December 26 Commentary

Doctor Conspiracy

Doctor Conspiracy

It looks  like Obama conspiracy theories are the direct descendants of the 2008 campaign smears, with the same folks, having lost the election, fighting a rearguard action on “natural born citizenship” in the courts. As they continue to get nowhere in the Congress or in the Courts, the violent rhetoric heats up. In this sense, Obama conspiracy theories are not like classic conspiracy theories and will probably fade away quickly after the Inauguration, when the theorists can start criticizing every word the new President utters with standard out-of-party derisive rhetoric. [Boy was I ever wrong here!]

Connecting Obama to the Trilateralist/Bilderberg/CFR/Illuminati/lizard people, will gain strength when Obama becomes President and has people who associate with people who travel near Bilderbergers.

I’ve had an odd experiences with censorship. Most anti-Obama web sites, no matter how far out, will still allow factual comments to be added to their articles agreeable or not. [This seems to be less and less the case.] Donofrio’s Natural Born Citizen is certainly open to criticism. One site, though, seems to be run by the conservative thought police, and that is They even pulled a thread that was getting too close to finding Vice Presidents who didn’t meet the new natural born citizen US+2 fad (born in the United States plus two US Citizen parents). Just remember that little “cache” link with a Google result: it does marvels with deleted content.

I think Donofrio’s 15 minutes of fame is about up.  When non US+2 Presidents and Vice-Presidents started popping up, his pretension that such a view permeates all of US History (rather than being invented recently) is crumbling. Who knows, maybe Spiro T. Agnew will perform a valuable service to his country after all. [No. Agnew’s parents were naturalized.]

Rule 11 is a bit of legal trivia that I learned about this week. It deals with frivolous and abusive lawsuits in Federal Court. Those that come before the court certify “the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;” Can you say “Philip J. Berg”? There is no way under the sun that Berg has any rational belief that any of the junk in his suit would stand up to evidentiary standards. Lucky for him, the suit will never be heard, because it it were, Berg would be in danger of the sanctions provided by Rule 11. (I am not a real lawyer; I just play one on the Internet.)

Folks may ask why so much of this web site is devoted to citizenship issues rather than the standard trips to Pakistan and birth in Africa. I think that’s where the action is. “The truth is out there” on all of the hard news. Hard core conspiracy theorists doubt all evidence (except for obscure ambiguous evidence), but slowly everybody else is getting the word, now that the newspapers have started covering the story with their very professional condescension. One can always make a legal argument, even if not a good one, so the legal front remains a last chance for popular support.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I am not a real doctor. I have a Master's Degree.
This entry was posted in Lounge and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.