TRUMP AND “THE BIG LIE”

I have been so disgusted by the events and candidates in this election that I had previously just been ambivalent to the whole thing.  Given my experience, education, training and past, this ambivalence says a great deal.  I revel in politics and political discourse, but the vile and putrid nature of the campaigns in this election had me turned off completely....That is until now. There are a lot of really bad things you can say about Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Donald Trump, but they are all absolute masters of propaganda.  Specifically they were, and Trump is, the master(s) of “The Big Lie.” And yes, I put them in the same category when it comes to the use of “The Big Lie.” 

Adolf Hitler coined the expression “The Big Lie” when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf.  “The Big Lie” is the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

[The] secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid, thick-headedness. The principle [follows] that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.  [Joseph Goebbels, 12 January 1941. Die Zeit ohne Beispiel. Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP. 1941, pp. 364-369]

The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:^[5][6]  A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler. His Life and Legend by Walter C. Langer. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Washington, D.C. With the collaboration of Prof. Henry A. Murr, Harvard Psychological Clinic, Dr. Ernst Kris, New School for Social Research, Dr. Bertram D. Lawin, New York Psychoanalytic Institute. p. 219 (Nizkor)

His [Hitler’s] primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.  [Emphasis Added - Hitler as His Associates Know Him (OSS report, p.51)]

Donald Trump is using almost precisely this strategy.  I recently reviewed a list of 56 fact-checked statements by Donald Trump that, as it turned out, were absolute, unadulterated, bald-faced lies.  I am not talking about differences of opinion nor matters of interpretation.  I am talking about Trump saying something that is in direct, absolute, stark contradiction to something he said previously that is on audio or video.  When confronted with this fact, he insists it is not contradictory, all proof to the contrary.  Other items are just demonstrably untrue and there are not now, nor have there ever been, any disagreements about the facts, other than The Donald.  Hillary Clinton put it best when she sited "Donald World" where

Now that Donald Trump is receiving close scrutiny by the media, he has adopted the position of telling the voters, and particularly his supporters, that it is the left-wing media that is making false allegations against him.  Basically, he is telling us, the media is lying to everyone about everything about him.  Again, all proof to the contrary notwithstanding.  It is a good indication that Trump supporters have a herd mentality that is causing them to completely ignore reality.  These people, if Donald Trump stated the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, they would flock to the pacific coast with absolute certainty that it was going to occur.  Then, when it did not, they would insist it did occur, because The Donald said it would, then it must have.  The left-wing media reporting that the sun arose in the east, as it has since the beginning of time, would be dismissed, because The Donald told them to dismiss it.

I am completely aghast at the mentality, or lack thereof, of not just the deceiver himself, but the people that find a way to deny reality, deny proof and accept that which absolutely cannot be true.  I do understand that it is not without precedent, even on the kind of scale as national elections.  Adolf Hitler adopted the Big Lie technique, told everyone, in writing, about the Big Lie technique and then proceeded to use it to become Chancellor of Germany.  We are coming close to possibly electing a new “Fabricator in Chief” that will have no basis on a claim to the Presidency, other than he was able to utterly and completely deceive the electorate, who will blindly follow this man over the cliff like so many Lemmings.

Donald Trump is a megalomaniac and truly believes that he has and is the one true way.  This makes him more dangerous than can be imagined.  If he has the one true way, then anyone that disagrees with him must be stupid and therefore can be dismissed.  This attitude and mentality also gives The Donald the means by which to become, purely and simply, a dictator. 

The corporate world lends itself to dictatorial rule.  The Donald would have us believe it is also suitable for leaders in government.  Why else would this pompous fool admire and flatter the likes of Vladimir Putin?  It is because he wants to govern just like him.  Disagree with Donald and you’re fired!  I am not sure he will stop at merely dismissing people, but will try to find a way to render them to CIA camps for political re-education.  Anyone remember how that worked out in other countries?  Germany had concentration camps, Cambodia had re-education camps.  The result was millions dead that did not agree with the political ideology of the leaders of the country, and the list of countries in which this has occurred over time is almost endless.

I am left with only one explanation, best articulated by Bill Engvall, “Ya can’t fix stupid.”  And to those who vote for this liar, cheat and thief I say, “Here’s your sign!”

DUCK DYNASTY & THE "RIGHTS" OF THE RIGHT...IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED

The big kerfuffle of late is whether A & E violated Phil Robertson’s (of Duck Dynasty fame) rights when they suspended him for making homophobic comments in an interview with GQ.  I would argue, Hell, I would shout at the top of my lungs, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!  It is not really possible for A & E to violate his Right to Free Speech.  That is because A & E is not limited by the Constitution regarding the exercise of Free Speech.  Those screaming about the violation of Mr. Robertson’s are pissed because it is their ox being gored.

The Right-Wing neo-Conservative, Teapublicans are bent out of shape because someone big, a corporation like A & E, with lots of media attention, had the audacity to suspend Mr. Robertson for holding an opinion with which the Right Wingers happen to agree.  Throw in the fact that Robertson’s remarks have been cloaked in the veil of religion and the Religious Right is screaming about the protection of Mr. Robertson’s “Rights;” Rights they tend to completely ignore when it happens to be the Left, those Progressive bastards, and it is that much worse to them.

Not too long ago, Right Wing Conservatives got bent out of shape about remarks made by a member of the Dixie Chicks country band when they made statements that called into question then-President George Bush going to war in Iraq.  Need I point out that we went in with the absolute guarantee that it was looking for weapons of mass destruction; none were ever found!  In retaliation for their remarks, the Dixie Chicks had sponsors pull out on them and the public made sure their then-number-ten hit on the country charts dropped off the charts completely in a couple of weeks.  Where was the Right about their Right to Free Speech?  Personally, although I am not a country music fan, I went out and bought their “Wide Opens Spaces” album as a show of support for their position.

In 2012, Ozzie Guillén, then manager of the Miami Marlins, was suspended for five games after making comments supportive of Fidel Castro.  Where was the Right then?  There were no voices from the Teapublicans screaming about Ozzie’s “Rights.”  Hell, they were calling for his head on a platter, and the five-game suspension was not near enough for them.  It is 0kay for a company, like the Miami Marlins, to suspend the manager for making statements with which they agree, but not Mr. Robertson, because they agree with what he says.

Jill Filipovic of The Guardian wrote a rather excellent article, in of all things in a British paper, regarding The First Amendment to The Constitution of the United States.  I invite you to read this article at the link below.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/20/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-not-violate-freedom-of-speech?CMP=twt_gu#start-of-comments

I wish to comment further on Ms. Filipovic’s commentary and explain, yet again, to the neo-Conservative, Right-Wing Tepublicans a basic lesson in civics or social studies.  I have already written about the First Amendment, way back in 2011.  You can see my previous comments at:

http://wam18jr.blogspot.com/2011/06/conservative-vs-liberalforce-vs.html

As I always start with, I will, and have, defended with the offer of my life anyone’s Constitutional Rights; that being said, I do not have to agree with the position or opinion of the person offering up the protected speech.  That is my Right as a citizen of a free country.  I can respond to a protected speech by doing anything from boisterously complaining about their position to taking action.  Acceptable actions are things like: not patronizing their business, not patronizing someone that sponsors their business (in this case a reality TV show), not buying their book, not going to their church, refusing to contribute to their political party, and a myriad of other “actions.” 

The key here is the term “protected speech.”  The Constitution of the United States does not protect the people of the United States, referred to in the Constitution as “We the People” from, well, “We the People.”  The Constitution protects us from the Government, not each other.  If you read the First Amendment it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”  [Emphasis added].   The Constitution does not say that any person or citizen cannot do anything within the limits of the law to establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of speech.  The last I checked A & E was not Congress, so there is no Constitutional prohibition for them doing what they feel they must to indicate their displeasure with Mr. Robertson’s remarks.

Let us assume some scenarios that might result if we were prohibited from interfering with each other’s free speech rights.  Your boss, the guy that pays you a paycheck, is a miserable, sniveling coward; let us assume it is an absolute fact, not an opinion (it really doesn’t matter whether it is an opinion or not).  You walk into his office and tell him exactly what he is and why.  I would bet my own paycheck that, all things being equal, you will not have a job in short order. 

See, you do not have a “Right” to tell the boss what is true if the boss does not want to hear it, even if it is true.  You have a right to say it and there can be no consequences from the government, but The Constitution does not protect you from your boss.  Yes, if your boss is a public official and you are a member of his political constituency, an argument can be made that you can tell him he is a schmuck and get away with it, as long as you are acting solely as a citizen, but let us not split hairs too fine.  In a world where you had the absolute, unabridged right to say anything to anyone and it was guaranteed by The Constitution, your boss could not fire you, but we do not live in that world.  If you dare to test the theory, you might become a supporter of extended long-term unemployment benefits and become, God forbid, a Liberal.

