberal progressives think of themselves.

Harvey Weinstein was one of damn near every single liberal progressive male in THE most liberal progressive industry in the world who routinely sexually abused women.  Think back to Bill Cosby, who endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and said that those who opposed Barack Obama were “racists” in 2013.  Before his 2015 criminal charges.  What a damn miserable loathsome roach you are, Dr. Huckstable.

As we think of how vile the mainstream media is – and it is VILE, isn’t it NBC anchor Matt Lauer, CBS anchor Charlie Rose, NPR news chief Michael Oreskes, New York Times political reporter Glenn Thrush, and political analyst Mark Halperin – consider the fact that 96 percent of media political campaign donations went to Hillary Clinton.  Remember this of Halperin and the in-your-FACE bias of ABC:

And now ABC News has left in place its Political Director Mark Halperin. ABC has done this despite the network’s acknowledgement that Halperin wrote a memo that to many seems to direct ABC reporters, anchors and producers to slant its coverage by downplaying the misstatements of Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry and by viewing negatively any misstatements by Republican candidate Bush.

I’ve been saying it for years now.  These people are as dishonest as the sun is hot.

Not that the sun has anything whatsoever to do with global warming, mind you.  Heat, as we all know, is entirely produced by man and specifically through CO2 – a substance that scientifically stupid people idiotically believe is necessary for trees and for life – but really is a poison that should be banned even though anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

And now think of who was administering that bias.  Take a moment to realize that when conservatives called these people “fake news,” it amounted to FLATTERY compared to what they truly are and always have been.  Because all these people who are such miserable roaches it is beyond unreal get to write our news for us.  These morally-diseased slimebags get to tell us what is true and what is false.

Democrats and liberal progressives didn’t bat an eye when Hillary Clinton received tens of millions of dollars from countries that systematically abuse women.

And now we all know why: because all the damn liberal progressives were systematically abusing women, too.

Just remember what the Democratic Party taught us just in the 90s alone: that a young woman getting on her knees to give a powerful man blowjobs in the workplace office is perfectly A-OK, and that all the women who accuse such powerful men of any misconduct are trailer trash and you can patently disregard anything they say.

Women are good for one thing and to do that one thing they need to do only two things: get on their knees and open their mouths.  But not to talk.  Every single Democrat – EVERY SINGLE ONE – taught America that fact in 1999.

And the mainstream media helped them write that truth and repackage it into something entirely different than what it actually was.

Let’s not leave out another very top Democrat Party machine: the tech industry.  Like all the rest of liberal progressives, the tech industry is a woman-abusing machine, too.

Ninety-nine percent of the woman-abusing tech industry’s campaign donations went to Hillary Clinton.

We can look at the college and university campuses that are steeped in secular humanist progressive liberalism and see the shocking statistics of sexual assault.  Their very own worldview created this toxic system.  There’s been a more than 200% increase in assaults on college campuses; and women are more likely to be sexually assaulted on those bastions of secular humanist progressive liberal values than damn near anywhere else.

We can now also look – sadly – at our military and see how the secular humanist, liberal progressive policies of Barack Obama made our military machine a stinking bed of sexual assault and sexual harassment.  It absolutely SKYROCKETED under Obama’s watch, most especially during Obama’s 2nd term – where as he told the Russian president while he was colluding with Russia on a hot microphone, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”  And Obama EXPLOITED that “flexibility” in incredibly vile ways.  The dishonest mainstream media says that Obama was “fighting” sexual harassment/assault.  Baloney: both SKYROCKETED under him because of his policies as Obama abandoned all history, all tradition, all religion, all science about human biology, and imposed politically correct dogma as some kind of “solution.”

Just like in the Obama military, the vile record of sexual assault on secular humanism-dominated college campuses TRIPLED during Obama’s second term.

Now the amazing thing is that most women vote for this.

Now, I have just in the space above categorically demonstrated and documented that liberal progressives have absolutely no right and no platform to lecture anyone about the treatment of women or what is good or bad for women.  They themselves are a massive part of the damn problem.

If liberal progressives or Democrats want to pretend that the answer lies in education or “sexual harassment training,” allow me to simply state from the outset that the very ones “training” everyone else are themselves sexual predators and sexual harassers.

And anyone who wants to tell me that “we need more women” has to deal with the fact that women have overwhelmingly voted for these horrible, awful people.  Women are part of this too.  And women are corrupt.  I think of all the women who knew damn well what was going on and kept their mouths shut because the rapists and the sexual harassers were Democrats and they were ideologues who put their politics first and everything else second.

I think of liberal “journalist” Cokie Roberts who said that she knew for YEARS that John Conyers was a serial sexual harasser or worst and that “We all knew to avoid getting in an elevator with Rep. Conyers.”  But he was a Democrat, so we just took the stairs, let him prey on the stupid girls who didn’t know not to get in that elevator, and kept our mouths shut.  Because to open our mouths around Democrat men involves a penis being shoved in.  But we sure weren’t going to out this Democrat.

And the reason is that liberal-progressive so-called “feminists” have indoctrinated the belief that “being a woman” is numerically identical to “being a baby murderer,” such that if you don’t murder babies or believe that human life ought to have any sacred dignity whatsoever, you cannot qualify as a “woman.”

Mind you, these same liberal-progressive so-called “feminists” have arbitrarily decided that any man who decides he’s a woman IS a woman.

Understand that there are consequences to the idea that there is nothing whatsoever that is sacred about the dignity of human life.

Just like Nazism, an idea that began decades before the death camps and Zyclon B, ideas have consequences.

You cannot deny humanity and not have that evil ultimately emerge.

According to evolution, there is nothing special or sacred or dignified about you.  According to evolution:

humans are a tiny little twig representing one species among so many millions on this enormous arborescent tree of life

And any unwillingness to accept evolution merely:

represent our unwillingness to give up on the notion that there is meaning out there expressed in human terms, which is a kind of ultimate hubris.

Try to comprehend that any “morality” is a fabrication:

Asian Homo erectus died without issue and does not enter our immediate ancestry (for we evolved from African populations); Neanderthal people were collateral cousins, perhaps already living in Europe while we emerged in Africa… In other words, we are an improbable and fragile entity, fortunately successful after precarious beginnings as a small population in Africa, not the predictable end result of a global tendency. We are a thing, an item of history, not an embodiment of general principles.

Ah, yes, arguments of moral worth in evolutionary terms come up with the reasoning of Joseph Goebbels:

Certainly the Jew is also a Man, but the Flea is also an Animal.

Stephen Jay Gould phrased the worldview bluntly, stating that “there’s no reason humans are ‘higher’ life forms than bacteria or insects” [in Biography Magazine, March 1998, page 110].

A female is a human being, but the embryo is also a Homo Sapiens.  And that argument is actually true where Goebbels’ is intellectual evolutionary gibberish only if evolution is true and God is not.  Otherwise, we make up our own rules: the Jew is human if we allow the Jew to be human and the Jew is not human if we decide by popular vote or by dictator’s decree is not.  Barack Obama gave us all a classic example of this when he assured us that marriage was between one man and one woman until he decided it wasn’t.

It’s not enough to say that there is no meaning, no value and no purpose apart from a Creator God: there is no POSSIBILITY of any ultimate meaning, value or purpose apart from God.  And that is a rigorously proven fact.

Fact: there is a God OR it is perfectly appropriate to rape women; versus the Bible which has a decidedly different view:

In a  recent book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,10 authors Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer claim that rape is “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage,” just like “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.” In other words, rape is a biological “adaptation” that allows undesirable males the opportunity to pass on their genes. According to Randy Thornhill, “Every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That’s not a debatable matter.” According to the anthropology department at the University of California Santa Barbara, “That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict.”11 If rape is just an evolutionary adaptation, then how can it be immoral?

The Bible says that morality is a result of choices that people make, and not the result of some conditioned evolutionary response. Is there any experimental evidence supporting this viewpoint? In a newly released book, Three Seductive Ideas, Harvard University psychologist, Jerome Kagan, makes the claim (and backs it up with experimental evidence) that humans are radically different from every other species of life on earth. Dr. Kagan refutes the ideas of evolutionary psychologists, including “infant determinism” (the idea that all human behavior is set by age 2) hedonism (the idea that all human behavior is motivated by a desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain), and “abstractionism” (the idea that all human behavior is controlled by a limited set of laws or rules). He points out that men who committed terrible atrocities had loving parents during their childhood years and that “evolutionary arguments are used to cleanse greed, promiscuity, and abuse of stepchildren of moral taint.” Instead, Dr. Kagan shows that humans are a special creation, endowed with a spiritual nature, and motivated by a desire to maintain a feeling of virtue, which is unique among sentient animals. He points out that there are no non-human animal models for human pride, shame, and guilt. Humans also appreciate the difference between moral right and wrong. According to Dr. Kagan, “Not even the cleverest ape could be conditioned to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another.” According to a recent review of the book in Science, “The idea of the duality of human nature (of meaning over and above mechanism, or mind over and above mechanism, of angel over and above beast), and of the remarkable discontinuity of human nature from everything that came before, is alive and well for Kagan precisely because he has such a high regard for facts.”12

The Bible makes a startling claim about human nature and it makes that startling claim over and over again:

  • Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.  God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth — Genesis 6:11-12
  • For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God — Romans 3:23
  • “When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near — 1 Kings 8:46
  • as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE — Romans 3:10
  • For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. — Isaiah 64:6
  • Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.  — Ecclesiastes 7:20

I could go on and on.  Interestingly, there are far more verses that point out that sin is universal to human nature and that we are all sinners than there are in the New Testament.  Look at these passages for yourselves.

There is a God.  That is why we are held to an objective moral standard which does not change the way secular – or should I now start calling it “sexular” – humanist liberal progressive pseudo-morality changes practically every damn day.  There simply is no such thing as “objective morality” to a liberal.  There are zero grounds for that.  “Morality” for them is an opinion poll, and usually from a doctored survey, at that. And so, no, there is nothing objectively morally wrong with rape or any other kind of sexual harassment with liberal progressives, according to their moral system.  And to whatever extent they even actually HAVE a “moral system,” they are so hypocritical and filled with so many perverted double-talking double standards that we are right to mock these self-righteous preening modern-day Pharisees for whatever “morality” they now claim to stand for.

There IS something called “sin,” and we are ALL guilty of it.  Some of us are more guilty than others, and yes, I truly do believe that there will be levels of reward in heaven and there will be levels of suffering in hell.  But there is something called “sin,” and sin is anything we think, say or do that is in violation with the character of God because:

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  — Genesis 1:27

And our holy, righteous Creator holds us each and every one accountable to the image of God, the Imago Dei, that He instilled every single human being with.

That is why we are ALL valuable as human beings, male and female, and it is why Democrats are murderers to the tune of 60 million babies which is tenfold more murderous than the Nazis in the Holocaust and counting.

The Bible tells us that “it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).  The Bible tells us that “God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).  We’re told that God “will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:14).  On the last day, on Judgment Day, that every human being whether small or great will face, every act, every thought, every intent, every word will be revealed and will be judged.  And God will not allow even ONE sin, one sinner whose sins are detected, into His heaven.  Atheists and Secular humanist liberal progressives mock this and viciously attack the God of the Bible.  They call Him “judgmental,” which is a VERY JUDGMENTAL thing for them to do, especially given HE has the right to judge them as their Creator and they don’t have the right to judge HIM.  But the reality of heaven and the reality of the other destiny of hell are the basis for any true morality.  Why should I be good and not evil?  Why should I be good and not evil if I am powerful in this world and can get away with it?  One reason: because “you may be sure that your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23).

Let me contrast this with the teachings of Jesus.  Most people don’t know this, and the disinformation-hate-spewing dogma toward Christianity by the secular humanist liberal progressive “education system” will never tell you: but Jesus had FEMALE disciples.  Matthew chapter 28 and Luke chapter 24 records that the very first eyewitnesses to the Resurrected Jesus were WOMEN.  We have several of these women named in Luke 24:10: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, as well as other women who followed Jesus.  What is interesting is that women were not allowed to testify in Jewish court during the time of Jesus, but Jesus allowed the honor that his very first witnesses be women.  Jesus TAUGHT women, which was UNHEARD Of for a Jewish rabbit during the time of Jesus.   The word for “disciple” is used in its feminine form to describe female Christians in Acts 9:36.  Jesus was a true revolutionary who restored to women the rights and freedoms they should have had as co-image-bearers of God (Gen 1:27).  The New Testament repeatedly warns Christians, most especially men, to avoid things like “fornication” and “adultery” that secular humanist liberal progressives openly mock and revile and ridicule.

