On Wednesday, Taitz posted the following on her web site:
If you recall, on my birthday, when I was getting hundreds of birthday greetings on Facebook, my access to my own Facebook page was blocked by Facebook.
I started a new page. Within a few days nearly 300 people signed up as my friends on my new page. More community leaders are joining. Congressman Nathan Deal joined my new page today.
Brian Robinson, spokesman for Deal, said that Taitz requested friendship status with the Deal campaign Facebook page – and was confirmed amid a large batch of other requests. But Robinson said that a campaign worker alerted him to just who Taitz was, and that she was “unfriended” immediately – before a call rolled in from the Insider an hour or so ago.
If that’s not a big enough insult, this next one is HUMONGOUS.
This is a non-Birther lawsuit of Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.’s in which she is suing tenants of hers for a quarter-million dollars. A hearing is scheduled for today in Medical Dental Development, LLC v Pierson, et al:
Plt., Medical Dental, Motion for Summary Judgment — Denied; Plt. fails to meet his burden of proof. Notice is insufficient, failing to comply with CCP 437c(a. No points and Authorities accompanies the motion in violation of CRC 3.1113. No Separate Statement of Undisputed Fact accompanies the motion. CCP 437c No facts are presented to the court with the motion that even begins to meet the burden of proof required for a summary judgment. The moving papers in the “motion “ are nothing short of AWFUL. The form of the motion doesn’t come close to complying with the rules of court.
I was curious about the mythologizing of late about LTC Terrence Lakin’s service record, honorable as it is, or was, until recently. Lakin was interviewed by Barry Farber, following his recent motions hearing. He was introduced as a “war hero” and did not correct the host.
For the record, Lakin is not a “war hero” (as he is introduced) for having a Bronze Star. There are two types of Bronze Stars, those given out for valor and those given out for merit. Most people above a certain rank have a Bronze Star for Merit for actions *NOT* under hostile enemy fire (i.e. doing a certain job day in and day out in a combat zone). A Bronze Star for valor is for a specific action under hostile enemy fire.
I’ve got a Bronze Star for Merit. While it’s a nice award to stick on a resume, I basically view it as a “Thanks for being in Afghanistan” medal and virtually everyone over a certain rank gets one. It means so much less to me than the Combat Infantryman’s Badge that I got while in Afghanistan.
Unless Lakin’s Bronze star is for valor (which I highly doubt as he is a Physician and the military really doesn’t want physicians under hostile fire), he is no more a war hero than I am.
Absurd. More absurd that Lakin didn’t correct the introduction.
Lakin has all the usual medals that you would expect a person with 17 years of service to have. That is not a disparagement of his record, just saying he’s not distinguished himself under hostile enemy fire and is not a “war hero”.
A Bronze Star is, as might be expected, is a medal made of bronze, like this one:
The Bronze Star comes in a set with a ribbon. When it is awarded as a Merit honor, the ribbon looks like this:
When it is awarded for Valor in combat, a gold V device is added:
In this photo, looking on the right at the ribbon rack on his chest, at the top left of that is his Bronze Star ribbon. It does not bear a gold V device.
Something he can be proud of, certainly, a hero to Birthers everywhere, he is, but people should stop making him out to be a war hero.
A war hero is COL Gordon R. Roberts, Lakin’s Brigade Commander.
Rank and organization: Sergeant (then Sp4c.), U.S. Army, Company B, 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division. Place and date: Thua Thien Province, Republic of Vietnam, 11 July 1969. Entered service at: Cincinnati, Ohio. Born: 14 June 1950, Middletown, Ohio.
Citation:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Roberts distinguished himself while serving as a rifleman in Company B, during combat operations. Sgt. Roberts’ platoon was maneuvering along a ridge to attack heavily fortified enemy bunker positions which had pinned down an adjoining friendly company. As the platoon approached the enemy positions, it was suddenly pinned down by heavy automatic weapons and grenade fire from camouflaged enemy fortifications atop the overlooking hill. Seeing his platoon immobilized and in danger of failing in its mission, Sgt. Roberts crawled rapidly toward the closest enemy bunker. With complete disregard for his safety, he leaped to his feet and charged the bunker, firing as he ran. Despite the intense enemy fire directed at him, Sgt. Roberts silenced the 2-man bunker. Without hesitation, Sgt. Roberts continued his l-man assault on a second bunker. As he neared the second bunker, a burst of enemy fire knocked his rifle from his hands. Sgt. Roberts picked up a rifle dropped by a comrade and continued his assault, silencing the bunker. He continued his charge against a third bunker and destroyed it with well-thrown hand grenades. Although Sgt. Roberts was now cut off from his platoon, he continued his assault against a fourth enemy emplacement. He fought through a heavy hail of fire to join elements of the adjoining company which had been pinned down by the enemy fire. Although continually exposed to hostile fire, he assisted in moving wounded personnel from exposed positions on the hilltop to an evacuation area before returning to his unit. By his gallant and selfless actions, Sgt. Roberts contributed directly to saving the lives of his comrades and served as an inspiration to his fellow soldiers in the defeat of the enemy force. Sgt. Roberts’ extraordinary heroism in action at the risk of his life were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the U.S. Army.
Lakin was ordered to report to Col. Roberts’ office and refused. It’s one of the charges against him:
7. The three orders at issue in specifications 1-3 of Charge II order LTC Lakin to report to the office of his Brigade Commander, COL Gordon R. Roberts in specification 1, to report to the office of the Medical Center Brigade Commander at 1700 on 31 March 2010 in specification 2, and to report to Fort Campbell, Kentucky not later than 1500 hours on 12 April 2010. Whether President Obama is a natural born citizen or is qualified under the Constitution to hold office is not relevant to determine whether any of these three orders constitutes a palpably illegal act or whether LTC Lakin had a duty to obey these orders.
The war hero is the guy whose orders Lakin disobeyed.
I might not have noticed this, except for the resounding silence by the GOP about the increased danger for our troops at war, building from the anti-mosque, anti-Muslim, burn-a-Koran madness that is running on the far right like a high grade fever.
Even when Haley Barbour, head of the Republican Governors Association, finally got around to “condemning” the idea yesterday, it was as a “distraction,” not something horribly wrong, to begin with, that will place our troops’ lives in ever more danger. At least Mitt Romney said the words: wrong and military.
Where are the rest of them?
Is General Patraeus’s word all of a sudden not good enough? Do Republicans have to hold the White House before they will do what is best for our military? I swear, George W. Bush had more sense and guts than the rest of his party on this issue.
Nate Silver has an interesting chart showing what candidates are spouting out on the stump this election season, broken down between parties. It caught my eye that 59% of Democrats are talking about veterans’ affairs and roughly half, 31%, of Republicans are doing the same.
Whattup! I thought the GOP was supposed to be the party of the patriotic, flag-waving, real Americans.
In May of 2008, the Bush State Department introduced a blog on America.gov called, “Rumors, Myths, and Fabrications: A Guide to What Isn’t True.” The State Department blogger introduced himself: “My name is Todd Leventhal. I’ve worked researching false stories about the United States for the State Department for 15 of the past 21 years.” So the blog was new, but Leventhal’s work on false claims for the government was not, since he’d worked in this area for a long time.
The site gives the mission statement of “Rumors, Myths, and Fabrications” as:
Examining rumors, conspiracy theories and false stories. Todd Leventhal, a State Department expert on these issues, discusses deliberate disinformation, unintentional misinformation, cautionary tales known as “urban legends,” and widely believed conspiracy theories.
I may be wrong, but I don’t recall criticism from the right wing of President Bush for allowing the inception of this blog on conspiracy theories at the State Department, even though a main focus seems to have been September 11 conspiracy theories, which could have been construed as government propaganda. I am of the mind that anything that helps keep the rest of the world from viewing the United States as one giant insane asylum, and at the same time helps keep its own citizens’ heads screwed on straight, is probably a good thing, or at least harmless. The Clinton State Department, may have come to think differently, because, alas, the blog is no more, except as an archive, for the past year.
