Marco Rubio: Call 'em Like You See 'em...If You Don't See 'em, Make 'em Up!

Marco Rubio, the Junior Senator from Florida, speculative leader of the Teapublicans in the Senate and, God help me, my representative in the U.S. Senate, has once again, basically lied to us. 

The particular lie being told by Senator Rubio is, “On this very day in Florida, it was announced that 300,000 people are going to lose their individual coverage because of Obamacare.” He made this statement to that bastion of political truth (please note the dripping sarcasm) Fox News and to, of all people, Bill O’Reilly, a man with the objectivity of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Marc Levin and Michelle Malkin (she works for Fox too,but that’s for another time….)

This statement, and a number of others,  has been confirmed by Politifact Florida as being "Mostly False" (see: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/oct/25/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-said-florida-300000-people-are-going-l/ .  Allow me to summarize.

Yes, 300,000 customers of Florida Blue, the corporate successor to Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, have been notified that that their existing policies are being cancelled…Well, not exactly.  Their policies are being replaced.  This is because the policies they currently hold do not meet the requirements of the law.  In other words, they are going to get better, more inclusive and cheaper policies, so the policies meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, A/K/A: Obamacare, but before that happens they are being notified that the existing policies are not going to be continued.

One of the things that bothers me most is that those who are ideologues and of similar ilk to Senator Rubio will adopt these statements as Gospel and sound the war cry, regardless of the accuracy of the statements this liar makes.  It is consistent with their version of reality, so it must be true.  I am not much for Biblical quotations, but when confronting the Teapublicans such a quotation is too good to pass up, ‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.” (Jeremiah 5:21).

Senator Rubio is just doing what a lot of politicians do, telling people what they want to hear.  He tells them lies they want to believe.  The problem is that once you tell them “the rest of the story” as Paul Harvey would say, they still believe it to be the truth, thus the applicability of the Biblical quote.  To continue along the same lines  a quote from Ron Popeil, “But wait, there’s more…”

Let us list other lies that have been told to us by Senator Rubio…

"I never was in favor of shutting down the government. … (I) voted to fund the government fully."  In fact Rubio voted on nine, yes nine, separate occasions to vote against bills that would have kept the government open.  He just refused to vote yes on any bill that did not defund Obama Care.  The result is the same, he voted in a way that was directly responsible for shutting down the government, regardless of how he chooses to try to massage the facts.

"The American people support defunding Obamacare and oppose shutting down the government."  Well, actually, no they don’t.  Polls have consistently found, since 2011, that the American People do not want to defund Obamacare, especially if it might result in some sort of drastic action such as…wait for it….shutting down the government!  Most Americans have adopted a wait and let’s see if this works attitude, now that it has passed.

Enough examples…let me just say that if Marco Rubio opens his mouth to say “Good morning” I tend to look out the window and expect to see rain.  I am not interested in someone that appeals to the psychotic base of his party without regard for anything resembling truth and integrity.

The U.S. Government Lies to the Supreme Court - If You Let Them...They Will

“In February, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to FISA Amendments Act (FAA) surveillance programs brought by Amnesty International on standing grounds.  The Supreme Court, agreeing with the government that since Amnesty International could not prove that it was the victim surveillance at the time, it had no right to sue. That 5-4 decision at least partially relied on an argument made by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. that while Amnesty International did not have grounds to sue, others might because ‘the government must provide advance notice of its intent to use information obtained or derived’ from the laws. In fact, the Supreme Court mirrors that language fairly explicitly in its ruling, saying that ‘if the government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from’ surveillance authorized by FAA ’in judicial or administrative proceedings, it must provide advance notice of its intent, and the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition.’"  - Washington Post 

Let us accept that this report is accurate.  It is supported by things like transcripts and other Court records, so I feel pretty safe in assuming it is true, especially the parts that were written in the Supreme Court Opinion.  The analysis of what happened is, in my opinion, truly horrifying! 

There are only two ways to explain what happened, neither of which are good.  The Solicitor General of the United States stood up in front of the Justices of the Supreme Court and lied to them.  He knew the truth and deliberately and knowingly lied to the Court.  The second option is that the Justice Department of the United States knowingly and deliberately lied to the Solicitor General and he, in turn, represented it the Supreme Court believing it to be true.  What we have is merely a choice of who in the government lied to whom. 

