We no longer vote for real people – we vote only for fabricated persons, with fabricated resumes, and fabricated messages.  We don’t vote for real people; we vote for facsimiles of real people created by people who are highly paid to make us believe a lies.

Movies are created to present the candidate in a way that is designed to make you believe the lie.  Books are written by ghost writers to present a record and a message that is, in fact, a lie.  It is a lie not necessarily because it contains untruths, but by using truths in such a way as to make you believe what is not true.  Slogans are created to present an empty promise designed to distract our attention. (“He kept us out of war!” “I propose a new deal!” “I hate war!” “It’s the economy stupid!” “Peace and prosperity!” “There are two Americas!” “Let’s get this country moving again!” “Read my lips, no new taxes!” “Hope and change we can believe in!”)  We are the tourist dupes fascinated by the shell game shark and his shill seducing us into the game we cannot win.  The best people are not elected; frequently the person who hires the most convincing liars is elected.

You as a voter are the object of the lies.  I guess it shows what they think of you.  We now hear about the “optics” of a given speech or event or statement.  This means, “what does it look like?”  There is no consideration of what it actually is; no consideration of whether or not it is necessary information, or whether or not it is a lie; it is just the “optics.”  “What can we do to make this real picture look like a different picture?  How can we mislead the people about what we are really doing?”

This post will be intermediate in length, but I hope you will read it through because I will give a classic example of governmental deceit; and hopefully this will help you be better at seeing through the lies to discover the truth, because the truth will set you free.

WHAT IS A LIE?

The classical definition of a lie is to “make a false statement with the intention to deceive.”  While this is a decent beginning point, it leaves much to be desired.

First, a person could make a false statement believing it to be true.  According to this definition, if a speaker makes a statement that is false, but he believes it to be true, then he is guilty of telling a lie.  So the above definition is unsatisfactory.

Let’s revise this definition so that it reads; “a lie is a statement one makes to another person that the speaker believes to be untrue with the intention of deceiving the other person into believing the statement is true.”

Another Consideration

But what about a person who holds his nation’s secrets and who is captured by the enemy?  Is it his moral obligation to tell the truth to an enemy who then may be able to wreak much bloodshed and death of innocent people?  What about a father who is confronted by an armed rapist at the door and is asked, “Are your daughters home?”  Is he morally obligated to tell the rapist, “yes” his daughters are at home?  I don’t think so.

It seems that our definition is still unsatisfactory.  While we must be careful with this element of truth or falsehood, it seems to me that in order for a statement to be considered a lie the person to whom the statement is made has the right to know the truth. So let’s revise our definition again: “a lie is a statement one makes to another person that the speaker believes to be untrue with the intention of deceiving another person who has the right to know the truth into believing the statement is true.”

A Further Consideration

What about a person “knowingly telling the truth in such a way as to deceive another person?” would that be a lie?  In other words, is it a lie when you tell the truth with the intention of deceiving another person?

In the last words of the last chapter in the last book of the Bible, John writes about people who are considered by God worthy of eternal life and those who are not.  Among those who are not worthy described in verse 15 is, “…whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

I submit that the element of “making a lie,” must be considered as a moral failing when we consider the intention to deceive.

“Making a lie” doesn’t mean you have to make a false statement; it only requires that you intend to deceive a person who has the right to know the truth.  So let’s incorporate this into our definition of a lie:  a lie is a statement one makes to another person that the speaker believes to be either true or untrue with the intention of deceiving the other person into believing a falsehood – when the other person has the right to know the truth.

So now we see that lying is accomplished in two ways:

The usual way: a lie is a statement one makes to another person that the speaker believes to be untrue with the intention of deceiving the other person into believing the statement is true

Required elements:

1. Speaker believes the statements to be false
2. Speaker intends to deceive
3. Speaker states false information in such a way that the other person is led to believe it
4. Speaker “tells a lie”

The deceitful way: a lie is a statement one makes to another person that the speaker believes to be either true or untrue with the intention of deceiving the other person into believing a falsehood – when the other person has the right to know the truth

Required elements:

1. Speaker believes the statements to be true
2. Other person has the right to know what is true
3. Speaker intends to deceive
4. Speaker states truth in such a way that the other person is led to believe a falsehood
5. Speaker “makes a lie”

I know the first way to lie is clear, and is understood by everyone, so I want to focus on the second way to lie, because I believe it’s much more dangerous.  It is more dangerous, because the person who has the right to know the truth can research every point the speaker made and will find that they are all true – and yet it is a lie.

