Step one, identify the bullsh*t. Step two, stop consuming it. The founding fathers were just men.

What are you saying Frank?  are you saying we don't live in the greatest cleanest fish tank in history?  Well love it or leave it I say.

Frank, are you saying you don’t think we live in the greatest cleanest fish tank in history? Well love it or leave it baby.

We are all creatures of our surroundings. Learning how to question the most fundamental things is not easy. Being a good lawyer means making someone Prove their case. And if you’re the one making a case, well you better be damned sure you can actually PROVE your ENTIRE case.  Otherwise you can get caught with your pants down.

They kept raising the dues so I just let mine expire.

They kept raising the dues so I just let mine expire.

The difference between a good lawyer and an average lawyer is the ability to See what others don’t see when it is RIGHT in front of them. And then to have the ability to ask probing questions in that area to demonstrate the weakness and inconsistency spotted. Asking questions, fundamental questions, doesn’t make you popular. In fact in today’s world you are branded a “conspiracy theorist” if you ask any fundamental questions in the public setting.

Let’s take the supposed tragedy at “Sandy Hook” for example. If you ask, where is the proof that anyone actually died there, and why is there significant evidence that indicates that the school had been closed several years before the incident? Well, poof you’re a kook.  It should be EASY to explain and prove such basic facts. So someone asking these types of questions is hardly a kook. Asking this type of question is EXACTLY what I am paid to do in a case. The kooks are the set of brainwashed people who accept the story without an explanation of such basic facts.

Your honor I object to the defense exhibit. That equation requires expert testimony.

Your honor I object to the defense exhibit being shown to the jury without the necessary expert testimony to understand it.

Proof of these FACTS in a coherent way should be part of the basic case that is made available to everyone UP FRONT.  But instead the person acting rationally and merely asking for basic facts and information is presented as a kook. This strange situation is not an accident. It is a creation of the power structure itself. And certainly you can see why they would want to create a climate where asking fundamental questions is something done only by “kooks”and “conspiracy theorists”.

This technique of making someone appear to be a kook or labeling them a “conspiracy theorist” for merely asking questions is just a variation of the same PR trick that politicians use when asked whether they have done such and such or said such and such, or met with so and so, when the underlying issue would be very damaging to them. They often pull out the “I’m not going to dignify that question with a response.” Do you see the similarity?

The man is a liar. He can’t deny the fact being asked about without being caught, and he can’t offer you facts to prove what he wants you to believe, because it is impossible to have facts to prove something happened when IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. Can you have made up information? Of course, but you can’t have a FACT. Facts can be checked because they represent something that actually exists or existed. If what he wants you to believe, didn’t actually happen, then all he can hope to do is create an impression that it did, by innuendo. He can’t have facts. Do you see?

That is an excellent question.  I believe I have already answered that question.  Next question.

That is an excellent question. I appreciate you asking it.  I believe the American people are entitled to an answer to that question.  That said, I believe I have already answered that question. Next question.

So when asked, the politician uses a public relations trick to give the impression he is taking the high road to deflect FROM the facts. He acts as though giving any substantive response would be below him because the question ITSELF is absurd. And what are people who ask obviously silly or absurd questions if not fools? Poof, the attention is refocused away from the issue and the facts to the PERSON asking the question.

This type of trick answer is just a different version of the same deflection that occurs when they “ignore” the “conspiracy kooks”. They can’t produce basic facts to substantiate the story they have cooked up, so they act as though only a fool or a nut would even ask for such facts. The urge to conform and be part of the crowd is extremely strong in people. People want to be accepted. They are not comfortable feeling they are “not accepted”. Being seen as a kook or a nut is a strong disincentive. So the system works amazingly well.

They have used yet another PR technique to brainwash the people in this country about what selfless geniuses our “founding fathers” were. Many people can’t even think about those “great men” with any objectivity. In fact many get angry and have an emotional response to what is nothing more than asking questions about them. You’re “questioning Amuurica” and that is not allowed. Love it or leave it. Get it?

Holy crap did you see what that chick had on?  You could see right down her top.  Wow. Okay, let's get back to this other clause about the senate.  Hey, "who's a guy gotta bl** around here to get some coffee?"

I have reproduced some of Hamilton’s private diary here to bring the convention “alive”:  Holy crap did you see what Kim had on? You could see right down her top. Wow, that is some rack.  Okay, let’s get back to work guys.  Hey, George who’s a guy gotta bl** around here to get some coffee?

I think one of the reasons for this is that those wig wearing power grabbers seem so distant and disconnected from us. They wore knickers and wrote on paper with a quill. They don’t look like anything we can RELATE to. People have a hard time seeing them as just men. No different than you or me, or Barack Obama.

Would you hold in the same high esteem, some bogus bill that Pete Sessions and Harry Reid produced? I doubt it. You can relate to them. You know they are JOKES. But they are government men just like the political operators who founded our “country”. They just had different systems to operate in. The people and their type ARE THE SAME.

Of course I support Sharia.  I believe it is everyone's right.

Of course I support Sharia. I believe it is everyone’s right.

Let me ask you. Do you honesty think that if Bill Clinton or Mitt Romney had been born in Iran that they would profess to believe what they profess to believe? Of course not.  They would rage against the great satan, be on one side or the other of the whole jihad deal and be all for Sharia law. Politicians are the same throughout time. They are self seeking people who want power and seek to use the government’s authority to use force as THEIR means to achieve their own goals. THAT is the reality. Not the imaginary fairy tale you have in your head.

Think about it. Even the very name “founding fathers” sounds important and it piggy backs on the warm and trusting association that is already there for the term. What if we called them the “original plotters”? Leaves a pretty different impression. But isn’t it just as accurate a combination of words? Yes. They were plotting to create a political entity that they would benefit from were they not?

Does that mean that they ALONE would benefit? Of course not, but benefiting their own interests was PART OF THEIR MOTIVATION. We know that. Every one who plotted to create this “country” believed they would benefit from its creation. That we can KNOW.

WE HAVE BEEN TOLD by those who have come after them in GOVERNMENT that the original plotters BELIEVED that posterity would benefit and that IT HAS IN FACT BENEFITED. But we don’t KNOW that. They could have been acting quite selfishly, and, we don’t have a control “country” to which we can compare the results. But we can be damned sure they didn’t support something they thought would be bad for THEM personally. That is fundamental human nature.

No no it's no trouble. She can just stay in my room until she can get a ride back. I'm happy to do it.

No no it’s no trouble. She can just stay in my room tonight until her friend gets here. I’m happy to do it.

The idea that they did it for the “good of mankind” etc. may or may not have ANY validity. They could have been simply clever plotters. Do you see that being told your whole life that they WERE these selfless geniuses doing it for posterity etc. immediately places you into a mindset. By being in a mindset you see certain things. I want to show you something. Take 10 seconds to look around the room and identify as many blue items as you can right now. Did you do it? Well go do it then before you go on. Now tell me, how many green items can you identify?

See, the mindset is key. Making people assume that our founding fathers, and really EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT FIGURE they ever want to put forward, were acting in this selfless way COULD just be a laughable load of crap that is put in your head to benefit the subsequent government operatives. It makes people easily and naturally accept what they are told about what the founders wrought.

They use this same technique for all murdering meglomaniacs they like to refer to as “leaders” throughout history. They are lionized and shown as “helping whole nations”, they make sure that people have a laughably romanticized view of this type of psychopath. Some images of these people move way beyond romanticized going “full retard” as they say. My point is that the original plotters COULD be nothing like what you IMAGINE. YOU HAVEN’T LOOKED INTO THAT POSSIBILITY.

I did not have sex with that woman.

Okay okay you got me, I did have sex with that woman.  But I didn’t enjoy it.

Though not a founding father, Lincoln is the most obvious historical figure to benefit from this trick. It is essential that the people see him as a wise and moral man etc. in order to PROMOTE the idea that the federal government is a good thing.  That really is laughable to me. He was certainly one of the biggest and most outrageous liars to ever hold the office. The types of lies he would tell might make Bill Clinton or George H. Bush blush. But because we are TOLD he was a certain kind of person with certain motivations etc. therefore he is thought of that way and his actions are seen in a light to support that concept. And because he wore a giant stove top hat and had a weird beard, he seems quite distant once again.

