What’s the scariest thing you have seen in the Obama Conspiracy Theory world?
Here’s my nomination:
Tenacity Says:
November 30, 2008 at 12:07 amindy,
This is obviously not the place to discuss certain issues. I am making ready. I have also contacted some folks in uniform. When the time comes, I’d prefer having certain people beside me rather than facing me. It’s going to be difficult knowing who to trust and how to make contact.
Exactly! Every kook in the country is on these “conspiracy blogs”. And I’d bet some of them are mentally unstable. These blogs just add to that instability in my opinion.
Luckily it appears the commenters on these blogs are not the type to leave their parent’s basements and venture into the real world. These groups have never organized a protest/rally with attendance above approximately 35 people.
While I would agree that all the sites are attracting the looniest of the lunatics, I doubt they pose any real threat. I also believe some of the more threatening comments have been brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities. I would guess some of these sites are being closely watched because many of them are nothing more than a new breed of hate group.
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-to-help-dr-orly.html
Dr. Orly says: “In regards to military I can represent a group of military personal and ex-military, refusing to take orders from illegitimate commander in chief. We need to spread the word and have a large group of military.”
Is inciting a mutiny a crime?
Yes it is, however you can’t prosecute the mentally ill.
Dr Orly is a nutcase, but her comments don’t fall within the scope of 18 U.S.C. 1381.
In context, “represent” refers to her representation of them in a court case. This isn’t direct advocacy of disobedience (and I doubt that advocacy of disobedience to orders would be considered advocacy of desertion anyway, although I haven’t looked at the case law).
In any case, Brandenburg would limit the application of the statute to situations “where … advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”. 395 U.S. 444, 447-8 (1969).
The postings of the anti-Obama conspiracy theorists are by turns absurd, dispiriting, hilarious, and deeply worrying, but (except for genuine threats of violence against specific individuals and libel, the latter of which is almost impossible for a public figure to demonstrate) they are protected under the First Amendment.
I don’t suppose I could get anywhere with the argument “it’s just wrong“.
Alex,
While I support freedom of speech, there is a line that is being crossed in this country by both the press and private individuals. When you knowingly and with malice print false and misrepresentation about public and private individuals, then they need to be punished, not protected by the 1st Amendment. Not to mention their lack of respect for “right to privacy laws.”
Doc Orly, et al in my opinion professes to “protect the Constitution” yet violates it when it doesn’t suits them in my opinion. They are already doing what they claim Obama is going to do. They delete posts that do not agree with their agenda/philosophy.
Posting that elderly great aunt of Obama’s phone number/address on the blog for everyone to call was wrong. There may not be a law against it but deep down, where you live, all of us know that it was morally wrong and totally inappropriate. Just because you have the “right” to do something doesn’t mean you should. My rights end where another’s rights begin.
I think it was inappropriate to post both divorce decrees on blogs. While you may have the “right” to do this, most people, decent people, would ask themselves if they would want someone to do this to them. Obviously, the answer would be No.
But, I do recall that there is a law that prohibits someone from inciting/encouraging someone to sue especially if you–the person encouraging the lawsuit is also funding the lawsuit.
I do not defend in any way the actions of Dr Orly and her ilk. I concur entirely that the smears on the her blog are profoundly odious.
But not everything that is morally wrong is (or, I think, should be) subject to legal penalty.
My point in the comment was only to state what would and what would not be actionable and/or potentially criminal.
For what it’s worth, I think that a significant amount of this stuff passes the Sullivan malice/recklessness standard and is technically libellous, even though Obama is an archetypal public figure.
But realistically, it’s almost impossible to win such a lawsuit (not to mention usually grossly counterproductive), and Obama will certainly not try.
Alix,
First, let me apologize for spelling your name wrong previously.
“But not everything that is morally wrong is (or, I think, should be) subject to legal penalty.”
I agree, I hope you did not think my post was directed at you.
“But realistically, it’s almost impossible to win such a lawsuit (not to mention usually grossly counterproductive), and Obama will certainly not try.”
Yes, and that makes Berg’s comment about fully expecting Obama to file a defamation of character lawsuit against him more laughable. Besides, being almost impossible to win, it requires very deep pockets.
bogus info,
“I agree, I hope you did not think my post was directed at you.”
No, not at all. I’m just in the habit of trying to being ultra-precise in marking when I’m making claims about the law (and on what basis) and when I’m not, as a reaction against the Orlybots, so many of whom basically see no difference between legal arguments and expressions of their personal dislike of Obama.
Incidentally, I can’t remember if it’s been mentioned on this blog or not, but if you want to know whether Dr Orly has any more appreciation of the First Amendment than of the rest of the Constitution, see this post, in which she urges people to write to the FCC and demand that it “forbid the media of referring to the COLB posted on the internet as being authentic” and “make all media do a story every day on every news program on the fraudulent document”.
On the subject of scary things in conspiracy-world, I found this one, from “mikey V” whose epithet is “Soil and Blood”, particularly chilling:
I’d like to think that the author was ignorant of the precise historical resonance of the words he’s using, but I can’t quite bring myself to believe it.
In any case, I view it as something of an allegory for the thought process of one extreme wing of the truther movement: misunderstood legal terms go into the meat grinder, fascist slogans come out.
Whoops — I meant that second comment to be a general observation on the thread, not specifically a reply to bogus info.
Am I the only one but does Doc Orly need to go take a refresher course?
Alix,
Don’t feel bad, I do it all the time.LOL
Some blogger posted this:
Remember that Dr FUKINO and the Governor of Hawaii, wrote that every thing was legal in the COLB.
What is this in reference to? Is there some law in Hawaii that says a woman who is a minor cannot register the birth of her child?
Oops. Left some out.
“Remember that Dr FUKINO and the Governor of Hawaii, wrote that every thing was legal in the COLB.”
“Now, there is no need for Dr FUKINO to produce the original COLB, just respond the question how a minor of 19 Years and a British CUKC subject could confer and register the US citizenship of their son ?”
“Is it possible to phone and write to the Governor of Hawaii and to Dr FUKINO about the violation of the Law by a minor and a foreigner in the vital records of Hawaii ? .”
“Is it possible to Phone urgently or write to the Honorable Richard CHENEY, President of the Senate and of the Counting of Votes Session, to inform about this fact and the probably citizenship illegal status of a candidate to hold the Office of the President of the US?”
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/if-you-are-active-member-of-military.html
To Whom It May Concern,
DO NOT ENCOURAGE MILITARY PERSONNEL TO DISOBEY THEIR SOLEMN DUTY TO OBEY ORDERS!
This idea that you have might be a good one if our Nation was not at war. NOW is not the time to foment treason in the face of the enemy. I have supported 100% your efforts to remedy the constitutional crisis, this is, once again, NOT a good idea.
I’m active duty and charged with maintaining good order and discipline within the ranks. Young Americans are looking for guidance and coherence in a crazy world, this is absolutely prejudicial in the face of such a responsibility. Additionally, it is unfair to subject Soldiers to the full weight of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (and they will be rightly held accountable for their actions) for the selfish purposes of a few litigators. They can be represented in other ways without having to violate their oath of enlistment.
IMMEDIATELY RETRACT THIS POST AND APOLOGIZE FOR THE POORLY THOUGHT SUBMISSION OF SUCH. TRUST ME, THIS IS WRONG.
P. Nosworthy
SFC, USA
The above post pretty much says it all.
Alix, appreciate your keeping us on track when these questions of law come up. Apart from what Dr. Orly Taitz said, or might have implied, there is a climate being created that encourages members of the armed services to refuse to take orders come January 20. What is actually being said, I think, is encouraging this indirectly, but nonetheless the implication is there. I don’t have any concern that will be successful, but still I think some of the Stop Obama crowd are being irresponsible. It concerns me that a precedent is being set for irresponsible behavior to be tolerated. If someone in the military is fooled by Stop Obama misinformation and refuses to take orders and is disciplined for it, could the soldier sue the person who misinformed him?
The blogger was misquoting Fukino, as do many and even some newspapers. Ann Obama was not a minor in any case.
The age of majority in Hawaii is 18. Parents do not register their children anyway in most cases. Those attending the birth have the statutory responsibility to register according to Hawaiian law. But by all means, anyone having concerns should call Dick Cheney right away.
awe_and_shock,
Thank you for your comment and your wise advice. Vigilantism and mutiny are not the way Americans resolve their differences. We are a nation of laws. I am confident that our service men and women are well-trained in their duties and will not be tricked into doing something stupid by the misinformation published on the Internet by certain irresponsible individuals.
Dr. Conspiracy,
The post by the enlisted military man wrote more about being prosecuted. One blogger came back and stated the military would not prosecute them under these circumstances. That military man then posted the oath they take:
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
No need to thank me, i merely copied content from one blog to another (I’m no different from these wing-nuts). Thank Pieter.
I’ve enjoyed reading postings these past months on various ‘conspiracy’ sites. I believe most are harmless and going nowhere. Orly tho concerns me. She might get some 18 yo recruit to buy into this lunacy and regret their decision for many years to come.
I hate to bring more traffic to Orly but you guys need to read what’s out there. Really good stuff. She is rather proud of her site stats.
Check out this posting:
http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/if-you-are-active-member-of-military.html
Pieter Nosworthy,
I do understand your concern. But remember, if Obama takes office illigitimately, and you stand up FOR him, then you may find yourself on the wrong side when the dust settles, fighting for the side of our enemies rather than for our constitution. Being a military man, I am sure you know what the punishment is for this crime.
It is a difficult choice, but you must do the right thing when the time comes or else our nation will perish.
Orly has pulled every bit of Hawaiian law disinformation in the book in that article, awe_and_shock. Makes me want to puke. Virtually everything she said has been carefully documented as bogus here on this web site. The article is a fraud, a total fraud.
How do they determine “site stats”? Most people, like me, go there just to see what kind of crazy scheme she has cooked up. I hope this woman gets what is coming to her one of these days. I hope someone plasters her private information all over a website, calls her elderly relatives and puts out total lies regarding her. This IS NOT what America stands for.
This one is scary for its insanity quotient:
“We have now been given an enormous clue as to who’s involved in this entire coverup:
1. The Electors
2. Congress
3. State officials, including governors and the SoS
4. The Supreme Court
5. The current President
6. The press
Once this information blows over he’s not eligible and is indicted, and he will by the government or by the people, they will all lose. And by lose, it could be more than just their careers.
Let us hope that this will not happen for their sake.”
Tell me about it. But, go look at what I just posted about what they are saying about Muslims. Are these people just trying to cause civil unrest in this country?
There’s no doubt some anti-Muslim bigotry going on in the nObama movement. One of the big feeders of misinformation is IsraelInsider, and look at where Dr. Orly did her undergraduate work. (In Israel)
Do you think that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald would authorize/condon/be a party to this type of behavior? Or, does Doc Orly have a mental problem?