Right on top of things, only a couple of weeks ago, World Net Daily got itself into a snit–”State Dept. confirms Obama dual citizen; ‘Counter-misinformation’ website aims to debunk birth controversy”–about a year-old post on this defunct State Department blog about a two-year-old post on FactCheck.org:
The State Department is maintaining a “counter-misinformation” page on an America.gov blog that attempts to “debunk a conspiracy theory” that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believing space aliens visit Earth in flying saucers. …
The entry “The Obama Birth Controversy” was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established “to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East,” as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.
Those bastards! Blow me down, what did the Jonestown Massacre and the Kennedy Assassination have to do with the Middle East?
Down at the bottom of the WND article:
Finally, Leventhal cites FactCheck.org to state, “Obama was originally both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies from 1961 to 1963 (because his father was from Kenya, which gained its independence from the British Empire in 1963), then both a U.S. and Kenyan citizen from 1963 to 1982, and solely a U.S. citizen after that.”
Leventhal’s entry on “The Obama Birth Controversy” at America.gov reads remarkably like the comparable entry at the Obama 2008 presidential campaign website, “Fight the Smears,” suggesting the State Department is merely repeating Obama campaign argumentation in a partisan fashion, rather than conducting an even-handed and original inquiry into the Obama eligibility controversy.
Simply remarkable. The FactCheck piece from 2008 said Obama was born with dual citizenship, as part of a response to a conspiracy theory; the Obama campaign’s Fight the Smears web site cited FactCheck’s statement in response to a conspiracy theory; and a State Department blog left over from the Bush administration about conspiracy theories referenced FactCheck’s response to a conspiracy theory. (OMG, it’s a conspiracy!)
Of course, President Obama wrote about his dual-citizenship from his father in his best-selling autobiography from the 1990s, and everyone in the world knew by the time of his presidential campaign that his father was a Kenyan, so it’s not as if he has kept this fact of his life a secret.
Somehow, in the Birfistani way of things, the statement by FactCheck, of well-established information in response to a conspiracy theory, has now become an official, “recent” statement by the US State Department, a guilty admission that President Obama had both his mother’s and his father’s citizenship as a child, though not as an adult, and we have the Post & Email’s Sharon Rondeau saying stupid stuff like this:
SHARON: I think the question is very appropriate because, as you said, he is a dual citizen, and the State Department has admitted that. … So looking at the birth certificate is important as well as all of his documentation. However, the State Department’s recent admission is huge, and in my opinion, it most likely disqualifies him. … It even makes one wonder if he ever had American citizenship. If not, then the State Department has made a false statement.
Rondeau was interviewing the hate-mongering ex-PUMA known as “Dr. Kate”:
Obama is a dual citizen. The only thing we know is that he’s British, Kenyan and Indonesian.
Obama is not a British citizen. Obama is not a Kenyan citizen. Obama is not an Indonesian citizen. In fact, the only official statement by the State Department regarding possible dual citizenship was filed in Strunk v. US Department of State/US Department of Homeland Security about Indonesia:
- President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a U.S. “natural born” citizen and is eligible to serve as the United States President, pursuant to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
- President Obama is not an illegal alien and has never been a citizen of Indonesia.
- President Obama never was adopted by Lolo Soetoro
As the FactCheck article makes very clear, British citizenship inherited through Obama’s father expired on December 12, 1963, when Kenya became an independent nation. Obama would have had to actively choose Kenyan citizenship over US citizenship by the age of 23, within two years of his turning 21, which he did not do, so any Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1984.
Dr. Kate, who is a dual citizen herself, born in Mexico, says she has always known she could not be president. Well, no, she can’t, not because she is a dual citizen, but because she is a naturalized citizen, rather than a natural born citizen. Outrageously, by the way, in this interview, she repeats the ridiculous canard that Mexican troops are patrolling Staten Island NY.
Anyhow, Dr. Kate is “troubled to her soul,” because there is “a Brit in the White House”–seriously, Dr. Kate, President Obama hasn’t been a Brit since December 12, 1963, when he was two years old, so rest easy.
About the Muslim-In-Chief, she says:
DR. KATE: … I have to say, and I know this is sort-of unrelated, but I think the flyover of New York that happened last summer when Air Force One went down there, that was the mosque issue. He wanted to find the right site for the mosque so they would have a view of the terrorist planes. I swear, I bet somebody took footage of that site, and I bet they’re using that as a fundraiser around the world to show how great that mosque is going to be right there.
And other political leaders who don’t toe her Birfer line:
DR. KATE: The only way I’ve been able to get my arms around this is that there is a threat that has been pushed on everyone which says, “If you struggle with me on this particular issue, Muslims are coming right after you.”
Dr. Kate is just wrapping up her three-day “Usurpathon” in Washington DC, having put out the call:
This blog asks all other blogs to organize your readers, help us gather 10,000 patriots across the country who will
-rotate into the Capitol for a rolling revolution, code word, “UNCLE”, until the illegal occupation is stopped. Blog live from the event, inspire other Americans to do the same in their cities and capitols.
-Keep the issue alive until it is finally resolved
Code word, “UNCLE”?
Lord have mercy, she has to be the worst walking advertisement for Smith College I have ever encountered. The featured speaker at the “vigil” was to be Birther Minister of Hate James David Manning, but he didn’t show up. Our spy (thanks, Mata Mari!) reported Dr. Kate, two other women, and two Park Rangers assigned crowd control, would have heard the speech, anyhow.
Here they all are:
Those Park Rangers don’t know what they missed.
They could have heard all about how the President of the United States of America is a long-legged mack daddy, his mother a whore and his father a whore-monger, how Columbia University and the CIA sent the President as a youth to serve in the Cold War under the traitorous President Ronald Reagan (except St. Ronnie’s name would not be mentioned). And lots more!
Little did the producers of the White House video blog “West Wing Week” know they were releasing a Birfistani shitstorm last month, when they answered a question posed by a citizen in Pittsburgh curious about presidential travel: Does the President’s passport get stamped when he travels like an ordinary mortal’s?
I could have told the staff of the White House scheduling office, guys, you can’t do this! Because anything, I say anything, having to do with the President’s identity, brings out the beast in Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., not that the beast is ever in deep hiding, and puts Birfistan into a slobbering frenzy.
First, here he is, our President, guilty of just being:
And, a short way in, the answer to the question:
Of course, the President’s passport would say he was born in Hawaii, and his secretary would say that she filled out the passport application papers herself. Let’s face it, she has to say that if she wants to keep her job. Worse, she could be liquidated and buried in the Rose Garden by the CIA or placed in wrapped parts in a freezer with the ice cubes.
In a Free Republic thread, which goes on for almost 500 posts, there is an in-depth examination of the physical elements of the President’s passport. A helpful Freeper puts up a scan of his own passport for comparison, which says IN PLAIN ENGLISH he was born in Massachusetts, USA, just as the President’s passport says he was born in Hawaii, USA.
Because some Birthers evidently can’t read and almost all don’t leave their backyards, we have worldly comments like this Freeper’s:
What’s obviously irregular about the alleged Obama passport is that the place of birth was listed as “Hawaii, USA.” Ordinarily, the format for a place of birth within the United States is a city (or other locality), followed by a state, followed by USA. A specific city or locality would be the first item listed for a place of birth of a foreign born individual as well.
Run quick, check your passport; or don’t. I can save you the trip and tell you it gives the state and country in which you were born, just like the Freeper’s passport and the President’s passport. Note the authority of tone in which utter nonsense is presented by Birthers. Above all, please understand, the person who posted his passport and the person who posted the nonsensical statement is the same person.
They never showed the cover of the passport that they showed his picture from ( which is significant since it would show if it was a diplomatic one or not ).
At 1:00 – 1:02 of the video:
I tell you, when George Soros decided to pay me to ridicule Birthers, on the Alinsky method, he was just throwing money away. Shouldn’t I at least have to work for it?
The White House’s display of Obama’s passport Friday did not include documentation submitted to the State Department to obtain the passport or any previous U.S. passports the president may have been issued since childhood.” Because a YouTube video answering the question ‘Does the President get his passport stamped when he travels’ is obviously missing something when it fails to show his passport application and supporting documentation.