If you publish an article that John Q. Public engages in sex acts with sheep, and you cannot prove it, expect to get sued for liable, and probably lose.  Believe it or not, if you are talking about a Senator, you are a lot less likely to have to pay because public officials give up some of their protections by holding elected office.  I am not sure it would work with Senator Sheepskin doing the above.  In the fictitious world where you have a Right to say anything, John Q. could not win in Court.

When the Right finds someone with their viewpoint on the receiving end of “actions” related to their speech, especially religious speech, they are the first to cloak themselves in Old Glory, the First Amendment to the Constitution, all sorts of Civil Rights Laws and scream at the top of their lungs about their “Rights” being violated.  It is a misapplication of the Constitution, the Law and is particularly heinous and atrocious because these same people will happily trample the Rights of others with impunity if the exercise of the same Rights involves a position with which they disagree. 

It all depends on whose ox is being gored.  The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Snowden: Hero or Traitor...Federal Judge Weighs In

Well, it’s official, at least one Federal Court Judge, after hearing evidence and allowing both sides to present their case, came to the conclusion that the NSA has been violating the Constitutional Rights of millions, yes, millions, of Americans. After this hearing, he thinks what the NSA is doing in gathering massive amounts of information on Americans is Unconstitutional. I take this judicial determination as a pretty good indication that the point of the legality or illegality of the NSA’s actions is, at minimum, a topic on which reasonable people can disagree, and what the NSA has been doing is a subject to be debated. This debate, much to the chagrin of the NSA, will now occur in the brightest light of day, the sunshine, that light which clandestine operations seek to avoid at all costs. The NSA would much prefer to do what they have been doing for years, apparently; treating us like mushrooms, keeping us in the dark and feeding us B.S.

Edward Snowden released information on NSA spying and that has turned into a firestorm of protest against the NSA, but when we start discussing in terms of what Snowden has done, we must remember some basics about this country we call the United States of America. We were once, as we all should know, a colony of Great Britain. “We The People” decided we didn’t like what the King of England was doing to us and we said, “No more!” We did that in a document called the Declaration of Independence.

If you read the Declaration of Independence, you get past the very poetic, and I believe divinely inspired, language to find that the Declaration becomes a list, a fairly long list, of complaints against the King George III. It was by that Declaration that anyone in the colonies that supported independence became a traitor. They were subject to be tried in the King’s Court, assuming there was a trial, and presumably hanged. We live in a country, like many, that had its beginnings in an act of treason. Interestingly, since we won the Revolutionary War caused by the Declaration of Independence, most of the Founding Fathers avoided being hanged, but they were, at least to the British, traitors.

We now have a situation where many believe Edward Snowden is a traitor and should be charged with treason. Many would actually prefer to skip the trial part after he is charged and just take him out back of the jail and shoot him, but most would at least like a show trial or so-called Kangaroo Court, so we can keep up appearances and feel better about ourselves. Is this sounding like the British and the Revolution?

There is a problem with all this; Snowden may have done nothing more than reported a crime and we do not, or should not, prosecute people that report crimes.  If Edward Snowden is charged and tried, it will not be so much because he violated laws, but because he violated laws made by the people that are engaged in the violation of our Civil Rights.  It may well be an act of civil disobedience against the unjust actions of the government.  More Declaration of Independence stuff, but without the war and formation of a new country....so far.

The government passes laws that say they, the government, have the right to operate in secret to protect "We The People." Using that secrecy, they engage in acts that violate the Rights of "We The People," and now they want to claim that the guy who told us about what they were doing is a traitor because he told us about what they were doing and how they were breaking the law.  This sounds a lot like the list of complaints in the Declaration of Independence.  We told King George we are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights and he is violating them, so we said we will start our own country and government. In the later 18th Century one did not tell the King of England he was doing anything illegal.  By definition the King was the law and therefore could not do anything illegal.  One man's heroic civil disobedience is another man's treason.

