Now that we know the identity of Woman #2 who had received a $45,000 payout from the National Restaurant Association in connection with allegations she made against Herman Cain, we can begin to assess the credibility of her as a person and therefore the credibility of her claims.
What do we find? She has a history of making claims and demanding large settlements when she doesn’t get what she wants. In the job she took after leaving the NRA she made similar complaints and sought significant concessions from her employer.
So having been introduced to the gravy train at the NRA she apparently decided that she was entitled to continue to extort her employers when they refused to give her what she wanted. It is now clear that Woman #2, who initially wanted to stay anonymous but has now come into the lime light, has a penchant for making easy money using trumped up allegations whenever she sees the opportunity. It is now clear why she was trying to stay anonymous: once her identity became public her history could be investigated and she would be seen for who she truly is.
And as for her threshold for making allegations of a sexual nature, she apparently considers a common internet joke that “men are like computers because to get their attention you have to turn them on” to be “sexually explicit“. Excuse me if I am not impressed.
When she was asked about the details of the complaint against her other employer, she indicated that she did not remember asking for all the things that her supervisors claim she demanded. This is different from Herman Cain claiming he doesn’t remember the details of her complaint against him? Not so much. Her complaint against her new employer was more recent than the allegations against Cain, and she was the one that made the demands.
One after one as we learn more about the character of the women making these 14 year old allegations we find that their credibility is severely lacking. When we examine the substance of the allegations we find the substance to be severely lacking.
Cain continues to be vindicated as the facts continue to emerge.
A woman who settled a sexual harassment complaint against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain in 1999 complained three years later at her next job about unfair treatment, saying she should be allowed to work from home after a serious car accident and accusing a manager of circulating a sexually charged email, The Associated Press has learned.
Karen Kraushaar, 55, filed the complaint while working as a spokeswoman at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Justice Department in late 2002 or early 2003, with the assistance of her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who also handled her earlier sexual harassment complaint against Cain in 1999. Three former supervisors familiar with Kraushaar’s complaint, which did not include a claim of sexual harassment, described it for the AP under condition of anonymity because the matter was handled internally by the agency and was not public.
To settle the complaint at the immigration service, Kraushaar initially demanded thousands of dollars in payment, a reinstatement of leave she used after the accident earlier in 2002, promotion on the federal pay scale and a one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion itself would have increased her annual salary between $12,000 and $16,000, according to salary tables in 2002 from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Kraushaar said Tuesday she did not remember details about the complaint and did not remember asking for a payment, a promotion or a Harvard fellowship. Bennett, her lawyer, declined to discuss the case with the AP, saying he considered it confidential. Kraushaar left her job at the immigration service after dropping the complaint in 2003, and she went to work at the Treasury Department.
Details of the workplace complaint that Kraushaar made at the immigration service are relevant because they could offer insights into how she responded to conflicts at work.
The complaint also cited as objectionable an email that a manager had circulated comparing computers to women and men, a former supervisor said. The complaint claimed that the email, based on humor widely circulated on the Internet, was sexually explicit, according to the supervisor, who did not have a copy of the email. The joke circulated online lists reasons men and women were like computers, including that men were like computers because “in order to get their attention, you have to turn them on.” Women were like computers because “even your smallest mistakes are stored in long-term memory for later retrieval.”
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.
Follow-up to James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire
Well, well, well. James Hansen is becoming rich by selling his global warming mantra to anyone who will listen. He continues to exploit his tax payer funded position for personal gain. But it is all well above board I am sure. His position on global warming is not at all influenced by these lucrative outside engagements I am sure.
One does have to wonder, however, if he would be raking in this level of outside income if his findings weren’t in line with the IPCC doom and gloom scenario designed to kill off the global economy.
Sort of makes you say, hmmm.
