The conspiracies have not been leak-proof for a couple years. That’s what I’ve been saying. There’s all kinds of evidence of the particular individuals and agencies involved.
The Soros part is speculation; that I will grant. And I’ve tried to say outright that I don’t have proof of anything for that speculation. I’ve been prepared to be ridiculed on that because I don’t have the proof. And I am not offended by LL’s mockery because I expected it; that’s what you get when you post speculation without giving all your reasons. When I have the time to devote a couple weeks to putting all my reasons together perhaps I’ll do that. Mostly I wanted you to realize that politeness of verbiage isn’t necessarily the same thing as dealing with other people in a respectful way. Something I need to be reminded of also, because I have been really cranky lately.
But regarding the Soros speculation, the pieces of the puzzle fit, and there are things that just don’t make sense without the Soros piece.
For instance, why would Fox News submit to censorship of the eligibility issue at the threat of Obama annihilating them after the election, if by simply reporting the threats made Fox could have ensured that Obama sat in jail rather than the White House? The FCC threat by itself would be a vain threat. There had to be something more.
And why would Clarence Thomas, who prides himself on valuing the Constitution, admit that they were “evading” a valid and pressing Constitutional issue? It doesn’t make sense.
Why are the eligibility judges almost all doing things that are blatantly unethical during the time that they are presiding over these cases?
I don’t have 2 weeks right now to devote to this. I’m torn in a million different directions because there’s so much to do on the elgibility front as well as things at home. So I can’t give all my reasons now. I listed a few of the reasons I have these suspicions, in a very long post a while back; that’s what I had time for. Without all the dots and a wide-angle view, a newspaper looks like isolated dots that make no sense, but when more dots fill in the space and you step back to see it all together, an image forms.
Those who say that more dots actually makes a bigger, more unbelievable “conspiracy” have accepted an epistemology that ensures they will never be able to see a big picture that they can actually believe. If it has a lot of dots connected it’s incredible; if the dots don’t form solid lines there are too many holes in it. See what I mean?
Fox News? Some guy two years ago claimed they were being threatened, IIRC. Not a peep about that since. Maybe Fox News doesn't want to talk about this issue because they think it's misguided at best or nutty and detrimental at worst.
Judge Thomas? B, he was making a joke. There's a history of Thomas and that fellow jesting about the issue of whether or not a Peurto Rican would be an NBC. Instead of accepting that he was making a joke you chose to search for explanations that supported your presumptions. Explanations such as Soros blackmailing them USSC and the USSC kowtowing to him on the mater.
Unethical actions by eligibility judges? There haven't been. But you choose to believe that there have and to explain why nobody in the system calls them on it you seem to resort to expanding the conspiracy to include more and more folks.
If you are feeling torn, take some time away from this B. It's Christmas. Turn off the computer, set aside Obama and focus on the family.
And when, Lord willing, the Presidency moves out of Democrat hands, you'll see the pendulum swing Left and it will become more clear that dots can be connected by anyone who decides they really ought to be connected.
Why assume they were censored or threatened? Maybe they thought the issue was so ridiculous it would just make them look silly? Like they never report on the dozens of lawsuits filed in federal court every year (and there are-- citations on request) claiming that the 16th Amendment was never ratified and the income tax is unconstitutional? Or they never report on the truther lawsuits regarding 9/11? Or dozens of other crackpot theories that are brought before the federal courts?
And why would Clarence Thomas, who prides himself on valuing the Constitution, admit that they were “evading” a valid and pressing Constitutional issue? It doesn’t make sense.
You are missing the context there. Every year-- and this started long before Obama ever ran for President-- Congressman Jose Serrano asks Thomas if he (Serrano, born in Puerto Rico) is eligible to run for President. Every year, Thomas tells him that the issue has never come before SCOTUS. When Serrano asked him for the 10th or 12th time, Thomas said "you know we're evading that," and everyone laughed. It's their standard joke.
Why are the eligibility judges almost all doing things that are blatantly unethical during the time that they are presiding over these cases?
None of these judges has domne anything unethical. And if you go back to the very first time the Obama eligibility issue was raised on FR, I, and almost every other Freeper lawyer, predicted that every single eligibility lawsuit would be bounced on grounds of standing or justiciability. This is just obvious stuff to anyone who had a year of law school. That is why none of the serious conservative lawyers (people like the Thomas Moore Center, the American Center for Law and Justice, even Judicial Watch) wants anything to do with eligibility suits and they are being left to incompetent fringe lawyers like Orly Tatiz (who, before she began the eligibility suits, had never represented anyone in court except for defending herself against dental malpractice cases).
But regarding the Soros speculation, the pieces of the puzzle fit, and there are things that just don’t make sense without the Soros piece.
Even in conspiracy theories, Occam's razor still applies-- the simpler explanation is almost always more likely than the one that requires you to believe a dozen unproven assumptions. That Al Quaeda conspired to bring down the World Trade Center is more likely than that George Bush and the U.S Military conspired to start a war on Iraq. If George Soros wanted to install a puppet president, he could have corrupted Hillary Clinton, or found another Democratic stooge, rather than picking a foreign-born candidate that would require him to commit dozens of felonies any one of which might have led to his discovery and destruction. If Soros picked Obama to run, you can bet he vetted his NBC status.
Those who say that more dots actually makes a bigger, more unbelievable “conspiracy” have accepted an epistemology that ensures they will never be able to see a big picture that they can actually believe. If it has a lot of dots connected it’s incredible; if the dots don’t form solid lines there are too many holes in it. See what I mean?
Yes, I see exactly what you mean.