The problem is in how the statements are made, in what order the points are made, and in what is not said that forces the other person to draw the false conclusion that the speaker wants them to draw.  This is “making a lie.”

A Case in Point

In order to prevent voter fraud, South Carolina passed a law requiring any person who votes in any election provide photo ID in order to prove they are who they say they are.  This is perfectly constitutional, because the U.S. Constitution leaves these matters up to the states – even for presidential elections – Article II, Section I.

The Voting Rights Act passed in 1965 empowered the federal government to oversee voter registration and elections in counties that at some time in the past had used tests to determine voter eligibility; where registration or turnout had been less than 50 percent in the 1964 presidential election, and where literacy tests had been used; and it expanded voting rights for non-English speaking Americans.  As it happens, South Carolina is a state that must have Justice Department approval prior to enacting any election law passed in the state.

The Justice Department under the direction of Eric Holder – appointed by President Obama – is filing suit to prevent South Carolina from implementing the law the state passed to insure that elections are honest.  The present Democrat Party administration in Washington is attacking it by this process of “making a lie.”

It is clear from the Constitution that the Justice Department has the right and obligation to insure that no person in any state has his “privileges,” “immunities” protected.  But while the Voting Rights Act has accomplished some positive things, it has also given us millions of voters who cannot read the ballot they use to vote with; or the ballot must be translated into a myriad of languages increasing the cost of elections; and most of them have no understanding of the political operations of our Republic.  This provides ample opportunity for cheating where the illiterate or non-English speaking people can be told where to mark their ballot, and to vote in a way that destroys the Republic.

Attorney General Eric Holder “Makes a Lie”

So the Attorney General’s office looks at the South Carolina attempt to stop voting fraud and – desiring to stop it – begins by contrasting driver’s licenses with voter registration and comes up with information that indicates about 10% of non-white people in South Carolina do not have a driver’s license (which is the only photo ID they checked for) and 8.4% of white people in South Carolina do not.  The difference in terms of percentage points is 1.6%.

The Attorney General clearly does not want photo ID in any state, and we know this because he fights it in every state where he has jurisdiction.  It appears that the Democrats running the Justice Department want no part of an election where we prove that the person voting is the same as the person who is registered to vote.

In any case, this difference may be accounted for by other photo ID, and besides 1.6% is almost nothing and is not a violation of the Voting Rights Act – especially in a state where voter turnout seldom reaches even 50%.  Certainly AG Holder could not make a public case for denying South Carolina the right to implement the law.  Since the truth denied Mr. Holder what he wanted, he decided to “make a lie.”

The Justice Department announced that there is a 20% difference in the number of white people who have photo ID as compared with non-white people, and a 20% advantage for the white population of South Carolina means a 20% more likely chance that non-white people will be disenfranchised in any election.   A 20% more likely chance of non-white disenfranchisement as compared to whites means the law is in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and cannot be implemented.

Dismantling Eric Holder’s Lie

Soooo, how did a 1.6% differential become a 20% advantage for whites as determined by Eric Holder? by telling the truth in such as way as to “make a lie.”  The number 10 is 20% higher than the number 8.4.  While it is true that 10 is 20% higher than 8.4; it is also without any meaning in terms of advantage for white voters in South Carolina.  This is how AG Holder told the truth to “make a lie.”

To illustrate how meaningless his math is, let us look at the numbers in a different way.  Let’s look at the numbers and percentages of people who DO have photo ID instead of the numbers and percentages of people who DO NOT have photo ID.

Stated negatively, the data shows that 10% of non-whites in South Carolina do not have photo ID; stated positively that means that 90% of them DO have it.  Stated negatively while 8.4% of whites do not have photo ID; stated positively it means that 91.4% of them DO have it.  This shows a differential that is absolutely meaningless.

The Attorney General wanted to strike down the law in South Carolina and the 1.6% differential is so inconsequential that it would not be a violation of the Voting Rights Act.  So he used a mathematical trick to turn the number into something that would be a violation justifying what he wanted to do.  (For more information see here.  To see absolute that the Democrat Party is terrified of honest elections, see here.)

The effect of this lie is that South Carolina cannot guarantee its citizens that the election will be fair which is clearly what Attorney General Holder desires.  Perhaps these are the conditions under which Democrats are more likely to win.  In addition, it misleads the non-white population of South Carolina (not to mention everywhere else in the country) that whites are still attempting to suppress non-whites from voting willingly exacerbating racial tensions.  This from a man who has stated publicly that American citizens are afraid to have a real debate about race.

South Carolina has stated it will provide photo ID to every person who requests it whether or not they want a driver’s license so no one would be denied the right to vote for lack of ID. Doesn’t matter; the Democrat Party wants to cheat, and will do all it can to prevent honest elections.  I’m wondering if this is how most Democrat voters want to win elections, or if they prefer honesty.

Conclusions

Learn to think critically; do your own research; negative advertising may contain some truth; don’t be persuaded by slickness but only by truth -  the whole truth, truthfully presented; become good at seeing through and knocking down the empty slogans, and seductive lies; and at persuading others about the truth.  The future depends of our ability and willingness to do what is necessary to dismantle the lies and persuade others of the truth the liars don’t want them to know.

Apparently some smart students are willing to take the test in place of students who are dumb…provided the dumb students are willing to pay for the service.

One guy who has taken the SAT in place of 16 different students said he did it because he was short on cash.  All that is needed is a photo ID with the name of the student you are cheating for, and the paperwork sent to the student which would match the name.

The proctor doesn’t know the student by sight, and so must accept the photo ID along with the official paperwork indicating that this particular student is supposed to take the text at this place at this time.

I’m thinking about this right now as Attorney General Holder is preparing to prevent states from requiring even less ID to vote.

I think that no one should cheat on a test, and if they do they should not be permitted to retake the test, enter the college; or be thrown out of school if they are already enrolled.  Call me crazy, but I think it’s an even greater crime for a person to illegally vote in any election in the U.S.  I think if a person cheats in an election, they should not be permitted to vote in the future.

I’ll tell you what else I think: I think any person who attempts to prevent fair, and truthful elections should prosecuted whether they are so-called Black Panthers with nightsticks; white Democrat Party hacks trying to prevent blacks from voting; or the Attorney General of the U.S.

If people find it easy to cheat using a photo ID, how much easier is it for people to cheat when the Democrat Party, the Democrat President, and the Democrat Attorney General file suit against states who want to at least use ID?  What do you think: are the people holding office duly elected, or did they cheat?

Mr. Obama sent Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, to the Russian Republic with the reset button that said “overcharged” instead of “reset.”  It was Mr. Obama’s belief that if he just reached out his hand in openness, the rest of the world would love us all again; evil Republicans having caused everyone to hate us.

As you know, the ‘reset’ isn’t going too well.  There are demonstrations in Moscow streets protesting the recent elections in which Mr. Putin’s alliance has won a parliamentary majority.  The protesters allege widespread voter fraud that led to Putin’s victory.

Pardon me, but I just think it’s hilarious that a Democrat, especially a Clinton would find fault with an underhanded illegal operation that engaged in voter fraud.  I guess it is good that they know fraud when they see it.  Too bad they have 20/20 vision in Russia, but are blind in America.

Osama was engaged in a firefight with the SEAL’s; he was engaged in the firefight and was killed

Monday, May 2, 2011; John Brennan elaborating on the announcement by President Obama regarding the killing of Osama bin Laden the day before: “[Osama bin Laden] was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in; whether or not he got off any rounds, I quite frankly don’t know … The president put a premium on making sure that our personnel were protected and we were not going to give Bin Laden or any of his cohorts the opportunity to carry out lethal fire on our forces. He was engaged and he was killed in the process.”

“The concern was that Bin Laden would oppose any type of capture operation. Indeed he did. It was a firefight. He, therefore, was killed in that firefight.”

CIA Chief Leon Panetta had reported that the men were “engaged in a firefight throughout the operation.”

Osama used a female as a shield from incoming fire – the woman was killed

“There was family at that compound and there was a female who was in fact in the line of fire that reportedly was used as a shield to shield Bin Laden from the incoming fire.” He added: “I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years.”

Asked if the woman was bin Laden’s wife, Brennan replied: “That’s my understanding. It was one of them … She served as a shield … when there was the opportunity to get to Bin Laden she was positioned in a way that indicated that she was being used as a shield – whether or not Bin Laden or the son, or whatever, put her there, or she put herself there.”

At an off the record Pentagon briefing reporters were told by a senior defense official that Bin Laden and some other male combatants “certainly did use women as shields”.

Brennan told reporters on Monday: “Bin Laden died, the two al-Qaida facilitators – the brothers, who were the courier and his brother in the compound; Bin Laden’s son Khalid; and the woman, presumed to be his wife, who was shielding Bin Laden.”

“The woman who bin Laden tried to use as a human shield was killed in the U.S. raid,” Brennan said.

Tim Carney Obama’s Press Secretary said at a White House briefing on Tuesday , “On the first floor of Bin Laden’s building two al-Qaida couriers were killed, along with a woman who was killed in crossfire. Bin Laden’s wife, rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed.”

No, wait, Osama didn’t ACTUALLY use a female as a shield – the woman wasn’t ACTUALLY killed

Later the official said the woman who was with Bin Laden was injured and not killed. The woman who ended up being killed had been used as a shield by “a military age male” who was firing from behind her, they said.

Osama’s son Khalid was killed in the raid

Brennan told reporters on Monday: “Bin Laden died, the two al-Qaida facilitators – the brothers, who were the courier and his brother in the compound; Bin Laden’s son Khalid; and the woman, presumed to be his wife, who was shielding Bin Laden.”

No, wait, Osama’s son Khalid wasn’t killed in the raid - it was ACTUALLY HIS OTHER son, Hamza

The name of the son was changed to Hamza in the transcript.

No, wait, wait, Osama wasn’t ACTUALLY armed

Tim Carney Obama’s Press Secretary said at a White House briefing on Tuesday that Bin Laden had not been armed. “On the first floor of Bin Laden’s building two al-Qaida couriers were killed, along with a woman who was killed in crossfire.”

“Bin Laden and his family were found on the second and third floor of the building. There was concern that Bin Laden would oppose the capture operation – operation rather, and indeed he did resist. In the room with Bin Laden, a woman – Bin Laden’s – a woman, rather, Bin Laden’s wife, rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed.”

But – HE DID RESIST!

When pressed on the nature of Bin Laden’s resistance Carney said: “I think resistance does not require a firearm.”

No, wait, there wasn’t ACTUALLY a firefight in Osama’s house

Wednesday May 4, 2011; Tim Carney Obama’s Press Secretary was asked, “Is the fact of a firefight solid?”, Carney said: “You heard the account that I read yesterday, and that is information that I provided. And I’m not – I’m just simply saying I’m not going further than that.”

No resistance shots were fired once the SEAL’s got inside the house.

Osama was living in a $million mansion!

Defense officials briefed reporters on Monday that Bin Laden’s compound was worth $1m and was in stark contrast to the “much more dire conditions” endured by his “terrorist colleagues” and speculated on what they might be thinking “when they see that their leader was living, relatively speaking, high on the hog”.

No; wait, it wasn’t ACTUALLY a mansion, it was a dump worth about $250,000

However, news reports now say local estimates suggest the house is worth $250,000. Footage from inside the compound shows little sign of luxury. Cooking equipment was shown on the floor, the decor seemed shabby, medicines were left on a shelf with no cabinet and the pantry seemed rudimentary. The paint was peeling outside the building and there was no sign of airconditioning

The whole 40 minute operation was watched by President Obama’s security team in the White House IN REAL TIME!

“The U.S. team was on the ground for only 40 minutes, much of the time spent scrubbing the compound for information about al Qaeda and its future plans.”

Brennan said on Monday: “We were able to monitor in a real-time basis the progress of the operation from its commencement to its time on target to the extraction of the remains and to then the egress off of the target… we were able to monitor the situation in real time and were able to have regular updates and to ensure that we had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation. I’m not going to go into details about what type of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there, but it was – it gave us the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis.”

Carney said on Tuesday the updates were “minute-by-minute” and “they were looking at and listening to those updates.”

No, wait, ACTUALLY once the commandos went into the compound transmission was lost for 25 minutes of the 40 minute operation

CIA director Leon Panetta told PBS on Tuesday: “Once those teams went into the compound, I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes that we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on.”

Secretary of State Clinton said it was the most intense 38 minutes of her life!

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “I will not go into detail about the operation but I can say that it was the most intense 38 minutes of my life.” A blank screen is, like, way intense. This must have been more intense than her being under fire in Bosnia!

The Explanation For The Confusion

On Wednesday, May 4, 2011, President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder was testifying before the U.S. Senate stating clearly that the position of the Obama administration is that any terrorist captured is to be treated like a criminal who is a U.S. Citizen: Miranda warnings, arrest, charges filed, followed by a trial in a U.S. Federal Court. Watch the video here.

So we have the president Obama sending SEAL’s into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden, but feel it necessary to make it look like he resisted to it was his own fault that he was killed. The practice is to kill terrorists on the spot; but policy remains that captured terrorists will be arrested, given Miranda rights; and trials in U.S. courts with ACLU attorneys providing their defense.

If you can think of any other reasons for the stupidity on display from the White House over the past few days, please comment and let me know what you think their ‘reasoning’ is.

My Suggestions About How It Should Have Been Handled

• Send in the SEAL’s and capture bin Laden
• Do not announce his capture
• Do not announce anything about computers, storage devices, phone numbers at all
• Take him to a secure place for interrogation and get all the information possible
• Begin to act on that information until you have done all that can be done
• Try him in a military court in camera
• Dispose of him in the ocean
• Announce the whole thing when you have wrapped up as much information as possible; celebrate and take credit at that time

We have just seen a bold attempt on the part of the Obama administration to persuade a private organization to tell a lie in order to conceal how bad our financial situation really is.

The Washington Post has revealed that officials of the current administration approached Standard and Poor’s to not lower the credit rating of the United States from “stable,” to “negative.”  The venerable ratings agency went ahead anyway.

The Obama officials told “told S&P analysts that they were underestimating the ability of politicians in Washington to fashion a compromise to curb deficits, a Treasury official said. They argued a change in ratings was not needed at this time because the debt was manageable and the administration had a viable plan in the works, the official said.”

So, let me get this straight.  An Obama Treasury official tried to get S&P to not downgrade the credit rating of the United States from stable to negative because the “debt is manageable.”  The administration has promoted no plan whatsoever that would manage the already accumulated debt – which by the way, Mr. Obama has already promoted a budget that would add another $10 trillion in the next 9 years.  That’s on top of the $14.3 trillion we have today. No.  What we got from Mr. Obama was a personal dressing down of the only man who has offered a serious plan to deal with the debt – Rep. Paul Ryan, R, WI.  Mr. Ryan brings out a plan to deal with the debt, and Mr. Obama rather than lead on the issue, or offer another way to deal with the problem, denounces Mr. Ryan for making a proposal.”

Just so I understand; Obama’s Treasury told S&P that they have a viable plan in the works. If that’s the case, they have not revealed it to the public.  Have you seen any plan from the Obama administration that actually deals with the debt that the government has run up?  You haven’t because there is no such plan from the Obama administration. Soooo, they lie to S&P in order to get S&P to lie to the public in order to get Mr. Obama reelected.

One more thing. Treasure officials told S&P that they “were underestimating the ability of politicians in Washington to fashion a compromise to curb deficits.” Hnh huh. Is there a single person on earth who believes that anyone actually “underestimates the ability of politicians in Washington to fashion a compromise to curb deficits?” If so, that person should be committed against their will because they are a danger to themselves or to others.

This all reminds me of the prophet Isaiah (30:9, 10)  when he said of the people, “For they are a rebellious people, lying children; children unwilling to hear the instruction of the LORD; so say to the seers, ‘Do not see,’ and to the prophets,’Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions…’”

If you think the housing crash was bad; if you think the energy policy of the Democrat Party is bad; if you think the GM bailout was bad; if you think the ‘stimulus’ was bad; if you think trying to conduct 3 wars was bad; if you think buying groceries and gasoline is hard – just wait until the debt crash hits.  Your future will be much different than you expected it to be.

If you feel like you’ve been lied to, you’re right. And you know it for sure.

Just listen to this: they negotiated a $38 billion cut from the budget for this year!  Really stood up for for fiscal sanity.

Oh, wait.  There wasn’t a budget for this year.  Well anyway, they cut $38 billion out of…well, something or other. 

Do not delay!  You should enjoy this RIGHT NOW!  Because in 10 days – let’s see, that’s…April 26th the government will have borrowed more money than this victorious budget deal cuts.

Yes my fellow Americans, all the agony of this hard-fought battle really gives us something to gloat about.  This victory saves us ALMOST 10 DAYS WORTH OF GOVERNMENT BORROWING!

Steely resolve, that’s what I call it.  Yahoo.

In addition, they receive 300% higher benefits package on top of the salary – $40,785 for the average federal worker, $9,882 for the average private worker.  Together, the average federal worker costs us $108,476 a year, and the average private worker doing the same job costs us $69,928.  That is, a federal worker costs us 160% the cost of a private worker doing the same job.  To contrast federal vs. private pay for the exact same jobs, check here.

All this makes me wonder why our government overlords think attorneys working at the Securities and Exchange Commission are smart enough to be worth more than $250,000 a year to insure that publicaly traded companies are in compliance with the law, but when they aren’t smart enough to know that their employer is going to monitor their online activities.  Hmmmmmm.

The pattern

The pattern for Hitler as well as the Soviet dictators was to reach out and grab territory that didn’t belong to them.  Then when the world complained, jumped up and down and said this can’t stand; the dictators would say, “We have interests here,” or “We were invited in.”  Under more pressure, they would say, “Let’s negotiate!”  Unfortunately, the liberals and pacifists in the U.S., Britain, and France said “Yes, negotiation is the way to go,” and began to negotiate.  The dictators would give half of the country back, and the green weenie liberals in the west would declare it a victory.  This is how National Socialism expanded under Hitler, and how the Soviet Union expanded throughout the world.

Hitler and the National Socialists 

Hitler took over Austria March 17, 1938 and the west did nothing; the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia without firing a shot September 29, 1938 and the west complained.  Then he violated the peace agreement he made with Poland by invading in the fall of 1939 and the west complained even more.  In 1940 he invaded France and finally the west had to get involved; he later invaded Russia. 

The Communist Dictators Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev 

The Communists of the Soviet Union were allies with Britain and the U.S. during the later part of WW2.  Following the end of the war, Stalin agreed that all the nations his army occupied at the end of the war would be able to have free elections. 

That didn’t happen, of course; the ‘iron curtain’ descended around East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria and Albania – all of which Stalin had agreed would have free elections.  Besides this, the communists occupied Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Armenia, and Moldavia among a few others. 

Then they began to covertly take over Cuba, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and other western hemisphere countries, along with the attempt to gain access to a year-round warm water port by invading Afghanistan and then going through Pakistan.  

The Obama Democrats

Now, neither the Nazis nor the Soviets are engaging in the same activity, but it worked so well for them that the policy is being followed by the Obama administration and the Democrat Party rewrite the U.S. Constitution without citizen participation; and to carry out a domestic peaceful coup of the United States.

The pattern in health care is to try to take it over 100% in two weeks.  When that didn’t happen, try to do it in the next month or so.  When that doesn’t happen, go home, hold town hall meetings and try to muscle people into giving up.  When that doesn’t work, give away the ‘public option;’ when that fails give away the community ‘non-profit cooperatives;’ when that fails, give away the government controlled private health care company; and when that doesn’t work spend the people’s money to purchase votes; and when that doesn’t work, say you will pass anything in order to declare it a victory.  And it will be a victory because all the boards, commissions, taxes, and control will still be there.

These anti-democrats do not want your input; they plan to dictate everything.  They reach out and steal what belongs to the people, and when we demand they give it back, they want to negotiate.

We have dictators in the Congress and White House; the way to deal with them is by power not negotiation.  Their thirst for power over every aspect of your life is insatiable, you cannot negotiate with dictators.  (I’m wondering if anyone can think of a better name for these people other than ‘dictators.’)  The power of the people must be used in next year’s elections, and the presidential campaign of 2013.  Follow the Nancy Reagan dictum: Just say no.

‘They say to the seers,
       “See no more visions!”
       and to the prophets,
       “Give us no more visions of what is right!
       Tell us pleasant things,
       prophesy illusions.”‘

Israel feared the Assyrians, but the leaders thought the people would rather hear falsehoods - lies about how things were going, so they demanded that the prophets tell the people lies – pleasant things, illusions; and Isaiah was exposing those leaders for their deception and destructive leadership.   ‘Quit looking for information from God – we don’t need any information; the science is settled; we have decided what the people want.  If you’re going to prophecy quit telling us the truth; instead tell us that God is urging you to say pleasant things.’  Today we have many examples of this kind of evil leadership; here – in the spirit of Isaiah - I expose two of them.

Tom Freidman

Tom Freidman, columnist for the New York Times, suggests that we should support ending carbon based industry and energy even if there’s a 1% chance that they may cause global warming; that ending America’ s economic dominance in the world is worth it.  I wonder if Mr. Freidman would consider the same element of risk or reward for his 401-K investments. 

If there was a 99% chance he would make money on an investment, would he make that investment?  If the other side was true – a 1% chance of actually losing money – would he go ahead and invest?  I guess not.

Would Mr. Freidman have married his wife if there was only a 1% chance that the marriage would have worked out?  What about his two daughters?  Would he and his wife have gotten pregnant if there was a 1% chance of the girls being born with problems of some kind?  What if there was a 99% chance everything would go well with the pregnancies and births?  Would he refuse to take that risk?  If so, he wouldn’t have any children.

Would Mr. Freidman drive to work at the New York Times if he thought there was a 1% chance he would die in an accident on the way?  Of course he would; if not he wouldn’t have a job.  But according to his logic on global warming, he would refuse to drive to go to work at all – the risk is just too great.  Ending up in poverty would be better than taking the 1% risk.  Can’t be too careful, you know.

Barack Obama

What would Barack do?  What if it was revealed that those who were working the health care numbers for him had actually fudged the numbers and lied to him; that they had deleted their original work that supported what the president was now publicly proposing making him look like a fool; that they had conspired to hide information from him that would have helped him make a well-informed decision instead of an embarrassment; that they had worked to prevent other people with information from getting that information to him so he could make good decisions before going public?  Would he still support it?  Apparently so.

What if he was checking up on Michelle when he first saw her, and they began talking, telling him about herself, her family, and what she wanted in life?  What if they were discussing children, politics, friendships, what they liked and didn’t like and it turned out that Michelle had been lying?  What if she was creating a fictional character in Barack’s mind – that the real Michelle was much different than they one she was presenting? 

What if she told him she was liberal in her politics, and was a big fan of Dr. King; that she wanted to make a positive difference in the world?  What if she said she was going to law school so she could stand up for the downtrodden and disenfranchised; but it all turned out to be a lie?  What if she was actually very conservative in her politics, that she hated the Democrat party for their 160 year support of slavery, Jim Crow, poll taxes and lynching of blacks; for their poor support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and for destroying initiative among the black population by addicting them to welfare programs?  What if she actually was motivated by making money instead of working to help the poor?  What if she actually was already married? 

Would Barack feel deceived, or would he go ahead with the marriage because he preferred to believe that she really was a liberal, compassionate Democrat?  Would he go ahead with the marriage because he thought those who told him these things about her were Michelle deniers, and that he had already made up his mind about who is the ‘real’ Michelle; that the issue was settled?

Well, I guess we know the answers to these questions.

Increased Costs 

1. Mr. Obama has decided to reward his home state by making Illinois the home of the biggest nest of terrorists this side of Tora Bora.  Yes, the Obama has decided to bring the world’s worst terrorists to America.  

A few years ago when the state was flush with money, they built a new state prison for $145 million.  Then they ran into recession problems and didn’t have enough money to actually house prisoners – they are currently using about 10% of the prison’s capacity.  Obama has agreed to purchase the prison from the state of Illinois. 

Attorney General Eric Holder promises that they will pay to “harden” the prison making it, “the most secure prison in America.”  Yeah, Gitmo is already Geneva Convention, and Red Cross approved; already hardened,  It is the most secure prison in the world – we spent tens of $millions making it that way.  No matter; the Obama plans to let it grow weeds while he spends more of your money hardening yet another prison right in the heart of America.  

Today, Illinois officials and U.S. Senators were crowing about creating $1billion worth of jobs for Illinois residents, and they surely need that!  They didn’t say much about duplicating what we already have in Gitmo.  Heck, let’s create some more jobs! 

Legal Problems 

1. Once these terrorists (and alleged terrorists) set foot on U.S. soil they get all the same rights you have.  (You should be encouraged that you will be doing your part by footing the bill for $millions in legal fees provided at no cost for these animals.) 

A failure to convict any of these guys would require that they be released into the U.S. population.  Sure hope they stay in Illinois. 

2. The 2005 Real ID Act bars aliens who have been members of terror organizations, or who have had training in terror camps from entering the U.S.  Oh well, Mr. Holder will find a way around that.  But that could set a precedent permitting more known terrorists into the U.S. couldn’t it?

3. The Obama administration already proposed the idea of releasing Gitmo guys into the U.S. population, and of course we couldn’t expect them to get by without knowledge of the language or any income so they would have to be given welfare benefits.  How’s that hope and change working out for you?  President Bush wanted to attack the enemy while they are on foreign soil to prevent them from coming to the U.S. Barack Obama trumpets the announcement that he wants to BRING the terrorists into the U.S. and roll the dice on whether or not they can be convected of criminal activity!  Whole lot of change; not much hope.

4. Some U.S. judges will be sympathetic to detainees who have been held for years, and will be inclined to dismiss the charges on the basis that the prisoner’s (now) Constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied, and set him free.

Increased Danger 

1. Most of the lawyers elbowing each other to try to defend these terrorists are ACLU radicals who use our legal system to ruin the country.  (If you think I’m making it up, read about the founder Roger Baldwin.) 

The ‘Blind Sheikh’ Omar Abdul Rahman was convicted of facilitating the 1993 World Trade Canter bombing and is serving time in a federal penitentiary.  His defense lawyer Lynne Stewart is also serving time in the federal pen. (The ACLU represented her, but lost in federal court.)  

She was convicted of passing messages from Rahman to his terrorist organization in Egypt – while he was in federal prison.  She had unrestricted access to him as his lawyer. 

Every one of the 200-odd detainees brought into the heart of our country will have numerous lawyers – each of whom will have unlimited access to their clients providing ample opportunity for more facilitation of terror in the U.S. 

2. Obama and Holder say the federal system needs more beds anyway, and the prison in Illinois has 1600 of them.  They are planning to house dangerous U.S. criminals in the same prison with some of the best terror recruiters in the world.  What could go wrong? 

Recruitment of disaffected, hardened, angry criminals will undoubtedly occur.  Remember that communication between Jeremiah Denton, John McCain, and other prisoners occurred in Vietnam despite them being isolated from each other for years.  Expect more domestic terror as a consequence of Obama’s stupid decision. 

3. Recently Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber” terrorist who tried to blow up an airliner full of civilians by igniting explosives in his shoe was moved.  Yes, he is serving time in a federal penitentiary after conviction, but he and his lawyer said Mr. Reid’s First Amendment rights were being violated because he couldn’t have communal prayer with other Muslim inmates.  Do you think a federal judge would deny Gitmo detainees the same?  Me either.  Think of this as a growth opportunity.

4. Each of these terrorists (and alleged terrorists) Obama insists on bringing into our home will have access to Muslim spiritual leaders for counsel.  Do you really think a federal judge will deny freedom of religion in a federal prison to a Muslim?  Yeah, right. 

This will also provide opportunity to facilitate communication between terror inmates since the spiritual leader will have access to more than one inmate.  It will also give them the opportunity to carry messages into and out of the prison for the terrorists. 

Cases dismissed 

Without doubt many of the terrorists from Gitmo will be turned loose into the U.S. population.  This is true because they can’t be convicted in a civilian court.  They will not be given the right to face their accusers because the accusers are CIA undercover agents, or other undercover law enforcement personnel.  In addition, none of these terrorists were given their Miranda warnings, and the U.S. government will refuse to testify if it means that sources or methods will be compromised. 

Conclusion

Obama says these problems can be handled by conducting certain prosecution witnesses interrogation in camera.  How stupid!  Would you expect secrecy when you have radical lawyers sitting in the room to defend their clients?

If you can’t provide prosecution witnesses because they fear for their life; and you can’t reveal how the prosecution got the information; and if you can’t prove that the defendant was warned about his (now) Constitutional right to not testify against himself; and if you can’t show how some of the information was generated because of enhanced interrogation, how can a jury find for the prosecution?  Many of these guys will not be convicted.

There will be some of the detainees who will never even have charges brought against them because the evidence that they were engaged in terrorist activities is insufficient to prove in a civilian trial.  They will be released into the U.S. population because that is what the court will require. 

Granting radical lawyers access to some of the world’s worst criminals; putting these terrorists in the company of deadly, angry criminals permitting conversion; and permitting the terrorists to ‘pray’ together because a denial of it would violate their (now) Constitution right is a recipe for disaster.  You will see terror recruitment and terrorists activities increase in the U.S.  During the election next year you will have the chance to respond to the political party who thinks we are better off with terrorists IN the U.S. instead of somewhere else.