Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: butterdezillion

Saw this from u:
Like his unethical, unprecedented ex parte invitation to have Obama visit the Supreme Court - announced to the national press on the same day SCOTUS was deciding whether to hear Donofrio’s eligibility challenge.

There was no way in the world he could have made that action look worse. It was blatant. Too blatant to be an accident.

The same kind of thing happened with Judge David Carter - hiring a clerk from Perkins-Coie in the middle of a very visible eligibility case argued by Perkins-Coie, and exhibiting a 180-degree turnaround in his rulings and demeanor as soon as that clerk was on board with him. There was no way to appear more unethical than that. Again, too blatant to be an accident.

I’m trying to be careful not to suffer from confirmation bias, but I had suspected that Roberts was compromised on the eligibility stuff and that his actions (the ex parte invitation, the botched oath, and affirming Kagan and Sotomayor’s refusal to recuse themselves on cases where their very positions were at issue) were meant to be red flags, and now this Obamacare decision started out looking like a red flag but the more we hear, the more it looks to me like a flashing strobe light instead. And not just Roberts drawing attention to something fishy, but four other justices as well.

Not 2 b dumb but what do u mean?


230 posted on 07/01/2012 4:27:05 PM PDT by YankeeMagic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies ]


To: YankeeMagic

Roberts (as well as other eligibility judges) have made some moves that are blatantly unethical. The timing and deliberate visibility of those moves immediately caused people at the time to cry foul. I believe those moves may have been red flags so that people WOULD cry foul. I believe the judges ruled as they did because they were threatened, but they wanted to give some sign to the public that what they did was under duress.

I believe that also explains why Dick Cheney never asked for objections to the electoral count, as required by law. Cheney gave the appearance of lawfulness, as he had been threatened into doing, but he stood his ground enough to make sure that Obama was never LAWFULLY declared the President elect.

Roberts did the same thing with the oath of office. I believe he deliberately screwed up the oath in public and then only did the “fixed” oath in private, with no videotape to prove that the oath was ever lawfully taken. Roberts gave the appearance of a lawful oath without necessarily ever actually administering a lawful oath. All the Soros people care about is the appearance, because anybody who would make a legal challenge to the appearances would be thwarted by the judiciary.

Obama was not lawfully declared the electoral winner. There is no hard proof that Obama ever took the lawful oath - which he couldn’t actually do without lawfully being the electoral winner anyway. One of the justices - Stevens? - called Joe Biden “Mr. President” after administering his oath of office. That may have been deliberate as well.

So anyway, I suspect that these major players were threatened into going along with the appearance of things being done lawfully but tweaked their response in such a way that they either gave the appearance of wrong-doing to let people know they were acting under duress, or actually kept the lawful process from happening, in the hopes that America would get out from under the threats and have legal grounds to undo all the damage.

We know that physical threats were used against Bill and Hillary - after Bill Gwatney and Stephanie Tubbs were each killed right after agreeing to present the challenge to Obama’s eligibility at the 2008 Democratic Convention. We know that threats were made to the media heads - which were said to be threats of FCC/FTC annihilation after the election if the media reported on Obama’s eligibility problem, but which would be a vain threat unless there was some other way that Soros could ensure Obama’s election even if the threats were reported to Bush’s DOJ. So the real threat there had to be some harm that didn’t depend on the election. Nobody cares about Roger Ailes’ sex life so it couldn’t have been something like that. Same thing with Cheney. Jerry Corsi says the Kenyan government told GW Bush that Obama’s Kenyan birth records had been destroyed. And nobody’s been able to make any dirt against GW stick so silencing him and stopping his DOJ wasn’t by personal threats. We do know somebody was able to scare the crap out of GW Bush by getting him to believe that we would have Armageddon if TARP wasn’t passed. Bush was saying the world as we know it was going to end if TARP wasn’t passed. TARP was a drop in the bucket of toxic assets; it wasn’t because TARP would build such confidence, that GW was so desperate to have it passed. There was something else pushing him, and he was legitimately SCARED.

I believe the threat was that Soros and his communist-Islamist buddies would make another run on the bank like the one they made in Sept of 2008. That was basically a dry run economic terrorist attack - which showed that the communist-Islamist alliance had the power to destroy the US economy (in a plan that Soros had actually presented to both Hillary and Obama in the 2008 primary and only Obama was OK with Soros’ plans to destroy the US economy - this according to top dem operatives who told Bettina Viviano about it). Having illustrated that power, Soros used the threat of immediate economic collapse as a threat in order to get Obama elected. If martial law had happened under Bush it would be a totally different ballgame than martial law under Obama; the timing was critical. And Soros STILL has the ability to cause an economic collapse whenever he wants; Congress has done nothing to eliminate the threat of economic terrorism. The failure of the democrat Congress to pass a budget has kept the US spending at emergency levels and has contributed to crippling uncertainty that’s kept the US from recovering economically - which is an essential part of Soros’ plan, because if the US recovered it would reduce the communist-Islamist alliance’s ability to send the US economy over the cliff. If that threat was gone, people like John Roberts, John Boehner, the eligibility judges, etc could come forward with their stories and America could go back to being America.

Does that make clear what I meant?


257 posted on 07/01/2012 6:13:04 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson