Herman Cain’s Fourth Accuser Alleges ‘He Reached For My Genitals’

Mediaite.com:

Gloria Allred has just introduced the nation to Sharon Bialek, also known as the fourth accuser to allege inappropriate sexual harassment by GOP front runnner Herman Cain. After a long introduction by Allred, Bialek shared shocking details about a meeting she had with Mr. Cain while he was the president of the National Restaurant Association, specifically claiming that Herman Cain reach under her skirt and “reached for my genitals.” The Cain campaign has already released a statement denying that Bialek’s version of events ever took place.


Bialek retold the story of meeting Cain at a restaurant industry event in Chicago. After she had been terminated from a job at the NRA, she was encouraged by her boyfriend at the time to ask Mr. Cain for help in looking for another job. He agreed to meet with her, and when she arrived in Washington D.C, Cain allegedly upgraded her hotel suite, before things got far more interesting…allegedly. The most damning accusation by Bialek was the following passage (rough transcript provided by TVEyes):


At that time I had on a black pleated skirt, a suit jacket and a blouse. He had on a suit with his shirt open. But instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it towards his crotch. I was very, very surprised and very shocked. I said, “What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn’t what I came here for.”


Mr. Cain said, ‘You want a job, right?’ I asked him to stop, and he did. I asked him to take me back to my hotel, which he did right away.

RELATED: Four 'Cs' of Why Cain is Unelectable

Conrad Murray Guilty: Jurors Find Doctor Responsible For Michael Jackson's Death

At the very least he was guilty of negligence, but thank goodness some sane people made sure that this man will not only do time, but never again practice medicine:

Dr. Conrad Murray, the former personal physician of Michael Jackson, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the King of Pop's 2009 death.


California jurors delivered their verdict to a stone-faced Murray on Monday after deliberating for ten hours.


The jury of seven men and five women concluded that the evidence was sufficient beyond any reasonable doubt that Murray caused the sleep-deprived singer's death.


On the ground, John Smith, 60, followed the trial for 33 days outside. "I never thought he would go on to be this huge," he said. "Mike was loved for his human rights, charity and music. Conrad Murray is going to be found guilty."


Kimberly Binion stood outside the courthouse holding a photo of herself and Michael Jackson from when they were both teens. She has been following the trial since it began and this is her first day outside to hear the verdict. "I think that Conrad Murray should get second-degree murder. Manslaughter is not enough," she told HuffPost.


The judge has ordered jurors' personal information sealed.


Before the verdict was read, crowds outside the courthouse were chanting "Guilty, guilty, guilty" and "This is it, this is it" -- not only signaling the resolution of a lengthy investigation, but recalling the name of the tour Jackson was working on at the time of his death.


Murray has been remanded without bail, and scheduled for sentencing on Nov. 29.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 11/7/11

White House Counsel Slams House Panel's Solyndra Subpoena

Moderate Lawmakers Lead Insurrection, Urge Super Committee To Defy Leadership and Go Big

Rudy Giuliani: 'Obama Owns Occupy Wall Street'

Rice: The Government Of Iran Has "No Legitimacy Left"

Media Fawn Over 'Groundbreaking' Gay Wedding On Late Night Comedy Show

Nancy Pelosi: Without Obama Stimulus, Unemployment Would Now Be 15%

Santorum Right About Morality And Economy

Personhood Amendment: Exposing The Myths

CNN Runs More Stories on Cain 'Scandal' in Six Days Than it Did Obama's Ties to Ayers, Rezko and Wright Combined

Wisconsin Democrats Chafe as Walker Donor Files for Recall

In Praise Of Capitalist Inequality

Justin Bieber Will Take Paternity Test And Then Sue Mariah Yeater: REPORT

Howard Kurtz Grills Politico‘s Jonathan Martin On Herman Cain Alleged Sexual Harassment Reporting

Mediaite.com:

On CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday morning, host Howard Kurtz gave Politico reporter Jonathan Martin a grilling worthy of Bobby Flay over whether the online paper had enough to publish its story on sexual harassment allegations against GOP frontrunner Herman Cain. The answer to that question was obvious, and gave short shrift to several more interesting questions that Kurtz touched on, but that didn’t quite connect.


Kurtz began by asking Jonathan Martin to discuss Politico’s story, and “what it didn’t contain in details.”


He ticked off some of the language from Politico‘s story, which contained somewhat general (but not vague) descriptions of the allegations, then asked, “Why publish the story then when you couldn’t answer the central question, what precisely is herman cain alleged to have done with these women?”


