A lawyer’s job is to make his case. Part of that job is to challenge the claims made by the other party. Each party presents the best facts in the best way to support its claim. The way most cases are set up, one party brings a claim, and then it is up to the other party to defend against it.
How insane a system would it be for the defense to not be permitted to challenge the underlying facts that are alleged in a “complaint” or a “petition”? Quite insane. What chance would there be if you had to simply accept the facts “as plead” and try and mitigate, or argue around THOSE facts? NONE.
But that is exactly what happens everyday in the public square. The government tells us that “something happened”, like a “terror incident”. Or that they “foiled a terror plot”. Or that through their quick work, they “averted” some other type of “financial disaster” etc. How do we know this, besides them telling us? We don’t.
Anyone who steps up, like any good lawyer is supposed to, and challenges the underlying facts and demands independent evidence for the “claims” is called a “kook” a “conspiracy theorist”. Do you see?
The government is the party who benefits from being seen as this shining hope and savior to the “people” protecting them etc. So they have a direct conflict of interest when they tell us all about what “they have done”. Get it?
The massive media complex is all part of the same system. The status QUO. They are how the power structure get the “word out”. That’s why the only “debate” that is “allowed” must “stick to the facts”, as GIVEN by the government media complex. The red/blue debate. That gives the appearance of debate, when it really isn’t debate at all, on the issues that REALLY matter. Any independent questioning of the BASIC facts supporting the incident itself, is only done by “fringe kooks”. Do you see the game?
What chance would you have if when sued, you couldn’t challenge the UNDERLYING facts that make up the charge? Someone sues you and claims you caused an auto accident and they want damages. You want to put the defense on that there WAS NO ACCIDENT, the WHOLE thing is made up. No no no, you know the rules, all you can argue is how much damage the “accident” caused, and how and why it “happened”. Get it? That is a perfect analogy to the “news” we are told “happened” and the “debate”that goes on about who would do a “better job” of “preventing it” in the future etc. “Rational debate” is only allowed within the red/blue lines.
If the “respected news organizations report something” we must simply accept it. Just like in 1984. Anything but blind acceptance of the underlying “facts” given the people is “crimethink”.
The constant harangue about “fighting for us and our freedom” and the “great work that is being done” etc. etc. is all just laughable propaganda. But it MUST be accepted as “fact” other wise you are branded a “kook”. Any questioning outside of the “accepted lines of red/blue conservative/liberal us/vs the terrorist is either “un-American” or “crazy Kookery”.
It isn’t complicated. The government needs the people to believe they are there protecting you. I have already showed you that 99% of what they actually do is just control you and force you to give them your money. Look here and here and here for examples.
The government cannot have you focusing on that! So they need you scared, think ISIS, Ebola, financial disaster and on and on, and they need to appear to be the ones to “protect you”. They used to have the big bad soviets. That of course was just a cooked up con as well. Now that’s gone so they have to have something. They NEED terror. That is a “scary thing” to most people. And who do the poor brainwashed masses look to for “protection”? The “government”.
And it is for this reason that you MUST question whether an incident even occurred. Much less the way it occurred. And if it occurred, who REALLY was ULTIMATELY behind it.
I hope you stop and think in the future about what you are being told. And who is telling you. Otherwise it is no different than “defending your case” by accepting whatever the “complaint” is asserting and arguing about how much you owe. And that, my friend is the true insanity.
Legalman has a lot more to say about this. If you want to hear it, listen now.
Update 10-24-14: I just saw this in the news. I for one am SHOCKED! 40 cases! Surely this will get straightened out on appeal.
Update. Remember, if you tried to tell people about this CIA matter 40 years ago people called you a Kook, because the gov’t simply lied to everyone about what went on. And of course, they want to continue to keep the truth from as many as possible. Hence, the absurd reasoning to block “free speech”.