Main Menu

Trump blames Hillary for the birthers

While I try be an even-handed reporter of the things I cover on this web site, I think it would be futile for me to attempt to hide the fact that I have no respect at all for Donald Trump. Ted Cruz says that Trump lies every time he opens his mouth. That may be hyperbole, but Trump does seem to say pretty much anything he likes without regard for its accuracy. Imagine having a president of the United States who just makes stuff up, or gets his daily briefing from Internet conspiracy blogs. It’s not a pretty thought.

So Trump’s latest is again blaming Hillary Clinton for the birther movement. Trump said in an interview on CNN:

Do you know who started the birther movement? Do you know who questioned his birth certificate? One of the first, Hillary Clinton. She’s the one that started it, she brought it up years before it was brought up by me.

Whenever someone makes that claim, I ask when and where that happened. No one has an answer to that question. FactCheck.org investigated this story in 2015 and found no evidence linking Clinton or her campaign to the birthers.

I find a moral defect in someone who deflects criticism by saying that someone else is doing the same thing. I don’t think an accused serial killer ought to point to other serial killers as an extenuating circumstance. And in that vein, I don’t excuse Trump for blaming Clinton for the birthers just because Ted Cruz (“Lying Ted Cruz” according to Trump) said the same thing about Clinton in 2015.

But where do these crazy stories get started?

More whoppers from trump.

, ,

72 Responses to Trump blames Hillary for the birthers

  1. avatar
    gorefan May 8, 2016 at 10:20 am #

    Clinton Birthers almost always cite this Brietbart story with the misleading headline,

    “Bombshell: ‘Washington Post’ Confirms Hillary Clinton Started the Birther Movement”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/

    Of course the original Washington Post article says just the opposite.

    “Republicans are blaming Hillary Clinton for the ‘birther’ movement. That’s wishful thinking.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/23/republicans-are-blaming-hillary-clinton-for-the-birther-movement-thats-wishful-thinking/

  2. avatar
    Ellen May 8, 2016 at 12:15 pm #

    I believe this National Review Article (which is generally anti-birther) has the “Hillary’s supporters started it” claim in 2012, which was considerably before that Washington Post article.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/292780/conspiracy-again-editors

  3. avatar
    Rickey May 8, 2016 at 1:36 pm #

    The work done by Loren Collins remains the most authoritative that I have seen.

    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2011/06/secret-origin-of-birthers.html

  4. avatar
    Yoda May 8, 2016 at 1:53 pm #

    Even if true, so what? Who cares who started it? Does that it it more merit? Assuming that Hillary did start it, it was during the primaries. Obviously it did not go too far. This means that it may have been investigated and dropped. Unlike the birthers who persist no matter what their imaginary investigations turn up.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 8, 2016 at 6:40 pm #

    As I understand the history, the Clinton supporters that dabbled in birtherism largely dropped it after one of them at the Texas Darlin’ blog found Obama’s birth announcement in a Honolulu newspaper. Mara Zebest, who was one of those Clinton supporters, stayed with birtherism and of course there is Phil Berg.

    Yoda: Assuming that Hillary did start it, it was during the primaries. Obviously it did not go too far. This means that it may have been investigated and dropped.

  6. avatar
    Rickey May 8, 2016 at 9:39 pm #

    The bigger problem is that Trump doesn’t care about the truth, and the compliant media are reluctant to call him out on it.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/few-stand-in-trumps-way-as-he-piles-up-the-four-pinocchio-whoppers/2016/05/07/8cf5e16a-12ff-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html

  7. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) May 9, 2016 at 8:54 am #

    Yoda: Even if true, so what? Who cares who started it? Does that it it more merit?

    For birthers, it does.

    1. “It wasn’t conservatives, so it isn’t partisan.”
    2. “It was a Democrat, so it can’t be racist.”
    3. “If Hillary believed it, there must be something to it.”
    4. “They started it, but we have to end it.” (I.e. make sure Obama gets removed.)

    And so on.

  8. avatar
    CRJ May 9, 2016 at 10:49 am #

    According to the Law Suit Petition of official record filed in the United States Supreme Court Judy v. Obama 14-9396

    The Clintons were the original “birthers,” according to multiple witnessas including Bettina Viviano who told WND in an interview in Los Angeles.

    “Everybody who has called this a conspiracy from the Republicans or the tea party, they need to know who started it – the Democrats,” she said.

    “It was Hillary and Bill, and it percolated up from there,” said Viviano, who had access to the campaign through a documentary she produced on the claims of delegates that Obama and the Democratic National Committee were stealing the nomination from Hillary.

    http://citizenwells.net/2012/04/02/obama-ineligible-for-presidency-hollywood-producer-bettina-viviano-recalls-bill-clinton-statement-bill-gwatney-murder-jerome-corsi-interview-of-viviano/

    Viviano said that she was on a conference phone call during the primary season in the spring of 2008 in which she heard Bill Clinton refer to Obama as ineligible spethe presidency.

    In the course of the phone conversation with Hillary delegates, she recalled, Bill Clinton spoke of Obama as [“the non-citizen.”]

    [Michele Thomas], a Hillary campaigner from Los Angeles, confirmed to WND that she learned from “many people who were close to Hillary” that Obama “was not eligible to be president.”

    She claimed, however, that Bill Clinton’s intention to unequivocally state to the public that Obama was ineligible was stopped in its tracks by the murder of a close friend of the Clintons, Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, just [two weeks] before the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

    Gwatney was killed Aug. 13, 2008, when a 50-year-old man entered Democratic Party headquarters in Little Rock and shot him three times. Police killed the murderer after a chase, and investigators found no motive.

    The Clintons said in a statement that they were “stunned and shaken” by the killing of their “cherished friend and confidante.”

    Viviano said a campaign staffer who was close to Hillary, whose name she requested be withheld for security reasons, told her Gwatney’s murder was a message to Bill Clinton.

    “I was told by this person that that was ‘Shut up, Bill, or you’re next,’” she said.

    The campaign adviser, according to Viviano, said that despite the intimidation and threats, Bill Clinton was prepared to speak out about Obama’s eligibility

    “And then,” Viviano said, paraphrasing the staffer, “they went in and said, ‘OK, it’s your daughter, now, we’ll go after.’

    “And then Bill never said anything.”

    Others in the campaign who believe Gwatney’s murder was a message to the Clintons think it had to do with the fact that Gwatney was resisting an effort by the Obama campaign and the party to intimidate Hillary delegates into voting for Obama.