Martin’s response was to point out that their story was well-sourced (“half a dozen sources”), and has been corroborated by other news organizations, as well as the Cain campaign. As to the story’s newsworthiness, Martin didn’t get a single taker when he asked what journalist would not have printed such a story.


Kurtz pressed the issue of whether the report should have been published at all, questioning the “go or no-go decision,” and suggesting that “in a lot of news organizations, an editor would have said, ‘you have done some terrific reporting, you have great leads here, but you don’t have it.’”


Martin countered by pointing out that there was a level of specificity to the allegations they printed (“an explicit sexual overture”) that, while falling short of chapter and verse, certainly met the bar for newsworthiness.


There’s nothing wrong with Kurtz questioning Politico’s reporting, of course (that’s his job), but this appears to be a missed opportunity for him to bring his own expertise as a journalist to bear. Kurtz also questioned Politico’s decision not to print the names of the accusers, when he well knows that such a move would have been inherently unfair, given the legal gag that bound them, and the fact that the women (who are, presumably, not public figures) were not sources in the story. It’s also customary for journalists to exercise additional restraint regarding the identities of victims in sexual offenses.

RELATED: Herman Cain Blames Journalists for Sexual Harassment Hoopla

Andy Rooney Passes Away At 92

CBSNews.com:

Andy Rooney, the "60 Minutes" commentator known to generations for his wry, humorous and contentious television essays - a unique genre he is credited with inventing - died Friday night in a hospital in New York City of complications following minor surgery. He was 92, and had homes in New York City, Rensselaerville, N.Y. and Rowayton, Conn.


"It's a sad day at '60 Minutes' and for everybody here at CBS News," said Jeff Fager, chairman of CBS News and the executive producer of "60 Minutes." "It's hard to imagine not having Andy around. He loved his life and he lived it on his own terms. We will miss him very much."


Rooney had announced on Oct. 2, 2011 in his 1,097th essay for "60 Minutes" that he would no longer appear regularly.


Rooney wrote for television since its birth, spending more than 60 years at CBS, 30 of them behind the camera as a writer and producer, first for entertainment and then news programming, before becoming a television personality - a role he said he was never comfortable in. He preferred to be known as a writer and was the author of best-selling books and a national newspaper column, in addition to his "60 Minutes" essays.

RELATED: Flashback: Andy Rooney Recognized Media’s Liberalism and Espoused It Himself

Bill O’Reilly Asks Dr. Marc Lamont Hill: Where Are Jackson And Sharpton On Herman Cain?

Mediaite.com:

As the Herman Cain potential sexual harassment scandal continues to unfold, Bill O’Reilly has begun to question where civil rights leaders are standing on this issue, particularly Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. On his program last night, O’Reilly inquired as to was keeping them quiet, particularly since Cain had himself noted he believed race was a factor in the scrutiny. In a passionate but friendly exchange, O’Reilly challenged Dr. Marc Lamont Hill to give a non-partisan reason for their silence, to which he replied in sum that they had learned their lessons about jumping to defend people without all the facts.


“There’s nothing to jump into the game for,” Hill replied when asked why Sharpton and Jackson had not done so, as “their interest is justice, just like my interest is justice.” “I don’t think anything unjust is happening to Herman Cain,” he argued, noting that, as a presidential candidate, “he’s getting exactly what he deserves.” O’Reilly asked him to clarify, as none of the sexual harassment accusations were specific, to which Hill noted he didn’t believe the presumption of guilt was fair, but that Cain wasn’t receiving that so much as the standard media scrutiny that comes with running for President. Here the two difference. “We have a presumption of innocence in this country, and that is not in play right now,” O’Reilly argued, noting that the presumption of innocence is a cultural courtesy aside from its legal function after Hill argued that Cain wasn’t being convicted of a crime.


O’Reilly insisted that this was a political issue, however, and not a race one. “If this were a liberal politician, you can’t sit there and tell me Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton wouldn’t be screaming bloody murder,” O’Reilly argued. As they were civil rights activists and this isn’t a civil rights issue, however, Hill contended they had no place in the matter. Neither did they then, O’Reilly replied, with Tawana Brawley or OJ Simpson. “What you’re saying is that they’ve been wrong two times,” Hill replied, “now they should be wrong again with Herman Cain.” O’Reilly replied simply, “that’s rich!”