Women do not need secular humanist progressive liberalism or the Democratic Party that champions that vile worldview: what women need is JESUS and the Christianity that truly seeks to follow their Lord and their Savior.

One of the things that liberalism gave us is rampant pornography and the pornification of our culture.  There are ALL KINDS of studies that document on this degraded and despicable act of Democratic Party liberalism upon our culture and upon the male mind.  Quote from a Harvard study:

The first way in which pornography undermines some males’ internal inhibitions against acting out their desires to rape is by objectifying women.

To whatever extent that “feminists” today are starting to turn on pornography as a demon that feeds male lust and reduces male inhibitions to carry out the desires they were taught watching degrading pornography, the same school of “feminism” was saying the EXACT opposite thing, claiming that “we have a right to our bodies!” and with the assistance of Democrat-appointed judges who professed abject moral stupidity in being unable to see a difference between porn and art they imposed this incredibly toxic, cancerous worldview and sexually-depraved view on our culture.  When Christians who wanted to follow the clear teachings of the Holy Bible pleaded with secular humanist liberal progressives, please don’t DO this awful thing!

Please understand, the Greek/New Testament word translated “fornication” that secular humanist progressive liberals and Democrats have mocked and ridiculed is “pornea.”  You’re not that dumb to not see where I’m clearly going, and where Christians went in the 1970s when morally depraved and morally stupid liberals declared it to be harmless and a right (even as they argued that the clear rights given to Americans in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution are NOT rights!).  Liberal justices invented this “right” out of perverted ideology.  And it has toxified our culture.  And today the same Democrats who began the process of degrading and perverting our culture continue full-speed ahead as they ignore all legitimate biological science to similarly INVENT new sexual genders and orientations on a nearly daily basis now.  For the record, God created TWO and ONLY two: they are called “male and female.”

For the scientific record, that same legitimate biological science also tells us that when a male sperm cell and a female egg are joined together, they form a genetically unique human being that is therefore genetically different from the mother or the father.  It is NOT “your body.”  It is a separate and unique child’s body.  That zygote is a being by virtue of the fact that it is alive and it is human by virtue of its parents: IT IS A HUMAN BEING.  And any legitimate scientific analysis of the cells of that human being would reveal an organism that is rigorously scientifically classified in the following manner:


Just like you and me, pal.  A zygote is a human being in an embryonic stage as much as a teenager is a human being in an adolescent stage.  And any parent can tell you there is FAR more justifiable reason to kill the latter than there is the former.

Abortion, pornography, easy divorce all contributed to abort fatherhood in our culture.

Abortion is based on the premise that at the moment of conception – and literally even up to the very moment of delivery – that is NOT a baby in the womb; that is NOT a precious human being. It’s a thing inside a woman’s body and so it’s her property and so she can kill it. And so at the moment of conception, does a father father a child? No! Not if abortion is legitimate!!! He has merely contributed to an inanimate, nonsentient lump of goop and nothing more. And what is his “fatherhood” worth when the thing he conceived is a worthless thing that can be killed at a whim?

In Satan’s hatred for God and contempt for Fatherhood, fathers are NOT fathers and have NO right to their children. Given that fatherhood has been trivialized to nothing, given that fathers are now denied the most basic right to even the very life of their own children, given the destruction of what was once the sacred bond of marriage, the glue that kept fathers cemented to their families has been dissolved.

In our popular culture pumped out by Hollywood, men and particularly fathers are further reduced to useless imbeciles only good for mockery. Males and masculinity is pretty much blamed for every ill there is. Our leftist politicians and academics have pitted women against men and declared that men are responsible for every evil in the world. In the public schools we have seen secular humanism’s war against men warp into a war against boys. And these forces have combined to fundamentally distort and warp our very notion of what it even means to be a male, to be a man. While increasingly there IS no father at home to tell these children anything different: 39% of America’s children between first and twelfth grade live in homes without a father today.

Let me tell you something: Democrats LOVE the fact that they have warped our culture into one composed of single, unmarried women who live in homes without the father of their child/ren.  Because they have exploited these women their policies created such that 70% of single, unmarried women vote DEMOCRAT.

Understand something, single, unmarried woman: Democrats are sick, twisted, perverted, warped people who do not WANT you to be happy, do not WANT your children to grow up stable, do not WANT you to have a dream of living in your own home with your loving husband who is the father of your beautiful, well-adjusted children.  Because you would vote these DemocRats right out of office.  And that is simply a statistical fact.  The longer DEMOn-possessed-bureauCRATS can keep you down, women, the longer they can isolate you, keep you without a husband and a father to your kids, the longer they can keep you in grinding poverty, on welfare, desperate, without a true man to love you and keep you and stay beside you, the longer you will keep giving them what they want.

Anyway, the problem is something that secular humanist liberal progressives mock is spelled S-I-N.  And we are ALL sinners.  So let me get back to Roy Moore.  Yes, it is possible he did what the women accusers claim he did going back forty years ago.  Sin extends to all human beings.  Even Christians.  The Bible teaches that unbelievers have a sin nature and believers have two natures: the godly nature that comes from the Holy Spirit and the old human natures.  And we have to learn how to reign in our old sinful natures that remain with us.  And that includes our sexual “issues.”

We are sinners, and sinners need a Savior.  We need Jesus.  The Bible assures us that God created us in His image, and part of that image is eternity.  The Bible says that God set eternity in our hearts (Ecclesisates 3:11).  God created heaven and God created hell.  Both are real.  Our destiny is to be in one or the other.  And the thing is that God cannot allow any sin – ANY sin – into heaven or heaven, which is perfect, cannot be heaven.  And so everyone and everything that is allowed into heaven will be morally pure and perfect.

But the Bible says quite clearly that we are all sinners.  Which is quite a problem for us, one that we cannot solve or hope to solve on our own.  God created us and created us in HIS image.  And we are held accountable to that image.

But the Bible also teaches us that the very God who created us in His image assumed OUR image, added a human nature to His deity, and came to earth to represent sinful humanity.  And while we all sinned, Christ Jesus never sinned once in anything He ever thought, said or did.  He perfectly represented the sinless, pure righteousness of a holy Creator God.  And we can have our sins washed away by His blood because after living that perfect life on our behalf, representing me, He died to pay for my sins.  Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 3:23).  And so Jesus conquered the power of sin, and because He is God and death cannot hold God, Jesus rose again bodily from the dead.  And He conquered the power of sin and the power of death.  And therefore my eternal destiny is heaven because my sins do not exist when God looks at me through the perfect righteousness of Christ.

