Main Menu

The occasional open thread: searching the future

Leave your general comments about Obama Conspiracies here.

 

97 Responses to The occasional open thread: searching the future

  1. avatar
    richCares June 11, 2011 at 6:35 pm #

    I have a neighbor that has a son-in-law that is a birther. I saw him once, while having dinner with my neighbor this guy showed up banging on the door demanding to see his daughter (now living with the grandparents as she could not handle her fathers behavior). They got him to leave while yelling and screaming. The teen girl apologized to me for her father’s behavior. That’s when I looked on the internet for birther stuff and found your blog. The hate that drives these people is completely irrational. Other posters here have similar stories of birther hate destroying families. I really think these people need therapy. Their compulsive behavior is dangerous to their mental health. The comments on post&email are even worse, deranged is a proper word. That’s why I say hating Obama causes brain damage.

  2. avatar
    US Citizen June 11, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

    richCares: That’s why I say hating Obama causes brain damage.

    I think it’s the other way around: Brain damage causes one to hate Obama.

    I find the comments most amusing when people even forget how math works: “He’s a 100% Muslim, 100% socialist, 100% Marxist, 100% illegal usurper….”

  3. avatar
    The Magic M June 11, 2011 at 7:44 pm #

    > I find the comments most amusing when people even forget how math works

    Don’t get me started. One of them claimed 66% of the people didn’t believe Obama was born in Hawaii. When I doubted that, he quoted a WND article quoting a poll starting with “38% say definitely born in Hawaii” (that was from before the LFBC release). I asked him what 38%+66% is and that silenced him…

  4. avatar
    Majority Will June 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

    The Magic M:
    > I find the comments most amusing when people even forget how math works

    Don’t get me started. One of them claimed 66% of the people didn’t believe Obama was born in Hawaii. When I doubted that, he quoted a WND article quoting a poll starting with “38% say definitely born in Hawaii” (that was from before the LFBC release). I asked him what 38%+66% is and that silenced him…

    You gotta give 104% effort to comprehend the birther bigots’ delusions.

  5. avatar
    Sean June 12, 2011 at 1:09 am #

    When Obama first ran, I thought it interesting that his Dad was a Kenyan. (I associate Kenya with good coffee.)

    Good thing he wasn’t born there, or he couldn’t run, I thought to myself. But I know how propaganda works and deep down I thought they’d use his Dad against him.

    But how? Obama wasn’t born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii. How are his opponents going to draw a line between Kenya and Obama to make him ineligible?

    I didn’t realize that they’d simply lie. No matter how stupid this concept (Obama’s Kenyan birth) is, it’s been said enough times to make people think it’s true, like Richard Gere’s gerbil and global warming being a myth. It’s an exercise in looking for evidence, no matter how out of context or debunked. It’s very similar to creationism, needing to believe something.

  6. avatar
    Nathanael June 12, 2011 at 6:16 am #

    Sean:
    it’s been said enough times to make people think it’s true, like Richard Gere’s gerbil

    What? Richard Gere’s gerbil is a birther?!

    –Nathanael

  7. avatar
    Majority Will June 12, 2011 at 7:08 am #

    Nathanael: What? Richard Gere’s gerbil is a birther?!

    –Nathanael

    No, rodents have a clear conscience but evidently Buddhism causes climate change.

  8. avatar
    Nathanael June 12, 2011 at 9:09 am #

    I was just running through the following couple of articles over at Helen Tansey’s blog:

    http://www.t-room.us/2011/04/its-the-social-security-number-stupid/
    http://www.t-room.us/2011/06/update-its-the-social-security-number-stupid-wsusan-daniels/

    in which Helen reports on interviews with Susan Daniels, the Ohio PI who apparently initially broke the whole SSN “controversy”. I note two things. First, Daniels is apparently trying to pin down the exact date of Obama’s SSN application by examining known applications of other SSNs in the same sequential neighborhood. For example, she turned up the application form of the late Thomas Wood, whose SSN was one digit lower than Obama’s, noting that Wood applied in March of 1977.

    The irony is that this private detective, who is supposed to be an expert in such things, appears to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that the final four digits of an SSN are randomly generated, and thus the fact that Wood’s SSN sequentially immediately precedes Obama’s is chronologically utterly meaningless.

    The second, and potentially more worrisome, is this (from Helen’s April article):

    “As a licensed investigator [Daniels] is privy and has access to numerous databases used by law enforcement officials which remain largely unavailable to the public.” The same article then includes a Scribd link to what Helen describes as “the unredacted Standard People Search to review the 105 records associated with the keywords ‘Barack Obama, Chicago Illinois’.”

    If Daniels is publicly posting information obtained from restricted databases, would her actions constitute a violation of either her investigative license or the law — or both? Any PIs here that can answer that?

    –Nathanael

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

    Nathanael: I was just running through the following couple of articles

    Your comment got hung up in the spam filter (which has a mind of its own). Sorry.

  10. avatar
    richCares June 12, 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    I was recently at a site that exclaimed “The founders of AGAPE are Christians,” then they quote Patrick Henry to support their Christian view, that was a fake Patrick Henry quote (i.e. Lie), then they tout Corsi’s lies and exclaim hate for Obama after stating that Ethics is their property, wiith Love (not Obama’s or yours)
    .
    Our mission can be best described in the great words of Patrick Henry, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, property, and freedom of worship here.”
    This has been cited at some sites as being in a speech to the House of Burgesses in May 1765. Patrick Henry never said anything like it; it was written in the 1950s. On internal evidence alone it could not have been written in the 18th century, for it is anachronistic to have Henry speaking of the colony of Virginia in 1765 as a “nation”
    .
    Birther’s share this same made up stuff and hate, so are all birthers extreme fundamentalists or are all fundamentalists birthers.
    .
    I put the following on one of those sites:
    Fundamentalists prayed Obama not be nominated, he was.
    then they prayed for rain on his nomination acceptance, it was a beautiful day
    Then they payed he not be elected, he was.
    It seems that God’s on Obama’s side.
    They got mad at me and called me nasty names, I was so scared I never went back.

  11. avatar
    Nathanael June 13, 2011 at 3:56 am #

    richCares:

    Birther’s share this same made up stuff and hate, so are all birthers extreme fundamentalists or are all fundamentalists birthers.

    Neither. For example, I’m a fundamentalist. (Surprised? πŸ™‚ )

    –Nathanael

  12. avatar
    Nathanael June 13, 2011 at 4:02 am #

    OK, having said that, I suppose I should clarify.

    The term “fundamentalist” was coined in the early twentieth century to describe those who believed in the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith (and defined in opposition to certain recent liberalizing trends appearing at certain prominent seminaries and theological schools around the US).

    Today, of course, the term has become encrusted with overtones of loud-mouthed, closed-minded, irrational religious fanatics who are trying to establish a theocracy in the US.

    If THAT’s what you mean by “fundamentalist”, I respectfully decline. πŸ™‚

    –Nathanael

  13. avatar
    Lupin June 13, 2011 at 5:31 am #

    Since this is an open thread, I thought I’d post something about this month in history:

    The German armies invaded France, Belgium and Luxembourg on May 10, 1940, going through Belgium and the Ardennes mountains in the North. The French Military High command had been relying on its heavily fortified Ligne Maginot in the East for its defense, believing that an attack from the North was all but impossible. They were, in this instance, sadly and famously wrong.

    The German troops reached Paris on June 14 and France was forced to surrender on June 22, but not before they fought a brave but ultimately futile war in which in a matter of days they lost 92,000 men and suffered 200,000 wounded in the battle.

    This “Second Armistice” led to the division of the country into a Northern France, occupied by the Gerrnans, and the allegedly “free” France in the south, led by what became known as the Vichy rΓ©gime because of the name of its capital.

    The invasion of May 10 and the Germans’ rapid advance triggered a massive exodus of the population of Northern France towards the South. It is estimated that ten million people, nearly a quarter of the population of the country, fled on the roads, carrying whatever belongings they had, many without a fixed destination. To add to the tragedy, the convoys were attacked by the German airforce, which killed an estimated 100,000 civilians during the Exodus.

    I would hope that everyone here would remember these figures and, from now on, dismiss the horrible, unjust “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” libel to the dustbins of history.

  14. avatar
    Bovril June 13, 2011 at 6:08 am #

    Now Lupin, the only ones allowed to use that style of epithet are the English, a thousand plus years of family dysfunction gets the Le Rosbif/Albion Perfide a pass……. 😎

  15. avatar
    Rickey June 13, 2011 at 11:34 am #

    Nathanael:

    If Daniels is publicly posting information obtained from restricted databases, would her actions constitute a violation of either her investigative license or the law — or both? Any PIs here that can answer that?</i?

