I support the right of anonymous speech, and that’s a longstanding policy on this blog. It’s an application of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you—that particular formulation is from Jesus, but all of the worlds’ major religions include s similar principle.1 Before I retired, I was very concerned about my blogging here bleeding over into my job because several of my former company’s customers were state vital statistics agencies. And while I never had anything bad to say about those agencies (for whom I had high regard), it is still easy for something to be misunderstood or misrepresented. I want for people on both sides of the birther question to be able to speak their minds freely without having to look over their shoulders at work, or with family and friends. Sometimes the ability to freely express an opinion requires doing it anonymously. In my way of thinking, personal privacy usually outweighs telling every detail of a story.
Some don’t share my values
Both birthers and Obots have engaged in exposés of the other. I even got a shout out from Jerome Corsi in a 2011 article at World Net Daily. Certainly there is some aspect of revenge or intimidation in some of it. For some of the birthers, outing Obots is a contribution to the complexity of their conspiracy narrative. Some think that knowing the real name of the “demon” gives power over it.
Men in Black Suits
The essay preceding didn’t come out of thin air; it was prompted by the recent publication by Orly Taitz of a FOIA request to the IRS about several things, one a lawyer working for the IRS who went to see one of Orly Taitz’ court appearances (there was a sign-in sheet that Orly got from the court in spite of objections, and then published). Taitz is demanding under FOIA the time cards for this attorney to see if that person was being paid by the government for the time spent attending the hearing and saying critical things about Taitz on the Internet. Of course Orly is much more specific about the identity of this person on her web site than I. Now I don’t think that Orly Taitz is trying to intimidate the attorney—Orly doesn’t have enough comprehension of other peoples’ feelings to come up with that. I think revenge against the Obots is probably the motivation, or perhaps a twisted idea of self defense.
To understand this, it’s necessary to turn the Wayback Machine to 2011, when Orly Taitz wrote an article calling Butterfly Bilderberg a “thug” and quoted this text allegedly from a comment by Bilderberg at the Taitz blog:
My agency allows me to work under a pseudonym for personal safety reasons. If Orly publishes my identity and employment info, she and her followers will be visited by men in suits. Arriving in vehicles with dark glass. With badges in their wallets. It won’t be a social call, either.
I say “allegedly” because as an authentic comment, it makes no sense. Why would someone who wants anonymity write something like this publicly? They wouldn’t. Why would an attorney write in sentence fragments? They wouldn’t. Why would someone from the eastern half of the United States post with an IP address from Coto de Caza, California? They wouldn’t. So we may safely label the comment a hoax, made by someone allegedly (the comment never appeared as a comment on Orly’s blog, only in the article). Conspiracy theorists don’t understand spoofs and hoaxes, I’m sorry to say (more on that later). Orly Taitz took it very seriously, replying on May 15, 2011:
If you are talking to Butterfly, let her know, that she and her cohorts will pay for harassing me and threatening to send “men in black suits after me”.
One grand conspiracy (just kidding)
Taitz believes that someone tampered with her car, embellishing the story to the point of attempted murder (more likely the hose was just loose). She thinks people plant viruses on her web site, tamper with her mail and even manipulate her database entries at the Supreme Court to hide her cases. It’s all just one vast conspiracy with mastermind Obama (or Soros) in the center.
The hose clamp removal tool that we Obots carry is an example of Obot humor, a joke that Taitz wouldn’t understand. It’s funny to us because of the absurdity of the idea that any of us would tamper with Orly’s car. Comments about Soros funding The Fogbow are equally tongue in cheek, as are the comments on RC Radio where folks call Jim Johnson “boss.” We all know better. It’s a game. Orly considers it “evidence.”
In this latest FOIA/complaint explosion Taitz includes the Dan Lacey nude pancake paintings of her. Taitz even referenced the spoof video by Dan Lacey in which he “admits” that billionaire George Soros commissioned the paintings. This announcement is made in front of a painting of George Soros holding a nude Orly Taitz on pancakes (viewer discretion is advised).
Taitz is also demanding that the IRS tell her (as if they would know) whether Soros is funding various Obot enterprises such as The Fogbow, RC Radio (Orly continues the false birther association of Reality Check with professor Richard Rockwell2) and various individual anti-birther characters (myself excluded). Taitz wrote:
I request any and all information whether IRS considered as a tax deductable (sic) charitable contribution any donations by George Soros or any of his not for profit organizations or by any 501c3s and 501c4s to Painter Dan Lacey.
Here’s the money quote:
I request a response within 20 days of the receipt of this FOIA request and I will consider a lack of response to be a final denial by the agency, which entitles me to seek a redress in the court of law.
Yes, it’s all a ploy for Orly to get back into the limelight in the role of the crusading civil rights attorney. Everyone else be damned.
1See A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions with commentaries by Hans Küng and Karl-Josef Kuschel, Continuum 1993.
2I left a comment on Orly’s site that RC is not Richard Rockwell. It probably won’t get published.
The post Anonymity and Freedom of Speech appeared first on Obama Conspiracy Theories.