After a week of having his name dragged through the mud by liberal political operatives, Herman Cain emerges from the allegations unscathed and to a large extent vindicated. His upstanding character remains intact.
First, we have some lawyer who purports to represent one of the women who had made allegations in the 1990s against Cain running around all week blowing smoke and garnering headlines. He made a big deal about having the NRA let his client out of her confidentiality agreement so she could tell her side of the story. But when the NRA agreed to waive the confidentiality agreement, well, suddenly this woman doesn’t want to tell her side of the story. We are simply left with some muck raking lawyer sticking his nose where it is not wanted and engaging in all manner of libelous innuendo. When the time comes to put up or shut up, he’s got nothing but his own hot air. So his schtick is completely busted.
Second, the NRA makes it’s own statement on the situation wherein it clarifies that the agreement with this woman in no way acknowledges liability (on the part of the organization or Cain) with respect to the woman’s allegations and reiterates that Cain had disputed the charges at the time. This is completely consistent with Cain’s current denials of having harassed anyone.
Third, we also learn that the agreement with this woman does not even include Cain as a party to the agreement. It was made without his involvement or signature. It was strictly between the NRA and the woman.
The National Restaurant Association released a statement Friday confirming that over a decade ago, a female employee filed a formal complaint of sexual harassment against then-association head Herman Cain. Cain disputed the allegations at the time, according to the trade group.
The association told the woman’s attorney it is willing to waive the confidentiality agreement signed by the parties involved — although not by Cain himself — but her lawyer, Joel P. Bennett, said in his own statement Friday that the woman wishes to remain a private citizen and would not be revealing further details regarding her story.
“Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment,” NRA President and CEO Dawn Sweeney said.“Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint.”
Sweeney said an agreement was reached “without an admission of liability,” and that Cain, now a GOP presidential candidate, was “not a party to the agreement.”
Since Politico reported Sunday night that two female employees of a trade group lodged sexual harassment claims against Cain years ago, the campaign has raked in $1.2 million, aides say, and the quirky and outspoken businessman has been a fixture on cable news.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll published Friday shows him virtually tied with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for the lead in the race for the GOP nomination, with most Republicans shrugging off the allegations but sizeable minorities nevertheless saying the scandal could make them less likely to vote for him.
Fourth, we now have Politico publishing a piece which highlights that at the time of these allegations the entire restaurant industry was awash in such allegations in the wake of the Anita Hill allegations against Clarence Thomas. It was the hot issue of the day and everyone was treating it with super politically correct gloves which likely led to many such allegations being simply paid off to avoid any public exposure. In other words, the settlement was likely just a business decision at the time.
Finally, the Politico piece also highlights that while Herman Cain was CEO of the NRA he was very aware of the legal concerns raised by sexual harassment allegations and he and his organization where not only pro-active, but were industry leaders in combating the problem through the production of educational materials and encouraging association members to adopt formal policies against it. We now see that Herman Cain was actually part of the vanguard developing policies against such harassment in the workplace and which are present in most businesses today. This is hardly the pedigree of someone who does not take the issue seriously.
When sexual harassment complaints against Herman Cain unfolded at the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s, the issue was all too familiar for the trade association.
In the wake of the televised 1991 Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings — and the widely publicized sexual harassment charges leveled against him by Anita Hill — American businesses had been hit by a wave of sexual harassment cases. And the restaurant industry, in particular, was hit especially hard.
Industry officials saw it coming — none other than Cain himself warned as long ago as 1991 that changes in federal law resulting from the hearings could cause problems for employers.
“This bill opens the door for opportunists who will use the legislation to make some money,” Cain, then CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, told Nation’s Restaurant News. “I’m certainly for civil rights, but I don’t know if this bill is fair because of what we’ll have to spend to defend ourselves in unwarranted cases.”
When it came to litigation and bad publicity, Scher said, the restaurant industry “faced some of the worst of it.”
Given the sheer size of the restaurant industry, a source familiar with the industry said, the number of cases in fiscal 1997 only represented about “a tenth of a percent of the workforce at the time.” But the broader issue of sexual harassment was nonetheless a serious enough concern that the NRA embarked on an effort to educate both its staffers and members on the issue, which included moves to implement sexual harassment policies and training.
With Cain at the helm as CEO in 1998, the association created a video to explain sexual harassment laws to its members – and created a sample sexual harassment policy for individual restaurants to use, according to a Chicago Tribune story at the time.
The NRA’s Educational Foundation began offering a training program for member restaurants called, “What’s the Big Deal? Sexual Harassment Prevention Program,” in addition to its ServSafe safety and alcohol training materials. Today, according to the ServSafe website, restaurants can purchase employee and manager training brochures, as well as DVDs to explain acceptable practices.
While the NRA could not confirm details of its policies to POLITICO, a 1999 article in the organization’s Restaurants USA magazine outlines the three key components of a successful sexual harassment policy for restaurants.
