What price honesty?

Have you ever wondered what would happen to our lives if all of a sudden people decided to stop being dishonest? The cynic would claim that such an event could be the beginning of mass violence, murder, suicide and economic collapse. They would claim that our society, nay, the entire world is deeply rooted in a culture of deception. People have been conditioned to not only accept the little lies we consistently tell each other, but have come to expect them to the point that, when confronted with actual truth, they cannot process it.

When Bill Clinton faced the news camera and shook his finger at America while lying about his affair with Monica Lewinski, it was apparent, even to his most fervent followers that he was not being honest. Later, it was revealed that very few of his published honors and accomplishments were based in actual fact. That revelation has done little, if any to harm his ongoing career after the White House.

George Bush the elder also lied to America in much the same way. The only difference was that his lie was economic rather than lurid, but being a Republican in a country controlled by liberal media and thought police, his punishment was swift and politically devastating…for about four years and then the previous-mentioned liar came in.

Al Gore has to be the champ when it comes to spinning falsehoods, though John Kerry and his imagined heroism comes in a close second. Global Warming is simply the greatest hoax pushed upon the world stage…period. Nothing else even comes close. What is most amusing is how Gore and his fellow extremists explain that the current cooling trend is nothing more than a prime example of how drastically “climate change” is affecting the earth. Yes and, Glen Beck said it best, “Exxon’s massive profits are simply an example of how little money they are making.” Try telling the people in Fargo they are in danger of dying from global warming. The last winter temp there was several degrees below zero. And, of course, the media are being extremely quiet about the reduction in sunspot activity which every reputable scientist agrees could lead to another mini ice age. Again, lies supporting the left side of the aisle are quite acceptable.

I remember the Spotted Owl controversy in the region where I grew up. One of the last jobs I did as a sign shop owner involved a Circle K store with an occupied owl nest in its sign. Seems Spotted Owls can only survive in old growth Circle K forests, and yet, the tenacity and adaptability of supposed endangered species is continuously a nonstory.

Here in Nevada, I tried proposing an immigration reform bill. What surprised me was that it wasn’t the Democrats who opposed it, it was the Republicans. They claimed I was trying to bankrupt the state. These legislators are also people who claim to love the constitution. They claimed to be moral and to love the law. They lied. They were not concerned about business being able to make ends meet as much as they were concerned about the next campaign contribution and their ability to spend it on nonpolitical goodies. So, where is the difference between the two major parties on this?

The truth is expensive and it can be inconvenient, but it will never disappoint and it will never cheat. So we kick out all the liars. Will that ruin our country? No, even though very few would agree with that assertion. Simply because a man or a woman happens to occupy a position of power does not mean that they are the best person for that job. Obama is a prime example on the left and John McCain is a prime example on the right. Rather, consider this, how about electing people to office with a deserved reputation for honesty?

What do you think would be the economic picture if every politician upheld the truth and went after those who cheated, lied and stole? So we wouldn’t have Bush, Cheney, Reid and Pelosi. So what? Is any one so naive to believe they are the best we could get?

A Free Press

The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The third clause, “or of the press;” is one that the mass media somehow manages to move to the front of the line whenever what is published has objections attached to it. These men and women have held this clause before them like a shield claiming they have every right to destroy a person’s reputation in print or on the airwaves, because “it is news” and “the First Amendment gives us every right to print what we feel like printing”.

Does it really now?

I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the constitution and those papers concerning the development of our country. Some call the collection the Federalist Papers. Nowhere in there do I find a support of the right to libel, slander, cheat, steal or commit fraud. In fact, the correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson alludes to quite the opposite. In John Adams’ administration there was even a law spelling out the penalties for libel. However, the act Adams signed into law was based more on old English statutes and paranoia than on any constitutional restriction and it faded into extinction in 1801.

But does that expiration remove the restrictions on conscious defamation by an overzealous press? Not in any way. Again, there is no constitutional right to lie. The problem we have is that the US has developed a near schizoid personality when it comes to such acts. Consider a confidence man who uses his ability to lie convincingly to cheat an individual or business out of a fortune. Upon capture this individual claims first amendment protections because all his lies fell under the umbrella of protected speech. If a defense attorney attempted to use that tactic he or she would be laughed out of court. However, such claims have been made and successfully carried out by the defenders of an unscrupulous press.

What is the difference? Is not a lie that steals someone else’s money just as unintegral as a lie that steals a properly earned reputation? If you have to stop and think about the difference you must be a result of today’s public school system. Where the constitution is concerned there is and can be no difference and any Supreme Court Justice who believes differently is either mistaken or intentionally wrong.

On its face the constitution again adds a restriction to the power of Congress. That body is prohibited from making any law that abridges the freedom of the press to “print the truth”. Those last three words are not found in the bill of rights but they are consistent throughout the Federalist Papers and the Jefferson/Adams correspondence. Even Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin write about a free and honest press because so much of what was published under the oppressive weight of the English Crown was neither free nor honest. To make this relevant to today’s reader, the writers of the constitution did not want the American Press to be what it has become today, a propaganda arm of the government.