From a recent primary for a seat in the House (U.S. Congress)

Added in June of 2008.

Main Menu
When men differ in opinion, both sides
ought equally to have the advantage of being
heard by the public; and that when truth and
error have fair play, the former is always an
overmatch for the latter.
                                Benjamin Franklin


There are outright lies and there are ways of lying by other means.   Presenting only a label that creates emotion can be a form of lying - especially when the label masks something that is entirely different from what it seems that one would suppose.   Presenting only a portion of the truth can be a form of lying (which is why in a courtroom one is sworn to tell the whole truth).   Lying by innuendo is also something that works well in misleading innocents.   All of these are types of lying at which Michael Moore, for instance, is a master.   Election propaganda often lies, and often fools the public - especially when there is no debate.   It is critical that people be aware of the ways in which lies can be presented.

During a recent primary for a republican seat in the House, there were two candidates.   Both candidates had voting records from the past.   Candidate X had a large budget and spent approximately 3.5 times what candidate Y spent.   Candidate X used his money to send out various elaborate mailings to voters with supposedly true information on his voting record, his qualifications, and his opponent.   Candidate Y sent out one modest mailing.

During his career, X had been careful to vote for bills for entitlement for various groups such as veterans, troops, law enforcement, widows, senior citizens, children, etc.   This gave him a voting record that should cause such groups to endorse him later.   It also gave him the aura of a perfect American who stood for motherhood and apple pie.   Although the budget was often such that others had to vote down these same bills, X continued to vote for them, allowing others to be charged with disloyalty, indifference, or animosity to the affected groups.

X also voted for bills against wasteful spending even though his lack of sensible priorities and his occasional successes in promoting entitlements were definite examples of wasteful spending.   Again this seemed to help his voting record as opposed the voting records of others.

X also voted to cut taxes even though his bills for entitlements automatically caused increases in taxes.   It should be pointed out that the federal government was established to handle the common defense, the printing of currency, and order among the states.   Everything else was to he handled by the states.   Entitlements were not considered part of the federal role or the federal budget.   They came later with the socialists - and every entitlement causes the federal budget to grow and taxes to be raised.

There are numerous reasons why some people do not vote in favor of certain bills.   Often, the bill is given a name that indicates it is designed to do the exact opposite of what it actually does.   Often, one or more objectionable "riders" or amendments are tacked on to the bill.   Often, there are overriding circumstances such a budgetary constraints which prevent one from voting for the bill.   Often, bills are introduced which should never be made into law because such a law is merely a statement of common sense and would be one more bureaucratic means of filling up law books and limiting the freedom of Americans.   And often, laws are passed just to make a politician look good while implementation of such a law would be either virtually impossible or practically unfeasible.

As the primary election date approached, X found a very unflattering photo of Y and sent it along with his mailings designed to malign Y.   In these mailings he accused Y of not caring for the each of the various groups which were given entitlements.   He also accused Y of voting against bills that appeared from their titles to be worthwhile.   In his rhetoric he accused Y of denying dollars to those who needed them most.   X also published Y's standard benefits for his office as if he were stealing money from his constituents while denying others entitlements.   The fact that X was entitled to those benefits as part of the nature of his job was not mentioned.

X represented himself as the white knight and compared himself to a famous and successful Republican President.   He published the names of bills for which he voted - even those which had no chance of passing.   Of course, with all the things that X voted for, some must have been good, well thought-out bills.   X was careful to tell everyone what a good man he was to vote for the numerous entitlements, but failed to mention the increasing bureaucracy that would result from them.   He also published all the various groups that backed him because of the entitlements he gave them.   However, in one instance of publishing his backers he erred considerably.   One of his backers was the local extremely liberal newspaper.

The result was that X failed to win in the primary even though he had done all he could to sabotage the chances of his opponent.   The people of the district noted that one of his backers was the liberal rag, that other groups who supposedly backed him had been "bribed" with entitlements or promises of entitlements, that he would have continued to cause taxes to be raised, and that the dirty campaign tactics he used were ungentlemanly at best.   When Republicans are supposed to be for small government, low taxes, less bureaucracy, less laws, more freedom, and more constitutional approaches to problems, X stood out like a sore thumb - allowing Y to win easily.   Judging from his actions, X appears to be a liberal agent within the Republican Party, but that is difficult to prove.   In any case, the republicans did want him to win regardless of his superior financial resources.

In the last year, the liberal democrats (communists with a different name) succeeded in passing legislation in both houses of Congress that should never have been passed.   One was for a 40% increase in automobile fuel-efficiency standards, and another was to force utility companies to generate 15% of their power by using solar, wind, or other renewable energy sources.   Unfortunately, making a law that cannot or should not be enforced is unacceptable.   Automotive manufacturers have already been forced to make decisions such as reducing the rotors for disc brakes until they are too thin to be re-used with the next brake job - causing more steel to be used for new rotors, more expense to the driver, and more CO2 put into the atmosphere.   The forcing of utility companies to use more renewable energy sources will cause an excessive rise in energy prices which will offset the advantages from hybrid or electric automobiles and will reinforce the rampant inflation caused by increases in gas prices.   The effect upon a failing economy will lead to a recession and possibly a depression.   However, those who have bought into international communism (socialism) want the U.S. to fail - so such legislation by the liberal democrats is merely part of their agenda.   For those representatives and senators paid by certain Muslims in the Middle East, the same is true.   And lastly, those representatives and senators who are stupid enough to believe that a law can force progress will certainly feel that they did well.   The republicans believe in providing incentives for us to move forward - unlike the democrats' approach.

By examining the list of those who sponsored the candidates, voters could determine which candidate to elect.   Sponsors are defined here as those who were published as wanting a candidate to win as well as those who contributed dollars to a candidate's campaign.   By examining the campaign literature, the voters could determine who was using lies in his attempt to win.

It is crucial that more people are made aware of the methods used by America's enemies, especially the propaganda that is prepared for elections.   If enough people become aware of these methods, the perpetrators of lies will gradually go out of business and we might eventually have "clean" elections in the United States.

Congressman McClintock's letter which follows alludes to the election in Massachusetts in which a little-known Republican advocating small government and responsible spending came from behind to take the Senate seat that Ted Kennedy occupied for so many years.   The election was of critical importance because another Republican in the Senate and one less Democrat could prevent the passage of many bills put forth by the communist (progressive) Democrats who outnumber the other members of the Senate.   With a communist President and a majority of communists in both houses of Congress, this may not be enough to save the nation - but a new conservative in the Senate is good beginning.

MSNBC has been a chief proponent of the communists in our government for many years, being careful to avoid covering stories that might embarrass them, and working overtime to create stories with a slant that has misinformed the public.   The KGB has always had a separate department of "disinformation" to keep those under Russian rule misinformed.   Certain parts of the American news media have been chosen for the same role here.

Part of the role of teacher's unions is to indoctrinate the American youth with communist principles.   Communists have a different definition of right and wrong than did our forefathers.   To a communist, right means anything that aids the communist take-over and wrong means anything that impedes the communist take-over.   Lying, cheating, stealing, and killing are all part of the communist's preferred bag of tricks.   Teaching our people to lie, cheat, steal, and kill is part of their overall plan.

At this stage in the communist take-over, killing is not conducive to popularity - it will come later - with a few exceptions that can be disguised as accidents.   However, other means are becoming blatant - and their obvious nature indicates that many Americans have already fallen into the trap of unethical behavior.   It is no surprise that Ed Schultz would make such statements.   The success of ACORN illustrates quite well just how many may consider Schultz to be a normal American.

(Open letter to the House of Representatives)
by Tom McClintock

I never thought I would see the day when a commentator entrusted by a major broadcast network with the ability to reach millions of listeners would use his influence to incite voter fraud, but this week (Jan. 20) we passed that unfortunate milestone.

On Friday, Jan. 15 [2010], MSNBC commentator Ed Schultz told his nationally syndicated radio audience, "I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote ten times.   I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to.   Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out.   I would."

This could be dismissed as an unfortunate verbal excess brought on by the passion of the moment, except for the fact that when given the opportunity to retract the statement, Mr. Schultz embellished it in a way that makes it crystal clear that his words were deliberate and calculated.   He said, "I misspoke of Friday.   I'm sorry.   I meant to say, if I could vote 20 times that's what I'd do.   Later he said, "Let me be very clear - I'm not advocating voter fraud.   I'm just telling you what I would do."

Exactly how does one not advocate voter fraud when three times on national broadcasts you say that's what you would do?

This can only be interpreted as incitement to commit voter fraud in a pivotal election in the course of our nation.   As such, it strikes at the very foundation of our democratic traditions and our constitutional institutions.   In every election, win, lose, or draw - it is of utmost importance that the vote be fair, that it be accurate, and that it has the confidence of every citizen - both those in the majority and those in the minority.   If we cannot trust the sanctity of the vote, we have destroyed the legitimacy of our government.

All of our governing institutions and all of their acts rests upon a single foundation: fair and free elections, which guarantee that those who exercise authority under our Constitution do so "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

It is this principle that Mr. Schultz has sought to desecrate and demean.   His statements excusing voter fraud weaken the single most important mechanism of our democracy and undermine our form of government.

His words deserve - indeed, they demand - the contempt and condemnation of every American.   And they deserve immediate action by those who have accorded him his broadcast platforms and whose silence and inaction thus far can only be described as a disgrace.

Congressman Tom McClintock, 4th Congressional District, California

Main Menu