“It should clearly state that sexual harassment will not be tolerated; it should define what sexual harassment is; and it should tell employees exactly how to register a complaint,” the article says.
In the wake of two important harassment cases that made it to the Supreme Court in 1998, Kilgore — who handled the two settlements involving Cain for the association — told Restaurants USA, the NRA’s magazine, in 1999 that creating and distributing sexual harassment policies had become “mandatory now” in the wake of those decisions.
More constitution shredding by the Democrats. They accuse the Republicans of shredding the Constitution on a regular basis but it is they who regularly run afoul of its plain and clear intent. They do this by selective reading thereof. Dishonest and self-serving interpretations designed to meet their needs du jour.
The debate over the debt ceiling is no exception. They are selectively quoting the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to further their own political gains and shredding the Constitutional protections it provides in the process.
Their latest theory seems to be that a single cherry picked phrase from the 14th Amendment somehow gives Obama the power to ignore the law and place himself as the supreme authority over the national coffers. To wit they cherry pick the following:
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
So what exactly is the plain meaning of the highlighted phrases? Simply put, all this says is that there is a national debt and that people cannot simply argue it out of existence. It simply says that the United States Government is authorized to take on debt to meet it’s obligations. That’s it. Period.
This says nothing about who determines when and how much debt can and should be taken on by that government. The problem here is the Democrat slight of hand which is at play. Note that no one has questioned the “validity of the public debt“. No one is arguing that the government cannot take on such debt. No one is arguing that the debt does not exist. And most assuredly no one is suggesting that the debt which has already been taken on should not be repaid with full interest.
It is a straw man argument meant to distract honest citizens from the reality of the situation.
So if this passage is not indicating who is in control of what debt is taken on and when, then how are we to know who the Constitution invests that power in? Well, the Constitution includes a passage to address that very question. This is a passage that the Democrats are selectively ignoring when they make this argument. There is a fifth clause to the 14th Amendment which quite clearly addresses this point:
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This seems quite plain in its meaning. It is the Congress who is invested with the authority to control the public debt via appropriate legislation. Legislation like that which establishes the debt ceiling that the Democrats seek to circumvent and whose actions are clearly in conflict with the plain meaning and intent of the text of the 14th Amendment.
Once again we see the Obama Administration for what it clearly is: a rogue and out of control group of Constitution Shredding Cowboys with no respect for the rule of law or for duly authorized Constitutional authority.
It is another shameful day for Democrats.
But it’s not clear that Congress can constitutionally impose a debt ceiling on the President. The debt limit we have now is the legacy of a 1939 law designed to allow the Treasury flexibility to borrow up to a certain limit. But Geithner and a number of constitutional scholars have questioned whether Congress can prevent the president from paying obligations that the government has already incurred. That’s because a passage in the Fourteenth Amendment—designed to prevent Southern politicians from repudiating Civil War debts—stipulates that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned.” What exactly that means is a complicated legal question, but as Jonathan Chait writes, the clause was intended to prevent politicians from using the threat of default for political leverage—which is exactly what Republicans are doing now.
This is yet another example of how the EPA under the Obama Administration has become an activist organization which is working against the interests of the United States.
Environmental activists within the Obama Administration have gained control of the Environment Protection Agency and are fast at work undermining the best interests of our country. They are using the regulatory capacity of the EPA to advance their short-sighted agenda by driving off investments in our own energy self-sufficiency.
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the we work in.”
Luckily there are people who recognize what is happening and are planning to take steps to minimize the on-going impact that these activists can have.
“It’s driving investment and production overseas,” said Alaska’s DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. “That doesn’t help the United States in any way, shape or form.”
The EPA did not return repeated calls and e-mails. The Environmental Appeals Board has four members: Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Wolgast. All are registered Democrats and Kathie Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. Members are appointed by the EPA administrator. Alaska’s Republican senator thinks it’s time to make some changes.
“EPA has demonstrated that they’re not competent to handle the process,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “So if they’re not competent to handle it, they need to get out of the way.”
Murkowski supported budget amendments that would have stripped the EPA of its oversight role in Arctic offshore drilling. The Interior Department issues air permits to oil companies working in the Gulf of Mexico.
We all want a clean environment and we all support taking the necessary steps to insure that operations are conducted as responsibly as possible. But the radical positions of the EPA under the Obama Administration are not merely designed to protect the environment, they are also designed to prevent any progress towards achieving energy self-sufficiency for our nation.
They prefer to keep this country at the mercy of foreign interests and to insure that the United States can no longer be a shining beacon of hope across the world. They do this because of their blind devotion to a socialist/communist ideal which has failed every time it has ever been tried in human history.
By bankrupting this country, by keeping this country dependent on foreign energy, and by hampering progress at every available avenue these ideologues hope to stifle the most successful engine for human progress that the world has ever seen. Only in this way can they hope to plunge enough people into poverty so as to build a base of support for their own self-deluded visions of grandeur.