Len Hart writes:
It is only those who benefit most from ‘conspiracies’ who have an inherent bias against them. Those who benefit from ‘conspiracy’ have vested interests in discounting them. ‘Conspiracies’ are how important crimes are committed. No one acting alone is capable of achieving much –certainly one person cannot wage ‘aggressive war’ or even significant acts of terrorism. Certainly –the crimes of 911 were the work of a conspiracy whether the conspiracy was conceived and directed by Bushco or other terrorists. Acts which enrich a group are called ‘free enterprise’ if legal, ‘conspiracies’ if illegal.
If ‘conspiracies’ did not exist, then why has the US Supreme Court handed down so many cases defining them and applying to them the laws of these United States? And why are there so many US laws having to do with ‘conspiracies’ if ‘conspiracies’ did not exist?
Good soundbite for the next moron you observe dismissing as “conspiracy” anything that challenges what they have been indoctrinated to believe.