    Access to such databases is restricted to those who have a “permissible use.” LexisNexis, for example, requires uses to certify that they have a permissible use before they can run searches:

    You hereby agree to use these services in accordance with applicable law including the permissible use selection and agree that failure to do so will be a breach of your agreement for this service. Laws applicable to use of this product include the Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act and related state laws (DPPA) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The data regulated by the DPPA and the GLBA may be used only for the permissible uses that you select below. By selecting a permissible use, you are certifying that the data returned to you will be used only for that purpose. The data provided to you by use of this product may not be used as a factor in establishing a consumer’s eligibility for credit, insurance, employment or other purposes identified under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

    I don’t offhand know what legal consequences there might be for violating DPPA or GLBA., but she certainly could have her access cut off by the database provider. She might get a pass, though, because one of the permissible uses is “Use in connection with a civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding, including the service of process, investigation in anticipation of litigation, the execution or enforcement of judgments, or compliance with the orders of any court.” Daniels was working for Orly and Orly was suing Obama, so that might get her off the hook.

    As for publicly posting the information after it is obtained, that’s pretty murky and I’d have to take a close look at the applicable laws to see what they say. I’m not familiar with the format of this particular “standard people search” so I’m not sure where Daniels got it.

    What is interesting, though, is that the bizarre addresses first started showing up in the spring of 2007, after Obama announced his candidacy.. Here are a few which I checked:

    123 Main Street, Lansing, MI 48910 – there is no Main Street in Zip Code 48910

    123 Main Street, Charleston, SC 29464 – no such address, Zip Code is for Mount Pleasant, SC

    40 Transfer Street, Denver, CO – there is no such street, and the phone number shown is a Boulder, CO exchange

    123 White House, Irvine, CA – obviously a prank address

    Obama Lane, Franklin, WI – obviously a prank address

    83775 Bates Road, Jackson, NJ – the address does not exist

    I could go on, but you get the idea.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    I went over to YouTube and I was frankly stunned by the number of YouTube videos claiming Obama’s long form is a forgery, and by people who really don’t know what they are talking about.

  17. avatar
    Majority Will June 13, 2011 at 1:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I went over to YouTube and I was frankly stunned by the number of YouTube videos claiming Obama’s long form is a forgery, and by people who really don’t know what they are talking about.

    I’d be curious to know how many of those YT postings are from sock puppet accounts created by the owners and ardent followers in your Bad and Ugly lists of sites below.

    My guess is that most of them have been posted by a small handful of hardcore birthers.

  18. avatar
    Scientist June 13, 2011 at 3:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I went over to YouTube and I was frankly stunned by the number of YouTube videos claiming Obama’s long form is a forgery, and by people who really don’t know what they are talking about.

    The White House made a mistake releasing this 1960s vintage certificate prepared back in the old days on a typewriter, with uneven spacing and variable striking. Instead, they should have released an, up-to-date computer abstract with perfectly formed and spaced letters. They also could have left off all the unnecessary information, like the signatures and the name of the hospital. Just release something with only the necessary information-date and place of birth. It would have been great if such a document had been released back during the campaign.

  19. avatar
    Bovril June 13, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    Ahhhh, Jennifer4Hillary a truly “special” individual.

    Joey, if you want to see the levels of delusion, he/she/it posts reasonably regularly over at Gratewire.

    http://gratewire.com/forum/announcements

  20. avatar
    G June 13, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    Well, this is a must see video into the disturbing anger behind Birther Madness and ODS:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=18030

    If anything, it illustrates the problem with all extremist groups and positions – inevitably, the “purity” tests get more and more restrictive and the group begins to eat its own….

  21. avatar
    JoZeppy June 13, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    This is a bit dated (I can’t believe I missed it)….but Mark Fiore weighed in on the Trump trip to birfistan.

    http://www.markfiore.com/political-cartoons/watch-obama-birth-certificate-donald-trump-birthers-animated-video-mark-fiore-animation

  22. avatar
    G June 13, 2011 at 4:51 pm #

    In more follow-up FYI news:

    Harold Camping, the radio preacher who warned that the world would end May 21, has been hospitalized after suffering a stroke, The Oakland Tribune reports.

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/06/doomsday-radio-preacher-hospitalized-with-stroke/1

  23. avatar
    JoZeppy June 13, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    G: In more follow-up FYI news:Harold Camping, the radio preacher who warned that the world would end May 21, has been hospitalized after suffering a stroke, The Oakland Tribune reports.http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/06/doomsday-radio-preacher-hospitalized-with-stroke/1

    Well…I wish him a speedy recover, and hope he lives to 100 (can’t have him dodge his prediction, can we?).

  24. avatar
    G June 13, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    This is a bit dated (I can’t believe I missed it)….but Mark Fiore weighed in on the Trump trip to birfistan.

    http://www.markfiore.com/political-cartoons/watch-obama-birth-certificate-donald-trump-birthers-animated-video-mark-fiore-animation

    HILARIOUS!!!

    I hadn’t seen that before either. Very funny and thanks for sharing!

  25. avatar
    G June 13, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    JoZeppy: Well…I wish him a speedy recover, and hope he lives to 100 (can’t have him dodge his prediction, can we?).

    Or at least lives long enough to see the world still here on Oct 22nd.

    …Unless his prediction about the end of the world was really only about his own life and not the rest of the world…

  26. avatar
    JoZeppy June 13, 2011 at 5:31 pm #

    G: Well, this is a must see video into the disturbing anger behind Birther Madness and ODS:http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=18030If anything, it illustrates the problem with all extremist groups and positions – inevitably, the “purity” tests get more and more restrictive and the group begins to eat its own….

    There is some serious crazy….and I don’t know if he missed it, but Lakin wasn’t willing to die for the birther cause. In fact we wasn’t even willing to send serious time in prison for the birther cause, and whimped out with a guilty plea to try to cut down his time in Levenworth.

  27. avatar
    G June 13, 2011 at 5:39 pm #

    JoZeppy: There is some serious crazy….and I don’t know if he missed it, but Lakin wasn’t willing to die for the birther cause.In fact we wasn’t even willing to send serious time in prison for the birther cause, and whimped out with a guilty plea to try to cut down his time in Levenworth.

    Yeah, that immediately came to mind when listening to his rant too. That and the obvious hypocricy of him decrying others for their “leadership”…yet I don’t see him standing up to lead any movement…just slam everyone else…

  28. avatar
    Thrifty June 13, 2011 at 6:02 pm #

    G: Well, this is a must see video into the disturbing anger behind Birther Madness and ODS:http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=18030If anything, it illustrates the problem with all extremist groups and positions – inevitably, the “purity” tests get more and more restrictive and the group begins to eat its own….

    Jesus… that guy got really unhinged in the last minute.

  29. avatar
    Majority Will June 13, 2011 at 6:25 pm #

    Speaking of unhinged . . .

    Judge won’t dismiss indictment of Dallas birther’

    By Fran Jeffries
    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

    A federal judge has refused to dismiss an indictment against a Georgia man charged with traveling armed to East Tennessee to possibly take over the Monroe County Courthouse after a grand jury refused to indict President Barack Obama.

    The judge in Knoxville denied a defense motion contending that charges of transporting a firearm in furtherance of a civil disorder and using a firearm in relation to a violent felony crime charge Darren Wesley Huff of Dallas, Ga., twice for the same conduct.

    The rest . . . http://www.ajc.com/news/judge-wont-dismiss-indictment-975417.html

  30. avatar
    Sef June 13, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Scientist: The White House made a mistake releasing this 1960s vintage certificate prepared back in the old days on a typewriter, with uneven spacing and variable striking.Instead, they should have released an, up-to-date computer abstract with perfectly formed and spaced letters.They also could have left off all the unnecessary information, like the signatures and the name of the hospital.Just release something with only the necessary information-date and place of birth.It would have been great if such a document had been released back during the campaign.

    It would have been even better had they released such a document to someplace like, I don’t know, say, DKos, for instance.

  31. avatar
    LM June 13, 2011 at 6:46 pm #

    G:
    Well, this is a must see video into the disturbing anger behind Birther Madness and ODS:

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=18030

    If anything, it illustrates the problem with all extremist groups and positions – inevitably, the “purity” tests get more and more restrictive and the group begins to eat its own….

    Wow, that really was something. To tell you the truth, I didn’t expect to make it through the whole thing. I usually have to quit watching because I get too frustrated and/or bored. But this one was oddly fascinating. Especially once he started yelling.

  32. avatar
    Majority Will June 13, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

    Headline today:

    Obama: ‘I would resign’ in Weiner’s situation.

    A dozen birther bigots just lunged for their computers to scour Twitpics.

    Another dozen just fired up Photoshop instead.

  33. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 13, 2011 at 9:48 pm #

    LM: Wow, that really was something. To tell you the truth, I didn’t expect to make it through the whole thing. I usually have to quit watching because I get too frustrated and/or bored. But this one was oddly fascinating. Especially once he started yelling.

    Awww widdle rudy blocked me from commenting on his video. I must have caused him to have an aneurysm

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 13, 2011 at 11:10 pm #

    The title of the web site notwithstanding, I have always had reservations about calling this birther business a “conspiracy theory”.

    Usually a conspiracy theory attempts to explain something: why did the building fall down, why did the market crash, why are things so bad, how could one lone malcontent kill the President? But when people started talking about Barack Obama being born in Kenya, it wasn’t to explain anything. There was no Kenyan birth certificate, and no grandmother tape. It was more of a rumor than a conspiracy theory.