And when I believe that, when I believe that Christ died for my sins according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3), and that He rose again from the dead according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:4), and I declare that with my mouth in faith, something happens.  Yes, you can still sin, but now there is also a new nature implanted within you, a nature that unlike your sin nature does NOT want to sin, but to obey the Christ who placed that nature within you.  Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit within us convicts us of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-10).  Unlike the “righteousness” of secular humanist liberal progressives, this righteousness and sin and judgment are NOT based on constantly shifting human standards that mean nothing, but come from the character and nature and power of the Living Creator God who will one day hold every single human being who has ever been born to account.

And when I truly believe these things, when I truly have God’s Spirit living within me, there is simply something inside me that won’t let me do the things we see in our culture.

If there is no hell, there are no consequences for evil. And there is absolutely no reason not to allow evil to have free reign. The bottom line is this: all atheism requires is to believe there is no God and all agnosticism requires is to doubt God; in either case, there IS no moral system. There IS no moral disqualification to atheism or agnosticism. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and the Kim dynasty in North Korea were and are all perfectly fulfilled atheists who murdered well over 100 million innocent human beings JUST IN PEACETIME ALONE.  One can be a perfectly consistent atheist or agnostic and be a complete moral monster in a way that is impossible to be a Christian claiming to truly follow Jesus and be a moral monster.  Because Jesus was righteous and calls upon His followers to be righteous.  Any and all “moral” rules these people come up with are first of all self-serving and hypocritical and second of all nothing but shifting sand that will change as the winds of political correctness blow. Which is why Bill Clinton was never guilty of rape even though he had credible accusers and numerous instances of sexual assault and sexual harassment even though there were numerous accusers, but today Roy Moore was pilloried as guilty merely because women said something and therefore had to be believed. Even Hillary Clinton has implicitly acknowledged that by the standard that she currently espouses, her husband and the man who still most represents the Democratic Party and Democrat values belongs in a prison cell doing hard time for his outrageous and depraved violence toward women.  Back then, Democrats claimed that all the women who said Bill assaulted them or worse should NOT be believed, and mocked them by claiming that they were trailer trash.

If you think all this crap that you are seeing going on all around you is wrong, then you turn to the antidote to sin: you turn to the only way out of sin, past sin, through sin.  You turn to Jesus.

Liberal progressives have now thoroughly proven that their way may seem right to them and even to a depraved culture, but in the end it is the way of death (Proverbs 14:12).  The Bible warns about them and their ways: they say what God declares is evil and what they declare is good, but they are in for a terrifying end (Isaiah 5:20).

That’s the bottom line.  And liberals are themselves proving that what the Word of God declared centuries ago remains as true today as when God first declared it.








Remember How Democrats Cheered What They Called ‘The Arab Spring’ And Cheered Obama For Creating It? Well, Obama’s ‘Arab Spring’ = ‘Mass Rapes’ Now

June 12, 2012

The Democrat Party has exported its war on women (and see here and here) to Egypt:

In ‘new Egypt’, mobs sexually assault women with impunity
Reports of assaults on women in Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down last year, have been on the rise
updated 6/7/2012 4:28:02 AM ET

CAIRO — Her screams were not drowned out by the clamor of the crazed mob of nearly 200 men around her. An endless number of hands reached toward the woman in the red shirt in an assault scene that lasted less than 15 minutes but felt more like an hour.

She was pushed by the sea of men for about a block into a side street from Tahrir Square. Many of the men were trying to break up the frenzy, but it was impossible to tell who was helping and who was assaulting. Pushed against the wall, the unknown woman’s head finally disappeared. Her screams grew fainter, then stopped. Her slender tall frame had clearly given way. She apparently had passed out.

The helping hands finally splashed the attackers with bottles of water to chase them away.

The assault late Tuesday was witnessed by an Associated Press reporter who was almost overwhelmed by the crowd herself and had to be pulled to safety by men who ferried her out of the melee in an open Jeep.

Reports of assaults on women in Tahrir, the epicenter of the uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down last year, have been on the rise with a new round of mass protests to denounce a mixed verdict against the ousted leader and his sons in a trial last week.

The late Tuesday assault was the last straw for many. Protesters and activists met Wednesday to organize a campaign to prevent sexual harassment in the square. They recognize it is part of a bigger social problem that has largely gone unpunished in Egypt. But the phenomenon is trampling on their dream of creating in Tahrir a micro-model of a state that respects civil liberties and civic responsibility, which they had hoped would emerge after Mubarak’s ouster.

‘It shouldn’t be happening’
“Enough is enough,” said Abdel-Fatah Mahmoud, a 22-year-old engineering student, who met Wednesday with friends to organize patrols of the square in an effort to deter attacks against women. “It has gone overboard. No matter what is behind this, it is unacceptable. It shouldn’t be happening on our streets let alone Tahrir.”

No official numbers exist for attacks on women in the square because police do not go near the area, and women rarely report such incidents. But activists and protesters have reported a number of particularly violent assaults on women in the past week. Many suspect such assaults are organized by opponents of the protests to weaken the spirit of the protesters and drive people away.

Mahmoud said two of his female friends were cornered Monday and pushed into a small passageway by a group of men in the same area where the woman in the red shirt was assaulted. One was groped while the other was seriously assaulted, Mahmoud said, refusing to divulge specifics other than to insist she wasn’t raped.

Mona Seif, a well-known activist who has been trying to promote awareness about the problem, said Wednesday she was told about three different incidents in the past five days, including two that were violent. In one incident, the attackers ripped the woman’s clothes off and trampled on her companions, she said.

Let’s not forget that Barack Obama took complete credit for the Arab Spring and the Mubarak exit by rushing out to put himself right in the middle of it.  The left cheered Obama for his messianic leadership:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, gentlemen, I’m a little bit jubilant right now, a little bit frisky so I’ll say something that will bother people. But if you have, a lot of the people in this country think the President of the United States is Muslim, which he’s not, he’s Christian. They think he’s foreign born, which he’s not, he’s American born. But they have this attitude about him, the people on the right a lot of them, right? And here he is, and he comes into office, and this jubilant situation in Eqypt, with the first time in our lives we get to see people from the Arab world in a very positive democratic setting. Not as terrorists or not as people fighting Israel, or whatever. Not mouthing epithets against the West, but people like us.

DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Right, celebrating.