    But Viviano argues that California delegates also were rebelling, and she says her source told her the same story two years later.

    http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/04/hollywood-producer-heard-bill-clinton-say-obama-ineligible/

    “I had never voted in my life. I wasn’t a Democrat, I wasn’t a Republican. I wasn’t anything,” Viviano said. “I didn’t know anything about any of this.”

    Viviano said that when she and her co-workers informed Hillary campaigners that they were making a film about voter fraud, “the floodgates opened.”

    “I mean, everybody had a story to tell about death threats, threats, intimidation, document falsifying, vandalism, property theft,” she said. “It was the most horrible thing I’ve ever heard in my life.”

    Viviano said that in research for the film, allegations and evidence that Obama was not eligible “came up immediately.”

    “We were getting hit with so many things about Obama,” she said. “This is when (Bill) Ayers and (Rashid) Khalidi were in the news, and then, all of a sudden, ‘Oh, and he’s not eligible to be president.’”

    [Viviano was a Neutral Witness Politically Speaking]

    Viviano insisted to WND that her reason for speaking out now was not related to the fact that Obama beat Hillary.

    “It’s not about Hillary,” she said. “It’s about No. 1, I’m American, I live in a country where there is a Constitution and a set of laws. I also have somebody in the White House who has lied, obfuscated, provided what we all know to be forged documents about who he is.”

    She acknowledges that she could jeopardize her Hollywood career.

    “What can you do?” she said. “It’s my country. My dad fought for this country in World War II in the 82nd Airborne.”

    Her late father, she noted, was shot down twice during the war and was awarded two Purple Hearts.

    “I think, would he rather have me sitting in the corner cowering, and afraid of people, or would he rather have me tell the truth and what I saw?”

    Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/04/hollywood-producer-heard-bill-clinton-say-obama-ineligible/#XHmbUjMQEBrmhHxI.99

    Viviano today is an avid Anti-Trump advocate and Hillary Clinton is on Record in her 2016 Campaign of having spent 5.3 million against Trump, more than any other candidate on Record.

    Not acknowledging the Facts and Witnesses is paramount to p articipating in Cover Up.

    The exageration of Clinton’s never being Birthers may be of the Type which only acknowleges self- testimony in being a Birther, and excluding in that Qualification Eligibility, but Anti Birthers have expanded their interpretation of Birthers to be any question of ineligibility with the Standard of Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.

    So any Qualification Question by Clinton’s in the past can easily be paraded under the Birther Tent.

    I find the credit of Clinton exageration of Trump as Islamophobic and an isolationist actually much harder to digest than Trumps claim Clinton was a Birther based on evidence.

    Trump’s claims to stop SYRIAN Refugees until they can be properly screened for Radicalism for the safety of Americans has been exaggerated extremely into isolationism and Islamophobia.

    That’s taking Fair Trade and National Security as far out in left field as you can go for Political Points and to influence Votes.

    Trump does not have to travel out to the extreme right to advocate an Official Record of Clinton’s Birtherism, and only the most naive fool would not consider that line of attack on a political opponent to be the Constitutional Right and thus credible in an attempt to Win.

    Murder and the threats of more murder would quite naturally be about the only extreme to silence the Constitutional claims from going main stream by first tier Candidates.

    This jives with the story of Viviano.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2016 at 10:56 am #

    The story is ludicrous, and lacking in specifics. Who corroborates Viviano’s remark about the conference call? Who are these “many people close to Hillary”? This is the sort of junk that WND publishes. It has no value.

    See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/06/silly-story-of-hillary-the-birther/

    CRJ: “It was Hillary and Bill, and it percolated up from there,” said Viviano, who had access to the campaign through a documentary she produced on the claims of delegates that Obama and the Democratic National Committee were stealing the nomination from Hillary.

  10. avatar
    bob May 9, 2016 at 12:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The story is ludicrous, and lacking in specifics. Who corroborates Viviano’s remark about the conference call? Who are these “many people close to Hillary”? This is the sort of junk that WND publishes. It has no value.

    See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/06/silly-story-of-hillary-the-birther/

    Yet Judy, years later, still (and proudly) continues to push these lies.

  11. avatar
    CRJ May 9, 2016 at 2:55 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The story is ludicrous, and lacking in specifics. Who corroborates Viviano’s remark about the conference call? Who are these “many people close to Hillary”? This is the sort of junk that WND publishes. It has no value.

    Maybe the question should be “How can you disprove her Report at an Event you had nothing to do with?

    Credible Witness – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_witness

    Several factors affect witnesses’ credibility. A credible witness is “competent to give evidence, and is worthy of belief.”[1] Generally, a witness is deemed to be credible if they are recognized (or can be recognized) as a source of reliable information about someone, an event, or a phenomenon.

    That’s exactly why a Court of Law is about the only way for you to establish your Claim that she is not credible. I highly recommend your own well established past of sitting on Facts rather then stirring fiction is one to be admired and one you should consider in this instance.

    The oath of Testimony is one that credibly we both would agree needs to happen, and Bill and Hillary Clinton would definitely qualify as “Witnesses” to appose Viviano’s claims and I’d be happy to call them if a Trial is offered.

    Short of that, your own claims of corroboration are subject to political pious.

    Just another reason why Judy v. Obama 14-9396 really is much more relevant to the Truth I would think you were hoping to defend?

    If anything, my Report is Recorded in a Court of Law in an attempt to be heard, whilst your’s is in the public wind of innuendo.

  12. avatar
    bob May 9, 2016 at 3:10 pm #

    CRJ:
    If anything, my Report is Recorded in a Court of Law in an attempt to be heard, whilst your’s is in the public wind of innuendo.

    Judy’s retelling of WND’s retelling of Viviano’s uncorroborated, outrageous claims is the very definition of innuendo (and hearsay).

    Oh, the irony.

  13. avatar
    CRJ May 9, 2016 at 3:15 pm #

    Here’s an interesting cooperation of actual testimony that would have to be respected as credible for the events surrounding this. The witnesses interviewed could be cross examined IF a Trial was being held.

    Judy v. Obama 14-9396 was in favor of such a Trial

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_xYspFt_9Q

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2016 at 3:20 pm #

    The claim that that Obama threatened to kill Chelsea Clinton is an extraordinary one, and not something that anyone would accept on the testimony of one witness.

