When I talked with Orly Taitz over the phone a couple of weeks ago, she used an analogy to help me understand her feelings about the Obama eligibility controversy and why she so strenuously works to get Obama out of the White House. Following is my remembrance of what she said, except that she went into more detail and expressed it more passionately than I will:
Let’s say that you took an extended vacation out of the country. While you were gone, someone broke into your house. They had access to all of your personal papers and used them obtain a fraudulent deed for your house. They changed the locks on the doors and began living there.
When you returned, you found your house stolen. You went to the police, but the thieves had a deed. You went to the courts, but they would not listen to you. Imagine how you would feel! The White House is the people’s house, and someone has faked documents and is living in a place where they are not entitled.
I can certainly sympathize with a story of someone whose identity has been stolen (my credit card was skimmed at a restaurant once, and thousands of dollars were charged on my account). I think the story of police inaction and courts not listening is rather implausible, but where the analogy breaks down is that whatever one might say about President Obama’s eligibility, Orly Taitz is not the one entitled to live in the White House. She is not the representative of the “people” and this is the essence of the issue of standing that has thwarted over 100 birther lawsuits. The White House might be the people’s house, but it is not her house. Orly Taitz has appointed herself the person who is responsible for seeing that an eligible President serves, when in fact that responsibility rests with the voters (most of whom said explicitly that Obama should be in the White House), the Electoral College, and the Congress.
Now, let me give an analogy of my own:
Let’s say that you are a Muslim and that your family has purchased a house in a neighborhood. Unbeknownst to you, there is significant anti-Muslim sentiment in the neighborhood. The neighbors started making up rumors about you, that you molest your children, or that you contributed financially to terrorist organizations. The neighbors hired detectives to search your personal records and interpreted every typographical and clerical error as proof that your identity is fake and that you are really a terrorist hiding under a fake identity. They write letters to the local newspaper saying you should be driven out of town. They say on the Internet that you should be dragged out of your house and hung. They posted videos on the Internet defaming your parents. They even file lawsuits against you (over a hundred of them!) to take your house away, supported by affidavits of neighborhood volunteers who have found themselves instant experts on documents and terrorist methods. Local talk radio shows say that you are a clear and present danger to the community. Imagine how would you feel?
I think my analogy is a much more accurate portrayal of the birther controversy than that from Orly Taitz.
It’s getting even crazier. She’s now trying to establish a link between someone they dug up in Connecticut, Michelle Obama’s family, and the elusive SSN that they claim was first issued in 1890. A key piece of the puzzle is, it seems, Michelle’s grandmother, who they say was called Ella Cohen.
Does your Muslim guy even have any identity documents?
Doc, as another guy who tries his best to write well, my hat’s off to you for that analogy both in terms of style and substance.
My only suggestion would be that the family is not actually Muslim, but perhaps Sikh or Hindu. The rest follows, because the xenophobic knuckleheads you describe would just call them– and treat them– like Muslim terrorists anyway. And then they, like the President, suffer the gauntlet of malicious misidentification from the git-go.
Her great grandmother was named Ella Cohen. I found it easily by looking up a family tree. Orly acts as if it is difficult to find. A tenant who lived with this family in 1910 is now the new candidate for the original owner of the SS number. I guess that means that somehow the,Robinson family is part of this vast conspiracy. The marriage of the Obamas must have been arranged long before they met and she was out of High School.
Orly’s next pleading: Dr. Conspiracy, the regime’s foremost technical expert, admits on record Obama is a Muslim.
As we know his number was issued while he was in High School in Hawaii and Mrs. Obama was13 years old. I wonder how much more this family is expected to endure.
Steven Wright said what Orly said, but better.
“I woke up this morning, and I realized that somebody had broken into my
apartment, stolen all my things and replaced them with exact duplicates.”
How would you convince such a person that the lack of police action on such a complaint was not evidence of them being “in on it”?
I was trying to think of an analogy for the conspiracy theory that the murders of children in Newtown were in fact a “false flag” operation of the Obama Administration, intended to shred the 2nd Amendment. But I don’t know where to go after: “Let’s say up is down and down is up…”
This thing goes all the way to the top. Impeach Lucy!
My mother fell down and hit her head, and afterwards believed that she was the victim of a plot, that she had been transported to a hotel in another city, a hotel whose rooms looked exactly like her house filled with things identical to hers, but not hers.
I was not able to convince her otherwise any more than I have been able to convince birthers of the fallacy of their own world view. All she would say is: “are you in on it too?”
Yes, but he only showed his neighbors a copy.
According to Judge England, he does.
“…the only credible information that this Court has received and has been released was from the Director of the Hawaii Health Department who has certified and attested to the authenticity of the certified copies of the original certificate of live birth which was published approximately a year and a half ago. That is credible testimony.”