It is a platitude that control of information is perfect control.  If I control the information about anything, I completely control the outcome, for example, if I leak information that a mega-billionaire is going to make an offer to buy up the stock of a company, I will drive that company’s stock price higher.  Look what happened when the Fed implied it was going to stop Quantitative Easing (QE).  The stock market started to drop precipitously.  When they said they were not going to stop the program, the stock market stabilized and recovered.  It was all based on information. 

The Supremes are no different; if you lie to them and make misrepresentations to them, you can control the outcome of whatever case is before them.  This is obvious.  The most serious problem is that the government of the US appears to be willing to lie to the Supremes.  I am sure this is nothing new, they just never got caught red-handed before, I guess.  Another problem is the fact that there do not appear to be any consequences.  I have a friend that has adopted what I shall call a life truth; “If you let them, they will.”  He had a sign carved in wood with these words and it hangs in his office.  I have someone making me a copy of it for my own study, because the words are so incredibly right in so many situations, the Supreme Court included. 

You have to understand the phrase in its two-part form.  It is not just that people will do bad things, you have to let them.  Try putting up “No Trespassing” signs on a piece of property without a fence around it.  People will ignore the signs; they will trespass because you have done nothing to prevent them from doing so.  If they have to climb over a fence, most will think twice, a few will do it anyway, but at least you made an effort to prevent them.

 

 

 

If you allow people, in this case the government, to lie to the Supreme Court and suffer no consequences, is there any incentive not to lie to them?  I would respond, “No, you let them!”  I am probably naive, but if I were the Supreme Court, I would be having U.S. Marshalls serving Rules to Show Cause Why the Solicitor General and/or the Justice Department Should Not Be Held in Contempt.   If the Solicitor General points his finger back at the Justice Department, then send those Rules to Show Cause to the Justice Department.  Let the finger-pointing begin.   At the risk of sounding like Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling, I believe the integrity of the Justice System is at stake. 

I know I am naïve because the Supreme Court has tried and held someone (actually a group of people) only once.  That was in 1909 in U.S. vs. Shipp, and it took a Sheriff defying the Court to the extent that a black man for whom the Supreme Court had issued a stay of execution was lynched with the cooperation of the Sheriff. 

I have spoken to others, some of whom are lawyers, and they believe the Supremes will be taking a very harsh, confrontational attitude toward the Solicitor General during future oral arguments before them.  Basically, they may stop him at the beginning of his argument and ask him, “Tell us why we should believe a word you say to us, given your previous argument(s) based on falsehoods.”  While this will clearly embarrass the Solicitor General, I am not sure that is enough in this case.  Either the Solicitor General got caught with his pants down around his ankles or the Justice Department did. Saying, Look their pants are down” is not enough.  I think they should be called to account legally, just like any citizen would be required to do if they perjured themselves in Court. 

The government holds citizens that are interviewed by Federal Officers to a standard of truth.  If a citizen lies to the FBI, for example, there is a crime with which they can be charged for lying to an FBI Agent.  The Federal Government has taken this to the extreme of prosecuting a person with lying to Federal Agents when they were asked if they committed a crime and they said “No.”  Yet, we will not hold the Justice Department or Solicitor General to the same exacting standard.  In this respect, I am pretty sure the Judicial System is pretty much broke.

There May Be Gay Boy Scouts...But I Still Recommend the Boy Scouts

Allow me to offer a disclaimer.  This blog post is kind of sanctimonious because I cannot describe the incredible advantages of the Boy Scouts without going into what it did for me.  I was a part of the organization and achieved what was the highest award possible in the organization.

 

I was a Boy Scout from the time I was 11 years old until I went into the Army at age 17.  When I joined the Army and they assembled my  unit and gave three instructions:  1)  All those who have a college degree take one step forward.  I had an associate degree from a local junior college (night school while I was in high school), so I took a step forward.  2) All those who have been in the Boy Scouts, take one step forward.  I had been a Boy Scout, so I took another step forward.  Finally, 3) All those who have been Eagle Scouts, take a step forward.  I took a final step forward, and when I looked around, there were three of us standing out in front of the group.

 

The next words from the Platoon Leader were, “Congratulations, pending additional testing, you will be offered a position in Officer’s Candidate School.”  As a result, I went through the Army as an Officer, a much better existence than to that of an enlisted man to which I had resigned myself.