    I Googled Viviano, and the very first entry was a statement by her regarding the Supreme Court cases in which Elena Kagan allegedly represented President Obama. In that statement Viviano supported an article at WND and claims that SNOPES lied. Well WND actually retracted their story and admitted that they were wrong. So Viviano, on my very first Google hit on her, was proven to be a purveyor of false information. So her credibility is lacking. Also one might attack her on bias, since she was ones of those disgruntled PUMA members that thought Obama stole the nomination from Clinton. Another one of those is Mara Zebest who presents incompetent image analysis in support of birther causes.

    Viviano’s testimony as to what Clinton said will never be cross-examined because it is hearsay, and would be inadmissible in the first place.

    CRJ: Maybe the question should be “How can you disprove her Report at an Event you had nothing to do with?

  15. avatar
    aarrgghh May 9, 2016 at 3:29 pm #

    CRJ: Maybe the question should be “How can you disprove her Report at an Event you had nothing to do with?

    burden of proof: “When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.”

    also too, benefit of assumption: “She or he who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning (s)he needs no evidence to support her or his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.”

    but we, at this late stage of the game, already knew that, didn’t we?

  16. avatar
    Joey May 9, 2016 at 3:36 pm #

    What is (in my humble opinion) undeniable is that no matter who started the birther movement, the Obama campaign was able to use birtherism to Barack Obama’s political advantage to get elected and reelected.
    The birther movement was an albatross around the neck of conservatives who were put constantly on the defensive. Birtherism allowed the Obama campaign to demonize the far right as racist without ever having to use the word “race.” Birtherism allowed Obama to get the vast majority of the votes of Latinos and Asians (71% and 73% respectively in 2012) when those two groups have traditionally felt no strong allegiance to blacks. But what they did feel an affinity for is being labeled “not real Americans.”
    When Barack Obama himself addressed birtherism, 98% of the time it was in a joking manner which allowed him to look like a nice and forgiving guy with a sense of humor.
    If the Obama campaign didn’t actually invent the birthers, they sure used them to help the candidate and the president.
    Saul Alinsky wrote: “take what your opponent considers to be your weakness and make it your strength.” Being 226-0 in legal challenges to his eligibility is very strong.

  17. avatar
    CRJ May 9, 2016 at 3:37 pm #

    Doc , basically what your saying is once any witness is disproved in any public statement their testimony is never good the rest of their life under oath, which means you could never testify about anything based on your involvement with ‘Conspiracy’? lol

    As a jurist I would not rely on a “public statement” to discredit her being called for a testimony made under oath. Bill Clinton’s testimony changed from a public statement to one made under oath..remember?

    You saying Snopes.com has never every been discredited or changed their tune? I’ve seen that happen.

    A statement in public you googled is certainly far from the Witness Chair under oath and that is what I’m saying needs to happen for credibility to be extended on the matters to the public. Its true, people make exaggerated claims in public statements which I eluded to in my first comment and “isolationism” be extended to ‘fair trade’ in Trump’s case.

    You’ve fought against seeing this in a Public Trial with near every ounce of muster you could. There’s more than meets the eye here.

    Here’s Viviano’s Testimony Recorded to watch for those who would like.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfiXvenF1z4

  18. avatar
    Loren May 9, 2016 at 4:22 pm #

    CRJ:
    Here’s Viviano’s Testimony Recorded to watch for those who would like.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfiXvenF1z4

    I watched your video. Viviano says absolutely nothing about being on a conference call with Bill Clinton at all, much less a conference call in spring 2008 where he talks about Obama being ineligible.

    So before anyone needs to get into the weeds of whether to *trust* Ms. Viviano, please provide the actual language of what she actually SAID about this supposed telephone call with Bill Clinton.

  19. avatar
    bob May 9, 2016 at 4:32 pm #

    CRJ:
    Doc , basically what your saying is once any witness is disproved in any public statement their testimony is never good the rest of their life under oath, which means you could never testify about anything based on your involvement with ‘Conspiracy’? lol

    As Doc never conspired with anyone, he’ll never be called to testify about one; duh.

    And Judy ought to know there is a common-sense rule in the law that if a witness’s testimony is false in one aspect, it can be considered to be false in others.

    But this is all academic because Judy’s claims about Viviano’s claims are H – E – A – R – S – A – Y, and will never, ever see the inside of a courtroom. And that’s assuming there would ever be a basis for a lawsuit, which there isn’t.

    You’ve fought against seeing this in a Public Trial with near every ounce of muster you could.

    Because frivolous lawsuits unnecessarily consume time, energy, money, and other valuable resources.

    There’s more than meets the eye here.

    The eye sees just fine: Conspiratorial nutjobs will believe any unverified, outrageous claim.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2016 at 6:43 pm #

    The things CRJ and others are saying is based on an interview Viviano gave WorldNetDaily. The article quoting her is by Jerome Corsi:

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/hollywood-producer-heard-bill-clinton-say-obama-ineligible/

    Not much of a source, but it has some quotation marks in it.

    One has to be careful, though. The word Viviano puts in Bill Clinton’s mouth is “ineligible” but that might mean lacking in experience, rather than a constitutional ineligibility. Indeed, Viviano later in the article quotes Bill Clinton:

    “He would go on camera,” Viviano said, “and jokingly make comments about, you know, ‘Is Obama qualified to be president? Well, if he’s 35 and a wink, wink, United States citizen, I guess he’s qualified.’”

    One possibility is that Viviano just interpreted what Clinton said (either honestly or dishonestly) to suggest a constitutional ineligibility, when none was intended. Certainly Viviano never attributes to Clinton any statement that Obama was born outside the United States, which would be the only theoretical way he was not constitutionally eligible.

    Loren: So before anyone needs to get into the weeds of whether to *trust* Ms. Viviano, please provide the actual language of what she actually SAID about this supposed telephone call with Bill Clinton.

  21. avatar
    Loren May 9, 2016 at 8:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The things CRJ and others are saying is based on an interview Viviano gave WorldNetDaily. The article quoting her is by Jerome Corsi:

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/hollywood-producer-heard-bill-clinton-say-obama-ineligible/

    Not much of a source, but it has some quotation marks in it.

    And you’ll note that none of those quotation marks are around any statements from Ms. Viviano concerning any supposed conference calls with Bill Clinton. Moreover, if you watch the video of Corsi’s interview with Viviano, she never references such a conference call with Bill Clinton.

    Rather, Corsi seems to have just made up the conference call thing.

