REAGAN AND LAWYERS

The Reagan years were not a period of coexistence. The Reagan years were a period considered to be a “conservative revolution.” Reagan had intention of loosing that battle; and thus the trickle down economics signified its widespread appeal for a war of introspection. What was the Reagan years about and how did this relate to the dismay or the mismanagement felt during the 1960s with the way society was being managed and specifically the way people were fighting or refused to fight on Vietnam?

Reagan knew you could not drop a bomb on a building or a headquarters to fulfill this conservative revolution and the reversal of liberal economics. What he did was he grabbed the largest object possible and restored it with conservatism and conservative economics; that is the economy itself. The effects were like dropping a bomb on a headquarters or a building resided by the liberals. Those who were right along with him began to question whether their loyalties were safe even if Reagan stood for total fairness and very opposite to liberals. The question was whether coexistence was possible and what was required for this coexistence?

The biggest problem and the single most difficult problem with liberals is they cannot keep their hands off of people and do not understand “keep away.” Even if they decry all kinds of social injustices and inequality, they simply do not and will not abide respect the feelings of others and either keep away or keep their hands off of them. This inability to keep away or stay away can sometimes make people extremely angry and violent; most especially is when it entails the exploitation or sexual abuse of their children. Keep in mind, the most problematic aspect of life the liberals have in their life is this temptation to keep away or stay away. This is why liberalism is sometimes linked to a violation of privacy and the single unit; thus the family unit; thus individualism. Liberalism too upholds an extreme form of individualism and the need to be part of some type of family structure to give balance, meaning, and life. Therefore, liberals must have involvement or some form of mentorship resulting from this extreme individualism and alienation. The ones who are atheist are the ones who can make the points more clearly. Those liberals who are politicians, powerful lawyers, or even prominent figures feel hurt and insulted when they are rejected; but they also view others as a deranged employee you cannot get rid of. The problem with liberals is this need to be involved and this desire to be the mentor of others; but the deep problem is the inability to keep away or keep their hands off others. Maybe something terrible will happen if they see things differently.

Since the 1960s and the liberal surge to social iniquities; words beginning with the letter “L” began appearing everywhere. Liberals, lawyers, lectures, “L” feminism, and liberty all came together and unified under the Democratic Party and global democracy. Liberalism and feminism outraced and outshined even Maoism and Marxism; the hottest thing on the planet was liberalism. Behind that liberalism was what people viewed as the “scourge” of society, lawyers. Nobody had to hang onto to socialism, Marxism, or Maoism any longer because students and lawyers were beating them. They were beating them in China, in England, in the United States, and all of the Middle East. There were very few and suspicious areas that were not affected by this “greatest” movement on earth. In the mind of a liberal, they are the greatest thing living and breathing on this earth and it must be respected with dignity and theocratic charity.

While everyone was blaming lawyers, lawyers became the “richest class.” They dominated academia, they dominated the business world, they dominated government, and they dominated everything other than war. The new phenomenon now was “crime” and the role of the lawyer to address the affect of crime on the lives of others. Was it a conspiracy of inequality and a crime or were they willing to expose what was really going on and the barrage of the left wing and liberals for the “richest class?” Now, if you wanted any voice or wanted to prevent crime, you had to make an offering to the richest class on earth. If you didn’t then you were attacked, held prisoner, and underwent all kinds of “conspiracy” by the “richest class” of liberals walking the free and not so free world. Were they the “scourge” they were made out to be or were they “heroes” which they wanted others to believe? These secrets are the problem with lawyers and the problem with the left wing; their unapologetic will to incarcerate innocent people and withhold information which will exonerate or clear the situation up for everyone. Truth to the liberals and the left wing is merely something they “choose” for the right price. They way they use the law and “lawyerism” is opportunistic and criminal. So why does everybody rely on it if it is so damaging?

We live in a world where two creatures inhabit the earth. One is based on greatness and the other is constantly fighting for a post to stay with or keep up with this greatness. We live in a world where two creatures define the fault lines between greatness and a total looser. Somewhere between those faults are lawyers. If you are on one side, you blame greatness. If you are on the other side, you blame total losers. Lawyers just want your money and to defend the law, the person themselves is irrelevant to the law. Who it is and what they want is irrelevant. This is about winning and only winning. This is about going to war without actually saying so or doing so. It is about terrorism without coming out and saying “self defense.” This is about the relationship between the law and money. It is about the law. To the liberals, they are the law. They are the judge, the jury, and the executioner. Conservatives are not that reckless and irresponsible with their life. The role of both the lawyer and the politician is to find out what they can or cannot get away with then bring it back to “their clients” on privacy.

Believe it or not, there are people willing to pay massive salaries and money to defend their position and their positions in life. When government takes away that position or position in life; they have to pay lawyers or government a “ransom.” People pay millions and even the upper reaches of billions of dollars just to keep government peaceful and out of their lives. As difficult as it may sound, that is the same problem with liberals and the left wing because they are robots, brain dead, and on automatic. Some conservatives do this and call it “private” interests. Their pride and ego is what makes them sadistic and murderous. So when you look at all the enemies this world has faced and all the enemies who have challenged freedom itself, this is by far the worst and the most dangerous of them all. They have at their disposal, all the tools of freedom and all the tools of repression to wage war. They have the protection of secrecy and the rights to just ignore or avoid the situation. No other enemy is allowed this benefit or advantage while they are even viewed as heroes. The success of lawyers, liberals, liberty, and the big “L” word; is objectivity and unbiased. The truth violates all of those rules. The success and victory of liberals and the left wing is based on this objectivity and the lack of any responsibility or preventive measures. In the end, it all blows up or self combusts. In this fight, you are prejudged and everybody has made up their minds already.

Certain religions and belief systems empower people to a higher sophistication where objectivity and even this “fault” line are possible. The fault line divides the great and the total loser world. Everybody in that fault line is fighting for the chance to call themselves champions or the “all powerful.” So who is the best and the most powerful? Is it the lawyer? Is it the richest? Is it the most objective? Is it the smartest? The most read? The best analysis or reasons? The unifier and unhateful? The ones who can read, write, and speak the best? The ones who take more risk? Who is going to live and survive to the very end when all out war is nonstop and inevitable with all the fury, rage, and destruction this earth knows? Is it the God fearing? Perhaps the fearless? Who is this enemy? Whoever it is we can draw up schematics and diagram and determine who overlaps who then repeats the same message without any religion or religious meanings. Lawyers represent two worlds; one inhabited by losers and the other by greatness; crime and criminals are somewhere between those extremes.

The history of who is or has been successful is not on par and in line with who will be successful. When governments intervene because people are affected or injured, things become complicated because it is not the role of governments to favor the enemy or they know is the aggressor. The role of the government is to provide a forum to peace and enforce the actors and participants in that process. When and if you take that forum away, perhaps by privatization or pure aggression; life ceases. You will have looting, rioting and local militias and gangs everywhere fighting for privatization or self defense. If they break or violate the terms of peace, then it is the role of the government to enforce the wrath of God because ultimately it is God who is the arbiter between mankind. The role of government is to find who God is or who it is not; this may come by pluralism, populist election, or other. Government is not an exercise to determine who has been successful and who have not been recipients of new favors, bribes, and various corruptions. Until or unless these liberals and lawyers provide the necessary information to dismantle this threat, life itself will be doomed to the past. History is messy and messing up the future. They can play these games all day long but it is not fooling anyone, only upsetting them and making them think these people are unrepentant and unapologetic.

There are a lot of lawyers, liberals included, who believe Marxism or Maoism is not possible unless you have liberalism as a permanent condition. Furthermore, there are no anti-communists who feel the reverse is true or permanent. They feel that the most popular beliefs and religions are the ones which uphold freedom; but the hypocrisy is how even the founding fathers of the United States can believe in freedom and slavery at the single moment in time. This is the reality and the world we live in. There are people who can believe in two beliefs which are in direct opposition and constant battle simultaneous and in the same moment in time. To them, the truth is absolute and thought, not history or experience. It is filled with contradictions and people who try desperately to hang onto or hold onto a world moving much quicker than they are. The problem with liberals is how they want to be viewed as righteous. They want to be viewed as heroes and the leaders of the free world. Their problem and their malfunction are deeply rooted in who they are and what they believe in. For liberals to be righteous, they must act righteously; to say righteous things and have the honest convictions which offer others the fair and honest judgment of them. When they deny this judgment and even hypocrisy of judgment, they not only deny others freedom but they will destroy the world as we know it. This is the worst and most dangerous enemy this world has yet to face in either peacetime or during warfare.

When the period after the Reagan years, from 1988 to 2008, began to reverse and even worsen the conservative revolution; something had happened. No longer was the conservative revolution respected by the people who were in it to the end. To be in it to the end, they had to reverse it; two thoughts in only one moment of time but moving in the same directions; or trying to. Thus, the twenty or so years shifting back and forth between the Clinton and Bush families trying to escape the little box Reagan had created for everyone became oratory and not mental action. Keep in mind, Reagan sought victory. He did not make promises about being safe unless this conservative revolution was sought to the end. That box he created also caused widespread panic. The question is why?

Since the early 1970s, public debt really began to become significant. The catalyst for this was severe economic woes internal and domestic. The problem was dependence on government which eventually would cost the public huge amounts of debt. On top of this internal problem were global conditions which did not favor the liberals and their equal charge after the 1960s and the overthrow of government.

Those who felt unsafe or affected by the Reagan years began to grow increasingly reliant on debt. Federal debt was now “recycled” and “reversing” the Reagan revolution. Was it overthrowing the government or just delaying it? It was delaying it at the expense of the idea that conservatives and liberals would live together peacefully and enjoy the benefits of large government and big government solutions. Herein lays the sneaky deception because those dollars and debt were funneled back into elections and into the pockets of liberals who used it to destroy conservatives. That, who was in it to the end, that is the Reagan revolution, overthrew the revolution and was on a course to reverse it, legitimately. In the Reagan box, what do you have to give up in order winning? Do you have to give up your ideology or politics? What do you want or not want to give up and why?

This reversal of the right wing came from the political leaders of the ideological right wing. It whipped the left wing in frenzy and they too joined in the siege and capture of the right wing. Like what happened in Vietnam, many conservatives felt the right and right wing once again betrayed them; it was happening again and again. However, it was not happening in the usual style of liberals but a whimper like way and means. To the conservatives, the right wing was now infested with money and lacked any leadership or qualities of leadership. These lawyers shifted the control and balance. Now the “fairness” was in money and how it was flowing from the right wing to the left wing and all at the expense of debt or accounting malfeasance. The only reason why it was not acknowledged as corruption or embezzlement was because it had public knowledge and approval. Once again, this infusion of power and money strikes the right wing with illogic by their leaders who had managed to win one election after another. The people who were now empowering the left wing and encouraging them to capture or incarcerate the right wing, was actually the leaders of the right wing. Even if they spoke vehemently about this, they still allowed the recycle and flow of money back to the left and claimed it was to “clean up” after the Reagan revolution. Keep in mind, Reagan sought victory; not defeat at the ballet box. In seeking bullet victory, he was investigated heavily by the left and challenged on every major advantage. Now the right wing had another new enemy inside its leadership who encouraged defeat of the right wing at the ballad box.

After the Reagan years, there is a lot of destruction of right wing politics going on. Terms such as “Nazi” were being thrown around with liberal ease while the left wing was unstoppable and encroaching. There is a refusal in religion to view religion for what it is and this is hard to let go. There were so many secrets and elusive acts, accounting became impossible while the Reagan years were hijacked. It was not a lack of money; it was a lack of leadership. You can infuse politics with all the money in the world and all the debt change can afford, the leadership will never arrive. That lack of leadership was transferring money from the right wing to the left wing. Thus, we are in this period of constant and unwavering limbo trying to figure out how to reverse the Reagan revolution. If there was a sucker punch nobody saw coming, it was after the Reagan years when liberals began to experience the worst time in their lives. What do you have to give up to achieve victory is the box. Reagan built that box and applied a heavier level of scrutiny. However, rich people, most especially liberal ones, are reluctant to changes about who they are or are not; they have to give up their religion. This is why in the Constitution it says clearly a separation between Church and state even if they did not know what they were talking about or given up.