MATTHEWS: In a way it’s like it took Obama to have this happen, or it’s just so serendipitous.

“It took Obama to have this happen.”  Praise him!  Worship him!  Our blessed messiah!  Of course, a lot of people – like Israelis – were arguing from the outset that “this” actually wasn’t a good thing.  At all.  Conservatives like Sean Hannity predicted from the very outset that the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists were going to take control of Egypt – just as they did.

But who cares about reality?  Praise Obama!  Praise him!  Worship him!

 Is “serendipitous” a good adjective to describe rape?  I’m sorry, I don’t have my liberal-to-English dictionary with me.

Obama also erroneously massively downplayed the role that the Muslim Brotherhood would come to have (you know, unlike Sean Hannity and a lot of other conservatives who were RIGHT):

Mr. Obama downplayed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power and install a government hostile to U.S. interests.

“I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt but they are well organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti U.S., there is no doubt about it,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama said he wanted a representative government in Egypt that reflected the country’s broader civil society.

The fool was wrong, wrong, WRONG about that:

Though the current upheavals in the Middle East were not initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist parties in Egypt, as in Tunisia and Libya, have been the chief beneficiaries of the collapse of long-standing authoritarian repressive regimes across North Africa.

In Egypt itself, the two largest Islamist groups, the Brotherhood and the Salafists, won about three-quarters of the ballots in the second round of legislative elections held in December 2011, while the secular and the liberal forces took a battering.

The Brotherhood, an organization founded by Egyptian schoolteacher Hassan el Banna back in 1928, has never deviated from its founder’s central axiom:

“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

It is this radical vision, which animates all those in the region who seek a fully Islamic society and way of life.

The Muslim Brotherhood has always been deeply anti-Western, viscerally hostile to Israel and openly anti-Semitic — points usually downplayed in Western commentary on the “Arab Spring.”

In spite of the fact that Obama was actually giving aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama demanded that America give a billion dollars in aid to EgyptYou know, to the country that is now using RAPE in its war on women.

And now the same fool is making the same mistakes in Syria.

First of all, do you remember the justifications for going to war over Libya, which also aint working out that great?  We were told that “Barack Obama’s war in Libya bears the intellectual imprint of Samantha Power.”  And what was that “intellectual imprint”?  This:

“She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”

That’s just GREAT.  So Obama went to war with Libya to remove a dictator who threatened to kill his own people but has refused to go to war with a dictator who has ACTUALLY murdered over fourteen thousand of his own people.  But apparently radical liberal Obama is on the same page as doctrinaire liberal Barbara Walters – because they’re both helping this vicious dictator.

Libya has not worked out very well.  At all.  Aside from the fact that Libya has descended into complete anarchy, there is the fact that terrorists have used that anarchy to turn Libya into another Afghanistan/Yemen-style haven.

Oh, and Obama also supported and trained Egyptian activists to undermine and overthrow Mubarak.  Just to complete the picture of who supported all these rapes that are now going on.

Both Democrats and radical Muslims have the same cherished goal: to keep women ignorant and in line with their agenda no matter how obviously anti-woman it is.

Newt Nails It: Media ‘Would Rather Worry About Rumors About Conservatives Than Facts About The President’

December 1, 2011

The mainstream media is pure leftist propaganda. Nothing more. They are dishonest and disingenuous. Everything they cover (and won’t cover) is distorted by their unrelentingly un-American leftist worldview.

Let’s take the latest serial accuser of Herman Cain.  Consider the credibility of Ginger White:

Ms. White is an unemployed single mother. Before the interview, Fox learned that she had filed a sexual harassment claim against an employer in 2001. That case was settled. The station also found a bankruptcy filing nearly 23 years ago in Kentucky, and several eviction notices in the Atlanta area over the past six years.

The station also reported that Ms. White had a former business partner who once sought a “stalking temporary protective order” against her for “repeated e-mails/texts threatening lawsuit and defamation of character.” The case was dismissed, but it was followed by a libel lawsuit against Ms. White. A judge entered an order against Ms. White because she failed to respond to the lawsuit, Fox reported.

And if that’s not enough there’s more (from ABC News):

Ginger White . . . has liens and civil judgments in Kentucky and Georgia dating back to 1994.

Eleven of those liens have been filed since 2009, with nine in 2011. The owners of her apartment complex in Dunwoody, Georgia have sued her for non-payment of rent nearly every month since the beginning of the year.

White, a 46-year-old unemployed single mother who is at least twice divorced, was described by WAGA as an Atlanta-area businesswoman. . . . According to WAGA, she filed a sex harassment claim against an employer ten years ago, and the case was settled. . . .

In January, there is a scheduled court date in an unrelated civil suit filed against her by a former business partner, Kimberly Vay, who alleges that White stalked and harassed her and had sought a protective order. A judge has entered a default judgment in Vay’s favor.

But hey, it helps the Democrat establishment depict Herman Cain as (and I quote a leftwing blogger here) a

 “jungle boogie black stud” who has “Sexed Up Every Woman In America Including Your Mom.”

Now, that is quintessentially racist in the real world.  But liberals have absolved themselves of racism due to the fact that it is by (their own) definition impossible for a liberal to be “racist.”  No matter how viscerally racist they actually are.

It doesn’t matter if these women accusing Cain are all complete train wrecks.  Every allegation must be thoroughly described ad nauseam until Herman Cain finally learns that uppity black men need to get in their place on the liberal plantation.  Because the Fugitive Slave Act remains alive and well within the Democrat Party when conservative blacks are at issue.

To say that the media covered the Herman Cain accusations like piranhas and jackals is frankly an insult to piranhas and jackals.

Now, did the media cover the numerous – and FAR more credible – accusations against Bill Clinton the same way they’ve covered Herman Cain?  Not in this universe:

The Clinton Treatment: How The Media Protected Bill But Pounce on Cain
November 01, 2011 14:40 ET

Alexandria, VA – In direct contrast to how ABC, CBS and NBC newsrooms all but ignored the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton from multiple women including Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, the same networks are now salivating over an alleged act of harassment by Herman Cain from anonymous sources, a new MRC report finds.

A look back at the Clinton scandals:

Paula Jones – February, 1994 – Accused Bill Clinton of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. CBS and NBC ignored her press conference. ABC gave it 16 seconds of coverage.