    What eventually became a conspiracy theory was the answer to the question: how can the fact that Obama was born in Africa not be easily proved by the evidence, or why doesn’t Obama release some document?

    With genuine conspiracy theories, the theories are spun by seekers after truth. I think in the case of Obama Conspiracies, a significant part came from spinners of lies.

    It seems now that birthers are becoming more conspiracy theorists than before. I have been particularly impressed by the rise of large numbers of “lone investigators” attacking the long-form birth certificate, a whole army of Oliver Stones on YouTube.

  35. avatar
    TruthMatters4me June 13, 2011 at 11:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: This is an old message of yours that I just now ran across

    “I don’t hold with the kind of personal identification that’s going on in this section
    of Fogbow. Intrusion into someone’s private life has, intentionally or not, a
    chilling effect on their free expression. I would rather douse them with facts and
    reason than to chill them with personal identification. How would you like it if
    every time you went to a meeting, somebody was taking your picture and
    posting your name on the Internet?”

    My response to that: Many of these people are actively calling for armed insurrection , military coups, violence against congressmen and Obama. If they aren’t making such comments themselves, they are allowing such seditious comments through their moderation..

    Why on earth SHOULDN’T these people be exposed? You want to make sure people feel free to express such illegal actions with a level of anonymity ? I honestly don’t understand how you can defend your position on that, given the circumstances.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 13, 2011 at 11:38 pm #

    TruthMatters4me: My response to that: Many of these people are actively calling for armed insurrection , military coups, violence against congressmen and Obama. If they aren’t making such comments themselves, they are allowing such seditious comments through their moderation..

    If someone believes a person posting on the Internet is a threat, then the proper response is to contact the FBI or the Secret Service, not try to gain some undefined power over them by broadcasting their names, invading their personal space, feeding their paranoia and amplifying their feelings of powerlessness and frustration.

    Do you know of any birther who has moderated their rhetoric as a result of being “outed” on somebody’s blog?

  37. avatar
    gorefan June 14, 2011 at 12:20 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I have been particularly impressed by the rise of large numbers of “lone investigators”

    It is becoming quite the cottage industry.

    Which makes me wonder if in the 2012 election, will these “investigators” vote for President Obama to help keep their industry going.

    I ‘ve wondered if Orly and Mario and even Corsi might vote for the President just to keep their paypal buttons from becoming obsolete.

  38. avatar
    Nathanael June 14, 2011 at 2:08 am #

    Thanks for the reply, Rickey. I have one more question. The addresses bit reminds me that I read somewhere that it’s quite common to find all sorts of questionable information in these databases. A search on nearly any individual, for example, could easily turn up multiple SSNs. Is there any truth to that? And if so, isn’t that the sort of thing a licensed PI (like, oh, I don’t know, say Susan Daniels) might be expected to know?

    –Nathanael

  39. avatar
    Nathanael June 14, 2011 at 3:21 am #

    Just posted this response over at Helen Tansley’s blog( T-Room) to her article entitled “IT’S THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER STUPID!” (all caps in the original). My comment is awaiting moderation. What are the chances she’ll actually post it?

    While I thought Helen’s comment about Hawaiian zip codes was cute, given how easily should could have checked herself before making it (and, ironically, a previous commenter had just praised her for her research skills!), I think the more telling comment was the second.

    “And how would Obama, in HI, have gotten his social security card if it was mailed to CT?”

    You all will, of course, recognize this as a common birther objection, but in this case one even birthers should be able to answer for themselves on a moment’s reflection — if they would pause just long enough to reflect. Who hasn’t, after all, hasn’t had a badly addressed piece of mail delivered correctly? (My sister once actually received a letter with nothing more than her first name and the town on it — no last name, no street address, no state or zip code. My hometown happens to be the only one of its name in the US, and it’s small enough that everyone — particularly the postmaster — knows everyone.)

    But, of course, the asking of insinuating questions — no matter how inane — is standard procedure for conspiracy theorists. Ask lots of ’em, rapid fire so there isn’t time to actually stop and examine anyone one, and you certainly can create the impression that something is amiss.

    Posted June 14, 2011 at 2:50 am | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    “His zip code was not 96813. The zip codes in Hawaii start with 967.”

    The zip code of Obama’s high school is 96822. At the time of his birth, his parents were living on 13th Ave., 96816. His first job was at Baskin Robbins on King St., 96826, which is also the zip code of both the Kapiolani Hospital and the apartment building Obama lived in throughout the ’70s. You can easily look up zip codes on Google Maps.

    “And how would Obama, in HI, have gotten his social security card if it was mailed to CT?”

    Have you never had a badly addressed letter delivered to your house? If the letter were addressed to “Barack Obama, Honolulu, HI, 06813‘, you really think the USPTO couldn’t figure out where it needed to go?

    You yourself note:

    “Since 1972 … the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card.”

    If — just for the sake of argument — the 9 on Obama’s application HAD been mistakenly transcribed as a 0 — transforming it into a Danbury, CT zip code (Google Maps) — then, according to what you quoted, Obama would have been issued a CT SSN as a result.

    Now, of course neither your nor I knows what really happened. But really, which is more reasonable? A teenage boy in Hawaii — or someone working on his behalf — managed to hoodwink the US government, commit fraud, and steal someone else’s SSN for some unspecified nefarious purpose necessitating the spinning of grand conspiracy theories involving powerful people in both the state and federal governments? Or some clerk in Hawaii made a typo?

    I think we should ask Occam.

    And did Susan Daniels bother to mention that over time these databases she uses tend to build up lots of cruft and errors? That you could do a search on nearly any individual and come up with multiple SSNs, simply due to typos, or people making up fake ones (ask Susan how often that happens)? For example, I just looked myself up and discovered I have at least four SSNs. Oh, and three addresses I’ve never lived at. Hmm…

    –Nathanael

  40. avatar
    Nathanael June 14, 2011 at 3:38 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I went over to YouTube and I was frankly stunned by the number of YouTube videos claiming Obama’s long form is a forgery, and by people who really don’t know what they are talking about.

    The first one I saw showed up literally about two hours after Obama’s press conference releasing the long-form. Clearly someone was waiting for it, and just needed a few minutes to finalize whatever response he’d already prepared.

    The first week after April 27, YouTube was flooded with birther videos — I responded to a number of them myself; ended up being banned at about half of them. One birther who had been spewing comments all over YouTube offered up his own video, claiming his “findings” were just about to hit the media, and then it would be all over for Obama. I think he was making similar grand predictions for the soon-to-be-released WTBC? Funny thing, he sent me a PM one day, and when I logged in the next to reply, not only was his video gone, but his entire account had been closed out and wiped. Guess the Brotherhood must’ve tracked him down and he was leaving town on the fast train.

    After a week, though, birther activity on YT slowed to a dribble; I think it’s all but dead now, though I haven’t looked in a week or so.

    –Nathanael

  41. avatar
    Nathanael June 14, 2011 at 3:41 am #

    Hey, Doc. I just posted a comment (re: Helen Tansley) that’s not showing up. But when I try to repost, I get a duplicate comment error. Another one get caught in the spam filter?

    –Nathanael

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 14, 2011 at 6:52 am #

    Nathanael: Another one get caught in the spam filter?

    Yes.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 14, 2011 at 7:00 am #

    Nathanael: A search on nearly any individual, for example, could easily turn up multiple SSNs. Is there any truth to that? And if so, isn’t that the sort of thing a licensed PI (like, oh, I don’t know, say Susan Daniels) might be expected to know?

    It’s not only something she is expected to know; it is something she said!

    …According to Susan Daniels, of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc. in Chardon Ohio, when searching through database aggregators such as IRB, it is common to find a subject referenced with two or three Social Security Numbers (SSN). Here are some of the reasons a person may show-up with multiple SSN’s:

    – a wife’s or child’s SSN could end up with father’s name
    – a parent’s SSN could show up with a child
    – the subject bought something with someone else and the SSNs could end up with each other’s name
    – the database producer is relating several SSN’s to one address
    – an error by whoever entered the data

    Susan Daniels of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc. (9754 Thwing Road Chardon, OH 44024, Tel.:440.286.4072) has been a Private Investigator for 15 years.

    Susan Daniels (2008)

  44. avatar
    Nathanael June 14, 2011 at 8:54 am #

    One of the most predicable (nay, inevitable) characteristics of conspiracy theories is that there is no such thing as a low-grade CT. If a CT is a circle whose circumference represents the set of all points at which the theory rubs up against, well, for lack of a better word, reality, then at at every point at which the theory and reality collide, the theory must expand to explain away reality. As the circumference expands, so too does the number of collision points, and the rate of expansion accelerates until the theory is exploding outward at a rate approaching the speed of light. Ultimately, of course, the theory collapses under the weight of its own gravitational pull.

    Following the 1962 Kennedy assassination, what began as an attempt to explain certain anomalies quickly grew into a whole family of CTs implicating everyone and everything from a mysterious second gunman to the Dallas police and the secret service, the vice president, the CIA, the KGB, the Federal Reserve, the Israeli government, Fidel Castro and a bevy of hobos.

