It’s just about how good they are about concealing it.

The TRUST Myth

We’re told we can trust our leaders. Their words affect our daily lives and when repeated by our media, have profound effects on everything from grocery and gas prices to world peace.

However, there’s a very small number of people in the United States who can lie with near total impugnity. None of us can lie about our boss or to our customers without being promply fired. But if you’re one of the 635 on Capitol Hill (clearly not the best and brightest 635 in America either….), and as long as you’re on the clock, you can say anything you want about anything or anybody.

Must be nice….

The Senators and Representatives shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
— United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1)

And they’d NEVER abuse that privilege, right?

“If you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”
— President Barack Obama, PolitiFact ‘Lie of the Year’

Obama knew Republicans would be hard pressed and/or gutless trying to prove “high crimes and misdemeanors” here as presidents were not included in the Clause, so he just repeated this whopper over three dozen times.

We had politicians on the floor of the Senate accusing a presidential candidate of not filing income taxes (knowing he did), and after the election one was called on the mistruth to which he responded, “Well, he didn’t win, did he?”

Americans have to live with the daily ramifications of falsehoods spoken and written by House and Senate politicians, echoed by both legacy and social media. Imagine how much better life could be if the elected were required to be honest….

The Only MEN ARE SLOBS Myth

There are probably hundreds of instances where women declare men slobs, pigs, etc. Husbands and boyfriends are the butt of such declarations on women’s talk shows, op-ed and social media posts, and are never called on it.

That’s because women know and consciously deflect from an ugly truth: they can be easily outed as mockable projection hypocrites if their behavioral tendencies were exposed and publicly acknowledged.

Go to any department store and look at the women’s clothing and shoe aisles. One will see blouses and dresses strewn on the floor under the hung garments. Women just throw garments anywhere but back on the racks where they found them. Shoes, instead on being put back in place after being tried on, are just left on the floor to be walked around or tripped over.

Laura has also decribed the horrors of using a women’s public restroom.

Shit, piss and menstraul fluid literally splattered on and around toilet seats, soiled femine hygene products left on the floors or stopping up toilets… yeah, it’s fuckng gross and the same women who punchline men as slobs will NEVER tell you how disgusting they are behind closed stalls.

The Myth About ACADEMICS

There is this perception that teachers and professors have the last word during any discussion. If one has any doubt, their academic credentials are thrown back in your face in an attempt to shut down any disagreement one may have with their conclusions. But why must we take their conclusion as the final word?

Because we’ve been trained to accept their word.

Teachers have the ultimate power, by issuing grades from first grade through college, to certify or destroy an academic record that has profound implications for an employment career. Since their grades are as simple as right or wrong, the implication is they know more than the student which most of the time is correct.

However in recent years, teachers (who are never given the opportunity to be vetted by parents) enter the classroom, not with the mission to educate children with the tools needed to function in society but with personal agendas that may be at odds with the values with parents. But because they are teachers with the power to destroy the academic record of any child, those agendas have been legitimized.

Parents are given no proof of the proficiency of any teacher but are supposed to accept they are good teachers simply because they’re employed by a school. We have no prior assurance teachers are actual decent people. But again because they are teachers, parents are not allowed to question their competence and sanity even when they repeatedly behave in deviant manners.

The LAWYER Myth

Given the lofty compensation for their emergency services (they’re mostly only hired when bad things happen), one would think lawyers are the ultimate professionals. Cinematic and television portrayals collectively sure give that impression.

And where’s the proof?

When looking for a lawyer, you’re presented with a headshot (usually taken when he or she was much younger). You’re to be impressed by the law school attended, their degrees, their years since passing the bar exam, and years in a legal area of expertice. But there’s one piece of very important information you won’t see in a lawyer’s bio.

When a professional sports team is looking for a new coach, the first metric their fans look at are the wins and losses. That’s the easiest way to gauge if that coach candidate is worth consideration. However with lawyers, you will NEVER see the wins and losses of any law firm or individual attorney on any website.

So how do you know if the hundreds of dollars per hour, or contingency, is going to a good lawyer or a bad one?

You won’t.

Ask an attorney for the number of their wins and losses and see what happens. Note the grammar in their response for a quick clue.

The DOCTOR Myth

Again because of their level and years of education, we’re told it’s extremely problematic to ever question the conclusion of a medical professional. But doctors and lawyers share one commonality in said professions.

They don’t perform law or medicine. They “practice”.