There’s a name for that condition, which also has a bearing on birtherism. It’s called Capgras Syndrome. Good article explaining why here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/capgras-syndrome.htm
Here’ the why of it: the head injury disrupted a connection in the brain between the cognitive and the emotional. Your mom could still see all the objects in her house, but seeing them no longer triggered the emotional sense of comfort and familiarity that she was used to. You are fortunate if she did not also decide that you were an imposter.
The connection to birtherism is not that all birthers have head injuries (though it seems that way). Rather, they are so averse to the idea of Barack Hussein Obama, a African-American man, being elected President and occupying the White House along with his African American family — that it is impossible for them to make the connection between the rational part of their brain and the emotional part that enables the feeling of something being genuine.
All decisions that we make, including judging what is real and what is fake, stem from emotional resonance, not mere perception or cognitive function. Ordinarily that is what protects us from being fooled too easily by the many things we perceive (or think we perceive) that are not real. It’s why most of us automatically hit the delete key when get the email from the Nigerian banker who needs our help to launder $20 million left by a deceased prince.
But in the case of birthers, the sense that Obama is an “imposter” is too overpowering. That’s why Taitz can go so far as to offer the theory that there are two Barack Obama’s who were swapped in Indonesia — any alternative explanation as to Obama’s identity seems emotionally more plausible than the real one.
Disclaimer: Not a birther.
I think your analogy fails on the same grounds as hers does, or at least it can be interpreted that way. You imply that hers fails because *she* is not the victim. But in your analogy, *you* are not the victim either – Obama is. Yours is certainly a better analogy, but would have been better if you started with “Let’s say a Muslim just moved into your neighborhood…”
Also, you’re -> your.
You fail to ask if the others have identity documents. Why do you have different standards for the Muslim family?
it’s not an analogy but Orly’s life is based on the wicked witch of the East, that’s where all her hate comes from, what a nasty and foul mouthed person she is. She hates Obama and wants the world to cheer her and hate along. It really bothers Orly that Obama is so popular and has high approval ratings. The world would be a nicer place without Orly’s hate. Orly be gone!
No, of course I am not the victim. I am a commentator. I would have never thought to file a lawsuit against Orly Taitz to try to stop her advocacy. I haven’t petitioned the California Bar to have her license suspended. In my analogy, perhaps I am the local newspaper editor who wrote an editorial critical of the neighborhood’s reaction.
And then there’s the tons of hard evidence that she has assembled.
A photo of a cloud is hard evidence, but it doesn’t lead to the conclusion that white-bearded men and poodles can fly.
Make that three analogies.
Just flat out grabbing at straws now are you? /golfclap
I don’t think “evidence” means what you think it means.
She’s got “tons of” something alright, no doubt.
I can go to any bar and get idiots to tell me bullshit. Some of the people there will talk up their qualifications, too. That’s all Orly has done. She has tons of it, but having a lot of bullshit isn’t helpful unless you’re a farmer in need of fertilizer.
Every one of her “experts” are idiots – not because of who they are, but because they think they are experts.
I understand her analogy and yes, were “I” the victim in her analogy I’d be upset. But in the case of the President she isn’t the victim per se – it would be like saying (in her analogy) that her neighbors were victims because they don’t like the “squatter who won’t leave” as much as they do you. Yes, they’re affected, but that doesn’t mean they can sue to get them out.
Likewise the Constitution gives Congress the final word on whether or not the President is eligible for his office. It’s quite possible that the candidate that came in second (Orly should know what second means!) in either the primary or general election, could sue, as they would have been personally affected by the purported ineligibility.
But the candidate that came in second chose not to do so (hint for birthers – it’s not because Romney/McCain are in on it or threatened – it’s because the birther theories are BS – do you really believe that Romney, a guy running for the office for the past 6 years, wouldn’t have taken advantage? Or Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have during the primary?) and Congress accepted the result. Period end.
If she has tons of evidence, why hasn’t she shown any? ‘Cause lets face it, the crap she’s shown is just two and a half truckloads of shoulda/woulda/coulda… and that’s not evidence in court, nor to any reasonably sane person.
So if she actually HAS this hard evidence you say she has, you’d better tell her it’s well past time to reveal it, and stop the court jester routine.
“Plaintiffs have provided this Court with no authority to support their position, other than their own “common sense.” – Judge England
Now do you understand what we’ve been trying to explain to you for 4 years Hermi? You’ve been wasting your time and money on Taitz and the Courts. IT’S CONGRESS YOU INSUFFERABLE NINNY!!! Now get off your butt and go after the ones that can REALLY get rid of President Re-elect Obama…the Republicans. Get your vast minions to quit bothering the courts and clerks and go after the pubs and their staff. They are the ONLY people who can get rid of President Obama!
Thomas Brown for the win!
Heh, that was actually HHHumorous.
She hasn’t yet … what’s taking her so long?