O’Reilly gave Hill the last word after expressing his very strong disbelief in the idea that Sharpton and Jackson were acting out of a “lesson learned” from past experiences, a point Hill reiterated, adding that the media scrutiny was just for a Presidential candidate.

Phoenix Labor Union Targets Former Trustee Who Questioned How Taxpayer Money is Spent

These are the kind of thugs the Obama administration and the Left always protect, but fail to toe the line and you get results like these:

Natasha Nimer had a simple question: As a trustee in a local labor union representing City of Phoenix employees, did she have a duty to check the books of a taxpayer-funded insurance account it managed?


So she asked the executive board of AFSCME Local 2960. The response was an emphatic “no.”


She dropped the matter and thought it would end there.


She was wrong.


In the months that followed, union officials tried to strip Nimer of her duties as a trustee and steward. They tried twice to force her out of AFSCME, only to have the international headquarters order her reinstated.


Eventually union executives went after Nimer’s job as a civilian employee in the Phoenix Fire Department. They demanded her city phone records, personal and work-related emails, disciplinary files and performance evaluations; even a list of all of the Web sites she had visited. They wanted her computers seized and the hard drives searched for evidence she was doing something wrong.


The insurance fund Nimer asked about is one of many taxpayer-funded benefits worth millions of dollars that Phoenix provides to the seven labor unions that represent city workers with no accountability. The salaries of top union officials are paid by taxpayers. So are other cash benefits paid directly to the unions. Yet the city does not audit union accounts or require union officials to document how the time and money is spent.


As a trustee in AFSCME 2960, it was Nimer’s responsibility to monitor union spending. But she says her attempts to do so only led to retaliation from union officials.


Nimer eventually quit the union, saying she “felt beat down” by the board’s bullying.


Unions are supposed to protect workers. But Nimer says her battle with AFSCME 2960 shows they can also turn against their own members who challenge the union’s power or question its finances, even to the point of interfering with the worker’s job.


“I felt like I was being attacked,” Nimer said of her nine-month ordeal. “I just felt like every day was a fight. I felt I’ve worked really hard for this union, and now I’m being beat down and attacked because I raised a question. I put up with it because I care about people, I care about the membership. I care about the union. To have it turned around, it really hurt a lot.”


Nancy Gray, the former president of Local 2960, said there was no attempt to retaliate against Nimer for asking about the insurance account, something that she had a right to do under the AFSCME International constitution. What triggered the attempts to expel Nimer from the union were subsequent statements she made to fellow members, questioning whether money in the accounts was being misspent and whether union officials were paying taxes on money they received for managing the fund, said Gray, president of the local at the time the dispute with Nimer arose.


“That was such a falsehood and she was putting that out there to members and publicly,” said Gray, who left the union earlier this year. “So that’s why she had to have charges filed against her, so that she would stop that.”


Current officials at Local 2960 and the AFSCME International organization did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment.

Michael Moore Grabs ‘Punk’ Reporter, Growls ‘You Lie!’ Over Wealth Questions

Mediaite.com:

Just days after being confronted by a conservative blogger over his supposed net worth, filmmaker Michael Moore took similar questions from a local CBS reporter at the Occupy Denver protest, with markedly different results. Rather than ignore CBS-4 reporter Evrod Cassimy, Moore engaged him. When Cassimy brought up Moore’s “rumored” $50 million net worth, though, Moore called him “punk media,” pulled him close, and growled, “You lie!”


The confrontation made for much better video than the previous one, and Moore initially handled the reporter’s questions well, admitting, ““I do very well,” and adding, “Because I do well, I want taxes raised on people who do well, including mine.”


When Cassimy pressed Moore about his specific net worth, however, Moore became visibly angry. He told the reporter, “I don’t have $50 million,” and Cassimy gave Moore an opening, saying, “That’s what it’s rumored you are worth.”


“Well, really” Moore said, “Is that what you do is sell rumors?”


“We’re asking you for the truth,” Cassimy replied.


Moore then put his hand on the reporter’s shoulder, shaking him as he said, “You’re just punk media is all you are.”


“You lie,” he continued, a slight growl in his voice. “You lie to people. Stop lying to people. Stop lying.”


Mr. Cassimy left himself open for Moore’s criticism by citing “rumors,” rather than “reports,” but Michael Moore really ought to do better at engaging this question. He’s got compelling answers, and even though the premise itself is silly, confronting it head on is a surer way to gain converts than scenes like this, which make it appear as though critics of Moore’s wealth have got his number.