LincolnThere is ample evidence that he could care less about freeing the slaves. He said as much. Are you aware that the holy “emancipation proclamation” didn’t free a single slave. It didn’t even apply to the territory THAT HE CONTROLLED where THERE WERE SLAVES. He cared about exactly ONE thing.  Government power. 

If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.A.LIncoln.  The great emancipator..

Sausage fest? what? no no dude, c'mon over this place is kickin.

Sausage fest? what? no no dude, c’mon over this party is kickin.

Do you see how absurd his reputation is in light of the facts?   He “freed” people in areas he didn’t control. Is that really freeing anyone? Is it “heroic”? no. it is a laughable PR gimmick, nothing more. Yet he is PROMOTED, no different than a rave party is promoted, as a certain type of man and you accept that idea without looking into it BECAUSE IT IS SO FUNDAMENTAL to accepting the control they want you to GIVE them.

My point is not to plead my case about Lincoln being the worst murdering freedom destroying president ever, though he clearly was, my point is that the same type of slant is embedded in your head about the “founding fathers” and you at least need to do some OBJECTIVE investigation into the area to see if the current view you have is justified or if it is just a fairy tale.

Oh yeah, now I see it. You're right.  I am a hypocrite.

Oh yeah, now I see it. You’re right. I am a hypocrite.

My belief is that even just 15 minutes worth of objective investigation with a jaundiced eye instead of the rose colored glasses you have had strapped to you head, will show you that a fairy tale was intentionally placed into your mind about our “founding”.

That meme is drilled into everyone’s heads 24/7 and it is so deep virtually nobody questions it. Think about this. The legislation that creates Obamacare is called the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”. That SOUNDS great. But is it? No it is crap. How will that legislative p.o.s. be “perceived in 200 years? Well that depends on who “succeeds” and who gets to write the history books. Get it?

How do we KNOW the holy “constitutional convention” and the “legislation” that came out of it was any different than the Obamacare example I just gave you? Oh, well, we were told by the people who benefited from it of course. How is that any different than reading Nancy Pelosi’s Memoirs,  “Dreams for a Better World, the Creation of the Affordable Care Act”?  it isn’t.

They do it for our own good you know.

They do it for our own good you know.

The only actual difference is that I made up Pelosi’s book and one is obvious bs to you and the other is not. How do you know what you have thought about the constitutional convention, the constitution that came out of it and the holy founding fathers, is any different than what I just described about Obummercare? You don’t. You have simply accepted what you WERE TOLD about the constitutional convention and those men based upon the records THEY gave you and what the people who want you to believe that version TOLD YOU.

They give the impression that the founding fathers are “fully vetted” in modern history because they make a big deal out of some personal scandal details. I laugh at such a transparent and juvenile attempt to deflect. But it WORKS on the people. The reality is that the only “scandals” that are “allowed” in main stream history surrounding any founding fathers are strictly limited to personal issues, such as affairs, personal finances, etc. We’ve all heard about Jefferson’s love child etc. But how many of you knew that Patrick Henry was opposed to the constitution because he “smelled a rat in Philadelphia”? Wonder why you didn’t know that? Hmmm?

Look, the power structure does not permit any REAL questioning of the “founders” POLITICAL motives etc as to the great “freedom system” they CREATED and that now controls every aspect of your life. They use game theory and keep everyone in a box talking about unimportant details. It is the same system they use all the time. “Raucous” debate about s**t that doesn’t matter.

Relax, they have gloves on.

I agree, it is outrageous that he doesn’t have a choice about the glove color they use.  I’ll bring that up at the next meeting.

The important issues are never discussed, because the power structure that controls it all doesn’t want them discussed. They need people mindlessly believing the fairy tale about what the country is. That way the people are controlled. People actually voluntarily die to keep the power structure in place.

Think about that. The people are convinced that a government, which claims a right to tax every cent you make at whatever rate they choose, is this beneficent thing that “keeps them free”. The people are so convinced of this fantasy that they actually fight and die to maintain it. And those same people have not spent even 15 stinking minutes actually investigating and questioning the facts surrounding the fundamental concept for which they are ready to die. And if you suggest otherwise, they attack you as a kook or an “America hater”.

For me the objective mental state that the masses live in is as close to insanity as you can get. They actually fight and die to protect and defend the very power structure that imprisons and steals from them, and they attack anyone who even asks them questions about the situation. That is the power of early and often brainwashing.

I hope you at least now see that perhaps you do not see what you thought you did see. Lol. Next time I want to make “the case for the defense” when it comes to the constitutional convention. I want to show the other side of the they did it for us and it produced so much freedom story. Give you some information and some facts and have you look at them in a new light. A light outside the fishbowl you’ve been mentally swimming in for so long. That water….is disgusting dude, you need to change it. lol

In the meantime, remember this piece of advice.

Whatever they TELL you… is the only thing you can be sure ISN’T the truth. — Legalman

That’s all for now. Be well my brainwashed Brethren. Don’t be down, live in the light.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

5 thoughts on “Step one, identify the bullsh*t. Step two, stop consuming it. The founding fathers were just men.

  1. marc

    My first bit of disageement with you. Of course the founders were greedy bastards, we all are. If it wasn’t Washington eta al it would have been some one else with enough wealth to protect and to put at risk. No different then than now. The ONE big differerence is Washigton and the bunch were willing to give their LIVES to protect their interests. However selfish their motivations were, that fact is what I respect the founding fathers for. They were willing to accept the consequences for their actions, something that no longer exits. I sure hope that somewhere on this site i will find acknowlegement of this basic difference between those that met at the Convention, however flawed they were, and those in control today. Without something “good” to believe in as to our founding, what’s your point? That we are all brainwashed? Yes! And then what. If the piece of paper you say means nothing really does, then so will every other paper. Even if it could be achieved, to start over is not an option. I’m awake enough to understand one site cannot fit all. Many of your words have helped give substance to that which I am unable to verbalize. But I am yet to see what to do with any of this substance, except retreat into the rabbithole further.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      It is a fair point. Many of them were willing to put their money where their mouth was. However, many of the men at the constitutional convention were not the men who fought. The men who signed the declaration of independence are not the same as you know. Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson were not in favor of the new and improved constitution. I would disagree that starting over is not an option. Why is it not? The same argument would have been made at the time of the country’s founding. We can’t really break away from England, better that we make peace with what we have etc. The key to all of it is decentralizing as much as possible. Opening people’s minds to the fact that it doesn’t have to stay the same. Because for a FACT it never will stay the same. The only issue is how will it be changing. Because it is ALWAYS changing. Remember, they were having problems, serious problems in the 1760’s onward. But they didn’t even have our new and improved constitution till around 1790. That’s about 20 ish years of serious problems and war. Nothing comes without a price and nothing happens overnight. We aren’t even at the point where people actually understand the problem, let alone are they demanding solutions that might work. So I guess my position is that it is a process and people don’t seem to be willing to live with how very long change takes. They want a “solution” we can implement now. But that is not the way large populations move or change. So I return to my original point which is that people have to be awoken to the STRUCTURE of the problem so that they don’t fall prey to the prepacked “solution” that will be offered up when the time comes. And someone like you is already aware of many if not most of the issues. You forget how woefully brainwashed the masses are. And that is my point I guess. We don’t need them all, hell we only need about 5 or 10% to actually snap to. But we are just now STARTING that process. Virtually all of the other “solutions” that people are offered will only lead to more problems. They need to really see what the problem is before the people can decide what kind of solution would work and that they could live with. I hope I addressed your concern/question/objection. Glad you’re still here…lol. L

      Reply
      1. GeorgiaCracker

        Replying to your reply to Marc. I have to confess that most of the time I don’t even know the question, much less the answer. However, I appreciate the dialogue and the start toward awareness of the problem–the first step toward solving any problem and the direction of our country is a problem. Is it possible to wash away brainwashing? Hope so.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *