# "Concerned Citizens of the United States" Looking Out for Our Interests! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 14, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679 "2010-07-14T17:34:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/41 "2010-07-14T23:26:41Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Not dumb enough to fall for your typically disingenuous patented Bricker Bullshit. Nice try though. So try to focus whatever tiny reasoning ability you have on addressing my point, then. So far, you’ve announced you’re not dumb enough to fall for my “bullshit,” but notably haven’t actually said why it’s bullshit. But perhaps if you bluster and say it’s “typical Bricker” bullshit, readers won’t notice that tiny little omission. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/42 "2010-07-14T23:35:21Z")
Actually, your point would be fine, if anyone else was making it. My point is that you would never go into a thread praising the listmakers, and asking why people uncritically assume that the list is accurate. You only show up when \*conservatives \*call the cavalry. And that’s not exactly the spirit of unfettered skepticism. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/43 "2010-07-14T23:53:27Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Actually, your point would be fine, if anyone else was making it. > > My point is that you would never go into a thread praising the listmakers, and asking why people uncritically assume that the list is accurate. You only show up when \*conservatives \*call the cavalry. And that’s not exactly the spirit of unfettered skepticism. And if I showed examples to the contrary? Look, I showed up to correct error. That’s the (supposed) mission of this place. You’re right that it’s much rarer for me to defend the liberal side here, although I can show examples of having done so. But seldom do I need to, because there’s an army of folks here all ready to leap on and dissect error in attacks on the liberal side, or errors in defense of the conservative side. In a thread called “Have We Been Sold Out By Ms. Pelosi?” > [@Bricker](#): > > No fan I of Nancy Pelosi. > > But c’mon. This is hardly a fair critique. Rushing headlong into any major change like this, a week into the Democrats’ control of Congress, would be utterly foolish. And Ms. Pelosi, while (in my view) wrong-headed about many basic policy issues, is not foolish. > > Congress’ control of the purse-strings can be an effective tool to move the President, but it’s not a precision instrument. It doesn’t replace the President as C-in-C. > [@Cuccinelli vs Science](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/65): > > And you know what’s hilarious? > > Back when Patrick Kennedy was accused of driving drunk and getting preferential treatment from Capitol Police, I said this: > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t see one scintilla of evidence that Rep. Kennedy did anything improper with regard to using his influence to change how he was treated. The Capitol Police did not act properly, and they may well have been motivated by the Kennedy name… but that’s not Patrick’s fault, and that doesn’t imply any guilty knowledge or conscience on his part. > > > > There is virtually no evidence that he was drinking. It’s well documented that Ambien can have such effects as amnesia. We’re talking about a crime here – this means that the people bringing the accusation must have SOMETHING in the way of proof that rises higher than mere speculation. > > > > If it should develop that he had been drinking somewhere, and there are actual witnesses to that drinking, THAT is evidence. Right now, there is none. The man took some sleeping pills, got disoriented, and crashed his car. Now he’s seeking expert advice about the use of sleeping pills; very reasonable for a recovering addict. > > > > Sorry - unless and until more damning evidence comes along, I’m willing to skewer the Capitol Police for not following procedure, but not Patrick Kennedy for being the recipient of that largess. Show me he asked for it, or show me he needed it, and I’m a convert to the “hang 'im high” corner. But if the only reasoning you have is “Isn’t it obvious?” then my answer is no. It’s not. > > And I seem to remember getting praise for my fair-minded approach. > > Gee. Defending Ted Kennedy: > [@Bricker](#): > > This is absurd. > > If there is any evidence of Ted Kennedy’s drunkeness when the accident occurred, let’s have it. Otherwise, he’s not remotely a murderer. Defending Pelosi against the “diva” charge for wanting a bigger plane: > [@Bricker](#): > > The Speaker is the second person in line for the Presidency. It seems utterly obvious to me that she should have a government plane that is capable of taking her back home without refueling. Hastert did, but of course his home is Illinois, much closer, so this didn’t come up. > > Thirty years ago, I’d have said that the Speaker should suck it up and fly commercial. Today, that would be madness. Ms. Pelosi should fly on whatever military plane is equipped to move her and her staff non-stop. > > Now, I don’t know details of plane models, but that’s my view of what the policy should be, and it’s a no-brainer. Pitting the GOP for its defense of Foley: > [@Bricker](#): > > My reaction to the ACTUAL ill remains as it was yesterday: Foley’s resignation was correct; he should be criminally investigated; and the GOP leadership should be vigorously investigated as well. If it develops that Hastert, or anyone in the GOP leadership, knew about these criminal acts and did nothing, he should resign or be forced out, and subject to criminal process as well. It’s a very simple equation. > > My reaction to the tactics that are appearing from the Right on this is utter disgust. “The Dems set him up!” Yeah, suuuure they did. And even if they did – what of it? He DID the acts in question. Defending Keith Olbermann against sneers that he panicked after getting fake powder in the mail: > [@Bricker](#): > > Now, seriously – the reaction was not ridiculous. We had actual people get anthrax powder in the mail. Why they chose to be so dismissive and contempteous of Olbermann is beyond me. This was just crumby, crappy, jerkish behavior. Pitting Ann Coulter: > [@Bricker](#): > > Mine is right here. > > “Post-9/11 our philosophy should be: Raghead talks tough? Raghead faces consequences.” > > This from Ms. Coulter. A stunningly awful and racist comment. > > There is absolutely legitimate room for scorn and derision for radical Islamists who threaten our existence with terrorist tactics and violence. What they wear on their heads is irrelevant. The phrase “ragheads” is ugly and devoid of meaning. Literally, it encompasses peaceful people who choose to cover their heads for traditional or religious reasons. No reasonable person could take issue with that; no reasonable person would use a derogatory term that lumps such people in with murderous bastards. > > My ire is saved for those who use terror and violence as tools. Also, for those who spew ignorant hatred. Today, that’s Ms. Coulter. Praising Senator Kerry: > [@Bricker](#): > > But I certainly agree it would be proper and fitting to acknowledge that Kerry’s service to the country took a far more personally dangerous form than Bush’s own did, and that Kerry faced that challenge with honor and dignity, and was a true American hero. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/44 "2010-07-15T00:17:55Z")
Oy vey. **Bricker** has a freaking point. A verbal declaration of legality is no guarantee, not when the person has motive to lie. A legal immigrant would say they’re legal, and an illegal immigrant would also say they’re legal. The women are not necessarily liars, but neither is their testimony conclusive. In either case, the means by which the list was obtained is still mighty damn suspicious if not outright illegal in itself, and it’s probable that same of the name on the list _are_ legal. This is still a pretty ugly act with ugly repercussions, but in the case of the two women we simply can’t accept their assurances in and of themselves. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/45 "2010-07-15T00:26:04Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Don’t recall saying they all were. Do you want some of our whinging, white, _“The Paki’s have took all our jobs!”_, disaffected youths, then? Actually, I think we’ll send the poorer WASP’s back to the ancestral homeland; maybe they can join the BNP & get up to 20%. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/46 "2010-07-15T00:42:34Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Oy vey. > > **Bricker** has a freaking point. A verbal declaration of legality is no guarantee, not when the person has motive to lie. A legal immigrant would say they’re legal, and an illegal immigrant would also say they’re legal. The women are not necessarily liars, but neither is their testimony conclusive. > > In either case, the means by which the list was obtained is still mighty damn suspicious if not outright illegal in itself, and it’s probable that same of the name on the list _are_ legal. This is still a pretty ugly act with ugly repercussions, but in the case of the two women we simply can’t accept their assurances in and of themselves. Thank you. This is an ugly act, I agree, and to forestall objections from “my” side, I’ll point out that it would be ugly for a wide variety of crimes. The more heinous the crime, the more ugly the action is because the potential for error: a list of child molestors handled in the same way would be ugly because the horrific damage to the reputation of those on the list who were not guilty. The less heinous the crime, the more ugly the action because it arrogates to this “citizen’s” group the odious role of informer. At MOST, a person who believes another has committed a crime should report that crime to the police. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/47 "2010-07-15T00:52:04Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > I see nothing wrong with concerned citizens reporting illegals to the relevant authorities, no more than I would have a problem with a person who reported that their neighbour was a law-breaker. > > It is the duty of every good citizen to report illegals and other lawbreakers, and not turn a blind eye to their activities. Bullcrap. It’s not the duty of anyone to turn in anyone based solely on their ethnicity, appearance, or country of origin. Turns out this upstanding, patriotic, and not at all racist group may be guilty of some data mining. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/48 "2010-07-15T01:35:30Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > Bullcrap. It’s not the duty of anyone to turn in anyone based solely on their ethnicity, appearance, or country of origin. > > Turns out this upstanding, patriotic, and not at all racist group may be guilty of some data mining. Most likely. But… legal or illegal? You say “guilty,” as though data mining is a crime. But take a look at [this site](http://radaris.com/) and its many clones to discover what can be learned for free. In this case, of course, illegals have an interest in staying off the radar, so I doubt it was as simple as that. But your first comment is that they were turned in based on their “ethnicity, appearance, or country of origin.” If the list is indeed mostly illegals, then it’s very likely that some additional criteria was used. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/49 "2010-07-15T02:14:44Z")
I breathlessly await your suggestions as to how these innocent do-gooders ascertained the legal residency status of all those no-good illegals. Breathlessly. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/50 "2010-07-15T02:26:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I breathlessly await your suggestions as to how these innocent do-gooders ascertained the legal residency status of all those no-good illegals. > > Breathlessly. Dead yet? Breathlessly waiting on anyone around here is surely a suicide mission. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/51 "2010-07-15T04:42:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Most likely. But… legal or illegal? You say “guilty,” as though data mining is a crime. But take a look at [this site](http://radaris.com/) and its many clones to discover what can be learned for free. I say “guilty” because information is being uncovered that these virtuous saints of fairness and rectitude may have committed a crime by the way they mined their data, who they received it from, and the types of data they were able to collect which, if found to be the case, is illegal in the state of Utah. > [@Bricker](#): > > In this case, of course, illegals have an interest in staying off the radar, so I doubt it was as simple as that. But your first comment is that they were turned in based on their “ethnicity, appearance, or country of origin.” If the list is indeed mostly illegals, then it’s very likely that some additional criteria was used. Very likely, in this case, I agree. However, in my opinion, it quacks, so pardon me if I fail to see any altruistic motive on the part of these folks. I think it would be asking for belief to be stretched beyond reasonableness to assert that surname was not a primary search criteria, considering that most, if not all, names on the list are Latino. ETA: Hmm, I see now that Hispanic residents are beginning to contact local authorities as they find that their names are on the list. It should be interesting to see how this all washes out as it seems a number of the victims of this racist assault may actually be US citizens. Imagine that. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/52 "2010-07-15T05:13:41Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > What country are you talking about? The US was founded on liberty and freedom. For citizens. Funny. I thought it was genocide and slavery. But I guess they were all ‘non-citizens’ and so don’t count. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/53 "2010-07-15T13:22:54Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I breathlessly await your suggestions as to how these innocent do-gooders ascertained the legal residency status of all those no-good illegals. > > Breathlessly. I gave one above. The organization I support as a board member is responsible for helping mothers-to-be and mothers of newborns with clothes, diapers, food, baby furniture, vocational training, and language classes. We keep records of all our clients, the vast majority of which are illegal aliens. A ne’er-do-well with access to my organization’s records could easily compile a list similar to the one we’re discussing here. And so far as I know, they could do it without violating any law. I note again that my actual organization would never do any such thing, and in fact as a result of this discussion I am going to make sure we stop documenting residency status, so we would not be compelled to release information someday that could be used in this way; what you don’t have, you can’t be subpoenaed into providing. But that’s secondary to the question you asked. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/54 "2010-07-15T13:28:35Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > I say “guilty” because information is being uncovered that these virtuous saints of fairness and rectitude may have committed a crime by the way they mined their data, who they received it from, and the types of data they were able to collect which, if found to be the case, is illegal in the state of Utah. Right, I see. Well, it’s hard to argue with that: if they committed a crime, then clearly ‘guilty’ is the right word to use. > [@](#): > > Very likely, in this case, I agree. However, in my opinion, it quacks, so pardon me if I fail to see any altruistic motive on the part of these folks. I think it would be asking for belief to be stretched beyond reasonableness to assert that surname was not a primary search criteria, considering that most, if not all, names on the list are Latino. > > ETA: Hmm, I see now that Hispanic residents are beginning to contact local authorities as they find that their names are on the list. It should be interesting to see how this all washes out as it seems a number of the victims of this racist assault may actually be US citizens. Imagine that. Again, it depends on how they assembled the list. It doesn’t make much sense to me for them to have taken, say, the phone book, and listed all the Hispanic names they see there. I imagine they started with some source more likely to yield illegal aliens – a government social services agency or a private one. If the former, we have the spectre of criminal violation. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/55 "2010-07-15T13:39:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I gave one above. > > The organization I support as a board member is responsible for helping mothers-to-be and mothers of newborns with clothes, diapers, food, baby furniture, vocational training, and language classes. We keep records of all our clients, the vast majority of which are illegal aliens. > > A ne’er-do-well with access to my organization’s records could easily compile a list similar to the one we’re discussing here. And so far as I know, they could do it without violating any law. > > I note again that my actual organization would never do any such thing, and in fact as a result of this discussion I am going to make sure we stop documenting residency status, so we would not be compelled to release information someday that could be used in this way; what you don’t have, you can’t be subpoenaed into providing. > > But that’s secondary to the question you asked. Fair enough, then. I can breathe now. Why on earth were you documenting their residency status in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/56 "2010-07-15T13:43:27Z")
[from here:](http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/list_of_alleged_undocumented_immigrants_released_i.php) > [@](#): > > A letter, signed “Concerned Citizens of the United States,” accompanied the list and reads, in part, that the writer “observes these individuals in our neighborhoods, driving on our streets, working in our stores, attending our schools and entering our public welfare buildings.” > . > . > . > It’s not clear whether the people named on the list are actually undocumented. One woman on the list, reached by local TV station KSL, said she’s been a legal resident for years and is due to get her citizenship next month. Another person on the list, however, admitted to being in the country illegally. In reverse order: I find that statement a bit more credible than the quotes offered earlier. There’s a huge difference, in my mind, between “No, I’m not here illegally,” and “I’ve been a legal resident for years and am due to get my US citizenship next month.” Obviously both are self-serving denials, but when you add in a easily-checked fact like that, in my view it gives much greater weight to the denial. And then there’s this business: “…the writer ‘observes these individuals in our neighborhoods, driving on our streets, working in our stores, attending our schools and entering our public welfare buildings.’” I wonder if this was the work of a group of lone amateur stalker-types, following people and doing basic Internet research? It just seems like the kind of mistake that would come from seeing a person with brown skin entering a “public welfare” building and automatically assuming illegal status. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/57 "2010-07-15T13:48:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Fair enough, then. I can breathe now. Why on earth were you documenting their residency status in the first place? Because in addition to providing services, we also act as a referral resource for state, county/city, and private programs other than ours. Some of those programs are only available to those people that can show a legal presence in Virginia, such as any Medicaid-funded aid or anything arising from state or local administration of programs mandated under 8 U.S.C. § 1621. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/58 "2010-07-15T13:50:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [URL=“[http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/list\_of\_alleged\_undocumented\_immigrants\_released\_i.php](http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/list_of_alleged_undocumented_immigrants_released_i.php)”] > And then there’s this business: “…the writer ‘observes these individuals in our neighborhoods, driving on our streets, working in our stores, attending our schools and entering our public welfare buildings.’” > > I wonder if this was the work of a group of lone amateur stalker-types, following people and doing basic Internet research? It just seems like the kind of mistake that would come from seeing a person with brown skin entering a “public welfare” building and automatically assuming illegal status. Bingo. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/59 "2010-07-15T13:51:03Z")
I think you might be reading too much into that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679/60 "2010-07-15T14:46:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I think you might be reading too much into that. No, I’m not… I’m merely speculating. If I had confidently asserted it was a group of lone amateur stalker-types, following people and doing basic Internet research, THEN I’d be reading too much into it. And against the theory (again speculating) it just feels like the list is a bit too long for that to be the answer. 116 names? Sure, painstakingly compiled, one by one. Over a thousand? Doesn’t seem as likely. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concerned-citizens-of-the-united-states-looking-out-for-our-interests/546679.md?page=4)