Let’s analyze our current situation and, just for the sake of argument, let us assume that the Federal Court was right in what it determined.  The United States Government, through the National Security Agency, engaged in acts that violated the Civil Rights of millions of Americans. The violation of any Right guaranteed by the Constitution and that pesky Bill of Rights, is to commit a crime. If you don’t believe me, check out the following which I lifted from none other than the FBI website through the use of copy and paste:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.

( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes)

So, the NSA was committing a crime and the NSA is an arm of the Federal Government, and it is a pretty powerful arm. Within the “Intelligence Community” the NSA is described as “the agency that reads the CIA’s mail before the CIA gets their mail.”  Here is this one little schmuck, Edward Snowden, who says, “Holy crap, this can’t be legal! I’ll call the police!”  But our friend Edward thinks about it and realizes that he is about to report an illegal activity being committed by the Federal Government. He realizes that he will be silenced and repressed, not necessarily killed in an unfortunate accident, but silenced nonetheless, so he goes to “We The People.” He blows the whistle, to use modern terminology.  Who do you think are the first to brand him a traitor?  Yep, the government.  The “person” committing the crime brands him a traitor and calls it treason to reveal what at least one Judge now says was a violation of our Civil Rights.

Now that a Federal Judge, a man learned in the laws of our country, or so we fervently hope, has said he agrees that what Edward Snowden told us about what the NSA was doing was, and is, illegal, a violation of our Fourth Amendment Right, he has opened a path to what should be a frank and open discussion of what the NSA has been doing to “We The People” and I welcome that discussion.  However, I am not naïve enough to think the Government will let that discussion occur. This will be, like so many different things in our history, obfuscated by the Government. Pressure will be brought to bear, officials influenced and people in that same government that has been screwing with our Rights, will do everything in their power to make sure the discussion never fully sees the light of day. They see us, “We The People,” as the unwashed masses; lowly citizens that could not possibly know what is in our own best interests. In the words of James Taylor, “The man says stand to one side, son, we got to keep this big ball rolling. It's just a question of controlling for whom the bell is tolling.” If ever James Taylor’s song, “Let It All Fall Down” had meaning, it is today, now, and this situation. I recommend you read the lyrics, even if you hate the music.

Personally, I think that Edward Snowden has done a great service to this country and “We The People.” He has revealed that the government has engaged in the violation of the Rights of “We The People.” He has, as our Founding Fathers did, engaged in what one side will call a treasonous act, and the other side will call a great act of heroic sacrifice, but, like our war for independence, I think we will have wait to see who wins.  In the meantime, at least one guy, a Federal Judge, thinks the point has enough merit to make it worthy of discussion and careful consideration.

The Silver Lining to the NSA's Dark Cloud of Surveillance?

I am not a lawyer, but have been accused of being pretty good for never having taken a Bar Exam. As a Private Investigator, I did a lot of criminal defense investigative work. Rarely, I even assisted in the representation of an innocent defendant. Most were guilty, but most were also severely overcharged by the prosecutor, so the trick was to get leverage to get the prosecution to reduce the charges consistent with what the defendant actually did. One of the ways you could prove a client didn't do it, in those rare cases, was providing him with an alibi.

Those of you living under rocks should know that an alibi is based on the concept that a person cannot be in two places at once. If you can prove you were somewhere else you are pretty much not guilty, at least in theory. I had a case that a guy could prove he was 600 miles away and a jury still convicted him, just sayin'.

We now know that the United States Government, The NSA, has data that can track cell phones and determine where they were at any given point in time. Using triangulation of cell towers the cell phone "checks in" or "registers" with, the location can be determined. They can also apparently track the cell phones through the Wi-Fi hotspots the phone registers on. Some of these tracks can give you a location within a hundred feet or so. If you are really interested, check out the following article at the Washington Post.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/how-the-nsa-is-tracking-people-right-now/634/

You see where I am going with this, right? All you defense attorneys, read further or not if you have already figured this out.

John N'erduwell is charged with a murder that occurred in a specific location on a specific date at a specific time. He tells his criminal defense attorney, Lawyer J. Noble Daggett, Esq., that he wasn't there, he didn't do it and he is not guilty by virtue of his alibi. Lawyer Daggett asks all the necessary questions: Where were you? What were you doing? Who were you with? If there are witnesses to the event and they can testify he was at Joe's Bar and Grill when the victim was killed elsewhere, N’erduwell stands a chance. However, rarely are the witnesses Priests, Nuns, Eagle Scouts or otherwise reputable people.

Unfortunately, N’erduwell hangs out with the kind of people your mother warned you about. They are convicted felons and drug dealers. There is also his mother (who does not believe her son would ever do anything like this and would lie to save him -the prosecutor's closing argument) and his baby-momma (ditto mom). These are generally not credible witnesses, but now, there is an even better way and it will serve multiple purposes.

Lawyer Daggett subpoenas the NSA for the tracking data on N’erduwell's cell phone. He argues, as he will probably have to, that N’erduwell is entitled to this material because it is exculpatory (proves he is not guilty) and, under the law, N’erduwell is entitled and has a legal Right to this material. I think Lawyer Daggett can argue that if this material is not provided, the prosecution must dismiss the charges against N’erduwell. Can't convict a man if the government has information likely to prove the defendant not guilty and refuse to disclose it, right? In fact, there are Court Decisions that require it, Brady vs. Maryland being the primary case. When I was a cop they taught me the following, directly out of the police academy training manual:

Duty to Disclose: The landmark decision of Brady v Maryland (1963) places an affirmative constitutional duty on a prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence to a defendant. This duty has been extended to police agencies through case law, requiring law enforcement agencies to notify the prosecutor of any potential exculpatory information.

Exculpatory Evidence/Brady Material: Evidence in the government’s possession that is favorable to the accused and that is material to either guilt or punishment, including evidence that may impact the credibility of a witness.



So Lawyer Daggett has a right to get the NSA's material under Brady. It is kinda hard to argue it is not in the possession of the government if the NSA has it, and you don't know if it will prove the defendant's innocence if no one has looked at it, right? Okay, there are several problems I can think of off the top of my head, but they are not insurmountable.

The information could be "Classified" as "Top Secret" or something, but if it is secret, do we possible send an innocent man to prison or execute him without looking at this information? It is apparently known to the Washington Post and I know they have it, so is it really a secret? We even know how they get the information, so intelligence "sources and methods" arguments are tough to make. Do we take the word of the government, who said they didn't have it to begin with, or the government who said there are WMD's in Iraq? It will, no doubt, be exceedingly difficult to get the data, but if Layer Daggett doesn't get it, it makes for grounds for a very interesting appeal, right? Come on, all you lawyers...right?

Another downside risk that must be impressed on N’erduwell is that if the government actually coughs up the data and it places him at the scene of the crime, it will be another prosecution nail in his coffin, pardon the pun. If the prosecutor actually manages to lay hands on the data and it places N’erduwell at the crime scene, trust me you will see it in Court, I promise, because you will have really, really pissed off the prosecutor, and the Justice Department, the NSA, the CIA and a bunch of alphabet soup operations we don't even know about. Hell, you might even get nebulized back to the 6th grade by MIB.

The prosecutor is going to argue that the track is not that of N'erduwell, it is merely the track of the cell phone and there is no guarantee that it is N’erduwell’s. The argument here is:

1.      The phone is in N’erduwell’s name,

2.     Prove N’erduwell paid the bill each month, debit or credit card or (LOL) with a check,

3.     Bring in witnesses that know N’erduwell ALWAYS has his cell phone on him,

4.     Bring in witnesses that spoke to N’erduwell on the day of the offense.

5.     Get his cell phone records and find out who he spoke to, or use the cell phone call log and contact list to determine who he spoke to. You can also find out by reverse tracking the phone numbers, if necessary, or you can ask the NSA…LOL

All of this information can establish that N'erduwell spoke to people from that number  before the murder and spoke to people from that number after the murder, maybe even during the murder. By inference, it is probably his cell phone.

Now, Lawyer Daggett wannabes, if they say you can't have the data, the existence of which has been published in the Washington Post, you might just have that case that gets you before the Supremes. You will also have a name for yourself, although possibly as a nutball and likely a HUGE pain in the A**! You also might have the practice you always wanted with ginormous retainers. Remember that investigator that found out Mark Furman used the "N-word on tape after he testified he had never uttered the word? All he did was answer a phone, get a subpoena and serve it. His office is now a box seat at a baseball park because he makes so much money. His attorney team didn't do so bad either. O.J., not so much.

Well, I am just thinking here, but I would welcome input from all you licensed, Bar-card carrying lawyer types as to why I am wrong. Any of you lawyers who use the material, do me a favor and just give me a footnote mention, or send a few bucks my way....LOL

See you in Court!

© 2013 William A. Miller

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.