That long-standing word description alone should be pause for concern as the common definition is it’s a “method of learning by repetition”. Do you really want someone learning when your finances, freedom, health or life is on the line? Like lawyers, you’re to assume high-priced doctors are good at what they do despite your not given any documentation to back it up.

How many patients have they cured? How many have sued them for a misdiagnosis or negligence? How many patients have they lost?

Despite the high compensation demanded for their services, neither offer a guarantee of success.

If you don’t ask, they won’t tell you. If they do respond, they’ll probably hide behind HIPPA so they still won’t tell you.

The HEALTHY FOOD Myth

Just read the ingredients on any food product you purchase at your market of choice and you’ll be left dumbfounded because, chances are, you can’t even pronounce some of the chemicals added to what we consume on a daily basis.

It might surprise you to learn that many food additives found in bread, baked goods, and candy manufactured in the United States are banned or restricted in Europe and other parts of the world because of potential health risks. U.S. consumers generally assume that items on grocery store shelves have been vetted for safety, but a loophole in the approval process of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) means that 99 percent of new food chemicals aren’t evaluated before they are added to products.
— Everyday Heath

While the excuse may be these chemicals are added for visual and palate aesthetics or preservation, many of these additives have quite negative short and longterm health ramifications. High fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, monosodium glutamate are some of the most widely used culprits. Funny how when you see drug commercials that reveal those pesky, possible negative side effects (that inconveniently include death), we’re never given similar warnings when it comes to the ingredients added to our food.

Are they trying to kill us?

The HOUSING SHORTAGE Myth

For anyone listening to news reports about the affordability and/or availability of homes, disregard all the metrics given as there’s one very important factor the media leaves out.

Realtors.

They set local and regional market prices based on their personal commission demands. They are the ones assuring hallucinating sellers how valuable their neglected or damaged homes are. There are more protections for buying a used car than a home purchase worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Why are the homes neglected or damaged? Because some people bought over-their-head and after mortgage, bills, and daily expenses, had little money left, let alone for routine maintenance. When the inevitable happens and repairs are required, handyman cheap appears to be the remedy of choice and shoddy workmanship will be discovered belatedly by subsequent owners.

If you have the misfortune of searching for a home, there’s one constant: the condition of the homes you’ll see range from tolerable to you-must-be-high. From experience it’s safe to say 98% of the homes you’ll tour are in some way damaged. To a seller and realtor, the buyer is a mark. They want your money and conscience is in very short supply.

Unless you have the wealth to build from ground up you’ll be choosing from poorly maintained, insect and/or rodent infested, mold and/or water damaged homes with inflated prices that will help an entitled seller hit the lottery and the greedy realtor receive that generous commission. If that house was initially listed at an realistic price with honest verbal and pictorial descriptions (big IF), it’ll most likely be scooped up quickly by another realtor/broker who’ll put the minimum into that house and flip it at a hefty markup. It’s the optional ethics of realtors that make home prices unaffordable for most buyers, not to mention the ripple effect of jacking up the property taxes of all those around that home.

Also be wary of the typical descriptions of houses found online: “meticulously maintained”, “nestled in”, “cozy”, “spacious” and other glowing adjectives that will be fodder for instant disappointment when you visit the property. Getting honest disclosures from realtors (required by law in some states) about the house is like pulling teeth. You’ll only be told what you know to ask. Then it’s a question of how much potential money you’re willing to tolerate or invest in that house after buying that expensive shack.

Despite all you’re told, there is no housing shortage.

There IS a shortage of houses that are worth the asking price.

The QUALITY Myth

Speaking of overpriced, there was a time in America if you were to spend a little more money on an item , you were assured of receiving something of higher quality that would last for many, many years.

Those were the days.

Cars actually had steel frames and bodies that could withstand a simple bump and could inflict even more damage to whatever it came in contact with. The left saw that as unfair, so all cars were subsequently constructed with lighter materials so damage would be more equitable.

Just look at some of the 60’s era kitchen appliances you can still find in homes currently for sale.

Today, the more you spend on anything, you’ll purchase the inferior in order to get you to repeat that sad cycle. Any product or service you don’t buy often will be used against you. The quality will be questionable at best to assure multiple repeat visits that will never fix the problem. Whether we’re talking about an appliance, store, auto mechanic, finding someone who’s first mission isn’t to rip you off is like seeking the Holy Grail.

As this appears to be the current business model, not sure when our money will be respected again.

The MEDIA Myth

We’re told to trust the media, and who says that the most?