    And now, drkate, in her recent post, Who is Jean Paul Ludwig (John Doe)?, provides prima facie evidence that the boundaries of birtherism are fast approaching their own event horizon.

    Half-way down the article, we encounter this subheading:

    “The Stunning Scale of Operation(s) Deception”

    No longer is birtherism content to be just hang out in the mainstream of the lunatic fringe, it’s developed delusions of grandeur. For you see, Obama is no longer simply committing fraud and deceiving the American people. He is conspiring, so says drkate, to “pull off the greatest crime against the American people since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.” And to up the ante, drkate antes up not just the usual suspets — the liberal media, obot hordes, Dr. Conspiracy, Obama’s maternal grandmother. This brave, new drkatesean alternate reality finds none other than John McCain and the RNC themselves in cahoots to maneuver the Great Usurper into the White House — the RNC by nominating the poorest candidate possible, and said candidate then working to undermine the one great hope the Republicans had for victory — none other than that governor from beyond the Great White North, Sarah Palin.

    And the greatest irony of all? Birthers may never know how out of step they are with reality, trapped inside an event horizon of their own design, the one boundary in the universe reality can never penetrate.

    –Nathanael

  45. avatar
    Nathanael June 14, 2011 at 8:56 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Yes.

    Well, it’s nice to know someone’s reading my posts, even if it is just an algorithm.

    –Nathanael

  46. avatar
    Majority Will June 14, 2011 at 9:45 am #

    Nathanael: Well, it’s nice to know someone’s reading my posts, even if it is just an algorithm.

    –Nathanael

    After seeing them dance together, I thought Tipper had a better sense of tempo.

  47. avatar
    Rickey June 14, 2011 at 1:26 pm #

    Nathanael:
    Thanks for the reply, Rickey. I have one more question. The addresses bit reminds me that I read somewhere that it’s quite common to find all sorts of questionable information in these databases. A search on nearly any individual, for example, could easily turn up multiple SSNs. Is there any truth to that? And if so, isn’t that the sort of thing a licensed PI (like, oh, I don’t know, say Susan Daniels) might be expected to know?

    All LexisNexis reports begin with this disclaimer:

    Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and
    is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified.

    Any investigator worth his or her salt knows that a database report is only a starting point. It provides leads, not conclusions. An experienced and competent PI should know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    Although I can’t find it now, I recall that Orly’s original investigator, Neil Sankey, warned her that the database results are not reliable, but she ran with them anyway.

    As Doc has pointed out, Susan Daniels knows full well that the database results prove nothing. However, her involvement in this has become her claim to fame, so she continues to play it for all it is worth. Remember, she has an audience which is not interested in the facts but only wants to hear what it wants to hear.

    This isn’t to say that the database searches are worthless. In fact they are very helpful to an investigator who knows how to interpret and use them. For example, multiple Social Security Numbers associated with a single name usually means nothing. In most cases they result from typos (in Obama’s case, my guess is that a lot of people submitted prank credit applications after he announced he was running for Prexsident, hence addresses such as “123 White House, Irvine, CA). On the other hand, multiple names associated with a single SSN raises a red flag because it is an indicator of possible fraudulent use, generally by undocumented aliens.

    Birthers clearly do not understand the concept of identify theft. Identify thieves do not take someone else’s SSN and attach it to their own name. That would be foolhardy. In other words, if I were trying to steal your identify, I wouldn’t want you to become me – I ‘d want me to become you. I would use your name and your SSN for whatever nefarious purposes I had in mind.

    Ironically, the multiple addresses associated with Obama’s SSN are more suggestive of others trying to steal his identify than the other way around.

  48. avatar
    Nathanael June 14, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    Thanks for the Daniels quote, Dr. C. Very informative. However, I’m wondering if we could tie this quote down a bit tighter. The passage you’ve cited (I guess from here) begins with “According to Susan Daniels…”, suggesting it’s someone else reporting what Daniels allegedly says. Additionally, the way it’s formatted makes it difficult to determine where Daniels’ own words (if any) begin. I think that would make the whole quote susceptible to charges of hearsay.

    Can we find the actual statement from Daniels herself? We don’t want to give birthers too much wiggle room.

    –Nathanael

  49. avatar
    Greg June 14, 2011 at 5:56 pm #

    Hey Doc,

    The Hawaiian DOH has told Orly to go pound sand wrt her subpoenas. In short, they told her that her “subpoenas” were not issued pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, further, the Director cannot answer any questions or produce any documents about Obama’s birth certificate because she, Orly, has no direct interest and tangible interest in the records.

  50. avatar
    Nathanael June 14, 2011 at 6:36 pm #

    Nathanael:
    Just posted this response over at Helen Tansley’s blog

    Update: She did post my comment, and replied in full. My favorite part was where, after spinning elaborate theories of criminal fraud by a teenage Baskin Robbins employee who apparently was planning to grow up to illegally usurp the office of President, she had the temerity to call my suggestion of a simple typo “just nuts”, and took the opportunity to be offended on behalf of the entire HI SS office.

    Here’s my reply, which is currently awaiting moderation. Thanks to Rickey and Dr. C for their help.

    “I extended an invitation to you to provide substantiation for your ‘speculation’ and instead you responded with even more speculation.”

    You did? Far as I know this is the first time we’ve ever communicated.

    Yes, what I provided is speculative. I said so myself. That was, in fact, the point. If we’re going to be spinning speculative theories (and don’t kid yourself, theories — nay, accusations — of fraud based on Susan Daniels’ finding ARE rank speculation), we should at least spin reasonable ones. Both Occam and the courts are on my side on this.

    “You are suggesting something that is offensive to those who work[ed] at a SS office in Hawaii.”

    You really think the HI SSO would be offended by a suggestion that someone there thirty five years ago made a typo? My, those Hawaiians must have thin skins. Of course, it doesn’t need to be a typo. Perhaps Obama’s 9 was just doing its best to impersonate a zero. Have you seen the way Obama writes “9”?

    “Look at those two numbers again. They do not transpose.”

    I don’t know about your keyboard, but on MINE (and on at least THIS 1960s-era typewriter – http://www.flickr.com/photos/29218315@N05/3982160335/) the 9 and the 0 are right next to each other. At a conservative estimate, I probably hit 0 when reaching for 9 a half dozen times a day.

    “You then ask me to believe…”

    I haven’t asked you to believe anything. I’ve only pointed out that there are alternative possibilities that don’t require libelous accusations. I would think anyone serious about defending the Constitution would live and die by the bedrock of US jurisprudence: innocent until proven guilty. But when the accused’s name is Barack Obama, apparently it’s less a bedrock than an inconvenience.

    I promise you this. If you walk into court leveling charges of criminal fraud at the President of the United States with nothing more than a Lexis/Nexis report for evidence, you’re going to find yourself tossed out on your ear in short order. Take it to a jury and all a defense attorney has to do is suggest the possibility of a typo or misreading to get the case dismissed on reasonable doubt. It would be the plaintiff’s job (that’s you) to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt the impossibility of the more innocent explanation. That’s what “benefit of the doubt” means.

    To claim that Obama used a CT address IS speculation. At most, you’ve provided evidence to suggest (not prove) that a CT zipcode, not an entire address, appeared on his SS application (and not the slightest evidence AT ALL that Obama himself put it there, let alone did it maliciously). After all, if he used an entire CT address, then how did he get his SS card?

    Here’s your argument:

    1) Obama’s SSN came from a pool of SSNs that at one time was reserved for CT.
    2) Therefore a CT address must have been used on the application.
    3) Therefore, Obama himself must have put it there.
    4) Therefore, Obama committed fraud and should go directly to jail.

    Note that the only FACT in all the above is 1). Everything after that is just rank speculation for which you haven’t provided a single iota of evidence. Not a jot. Not even a tittle. I could think of two or three possible explanations at evey step along the way (but then you’d just accuse me of more idle speculation), none of which involve any criminal activity on the part of the president whatsoever.

    “…but missed the accuracy of the zip code? Honestly, that’s just nuts.”

    So instead we’ll go with speculations of criminal fraud, forgery, a whole web of lies and deceit — by a teenager who just wants to work at Baskin Robbins, but intends to grow up to illegally usurp the office of POTUS. And you call a typo theory “nuts”?

    Then there’s this, from someone I believe you’ve heard of (from http://www.confidentialresource.com/2008/07/09/subjects-with-multiple-ssns/“):

    “…when searching through database aggregators such as IRB, it is common to find a subject referenced with two or three Social Security Numbers (SSN). Here are some of the reasons a person may show-up with multiple SSN’s:
    a wife’s or child’s SSN could end up with father’s name
    a parent’s SSN could show up with a child
    the subject bought something with someone else and the SSNs could end up with each other’s name
    the database producer is relating several SSN’s to one address
    an error by whoever entered the data

    Susan Daniels of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc.”

    According to Orly Taitz’s own court filings (http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Taitz-v-Astrue-redacted-first-amended-complaint.pdf) Daniels used, amongst others, the Lexis/Nexis database. Lexis/Nexis attaches a disclaimer to every report it issues:

    “Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified.”

    As a test, why don’t you order a copy of your own credit report (I believe US law entitles every US citizen to one free copy a year, or something like that). Is everything on it accurate? I think you’d be surprised at the results. Here’s a thread discussing the well-known — and all-too-common) problem of bogus database information: http://aaacreditguide.com/forums/public-records/6135-lexisnexis.html.

    Did you know that every time you fill out a credit card application, the information you provide ends up in one of these databases, completely unverified? Looking through the list of addresses Daniels found (available in the Taitz court filing I linked to above), the vast majority of the illegitimate ones were first reported after Obama announced his candidacy in 2007 and became a national figure. Several of the addresses are quite obviously jokes, such as the Obama Ln address in Wisconsin, or the 123 White House Road address in California. What’s more likely? That Obama announces himself as a presidential candidate, THEN starts filing all sorts of fraudulent addresses? Or that some anonymous, misguided souls started filling out junk applications with his name? And I’d dearly love to see what a similar search would turn up for, say, John McCain.

    If you’re going to level charges of fraud at anyone, you have to show a lot more than that his name is associated with bogus SSNs in some database which explicitly disclaims the reliability of its own information (and which Daniels, by her own admission, knows cannot be relied on). You have to prove that he has actually used those SSNs for fraudulent purposes. Can you do that?

    BTW, are you willing to admit you were wrong about Hawaii zipcodes?

    –Nathanael

  51. avatar
    Obsolete June 14, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    Nice response, Nathanael.
    I wonder if anyone there is reachable.

  52. avatar
    Nathanael June 14, 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    Greg:
    The Hawaiian DOH has told Orly to go pound sand wrt her subpoenas.

    “Procedural defects”? From Orly?! I’m stunned!

    Oh, wait. No I’m not.

    I like one of the replies: “Has anyone checked these documents for different typefaces?”

    Further on down the thread, someone mentions that after receiving the brush-off, Orly immediately fired off a letter to the White Houe “respectully requesting” Obama grant her permission to access the original BC. Listen to the rumble as those goalposts move yet again:

    “Since you released a certified copy of the document,” Orly says, “the issue of privacy is non-existent, everyone knows, what is or should be in that document, it should be identical to what you released and made a public record.”

    And just in case you (or the president) missed the veiled threat, Orly spells it out in her closing ultimatum, which is perhaps the most comical thing I’ve ever read, even coming from Queen Birther herself:

    “If, on the other hand, you refuse to provide such access, that would signify complicity and prior knowledge of forgery.” And then she gives the president seven days to comply. I suspect it’ll take longer than that just for the White House counsel to get over his laughing fit.

    –Nathanael

  53. avatar
    Nathanael June 15, 2011 at 12:21 am #

    Obsolete:
    Nice response,Nathanael.

    Thanks. Actually, my favorite part was turning their argument back on itself. How did Obama get his SS card if it was mailed to CT?

    Birthers have shot themselves in the foot; the pain signals just haven’t reached the brain yet. Yes, indeed. IF Obama used a CT address, then how did he get his social security card?

    If one posits only the zipcode was in error, the whole problem goes away. As birthers themselves point out, SSN assignments were based on the zipcode (not the address) on the application. If the zipcode were entered erroneously by a Honolulu clerk, the application need never have left Honolulu, Obama still would have ended up with a CT SSN, and his card would have arrived in timely fashion, despite a faulty zipcode.

    There is one question I haven’t resolved as of yet, however. Maybe someone can help.

    Checking the zipcode database, I find a number of Honolulu/CT zipcode pairs that differ only in the first digit. However, none of the zipcodes I’ve been able to associate with Obama transpose. For example, his high school: 96822. His parents residence at the time his was born: 96816. King St. Baskin Robbins, Kapiolani, and the apartment Obama lived in in the ’70s: 96826. But none of 06822, 06816 and 06826 is a valid zipcode at all. 96813/06813 works (Honolulu/Danbury), but nothing I’ve seen suggests Obama ever used that zipcode.

    –Nathanael

  54. avatar
    Nathanael June 15, 2011 at 12:23 am #

    Obsolete:
    Nice response,Nathanael.

    Thanks. Actually, my favorite part was turning their argument back on itself. How did Obama get his SS card if it was mailed to CT?

    Birthers have shot themselves in the foot; the pain signals just haven’t reached the brain yet. Yes, indeed. IF Obama used a CT address, then how did he get his social security card?

    If one posits only the zipcode was in error, the whole problem goes away. As birthers themselves point out, SSN assignments were based on the zipcode (not the address) on the application. If the zipcode were entered erroneously by a Honolulu clerk, the application need never have left Honolulu, Obama still would have ended up with a CT SSN, and his card would have arrived in timely fashion, despite a faulty zipcode.

    There is one question I haven’t resolved as of yet, however. Maybe someone can help.

    Checking the zipcode database, I find a number of Honolulu/CT zipcode pairs that differ only in the first digit. However, none of the zipcodes I’ve been able to associate with Obama transpose. For example, his high school: 96822. His parents residence at the time his was born: 96816. King St. Baskin Robbins, Kapiolani, and the apartment Obama lived in in the ’70s: 96826. But none of 06822, 06816 and 06826 is a valid zipcode at all. 96813/06813 works (Honolulu/Danbury), but I nothing I’ve seen suggests Obama ever used that zipcode.

    –Nathanael

  55. avatar
    obsolete June 15, 2011 at 12:35 am #

    Someone did indeed post the solution here- the zipcodes in Hawaii have changed since Obama applied for a SS number, I believe. Someone else will kindly repost the details, I hope!

  56. avatar
    gorefan June 15, 2011 at 1:34 am #

    Nathanael: But none of 06822, 06816 and 06826 is a valid zipcode at all. 96813/06813 works (Honolulu/Danbury),

    Here is a link to the FOIA info given to Chris Strunk. View page 5 of 14. Here is Stanley Anne Dunham’s 1972 passport renewal application. She asked the State Department to mail the passport to her parents house at 1617 South Beretania, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814. The zip code for Danbury, Connecticut 06814. BY 1980 the zip code was changed to 96826.

    What typically happens is that a large zip code like 96814 will be broken up into smaller zip codes as the population increases and new streets, houses and apartments are added.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/35163631/Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-7-29-10

  57. avatar
    gorefan June 15, 2011 at 1:44 am #

    Nathanael: If the zipcode were entered erroneously by a Honolulu clerk

    It most likely was not a Hawaiin clerk. In 1972, the SSA began to process SSN applications in Baltimore. So mostly a clerk/typists at that office made a typo.

    As for the post office, the OCRs they had in the 60’s and 70’s read the city, state and zip code. So when the SSA mailed out the SS card with a wrong zip code, it would have been bounced out of mechanized process and then hand read by a postal employee.

    http://inventors.about.com/od/mstartinventions/a/PostalMechanization.htm

    “The Department’s accelerated mechanization program began in the late 1960s and consisted of semi-automatic equipment such as the MPLSM, the single position letter sorting machine (SPLSM), and the facer-canceler. In November 1965, the Department put a high-speed optical character reader (OCR) into service in the Detroit Post Office. This first-generation machine was connected to an MPLSM frame and read the city/state/ZIP Code line of typed addresses to sort letters to one of the 277 pockets. Each subsequent handling of the letter required that the address be read again.”

    “Mechanization increased productivity. By the mid-1970s, however, it was clear that cheaper, more efficient methods and equipment were needed if the Postal Service was to offset rising costs associated with growing mail volume. To reduce the number of mail piece handlings, the Postal Service began to develop an expanded ZIP Code in 1978.”

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 15, 2011 at 1:54 am #

    Nathanael: Thanks. Actually, my favorite part was turning their argument back on itself. How did Obama get his SS card if it was mailed to CT?

    I could tell you stories. The place in Greenville SC where I used to work had the same post office box number as Allied General Nuclear Services in Barnwell, South Carolina (where they used to reprocess nuclear waste). I used to get small packages for Allied in our PO Box (even though the zip codes were correct). So I guess if they can deliver to the wrong city with the right zip code, then they can deliver to the right city with the wrong zip code — just delayed.

    You can imagine that those packages were handled gingerly.

  59. avatar
    Nathanael June 15, 2011 at 3:25 am #

    Thanks gorefan and obsolete.

    DOH! Can’t believe I made that mistake. As an avid genealogist I know better than to look for the past in the present. Wanna know what the boundaries of Tompkins, Co. NY were in 1779? Google Maps won’t help. Sheesh!

    Dr. Conspiracy: my own favorite personal story belongs to my sister. She (in Wisconsin) once received a letter from California with nothing but her first name and the town on it. No surname, no street address, no state, no zipcode.

    It helped, I’m sure, that my hometown is the only one of its name in the US, and it’s small enough that everyone — especially the postmaster — knew everyone on a first-name basis.

    –Nathanael

  60. avatar
    Keith June 15, 2011 at 7:59 am #

    Nathanael: DOH! Can’t believe I made that mistake. As an avid genealogist I know better than to look for the past in the present. Wanna know what the boundaries of Tompkins, Co. NY were in 1779? Google Maps won’t help. Sheesh!

