Can Democracy Survive When Political Leaders Lie

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36

How far can a candidate (or political party) go to win an election? Can the candidate lie? Can the political party?

If a Super PAC lies to further the interest of the candidate or political party, can the candidate say, "They are independent; we don't control what they say." Or must the candidate denounce the lie told by the Super PAC?

And if the candidate opts not to denounce the lie and benefits, is he not complicit in the lie? If a friend of mine lies saying, "I have won the Congressional Medal of Honor," can I accept any advantage that follows from the lie?

If I don't disavow the lie and profit from the lie, do not I myself become a liar? Is it permissible to use an evil means -- a lie -- to achieve a good end -- victory at the polls?

On Aug. 7, Priorities USA, a Super PAC, released a political ad titled, "Understands." It features former steelworker, Joe Soptic. The ad is calculated to link Mitt Romney with the death from cancer of Mr. Soptic's wife. Mr. Soptic, referring to Bain Capital takeover of GST Steel plant, says, "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone. Furthermore, I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned.

"When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care, and my family lost their health care. And a short time after that, my wife became ill ... she passed away in 22 days."

But here is the timeline:

-- 1993: Bain Capital acquires GST.

-- 1999: Romney takes paid leave-of-absence from Bain to run 2002 Olympics.

-- 2001: GST goes bankrupt.

-- 2002: Joe Soptic is laid off from GST, finds job as school janitor (at much lower salary).

-- 2006: Joe Soptic's wife dies from cancer accidentally discovered when she goes to the hospital for pneumonia.

So, on these facts, would any impartial American jury find Romney caused the death of Renae Soptic? I don't think so. A juror or two might be persuaded, but not 12.

So is this political ad a lie? A lie is generally defined as an intentionally false statement, or a statement made with a reckless disregard from the truth. Had the ad come right out and said, "Mitt Romney murdered my wife," that statement clearly would have been a lie under either prong of my test. The ad doesn't go that far, but it does falsely allege that Romney closed GST.

Romney didn't close GST. He had gone three years before to run the Olympics, and had no part in the plant shutdown, or in Mr. Soptic being laid off or losing his insurance.

To say that a "short time" after (in reality, four years), Mrs. Soptic became ill, and passed away 22 days later, ignores the timeline and the fact that Mrs. Soptic's cancer was discovered seven years after Romney went off to run the Olympics and four years after Mr. Soptic was laid off.

The purpose of the ad is to paint Romney as an "unfeeling predatory capitalist," who runs around closing plants, blithely unconcerned about who he hurts, and that the GST closing resulted in Mrs. Soptic's death.

So, why am I bothered by politicians and PACs that lie? If they lie to get elected, why won't they lie once in office?

Similarly, I am concerned about the Obama administration seeking to redefine abortion as a "woman's health care issue," and not as a "moral issue" as the Catholic Church argues. I don't trust politicians to tell what us is moral.

President Harry S. Truman once said, "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. ... If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."

For many people in politics, lying has become a way of life. For them it is an acceptable means to an end. As long as they perceive the end to be a societal good, they believe the means chosen to attain the good are moral. Most churchmen would disagree.

The Catholic Church, the oldest of the Western Christian churches, after considering whether the ends justify the means for 2,000 years, teaches, "Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. Well-formed conscience is upright and truthful ...

"Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them. Some rules apply in every case: One may never do evil so that good may result from it; the Golden Rule: 'Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.'"

The Church's bottom line is: "One may never do evil so that good may result from it."

Truman saw that. If we tolerate politicians who lie to achieve a greater good, or who utilize lies put forth by their supporters, and refuse to disavow them, then lying becomes a permissible political tool to achieve what whatever the government labels or defines as good.

Posted Online: : August 22, 2012 3:00 am  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Share

Romney Guilty until Proven Innocent?

"I was told by an extremely credible person that Romney has not paid taxes for 10 years. People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes ... It's clear Romney is hiding something, and the American people deserve to know what it is.

"I don't know if it's true." -- Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.


The Democrat majority leader demonstrated from the floor of the U.S. Senate why Washington D.C. is a cesspool. Then, not content with messing the Senate floor, he went on to tell the Huffington Post that, a "person who had invested with Bain Capital," called his office and said, "Harry, he (Mr. Romney) didn't pay taxes for 10 years!"

Sen. Reid continued, "Now do I know that that's true. Well, I'm not certain."

When Mr. Reid states that Mr. Romney had not paid taxes in 10 years, there can be but two logical -- diametrically opposed -- interpretations: Mr. Romney lawfully paid no taxes because he took advantage of all deduction made available to him by the tax code. Or Mr. Romney is guilty of tax evasion -- a felony.

Now, if Mr. Reid were merely saying, Mr. Romney took advantage of all lawful deductions, then what did Mr. Romney do that any other lawfully acting American wasn't permitted to do? Doesn't the rational person paying federal income tax take advantage of every deduction allowed to him?

But then, what is Sen. Reid talking about when he goes on to say "People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes? What (dirty?) "tricks"?

Aren't those "tricks" known as deductions? Aren't all Americans entitled to take every applicable deduction allowed? And who wrote the code with all those "tricks?" Clearly not Mr. Romney. Aren't the tax laws made by Reid and his cronies in the U.S. House and Senate?

I suggest Mr. Reid intended his remarks to be pejorative. If that is not so, why accuse Mr. Romney of "hiding something, ... and the American people deserve to know what it is?"