    One has to be careful, though. The word Viviano puts in Bill Clinton’s mouth is “ineligible” but that might mean lacking in experience, rather than a constitutional ineligibility. Indeed, Viviano later in the article quotes Bill Clinton:

    “He would go on camera,” Viviano said, “and jokingly make comments about, you know, ‘Is Obama qualified to be president? Well, if he’s 35 and a wink, wink, United States citizen, I guess he’s qualified.’”

    One possibility is that Viviano just interpreted what Clinton said (either honestly or dishonestly) to suggest a constitutional ineligibility, when none was intended. Certainly Viviano never attributes to Clinton any statement that Obama was born outside the United States, which would be the only theoretical way he was not constitutionally eligible.

    I think you’re giving Viviano WAY too much credit as to whether she’s even accurately quoting Bill Clinton. With the conference call, there was at least an implicit explanation as to why there’d be no record of his statement, but when she says that Bill made these statements *in interviews*, then there’d be video recordings of those statements.

    And if there was 2008 video of Bill Clinton actively being cagey about Obama’s eligibility, don’t you think we’d’ve seen it by now? As opposed to just a vague hearsay account, like the folks who claimed Keyes grilled Obama on eligibility in 2004?

    No, I remember looking into this some years back, and more or less drawing the conclusion that Viviano and Co. were providing a horribly-inaccurate, telephone-game-quality accounting of this Clinton interview:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdvaxQIC1s4

  22. avatar
    Rickey May 9, 2016 at 8:26 pm #

    Viviano also lied about being a Democrat. Loren found a blog post by her where she admitted that she is a Republican and that she would have voted for McCain if he had run against Clinton. Why would Bill Clinton have been on a conference call with a Republican?

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2016 at 10:49 pm #

    You are not a jurist. A jurist would know that such testimony is hearsay.

    CRJ: As a jurist I would not rely on a “public statement” to discredit her being called for a testimony made under oath.

  24. avatar
    gorefan May 10, 2016 at 12:36 am #

    Loren: I watched your video. Viviano says absolutely nothing about being on a conference call with Bill Clinton at all, much less a conference call in spring 2008 where he talks about Obama being ineligible.

    So before anyone needs to get into the weeds of whether to *trust* Ms. Viviano, please provide the actual language of what she actually SAID about this supposed telephone call with Bill Clinton.

    She mentioned in at Volin’s show. Although IIRC, her language is a little squishy.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wheresobamasbirthcertificatexcom/2015/10/15/host-erik-rush-interviews-bettina-viviano

    I haven’t listened to this older interview but she might mention it here.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wheresobamasbirthcertificatexcom/2013/11/07/bettina-viviano-about-the-early-cover-up-of-obamas-forged-birth-certificate-1

    In a 2011 interview with Canada Free Press she never mentions any of the stuff she brings up later.

    http://canadafreepress.com/article/alert-hollywood-producer-speaks-out-against-massive-obama-and-dnc-corruptio

  25. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) May 10, 2016 at 6:40 am #

    The Viviano story lacks internal logic in other parts as well.
    If the Clintons were the murderous monsters RW’s use to paint them as, would they really be intimidated by threats to their daughter’s life?
    Any idiot can have someone killed and threaten a kid’s life, is it really that easy to get the President of the United States to play possum?

    Even more so, if you had a working threat against Clinton, why not demand she drops out of the race for “health reasons”? Why just insist she drop the (alleged) “he’s ineligible” claim?
    It just doesn’t make sense.

    Other than that, given the ease with which RW’s accept any nutjob’s “testimony” (“I learned in school you need two citizen parents”, “an Egyptian official told me Obama is personally heading the Muslim Brotherhood”), a single person’s claims as to what other people allegedly claimed is very shaky ground in itself.
    That’s especially intellectually dishonest coming from an arch-birther like CRJ who won’t accept witnesses when it comes to birfin’ (like those Hawaiian officials who said they personally saw the original vault BC).

    So, Cody, to play your old game: “Where’s the confirmation of Viviano’s claims?”

  26. avatar
    gorefan May 10, 2016 at 9:46 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in):
    The Viviano story lacks internal logic in other parts as well.

    Especially the part where after having their daughter’s life threaten, the Clinton’s campaign for and then work for the man who threatened her.

  27. avatar
    Save America from IDIOTS herein May 10, 2016 at 10:09 am #

    This is about a TRUE AMERICAN……. and it is a great slap in the jaw for this garbage website,

    This is why Donald Trump deserves to be president! – MUST SEE COMPILATION!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuiW_Jagl4U&feature=youtu.be&t=4

    [Message posted through a Tor IP exit node. Doc.]

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 10, 2016 at 11:44 am #

    I think that Donald Trump connects well with the frustrations felt by many Americans over how things are going. The problem is that people like Trump are the cause of those frustrations. It’s not immigrants and people of color that are causing hard times for lower-middle class and poor white folks. It is the people who have the power that are doing that.

    Donald Trump is not your friend.

    Save America from IDIOTS herein: This is about a TRUE AMERICAN……. and it is a great slap in the jaw for this garbage website,

  29. avatar
    bob May 10, 2016 at 4:20 pm #

    Over at Birther Report, ramboike comments,

    According the comments at Dr Con’s leftist propaganda site, the Obots have conceded to the fact it was Clinton, her campaign workers & supporters, that were the original Birthers.

    I have no idea how ramboike might have drawn that conclusion.

  30. avatar
    Rickey May 10, 2016 at 5:56 pm #

    bob:

    I have no idea how ramboike might have drawn that conclusion.

    Maybe he’s been reading CRJ’s comments.

  31. avatar
    Crustacean May 10, 2016 at 5:57 pm #

    I love how William doubles down on the stupid in his reply to ramboike’s comment:

    “And I seen something about fact check claiming that Trump was the first and only person to raise the question. Anyone with access to a computer knows this to be a lie.”

    So William “seen” something that he didn’t really see, and ramboike claims folks here are saying things that are clearly not being said. How do these morons draw their conclusions? They drew them long ago, so there’s nothing left to do but tell whatever lies they need to convince each other their conclusions are solid. I left a not-so-nice reply, but as usual it did not survive BR’s moderation.

    bob: I have no idea how ramboike might have drawn that conclusion.

  32. avatar
    bob May 10, 2016 at 7:26 pm #

    Rickey: Maybe he’s been reading CRJ’s comments.

    That was my thought as well. But I don’t know if ramboike would consider Judy to be an “Obot.”

    Of course, “Obot” is a nonsense word without meaning — I have no idea how to meaningfully define the term in a manner that would not apply to all Americans who voted for President Obama.

  33. avatar
    Yoda May 10, 2016 at 7:34 pm #

    bob:
    Over at Birther Report, ramboike comments,

    I have no idea how ramboike might have drawn that conclusion.

    It could just be that he is a fucktard.

  34. avatar
    CRJ May 11, 2016 at 12:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think that Donald Trump connects well with the frustrations felt by many Americans over how things are going. The problem is that people like Trump are the cause of those frustrations. It’s not immigrants and people of color that are causing hard times for lower-middle class and poor white folks

    Agreed.. People like the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily denying a motion for forma pauperis in Judy v. Obama 14-9396 when the motion clearly placed petitioner below Federal poverty guidelines., and we could add the people who agreed with the Denial.

    Wow! That means most people here are like Trump though they pretend they are not?

    bob: Of course, “Obot” is a nonsense word without meaning — I have no idea how to meaningfully define the term in a manner that would not apply to all Americans who voted for President Obama.

    Kinda like “Birther” applied to anyone intelligent enough to qualify PRES, Senators, and Reps Candidates running with the basic Standard of the Constitution.

    Oh.. Wait-A-Minute that’s more People than voted for Obama.
    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2016/05/special-report-birther-issue-in-2016.html?m=1

    Heard Sen. Cruz say today on Glenn Beck the aggregate contribution in Media and Contributions towards his 9 month campaign was $500 Billion. He said Trump got that in 1 month lamenting the focus in disparity had singed him.

    The remark in my mind was 500 Billion in a Constitutionally unqualified Candidate for the Office placing in perspective the intolerable Denial of my forma pauperis Motion in context to printing cost and filing fee at most $5,000.

    Of course my case was not against Ted Cruz, but named his contribution to the problem half-a-dosen times in Official Court Record.

    500 Billion as a contribution to the problem is only a portion of the pie one might further elaborate upon.

    The staggering consideration ought to melt the skin off every Justices Face who had a hand in the Review Denial and the absolute horror upon the poor be remembered in history.

  35. avatar
    bob May 11, 2016 at 12:43 pm #

    CRJ: Agreed.. People like the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily denying a motion for forma pauperis in Judy v. Obama 14-9396 when the motion clearly placed petitioner below Federal poverty guidelines., and we could add the people who agreed with the Denial.

    Judy again repeats his lie that SCOTUS’ denial of his IFP application was “arbitrary”: Judy failed to correctly complete SCOTUS’ IFP application, and Judy continues to accept responsibility for his failings.

    Kinda like “Birther” applied to anyone intelligent enough to qualify PRES, Senators, and Reps Candidates running with the basic Standard of the Constitution.

    A “birther” is someone who believes President Obama is ineligible due to the circumstances of his birth, nothing more.

  36. avatar
    Daniel May 11, 2016 at 2:50 pm #

    I wonder if there’s any way to block seeing CRJ’s dripping whining and moaning over things he thinks are unfair, but are really his own fault?

    As opposed to those posts of his that I like to read just for a good belly laugh at the absurdity?

  37. avatar
    bob May 11, 2016 at 2:54 pm #

    Yoda: It could just be that [ramboike] is a fucktard.

    Also a possibility! Consider ramboike’s latest comment:

    Looks like Dr Con’s sheeple are now backtracking with a little name-calling thrown in.

    ramboike complains about name calling while literally calling people names.

    ramboike continues:

    Plain old logic tells us if it started in the primaries it was connected to the Clinton campaign.

    Loren Collins, who I found to be a sensible person, centers it during the primaries. Problem with him would be one person’s investigation would be susceptable to not catching statements/claims that got little internet attention, but could of been the spark that started the fire.

    Memories bringing forward media reports of Kenyan-born Obama’s 2004 Illinois Senate campaign would be quite convenient for a sinking Clinton campaign starting rumors.

    It is actually ramboike who has walked back his statement that people here have conceded that Clinton was the first birther.

    Now ramboike’s position is that “plain ole logic” says that the original birthers were “connected” to Clinton’s 2008 campaign. But ramboike presents no actual evidence that refutes Loren’s conclusion that birthering started at Free Republic.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2016 at 3:06 pm #

    Plain old logic tells us that if the Clinton campaign started the birther movement, then somebody, somewhere, could say when and how they started it.

    Loren did a very thorough investigation, and I did my own very thorough investigation. I found some hugely obscure references, but nothing remotely associated with the Clinton campaign.

    bob: ramboike continues:

    Plain old logic tells us if it started in the primaries it was connected to the Clinton campaign.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater May 11, 2016 at 5:46 pm #

    CRJ: The Clintons were the original “birthers,” according to multiple witnessas including Bettina Viviano who told WND in an interview in Los Angeles.

    I have to stop you right there. Bettina Viviano has never showed any proof she ever met the Clintons. No one can attest to her being around them let alone having any reason to be. She claims she did it for a documentary that she never ended up producing. Further she was a well known Puma birther who posted on PUMA message boards for years before finally deciding to come up with her story.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater May 11, 2016 at 5:48 pm #

    CRJ: Maybe the question should be “How can you disprove her Report at an Event you had nothing to do with?

    Disprove a witness who can’t provide any proof that the event took place? “Spring primary season” That’s a vague period of about 3 months. If it was as noteworthy as she claims she’d know a specific date with actual specific details.

  41. avatar
    Yoda May 11, 2016 at 8:40 pm #

    bob: Also a possibility!Consider ramboike’s latest comment:

    ramboike complains about name calling while literally calling people names.

    ramboike continues:

    It is actually ramboike who has walked back his statement that people here have conceded that Clinton was the first birther.

    Now ramboike’s position is that “plain ole logic” says that the original birthers were “connected” to Clinton’s 2008 campaign.But ramboike presents no actual evidence that refutes Loren’s conclusion that birthering started at Free Republic.

    My experiences with birthers lead me to believe that what one of their major problems is a fundamental lack of understanding of the English language.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 11, 2016 at 9:07 pm #

    I think it’s bias rather than language skills per se.

    Yoda: My experiences with birthers lead me to believe that what one of their major problems is a fundamental lack of understanding of the English language.

  43. avatar
    Yoda May 11, 2016 at 9:29 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think it’s bias rather than language skills per se.

    It might be a chicken/egg thing. I look at how birthers read Minor v. Happersett and have a hard time understanding how anyone can read it as binding precedent as the exclusive definition of NBC, when it is not a holding and expressly stated that it is not making a ruling about NBC.

  44. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) May 12, 2016 at 6:15 am #

    Many people have a problem telling a necessary from a sufficient condition (the main birther error about Minor), but having a strong bias certainly facilitates that.

    In fact, I’ve seen birthers argue so many times against the clear meaning of basic English that I consider it impossible to be simply due to lacking language skills.

    Then again, when Republican Presidential candidates float the idea that “all persons” in the 14th Amendment doesn’t really mean “all persons” (but rather “all freed slaves”), who can blame the foot soldiers?

  45. avatar
    RanTalbott May 12, 2016 at 8:39 am #

    Rickey: The bigger problem is that Trump doesn’t care about the truth, and the compliant media are reluctant to call him out on it.

    One point mentioned, but not prominently enough, in that article is that the “compliant media” consists almost entirely of TV and radio. Mostly for a couple of reasons:
    a. It’s easy for BS to slip past an interviewer who’s juggling the multiple tasks of interpreting the interviewee’s response, trying to figure out how it screwed up his plans for where the interview ought to go next, watching the clock to make sure he doesn’t crash into the supremely-important commercial break, and ignoring the guy in the control room who’s screaming into his earpiece that there are only 6 seconds left until they have to go sell Irritable Bowel Syndrome remedies.
    b. Broadcast media are extremely vulnerable to short-term ratings fluctuations in setting their ad rates, and the fear of having The Goof Who Lays the Golden Ratings Eggs boycott them because they called him on his nonsense gives them nightmares.

    I’ve been predicting that this will change somewhat in the general election campaign, because Trump will lose some of his leverage: he won’t be terrorizing the other candidates and the debate organizers with the threat of a third party run (though not for the reason many of us hoped for 🙁 ), and he’ll be more in need of the free air time. The broadcasters may also start to see catching him out as more of an opportunity to “get an exclusive” by being “tough” than a threat to the chance of a future booking.

  46. avatar
    RanTalbott May 12, 2016 at 8:48 am #

    Yoda: when it is not a holding and expressly stated that it is not making a ruling about NBC

    Most of them don’t understand the distinction between “holdings” and “dicta” (to be fair, I didn’t, either, until I turned political debate into a serious hobby).

    And most of them never see the part of the opinion that says “We’re not getting into that right now”. And even a lot of the ones I’ve whacked with it don’t understand it.

  47. avatar
    Reality Check May 12, 2016 at 8:51 am #

    ramboike:

    It has to be true becasue I would like it to be true.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Plain old logic tells us that if the Clinton campaign started the birther movement, then somebody, somewhere, could say when and how they started it.

    Loren did a very thorough investigation, and I did my own very thorough investigation. I found some hugely obscure references, but nothing remotely associated with the Clinton campaign.

  48. avatar
    RanTalbott May 12, 2016 at 9:02 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: As I understand the history, the Clinton supporters that dabbled in birtherism largely dropped it

    Yes, but most of the fact-checkers stopped at that point, because it met their goal of disproving the claim that Clinton, herself, started it. So there’s a body of usually-correct sources out there than be cited as identifying them as “Birther 0”.

    Loren Collins seems to be the only one with the interest and free time to thoroughly research the subject and find what appears to be the complete and correct answer. Well, em>almost complete: iirc, no one has identified the pseudononymous freeper who planted the seed there.

  49. avatar
    JD Reed May 12, 2016 at 11:16 am #

    RanTalbott: Yes, but most of the fact-checkers stopped at that point, because it met their goal of disproving the claim that Clinton, herself, started it. So there’s a body of usually-correct sources out there than be cited as identifying them as “Birther 0”.

    Loren Collins seems to be the only one with the interest and free time to thoroughly research the subject and find what appears to be the complete and correct answer. Well, em>almost complete: iirc, no one has identified the pseudononymous freeper who planted the seed there.
    If Hillary had “fought like hell” to make public Obama’s birth certificate, as The Donald once said, wouldn’t there be puppy dog tracks aplenty from 2008. Articles on microfilm from all the major newspapers, easily accessible. Television archives would be harder, but not impossible. Without showing any such evidence, we are justified in believing that Mr. Trump, his apologists, and birthers who assert this unsubstantiated rumor, are lying.

  50. avatar
    Yoda May 12, 2016 at 11:49 am #

    RanTalbott: Most of them don’t understand the distinction between “holdings” and “dicta” (to be fair, I didn’t, either, until I turned political debate into a serious hobby).

    And most of them never see the part of the opinion that says “We’re not getting into that right now”. And even a lot of the ones I’ve whacked with it don’t understand it.

    With all due respect Ran, doesn’t that make my point? They don’t understand what they reading and argue positions based on their lack of understanding.

    I, like you, will look up terms with which I am not familiar so that I can understand them. Birthers have been told thousands of times that it dicta, the insist it was a holding. The language you identified has been point out an equal number of times. Birthers claim that that it is related to the definition of NBC.

    Birthers do not even get that parents, as used in the quote, does not necessarily mean two parents. It can be grammatically correct to use parents to include children with one parent depending on the context.

    How many times have birthers be shown the actual EO by which they claim he sealed his records, were confronted with the actual language contained therein and still insist that the President sealed his records?

    This goes beyond confirmation bias. It is no different from the conclusions made by people like Zullo have made because they do not understand the technology that they are talking about.

    Yes, they are blind to the truth, they have confirmation bias, but the original ignorance is related to their inability to understand what they are reading, couple with a refusal to learn.

  51. avatar
    J.D. Sue May 12, 2016 at 12:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s not immigrants and people of color that are causing hard times for lower-middle class and poor white folks. It is the people who have the power that are doing that.

    Donald Trump is not your friend.

    —-
    He knows his audience. He plays them like a fiddle.

  52. avatar
    bob May 12, 2016 at 12:53 pm #

    ramboike continues to be very interested in what those here think about Trump’s lies about Clinton being the first birther:

    The Obots at Dr Con’s leftist propaganda site are falling over themselves with false claims to cover for Hillary.

    ramboike then copies over some comments from here, and does some selective quoting from articles written on the topic by Factcheck, Politico, and the Telegraph.

    ramboike then cites John Nolte’s Breitbart article, and concludes:

    Nolte dissected a WaPo article by David Weigel and concluded the origins of Birtherism was tied directly to the highest levels of the Clinton political machine.

    I need to note that I wouldn’t disagree with some of what the Clinton political machine was putting out, especially their chief strategist, Mark Penn.

    See??!? ramboike knows Clinton was the first birther because Breitbart spun an article that had said nothing of the sort!

    ramboike concludes by quoting RC:

    Reality Check May 12, 2016 at 8:51 am:
    “ramboike: It has to be true becasue I would like it to be true.”

    Of course, I never said that. That’s RC with another lie.

    Only someone as dumb and dishonest as ramboike would think RC was saying that those were literally ramboike’s words; RC was correctly pointing out that ramboike’s claims, like Trump’s claims, are baseless.

    But ramboike sure showed us: Breitbart said it, so it must be true! Even if Breitbart did no original research on the topic.

    But at least ramboike is no longer claiming that anyone here is “conceding” that Clinton was the first birther. So: little blessings.

  53. avatar
    Loren May 12, 2016 at 2:41 pm #

    ramboike: Loren Collins, who I found to be a sensible person, centers it during the primaries. Problem with him would be one person’s investigation would be susceptable to not catching statements/claims that got little internet attention, but could of been the spark that started the fire.

    That’s certainly a hypothesis, but there’s no evidence to support it. Through my research, I was able to lay out a pretty solid timeline for the development of the ‘Born in Kenya’ rumor, and there’s little to no room for Hillary or her campaign to have been involved. Going in reverse:

    – The rumor first gained legs after Jim Geraghty mentioned it in at NationalReview.com in June 2008, *after* Obama clinched the nomination. Geraghty pointed to a Snopes post from April 2008 as an example of the rumor, not to any statements from Clinton or her campaign.

    – While it’s impossible to be 100% certain, it’s very highly likely that the rumor cited by Snopes came from a chain email sent by Alan Peters, which started circulating a few days earlier, and which was quoted on various websites around that time.

    – Peters had posted the rumor on his own blogs earlier in April and March 2008, with details that closely matched those of a ‘rumor’ that FreeRepublic poster FARS had posted on March 1, 2008. FARS and Peters were, at the minimum, very close friends in real life, and even shared an email address.

    – FARS’ “rumor” mirrored a legal hypothetical that had been posted on The Volokh Conspiracy the day before in a thread about McCain’s eligibility. And it was overtly a hypothetical scenario, and didn’t even pretend to be a claim on reality.

    – Despite considerable searching by myself and others, there’s no online evidence to support the circulation of a rumor about Obama faking a Hawaiian birth prior to February 28, 2008.

    If you’re looking to insert Clinton into that timeline, there’s not much room to do it. If she’d tried spreading the rumor before February 28, then not only did she fail so badly that literally *no one* online bought into it, but also that it just so happened to match a legal hypothetical that *did* kick off the rumor mill.

    You could contend that Clinton was the one who shared the legal hypothetical with FARS during the 24 hours between their posts, claiming it was a rumor. But there’s no evidence to support that whatsoever, and it’s premised on a campaign sharing ideas from a law blog comment thread with a fringe and obscure right-wing blogger.

    You could claim that Clinton’s people helped forward Peters’ chain email between April and June, and thus helped it gain enough attention that Geraghty felt it was worth addressing. But again, there’s no evidence to support that either. And as was the case with pre-February, if Clinton’s campaign *were* involved during this stage, they utterly failed, because it gained virtually no traction during those months.

    Trust me, if I could’ve laid Birtherism at the feet of Hillary Clinton, I would’ve been MORE than happy to do so. Still would be, in fact. Heck, there’s at least SOME justification for believing that her campaign tried to play the ‘Obama is un-American’ angle, and maybe even the ‘Obama’s Muslim past’ angle. But there’s nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to support the idea that her campaign helped promote rumors that Obama was born in Kenya, and there’s nothing in the timeline of that rumor to suggest that she COULD have been involved.

  54. avatar
    Loren May 12, 2016 at 3:02 pm #

    RanTalbott: Loren Collins seems to be the only one with the interest and free time to thoroughly research the subject and find what appears to be the complete and correct answer. Well, em>almost complete: iirc, no one has identified the pseudononymous freeper who planted the seed there.

    “Alan Peters”, the blogger who posted the rumor and attached it to a chain email, was Ali R. Pahlavan, a California blogger who was likely an Iranian expatriate. He stopped blogging in March 2013.

    FARS, the poster who initiated the rumor and provided it to Peters, also last posted to FreeRepublic in March 2013. Many of FARS’s posts, and most of the FR threads he started, were about Peters. FARS claimed to be Peters’ friend and confidante, and openly stated that they shared an email address (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1851380/posts?page=36#36). FARS’ FreeRepublic profile page included links to Peters’ website and his contact address was info@antimullah.com, when antimullah.com was Peters’ URL.

    Curiously, although Peters maintained several blogs and would occasionally participate in his own comment threads, FARS never did. He was merely Peters’ mouthpiece on FreeRepublic. And Peters himself didn’t post on FreeRepublic; only FARS did, to promote Peters.

    Now granted, ‘Peters’ and ‘FARS’ both claimed to be separate people, but neither exactly has a great track record when it comes to honesty.

    So either Peters and FARS are the same person, or they worked very closely together, to the point of sharing an email address and FARS basically lacking any individual identity online, and they happened to give up posting online at the same time in 2013.

    Personally, I’d certainly love it if I could confirm that FARS was just a sock puppet for Pahlavan, but the two are so intimately tied together regardless, that the lack of a real-world name doesn’t really affect the analysis.

  55. avatar
    bob May 12, 2016 at 3:09 pm #

    Loren: Heck, there’s at least SOME justification for believing that her campaign tried to play the ‘Obama is un-American’ angle, and maybe even the ‘Obama’s Muslim past’ angle. But there’s nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to support the idea that her campaign helped promote rumors that Obama was born in Kenya, and there’s nothing in the timeline of that rumor to suggest that she COULD have been involved.

    And this is where Breitbart (and its ilk) “exaggerate”: There is evidence that Clinton’s campaign floated portraying Obama as un-American. Which is different than portraying Obama as not an American.

    A dog whistle most likely, but an important distinction nonetheless.

    But I do enjoy that birthers like ramboike have lowered their expectations from removing the sitting president, to disqualifying a presidential candidate, and now to gossiping about a site’s comments section.

  56. avatar
    Arthur B. May 12, 2016 at 3:24 pm #

    Loren: … there’s little to no room for Hillary or her campaign to have been involved.

    Uh-oh! Paging David Farrar!

