Herman Cain

Herman Cain

First, for those of you who do not know, I am not a disinterested party when it comes to Herman Cain and his run for President of the United States.  I was an early fan and I am currently under contract with his campaign to raise money on his behalf.  I have also personally donated to his campaign on several occasions and I have volunteered to help get his name on the ballot in Virginia.

One of the first things that drew me to Herman Cain was his integrity and his character.  I was tired of politicians who claimed to be Reagan Republicans, but were willing to change their positions to personally advance themselves.  I wanted to support a man of principle like Ronald Reagan, not someone who you cannot trust when the chips are down.  That’s basically what I told Mr. Cain when I offered to raise funds on his behalf.  I believed that Herman Cain was a man of unquestioned integrity the day I met him and I still believe that today.  I have not been disappointed.  While other politicians I have worked with didn’t want to pay their bills, Herman Cain has run his campaign like a business, spending no more than the net revenue generated by the fund raising effort.  Such integrity is nearly unheard of in the political fund raising business and it gives testimony to his character and his honesty.

I do admit to being stunned when the first charges were levied against him for sexual harassment.  Although I felt that the charges could not be true, I had reservations.  Perhaps I was mistaken about Herman Cain’s integrity.

As I write this I just finished listening to his news conference after the vivid allegations of an alleged sexual attack by an alleged victim, Sharon Bialek.  Mr. Cain’s rebuttal of those charges was very persuasive, but I wasn’t there and neither were you.  So, how do we sift fact from fiction?  How can we borrow some of the wisdom of Solomon and discern the truth?  Evaluating people on the basis of God’s standards of conduct, primarily the Ten Commandments, is a good place to start.

I wish Ms. Bialek no ill or harm, but she has placed a very damming and unsubstantiated charge on the table.  It is in legal terms, hearsay, nothing more, nothing less.  This is not to say that the charges are not serious, but only to observe there is no evidence, pro or con, that the alleged sexual attack took place.  It is just an accusation that may be true or false.  There is no evidence, but only the word of Sharon Bialek versus the word of Herman Cain. 

Therefore the only basis with which you and I can judge her charge in the court of public opinion are the character traits of the two parties, their pattern of integrity or lack thereof, and their record of making moral and ethical choices.  There is no other legitimate basis upon which to judge the accusation made by Ms. Bailek against Herman Cain.  All else is just speculation.

You and I can never know for certain who is lying and who is telling the truth, but based on past actions and choices we can determine the likelihood of who is the liar and who is telling the truth.  Let’s take a look at the past of both individuals in terms of facts, to see who is most likely to have veracity in this situation, Herman Cain, or Sharon Bailek.

    Here are some facts about Ms. Bailek.   

• In less than 20 years she has held nine different positions.  Of course, lots of people move from job to job for various reasons.
• She has been terminated (fired) from at least one position for non-performance.  Some people get fired when they can’t do a job because it is simply a position for which they do not have the necessary skills.
• She has filed for personal bankruptcy on several occasions, being unable to pay her bills or meet her obligations.  Others have filed for bankruptcy, but rarely twice.
• In her verbal statement to the news media she alluded to the fact that she was living out of wedlock with her boyfriend in New Jersey, expressing no shame whatsoever for this adulterous relationship.  I realize that it is old fashioned to talk in these terms, but it’s not my personal standards that count, only God’s standards are important.
• Ms. Bialek filed a paternity lawsuit to force the man who she believed to be the father of her child to support her and the child.  Clearly the identity of the father was in doubt and thus the need for a lawsuit. 
• In court proceedings between Bialek’s current boyfriend/fiancé, Mark Harwood and his ex-wife, Patricia, Bialek was subpoenaed but failed to appear in September for a deposition regarding her finances.  Failure to appear for a subpoena is grounds for being held in contempt of court. Source: Chicago Tribune
• In her statement to the press she said she complained to Herman Cain about his alleged attack because she had a boyfriend in New Jersey.  That’s hardly a statement of shock or moral concern.
• She waited 14 years to bring up the alleged attack, only doing so after Herman Cain became a front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination.
• Admitting that she has no funds, she has hired a very high priced, high profile, Feminist attorney, Gloria Allred, who is a big donor to Democratic and liberal causes.
• No one has identified where the funds are coming from to pay Gloria Allred even though there is no possibility of a lawsuit against Herman Cain.

Thus far, on a strictly factual basis, these are all the facts we have in regard to the character and integrity of Sharon Bailek.  While I suspect that new facts will be divulged in the future, this is all we have to go on at the present time.

What about the character, integrity, and moral principles of Herman Cain?  What are the facts?

• Herman Cain was born into extreme poverty and spent his early years in the Atlanta, Georgia projects.
• Cain came from an intact, functional family where his mother worked as a domestic worker and his father held down three jobs to support his family.
• In spite of Cain’s impoverished background, and thanks to the hard work and values passed along to him by his father and mother, Herman Cain went to college, eventually receiving an MBA from Purdue University.
• Herman Cain was raised as a Christian, a believer in Jesus Christ.
• After getting his BS at Morehouse College in 1967, he married Gloria Etchison in 1968 and has been married to her for more than 43 years.  They have two children, Melanie and Vincent.
• Herman Cain steadily worked himself up the corporate ladder, facing and overcoming challenges along the way.
• At the age of 32 Cain joined the Pillsbury Company in Minneapolis, Minnesota where after hard work and many commendations and promotions he became a Vice President of that organization.
• After an extremely successful stint at a Pillsbury subsidiary, Burger King, Cain was given the opportunity to become President of Godfather’s Pizza based in Omaha, Nebraska, a struggling restaurant chain on the brink of bankruptcy.  In less than 15 months he turned that chain into a very profitable business and when presented the opportunity to purchase it, did so along with other key employees.
• While in Omaha he was appointed to the board of the Midwest Federal Reserve, eventually becoming a successful Chairman of that entity.
• After selling his interest in Godfather’s Pizza, Cain became President of the National Restaurant Association, turning that organization into a powerful voice for the restaurant industry.  Upon leaving NRA, he went on a motivational speakers tour and eventually became a talk show host in his native Atlanta, Georgia.
• Being diagnosed with stage 4 cancer in 2006, he sought out the best medical care and put his faith in God that it would work out for the best in His sight.
• Herman Cain and his family have always been active Christians, working, praying and serving others through their church where he serves as an Associate Pastor.
• Until the recent charges of sexual harassment and a sexual attack, there has never been a hint of any kind that Herman Cain is a sexual predator even though he has held positions of authority and power for many decades.

Herman Cain would readily acknowledge that he is a sinner saved by the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ.  It’s not that Herman Cain or you and I aren’t capable of the worst kind of sins. As believers, we don’t condone such immoral behavior, but  always repent and ask God to forgive us.

King David of the Old Testament was one of the greatest leaders of all time.  But he committed adultery and murder.  When he was confronted by the prophet, Nathan, with his sin David said, “I have sinned against the Lord.” (2 Samuel 12:13)

During my lifetime I have seen high profile Christians exposed for their sin.  Christians are not exempt from being sinners, but the difference is that they repent and are forgiven by God as he promises.  All men (and women) sin daily, but to not understand that the violation of the Ten Commandments is always a sin and to publicly acknowledge living in sin with a man or woman not your husband or wife, shows that there is no repentance, there is no forgiveness.  In fact such public actions show contempt for the laws of God and for His moral standards.  It is a clear indication that there is no respect or commitment to any one of the Ten Commandments including the one forbidding the giving of false testimony against someone.

You and I have all violated every one of God’s Ten Commandments.  You say that you haven’t killed anyone, but God says that he that hates his brother is a murderer (1 John 3:15).  You say that you haven’t committed adultery, but God says that he who looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart (Matthew 5:28).  There are no saints on this earth, only sinners (Romans 3:23).
The issue, of course, is not who is a sinner, Herman Cain or Sharon Bailek, but who is telling the truth.  Just what are the odds that someone who by her own admission has low or no regard for God’s moral standards is lying?  Just what are the odds that a man who reveres God’s laws and has been married for 43 years, living a circumspect life without a hint of sexual impropriety for decades is lying?  It’s possible, but does it stand to reason that it is likely?

A man getting entangled in the Devil’s web of non-marital, immoral sex usually starts early in life.  While that person may be successful in business, he develops a very well known reputation for being a skirt chaser.  Where is the evidence that Herman Cain has ever been a skirt chaser?

Looking at the facts only, it is evident to me that it is highly likely that Sharon Bialek is motivated by political considerations, and possibly by a financial payoff, not by telling the truth.  Who is lying and who is telling the truth between Herman Cain and Sharon Bialek?  I believe it would take a great deal of bias and prejudgment to conclude that Herman Cain is lying and Sharon Bialek is telling the truth.  One would have to suspend logic and reason to conclude that the attacks on Herman Cain are anything less than a carefully contrived political attack.

The real question is not whether these attacks are true or false, but rather who is paying for and orchestrating these scurrilous attacks?  That’s the question the media should be trying to answer, not if a man who has lived his life beyond reproach is a sexual predator.  Someone or some organization has to be paying the very large bill that has created this political maelstrom that is designed to take out Herman Cain as a presidential nominee.  Who is it?