    Ain’t it the truth!

    The Latham family must have at one time been the entire population of both Groton and New London, Connecticutt. Carey Latham, the first Latham in the New World ran the ferry across the river for something like 50 years and had 10 or 12 kids (there is a dispute about whether William Latham, a cabin boy on the Mayflower, was Carey’s younger brother. In any case, William Latham returned to England, then to the Bahamas where he died of starvation). Each of them had 10 or 12 kids, and each of them 10 or 12 kids, generation after generation. I mean they seem to have bred like rabbits; there must have been thousands of them.

    Doesn’t seem to be any record of them in Groton/New London/Mystic/etc hardly at all, now. I guess the British raids during the War of 1812 wiped out a lot of records, but it couldn’t have wiped out the family. Near as I can tell, there’s hardly any sign of the Latham’s left, just street names and lakes and such.

  61. avatar
    Scientist June 15, 2011 at 8:21 am #

    I think another possibility with a letter where the Zip Code and address didn’t agree is that it went back to the sender (the SSA). They would then send it out with the correct Zip Code. Would they change the already assigned SSN to co-incide with corrected Zip? Probably not, since the actual number one has is of no significance; only the fact that each individual has a unique # matters.

  62. avatar
    Sef June 15, 2011 at 8:35 am #

    Scientist:
    I think another possibility with a letter where the Zip Code and address didn’t agree is that it went back to the sender (the SSA). They would then send it out with the correct Zip Code.Would they change the already assigned SSN to co-incide with corrected Zip?Probably not, since the actual number one has is of no significance; only the fact that each individual has a unique # matters.

    There’s no need to posit a different zipcode on the envelope sent back to Obama. The only time a typo is needed is during the lookup of the next SSN for a particular zipcode range.

  63. avatar
    Nathanael June 15, 2011 at 8:40 am #

    Keith: Ain’t it the truth!
    The Latham family must have at one time been the entire population of both Groton and New London, Connecticutt.

    Well, not quite. You’ll find a few Colvers mixed in there as well, though we were never as prolific as the Lathams. Edward came over in 1635 during the height of the Great Migration during the English civil war, winding up finally at Groton. Colvers and Lathams did intermarry at some point, as I’ve got a Latham or two in my ancestry.

    –Nathanael

  64. avatar
    Greg June 15, 2011 at 5:38 pm #

    Happy Magna Carta Day!

  65. avatar
    Nathanael June 15, 2011 at 10:25 pm #

    Sef: There’s no need to posit a different zipcode on the envelope sent back to Obama.The only time a typo is needed is during the lookup of the next SSN for a particular zipcode range.

    Good point. Bottom line is, it doesn’t matter how it happened. It’s hard to get some people to understand the concept of presumption of innocence. “Prove it, or it didn’t happen!”

    Don’t hafta. Burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution. All defense has to do is stand up and say “clerical error” — or if even that’s too wordy, “typo” — and Obama walks on reasonable doubt. (Not to suggest birthers would ever be allowed anywhere near a jury, of course.)

    Nor do some birthers I’ve talked to seem to grasp the concept of Occam’s razor. Let’s see — a teenager hops on a plane in Honolulu, flies five thousand miles to Danbury, CT, and walks into the local SS office to apply for a SSN, then jets back to Honolulu, all so he can work at Baskin Robbins (oh, and grow up to illegally occupy the office of POTUS). Or there’s a typo.

    Yeah, I don’t believe the typo either.

    –Nathanael.

  66. avatar
    Nathanael June 15, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    gorefan: It most likely was not a Hawaiin clerk.

    A birther I’ve been “dialoguing” with inadvertantly suggested an alternate scenario. Obama walks in to the Honolulu SSO, fills out his application form and hands it to the clerk, who verifies all the information, including the zipcode, then runs off photocopies to send to Baltimore.

    Now, I haven’t been able to find an actual sample of Obama’s “9”, but someone here has created an truetype font based on Obama’s scrawl. If we assume the 9 in that font is at all representative, and that the closure of the loop did not come through on the photocopy — toner issues, lint on the glass, act of God, whatever — I personally could see Obama’s 9 doing a pretty good impression of a nought, enough at least to confuse someone in the central office, at least. Or maybe that’s just me.

    Just more idle speculation from an obot.

    –Nathanael

  67. avatar
    Nathanael June 16, 2011 at 12:55 am #

    Since this place doesn’t have a forum, I’m not sure where one can post new topics. However, I happened across this discussion involving an eligibility denier. I take no position on which side won the debate, but I found the manner in which the ED engaged, e.g., Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happellstett (sp?) made for interesting reading; certainly not your average birther arguments. But then maybe I’m just too easily impressed because IAUDBNTSRTARLAIDEP1OTV (I absolutely unequivocally definitively bear not the slightest resemblance to a real lawyer, and I don’t even play one on TV).

    Any comments?

    –Nathanael

  68. avatar
    Nathanael June 16, 2011 at 1:20 am #

    More specifically, I brushed up against the following signature in the Hannity forums:

    All children born in the country to parents who are citizens — These are the natural born citizens. – United States Supreme Court

    I’m relatively certain that is NOT a USSC quote, but in trying to track it down (perhaps the guy’s trying to paraphrase Minor v. Happelstett?), I ran across the link I posted above. Further googling led me to several threads over at freerepublic; I suspect they’re all the same person.

    Who can confirm for me that it’s not a SCOTUS quote? And offer suggestions on where it might be from?

    –Nathanael

  69. avatar
    Nathanael June 16, 2011 at 6:02 am #

    I thought about how one might go about firming up the clerical error theory of Obama’s SSN, and it occurred to me having some real world examples would at least show such things really do happen.

    A few Google searches later, I’ve turned up a couple of items.

    Over at FinancialCrisis2009.org someone posted a query about a friend who has a SSN from a state he claims never to have been in. A respondent or two pipe in with a “Me, too!”

    And at AboveTopSecret.org a thread-starter claims his SSN is from NM, a place he has no connection to, and is is seeking others. I haven’t finished reading the thread yet, but there’s at least one “Me too!”.

    Hmm, it’s beginning to get a bit lonely in here. Looking up-thread I detect a distinct echo: “Nathanael Nathanael Nathanael Nathanael”.

    –Nathanael

  70. avatar
    Scientist June 16, 2011 at 7:28 am #

    Alright Nathaniel, I’ll keep you company.

    1. Misreading of hand-written numbers not only can happen, I know for a fact that it does happen. My first passport was issued with the wrong year of birth because they read the “7” I wrote on the application as “1”, despite the fact that my birth certificate said “7”. I had to run down to the passport office and have it re-done in a hurry for my trip. To this day, i write my “7” with a bar through it in the European style so that it is clear. So mix-ups happen even on something more important than a zip code,

    2. I don’t get this silly speculation about someone’s SSN. I have never asked whether my SNN is “right for me” as they say in the pharmaceutical ads. i use it and no one has ever refused it so I’m happy. The simple fact is that the President’s number is his number. If it weren’t his tax returns wouldn’t have been accepted all these years. Bureaucracies do what they do; Social Security dooesn’t explain even to the number holder why they gave them a particular number; they certainly aren’t going to explain to someone off the street. If Orly or anyone else believes Obama (or you or me) are using a fraudulent SSN, there is a toll-free number to file a report. Social Security will investigate and if there is merit, will pursue the matter. IRS has a line as well. If the person has been evading taxes, the one who reports may actually be due for a share of the back taxes owed as a reward. If Orly really believed her story, the smart thing to do would be to report the matter and keep quiet about it in public, since that could jeopardize her reward.

    3. The arguments you linked to over the “2 citiizen parent crappola” are worn out nonsense. In the entire history of the US and the colonies that preceded it, everybody born here was always a citizen, regardless of parentage as long as some racial exclusion policy didn’t deny them citizenship. If Johan and Bettina Meyehoff got off a ship in New York and Bettina dropped a baby 10 minutes later, little Franz was a citizen of the colony or of the US. There is not a single instance of anybody born in the US ever being naturalized (except a few kids of diplomats),

    4. i don’t know where the quote you mention comes from. I actually couldn’t care less if it did come from some long-dead Supreme Court justice. Courts in the past sanctioned all kinds of nonsense like slavery, segregation, women as chattel, etc. Today’s Supreme Court swore Obama in and treat him as they have treated all previous Presidents. The birthers can hand-wave all they like, but the only possible interpretations are:
    a. They believe he is eligible.
    b. They believe elligibillity is a matter for the voters and Congress to decide
    c. Both a and b

    By the way, the birthers have mis-construed what Vattel said. Take the sentence, “The company provides scholarships to students whose parents are employees”. Does that mean both parents have to be employees? Of course not; a child with one parent employee is eligible. So even if the US were to follow Vattel (it doesn’t) one citizen parent would be sufficient. That is the law in Vattel’s home country Switzerland-if one parent is Swiss, the child is Swiss.. Not a single country in the world requires both parents to be citizens. That would be ridiculous, because then children with parents of different citizenship would be stateless, which is absurd.