Kathleen Willey – July, 1997 – Accused Bill Clinton of groping her in the Oval Office while President. CBS gave it one minute on July 30 while NBC gave it a mention and ABC gave it no immediate coverage.

Juanita Broaddrick – March, 1998 – Accused Bill Clinton of raping her while he was the Arkansas Attorney General and a candidate for Governor. ABC, CBS, NBC offered weekend coverage but then dropped the story. NBC’s Dateline finally aired an interview with Broaddrick in February of 1999.

Brent Bozell responds:

ABC, CBS and NBC pounced on the opportunity to slam GOP hopeful Herman Cain – even with unnamed accusers and sources. It is indefensible how the networks were quick to defend Bill Clinton by not reporting public accusations of rape, inappropriate physical contact, and explicit behavior – and are quick to attack Herman Cain on the basis of weak allegations by anonymous sources.

“While these women received a different kind of ‘Clinton Treatment,’ the media have their own version, and are quick to put it aside when it comes to Herman Cain. They want to see this smart, successful, black man come to ruin – all because he is a conservative. A disgraceful President who faced public accusers and an impeachment trial received better treatment in the so-called ‘news’ than a candidate whose accusers remain unnamed.”

Politico alone had run 90 stories on Herman Cain as a sexual harasser by November 4th.

Then there was John Edwards, who – unlike Herman Cain – actually fathered a CHILD in the course of his adultery.  The mainstream media REFUSED to cover the story even though they KNEW about it.  As I documented at the time here and here.  The same media that is going after Herman Cain like pitbulls going after a piece of bloody meat refused to go after John Edwards until AFTER the Democrat Primary.

With that as a backdrop of rampant, raging mainstream media bias and outright hatred for conservatives (and particularly black conservatives), let’s see what Newt Gingrich had to say when he found out that the Washington Post had their heads in his garbage cans:

Gingrich Rips WaPo: Media ‘Would Rather Worry About Rumors About Conservatives Than Facts About President’
By Noel Sheppard | November 30, 2011 | 09:34

On Monday, NewsBusters broke a story about Washington Post blogger Aaron Blake using Twitter to dig up dirt on Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

On Tuesday, the former House Speaker spoke to St. Louis radio host and Big Journalism editor Dana Loesch about this saying, “It’s a little sad to see a paper the quality of the Washington Post stoop to…the National Enquirer approach to life” adding they “would rather worry about rumors about conservatives than facts about the President” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

[See video at Newsbusters]

DANA LOESCH: I’ve noticed that Aaron Blake who writes for the Washington Post’s The Fix, it’s a political blog, has reached out to readers asking them to crowd-source your past to see if they can get some skeletons in your closet. Have you heard of this?

NEWT GINGRICH: I haven’t heard of it. I’m not at all surprised. I think that you have to expect that kind of trash. I’ve been honest about the fact that there are things I did in my past that I’ve had to go to G-d and seek forgiveness for and seek reconciliation. And if this guy manages to find some magic example, I will stipulate it. I have a very good marriage with Callista. We have, we’re very, very close and have been now for well over a decade. I’m very close to my two daughters and my son-in-laws, and I’m very close to my grandchildren. And I’ll let people look at who I am and how I live today and decide whether or not I’m the person they want to have as president.

It’s a little sad to see a paper the quality of the Washington Post stoop to that, which used to be the National Enquirer approach to life. But that’s just the nature of where we are today.

LOESCH: And I wish that they would crowd-source the White House visitor logs the way that they’re going after individuals like you or Sarah Palin.

GINGRICH: I wish they would crowd-source to discover what he did at Columbia University, and I wish they would crowd-source to figure out what he did with Saul Alinsky’s ideas on the South Side of Chicago.

LOESCH: Exactly.

GINGRICH: Nobody’s ever explored exactly, the community organizer did not mean boys and girls clubs. It meant Saul Alinsky radicalism.

LOESCH: Yeah, it absolutely did.

GINGRICH: But the news media’s never quite found itself as excited about the facts about Barack Obama. Would rather worry about rumors about conservatives than facts about the President.

It really is absurd how little Americans know about our President’s life after he left Hawaii, in particular what he did in Chicago before running for the highest office in the land.

Instead of doing any such investigative journalism, our so-called press digs into every rumor and unsubstantiated allegation against his political rivals.

Will they only be interested in the truth once Obama leaves office, or will his past continue to be verboten as they try to build up his legacy much as they are currently doing with former President Jimmy Carter?

Loesch’s entire interview with the former Speaker is available at Big Journalism.

Mind you, that omits Barack Obama’s racist, anti-American, Marxist “reverend” for twenty years.  And it omits the terrorist bomber pal who gave Obama his start in politics.  Because yes, lying liberal media, Obama DID get his political start in Bill Ayers’ living room.

If you get your news from the mainstream media, from the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or New York Times, from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. etc., you are a dishonest person.  Because you prefer lies.  Your soul swims in lies.  And you gravitate toward dishonest “news” sources that will feed your addiction to lies.

If the media had gone after Bill Clinton the way it’s gone after Herman Cain, Bill Clinton never would have been president.

If the media had gone after Barack Obama the way it’s gone after Herman Cain or Sarah Palin, Barack Obama never would have even come close to winning the Democrat primary, let alone been president.

Journalists are the most dishonest vermin in the world:

“journalists are ranked as the least trustworthy with just 19 per cent believing they tell the truth.”

And one day they will burn in the hottest level of hell.

Not that that will help Herman Cain.  Or Newt Gingrich, when these lying cockroaches get to work on him, for that matter.

Newt does the National Enquirer a disservice in comparing them to the mainstream media; because the National Enquirer is vastly more credible than the mainstream media – even when they are talking about the latest Elvis or Bigfoot sighting.

Um, For The Actual Record, Herman Cain’s Account Is Pretty Much Confirmed

November 10, 2011

The media has demonically attacked Herman Cain with every charge imaginable.  And it turns out that his account holds up to even their microscopic rectal scrutiny.

 Cain did not sign settlement, accuser’s lawyer says
By Jan Crawford     November 4, 2011 10:39 AM

The settlement agreement between the National Restaurant Association and a woman who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment was reached in September 1999–and was not signed by Cain himself, according to Joel Bennett, a lawyer for the woman.

Bennett, who has a copy of the settlement agreement, said four people signed it: the woman, two lawyers representing the association and Bennett himself.

Bennett said the agreement was resolved relatively quickly, about two or three months after she complained.

That means it may have been reached after Cain left the association, and Bennett said it’s conceivable that Cain didn’t even know about it.

Bennett also told CBS News Friday morning he is hoping to issue a public statement reaffirming the accuser’s claim within hours, if the restaurant group agrees to ease the confidentiality agreement that was part of the deal.

Bennett plans to issue the statement in his name, not in his client’s name. It will not identify her, nor will it detail specific events of sexual harassment or the amount of settlement.

“It will insist the complaints were in good faith, and she’s going to stand by her complaints,” Bennett told CBS News. “It’s her response to Herman Cain’s statements that the complaints are baseless.”

Cain left the association June 30, 1999, according to the NRA. Under that timeline, Cain would have been gone when the settlement was reached–and may well have been gone when she filed the complaint.

Cain has insisted he only knew of one complaint, and says he knew of no legal settlements–only what he calls a severance agreement with one woman. This timeline could well bolster his claims.

When Cain ran to represent Georgia in the Senate four years later, he told his advisers there was one complaint against him at the Restaurant Association, and that it was “baseless.” One former staffer on the Senate campaign told CBS News that he and other advisers in the campaign knew about that complaint and believed it was meritless, but thought it could crop up in possible opposition research.

As yet, there has not been so much as ONE publicly identified woman or ONE specific allegation of sexual harassment revealed.

Versus repeated instances from FOUR woman of gross sexual misconduct committed by Bill Clinton – including the charge of RAPE.

Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and that he lied about it.  Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Did I say four women?  Sorry, there were FIVE.  And one of them had his semen to PROVE the disgusting harassment beyond the scintilla of a doubt against a president who claimed “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” after his handlers mocked Paula Jones’ “big hair” and ridiculed her over “dragging a dollar bill through a trailer park.”

Show me Herman Cain’s sperm and if I act like a Democrat hypocrite I STILL won’t acknowledge that Cain did a damn thing wrong.

And yet here’s how the media handled Clinton versus how they are handling Cain:

The Clinton Treatment: How The Media Protected Bill But Pounce on Cain
November 01, 2011 14:40 ET

Alexandria, VA – In direct contrast to how ABC, CBS and NBC newsrooms all but ignored the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton from multiple women including Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, the same networks are now salivating over an alleged act of harassment by Herman Cain from anonymous sources, a new MRC report finds.

A look back at the Clinton scandals:

Paula Jones – February, 1994 – Accused Bill Clinton of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. CBS and NBC ignored her press conference. ABC gave it 16 seconds of coverage.

Kathleen Willey – July, 1997 – Accused Bill Clinton of groping her in the Oval Office while President. CBS gave it one minute on July 30 while NBC gave it a mention and ABC gave it no immediate coverage.

Juanita Broaddrick – March, 1998 – Accused Bill Clinton of raping her while he was the Arkansas Attorney General and a candidate for Governor. ABC, CBS, NBC offered weekend coverage but then dropped the story. NBC’s Dateline finally aired an interview with Broaddrick in February of 1999.

Brent Bozell responds:

ABC, CBS and NBC pounced on the opportunity to slam GOP hopeful Herman Cain – even with unnamed accusers and sources. It is indefensible how the networks were quick to defend Bill Clinton by not reporting public accusations of rape, inappropriate physical contact, and explicit behavior – and are quick to attack Herman Cain on the basis of weak allegations by anonymous sources.

“While these women received a different kind of ‘Clinton Treatment,’ the media have their own version, and are quick to put it aside when it comes to Herman Cain. They want to see this smart, successful, black man come to ruin – all because he is a conservative. A disgraceful President who faced public accusers and an impeachment trial received better treatment in the so-called ‘news’ than a candidate whose accusers remain unnamed.”

Politico alone has run more than NINETY stories on Herman Cain and sexual harassment.  Even though there IS no story.

Democrats are despicable, vile people.  And they are despicable, vile people according to their own constantly evolving double-standards.

Gay Military: Something America Needs Like A Massive WikiLeak

December 20, 2010

Well, what would have been absolutely freaking unthinkable to our first commander-in-chief, George Washington, has finally happened: we’ve got a gay military now.

I feared this from the outset of the Obama presidency and wrote it up in tones of irony and as much derision as I could muster:

Heck, I’ve got an even better idea.  Liberals have thought excluding gays from the military was so danged unfair and discriminatory.  Why don’t we “swing the other way,” and have a “Gay All The Way!” military?  Maybe – in the name of tolerance – you might allow a few token heterosexuals in as long as they don’t reveal that politically incorrect sexual orientation of theirs.  It’s time to gear up for battle, Rump Rangers; you’re going to need to feed a lot of red meat into the grinder once the world’s dictators realize that the President of God Damn America is an appeasing weakling.  You can use those superior compromising skills of yours to deal with Iran unleashing terrorist hell once your Messiah-President does nothing while Iranian President Ahmadinejab develops nuclear weapons so they can launch terrorism-by-proxy strikes on us with impunity.

The new God Damn America could augment its “Gay All The Way!” status with women who believe that being excluded from being able to do anything a man can do is discriminatory.  They can start walking sustained patrols while carrying a hundred pounds of extra weight in 110 degree heat, and be the ones who try to keep all their body parts intact while running and dodging with fifty pound combat loads.  Good luck with that, girls.  The guys carry that; surely you can do it too.  And don’t worry; you won’t have any heterosexual males around who would let that insulting and patronizing chivalry of theirs get in the way of your NOW-feminist-style equality.  You’ll get the chance to develop that upper body strength of yours digging your own fighting positions out of the rock hard clay.

It is absolutely stunning that we have these disastrous leaks revealing literally hundreds of thousands of pages of US government secrets at the hands of a homosexual soldier, and the very next thing we do is provide for the creation of another hundred thousand Private Bradley Mannings.

I would have thought the theft and release of 250,000 top secret documents would have made the “intelligentsia” pause about the wisdom of recruiting homosexuals who have a documented history of super-massive hissy fits.  But nope.  That would be the sane thing to do; and we can’t have that.  Onward ye proverbial lemmings!  Mush!  Mush!!!

Irony aside, and Bradley Manning aside, I thought this article from Townhall nailed the biggest reasons why this thing is going to be a disaster:

Obama’s New ‘Gay’ Force
Kevin McCullough

With the passage of the law to repeal the Clinton-era legislation commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” President Obama enters into a new reality. In one last blaze of defiance of the American people, and expressly those who serve in our nation’s armed forces, President Obama was able to shove social engineering into pretty much the very corner of American culture where we have no business doing so.