As if the White House was supposed to be answering a question posed by Birthers, instead of one by a sane person from Pittsburgh. Anyhow, the White House barely knows these nut jobs exist. They have important things on their minds.
The discussion at Free Republic continues:
Look at the photo. The top of his head is cut off. They may try to explain that away with light bouncing off the hologram. However, it would not make a clean line and mine has the same hologram overlapping my head. No matter what angle of light I use, you can still see the top of my head through the hologram. Plus you see them bending the passport at various angles and the hairline remains the same. Not to mention, they do not look like the same photos.
This is about an image on page 6 of the President’s passport:
Just a small problem. The image of page 6 of the President’s passport, the Freeper was swearing up and down was faked, isn’t from his official US passport ID photo main page. It’s from a French Visa issued to his US passport. Those wicked Frenchies use a whole page, instead of just a stamp, and they crop the photo however they damned please. Alors!
We can’t expect your garden variety Birfers to know these things, of course. They hardly ever go anywhere. But Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. is a world traveler. In fact, she was in Europe just this summer. Undaunted, so desperate had she been to not have to pay the $20,000 she owed the government, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. submitted this false evidence to the Supreme Court of the United States and to the United Nations, where she loves to go to malign her adoptive country, which has treated the ungrateful bitch very well.
Saying twice, a court-martial is not “a vehicle to challenge political decisions,” last Thursday an Army judge ran a tank over Lakin’s Birtheristic hopes for connecting the charges against him with President Obama’s birth in Hawaii (or elsewhere, as Lakin wants to believe). Lakin’s defense had asked for Hawaiian officials to be deposed on the matter of the President’s birth certificate, which was denied by the military judge, Army Col. Denise R. Lind, who ruled, essentially, that Presidential ineligibility, even if that were the true case, is not a legal defense against the charges faced by Lakin. In addition to the birth certificate, Lakin’s defense had asked for school records which might include the birth certificate.
What are the charges and of which of them is Lakin guilty?
1-missing movement to Afghanistan
2-disobeying lawful orders
3-dereliction of duty
We know he is guilty of all of them, because he did those things, but also because, even before the video pimped by the GOP hacks at the American Patriot Foundation, on their site Safeguard Our Constitution, he told us, Lakin told us, he would be guilty of doing these things. And American Patriot Foundation saw to it that he told the whole world. At the same time, in press releases issued by American Patriot Foundation, Lakin says: “I am not guilty of these charges, and will plead ‘not guilty’ to them because of my conviction that our commander in chief may be ineligible under the United States Constitution to serve in that highest of all offices.”
Lakin’s case was not this crowd’s first venture into Birfistan. Margaret Hemenway, Executive Director, CEO and Vice President of Public Affairs for the American Patriot Foundation, who is also a contributing editor of Family Security Matters and worked in the Bush administration, was involved in her father-in-law’s failed Birther lawsuit, Hollister v. Soetoro, originally filed in late 2008. John Hemenway is registered agent for the American Patriot Foundation.
Founded in 2003 by former US Senator Bob Smith (R-NH), soon after his Senate term ended, the 501(c)(3) group’s mission, which seems to change with the prevailing winds, was to support “the families of soldiers lost in war”–a project on which they spent no money, according to reports on GuideStar, except for $1000 in 2004 to American WWII Orphans Network. By then, the group’s purpose had changed to “foster[ing] patriotism and relevance to society.” For 2006, it changed again, retrospectively from 2010, when a three-year tax filing was made, to “interest in and respect for the US Constitution.”
Lakin’s civilian lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, is the foundation’s Chairman of the Board, President and General Counsel, with both his law office on the east coast and the foundation office conveniently located at 1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Washington DC, in Suite 500, one of those rent-an-address places. In 2003, Jensen was Secretary of the American Patriot Foundation and signed its IRS papers for that year, showing $28,000 in donations; $16,000 was spent on “office space, fundraising and organizational conference.”
After seven years with no IRS filings, on May 7, 2010, Margaret Hemenway, as Treasurer, filed for 2004, 2005, and 2006, showing no donations for those years. In 2006, the American Patriot Foundation transferred its assets, $11,000, leaving a zero balance, to the Everglades Foundation, at a time when Bob Smith was Executive Director there and his wife was Administrator. However, in 2009, Smith was still involved with American Patriot Foundation, starting a sub-entity called Americans for Accountability, which concerned itself with Democrat Tom Daschle’s income tax. Both Hemenway and Jensen had been staffers in Smith’s Senate office. In 2010, the American Patriot Foundation, without Smith, again started collecting donations and introduced, as its new and exciting project, LTC Terrence Lakin.
American Patriot Foundation refers to Jensen this way in their fundraising on Safeguard Our Constitution:
American Patriot Foundation’s Legal Defense Fund will pay for all of LTC Lakin’s attorneys fees and costs, and so we urgently need your tax deductible contribution. A noted civilian California trial lawyer has now been hired to be LTC Lakin’s lead counsel. It is expected these fees and costs will exceed $500,000 and therefore it is essential that LTC Lakin’s supporters come to his aid NOW.
Without mentioning that the “noted civilian California trial lawyer” has this ongoing leadership role in American Patriot Foundation. So what did Jensen do, hire himself for $500,000? Nice work if you can get it.
An interesting thread on the military justice blog, CAAFLog, about the poor quality of Lakin’s civilian legal representation, has a comment from former JAG defense attorney, Charles Gittins:
I told LtCol Lakin that he was being badly advised when he called me to join his legal team. I gave him my (very) candid advice. I told him to seek opinions from other military justice experts if he was not willing to accept my advice. He is where he is for a reason. I am very sad for him. He has been deluded by a very incompetent attorney, who has done a disservice [to] our profession and military justice.
It appears Lakin shopped this around, then, and he still ended up with a “legal team” of Paul Rolf Jensen, who, with Margaret Hemenway, runs the American Patriot Foundation; and a military lawyer, whose advice Lakin is apparently not following, supplied by the Army. So what do they need a half-million dollars for exactly and why should donations to this legal fund to pay Paul Rolf Jensen be tax-deductible? It’s at least a curious situation and one I hope somebody more expert in this sort of thing addresses at some point.
Jensen is long associated with GOP Dirty Trickster, Roger Stone, as well. And this is the motley crew Lakin chose for his legal representation. It can only be because of the shared political agenda, since Lakin received a military lawyer gratis. It couldn’t possibly have been for the legal expertise: Jensen’s law practice is in dog bites, seat belt failure, and asbestos cases.
While the days when General Washington would have had him shot at sunrise are behind us, on the advice of the American Patriot Foundation, Lakin has forged a straight path to years in prison, professional devastation, burned-over reputation, and a financial loss in salary and pension of something more than a million dollars; unless something radical happens, this is his future. What will happen to the people who led him there? Nothing. They will go on to the next schmuck, the next political op, the next adventure in disrupting a democratically elected government, and call it saving the Constitution.
Well, they make me sick. But Lakin likes them fine and that’s all that matters. He’ll just have to take what comes of it. No pity party for LTC Lakin. Save it for the family of the physician who had to go to Afghanistan in Lakin’s place or the soldier who died when Lakin might have made the difference. Save it for the proud military tradition, in this country, of respect, honor and obedience to civilian leadership, he has disgraced. Save it for the culture of good order and discipline in the armed services he has undermined. He wants to be a martyr to the Birther cause? Hey, schmuck, you’re a martyr!
Retired US Navy Commander, presently a military litigator in private practice, Phil Cave, was a guest on Reality Check blog talk radio and cleared up one confusing point being spread around right wing sites, concerning the judge’s use of the term “embarrassment.” Cave attended the Article 39(a) UCMJ pretrial motions hearing at Ft. Meade in Maryland on Thursday, covering the story for his blog, Court-martial.com.
The military judge DENIED all of the discovery requests and witness requests related to the birth controversy. This was not unexpected. But what was unexpected was the breadth and detail of the rulings, because of the obvious impact on the lawfulness motion. Clearly the findings and rulings anticipated the next motions session. At the end of the military judge’s reading of her findings, Jensen appeared beaten down. He seemed so affected that for some time he failed to stand when talking with the military judge on the record. LTC Lakin remained impassive as always. …
Basically the documents and witnesses are neither (at times she interspersed logically) relevant nor material. … The military judge found that Congress through its power to regulate the armed forces appointed the service secretaries and their service leaders to carry out functions such as order people to deploy, etc. She found there was substantial independent authority in law, regulation, and custom to support the issuance of orders in this situation. She gave passing reference to the de facto officer doctrine and focussed more on the political question doctrine as a justification for denial of discovery and witnesses on the strawman that the presidents status might be relevant in some fashion. …
The defense conceded that with the military judge’s rulings, the orders were otherwise lawful. With that this case is back to the standard case one sees where a Soldier has missed movement and disobeyed orders. …
At this point it seems LTC Lakin will be left to wriggle while his fate is decided in the normal course of business. No doubt there will be some who will try to continue the political aspects of the case but for all intents and purposes LTC Lakin is dead meat. The real question will be sentencing.
As is often the case, the misperception in Birfistan about the judge’s use of the word “embarrassment” in her ruling, stems from reporting on World Net Daily:
Jensen had argued that under U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.
Lind, who took 40 minutes to read her decision to the court, disagreed.
She said opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president, and it’s up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.
As Phil Cave explained on Reality Check, the judge was not talking about embarrassing the President in the sense of shaming him personally, and wasn’t even talking about the President. Rather, as a factor in the Political Question Doctrine, the Judiciary cannot embarrass itself, on one level, by issuing orders it could not enforce, since it is the function of another branch of government, Congress, to impeach a sitting president. Even if she had been talking about embarrassing the President, she would have meant the Executive Branch, because the term is used in the law in relation to other branches of government, not individuals. But in the context, it is Congress, with its specific charge by the Constitution, who would be “embarrassed.”
Dwight Sullivan on CAAFlog cited the SCOTUS decision in Baker v. Carr:
The Supreme Court has long recognized the principle of “nonjusticiability”: meaning that courts of law should decline to exercise their authority to decide matters where judicial intervention is deemed inappropriate. Based upon the Constitutional principle of separation of powers in the three branches of Government, judicial review of “a political question” is precluded where the Court finds one or more of the following:
a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.
Sullivan also commented:
It’s not that the evidence that LTC Lakin seeks is relevant but won’t be produced due to the political question doctrine. Rather, under the political question doctrine, it’s inappropriate for a court-martial to opine on the constitutional eligibility of the President. And because a court-martial can’t say the President is ineligible, no amount of evidence regarding the President’s eligibility would be admissible (and, hence, it’s not discoverable) because it couldn’t affect the case’s outcome.
Furthermore, the legal usage of “embarrass” has a different meaning than in common English: to obstruct or hinder or hobble. It’s not the Judiciary’s job, in other words, to get in the way of other branches of government doing their jobs. Legal scholar William R. Long wrote an amusing essay in 2005, in which he explored the use of the word “embarrass” as employed in law:
One of the most embarrassing things about language is when you think you know what a word means but then are repeatedly brought up against a different and unfamiliar usage of the term–a usage which turns out to be better attested than the usage you assumed was the “only one” there was. Well, I will take this out of the stratosphere and come right down to earth. I was embarrassed to learn that the way I used “embarrass” in conversation and writing, though correct, was so limited as to be misleading. …
“Embarrass” is derived from the French, where embarrasser means to “block” or “obstruct.” Thus, the first meaning in the OED, going back to 1683 is “to encumber, hamper, impede (movements, actions, persons moving or acting). “The Character of Ambassador, which would delay or embarrass me with Preparations of Equipage.” Or, from 1734, “Hannibal..ran to the assistance of his troops, who were thus embarrassed.” One might also say, in 19th century form, that the contours of the country would embarrass the enemy to a considerable degree. This doesn’t mean that it would make them feel ashamed of themselves; it suggests, rather that it would set up a road block, an impediment, a hindrance, a difficulty.
In a criminal case in the following term, the Court could say:
“This is a criminal case. The motion to advance is made on behalf of the United States, upon the representation of the Postmaster-General, in substance, that the questions in dispute will embarrass the operations of the government…” (91 US at 558).
Rather than focus on the word embarrassment readers should consider that the military judge was using different words to express the same prong of a political question doctrine analysis. The correct focus, as it was for the military judge, is the phrase, “or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government.” That’s what the military judge said along with an analysis of a number of other factors relevant to her application of the political question doctrine to the issues before her. This was all clearly in the context of her other statements that a court-martial is not a forum to raise and litigate political issues. Whether or not the president has properly served since 20 January 2010 is at this point clearly a matter for political discussion with no place in a military court-room.
Mere earthlings such as we, of course, are not conversant in such arcane legalistic folderol, so the confusion by non-lawyers is understandable. However, you can bet your sweet bippie the myth that the judge in LTC Lakin’s court-martial pre-trial hearing said she didn’t want to embarrass President Obama will be with us until the end of time. Have the false claim emails started yet? I told my sister-in-law I would block her email address, if she sent me a single one more, so I don’t know.
Bearing in mind that Lakin’s crack legal team is calling Birther Alan Keyes as a constitutional law expert for the defense, someone you might think knows something about the Political Question Doctrine, his ignorance of the legal use of the term “embarrassment” is shocking:
She suggests that the evidence might be embarrassing to Obama. Since when is the embarrassment that may attend the discovery that a public official has sworn or acted dishonestly a lawful reason to suppress evidence tending to establish his official malfeasance? Since when does the mere possibility of such official embarrassment justify suppressing the constitutional rights of a person accused of a serious crime and liable, upon conviction, to onerous punishment?
Judge Lind’s words appear at the very least, prejudicial. However, they may also raise the possibility of serious malfeasance on her part. How has she reached the conclusion that the evidence in question may be embarrassing to Obama? Has she privily received communications to that effect? If so, why did she not publicly indicate the source or sources of these communications, so that Lt. Col. Lakin could claim his constitutional right to confront, in a proper hearing, the witnesses against him?
Orly Taitz, Esquire
likes preaching to her choir.
While some say that she’s mean and vicious,
in truth she’s uniboobalicious.
She wanted a dress made for flirtin’
Like Liz wore to win over Burton.
But when she said “classy”,
The salesman heard “brassy”
and sold her a bad bathroom curtain.
Chumps who make up the Tea Party, believing they are part of some organic, grassrootsy, “We The Peeps” rebellion, shouldn’t miss this recent profile of the Brothers Koch in The New Yorker. What do the ‘Baggers have against George Soros again? Can’t be the ebil “special interests” now, can it? It can only be all that transparency stuff. March on, ‘Baggers, for your corporate masters.
The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to “educate,” fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Dallas-based think tank that the Kochs fund, said, “The problem with the whole libertarian movement is that it’s been all chiefs and no Indians. There haven’t been any actual people, like voters, who give a crap about it. So the problem for the Kochs has been trying to create a movement.” With the emergence of the Tea Party, he said, “everyone suddenly sees that for the first time there are Indians out there—people who can provide real ideological power.” The Kochs, he said, are “trying to shape and control and channel the populist uprising into their own policies.” …
Last year, Phillips told the Financial Times that Americans for Prosperity had only eight thousand registered members. Currently, its Web site claims that the group has “1.2 million activists.” Whatever its size, the Kochs’ political involvement has been intense; a former employee of the Cato Institute told me that Americans for Prosperity “was micromanaged by the Kochs.” And the brothers’ investment may well have paid off: Americans for Prosperity, in concert with the family’s other organizations, has been instrumental in disrupting the Obama Presidency.
In January, 2008, Charles Koch wrote in his company newsletter that America could be on the verge of “the greatest loss of liberty and prosperity since the 1930s.” That October, Americans for Prosperity held a conference of conservative operatives at a Marriott hotel outside Washington. Erick Erickson, the editor-in-chief of the conservative blog RedState.com, took the lectern, thanked David Koch, and vowed to “unite and fight . . . the armies of the left!” Soon after Obama assumed office, Americans for Prosperity launched “Porkulus” rallies against Obama’s stimulus-spending measures. Then the Mercatus Center released a report claiming that stimulus funds had been directed disproportionately toward Democratic districts; eventually, the author was forced to correct the report, but not before Rush Limbaugh, citing the paper, had labelled Obama’s program “a slush fund,” and Fox News and other conservative outlets had echoed the sentiment. (Phil Kerpen, the vice-president for policy at Americans for Prosperity, is a contributor to the Fox News Web site. Another officer at Americans for Prosperity, Walter Williams, often guest-hosts for Limbaugh.)
Americans for Prosperity also created an offshoot, Patients United Now, which organized what Phillips has estimated to be more than three hundred rallies against health-care reform. At one rally, an effigy of a Democratic congressman was hung; at another, protesters unfurled a banner depicting corpses from Dachau. The group also helped organize the “Kill the Bill” protests outside the Capitol, in March, where Democratic supporters of health-care reform alleged that they were spat on and cursed at. Phillips was a featured speaker.
Americans for Prosperity has held at least eighty events targeting cap-and-trade legislation, which is aimed at making industries pay for the air pollution that they create. Speakers for the group claimed, with exaggeration, that even back-yard barbecues and kitchen stoves would be taxed. The group was also involved in the attacks on Obama’s “green jobs” czar, Van Jones, and waged a crusade against international climate talks. Casting his group as a champion of ordinary workers who would be hurt by environmentalists, Phillips went to Copenhagen last year and staged a protest outside the United Nations conference on climate change, declaring, “We’re a grassroots organization. . . . I think it’s unfortunate when wealthy children of wealthy families . . . want to send unemployment rates in the United States up to twenty per cent.”
The American Patriot Foundation, run by a group of long-time GOP ops, where funds for Lakin’s legal defense are solicited, tax-deductible, so they say, has posted a press release to its website Safeguard Our Constitution:
Testimony Sought of “Custodian of Records” AND Production of all records relating to President: Decision to be made by Army Major General
Washington, D.C., July 29, 2010. The Army doctor who is facing a court martial for refusing to obey orders, including a deployment order for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, has formally requested his Commanding General approve a deposition in Hawaii of the records-keeper of the State Department of Health—and the production of all of their records concerning Barack Obama.
The records Lakin seeks have been the subject of intense interest ever since the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when a document appeared on the internet purporting to be a certification that Hawaii’s Dept. of Health had records showing he had been born in Honolulu. Since then, Dr. Chiyome Fukino the head of that agency has made public statements on the subject, but has refused all requests for copies of the actual records in the Department’s custody. Recently, a former Hawaii elections clerk has come forward saying that he was told that the Department’s records showed Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.
The United States Constitution requires that a person be a “natural born citizen” to be elected to the presidency. If Mr. Obama was not born in Honolulu as he has claimed, then he is unlikely to be a “natural born citizen”. An examination of the records kept by the Hawaii Dept. of Health are an essential first step in ascertaining Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the office to which he was elected in 2008.
While no civil litigant has obtained discovery of these records, and all the civil lawsuits seeking those records have been dismissed on procedural grounds, Lakin’s case is different because he is the subject of criminal prosecution, and upon conviction stands in jeopardy of being sentenced to years at hard labor in the penitentiary.
Last month, Lakin waived his right to an Article 32 pre-trial hearing, which had been scheduled for June 11. The “former Hawaii elections clerk” being used as a pretext for DISCOVERY, was a short-time temp worker in the Honolulu City Clerk’s elections office, where supervisors deny he would have had access to Obama’s health records.
In a discussion on the milblog CAAflog, a comment:
I’m as defense-hacky as they come, and it this were a wild swing during an otherwise valid case, I’d say go for it.
Put another way, government-hacks hate it when trial counsel do really dumb, improper things that mess up what would have been an otherwise valid case.
Well, us defense-hacks hate it when a guy is so poorly represented that not only does he make matters worse for himself thanks to defense counsel’s advice, but arguably, but for someone buzzing in his ear about this (likely his current civ counsel) he wouldn’t have done what he did in the first place and thrown away his career.
I have little sympathy for the LTC, but what I do have is extreme anger at the civ defense counsel which I guess also engenders a tinge of sympathy for the LTC.
Defense counsel are like docs, first, do no harm. This guy didn’t just cut the wrong leg off, he cut it off knowing the guy didn’t need surgery at all, and he’s now leaving the sponge sewn up inside.
For a very full examination of United States v. Lakin, follow along with Court-martial.com here and here.
I’ve been holding off on this post, hoping the Taitz-Mouth spew machine* would power down for five whole minutes, but there is not even a moment of peace in sight for US Supreme Court personnel, under daily assault by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. She has got it in her spacious brain cavity that Supreme Court Justices personally, physically sign every bit of paper that crosses their clerks’ desks. But a clerk of the Supreme Court having now “slammed the phone” in Orly Taitz’s “face,” according to her, it seemed like a good time to catch up.
Desperately trying to get out of paying the American taxpayers the $20,000 she owes, Taitz filed an emergency petition for a stay with SCOTUS earlier this month in Rhodes v. MacDonald; recaptioned Taitz v. MacDonald, since this is an appeal of Taitz’s $20,000 sanction, levied for her bad behavior as the attorney in Rhodes v. MacDonald, not an appeal of the case Rhodes v. MacDonald. Her petition was Denied by Justice Clarence Thomas on July 15.
Court clerks have long been the bane of Orly Taitz’s existence. Too often, when a judge does something she doesn’t like, Taitz creates a conspiracy centered around a court clerk, so perhaps she is a little hard for a court clerk to appreciate.
Last year, her favorite law clerk to hound was Siddharth Velamoor of Judge David O. Carter’s district court in Orange County, California, where Taitz’s case Barnett v. Obama was Dismissed by Carter last October, and is now under appeal.
But before him, came Danny Bickell, Staff Attorney to the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court, William Suter.
Taitz made an improper attempt just recently to indirectly approach Justice Thomas, through his wife’s web site, just before filing the emergency petition in Taitz v. MacDonald. What I believe was her second improper approach to a Supreme Court Justice, took place in Idaho in March 2009, (she had already improperly approached Justice Scalia at a book-signing), regarding an early Birther case Lightfoot v. Bowen. At the confrontation with Chief Justice Roberts in Idaho, Taitz made accusations of “criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States” by Danny Bickell.
“Are you aware that there is criminal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States? I have submitted my Lightfoot vs. Bowen case to you. You agreed to hear it in the conference of all nine justices on January 23rd.”
“Your clerk, Danny Bickle, on his own accord, refused to forward to you an important supplemental brief that he has hidden from you and refused to post on the docket. Additionally, my case was completely erased from the docket one day after the inauguration, only two days before it was supposed to be heard in the conference. Outraged citizens had to call and demand for it to be posted. I saw Justice (Antonin) Scalia, and he had absolutely no knowledge of my case that was supposedly heard in conference on January 23rd. “It is inexplicable, particularly knowing that roughly half a million American citizens have written to him and to you, Justice
Roberts, demanding that you hear this issue of eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, to be the president of the United States.”
The Birthers’ campaign of harassment against Danny Bickell actually pre-dates Taitz, but she happily will pick up any Birfoon standard and run with it.
She has now hooked up with an outfit called Human Rights Alert, (which I don’t think is associated with the Scientology site of the same name), apparently devoted to going after court personnel on behalf of unhappy lawyers.
History repeating itself, Taitz is once again riling up her Birther minions to harass the Court*:
You have to go to each and every lecture, each and every appearance of these judges and demand answers, demand signatures on the orders, so they can be held liable if they violate our constitution. When judges violate the law, they can be prosecuted as well, and surely the clerks can be prosecuted as well.
I resubmitted my application to justice Alito.
I talked to the court today, they confirmed that they got the application, but I waited all day long, and they did not post on the docket, that it was resubmitted to Alito. You can call the Supreme Court tomorrow morning and demand an answer, when will they docket the submission to justice Alito. The clerk’s number is 202-479-3000 or 202-479-3472. You can demand transparency and demand an explanation from the chief clerk William Sutter, why there is no signed order from justice Thomas. Why there is no signed order from the conference on my prior case Lightfoot v Bowen.
Even though she has legally sworn she never does such a terrible thing.
Taitz posted to her website*:
Today, 07.26.10 at 8:15 PST/11:15 EST I talked to the clerks office of the Supreme Court of the United States, with an employee of the Clerks office by name Eric Fossum. I requested a copy of the order actually signed by Justice Thomas, denyng my application for stay of sanctions in Rhodes v MacDonald #10A56.
Mr. Eric Fossum admitted that there is no order actually signed by Justice Thomas. He stated that it was reviewed by his chambers and denied. Not only they are not even claiming that Justice Thomas ever signed the order to deny my application, now they are not even claiming that he ever saw the application, now they are saying that it was reviewed by his chambers, meaning there is no evidence that it was ever reviewed by Justice Thomas himself. So who reviewed it and denied? A clerk? A piece of furniture in the chambers?
There is no order, because an order comes after an application has been referred to, and granted or denied by, the full court–which Justice Thomas did not send and was under no obligation to do, as he was denying her application from the get-go. What Taitz received is a disposition notification letter, the responsibility of the Clerk’s office. Justices do not send disposition notification letters, which have no place on the Orders List, anyhow.
Nevertheless, she has been howling at the moon* ever since.
Does any attorney know of a case where there is a pattern in the Supreme court or any other court, where a case disappears from the docket, somebody deletes it from the docket. Later an entry appears on the docket on the weekend, when judges are not there and clerks are not there, where judges don’t have a clue about the most important case on their docket?
Here it is, Orly, the not-disappeared, not-most important case on their docket. (You have to search for the correct case number.)
I highlighted the part, where it says, that the Justice denying the application will note the denial thereon. Do you see, that it says that the justice needs to note the denial, not some faceless clerk. My application was never denied, since there is no signature from Justice Thomas, there was only a docket entry made by the clerk on Saturday the 17th, when the court was closed, Justice Thomas was in Utah, and it was backdated the 15th, even though there was no such notation on Friday, July the 16th and it is not noted on the log. We downloaded the log, it is missing. There has to be a criminal investigation of what is going on. Can you help me reach the Civil rights commission, the department of Justice public integrity unit and your congressmen and senators.
All of this for $20,000 she probably has for walking around money.
But it seems our Lady of Liberty is driving these poor clerks past all forbearance:
In regards to my Application for stay, I talked to the clerks office of the Supreme Court. One of the clerks, who refused to give out his name, stated that the clerk for the stays, Danny Bickel, is too busy and can’t talk to me, but that he is returning my application sent to Justice Alito without docketing it and without giving it to Alito. I asked, why. This is totally against the rules, as one can resubmit the application, if one justice denies it. Theoretically I can resubmit it 9 times. The clerk refused to give me any answer and slammed the phone in my face.
As she grows more and more extreme in advocating sedition and violence:
It is frightening that the courts are so obviously in Obama’s corner. Was there a payoff, a threat or a promise from Obama to the courts? It’s hard to determine until we have a Conservative majority in the House and the Senate. When we do, the Senators and Congressmen, MUST pursue the truth no matter where and to whom it may lead.
As for guns, etc. if it comes to that, then I have no guilt. I and millions of us did not start this, but we are going to finish it. God help us and hopefully we won’t ever have to come to that conclusion.
The Supreme Court generally waits for a Federal District or local Bar to disbar or suspend a lawyer, before they disbar the lawyer from practice before SCOTUS, but maybe that’s just when they want to be polite?
Update: Alan Riquelmy of the Ledger-Enquirer has a new piece up today. In it, he hears from an experienced attorney in Georgia, the location of the original case, Rhodes v. MacDonald:
Columbus attorney William Mason, who taught law at Columbus State University, said Taitz raises issues that someone would bring up in a writ of certiorari. To Mason, “writ of certiorari” is the key component. Taitz’s filing is an application for stay. …
A request for stay is done under extraordinary circumstances once a case has been appealed properly by filing a writ of certiorari, which hasn’t happened. If it had, the issue should have been whether the court could sanction her $20,000. Instead, Mason said, Taitz appears to challenge the underlying argument that Obama can’t legitimately be president.
“There’s no logical way to address what she’s doing,” he said. “I have written certs to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is not how you do it.”
Putting the horse before the cart is normal for Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. She has no business being a lawyer in the first place. She just can’t be bothered with proper legal procedure, professional behavior or respect for the highest court in the land. She should be disbarred; should have been a long time ago.
Riquelmy also reports:
Taitz said she’s received a letter from a Georgia U.S. attorney asking if she would pay the money.
She replied that she’s chosen to exercise her rights to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Stop wasting everybody’s time, Orly, and pay up.
Update 7.31: Somewhere still in the Pennsylvania courts, packing for California, court personnel in Liberi v. Taitz don’t escape her wrath:
Due to the great importance of this matter, and fraud being perpetrated on the US District Court as well as the Court of Appeals, and due to the fact that the plaintiff here Lisa Liberi is currrently on probation in the state of CA as a result of 10 felony convictions of forgery, forgery of an official seal and grand theft, this motion is addressed to the presiding judge The Hon Eduardo Robreno; as well as the Chief Judge of US District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania The Hon Harvey Bartle, III; and the Chief Judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The Hon Randall Ray Rader. It is cc-ed to the Public Integrity Unit ofthe Department ofJustice, Civil Rights Commission in Washington DC, the PA State Bar, the Philadelphia DA, Audrey B. Collins.. the Chief Judge of the Central District of CA, Judge David O. Carter Central District of CA, San Bernardino County, the California Probation Department, and the San Bernardino County District Attorney James Secord …
It is a known fact that FBI, Department of Justice use convicted criminals as informers and agitators. Recent trial of talk show host Hal Turner gave public a glimpse of how “patriot” leaders are used as informers and agitators. Is this a situation where criminals are brazen because they know they have a back and they will not be convicted, no matter how much fraud on the court they commit, how much perjury or forgery do they commit? Taitz is requesting clarification from the court, whether indeed the court is aware of any special informer status with the department of Justice given to the plaintiffs and Berg? The defendants are requesting a clarification, if there is a “back” for Liberi and/or Berg and other defendants represented by someone in the court? … Taitz requests clarification, whether there is a individual(s) in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who is (are) providing a “back” to Berg, Liberi and the rest of the plaintiffs by manipulating the docket and undermining the defendants.
She always forgets about the three felons she invited into her own cases. What a hypocrite.
07/29/2010 136 RESPONSE to the 7/26/10 Emergency MOTION by the plffs to keep transcripts under seal and motion for clarification and motion-reuqest for oer to show cause, why sanctions should not be assessed against parties defrauding the courts, etc., filed by ORLY TAITZ. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(gn, ) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
As the election of America’s first “half-white” president nears its second anniversary, things still aren’t going that swell for the shrinking team of furious dingbats who hoped to sue Barack Obama out of the White House because his dad was an African black person. For two years, the teabaggers’ most prominent intellectual arm has waged a low-level courtroom war (mostly by email forwards) aimed at proving Barack Hussein Obama is not a citizen of America because he is a black person, and black people are — under the Original “O.G.” Constitution — simply slaves, worth only 3/5 of a normal fat white person, by body weight.
Also, the Birthers stuck to the claim that Barry Obama’s birth at a Hawaiian hospital was actually part of an elaborate conspiracy that went on for five decades with the help of U.S. newspapers, a U.S. state government and the doctors, nurses and administrators of an American hospital in Hawaii … all to groom a Soviet Muslim Alien for the presidency, because the conspirators wisely predicted (in 1961, when millions of American black kids still weren’t allowed to attend white schools or dine in white restaurants) that by 2008 the nation would be ready to choose a black person as a major-party nominee and then elect that same black person as America’s first African-American president. Genius!
Having successfully bamboozled the gullible, black-loving American populace on this whole “Hawaiian live birth” thing, the Soviet-Half-Muslin conspirators must think it’s just going to be easy times until 2012, when they plan to “elect” a gay Hindu robot-sex marijuana-selling dog-lady Palestinian as president. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, SORRY LIBS.
It is very sad, that last part. It means radical Republicans have succeeded in scaring the shit out of a lot of old people. Nice work.
