No More Political Lying - OR ELSE!

Probably because we are so used to it, but we don’t really expect honesty from politicians or the media anymore. It is time we do again. All we seem to demand is that they follow the law, which they and their friends wrote and enforce. We don’t require that they be honest because it is hard to define, so we only ask that they be lawful – and even that is a stretch. It is only logical to demand honesty from politicians and the media, under penalty. Let’s define it. Dishonesty, or "fraud" will be defined as:

Deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit, or to gain some unfair of dishonest advantage."

Public lying will be considered fraud. Public lying will be defined as any person or media outlet intentionally misrepresenting the truth in regards to himself or another for personal or political gain.”

Intentionally misrepresenting the truth” shall be defined as: “any communication from any politician or political candidate or media outlet which intentionally leads an uninformed but reasonably intelligent person who may not have all of the facts to assume that which is not correct”.

This means that a politician can be punished for “public lying” by omission. For example, “Don’t vote for New Gingrich, he was charged with 84 counts of ethical violations and misconduct while speaker of the house!!!”. A relatively intelligent person might respond by saying “WOW”, and I thought he seemed like an honorable guy”. What is left out is the lie. Although he was charged by an antagonist with 84 counts, 83 of them were dropped and only 1 was actually investigated and found to be mostly untrue as well. A lie of omission is still a lie because the intention to deceive is clear.

Although to say he was charged is true, but the ad clearly misrepresents the facts and leads people to believe (he was a criminal) what is not true. This is an example of “public lying.”

Imagine what political ads would be like under a law like this? We can’t have one saying the other wants old people and babies to die; or that he would take away your social security benefits; or maybe that the other guy would eat your children and kill your little kittens.

If it is shown that the truth has been misrepresented, the offending candidate or media outlet must withdraw from an election process if so engaged, or resign from office if he is already elected.

This would cause news outlets to completely revamp their writing style. They would have to report facts and have opinions clearly identified as such. There is nothing wrong with opinion and debate, just stop reporting it as fact.

Politicians would have to keep their marketing mostly to their own positions and accomplishments rather than lie about those of their opponent’s.

Is it too much to ask that our media and politicians be honest? Apparently it is, so we need to straighten them all out. Honesty is the best policy, isn’t it? Or do the ends justify the means? Dishonesty should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

First offense:

Fine of not less than $50,000

Second offense -

Media: Loss of media license for 6 months

Political operative: Candidate must suspend all political activity for 6 months.

Subsequent offense:

Media - Permanent loss of license.

Politician - Permanently barred from running for any office.

(Three strikes and you're out)

Maybe we haven’t changed much

Is it possible that we don't really think differently? Could it be that we are the same but fear of public ridicule causes us to avoid admitting it? Are we encouraged by the powers that be, the press, to ignore our inner thoughts and passively accept the political correctness of the vocal minority? Are any of the above recommendations outrageous? The emperor's new clothes (or lack thereof) comes to mind. Maybe we are the same, tough independent people, but we just hide it and bear with what we know is wrong because we think we are the only ones who see the emperor naked?

No one cares to admit that they want to be selfish. A healthy, enlightened selfishness is good for everyone. Why then do we pretend to be more concerned (or at least as much) about the welfare of our neighbor we don’t even know than that of our own family? We aren't. We all know we aren't, but we play make-believe. Progressives would try to convince us until the day we die that the Emperor indeed was wearing royal clothes, only the enlightened saw them.

I hate to be so blunt and break this truth to liberals, but I care more about my family than I do for yours; or even than those of my conservative friends – but you knew that didn’t you? If you didn’t know that than you are even dumber than I thought. If you did know that, than why not admit it? We have played fantasy politics for so long now that we have imagined ourselves into a nation of dependency, insolvency and desperation. That is the reality.

What is wrong with the idea of fending and providing for oneself? Is it bad to accept responsibility for our own successes and failures? Is it selfish to be proud of our success? I am proud of my successes - what little there are of them, but they are mine.

The misguided progressive statist doesn't want to acknowledge that government money must first be taken (stolen) from a hard-working person who will never get it back for the use in his own family and for his own children. He doesn't make the connection that in order for them to suggest altruistic governmental benefits to one, they must necessarily victimize another. Because there is a government program and red tape in between, and no direct passing of cash between the victim and the beneficiary does not mean there was no victim.

Many don't value the importance of responsibility to oneself. No doubt that some of them mean well, but good intentions won't pay our bills. How is it selfish to want to retain what we earn and altruistic for another to demand to take it for a third’s use? It isn’t. A horse is a horse.

What happened to the moral lessons we were all taught when we were children? Why have we abandoned them? Where are the fairy tales that made us smile and the television programming that at least suggested that honesty, work ethic, and character were to be admired?

I don't like bigots, racists, or any other moron who has pre-conceived hatred for anyone because of their ancestry. Am I the only one who believes he should not be punished for his thoughts? I can't remember any time in my life that I have been in any way injured by a thought. We just don't have a valid reason to punish anyone's thought; it is impossible to measure the result of a thought.

Remember that old horror movie "Scanners" from the seventies? Now there you can prove bad thoughts. When you can intentionally concentrate hard enough to cause another's head to explode, maybe then we will be justified in punishing thought crimes. Until then, perhaps we should leave the discipline of our thoughts to a higher power than man.

What about Earthers? Can we admit that they are more similar to the sun-worshippers of centuries past and give them the same amount of non-credibility than to seriously consider their economy crippling regulatory ideas? Or must we acquiesce to the notion that we are the cause of all climate deviations here on earth because the regulations proposed to curtail it won’t kill us immediately?

There is a mountain of evidence that all of these changes and cycles happened centuries ago over and over again. Somehow now it is our fault that there are intense hurricanes, floods and tornadoes - and so we must be regulated. Will we really be passive enough to pretend now that the sun and its many phases of storms, and internal eruptions has nothing to do with the Earth's climate and its variations?

It makes more sense to have been a sun-worshipper of ancient Babylon than an Earther from the left coast today. At least then there was no internet, and so to assume the sun revolves around the earth was a reasonable conclusion based on visual observation. Do Earthers still believe the Sun revolves around the Earth? How else could their conclusions ignore its effects on us? They've replaced the sun with the Earth as their god, so they must have determined the Earth to be superior. Since they believe the sun can't really impact our long term weather patterns, what other conclusion is there for us to draw?

Maybe suggesting that Earthers really don’t know is unfair, after all, many of them went to college. The truth is that they know when they are lying or intentionally withholding facts. They purposely manipulated the selection of data even fraudulently altered those reports to justify their conclusions. They believe it is their right to do so because their ends justify their means.

We just don’t believe, so we must be lied to as convincingly as possible. It works on a lot of people; many will swallow it, but not those who do all the math. We who study history can easily see that these climate swings, volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, massive rain events, cooler winters, hotter summers, etc. have all happened many times before. We know that the formerly worshipped giant ball of fire in the sky has a lot more to do with it than SUVs or incandescent light bulbs. 

On to the solutions....

Next: Part 8 - The solutions