There are lots of mega-bucks celebrities who have shown up to support the Occupy protests, and recent polls show that most millionaires support raising taxes on millionaires. You can, apparently, be rich and believe in fairness, simultaneously. Moore can, and does, also argue that he takes his earnings and puts them back into making more films. His wealth, then, is a tool to combat wealth inequality.

RELATED: Michael Moore Calls CBS Reporter a 'Punk' and a Liar for Asking About His Millions

Rachel Maddow LIES Again: PolitiFact Whacks Her Again, This Time on Rick Perry Tax Plan

Newsbusters.org:

Rachel Maddow's "devotion" to the facts "borders on obsessive" proclaimed an MSNBC promo last winter that could have been produced by The Onion.


A dubious Maddow claim that didn't quite reach that level of obsession has caught the attention of PolitiFact Texas, part of a fact-checking project that originated with the St. Petersburg Times and won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009.


On her show Oct. 25, Maddow said this about Texas Gov. Rick Perry's newly-released tax plan --


So, tanking Rick Perry has now come up with his own version of a flat tax that accomplishes the same goal of huge tax cuts for rich people and big tax hikes for everyone else.


PolitiFact's W. Gardner Selby, a veteran reporter who began covering politics in Texas nearly 30 years ago, wrote yesterday why he rated Maddow's claim "mostly false" on the PolitiFact "Truth-O-Meter" that ranges from "True" to "Pants on Fire."


His thorough evaluation included responses from Maddow spokeswoman Lauren Skowronski, criticism of the Perry plan from a Treasury official in President George H.W. Bush's administration, a "preliminary look" at the plan from an expert at the Tax Policy Center, followed by Selby citing from a more detailed analysis by the center.


In conclusion, Selby wrote --


Nearly all of the nation's wealthiest residents would see tax cuts if Perry's plan became law, in keeping with Maddow's claim. Will they be huge? That's an eye-of-the-beholder question, but some could be sizable by any definition.


Some other Americans -- including 45 percent of residents earning $19,343 to $39,862 -- also would see tax cuts, a projection suggesting that does not support the claim that the plan means big tax increases for everyone but the wealthy. Perry's plan allows every taxpayer to continue under the current system. No one would pay more unless he or she chooses the flat tax against their financial self-interest.


Maddow's statement, leaving the incorrect impression that Perry's tax plan hugely benefits the rich while everyone else pays more, rates Mostly False.


Back in February, in the middle of a contentious battle over public-sector unions in Wisconsin, PolitiFact took Maddow to task for her flat-out false claim that Wisconsin was on track for a budget surplus.


This marks the 15th time that Maddow's claims have crossed PolitiFact's radar. Of these, four were rated false, three as mostly false, three as half true, four as mostly true and one as true. None were deemed deserving of the lowly "pants-on-fire" designation.

Somebody should alert Maddow's No. 1 fan, Stanley Crouch, about this because this is getting ridiculous.

Solyndra: House Panel Subpoenas Internal White House Documents

WaPo.com:

Republicans on a House Energy and Commerce Committee panel on Thursday overrode vigorous Democratic objections and took the apparently unprecedented step of authorizing subpoenas for internal White House communications related to a half-billion dollar taxpayer loan guarantee for the failed solar company Solyndra.


The move followed a last-minute attempt by the White House to fend off the move, with officials meeting with committee members and delivering several boxes of e-mails and other documents to committee investigators on Wednesday afternoon.


Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.), ranking Democrat on the panel, called it a “sad day” for the committee and “an act of irresponsible partisanship,” stressing that the committee had never before subpoenaed the White House. She noted the administration had already turned over thousands of pages of documents and said a subpoena should be issued only after all alternative routes have been abandoned.


Republicans said they had hoped to avoid the step, but that the committee’s long-running investigation had failed to get to the bottom of why Solyndra, which collapsed in August and is now under criminal investigation, was selected to receive the Obama administration’s first loan guarantee under the stimulus act. President Obama last year visited the company’s California operation, whose biggest investors were venture capital funds linked to Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, a major Obama fundraiser.


Some Republicans have questioned whether the administration rushed stimulus funding out the door to benefit its political supporters. On Oct. 14, the White House told the committee that it would not comply with a request for all internal White House communications regarding the Solyndra loan.


Following the vote, a White House official said the administration had cooperated extensively with the committee’s investigation, producing more than 85,000 pages of documents, including 20,000 pages Thursday afternoon, and having administration officials provide multiple briefings and hearings.

Believers vs. Non-Believers: Bill O’Reilly And Deepak Chopra Take On Atheists

Mediaite.com:

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly has created an ongoing discussion on his show, devoted to something akin to the exposure and analysis of an atheist agenda. Previously, he spoke with atheist author Richard Dawkins about his book for young people and, on Wednesday night, O’Reilly invited writer and lecturer Deepak Chopra to, in a sense, help him “take on” atheism.


Chopra, who has made the subject spirituality his life’s work, has a new book out called War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality. “So what do you say to a guy like Dawkins?” O’Reilly wanted to know, before asking if Chopra had ever spoken with Dawkins face-to-face. “Oh, yes,” Chopra replied. “He ambushed me when I was at Oxford. He used a subterfuge. Channel 4 called me, said ‘We want to do an interview,’ I went to the interview… and it was him!”


O’Reilly had one question: “Why didn’t you kick his butt?”


Chopra later added that he believes Dawkins uses his scientific credentials to “mask his bigotry.” The men also agreed that Dawkins (and presumably others of his stripe) often resorts to — highly unscientific — emotional responses to discussions rather than simply relying on fact and logic.

Food Stamp Use Reaches Record 45.8 Million

Bloomberg.com:

The number of Americans receiving food stamps reached a record 45.8 million in August, the government said.


The figure was 1.1 percent higher than the previous month and 8.1 percent more than a year earlier, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in a report on its website. Assistance rolls are increasing as joblessness remains at 9.1 percent of the workforce.


Texas had the most food-stamp recipients in August, at 4.12 million, followed by California with 3.82 million, according to the USDA. Spending was a record $6.13 billion.


The number of Americans receiving food stamps under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has set records every month but one since December 2008.

RELATED: Food stamp use reaches record 45.8 million

Occupy Wall Street Protesters Rush For STD Tests

This is what they do at a hippie conventions:

It’s the Autumn of Love!


Occupy Wall Street protesters are flocking to nearby health clinics for STD and HIV testing after getting their freak on in ’60s-style hookups with crusty strangers, sources told The Post yesterday.


“Last week was free love,” said a medical professional at a clinic located a short walk from Zuccotti Park, referring to the number of people who organizers have referred for sexually transmitted disease testing.


A volunteer at the park admitted concern among protesters about STDs.


“We give directions to clinics if people ask for information regarding STDs,” said the volunteer, who identified himself only as “Captain” and added that pregnancy tests are also a hot item.


“Like anything else, it happens. People ask, and we do the best we can for them.”


Volunteers at the medical tent hand out cash, usually $15 or $20, so the randy radicals can visit clinics that cater to a low-income clientele, the source said.


Experts said it’s the right thing to do.


“My advice for the protesters would be to practice safer sex. It’s a lot cheaper to buy a condom than get treated for an STD,” said Dr. Lisa Oldson, medical director of Chicago-based Analyte Health, which provides testing services for labs nationwide, including STD Test Express New York.

Ann Coulter Doubles Down To Joy Behar: ‘[Our Blacks] Are More Impressive. There Is No Question.’

Mediaite.com:

In the fallout of the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, Ann Coulter has quickly become one of the most prominent voices defending the Republican presidential candidate, calling racism against him and other black conservatives for their politics. She went a step further on Hannity last night, claiming that “our [conservative] blacks are so much better better than their blacks,” and tonight she proved to Joy Behar she didn’t just say that because she was among ideological friends.


On the program tonight, Behar quoted Coulter back to herself and asked her to clarify what she meant by “our blacks are so much better than their blacks,” which she said on Hannity last night. “Are you saying all the African Americans who are Democrats are stupid?” “No,” Coulter replied, “I’m saying Google Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney, and John Conyers,, or Google Allen West, Michael Steele, or Herman Cain.” “Ours are more impressive. There is no question about that,” she concluded.


Behar challenged her, claiming that Coulter only didn’t consider them impressive because she disagreed with them, and that liberals didn’t “despise” conservative blacks. “I like Michael Steele, he’s fine,” Behar offered. In response, Coulter noted that Waters had supported the LA riots and that “when Michael Steele was running for Senate, liberals showed up and rolled Oreos down the aisle at him.” She concluded that “the only racism you hear is against conservative blacks, and it is vicious.”

RELATED: Andy Levy Accuses Ann Coulter Of Playing The ‘Race Card’ In Tense Red Eye Clip