Herman Cain and Bill Clinton: Lynching Confirmed

See my previuos article. Did you doubt me that there is a vast left wing conspiracy against Herman Cain? Never doubt me. There is still NO EVIDENCE that Cain has done anything wrong--merely ANONYMMOUS charges mainly going back to a s"settlement agreement" which is itelf NO EVIDENCE of any wrongdoing at all (as a practiciing trial lawyer for over 30 years, I can tell you that as a FACT). But look how the vast left wing media csonspiiracy has been PROVEN (read the previous article again as to exactly what kind of a conspiracy I am talking abut). The media has taken a NOTHING story, with no actual evidence, and blown it out of all proport ion.


The unafair and unbalanced network (part of the lynching of Herman Cain--see my first blog article on the subeject the very day the "story" broke) actually convicted the media (including themselves) of trying to LYNCH Herman Cain. They made a COUNT of the stories about Herman Cain in the first theree days, on the major networks and "news" sources. There were FIFTY (a vast understatement, if you count ALL of the stories in the major media) sories on the Cain "scandal" in the first three days after the story broke. Remember these three incidents involving Bill Clinton:


1. The sexual harrassment allegations of Paula Jones, who alleged much mMORE SERIOIUS harrassment than is even alleged against Herman Cain, and she CAME FORWARD to face the media. In other words, Paula Jones was subject to MEDIA SCRUTINY, and they TRASHED HER. Literally, Paula Jones was called "trailer park trash". Bill Clinton, in effect, was able to FACE his accurser, as is guaranteed in the United States Constitution. The truly despicable people of the media, of course, do not believe in the principles of FAIRNESS in the United States Constitution. They are evil PROPAGANDISTS, out to DESTROY& the people THEY DON'T LIKE.


2. Kathleen Willey came forward and alleged she was GROPED by Bill Clinto-n. Again, the accuser had a FACE, and ahd to face SCRUTINY (questions and examination of all of th circumstances of her accusations). Again, the charges were MUCH WORSE than any made against Cain--so far as we know, since no one has actually come forward to put their "charges" to the test of pubic scrutiny.


3. Juanita Broderick came forward and said that Bill Clintn RAPED HER. Again, she actually came forward and made this charge--NOT hiding behind a media cloak while the media tried to ASSASSINATE Clinton with an anonymous source. Is there a REASON Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick did not have the benefit of being ANONYMOUS, while the media broutht the attack for them (instead of ATTACKING THEM, as the media actually did). Of curse there was. No, that "reason" was NOT that the "charges" against Clinton were "baselesss". The media has NO EVIDENCE against Cain--not even a FACE. The reason that Jones, Willey and Broderick could not remain anonymous was that there was no way for them to get the BIASED PROPAGANDISTS of teh mainstream media to pay any attention to them. Indeed, even when they PUULICLY came forward, with SERIOUS charges, the media paid no attentioni.


Remember thowe 50 stories in the first 3 days after the ANONYMOUS "allegatons" surfaced against Herman Cain? Waht were the MOST number of stories that came out regarding Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, OR Juanita Brodrick (in the first three days)? THREE. Yes, you could count them on one hand. I was there, and I can assure you this is an ACCURATE comparison onf the vastly different ways that the media treated allegations against Bill Clinton, and other Democrats, and the way they have treated allegations agaainst Herman Cain (with LESS evidence againt Cain). And what about the NATURE of the stories? I can tell youy, as an absolute fact, that the mainstream media DISMISSED the allegations against Clinton, and DEMANDED more "evidence" than even the WORD of the women making the accusations. Contrast this with the Herman Cain situatin, whre the media does not even have the WORD (subject to SCRUTINGY) of women coming forward publiclly. Yes, the media was prepared to make the same defense as to Monica Lewinsky, but there was a problem. Thee was the BLUE DRESS (DNA--sperm). So the "defeense" ended up being that Lewinsky was all about SEX--a private matter. Imagine--the mind boggles--if Herman Cain were shown to have rolled a cigar down the naked body of an INTERN at the National Restaurant Association, while receiving oral sex (as Clinton was PROVEN to have done with Monica Lewinsky, in the Oval Office). Noppe. These are the worst hypocrites (talking aoubt the people oft the mainstream media) who ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four j(or six, eight or 100).


Bill Clinton was a little while back, although about the same time that Herman Cain is accused of.......something. Maybe things have changed? Forget it. You knnow better than that, although the EVIL, RACISTR LIARS of the mainstream media hope you do not know better than that. Remember John Edwards? Sure you do. He is, even now, facing TRIAL for a CRIME in connnectin with adultery (adultery while trying to USE his wife's cancer to HELP him become President of the United States, with the ASSISTANCE of the hypocritese of the mainstream media. The National Enuirere had to TRAP Edwards SNEAKING out of the hotel wheere he had been visiting HIS CHILD before the maisntream media would pay ANY attention to those "allegations", and even then the mainstream media was very RELUCTANT to address the "charges" (until the story blew up to the point that it could not be ignored). Even so, Herman Cain is receiving MORE attentin from the media NOW, than John Edwards did even AFTER he was CAUGHT like a thief in the night. True, Edwards was no longer a Presidential candidate by then, but that is the point, isn't it. The media HAD RASON to look into Edwards when he WAS a Presidential candidate, and were totally uninterested. Again, th conduct of Edwards was more serious than even the SPECULATION of the media (no evidence) with regard to Herman Cain. Do you see why I accurately call the mainstream media RACIST LYNCHERS of Herman Cain? Sure, it is always POSSIBLE that serious facts will eventually come out on Cain, but that is again the point. NO SUCH FACTS now exist, and what the media has done-on SPECUALTION as to not much--is a RACIST LYNCHING.


Then there is Solyndra. Here I want to qu;ote CNN LIAR AND HYPOCRITE (on The Liar Network), John King (trying to get a Republican Congressman to back off of allegatios on Solyndra): Isn't it ture that there is NO EVIDENCE of wrongdoing?" Of course, there was, and is, all kinds of evidence of "wrongdooing" with regard to Solyndra. Half a BILLIOIN dolllars of taxpayer money was WASTED, while procedures were VIOLATED. Everyone knew that the loan was absurd, and it was sitll made for POILITICAL REASONS (for which there is more "evidence" than there is against Herman Cain). This happened to be the DEMOCRAT tqalknig point at the time (and probably still): that there is "no evidence" of actual WRONGDOING in connection with Solyntra. Well, the LAW that requires taxpayers to be put first appears to have been VIOLATED, meaning we don't even get our money back ahead of otehr creditors. But the key point here is "wrongdoing". What did the DESPICALBE CNN mean by "no evidence of wrongdoing". Sorry, EVERYONE agress that a WASTE of taxpayer money that should not have been wasted is WRONGDOING. What CNN meant is that CNN was taking the position that there was NO CRIME.


Segue to Herman Cain. Is there even a SPECULATIVE "allegation" taht Hrman Cain has COMMITTED A CRIME? Nope. By the standards of CNN: No "wrongdoing". In fact, of course, NO court or government agency has ever found taht Herman Cain even committed a CIVIL vioilation of the law, or violated any Federal law at all (as SOMEONE surely did with regard to Solyndra). Q.E.D. The people of CNN are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, along with the rest of the mainstream media (who have joined in this "no evidence" mantra on Solyndra). Same with "Operation Fast and Furious". The mainstream media mantra as to Eric Holder: "No evidence of actual wrongdoing". Again, the evidence of something WRONG being done, even if not a "crime, is MORE than the "evidence" againt Herman Cain. But no "specuulation" as to Holder. There must be, according to the mainstream media, conclusive PROOF--as there had to be against Clinton (even that not being enough), Edwards and the Obama Administration (on Solyndra).


There is jsut no doubt: There IS a left wing media conspiracy againt Herman Cain.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).Oh, did I mention Anthony Weiner, in New York? I sAW CNN then, and may have even written a blog article or two about it. The CNN reaction, after the INITIAL REPORT, was that the allegations against Weiner sowed "no evidence" fo "wrongdoing", even though they were "embarrassing". FACTS, of course, actuall came out, forcing Weiner out (again, MUCH WORSE facts than even are alllegged agaisnt Cain), but the mainstream media did theeir very best to PROTECT Wiener. Again, they demanded CONCLUSIVE proof before they would turn against Weiner, and were initially even willing to accept BAD "interviews' (mainly sofball) from Weiner, although the interviews were SO BAD that cNN had to start backing off its support of Weiner. CNN LOOKED for support of Weiner, and found DEMOCRATS who would support him . That is a big problem I have with REPUBLICANS. NONE seem willng ot SUPPORT CAin. I am not talkng abut saying that Cain di=d "noting wrong'. I am talking aobut DEFENDING CAIN AGAINST THE MEDIA LYNCHING. No, I will not forgive the Republican Party, or other Presidential candidates for this. I am still ON THE EDGE of WALKING AWAY from the Republican Party FOREVER. As with Tamsen Donner, of hom it is said she never looked back as she walked off to fulfill what she regarded as her duty to her husband, even though she KNEW it meant her death, I WILL NEVER LOOK BACK (once this FINAL decison is made).