Legality versus Truth

I have read scores of articles written by both proponents and opponents of the decision last week by the United States Supreme Court declaring that marriage between gay couples should be legal in all states. Vicious, apologetic, angry, compassionate; they spanned the gamut of all the emotions.

Personally, I agree with Justice Roberts that since God created and designed marriage, he is also the only one qualified to re-define it. A majority of judges, regardless of their elevated opinion of their social mores, is simply not qualified to do so. Of course those who do not think God exists, respectfully, at times, disagree with me. Regardless, that has always been the situation. Those who don't believe in absolute truth have always been at odds with those who do.

Historically, self-appointed despots and kings, generally aligned laws to coincide with their personal will. Imprisoning or killing opponents, taking productivity from the people to support the monarchy in the form of taxes, ravishing and plundering the enemy, or their own people, all of these actions were legal, but they were not right.

In the United States, it was legal for centuries for some people to own other people as slaves or indentured servants. The owner was permitted to do virtually anything they wanted to these people. Beatings and murder were accepted as a right and a privilege. Even though it was legal, it wasn't right.

The consumption of alcohol and tobacco has been legal since the founding of the 13 Colonies. Alcohol was banned for a few years, but the underground abuse created more problems than before. As a result, accidental deaths, violence, unwanted pregnancies, and people rotting away from preventable cancers and other debilitating diseases plagues us even today. Even though their use is legal, it is not right.

Many large corporations, in league with municipalities, create complicated schemes to acquire property and resources from those least able to protect themselves ,allowing the corporations to become even more powerful and greedy. Even though it is legal, it is not right.

There are absolute truths regarding fidelity, chastity, promiscuity, and pro-creation. They fly in the face of our animalistic desires. They frustrate those who can't think of anything but the moment or themselves.

I would like to fly unassisted through the sky or swim down to the ocean's floor. Regardless of the sincerity or intensity of my desires, there are absolute truths that compel me to restrain myself. Gravity and oxygen are truths I can't ignore.

There are absolute truths that declare that violation of the laws of pro-creation, chastity and fidelity will bring negative consequences. We already have children of same sex couples lamenting the damage they had from not having a father and a mother in their lives. I just hope we don't have to make all the mistakes there are before we accept the truth.

I can not predict all the effects of the Court's rulings. There are those who are opposed to any contrary voices and would love to leverage this decision to the abolition of all opposition to their social agenda. It would not be the first time truth has been ruled illegal.

I take solace in the words of Gamaliel, speaking to the Sanhedrin as they were trying to convict the early Apostles, "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it;"

The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But a Fabrication

First we had a President who didn't know the definition of "is" or the implications of a double negative. Followed by CEO's that run multi-billion dollar companies whose accounting skills don't go beyond calculating their stock bonuses, (General Motors, Chrysler, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc.).

Then we had members of Congress who can't do their own taxes, (Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, etc., and obviously are too poor to hire someone to do it for them.) We even have the Secretary of the Treasury, (Timothy Geithner,) the head tax collector, who didn't learn how to do his own taxes until he was nominated to the post.

Now we are plagued with the Attorney General of the United States of America, (Eric Holder,) the man who makes everyone stand up and swear they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing by the truth, unable to separate truth from fantasy.

(I could say it is coincidental that they are all Democrats, but then I might be guilty of profiling.)

In regards to his testimony before Congress acknowledging when he first knew about Operation Fast and Furious, his recollection process reminds me of progressive Alzheimer's Disease. Every week, Mr. Holder is able to remember further back in time.

In May 2011, relating to the Operation which started in 2009, before Congress he said, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." But, a memo addressed to the Attorney General, July 5, 2010, explains Mr Holder was briefed on the program 10 months earlier. Oh, now he remembers.

In a speech Eric Holder gave to Mexican Authorities, April 2, 2009, he said. "Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion. DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail." Oh, that's right, he did say that.

We now know that in 2009, the White House gave stimulus money to the Department of Justice to the tune of $10,000,000 to implement Project Gunrunner or Operation Fast and Furious. The exact wording is "10,000,000 shall be transferred to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, salaries and expenses for the ATF Project Gunrunner."

But his aids say that Mr. Holder didn't know the details of the project at that time, so he really didn't know what was happening. Let's see, the last time I asked for $10,000,000 for a project, I really didn't want to know any of the details, just in case I had to deny culpability later, right?

Well, now that his memory has been restored and the facts are on the table, Mr. Holder was asked a very pointed question by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), in another Congressional Hearing last week. The question was,"Tell me, what’s the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?"

“Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that can be considered perjury or a lie,” Holder said.

In other words, if you intended to lie, it is a lie; if you didn't have that intent, then it isn't a lie. Or, if you made a statement you thought was the truth, which later was proven to be based on a false premise, you didn't lie; you too, were deceived. I can agree entirely with Mr. Holder on his textbook answer.

His problem is, he knew about the program in April, 2009 and was briefed in written memos on it almost weekly, for 2 years. He even pontificated in public discourses his support for the program. For him to sit before Congress or the people of the United States in May, 2011, and say that he only knew of the program a few weeks before, is by definition, a lie. He knew the truth and chose not to say it.

For Mr. Eric Holder to retain his job after supporting this controversial program that killed 2 American Agents and hundreds of Mexican Nationals is hard to imagine. But for him to commit perjury, under oath, on multiple occasions, regarding his involvement in the program, and remain employed, is unfathomable. He should be fired or impeached immediately.

*Image courtesy of - http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/sarah-palin-calls-for-the-firing-of-the-employee-who-shouldve-never-been-hired/ This is also a great article on the history of Eric Holder and the pile of asinine judicial orders and bungles he has implemented.

Mad, Bad, Michelle Obama

The first lady appears to be losing her cool. Her temperature is rising and the rhetoric she is spewing out is heating up. There is an article entitled:

The Very Angry First Lady Michelle Obama

By Joseph Curl in the Washington times last Sunday.

Mr. Curl chronicles the rise of the wrath of the First Lady since the Democratic Convention in 2008 when she declared her real feelings.

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”

Now she is taking on the Republican Party with an oath to explain to this Country the dark and grisly future that will occur if the GOP is allowed to nurture their nefarious schemes.

For myself, I am turned off by those who only spout the negative. It is important to identify what is not working, but chastising the problem without proposing a solution, brands you as part of the problem. My good friend, Jeff Sermons, said, "I am always more willing to follow someone who is for something than someone who is against everything."

That said, what we need in this country are the following:

• An acknowledgement of man's limited power and an acceptance of the healing, cleansing power of the Divine.
• A re-establishment of work as a noble endeavor and a character building pursuit.
• Implementation of the natural consequence of the law of the harvest, doing your best should supply your needs.
• Debunk the theory of entitlements and replace it with individual responsibility for our personal situations.
• Gratitude for who we are, what we have, and the compassion to share with those in need.
• The enactment of laws favoring and encouraging the creation and perpetuation of small businesses.
• Honesty and integrity as paramount in our business and personal relationships.

As we implement these principles from the top to the bottom of our Nation, we will find a resurgence of hope, productivity and success.

An Unconvincing Truth, or Never Let The Truth Get In The Way Of A Good Story

For years we have been entertained by movies that were “based on a true story,” or “inspired by real events.” An in-depth analysis usually reveals that other than the title and a couple of main characters, the original story and the finished movie share very little. Dramatic elements, suspense, intrigue and some sex are usually added to make the production more appealing to a larger audience. While the show may be very successful as a movie in terms of income, informed patrons are heard to mutter as they leave, “that director never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.”

As more and more discussion about Hollywood Al’s movie, “An Unconvincing Truth,” (Oh, I’m sorry,) “An Inconvenient Truth,” reaches the public, the hard facts that are presented there are beginning to thaw faster than the polar ice cap.

(We will skip over the trite retorts given to skeptics that if they don’t believe, they are obviously stupid and move on to some more concrete evidence.)

The Associated Press (AP) released an article on June 27 entitled:

Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy
By Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer

Some of the quotes include:

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. . .”

“. . . But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Although the AP gave Gore high marks, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a statement the same day chastising the AP for lack of full disclosure and pointed out some troubling relationships with those supporting the Gore film.

AP Incorrectly Claims Dcientists Praise Gore's Movie

June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

Contact: MARC MORANO (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-9797