Mr. Reid's innuendo is clearly that candidate Romney is a tax evader -- a criminal. What kind of man accuses another of employing "tricks," "hiding something" or criminal tax evasion, and then backs it up with insipidity? ("I don't know if its true." Or, "Now do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain.")

Gov. Romney is a public figure. Ordinarily, public men can't be libeled or slandered unless the libels or slanders are made with a "reckless disregard for the truth." But what else is it other than a "reckless disregard for the truth," when Mr. Reid says, "I don't know if its true"?

Does a man act ethically when he implies another is guilty of tax evasion? When he repeats something -- from an unnamed source -- that he does not know to be true? But then of course, Sen. Reid, has a trump card.

For a speech made in the Senate, Article 1 of the Constitution says Mr. Reid cannot "be questioned in any other place." He can't be sued for libel or slander.

In criminal law, a judge can't issue an arrest or search warrant without first finding probable cause. When a police officer applies for a search warrant, and the officer is relying on hearsay of a "confidential source" or "unnamed informant," the affidavit for a warrant must show more than that an informant says, "Mr. X is committing a crime."

First it must show specific facts that make probable a crime is being committed. The affidavit must further factually demonstrate to the judge that the informant (who is not before the court and not subject to penalties of perjury) is a "reliable informant." The American public has been told nothing factual by Mr. Reid which in any way demonstrates that his "unnamed informant" is or was "reliable." Mr. Reid concluding that his source is credible does not make it so.

Instead, Mr. Reid demands that Mr. Romney release 10 years of his tax returns; that is, that Mr. Romney must "prove his innocence." That is the rule of the Spanish Inquisition, not of the American judicial system. In America, men are "presumed innocent until they are proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." A senator should know that. Even a Republican candidate for president should be accorded that presumption. And if Mr. Romney has been evading taxes for 10 years, where has the IRS been?

On Feb. 9, 1951, Senator Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., said, referring to people in the U. S. State Department:

"I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy."

In 1951, calling somebody a communist was the preferred way of destroying them. Today, suggesting that a candidate is a rich tax-evader seems to be the method of choice.

Americans came to despise Joe McCarthy. As the accuser, Harry Reid has the burden of proof.

If he cannot demonstrate he is acting in good faith, he will deserve to be called, "Dirty Harry" and ranked with Joe McCarthy.

Posted Online: : Aug. 13, 2012, 5:00 am  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

If You're Successful and It Isn't Your Fault, Whose Is It?

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. ... Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something: There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

These remarks come from a speech delivered by President Barrack Obama on July 16 at Roanoke, Va. When I first heard reports of this speech, I was shocked.

I was shocked further when I found the entirety of the speech at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia.

The president is obviously correct when he says roads, bridges, the internet and the American system facilitate American business. But that is like saying no farmer is successful without farmland. You obviously can't farm without farmland, but without the efforts of the farmer you get only weeds, brush and trees. Nor can you raise corn without seed. But if the farmer owns land, and buys seed and leaves the seed in the barn, he isn't going to have a corn crop -- unless somebody else does the work for him.

The same is true of having a good teacher and a road. Imagine a man and his wife opening a Yoga studio in downtown Moline. They won't have a successful business because they had wonderful teachers, ample nearby parking, and a road in front of their business.

The proof is simple. The guy who runs the business next door may be located along the same road, have the same access to parking, and may have had the very same teachers during his school years. But why does the Yoga business thrive after six years, while the business next door goes out of business? The reason is clear. The owners of the Yoga studio worked hard to be successful, and made good business decisions. The owners of the defunct business either didn't work hard enough or made improvident business decisions.

Why has Apple Computer succeeded? Did it build a better computer? A better iPod? A better iPad? A better iPhone? Did they have better ideas? Better execution of their ideas? Or did it have better roads to service its business?

There is no question but that it can be a great help for a business to have the government bury it with subsidies, e.g. Solyndra. But if good teachers, roads, and government subsidies translate to success, Solyndra shouldn't be in bankruptcy.

When the Pilgrims came to America in 1620, there were no roads, schools and government subsidies. They set up their community under the model of the early Christians, as told in the Acts of the Apostles. They worked community farms, and all shared equally in the produce of the land. And they nearly starved to death. It was only after the Pilgrims were allowed to farm individual plots and to keep the produce of those plots, that the community prospered. And of course, some barely got by, while others grew prosperous.

For 70 years the U.S.S.R. was a communist society. The worker derived no benefit if he worked harder than his neighbor. The only people who prospered were top government officials. The citizenry lived in a dull, gray, functional government apartment buildings. After 70 years, the Soviet people had had enough.

And now, President Obama holds them up as a model for us. Not satisfied with equal opportunity (liberty) for all Americans, the president opts to emulate Marxist, communist, and socialist models, and incessantly calls for income redistribution and equality of outcome.

If good teachers are the key to success, why does one student prosper while the next goes to prison? Doesn't individual effort have something to do with success? Why does one student learn to read and play the violin, while the next remains illiterate and does drugs?

Why does one student become a doctor, while the guy at the next desk earns minimum wage all his life? Better roads? Bridges?

Perhaps President Obama thinks the way he does because of his own experience. Politicians only become president because others (media-moguls, money-men and voters) opt to push him to the top of the "greasy pole." But most successful business men do it on their own.

Posted Online:  July 31, 2012, 1:50 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea