Posted on 11/09/2011 6:39:21 AM PST by AmericanInTokyo
“Move On.” Where have I heard that before?The best thing that could happen in tonight’s debate is for each of the other candidates to refuse to discuss these allegations of harassment. We collectively should shift the national conversation to the things that really matter.Exactly.2 posted on November 9, 2011 9:41:22 AM EST by LOC1
“Move on” is what guilty people say. The attempt to destroy Herman Cain is not something Cain needs to be ashamed of. It’s a badge of honor. And it IS a “real” issue that people should care about—because it shows just how far Cain’s enemies—whether Perry, Romney, or Obama—will go to knock him out of the race.
The fact that Cain is under an Alinsky attack is what is the only legitimate point to be made WRT these attacks.If the subject comes up, watch for Cain to give a strong answer, and his Republican enemies (I don’t call them “opponents”) to give mealy-mouthed responses in which they attempt to keep open the “possibility” that Cain is guilty.
. . . which is precisely the opposite of what LOC1 urged.
It really is weird the number of strange connections these accusers have to events like this and leftists.
Pure coincidence I am sure.
You means those of us who believe that a father has the right to raise his son as he sees best, whether you or I agree with him? That is such and outdated viewpoint after all. Why, that would be a horrible way to raise children.
She truly looks like a sadistic, vindictive b*tch. I ran across a few in my life — they were very evil in the heart and actions.
Maybe a father wants to sell his son into slavery.
Living under a Communist regime is slavery.
Anyone who would rather have his son live in slavery rather than free is not worthy of the name father.
What of the freedom of a father to raise his child as he sees best? How would you like it if your inlaws seized your son illegally because they don’t agree with your values?
Anyone who is willing to steal a a mans son, who’s only offense is to believe in a different government, is themselves an enemy of liberty.
I don’t agree with the father, but my opinion doesn’t matter. Nor does anyone elses.
I don’t have to agree with everything mark says. im a fan, not a sycophant.
The family refused to surrender the boy to the father who had primary custody. Or have you given up on the american tradition of parental rights?
Mother was dead, father alive. Case closed, dad has custody. Why should her needs your or my permission?
I love how there’s supposed to be ‘father’s rights’ in a totalitarian society when there aren’t even individual rights.
It is as if a mom fled slavery with her child, died during the travails of the journey - and when they reached the land of freedom - they insisted on returning the child to his slave father.
And the slave owner can trot out his slave and have him dutifully recite that he wants his son back.
But what they really want is another slave, and to show the slaves that even if they escape, they can still be sent back to slavery.
The father was NOT a free man. Sad for him, and sad for you to think it is a good idea to send this child back to Castro (not to the father). The father was not allowed to decide to leave the child with the relatives who WERE free. He was not allowed to meet with the child before the Elian was seized at the point of a gun.
One more thing... If the man holding Elian resisted surrendering or attempted to escape with Elian, would it have been OK with you to have the agent shoot him?
As aruanan said, you do need to learn your history. I'll say it again - Never give Communists a victory.
Perfect analogy... Thank you!
“have you given up on the american tradition of parental rights”
Uhhh, “the Amerian tradition of parental rights” aren’t enforced or respected in Cuba you dope!
Yes, I would have shot him if need be. The cubans actions were lawless.
If memory serves, the father came here to get his son. if im correct, he could easily have defected.
You people sound as bad as the DU crowd. It’s takes a village to raise a child, and if you disagree with the father, then the father must be wrong. All of you deserve to have your children seized by people who disagree with your method of raising them, since that is what you advocate. You only seems to believe in the freedom to agree with yourselves.
Mother is dead, father is alive. That is the american way, unless the gods on FR disagree.
Your memory is not serving you well. He was securely flown to Andrews AFB and sequestered under the control Cuban and private security on the property of a leftist sympathizer. The family in Florida invited the father to join Elian in Florida. He was not permitted to leave the compound.
The family wasn't lawless, they weren't even charged with a crime. The feds stormed the property with an ARREST warrant for Elian. However they never arraigned or jailed Elian as they would in the case of a normal arrest. The Feds eventually surrendered Elian to Cuban officials along with the Father at the compound where they remained for a month or so, in order that the Father and Elian could be prepared to reenter Cuban society.
The Feds seized the boy under false pretenses - And you would have shot an innocent man over that. I am against abuse of government power, you were willing to shoot an innocent man because the government told you to seize a child at night from his family - You can sell your view to the dupes on OWS or DU - it don't float with me.
Do you support giving unwed fathers custody of their children without a court hearing if the mother dies?
Elian's Best Interests?
The other agenda of Clinton, Reno, Craig, the INS and Juan Miguel.
By Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation.
4/24/00 10:50 a.m.
On December 1, 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued its first public statement on Elian Gonzalez. It said, in part:
"Although INS has no role in the family custody decision process, we have discussed this case with State of Florida officials who have confirmed that the issue of legal custody must be decided by its state court.
However, Elian will remain in the U.S. until the issues surrounding his custody are resolved. If Elian's family is unable to resolve the question of his custody, it is our understanding that the involved parties will have to file in Florida family court. Either Elian's father in Cuba or his U.S.-based family members may initiate proceedings. Once proceedings have been initiated, it is likely that the court will appoint a guardian ad litem, i.e., someone who will specifically represent Elian's interests in the custody determination process."
Less than one week later, the State Department, which has no role in custody or immigration issues, suddenly announced that Elian belonged with his father. From that point forward, the Clinton administration has done everything possible to reunite Elian not with his father, but with Fidel Castro. And when you cut through all the Clinton administration's propaganda, that's what this is all about. Mr. Clinton wants improved relations with Cuba, and Elian's return is the price demanded by Castro - and the price Mr. Clinton is more than willing to pay.
The Gonzalez family in Miami did, in fact, initiate custody proceedings in Florida family court, as the INS proposed. But Attorney General Janet Reno, to whom the INS reports, quickly killed that process by asserting her authority under federal law to determine Elian's immigration status.
A federal district court upheld her authority, and the state court proceedings were over before they started. Consequently, the standard custody hearing process, where evidence and testimony about the best interests of the child are presented to a tribunal, was thwarted by Ms. Reno.
-snip-
Elian has never lived with his father, and he was born two years after Juan Miguel had divorced Elian's mother.
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint042400a.html
You are keeping up with the news this morning, aren’t you? Seems she had a history of filing complaints against bosses...
And you should make sure you get your rest because there will be a new “bimbo” to smear next week, the week after, the week after that...
Good luck.
I didn’t miss anything. Cain apologists like to say this woman “works for Obama” but they leave out that she “worked for Bush” too. But never mind me, you need to go sharpen your pencil for next week and the need to smear yet another (and then another and another) Cain “bimbo.”
This is why we need to know what sort of job she has. Is she a political appointee, or is she regular civil service.
Remember Linda Tripp?
Bet you don't.
She and others like her regularly move back and forth from civil service positions to Schedule C, and then back again ~ it's called "retreating". Some federal agencies depend on this for continuity in the face of the disruption brought by political appointees.
So, unless you're ready, willing and able to come up with what sort of job she has then you're not really in this part of the debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.