ATI obtained Dr. Hansen’s Form SF 278, which is required to be filed annually, also under the Freedom of Information Act. The disclosure revealed that Dr. Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment, which included:
• Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches;
• Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes;
• Just under $60,000 in the form of in-kind income for travel to his many outside-income generating activities
The travel reporting marked the first time Hansen detailed such “in-kind” benefits, which included apparent first-class travel for him and his wife on trips to Australia, Japan, and Norway. The new detail raises the question of whether Dr. Hansen wrongly submitted forms in previous years, which he left blank and attested “none” in the space where he is required to report travel expenses taken as part of his outside employment, all in years in which he was busy with numerous paid outside activities of the same sort as he was in 2010.
“Now that Dr. Hansen’s outside income has come under scrutiny, we see a newfound attention to detail on forms where he reports about these sources,” said Christopher Horner, ATI’s director of litigation. “It also shows that Dr. Hansen continues to enjoy a healthy level of earnings that supplement – and for his curious exploitation of – the taxpayer-funded position he holds.”
Rewind to May of 2010:
Obama toured the facility and said “it is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. And you guys all represent that. ”
You can watch the full Obama speech here:
The true engine of economic growth will always be, companies like Solyndra. Will always be America’s businesses.
So that’s why even as we we cut taxes and provided emergency relief over the past year. We also invested in basic research. In broadband networks. In rebuilding roads and bridges. In health information technology. And in clean energy.
‘Cause not only would this spur hiring by businesses, it would create jobs in sectors with incredible potential to propel our economy for years. For decades to come. There is no better example than energy. We all know the price we pay as a country as a result of how we produce, and use, and yes waste energy today. We’ve been talking about it for decades. Since the gas shortages of the 1970’s.
Fast forward to present time:
President Barack Obama is standing by his support for renewable energy after Solyndra Inc., a maker of solar panels that received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee, shut its doors, a White House spokesman said.
Solyndra suspended operations and plans to file for bankruptcy reorganization because it couldn’t compete with larger rivals, the closely held company said in a statement yesterday.
Obama had touted Solyndra as part of the U.S. effort to aid development of alternative energy sources, and its failure was cited by Republican lawmakers who say the subsidies are misguided. It’s the third U.S. solar company to go under in a month, as plunging panel prices and weak global demand drive a wave of industry consolidation.
So much for Obama’s grand experiment. So much for his all seeing insight. Indeed when one looks at Obama’s record on job creation there seems to be plenty more where that has come from. 1100 more examples of hope given and then cruelly yanked away.
Personally I believe that we not only CAN do better than this, we MUST. But not with Obama. It’s not the economy, stupid, it’s the frackin’ President himself.
The evidence is mounting more than ever to suggest that President Obama is morphing into failed Democratic President Jimmy Carter.
The latest comparison was made by dour New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in her column on July 30. This is some of what she said:
“Democratic lawmakers worry that the Tea Party freshmen have already ‘neutered’ the president,” as one told me. They fret that Obama is an inept negotiator. They worry that he should have been out in the country selling a concrete plan, rather than once more kowtowing to Republicans and, as with the stimulus plan, health care and Libya, leading from behind.
As one Democratic senator complained: ‘The president veers between talking like a peevish professor and a scolding parent.’ (Not to mention a jilted lover.) Another moaned: ‘We are watching him turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes.'”
Dowd who once loved Obama is now souring on her liberal-media-created sensation and now she believes that the comparison of Obama to Carter is a valid one.
I have been saying that Obama is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter for some time now, so I was pleased to see that others are observing the same similarities. When even Maureen Dowd is talking about how Carter-esque Obama looks you know there some meat to the comparison.
The above article provides a nice list of comparisons for those who have not been following this meme.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell delivers a devastating speech on the floor of the Senate calling out Obama for threatening to veto the Boehner plan should it make it to his desk. Well, actually, Obama isn’t even willing to make the threat himself and is instead hiding behind the skirts of some unnamed advisers. This is nothing but a completely transparent attempt on Obama’s part to shift any blame for a veto to someone other than himself should it actually come to that.
But McConnell correctly calls Obama out as being willing to veto the country into default, an action that he himself has described as having devastating consequences for not only the U.S. but the entire world, all for purely partisan political purposes. So Obama apparently cares more about his own chances for re-election than he does for the good of the country. Being a Liberal, I am not surprised.
Have a look at McConnell’s speech:
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.