  57. avatar
    Rickey May 12, 2016 at 4:57 pm #

    Loren: “Alan Peters”, the blogger who posted the rumor and attached it to a chain email, was Ali R. Pahlavan, a California blogger who was likely an Iranian expatriate. He stopped blogging in March 2013.

    “Alan Peters” (Ali Pahlavan) died on 6/30/14, which pretty much explains why the stopped blogging. He was 73 years old and had at least two hotmail accounts with the name “Alan Peters”) in them. He lived in the L.A. area.

  58. avatar
    Loren May 12, 2016 at 6:12 pm #

    Rickey: “Alan Peters” (Ali Pahlavan) died on 6/30/14, which pretty much explains why the stopped blogging. He was 73 years old and had at least two hotmail accounts with the name “Alan Peters”) in them. He lived in the L.A. area.

    Huh, whaddya know. Not a huge surprise, really; he was up there in years, and he didn’t seem to be in the best mental health, especially towards the end.

    Out of curiosity, where’d you confirm his death and its date?

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2016 at 10:09 pm #

    I expect Rickey has better sources, but the Social Security Death Index lists Ali Pahlavan with those dates. It’s interesting that he was born 24 Jun 1926, but only got his social-security number in 1979. That suggests to me that he was an immigrant. 1979 was the year that the Shah of Iran was deposed.

    Loren: Out of curiosity, where’d you confirm his death and its date?

  60. avatar
    Arthur B. May 12, 2016 at 10:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: … the Social Security Death Index lists Ali Pahlavan with those dates.

    FWIW, my query to the SSDI produces a different death day and year — it shows his dates as June 24, 1926 to June 20, 2012, though that’s harder to reconcile with the report that he “stopped blogging in March 2013.”

    http://www.genealogybank.com/doc/ssdi/news/140E3D420E5F5DF8?search_terms=Pahlavan|Ali

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 12, 2016 at 11:00 pm #

    Sorry, that’s the date I got too.

    Arthur B.: FWIW, my query to the SSDI produces a different death day and year

  62. avatar
    gorefan May 13, 2016 at 1:33 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Sorry, that’s the date I got too.

    May not be the same guy since Rickey says he was 73 years old. He would have been born in 1941.

    Google “Ali Pahlavan’ not that unusual of a name – Iranian POP singer, computer engineer, a pro-Shah Colonel, a journalist and according to Linkin “There are 14 professionals named Ali Pahlavan, who use LinkedIn to exchange information”.

  63. avatar
    Rickey May 13, 2016 at 2:16 am #

    The Social Security Death Index now has a three-year waiting period after an individual’s death before it is available to the general public.Since Ali Pahlavan aka “Alan Peters” died in 2014, his name won’t appear in the Death Index until next year. Through my work I have access to the current Death Index.

    His date of birth was 2/18/41. These are two of the e-mail addresses he used:

    ghealanpeters@hotmail.com

    thealanpeters@hotmail.com

    As gorefan noted, “Ali Pahlavan” is a common Iranian name. I found one who also used the name “Alan Pahlavan” and suspected that might be Alan Peters. When I researched him further I found his e-mail addresses, which pretty much clinched it.

  64. avatar
    RanTalbott May 13, 2016 at 7:37 am #

    Yoda: With all due respect Ran, doesn’t that make my point?

    It complements your point: you said “I have a hard time understanding” why they don’t comprehend what they’re reading, and I was pointing out why.

    I think it goes beyond not knowing the terminology: there’s a conceptual framework they don’t understand. An opinion isn’t just a series of holdings by the Court: it also includes history and arguments that went into the analysis that produced the holdings, sometimes including arguments that they considered and rejected. If you don’t know that, you won’t realize that quoting a sentence or two and claiming “This is what SCOTUS said on the subject” could be wrong, or even deliberately deceptive, because the court might be saying “We looked at this, and think it’s nonsense”.

    Telling them “It’s dicta” may not help, because they may not have a mental model into which to plug the distinction. Without that model, they’re not going to be able to distinguish holdings from dicta on their own, and won’t grasp the significance of your statement.

  65. avatar
    Yoda May 13, 2016 at 7:51 am #

    RanTalbott: It complements your point: you said “I have a hard time understanding” why they don’t comprehend what they’re reading, and I was pointing out why.

    I think it goes beyond not knowing the terminology: there’s a conceptual framework they don’t understand. An opinion isn’t just a series of holdings by the Court: it also includes history and arguments that went into the analysis that produced the holdings, sometimes including arguments that they considered and rejected. If you don’t know that, you won’t realize that quoting a sentence or two and claiming “This is what SCOTUS said on the subject” could be wrong, or even deliberately deceptive, because the court might be saying “We looked at this, and think it’s nonsense”.

    Telling them “It’s dicta” may not help, because they may not have a mental model into which to plug the distinction. Without that model, they’re not going to be able to distinguish holdings from dicta on their own, and won’t grasp the significance of your statement.

    Fair enough.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 14, 2016 at 6:31 pm #

    In what year did he get his SSN?

    Rickey: His date of birth was 2/18/41. These are two of the e-mail addresses he used:

  67. avatar
    Rickey May 14, 2016 at 6:56 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In what year did he get his SSN?

    1984 or 1985.

    The biggest wave of Iranian immigration to the U.S. occurred between 1981 and 1990.

    http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iran-vast-diaspora-abroad-and-millions-refugees-home

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 15, 2016 at 8:21 am #

    Hillary Clinton was not a birther. CNN video

  69. avatar
    Loren May 15, 2016 at 10:41 am #

    Rickey:
    His date of birth was 2/18/41.

    I looked up the info I’d found on Peters back in the day, and it showed he had a February 1941 birthdate.

    And incidentally, in poking around online yesterday, I found a blogger who wrote about Peters in 2006, and who was already stating outright that FARS was Peters: http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2006/12/christmas-in-tehran.html

  70. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) May 18, 2016 at 4:59 am #

    Loren: If you’re looking to insert Clinton into that timeline, there’s not much room to do it.

    If you change only seven letters in APETERS, you get CLINTON.
    ZOMG! Moar evidence! Paging Mike Zolus!
    😀

  71. avatar
    Rickey May 18, 2016 at 12:29 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): If you change only seven letters in APETERS, you get CLINTON.
    ZOMG! Moar evidence! Paging Mike Zolus!

    Get ready to have your mind blown – ALAN PETERS has the same number of letters as JOHN MILLER which has the same number of letters as JOHN BARRON.

    Compelling evidence that Alan Peters is actually Donald Trump!