The Effective Use of Lies

Back in the '80s a fifth-grade class did not like the teacher. They started coming forward and claiming sexual misconduct on his part. He was suspended because everyone knows that kids wouldn't lie about something so serious. However, they had. Eventually the teacher was exonerated but not before a great deal of damage occurred.

In 1991, Clarence Thomas was nominated to be on the Supreme Court. After the hearings had been conducted for a period of time, a story was "leaked" that he had been guilty of sexual harassment. Anita Hill was brought into testify against him. Those alleged sordid comments will not be repeated, but those watching the hearings found her testimony to be credible—that is, until Thomas took the stand. Hill's temporary credibility was founded upon the way she presented herself. She was so convincing that one could not imagine how Thomas could possibly defend himself against the charges.

Here's the point: When somebody makes accusations against a person in authority (whether it be a teacher, a judge, a nominee, a preacher, or anyone else), a certain amount of people are going to believe it whether sufficient evidence exists or not. In Thomas' case, he presented himself very well also, and in fact his words are still memorable. When he received his turn to testify, he denied any wrongdoing:

I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her.

That statement could not be clearer. But he was not finished. He also spoke to the motivation of those seeking to prevent him from being on the Supreme Court, which involved him being black and conservative. He spoke:

This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

Whew! Those words were not taken lightly. It was well-known that the previous black on the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall, was liberal, and the liberals in Washington did not want a conservative on the court, period, but especially they did not want a black conservative. Furthermore, several women who had worked with Thomas over a period of time testified he had never made any inappropriate comments to them. But that's not all.

If Hill was so distraught over the comments Thomas allegedly made to her in one job, then why, when he offered her another job in another place, did she accept it? Eventually, she accepted work at Oral Roberts University. A former law professor there claims that Hill suggested Thomas as a speaker for an employment-discrimination conference. That's an odd thing to do for someone who claims to have been harassed by him. (Hill denied making the suggestion.) A dean at Oral Roberts remembers that Hill volunteered to drive Thomas to the airport. (She disputes that she volunteered; she simply complied with a request that she do it.) Even so, why agree to be alone with a man who had so grievously assaulted her sensibilities with an array of sexual chatter? Most women would have said, "Please find someone else to take him to the airport."

Some will forever think that Thomas is perverted because of Hill's testimony. After all, would a woman lie about such things? (Actually, the answer is yes. Remember the bogus charges brought against the Duke Lacrosse team?) Others are fairly certain that Hill was not telling the truth. Perhaps we will find out on the Day of Judgment which one was lying.

But the sad thing is that all of this occurred without anyone presenting tangible evidence. Miss Hill brought no tape recordings, full of lurid language for senators to listen to; she did not even have a corroborating witness—someone who overheard one of these conversations. But the accused is in even worse shape. How could he (or anyone) prove himself innocent? What man has not had a perfectly innocent private conversation with a woman on some occasion? If said female later accused him of untoward behavior, how could he convince anyone otherwise? Some women are thinking, "Well, no one would damage a man's reputation needlessly? Why would she invent a story like that?" These are good questions. Perhaps she flirted with him and was spurned in the process. Christians know the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife. Maybe she just despises something he stands for. We can only guess, but we do know that a significant percentage of reported rapes (10%) never happened; the "victim" lied about it.

Clarence Thomas has fought against those charges by living an exemplary life for 26 years (1991-2017). What else can he do? He has also proven to be just what some feared—a Supreme Court Justice who has taken conservative, moral, constitutional stances, and writing brilliant insights in his decisions.

If You want Someone Marginalized….

We have traveled quite a distance since those days, and now enemies of conservatives have learned a few more tricks. Let's suppose someone, a conservative, is running for national office. Opponents know he will not budge on moral issues. They know he is a conservative through and through. How can they damage his reputation and make voters feel reluctant to vote for him? That's right—accuse him of moral indecency. The only problem is a lack of evidence. So, what can they do? Find a woman to charge him with impropriety? No, past history teaches that one accusation is not enough. You need as many as you can to make it sound convincing. As a nice touch, have a few come forward a little at a time, which will build momentum against the target.

Now, it may not be the case that this scenario was played out against Judge Roy Moore, just defeated for Senator from Alabama—only that it could have happened. But look at the facts that are pertinent.

1. All of the alleged "incidents" occurred between 1977 and 1982—between 35 and 40 years ago.

2. All of them involved teenage girls while Moore was in his 30s.

3. Not one of the "victims" said anything for more than 35 years until Moore was running for the United States Senate—even though he had been a high-profile judge for many years in Alabama.

4. It was alleged that his signature was in one girl's high school yearbook, but it was never produced so that anyone could examine it and compare signatures.

In other words, all of what was presented was hearsay—more than three decades old hearsay. Once again there was no tangible evidence—at least, none that was produced. So, is it the case that Moore was the best candidate, and he lost because he was smeared? Whether or not he was the best candidate is not the issue. The crux of the matter is that he was tried in the court of public opinion without any tangible evidence—and without being able to defend himself.

Let's face it. Most men would not be able to provide an alibi for one night last year—let alone more than a quarter-century ago. Are we claiming that he is innocent? No. We have no way of knowing. The point is that if he is innocent, he has no way of clearing his name. He is at the mercy (or in this instance, mercilessness) of his female accusers. All any public figure can do is deny the charges. And if a dozen women say he harassed them, such denials are eventually going to be rejected.

It might be helpful to elaborate on his career, during which all of these women remained silent. The following summary is provided by Wikipedia:

Moore attended West Point and served as a military police company commander in the Vietnam War. After graduating from the University of Alabama Law School, he joined the Etowah County district attorney's office, serving as an assistant district attorney from 1977 to 1982. [The complaints against him come from this time period, GWS]. In 1992 he was appointed as a circuit judge to fill a vacancy, and elected to the position at the end of the term. In 2001 Moore was elected to the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. He was removed from his position in November 2003 by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for refusing a federal court's order to remove a marble monument of the Ten Commandments which he had installed in the lobby of the Alabama Judicial Building.

Moore sought the Republican nomination for the governorship of Alabama in 2006 and 2010, but lost in the primaries. Moore was again elected Chief Justice in 2013, but was suspended in May 2016, for directing probate judges to continue to enforce the state's ban on same-sex marriage although the US Supreme Court had ruled this to be unconstitutional. Following an unsuccessful appeal, Moore resigned in April 2017….

Most citizens applauded Moore's stance on the Ten Commandments since he was right and the federal court was wrong. This would have been a great time for women to have come forth and accuse him of lawless sexual behavior. And how easy would it have been? They could have said, "He's standing up for morality? That's a joke. Why, he's a sexual harasser." So, why didn't any of these women come forward at that time?

Again, many citizens supported his stance against homosexual "marriage" because it violates God's 6,000-year-old definition and example (Gen. 2:18-25). So, where were the women then to say, "Judge Moore is not so squeaky clean himself, you know"?

Why?

Would that many women lie, though? Why not? Over 90% of Americans admit to lying regularly. How much respect for truth remains in this nation? But, so many women? Remember the fifth graders who conspired against their teacher? No one could believe that, either, but it happened. But why would women now approaching retirement age do such a thing? At least two reasons can be possibilities.

The first involves bribes—whether of cash or some other favor. However, the news media will not pursue this line of questioning. They were against Moore, also. The second is ideology. It could be revenge for the stance against homosexual marriage, or they might not appreciate his moral stances, period. Perhaps they were persuaded that it would be bad for Alabama and bad for the country to have an arch conservative in the senate. We'll all find out someday (Rev. 21:8).