  71. avatar
    Welsh Dragon June 16, 2011 at 8:06 am #

    Nathanael:
    More specifically, I brushed up against the following signature in the Hannity forums:

    All children born in the country to parents who are citizens — These are the natural born citizens. – United States Supreme Court

    I’m relatively certain that is NOT a USSC quote, but in trying to track it down (perhaps the guy’s trying to paraphrase Minor v. Happelstett?), I ran across the link I posted above. Further googling led me to several threads over at freerepublic; I suspect they’re all the same person.

    Who can confirm for me that it’s not a SCOTUS quote? And offer suggestions on where it might be from?

    –Nathanael

    Well if it helps – in the last few two years I’ve made systematic searchs through Scotus opinions for NBC andsimilar. That quote is not there.

  72. avatar
    Bovril June 16, 2011 at 9:59 am #

    Only places I have seen this full quote is on the Hannity forum where it is one posters signature and on a couple of posts on Freeperville.

  73. avatar
    Rickey June 16, 2011 at 1:11 pm #

    Nathanael:
    More specifically, I brushed up against the following signature in the Hannity forums:

    All children born in the country to parents who are citizens — These are the natural born citizens. – United States Supreme Court

    Anytime you see a quotation which purports to be from a SCOTUS decision but does not cite the case, there is a good chance that the quotation is bogus.

    Have you ever since this quotation?

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

    Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. – Alexander Fraser Tytler, “The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic”

    It is an entirely bogus quotation, yet it has remained in circulation for at least 60 years and has been cited in several published books.

    http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html

  74. avatar
    Nathanael June 16, 2011 at 8:03 pm #

    Scientist:
    Alright Nathaniel, I’ll keep you company.

    Thanks, Scientist. You’ve very kind πŸ™‚

    1.Misreading of hand-written numbers not only can happen, I know for a fact that it does happen.

    Yes, indeed. I spent some time yesterday trying to track down other examples of people who’ve received SSNs from the wrong state and did many to turn up a couple of things, but nothing too concrete.

    2. I don’t get this silly speculation about someone’s SSN.

    You’re forgetting to think like a birther. A) Because Orly says so. B) Because, if you turn your head sideways and squint a bit, it looks bad for the President, therefore it MUST be important (and true). If Obama IS an illegal alien and a fraud (and we all know he is), then of course he would never have been able to get a legitimate SSN. And by relying on a single record from a database that specifically disclaims its own reliability we can prove his SSN was stolen. From an 87-year-old “I’m not dead yet!” former Frenchman who already had a legitimate SSN and who may or may not have died in Honolulu. By a time-traveling grandmother who as a part-time volunteer courthouse worker would most certainly have had the power to compel federal agencies to accede to a teenage boy’s desire to borrow the aforesaid Frenchman’s SSN. (Did I mention the poor guy wasn’t even dead yet?)

    Understand now? πŸ™‚

    3. The arguments you linked to over the “2 citiizen parent crappola” are worn out nonsense.

    Of that I haven’t the slightest doubt. It’s just that when I tried imagining myself engaging the guy I realized I would have quickly been in over my head. Of course I’m a complete legal layman (hmm, as opposed to “illegal layman”? Neither of my parents was a natural-born lawyer). I was just curious if anyone could point out his specific errors.

    I especially appreciate your last comment: no country in the world requires two parents. Excellent point. But, just to play birther for a moment, the discussion is not about standard-grade citizenship, but “a 14th Amendment citizen”, that special blueblood class of citizenship required for the president alone. Since no other country has an analogous class, we shouldn’t expect to find a parallel.

    c. Both a and b

    Or d. The judicial system is as corrupt as the rest of government. I just finished listening this morning to an interview with retired Maj-Gen. Vallely who said exactly that. Never underestimate the power of conspiracists to

    wheedle their way around the obvious.

    Sorry. Don’t mean to be annoying. I’m trying to find something that a birther can’t wiggle out of. I suppose, though a rational approach is fishing in the wrong pond.

    Bovril:
    Only places I have seen this full quote is on the Hannity forum where it is one posters signature and on a couple of posts on Freeperville.

    Ditto. Every google attempt I’ve made has led inevitably back to those two sources. Again, I’ve no doubt it isn’t a legit SCOTUS citation, but an attempted paraphrase. I’d like to get an idea of what, specifically, he’s trying to paraphrase, to know better how to reply. Yes, I did think about asking him, but ya gotta have an account to post at Hannity, and so far the mods there haven’t seen fit to approve my registration.

    I see at least one person has called the guy on “the” in “these are the citizens” as a blatant attempt to inject a level of exclusivity into a statement which in fact is not at all exclusive: “All apples are red.” Have I just proven tomatoes are blue?

    Rickey: Anytime you see a quotation which purports to be from a SCOTUS decision but does not cite the case, there is a good chance that the quotation is bogus.

    If the moderators ever approve my registration, a link is the first thing I intend to ask from the guy.

    Rickey: Have you ever since this quotation?

    I hadn’t, actually. Though I think I was in junior high school when I figured out that just because it appears in a book doesn’t make it true. Too bad some folk still haven’t figured that out (***cough*** Corsi ***cough***)

    OK, folks. I get the hint. This thread is dead; time to move on.

    I wish Obama Conspiracy had a discussion forum so I wouldn’t have to hijack comment threads. Would there be any value in setting one up?

    –Nathanael

  75. avatar
    Nathanael June 16, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    Sorry. Looks like I forgot to close a blockquote somewhere.

    –Nathanael

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 16, 2011 at 8:19 pm #

    Nathanael: I wish Obama Conspiracy had a discussion forum so I wouldn’t have to hijack comment threads. Would there be any value in setting one up?

    This was considered early on but I didn’t do it for two reasons.

    There already is an established and lively forum covering these issues: The Fogbow. I didn’t want to be competition for them. My second reason is that if I started a forum, I fear it would split the discussion of the same topic between the blog and the forum. That seemed awkward. I could turn off comments on the blog completely and use a forum, but then there wouldn’t be a clean way to provide feedback on the articles.

    So, no forum.

  77. avatar
    Northland10 June 16, 2011 at 8:35 pm #

    Since the last Keyes v. Bowen article has been around long enough for the comments to close:

    All respondents have waived the right to respond and there has been no request for a response. The case is now scheduled for conference on 26 September 2011.

    Unless something odd happens, I believe this one is done.

  78. avatar
    Scientist June 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    Nathanael: If Obama IS an illegal alien

    He couldn’t possibly be an illegal allien. The very worst he could be is a naturalized citizen. Pretend he was born outside the US; if his parent’s marriage was invalid due to Obama Sr’s previous undissolved marriage, he would be a citizen at birth (natural born citizen). If his parent’s marriage were valid he would probably not be. However, his mother, a US citizen, could have brought him to the US as a legal permanent resident, something any US citizen can do automatically for their minor child (and could in 1961). Legal permanent residents are entitled to an SSN, of course. Furthermore, once on US soil she could apply for a Certficate of Citizenship, which would make him a US citizen. So under any scenario a child in that situation would have a 100% legal SSN.

    Nathanael: I especially appreciate your last comment: no country in the world requires two parents. Excellent point. But, just to play birther for a moment, the discussion is not about standard-grade citizenship, but “a 14th Amendment citizen”, that special blueblood class of citizenship required for the president alone. Since no other country has an analogous class, we shouldn’t expect to find a parallel.

    It’s a misconception that the 14th Amendment made anyone a citizen. Always, from the earliest English colonies, every white person born here was a citizen, irrespective of their parentage. Free blacks born here were citizens too, until that status was stolen from them by the odious Dred Scott decision. Slaves were not citizens, of course, but once slavery was ended by the Emancipation and the13th Amendment they were. The 14th simply stated what was already the case-it’s goal was to prevent a future Dred Scott ttheft of citizenship from free people, which since slavery was gone, was everyone.

    Actually, some other countries, mostly in Latin America, do require the President to be born in the country. This is true in Brazil, Chile and Peru. It actually became an issue in Peru in the 1990s with Alberto Fujimorii, whose opponents claimed he was born in Japan because his parent immigrated from there (like US birthers, the Peruian birthers were wrong). Argentina actually says natural born citizen, which means born in the country or born to at least one citizen parent abroad (just like it does here).

    Nathanael: Or d. The judicial system is as corrupt as the rest of government. I just finished listening this morning to an interview with retired Maj-Gen. Vallely who said exactly that. Never underestimate the power of conspiracists to
    wheedle their way around the obvious.

    if the birthers believe that, then why would they pay any attention to anything any judge says?

  79. avatar
    ballantine June 16, 2011 at 9:39 pm #

    Nathanael:
    More specifically, I brushed up against the following signature in the Hannity forums:

    All children born in the country to parents who are citizens — These are the natural born citizens. – United States Supreme Court

    I’m relatively certain that is NOT a USSC quote, but in trying to track it down (perhaps the guy’s trying to paraphrase Minor v. Happelstett?), I ran across the link I posted above. Further googling led me to several threads over at freerepublic; I suspect they’re all the same person.

    Who can confirm for me that it’s not a SCOTUS quote? And offer suggestions on where it might be from?