Upon his signature President Obama will begin a process that will at the very least disrupt operations, and at the very worst see the eventual weakening of our armed forces.

Throughout the entirety of this debate I’ve had questions, none of which seemed to be answered or even asked in the congressional sessions dealing with the matter.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint perhaps someone could answer them now, since I’m especially sure that President Obama wouldn’t push for such a fundamental transformation of our military without good answers to them.

1. What happens to housing, on base and in theater?

If it is morally questionable to have men and women housed together because of the sexual tension that exists between primarily men who would be predatorily interested in the women they might shower with or frequently be seen in the act of dressing and undressing on a regular basis, why is it any different if you have identified the predatory homosexual male who might have an unrequited “thing” for a fellow service member? If it is proper to keep men and women housed separately do we now go to four sets of housing. Men who don’t engage in homosexual activity, Men who do, Women who don’t, Women who do? Practically speaking Mr. President how do you get past the fundamental sexual tension that will be present the minute some make it known?

2. Do you expect the military system or the civilian courts to deal with the influx of phony sexual harassment cases to follow?

Consider this issue a prediction of sorts, but take it to the bank that those who engage in open homosexuality will feel the freedom if not the need begin to portray themselves as victims of harassment pretty much anytime something doesn’t go their way. And it may not require anything all that severe to trigger it. A drill instructor gets a little too rough in his language while trying to beat the “sissy” out of a recruit in basic training or Officer Candidate School and the backlog will commence.

3. Will base commanders be required to host “pride” events that allow for similar conduct to the x-rated displays that go on in the nation’s cities each year?

There was much discussion in the Senate and House hearings about the issue of morale, the breakdown of structure, the significance of discipline and the ability to command respect and a readied force. Nothing related to any “pride” event ever held comes close to anything resembling respect, discipline, or structure. There is a reason our best volunteer to serve their nation, and it has nothing to do with speedos, bump or grind.

4. Will all other sexual conduct be made legal as well?

It is still a crime to commit adultery in active military duty, and even more so for officers. How can you possibly be allowing for the flamboyancy of effeminate male soldiers to engage in sexual conduct and their notorious ever wandering lust for the new on one hand, and hold court martial for those who have discreetly hidden their sexual escapades while destroying their families?

There are many legitimate reasons why the military is not the place to run experiments on the restructuring of the society at large.

For the leftist idiots who will scream the meme that, “every other nation on the planet already does it,” shut up!

None of those military forces are the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines.

I know the progressive elites in the nation awake this morning feeling better about what has been done to the U.S. Military in this vote. I know this President has never served and likely barely knows anyone who has. I know that the godless in our nation think this is all a tremendous step forward.

In the hundreds of conversations I’ve had with those that serve in our nation’s armed forces, from Naval F-18 aviators to Army Rangers, Marine specialists to Air Force pilots of B2 stealth bombers, C130s, and military drones, the view of the military is clear. They serve to focus on the mission at hand, not because they may or may not display pictures of their romantic interests in the living quarters.

I know that our military has been the best in the world, and that they deserved to be listened to when they spoke clearly from the four branches to the President. The head of each branch clearly made the case for not allowing the military to become a place where the focus of our troops was placed on when and how they can have sex, instead of achieving their mission.

But now that reality has been thrust upon us. It is a focus of magnificent distraction, and in terms of operational priorities it is of miniscule importance.

It was President Obama’s doing, and the results that follow will be laid at his feet.

Another set of questions by a Marine that no one ever asked about ending “Don’t Ask” can be found here.

In my “day” in the Army, soldiers in the infantry that I served in just would not have tolerated openly homosexual soldiers.  There would have been blanket parties galore, until the gay-berets got the message that they were most definitely not wanted.  I don’t know that that will happen today, but I just can’t imagine the mindset has changed that much in the years I’ve been out (by which I mean out of the military, and not, you know, “out”).

I heard a Democrat representative today say that the military is having a hard time keeping up its recruiting goals, and so therefore it’s stupid to deny thousands of gay men and women the opportunity to serve.  What that omits is the fact that there are a lot of heterosexual men and women who don’t want to be forced to shower and sleep right next to same-sex soldiers who may well want nothing more than to have “sexual relations” with them.  There are also a lot of young men who continue to have something of that Judeo-Christian worldview who rightly believe that homosexuality is a serious moral issue, and these young men aren’t going to want to be forced to trust people that they don’t trust with their lives.

“Missile defense” is about to take on a whole new meaning.

It will be interesting to see if the infantry units – you know, the guys who basically do all of the fighting and most of the dying – are going to see significant drops in enlistment.  The Marine Corps will be an interesting place to look, since “infantry” enlistment figures are hard to find.

One thing I definitely don’t expect to see is huge swells in enlistment, as all of those homosexuals suddenly join up and fill the ranks.  If I’m wrong, you’ll see – based on statistics homosexuals offer – that the US military will suddenly have 143,000 more enlistments, as that 10% of the population that are homosexual suddenly rush to join up.  The thing is that these people didn’t want a gay military so they could join it; they wanted a gay military so they could ruin it.  Just like marriage.

The liberal ideologues whom we just appeased are not the people who will serve.  The people who will serve just got served an in-your-face insult.

The same people who want homosexuals in the military are the same people who think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a rock star for publishing every stolen classified American document he can get his filthy paws on.

This was a terrible and an immoral decision, which is all the more terrible and immoral for occurring during time of war.

The left always points to Europe or “other countries” and say that we should do what they do.  A few things are wrong with that: one of them emerges from Thomas Jefferson’s words, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”  To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe?  Another emerges from the question, “WHAT PART OF EUROPE ARE YOU FROM? THE PART WHOSE ASS WE SAVED, OR THE PART WHOSE ASS WE KICKED?” To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe.  And yet another emerges from the question why European nations aren’t bothering to stand up and fight for freedom?  Europeans aren’t sending troops to Afghanistan; the troops they do send don’t fight; and most European Union nations are failing to spend even the minimum 2% of their GDP on defense, as required.  To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe?

Now we’re way down the path to becoming useless, pathetic and apathetic Europe, only with deodorant.

If homosexual men and women really wanted to serve their country – rather than further break down our nation and its social structures more than they already have – then they would have continued to volunteer and serve their country, rather than imposing their rabid homosexual agenda onto those who just want to defend their country.