 

The Boy Scouts have recently changed their policy regarding the admission of gay males.  Being a liberal, I have no objection, but being a former Boy Scout and Eagle Scout, I can tell you that young gay men have been in the Boy Scouts for many years; some of them in the closet, some not so much.  I was in a Boy Scout Troop that had a less-than-closeted gay young man it.  Everyone knew it and no one really cared, much less objected.  There were some “new” guys who joined the troop from time to time that were a little surprised, but they generally did not have a problem with it, after all, the existing guys had no problem with it, right?

 

We had no problem with a gay scout because he never made it any of our business.  He did not hit on any of us because he knew we were not gay.  He was never a “recruiter” for the “gay community.”  The fact that he was “queer” was sometimes more of a joke than anything else, and he joined right in.  There was always the decision as to who would share a tent with Kirk [not his real name].  When someone volunteered, there were the ooohs and aaahs of suspicion and good-humored accusation, but it was all good-natured fun.  Kirk often joined in the cajoling.  I still correspond with “Kirk” from time to time.  He is in a long-term relationship with another man with whom he is very happy.  He is also a man that has contributed to his community, both gay and straight.  While his father died when he was young and a member of my troop at the time, I know his father would be proud of him regardless of his sexual orientation.

 

We learned an incredible amount in the Boy Scouts that have served us well in adult life, particularly regarding values, self-sufficiency and a lot of skills, but the value I learned that is one of the most important was tolerance.  I was in an organization with blacks, Hispanics, gays, straights, rich and poor, and it made no difference, we were all Boy Scouts.  I had 21 merit badges, in subjects from fingerprinting and rifle and shotgun shooting to home repairs and community service.  We all learned camping and hiking, how to appreciate nature and how to survive.  As I watch various shows of how people will survive in a post-apocalyptic world, I can’t help but say, “I learned how to do that in the Boy Scouts when I was 11.”  You have no idea how important that stuff was in the military.

 

One of the things I learned that has become increasingly important is self-discipline.  I think many of the problems we have with our youth today is the fact that they have no self-discipline.  While the Liberal in me understands and accepts the need for people to have freedom, I believe that freedom must be tempered by self-discipline.  You have to have self-discipline to do so many things that we find lacking today; the ability to say no to drugs, the ability to stand up against peer pressure, the ability to have respect for others and, at the same time, the ability to stand up for what is right, sometimes, even in the face of authority.  Just because someone has power, does not always make them right, but only the self-disciplined will have the confidence and strength to stand up and say so.

 

I was watching a program on television about Chiefs of Staff to Presidents of the United States.  After watching for a while, I said, those guys talk like Boy Scouts.  I checked the list and found that a majority of them had been both Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts.  They may have been overachievers, but I will bet, if you talk to them, they will give a lot of credit for having the self-respect, determination and self-confidence to be able to tell the President of the United States what he does not want to hear from their experiences in the Boy Scouts.  It is said that the second most powerful man in the world is the Chief of Staff for the President of the United States.

 

One of the reasons that I have the self-confidence, self-respect and self-discipline I do is, in part, because I am a member of an incredibly small, and yes, elite, group of men.  Go to this link and check out some of the men who have been Eagle Scouts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eagle_Scouts .   It is a group of men I am both very proud and at the same time humbled, to be a part.  As I go down the list, I found it interesting that so many Eagle Scouts became Astronauts.  It makes me wonder if camping in the wilderness was just not enough; now camping in space, that’s a real challenge…LOL

 

In all fairness, there are Boy Scouts and even Eagle Scouts that have gone bad.  Charles Whitman, the “Texas Tower Shooter” was one notorious example.  I had the experience to be able to speak to Whitman’s father in Lake Worth Florida where I was a police officer.  Mr. Whitman lived with the guilt and had no idea his son would do something like he did.  He blamed it on a brain tumor they found in his son when they performed an autopsy.  Another “bad” Boy Scout was H.R. Haldeman.  He was Richard Nixon’s Chief of Staff, who was responsible for overseeing much of the nefarious “Watergate Affair.”  Even the best can turn into some of the worst over time.

 

Regardless of the fact that the Boy Scouts now allows gay men to join, they still teach the values necessary in our society, and even gay men, and women, need values, self-discipline and self-confidence, especially when so many are trying to destroy these traits in gays.