The media.

Without those who consume their product, their overinflated salaries don’t happen. News anchors must come off as authorities on any given topic and when the inevitable happens and they get something very wrong, apologies and retractions are as brief and short as possible. To make matters worse, whether we’re talking about the news or entertainment industries, these people truly believe they are smarter that the American people whose ignorance on any given topic should be solely blamed on… the media.

Our job is to control what people think.
— Mika Brzezinski, 2/22/17

Note the use of terms used when describing the American people: “average”, “everyday”, “ordinary” people. Think of the narcissistic arrogance and sense of privilege it takes to constantly look at others in that fashion. It gives too many the license to misinform and/or manipulate because they believe they know what’s best for the public, and for those they prefer and deem protectable.

Many of today’s journalists also believe if it’s something they’ve never heard of, it never happened. What could go wrong with that thinking?

Also be wary whenever a journalist cites an “expert” to justify a conclusion. More times than not like “anonymous sources”, those experts are not named and if so, the number is as few as possible. That “source” can also be an academic (see: above), or based on past incidents, can be made up altogether.

Arrogance crosses into the entertainment industry where television and movie celebrities believe they’re deep thinkers and know it all simply because of where they work, not to mention those who work for them who don’t have the guts to risk their employment and tell these entertainers when they’re wrong. As a result, embarrassingly misinformed musings are distributed to the masses.

It has been brought to my attention that, in my support of Palestine, I have inadvertently re-posted articles, and/or statements, that have contained misinformation and falsehoods. I am aware how sharing inaccurate content can cause confusion and distress; for this I am deeply sorry. I will certainly endeavour to be more diligent in future to verify anything I share online.
— Guy Pearce, actor

“Inadvertently”….

For the most part, disregard their opinions unless you put them in the parody column.

When it comes to the world of broadcast sports, on-air pundits could be the worse as too many believe they’re also comedians instead of analysts. Their jokes and segments aren’t funny, and we’re to embrace their condescending belief that eye candy is necessary to keep men interested.

Stop.

There are other examples of myths that will inevitably come to mind as life continues.

Imagine a United States government that wasn’t infected by Clintons or an Obama. How would the nation morph from slavery to freedom without a Lincoln? Like people in general, there are good, there are some who aren’t and the Founders knew it.

While many enthusiastically misinterpret the line from William Shakespeare’s Henry the Sixth, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”, there’s always been a suspicion when it comes to the self-serving motivations of those in the profession. Consider part of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution that is curiously missing.

In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.

By chance, they discovered the library’s oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this “missing” 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution.

Kinda’ makes one wonder who removed it and why….

If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from US Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.
— The Missing 13th Amendment

Today, the idea of a constitutional controversy about the royals may seem kind of silly, but in 1812, the United States was fighting the British and had a rocky relationship with France. The fear of both nations using noble titles as bribes, along with pensions from a foreign government, was persistent. And both the Senate and the House easily passed the “Titles of Nobility Amendment” and passed it on to the states. By late 1812, a total of 12 states had approved the 13th Amendment and ironically, it needed a 13th state to become ratified. As the War of 1812 escalated, the TONA faded away as an issue and was never ratified.
— Constitution Center, 12/6/16

The “nobles” and “royals” in question were lawyers or those who could afford their services, and there didn’t seem to be much love for them. All you need do look at recent events to invoke memories of stories where lawyers always tend to take more care of themselves than their clients.

Yahoo will pay up to $85 million to settle a class action lawsuit over its massive data breach, reports the Recorder, a legal publication. That includes $50 million for compensation for up to 200 million affected users plus another $35 million for lawyers’ fees and expenses. People who already have credit monitoring and certify they plan to keep it for at least a year would be eligible for $100, according to the settlement.
— Fast Company, 10/24/18

So, why would the Founding Fathers and their predecessors be so wary of those in the law profession?

In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no “title of nobility” or “honor”. There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen’s “counsel of choice” was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank “Esquire” — a “title of nobility”.

“Esquire”; a title many lawyers today bestow upon themselves simply because… they’re lawyers.

Any lawyer can take on the title esquire, regardless of what type of law they practice. Family lawyers, personal injury attorneys, and corporate lawyers all have the right to use esquire as a title. As a title, esquire, meaning shield bearer, originated in Great Britain and France as a term of nobility in the Middle Ages. It applied to the squire of a knight, who hoped to acquire a noble rank as he rose to knighthood himself. In The United States, however, the constitution prohibits noble titles.
— Dolman Law Group

It hasn’t stopped them because they’re special.

“Esquire” was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of “Esquire” lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an “Esquire” behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents).

Therefore, a “title of nobility” amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.
— American History from Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond

“Infiltrate” and “subvert”. Interesting choices of wording.

Now while our media, political class, and academia glorifies the profession (and don’t get us wrong; there ARE some good lawyers out there), not all during the early colonial days were enamored by those who practiced.

The [Plymouth] colony’s first trained lawyer, Thomas Lechford, did little to instill enthusiasm. He was disbarred for trying to influence a jury. Anti-lawyer sentiment was pervasive elsewhere as well, and the “ancient English prejudice against lawyers secured new strength in America.” The framers of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas in 1669 declared it a “base and vile thing to plead for money or reward.” Connecticut and Virginia during a portion of the seventeenth century prohibited lawyers from practicing. Early lawyers were often laymen helping friends or women serving the legal interests of absent husbands.
— Kermit L. Hall, The Magic Mirror: Law in American History

In fact, arguments have been made against any lawyer being able to hold public office… ever.

What follows is a case to Amend the Constitution to Prohibit Lawyers from holding elective public office. The Amendment shall read:

No Person who holds, or has held, a license to practice law; nor any person who has represented any entity (other than himself) in a court of law in these United States, may be elected to any public office.

What a wonderful world this would be….
— Herb Alpert, Lou Adler, Sam Cooke

Note the language in almost any piece of legislation written in “legalese” and then “nonprofit” entities like the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, etc. (intentionally structured so they don’t pay taxes) that sue the government to prevent enactment of laws passed by the people’s representatives they don’t approve of.

Meanwhile, elite colleges and universities churn out more and more lawyers, many advertise on television seeking customers to pile onto class action suits like the one against Yahoo!, where they reserve the bulk of settlements for themselves and the remaining change for their clients. While the media is lauding the fact that less than 40% of Congress today are lawyers, that’s still an impressive representation of those whose early instincts were how to deceive a jury and free those who were clearly guilty, shield the elite from the ramifications all of us would face, target businesses with suits that can result in opulent rewards for themselves, and while in office, write legislation complete with loopholes that can financially help friends and harm enemies.

Back when President Obama was implementing Obamacare, his spokesman promised, “Members of Congress will not receive anything that is not available to the public.” Indeed, Obamacare explicitly requires Congress to live under the same rules as everyone else, by kicking members and staff out of the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits Program and leaving them to enroll in health insurance through the law’s exchanges. Contrary to assurances and in violation of federal law, the Obama administration shielded lawmakers by granting Congress several types of special treatment unavailable to the public. Obama took these steps because he knew Congress would have quickly revamped or even repealed Obamacare if lawmakers had to live under its terms.
— Washington Examiner, 9/5/17

Bad lawyers can become judges; obviously also problematic. Way too many judge wannabes are all too willing to throw the innocent in jail in favor of their potential lucrative and powerful upward mobility.

The New England Center for Investigative Reporting found no case in Massachusetts where a prosecutor was disbarred for professional misconduct since 1974, when the state Board of Bar Overseers was created to hear complaints against attorneys. Only two public reprimands for professional misconduct were found in that 42-year span, and they came without fines or other punishment.

At least seven prosecutors whose behavior prompted courts to reverse convictions went on to higher posts. Some became judges and district attorneys.
— WGBH, 4/3/16

It’s also rare that judges face the music.

U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings was convicted by the Senate yesterday of engaging in a “corrupt conspiracy” to extort a $150,000 bribe in a case before him, marking the first time a federal official has been impeached, removed from office for a crime he had been acquitted of by a jury, and stripped the 53-year-old jurist of his lifetime, $89,500-a-year position.
— Washington Post, 10/21/89

Alcee Hastings is currently a United States Congressman.

The 45th president, Donald J. Trump, is NOT a lawyer, achieving more than those who’ve preceded him and cashed-in on their prior service, and look at how those with that oh-so-important legal pedigree are taking offense to his many successes that diminish their worth.

The bottom line is, according to the United States Constitution, there should be NO lawyers on Capitol Hill or any state or local government.

Government was meant to be run by the people, using verbiage and common sense that shouldn’t include legalese needing deciphering. Obviously lawyers would sue us all if their existence today in government was threatened but do you really think they could muster enough states to amend the Constitution?

Let’s hope one day we find out.

h/t Lisa S. Belanger JD