Is The Right to Lie now Protected "Free Speech"?

Many have been saying since the dawn of time (around 2008) that President Obama was a liar, and now there is disconcerting evidence to demonstrate this fact.  I must say I am flabberghasted - - bewildered- or to use Governor Christie's word - Mystified by the revelations in this report, which is true indicate more than ever that Democrats shouldn't touch this President with a ten foot pole.  I have had numerous formatting problems with this posting, and the thing 'Ate" the original draft of this opening paragraph for reasons yet unknown. I might as well and go ahead and tell you the two biggest lies.  President Obama got elected on the platform that "There are forty million uninsured people in America and if I am elected one hundred percent of Americans will be insured".  As you will remember this program was first going to be volentary.  In fact- - he contrasted himself with Hillary Clinton in that hers was compulsry.   Later he changed and made his program compulsry too, but also said his plan would only insure two thirds of the uninsured.  As it is now - - only between nine and sixteen percent of the previously uninsured are covered.  So basically the whole justification for Obama's program turns out to be a lie.  Then there is the situation with a "Dick Chaney" like undertone involving the overthrow of the previous Ukrainian government earlier this year.  It would seem that the US itself was instrumental in fomenting the violence in Ukraine and that the government now in there has some really strange background connections - - such as a pro Nazi bent.  Here is the replay from George Washington's Blog.

President Obama, through his U.S. Solicitor General, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, has now stated that lying in political campaigns isn’t merely protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, but that it is an especially protected form of speech, which must not be hindered by any state government, such as by the state of Ohio. Ohio has outlawed such intentional deception of voters, and has established heavy criminal penalties against it, when it can be proven. The idea behind this law is that any democracy in which lying in political campaigns isn’t penalized by severe penalties, won’t remain a democracy much longer, but will instead descend into a kleptocracy: theft of elections themselves (via lies), so that they become just nominal “elections,” which are controlled by whatever aristocrats can put up the most money, to lie the most effectively, to the biggest number of voters: lying-contests.

[President Obama] is on the same side in this as the overt Republicans are. For example, the friend-of-court brief on behalf of the Koch brothers’ Cato Institute and their comedian P.J. O’Rourke, argued in this case that, “No one should be concerned that false political statements won’t be subjected to careful examination” (perhaps by historians, after the liar has been elected and long-since collected his reward, and the honest politician has sunk into obscurity). It’s a race to the bottom they want, and conservative Democrats want it just as much as Republicans do. Cato/O’Rourke then went on to say: “

A prohibition on lying devalues the truth. ‘How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not an option?’” 

In other words: We must allow deception of voters, because otherwise all politics would be honest — and that would be bad (for crooks like them,

because politics then wouldn’t continue to be a lying-contest: the type where any real ‘straight shooter’ can’t have even any realistic chance at all of winning)

. Champion liars want to continue maintaining their advantage, not to yield it; and any law that’s enforced against political liars will remove their existing huge political advantage. Conservatives would still have most aristocratic money on their side, but no longer an unrestrained freedom to spread lies financed by that cash-advantage that they naturally enjoy.

Public opinion (e.g., this), and the President of the United States (via his Solicitor General, to be discussed here below), seem to favor opening the floodgates. If that were to happen, then the recently unleashed outpouring of sheer corporate and billionaire cash (via the Citizens United decision, and the more recentMcCutcheon decision) into political contests, will become even more unrestrained by (and disconnected from) any consideration of the truthfulness (or not) of this “free speech,” so that the U.S. public will naturally be inundated by torrents, not only of aristocratic money pouring over public opinions, but of outright and provable lies financed by the richest aristocrats, polluting and poisoning those torrents, which will drench voters’ minds, and will thus poison political outcomes (which is why that money is spent — to do precisely this).


With Obama arguing on the Republican side, and the Republicans arguing on the Republican side, how will the Republican U.S. Supreme Court rule on this matter? Let’s guess. It could be the final nail in the coffin of democracy in America: the official full implementation of aristocracy, plutocracy, oligarchy, crony capitalism, or whatever else one would call it. Maybe “fake democracy”? Oh, I forgot: we’re already there. But this would take us much farther there. If the reader wants to know how deeply the public has already been duped, just check out, for starters (besides that piece where I earlier argued that President Obama lied with exceptional skill in order to win the White House), and here is something really disturbing about President Obama. Make sure to have your nitro tablets nearby if you’ve got a heart condition; you’ll need it.


“Ukraine: Is Obama Channeling Cheney?”