    –Nathanael

    The only case that says anything remotely like that is the dicta in Minor v. Happersett. Of course, the court goes on to say there was some disagreement with respect to children of aliens and says it would not address such issue. Anyone who addresses the issue of children of aliens and cites a case that expressly declines to address the status of children of aliens is an idiot. Or a birther. It is simply a fact that no United States court at any level has ever said one needed citizen parents to be natural born.

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 16, 2011 at 11:16 pm #

    Scientist: if the birthers believe that, then why would they pay any attention to anything any judge says?

    If the judge agrees with them they believe it, and if not, then they don’t. It’s the same with anything for the birther.

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 16, 2011 at 11:21 pm #

    Nathanael: All children born in the country to parents who are citizens — These are the natural born citizens. – United States Supreme Court

    Yes it sounds like Minor.

    The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

  82. avatar
    Scientist June 17, 2011 at 12:07 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If the judge agrees with them they believe it

    That is an untested and likely untestable postulate, since no judge has ever or likely will ever agree with them.

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 17, 2011 at 12:18 am #

    Scientist: That is an untested and likely untestable postulate, since no judge has ever or likely will ever agree with them.

    No, Orly actually prevailed in one motion, to get a copy of the sign-in sheet at the Hornbeck hearing. Orly wrote on her blog about the order: “Thank god for judge Wilkinson in the Eastern District of Louisiana.”

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=22297

  84. avatar
    Nathanael June 17, 2011 at 1:04 am #

    Scientist: It’s a misconception that the 14th Amendment made anyone a citizen.

    You and I know that. But if you already hold that misconception, then saying, “Show me any country in the world that requires two citizen parents,” is rather a non-sequiter.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I didn’t do it for two reasons.

    Both very good reasons. Guess I’ll mosey on over to Fogbow and hitch up my mule over there.

    ballantine: The only case that says anything remotely like that is the dicta in Minor v. Happersett.

    That’s my feeling, that he’s attempting to paraphrase M v H. I’ll ask him myself, if and when the moderators at Hannity see fit to approve my registration.

    Of course, as has been pointed out previously (by me, I do believe πŸ™‚ ), in English “all” is inclusive, but not at all exclusive. “All apples are red”, hardly proves tomatoes are blue. Which may explain his extra “the” in “– these are the citizens”; trying to bump up the exclusivity rating beyond what he knows M v H will support.

    –Nathanael

  85. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 17, 2011 at 2:38 am #

    There are usually two Supreme Court cases that Birthers like to rely upon.

    The first is Minor v. Happersett. This was a case about Women’s Suffrage. The background basically is Minor was denied the right to vote, and then sued Happersett based upon the fact that she was a citizen, she has the right to vote. The court ruled that there is no doubt that Minor is a citizen (didn’t go into defining a citizen, since Minor fits every definition of citizen possible), but that there was no inherent right to vote that came with citizenship. The paragraph that they right to quote specifically says that the court will not resolve the definition of citizen, because they don’t need to for the purposes of the case. This was later decided in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that anybody born in the United States (with the exceptions of a few groups of people – Now consisting of sons of foreign Diplomats, sons of soldiers born in occupied territory, and a few other groups) were citizens of the United States.

    The second case that Birthers like to quote comes from a concurring opinion (read not the opinion of the court, but a one justice “I agree with the result, but here is my reasoning” opinion) of Justice Daniel in Scott v. Sandford. Concurring opinions are not case law any more than dissenting opinions are. They basically say, “I agree with the verdict, but not the reasoning behind the verdict.” This case is the infamous Dred Scott case which ruled that Black People and other people of color did not have the ability to become citizens under any circumstance.

    This of course their psuedo-legal reasoning that they say that doesn’t directly contradict Supreme Court rulings of the past (even though anybody who looked at it would realize that it was decided with U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark). They go further down the looney trail with their “Obama gave up his U.S. citizenship at the age of 6, when he got Indonesian Citizenship”, despite their theory being the exact same fact scenario that was ruled against in a 1930s case of Perkins v. Elg.

  86. avatar
    The Magic M June 17, 2011 at 9:54 am #

    Seems the Pest and eFail is following WND as far as “becoming unhinged” is concerned.

    Their latest whiny letter to Speaker Boehner:
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/17/state-legislators-coming-on-board-about-eligibility-and-government-corruption/

    With gems such as

    “We clearly sent you marching orders…
    What is almost laughable is that people like you think you will survive these crimes…
    You are marked men…
    You are shameful and deserve the fate of a Traitor…
    We will […] take matters into our own hands…
    We will deal with you all eventually…
    You […] chose to be a foe…
    …the filthy S.O.B. in our White House and his stinking Mooch of a wife…
    …on behalf of a stinking cabal…
    I wonder how you can face a day without slitting your own throat…
    …the stench of your rotting corpses…
    …the war we are waging here at home against criminal public servants…
    This […] will only end badly….VERY BADLY. There will be no place to hide or avoid what is surely coming….
    The Pretender in our White House is a criminal borne out of a failed Petri Dish experiment…
    You created people who have little to lose and everything to gain and reclaim….

    I wonder if the FBI will not consider this highly threatening…

    And on the funny side:
    “Now we learn that billions more of OUR money was loaded up IN CASH onto C130s and hauled into IRAQ.”
    Under the GWB administration, no less. But it’s all the same for the birthers anyway.

  87. avatar
    G June 17, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    The Magic M: I wonder if the FBI will not consider this highly threatening…

    I sure hope they do. Much of that language you cited appears to cross the line, if you ask me.

  88. avatar
    Paul June 18, 2011 at 1:23 pm #

    HAHAHA!@@#!@ Off-topic, but thanks for the QOTD shout-out!

  89. avatar
    Randy June 18, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    ????

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2011 at 3:03 pm #

    Randy:
    ????

    Paul is the author of today’s Quote of the Day: “Corsi lies… the baby Jesus cries.” Like all of my Quotes of the Day, this one just struck me as something special and worth sharing.

  91. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 18, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Paul is the author of today’s Quote of the Day: “Corsi lies… the baby Jesus cries.” Like all of my Quotes of the Day, this one just struck me as something special and worth sharing.

    Well its a good thing we don’t say everytime Jerome Corsi tells the truth an angel gets its wings. God would need to start hiring scabs.

  92. avatar
    Nathanael June 18, 2011 at 9:39 pm #

    Scientist: That is an untested and likely untestable postulate, since no judge has ever or likely will ever agree with them.

    Depends on what the word “agrees” means. Any time a birther walks into court and the judge doesn’t snicker or roll his eyes, it’s trumpeted about as a great birther victory. Any time the Orlinator files a document — even if it’s just to correct her errors — birthers are convinced Obama’s downfall is right around the corner.

    And speaking of, just fell onto this at Orly’s site:

    10. Forged birth certificate is a motif for one to seek a social security number of a deceased individual.

    Back as a senior in college, as I was wrapping up my BA in history, I talked to one of my professors about what I could do with a history degree. He said I had two options: law school or grad school. Realizing I didn’t have enough braincells to become a lawyer (those guys is smart!) I proceeded on to graduate studies, instead.

    Having spent only a few weeks reading the collected works of Taitz and Apuzzo, I now realize — too late, alas! — my initial judgment may have been in error. Looks like even idiots (like me!) can become lawyers, as long as they don’t mind being bad ones.

    Orly Taitz is a lawyer, and she doesn’t even know how to spell “motive”. QED.

    ballantine: The only case that says anything remotely like that is the dicta in Minor v. Happersett.

    I ran across another quote — may have been the Bingham one birthers quote copy and paste — that was also similar. Of course Bingham ain’t SCOTUS, but facts can be such bothersome nuisances; best just to ignore them.

  93. avatar
    Nathanael June 18, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    Damn – missed another [close blockquote]. Gotta stop hand-editing these things.

  94. avatar
    Nathanael June 18, 2011 at 9:43 pm #

    Nathanael:
    Damn – missed another . Gotta stop hand-editing these things.

    That should have said “missed another close blockquote”. Can’t even follow my own advice.

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 21, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    I have updated the Change Log page at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/visitor-guide/change-log/ with more information about the plug-ins used by this blog. This may be of interest to other WordPress bloggers.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 21, 2011 at 2:23 pm #

    One option is to edit your comments in an external visual HTML editor and then paste them. Kompozer is free and simple. I’ve tried visual HTML editors as plug-ins before, but they all had problems of one sort or another.

    Nathanael: That should have said “missed another close blockquote”. Can’t even follow my own advice.

  97. avatar
    G June 21, 2011 at 3:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I have updated the Change Log page at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/visitor-guide/change-log/ with more information about the plug-ins used by this blog. This may be of interest to other WordPress bloggers.

    Dr. C – I don’t like the new “Recent Comments” format that just changed today and find it much less helpful and harder to keep up with updates here.

    In the prior format, you could at least see WHICH Blog Posts had an updated comment on them.

    In this new format, it only tells you most recent comments. Therefore, if one particular Blog entry has a ton of activity (which happens a lot), all the other Blog Posts activity can’t be seen at all.