Orly’s analogy also fails in that it is tired, and old. It’s not original. It’s a typical example of the attempts at wit that get bandied about in the echo chambers, and it applies to any official the speaker opposes. It is nothing more than the long version of “Give us our country back!” / “Taking back America!”
I would have asked what she was doing on such a long vacation. Maybe she should have gotten / stayed involved.
And, of course, winning an election is not an act of theft.
Can you explain why she has refused to submit any of this hard evidence to court? She just keeps submitting garbage hearsay evidence that is quickly dismissed for what it is.
She isn’t very good at spotting the spoofs. She actually let through a post from;\
Mohl Dovamad
Promulgating Birtherism is Orly’s hobby. It brings her much joy.
You say “let through.” I was under the impression that Taitz wasn’t moderating comments anymore. Do I have that wrong? I never post there, so I have no direct info.
Fixed it for you.
Mine are moderated. That’s all I know.
No kidding … Doc just highlighted one from “Eura Nazhol” LOL
I’m not going to inflict Orly’s site on myself or my computer, but is she saying that this tenant had a Social security number in 1910, or that the family, generations later, had kept track of him for the purpose of stealing his number? Knowing orly, I’ll assume she hasn’t thought it through as much as I have.
His father is white (Owens). His mother is black. He lived in the same town Medellin Carte members Pablo Escobar, Griselda Blanco, Rivi Ayala, Dandeny “La Quicka” Munoz, Falcon, Magluta and Ernesto “Popeye” Delgado lived which was Clewiston, Florida. I grew up here, also.This district was overseen by the corrupt Fl State Attorney Joseph P. D’Alessandro who shares the same middle name as Nancy D’Alessandro Pelosi and the two are reportedly cousins. Nancy Pelosi signed off on his fake documents. Is infiltration into the White House this pathetically easy? Yes, it is.
Now THAT is some serious conspiracy theorizin’! Good job!
Que? Quien?
I’m not sure I get this. Since he lived in a town where criminals lived, that means he’s a criminal? And, since you grew up in that town, does that mean you are also a criminal? Should I call Sheriff Joke and have you rounded up?
An excellent explanation! Thank you for sharing about Capgras Syndrome. There is certainly a lot in common with that particular syndrome and the reactions of the ODS crowd.
You are really onto something bigger here with the “disrupted a connection in the brain between the cognitive and the emotional” that gets to the heart of both the mindset of paranoid conspiracy thinkers and “magic thinking” denialists.
For some reason, when I was reading this post a banjo started playing in my mind.
Facts are as hard as diamonds.
Well there’s the original WH Obama LFCOLB forgery and now we have the new Tepper page 4/11 Obama LFCOLB forgery. How many different forged long form hospital generated birth certificates do you have Ace?
I had never heard of Crapras Syndrome.
But isn’t your post a little off topic. Oh! I see if it’s a hit piece on the Birthers then you’re excused.
Nancy Ruth Owens — Remember all Obots believe that Birthers are not real people. They just couldn’t be because Obots are a superior race (robot, thingamabob, Clingon, Borg, Ork, organism, goo…).
And thinking is free, so there is no need for cheap crystal.
That must be why birthers constantly feel like they are running into a wall.
In a little under 2 hours, your “quest” will be over as Obama takes the oath for his second term. After that, you could prove every single charge beyond a reasonable doubt and all you would get is President Biden, who would continue all the Obama policies you hate. In fact, he might even double down on them, since in a lot of areas it seems he has been pushing the President to “go big”. That’s the best you could possibly achieve even in birther dreamland where your “facts” are true. In the real world where your “facts” are phony, you won’t even get that.
Enjoy, Hermy http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/biden-sworn-in-for-second-term?ref=fpa
Trouble is Harry, you’re “facts” are in fact not diamonds but talc.
Now, in the real world, Birfoons like yourself have accumulated imaginary elements, unlinked statements, personal opinion and prejudices, gratuitous rumour mongering, blatant lies and ignorant supposition. When taken together all you have is a big old bag of faux dung without even the potential horticultural benefits of real manure.
And made-up facts are worthless dust…sorta like what the courts have been trying to explain to you for 4 years Hermi. Now, what are your plans for harassing the Republican members of congress? Judges Carter and England explained it to you, and the SCOTUS is certainly NOT going to rule against the Constitution. So, get your stuff together and off to Washington DC to pester the Pubs!
Something about the” heads of birthers” comes to mind.
For the interested, reports from Fogbow Boots On The Ground report that Mad Old Orly’s Usurperthon managed a total of 3……. MOO, an as yet unidentified male, Theresa Cao…..that’s it.
No sign of KBOA Tracy although allegedly KOO stayed with her last night as MOO had failed to grasp that at an inauguration rooms at hotels can’t be booked for love or money.
It is when you’re ineligible.
If you remember Richard Nixon was not impeached until his second term. Watergate was a two-bit break end. And then it boiled down to an 18 min missing segment of audio tape. Compared to Nixon Obama is in a league of his own.
Zero. The documents are real here in the real world.
They only exist as “forgeries” in the fevered figments of your infantile imagination…
First of all its Capgras, not Crapras.
But spelling and reading comprehension were never your strong suits Hermie. So we’re used to you being wrong and foolish as always. Then again, of course your mind would see Crapras, because everything coming from you seems to turn out to be crap…so its fitting.
But onto your other incorrect point – it *IS* completely topical to this article, as Expelliarmus’ excellent original post at 01-18-2013 4:44pm demonstrates. The conditions of that particular syndrome are quite illuminating in explaining the type of fallacies and flaws inherent in Orly’s allegory and worldview.
…But then again, that would require you to be capable of reading comprehension and smart enough to grasp such fairly straightforward concepts… which is apparently beyond your personal limitations.
Oh, we think you are all real people all right. Just really CRAZY people, that’s all.
There is only one human race of course. Not everyone is equal in their capabilities or intellectual capacities; but that’s just how the world is.
If you want to view us as “superior” because we’re simply not delusional hate-based fools, like you folks…well, then that’s your call.
I’m not so much concerned with the details of nature vs nurture as to why folks like you need to constantly put your own immaturity and foolishness on display for others. That’s really all on you. You simply make it easy for rational folks to laugh at you, when all you do is come across as a clown with a tantrum, over and over and over again.
So it really is not a matter of superior vs inferior as much as your personal masochistic need to continuously demonstrate inferior reasoning and emotional behavior to the rest of the rational adult world…
Yeah, that’s about the expected size of a true Birther “Usurperthon” alright…
Apparently the unidentified male is named Norm.
It remains to be seen what Orly will do tomorrow. One poster on Fogbow who knows the area says that no pedestrian traffic will be allowed at the Supreme Court tomorrow.
No, I do not remember Richard Nixon being impeached. 🙄
Keep rocking back and forth muttering, Any Day Now.
Oh, and see what the Doc says above. I was 5 and apparently remember something better than you (yes, I remember Nixon leaving office).
I was wondering what happened to Holy Cao.
You aren’t the only one to miss that, Doc. I may not be able to remember the ’60s too well (because I was there), but I can remember the ’70s kind of OK.
You have to remember that ‘impeachment’ is equivalent to ‘indited’, that is officially accused of a misdeed. Nixon was Impeached, on three counts, but he resigned before it could go to trial, rendering the impeachment moot.
This day in History: July 27
And here is the full text of the Articles of Impeachment that were adopted on 27 July 1974:
Nixon was not impeached because that requires a vote of the full House, not just the Judiciary Committee. He resigned BEFORE he was impeached (though it was certain he would have been).
Ahh. Yes.
You are correct. There was no vote of the full House, only the Judiciary Committee.
I apologize Doc.
“A key piece of the puzzle is, it seems, Michelle’s grandmother, who they say was called Ella Cohen.”
She was Michelle’s paternal great-grandmother.
It has not been determined if Ella Cohen was Jewish. I’m hoping she was, which would make the First Lady Afro-Judeo.
As far as I can determine, her full name was Rose Ella (Rosella) Cohen. This photo of Fraser Robinson has an insert with a photo of Rose Ella Cohen Robinson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fraser_Robinson,_Sr.jpg
Michelle Obama’s paternal great-grandparents certainly were not living in Illinois or Connecticut in 1910. Her grandfather, Fraser Robinson Jr., was born in South Carolina in 1912. According to a story in the Washington Post, the 1930 census shows that Fraser Robinson Jr. was still living with his parents in South Carolina when he was 18.
Interesting tidbit.
Today the Melbourne Australia newspaper ‘The Age’ ran an extensive obituary (from the New York Times) for “Dear Abby” column author Pauline Phillips (pen name Abigail Van Buren). It quoted several of her advice tidbits, one of which was:
Dear Abby: I have always wanted to have my family history traced, but I can’t afford to spend a lot of money to do it. Have you any suggestions? M.J.B. in Oakland Calif.
Dear M.J.B.: Yes. Run for a public office.
We could perhaps add ‘or marry someone who runs for public office’.
You cannot “steal” an immaterial thing (such as “an office”), therefore it can’t be theft. (Not even birthers claim that, they claim fraud.) Why do you have such an alleged enormous understanding of constitutional law, yet can’t even manage to understand the definition of theft? Is there an equivalent in the legal profession of the “idiot savant” who is brilliant in one limited area and totally clueless in all others?
i don’t visit orly often but i think i’ve found out exactly why the engaging “nancy ruth owens” isn’t impressed. nancy showed up there 10 days ago and lasted just an hour: