ayurvedic home remedies

Making a Lie: The Political Intention to Deceive

January 3, 2012 by Government Integrity No Comments

I write this post because I am sick of the lies created by people skilled in deceiving the electoral public in our country.

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.