The poll also took a closer look at the views of seniors since they are often assumed to have a uniform view about issues. Below are some of the poll’s key findings about seniors’ views:?
While seniors’ views of the new law are more negative than those of their younger counterparts, they remain roughly split about the law with 46 percent of seniors holding an unfavorable view of the law and 38 percent holding a favorable one. While 35 percent of seniors think they will be worse off under reform, a greater share (57%) say they will be better off (20%) or it will make no difference (37%).
Seniors’ awareness about the specific provisions of the health reform law that affect Medicare is mixed. For example, about half are aware that the new law will result in premium increases for some higher income Medicare beneficiaries (52%) and gradually close Medicare’s “doughnut hole” (50%). However, just a third (33% ) know the law will eliminate Medicare’s co-pays and deductibles for some preventive services.?
On the other hand, large shares of seniors mistakenly believe the law includes provisions that cut some previously universal Medicare benefits and creates “death panels.” Half of seniors (50%) say the law will cut benefits that were previously provided to all people on Medicare, and more than a third (36%) incorrectly believe the law will “allow a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare.”
Despite the fact that Medicare’s actuaries predict the health reform law will extend the life of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund by 12 years (from 2017 to 2029), only 14 percent of seniors know this and nearly half (45%) of seniors think the health reform law will weaken the financial condition of the fund.?
Tars Tarkas at Politisink has a piece on Walt Fitzpatrick and his zany antics, trying to overthrow the forces of repression running the small town of Madisonville, Tennessee–practice for when he and his little gang of misfits overthrow the government of the United States.
Walter Fitzpatrick a bigwig of the American Grand Jury, which is basically Fitzpatrick and a few other guys who sit around, declare themselves a Grand Jury, and file charges against Barack Obama and basically everyone in Congress and the Supreme Court claiming they are committing fraud and treason as Barack Obama is really one Barry Soetoro, noted guy who isn’t an American.
To succeed in this plan, Fitzpatrick must get the Monroe County Tennessee officials to agree to charge Obama with treason and fraud, because just declaring yourself a Grand Jury doesn’t mean anyone will listen to you. So you would think Fitzpatrick would have a good working relationship with the local officials. Instead, Fitzpatrick becomes increasingly belligerent against the local officials, who don’t take his hand-written claims seriously, and soon Fitzpatrick declares that the Monroe County are part of the vast conspiracy.
A discovery hearing will be held on October 5 and trial is set for November 29 for both Fitzpatrick and his sidekick, Darren Huff; the Order noting that “Fitzpatrick shall not appear for trial in military uniform at any day that the matter is before a jury.” Poor Walt, he must be crushed.
Recently a Friend of Politijab was visiting Tennessee and decided to pay a call at the Monroe County Court House in Madisonville to pick up a bunch of Exhibits from Fitzpatrick’s and Huff’s arraignments on June 28, which illustrate Fitzpatrick ordering about Police Chiefs, State Supreme Court Justices, and so forth. There is also a mug shot and report of “Involvements” with the Sheriff’s Office by Fitzpatrick, in an earlier spectacle in Kitsap County, Washington State, described in Tarkas’s article above.
Update: Associated Press is reporting a trial date of January 11, 2011 for Darren Huff’s federal charges. The Order above for a November 29 trial is set in state court.
I just spoke with one of the ranchers who had been identified as being a victim in this story. Mr. Hector Farias of Laredo, spoke with me on the phone this morning about this matter. He told me the first he heard of this story was when he was contacted by the FBI. He has owned this ranch for over 30 years and has never had a problem on his ranch regarding illegal immigration or smuggling. He stated he was at his ranch over the weekend and everything was fine there and in the entire area. The story on the internet states that he was confronted by drug cartels. He said this is not true. There is no reason not to take him at his word.
I am most certain reason will be found, but I am glad Mr. Price checked with Mr. Farias.
Meanwhile, on Breitbart’s BigJournalism continued pot-stirring as late as yesterday:
Local law enforcement were not saying much–but they were not denying it either. The policeman I spoke to alternated “I can’t confirm” with “I can’t say anything” for his answers. When asked if the “Webb County Sheriff was taking the lead on this,” the Laredo spokesman answered, “Yeah, and they can’t confirm anything either.”
Which makes those with suspicious minds wonder: why does someone take the lead on an event that’s not happened? Perhaps the spokesman misspoke?
That local police were not confirming the story is hardly surprising: if Los Zetas, a particularly lethal paramilitary outfit, had seized a ranch, it’s not hard to see why authorities wouldn’t want curious civilians or the press in the area.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court on Monday, declaring the former Harvard Law School dean “one of the nation’s foremost legal minds.” She would be the court’s youngest justice and give it three female members for the first time.
You may remember this fellow, Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, who forcefully defended Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. last year, when Barnett v. Obama was ‘invaded’ by Gary Kreep. Over the weekend, another sort of invasion became the rage of Rightwingnutland, after Schwilk started a rumor of Mexican gangsters, Los Zetas, invading the homeland and seizing two ranches outside Laredo for their drug distribution business, as if they don’t make enough money to buy a ranch or a dozen.
The Cypress Times, which describes itself as an online Christian newspaper, published an article on Saturday: BREAKING: MULTIPLE RANCHES IN LAREDO, TX TAKEN OVER BY LOS ZETAS
The bloodbath continues along our southern border and now word is coming in that Los Zetas, the highly trained killers formerly with the Gulf Cartel, have crossed into the United States and taken over at least two ranches in the Laredo, Texas area. I am receiving word that the owners of the ranches have evacuated without being harmed.
Founder of the San Diego Minutemen Jeff Schwilk tipped me off to this story and passes along the following information on the location. The ranches are said to be “near Mines Rd. and Minerales Annex Rd about 10 miles NW of I-35″.
Update – Statement from Mr. Schwilk)
I can personally vouch that this info came in late last night from a reliable police source inside the Laredo PD. There is currently a standoff between the unknown size Zeta forces and U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement on two ranches on our side of the Rio Grande. The source tells us he considers this an “act of war” and that the military is needed on the border now!
Whether it is lone members or squads is not certain.
The publisher of The Cypress Times has since posted that the story could not be verified and referred questions to the source of the published article, the blog DiggersRealm.
The blogger at DiggersRealm explained how the story’s confirmation was “100%”; the San Diego “Examiner” Kimberly Dvorak made it so, and he stood “firmly behind Kimberly.” Anyone who takes an Examiner’s word for anything should have their head examined, but that’s just by the way. Digger also noted: “Kim was also involved in the Acorn investigation with Breitbart”–as if it’s a journalistic credential.
In what could be deemed an act of war against the sovereign borders of the United States, Mexican drug cartels have seized control of at least two American ranches inside the U.S. territory near Laredo, Texas.
Two sources inside the Laredo Police Department confirmed the incident is unfolding and they would continue to coordinate with U.S. Border Patrol today. “We consider this an act of war,” said one police officer on the ground near the scene. There is a news blackout of this incident at this time and the sources inside Laredo PD spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Word broke late last night that Laredo police have requested help from the federal government regarding the incursion by the Los Zetas. It appears that the ranch owners have escaped without incident but their ranches remain in the hands of the blood thirsty cartels.
Laredo Border Patrol is conducting aerial surveillance over the ranches to determine the best way to regain control of the U.S. ranches, according to the Laredo Police department.
I note that the San Diego Examiner doesn’t mention the San Diego Minuteman as a source, although she has written about Birthers other times, including last September when she quoted Schwilk regarding Barnett v. Obama, a Birther case in which Schwilk is a plaintiff:
Birthers get their day in court – Obama must now prove his citizenship
Americans’ who do not believe President Obama is a U.S. citizen won a huge decision in California as a judge set three court dates, one of which will require the President to prove his citizenship. …
According to Jeff Schwilk, who was in the courtroom, the judge was solid as a rock. “The audience of about 45 was nodding and giving thumbs up to each other on almost all of his decisions.”
“He (the judge) is determined to get Obama to prove he is eligible,” Schwilk explained. “Things are going to move very fast.”
Utter nonsense; the case, of course, was later dismissed by Judge Carter and he became known to all in Birfistan as a traitor to his country.
On Breitbart’s BigPeace website: BREAKING NEWS: Multiple Ranches in Laredo, Texas Taken Over by Los Zetas
From blog (we have not be able to independently confirm):
“The bloodbath continues along our southern border and now word is coming in that Los Zetas, the highly trained killers formerly with the Gulf Cartel, have crossed into the United States and taken over at least two ranches in the Laredo, Texas area. I am receiving word that the owners of the ranches have evacuated without being harmed. The source is law enforcement in the area.
(Update 2 story is now 100% confirmed by second source within the Laredo Police Department)”
Kimberly Dvorak, reporter with the Examiner here in San Diego, has just gotten confirmation from LPD that Zetas are holding at least two ranches on U.S. territory NW of Laredo, TX. Its confirmed! Local law enforecement is waiting for Federal Forces to arrive before trying to take back the ranches.
“Ranch owners have escaped without incident but their ranches remain in the hands of the blood thirsty cartels.”
This info came in late last night from a reliable police source inside the Laredo PD. There is currently a standoff between the unknown size Zeta forces and U.S. Border Patrol and local law enforcement on two ranches on our side of the Rio Grande. The source tells us he considers this an “act of war” and that the military is needed on the border now!
California Conservative billed it as, “President Obama’s First Crisis.” Well, the President has a crisis every five minutes, but you know, any opportunity to lash out at him, it’s all good. But at least it wasn’t “Bloodbath On Our Border” as contributed by Radio Patriot.
Jim Kelley at the Tucson Citizen first posted Digger’s piece, but then followed up:
July 24 2211 MT Hector Garcia , a city council member of the City of Laredo TX, has returned my phone call and aboslutely denied that any armed conflict has occured with the Laredo PD. He is quoting the Chief of Police, Carlos Maldonado. Mr Garcia went on to say that it appears two ranchers had a disagreement.
Local law enforcement was bombarded with calls from across the country Saturday asking about a report that the Zetas had taken over two ranches off Mines Road.
But officials with the Laredo Police Department, Webb County Sheriff’s Department and Border Patrol said they knew nothing about such an incident, while Erik Vasys, an FBI spokesman in San Antonio, said the agency does not comment on rumors.
The report, which spread like wildfire among blogs Saturday afternoon, appears to have initially been posted on a blog called Diggers Realm.
Thud.
More sensible conservatives like Confederate Yankee, Bob Owens on Breitbart’s BigGovernment, and Elizabeth Kilbride on FaceBook, and others, (though they may have been wishing for a leftist trick to explain it away), looked into the story, concluding it was probably a hoax and urging restraint.
I don’t think it’s a hoax in the same way the Fake Kenyan Birth Certificate that appeared on the cover of Globe magazine at supermarket stalls this week was a hoax. There, the creator of the FKBC adjusted a genuine Australian birth certificate to say it was the President’s ‘Kenyan’ birth certificate, in order to prompt someone like Orly Taitz to file it in court and make a fool of herself. This she predictably did, without having seen anything more than a digital copy on a flash drive anonymously sent, not even to her, but to her investigator. At the time of their greatest media exposure last summer, Orly Taitz and the Birther movement were revealed as irresponsible, idiotically gullible conspiracy freaks.
That’s what I call a political hoax, one that worked beautifully, where the hoaxer knows what he is doing is false. It matters that it’s false, because that’s how the hoax succeeds.
In the case of the Texas Weekend Wildfire, it was started and perpetuated by irresponsible, idiotically gullible conspiracy freaks, Birtherism aside, who want a border war so desperately that they embraced a tiny rumor stemming from an argument between neighbors, meshed it with a true story of shots fired in Nuevo Laredo in Mexico, and an older story about Zetas and a ranch, and blew it up in their own minds into a pretext for war with a neighboring country.
While it’s all to the good and ripe for pickings, an opportunity to be taken, surely, a chance to rev up anti-immigrant fervor and cause more trouble for the President, I wonder about calling it a hoax, when these nuts actually believe their own wildest imaginings, and they have just to say them out loud to find enough other believers to set the Internet aflame. A hoax should take a little work, after all.
[Rev. Jim] Wallis said the children of ultra-conservative Christians are deserting their parents’ theology in droves. Wallis is the president of Sojourners, a network of progressive Christians.
He says a new generation of Christians are tired of their faith being defined by two issues: fights over abortion and homosexuality.
They really object to the tone of the culture wars. I’m on the road a lot and I’ll have these young Christians say to me, ‘If they force us to only care about two issues, they’re going to lose my generation.’
Wallis has long said that the Religious Right peaked in 2004 with the re-election of President George W. Bush. Still, it was shocking to hear him say near the end of our conversation, “The Religious Right is over because they lost their children.”
Not a long life for this one, originally filed in February 2010, in the US District Court, Central District of California.
07/20/2010 20 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge Gary A. Feess: The Court GRANTS the President’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing, and the action is hereby DISMISSED, (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (bp) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
07/12/2010 15 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case 13 filed by Plaintiff Ruth Jones. (rrey) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
Her story:
The Court is mandated by jurisdiction and review by the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution Article IV. “The Defendant’s birth father was born into Kenya’s Luo tribe”. This court is mandated by the Supreme Law which states the Judicial Court must enforce and protect the U.S. Constitution. This Honorable Court has taken an oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
As a result, the onslaught of the destruction of the United States has been continuing to rain upon the head of the Plaintiff faster than rain. Only this Court may stop this bleeding of the aorta and all its arteries throughout the United States; only this court has the Judicial Power invested in it by the U.S. Constitution to uphold the laws and the Supreme Laws of Plaintiffs great nation.
She was deprived of right to have a President who had full allegiance to the Plaintiff as her President of her country.
This is an outward show of allegiance to the enemy and terrorist; a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution which correlates his fathers non- American birth heritage.
The acts of allegiance to the foreign countries made the Plaintiff fearful for her safety and the coming Marshall Law through FEMA to take over the people.
The remedy the Plaintiff has requests is to remove the Defendant as the presumed president who is Illegitimate and a usurper as well; then every law and appointment made as a result of him will be null and void up through a new president being elected. The current V. President would be sworn in immediately as he too must hold the same qualifications. This is providing the Plaintiff with remedy that will address her harm.
First, the Defendant’s father, by his own admission to millions of people, was born in Kenya, Africa. The Defendant can not be a “natural born” citizen if his father was born of the Lau tribe in Africa.
Concluding:
The Plaintiff has pleaded a Constitutional controversy with an adversary Defendant for a real in fact traceable direct injury of which her requested remedy will cure. The controversy of the “natural born” threshold status comes from the Constitution; not from any political question. According to our first Justice John Jay, is has been just a matter of time until if was ripe. Now, it will always be a threat with so many non-citizens coming into the United States of America.
Sometimes I find it hard to get mad about even this kind of racist crap, because I think, what a terrified person; and I get madder at the Birther leaders and extremist conservative politicians, bloggers and media who get their kicks deluding poor souls like Ruth Jones.
With this dismissal, there are no longer Birther cases pending in any district courts in the country.
The Hutchinson News‘ editorial board struggled some to endorse a candidate in the crowded Republican primary for Kansas’ 1st District U.S. House seat, in which all six candidates sound mostly the same. But in an endorsement published in Sunday’s editions, we settled on Salinan Tracey Mann as the best pick, saying he “at least shows the ability to be reasonable and straightforward with voters.”
We were wrong. And we withdraw that endorsement.
Quite simply, the reason is that it turns out Mann is what is known as a birther. He questions the citizenship of President Barack Obama despite evidence that is irrefutable to most objective, rational people – including a birth certificate released by the Hawaii secretary of state and birth announcements printed in Honolulu’s two major newspapers.
That this even continues as an issue is appalling, which is why we didn’t think to pose the question to Mann or any of the other candidates. …
Whether Mann truly doubts the president’s citizenship or is just saying so in another effort to appeal to the far-right extremists of his party and get elected we don’t know. Either way, it is unflattering and doesn’t demonstrate the kind of intellect we want representing us in Congress.
