Larche's Lynnie

In Her Own Words

2010-06-21T19:45:00.001-05:00

In an 11 August 2009 interview with Esquire, the inane dentist-lawyer Orly Taitz describes in detail why she relentlessly and endlessly -- if futilely -- seeks to strip Barack Obama of office

I am extremely concerned about Obama specifically because I was born in Soviet Union, so I can tell that he is extremely dangerous. I believe he is the most dangerous thing one can imagine, in that he represents radical communism and radical Islam: He was born and raised in radical Islam, all of his associations are with radical Islam, and he was groomed in the environment of the dirty Chicago mafia. Can there be anything scarier than that?

Red Hill Mining Town

2010-06-21T16:00:00.001-05:00

I was struck by this remarkable song from the first time I heard it. I find it captures the desperation of those who survive the days only because of the hope of nightly respite. The song's conceit of a poor, depleted mining ton is apt.The imagery of the song captures the despair of people living in such dire circumstances that all hope, faith, and eventually even love is eroded.

The title of the song is Red Hill Mining Town, and it is taken from the very successful album The Joshua Tree by U2, an amazing group of musical artists native to Dublin, Ireland.

Irony

2010-06-19T16:13:00.000-05:00

My Life Had Stood - A Loaded Gun

2010-06-19T16:05:00.001-05:00

Today I came across a short poem by Emily Dickinson. Reading it gave me pause to remember another Dickinson poem, one I first read in college and never forgot.

My Life had stood - a Loaded Gun -
In Corners - till a Day
The Owner passed - identified -
And carried Me away -

And now We roam in Sovereign Woods -
And now We hunt the Doe -
And every time I speak for Him -
The Mountains straight reply -

And do I smile, such cordial light
Upon the Valley glow -
It is as a Vesuvian face
Had let its pleasure through -

And when at Night - Our good Day done -
I guard My Master's Head -
'Tis better than the Eider-Duck's
Deep Pillow - to have shared -

To foe of His - I'm deadly foe -
None stir the second time -
On whom I lay a Yellow Eye -
Or an emphatic Thumb -

Though I than He - may longer live
He longer must - than I -
For I have but the power to kill,
Without--the power to die--

For me this is the definitive Dickinson poem. It expresses all the passion, frustration, anger, desire, and melancholy that drove the great poet. The sensuous pleasure of a shared pillow is juxtaposed with the loneliness of being unnoticed until that fateful day the Owner claimed possession of the poet. The danger expressed is unmistakable; to this danger is added the unpredictable volatility of a "Vesuvian face."

This poem more than any other, in my opinion, lends insight into the true soul of the outwardly sedate and reclusive poet.

Orly Taitz Falls Victim to the Obots

2010-06-15T09:59:00.000-05:00

On 9 June, Orly Taitz was soundly defeated in the California Republican primary in her bid to secure the nomination for Secretary of State. Mainstream Republicans across the state breathed a collective sigh of relief; now their selected candidates will not be forced to run on the same ticket with this inane woman. All the same, the only persons expecting Dr. Taitz to emerge victorious from this campaign were the self-aggrandizing candidate herself, her equally deluded sycophants, and a handful of delusional Birthers.

It's not as if Dr. Taitz ever truly desired to fill the office and oversee its duties. She merely viewed the office of California Secretary of State as a means to establish standing in her quixotic quest to unseat the President of the United States. (Honestly! The things you learn at a correspondence law school.)

If any one thing in the universe is true, that would be Dr. Taitz's unwillingness to play the role of a gracious loser. In fact, watchers are debating the length of time it will take the disappointed office seeker to fire off missives alleging fraud, collusion, and ballot-tampering by those who would damper the force of her righteous crusade against Barack Obama.

A humorous prediction of Dr. Taitz's response was posted on PolitiJab by Sterngard Friegen, a regular contributor to that site. He refers to Dr. Taitz's anticipated response as "Orly's Seven Stages of Grief."

Denial - This isn’t happening to me! I was supposed to win! The machines are fixed. The vote isn’t over. Only 99.999% of the vote has been counted. I can still win if the last 0.001% turns out to be 765,129 votes for me.

Anger - This isn’t happening to me! I was supposed to win! The machines are fixed. All of the Tea Party grass roots candidates are being defrauded with only 25% of the vote. This is outrageous. The birther painting. The gas hose pipe with the fumes coming into my house from my 9 car basement garage is all part of the conspiracy against me and the hate crime!

Bargaining - Call the FCC to investigate MSNBC and help shut them down. I know we can do it as I am constitutional attorney. We will challenge the vote within 10 30 days of election. Join with me. Hit my PayPal button, too, since I only live in a $5 million house and need money from those of you living on subsistence.

Depression - This isn’t happening to me! I was supposed to win! The machines are fixed. The vote isn’t over. Only 99.9999% of the vote has been counted. All of the Tea Party grass roots candidates are being defrauded with only 25% of the vote. This is outrageous. The birther painting. The gas hose pipe with the fumes coming into my house from the 9 car basement garage! Call the FCC to investigate MSNBC and help shut them down. We’ll challenge the vote within 10 30 days of the election. Join me. Hit my PayPal button. I only live in a $5 million house and need money from those of you living on subsistence.

Litigation - I’m suing Dunn, the pancake birther artist, Bowen (again), Obama, Diebold, all of the judges who have denied me discovery, Danny Bickel, Does 1 to 1,000,000 and LTCOL Lakin for not selecting me as his constitutional attorney. They are all guilty of RICO violations and hate crimes against me.

Acceptance - Have you seen that once again my website is in the top 1% of all United States websites and I am #3 in Yahoo Search? I guess I will have to run write in campaign. Hit my PayPal button.

Sterngard Friegen acknowledges this list includes only six stages, but he doubts the ability of the good dentist-lawyer to count to seven.

Lewis Black on Glenn Beck's "Nazi Tourettes"

2010-05-20T03:41:00.002-05:00

Glenn Beck, as his critics are prone to point out, sees Nazism in all things Obama. The absurd lengths through which Mr. Beck will go to compare our the current administration to Hitler's Germany was recently brilliantly illustrated by comedian Lewis Black of the Daily Show.

This YouTube clip was recommended to me by Fargenacle, an internet friend from that channel.

Quote of the Day: The Word on the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

2010-05-17T08:22:00.001-05:00

On 22 April, 2010, a deep-water British Petroleum platform off the coast of Louisiana exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico. US authorities estimate about five-thousand barrels of oil are escaping into gulf waters each day as a result, and all efforts to stymie the flow have failed. British Petroleum has pumped about 400,000 gallons of dispersant into the Gulf in any effort to minimize a clearly disastrous spill. Still, British Petroleum CEO Tony Hayward deemed it necessary to place the damage in the proper context:

The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.

I am certain beachcombers and fisherfolk dislocated by the spill will take considerable comfort from Mr. Hayward's apologetic response.

Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

as Seen from Space

I was first alerted to this delightful piece of nonsense by TollandRCR, a New England sociology professor who posted Mr. Hayward's outrageous comment as an ironic signature to his own comments on PolitiJab. I discovered more about Mr. Hayward and the spill itself by scanning the online edition of the Guardian with a specific focus on one 14 May 2010 article. The satellite imagery was taken from LiveScience.

Religion Foundation, et al. v. Obama and Gibbs

2010-05-01T07:44:00.001-05:00

In Religion Foundation, et al. v. Obama and Gibbs, Barbara Crabb, a federal judge for the Western District of Wisconsin, ruled unconstitutional federal statute 36 U.S.C. § 119, the legislation establishing a National Day of Prayer. This decision was late and coming, and we can only hope it is a precursor to future rulings nullifying similar 1950s era statutes mingling state and church. To fully understand the import of Judge Crabb's decision, I urge you to watch the two short videos which follow.

These excellent videos were made by the wondrously gifted ProfMTH, a law professor who frequently posts on religious matters on YouTube.

Barbara Brandriff Crabb

Barbara Brandriff Crabb, the federal district court judge who issued this ruling, graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison law school in 1962. She entered into private private until 1968 when she began working as a research assistant at the University of Wisconsin Law School. In 1970 and 1971, Judge Crabb served as a research assistant for the American Bar Association's Project on Minimum Standards of Criminal Justice.

Judge Crabb was recommended to the Federal Bench by Senator William Proxmire and nominated to Western District of Wisconsin in 1979. She served as the court's chief judge from 1980 to 1996, a position she now again fills. In December of 2009, Judge Crabb assumed senior status or, in other words, announced her semi-retirement.

The preceding information on Judge Crab was obtained from Judgepedia.

Some Commemts on Iran's Green Revolution

2010-04-29T13:31:00.001-05:00

On 12 June 2009, unknown numbers of Iranians went to the polls to vote in that nation's most recent presidential election. As pre-election polls suggested, turnout was remarkably high. Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced victory, but all three opposition candidates accused the government of voting fraud.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

As noted below, further investigations by foreign observers served to confirm the allegations. Chatham House, a think-tank based in the United Kingdom offered four pieces of evidence which strongly suggest malfeasance by President Ahmadinejad and the government.

The conservative provinces of Mazandaran and Yazd recorded voter turnouts of over one-hundred percent.

President Ahmadinejad supposed electoral victory is credited to a massive turnout by a huge conservative majority. Yet, at the provincial level, no correlation between the increased number voters and the swing to President Ahmadinejad exists.

Another indication of electoral fraud can be found in the supposed support given to President Ahmadinejad by reformers, despite the fact that these reformers have been opposing President Ahmadinejad's conservative party for a decade. For the official results to be correct, President Ahmadinejad would have needed to win all conservative voters, all centrist voters, all new voters, and up to forty-four percent of reformist voters in one-third of all provinces.

In 1997, 2001, and 2005, conservative candidates -- and President Ahmadinejad in particular -- proved very unpopular in rural areas. This trend tends to repudiate the regime's claim that voters in these districts turned out in force to vote for President Ahmadinejad in 2009.

On 13 June, election officials announced President Ahmadinejad's victory despite wide-scale allegations of voting fraud. The same day protesters thronged the streets of Tehran, protesting the stolen election. The protests grew in size and intensity, prompting Iran's Guardian Council, to agree to a partial recount in hopes of appeasing the ever increasing numbers of disillusioned voters.

The Guardian Council consists of six Islamic jurists and six legal jurists tasked with deciding who may run for elective office. It also has the power to veto laws passed by the popularly elected Majlis, the Iranian legislative body. The Guardian Council is known for its conservative views. For example, it routinely prevents popular, well-known reformists from running from office. The Council six legal jurist are appointed by the Majlis; its religious jurists are appointed by the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Contrary to the beliefs of many Americans, the Supreme Leader, not President Ahmadinejad, is Iran's most powerful political leader. The current Supreme Leader is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an intelligent and savvy cleric with a admitted desire to rid his country of "deviation, liberalism, and American-influenced leftists." As Supreme Leader, he appoints the commanders of military forces, and he takes a special interest in increasing Iran's military might. Ayatollah Khamenei is only the second individual to hold this exalted office. The first was his ally Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Ayatollah Khamenei is also a supporter of President Ahmadinejad.

As the Guardian Council deliberated, the protests continued. By now, protesters began wearing green clothing and armbands as green had been the campaign color of President Ahmadinejad's main contender, the reform-minded Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Rivers of green flooded Tehran's streets. Certain members of the Iranian National Soccer team dared to wear green bracelets in their game against South Korea. The protesters called their movement by many names including the Green Wave, Sea of Green, and even the Persian Awakening, but the title that stuck was the Green Revolution.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi

On 19 June, a Friday, Ayatollah Khameini declared the election legitimate during prayer services, calling President Ahmadinejad's victory a "divine assessment." Ayatollah Khameini also made it clear that no further dissent would be tolerated. Nevertheless, protests continued, albeit in smaller numbers as the government loosened its police and the Basij, the Islamic republic's brutal paramilitary arm, upon the protesters. Using batons, pepper spray, sticks and even firearms, the police and Basji dispersed the protesters, killing an unknown number of persons in the process. Others were arrested and, on the basis on torture-induced confessions, sentenced to lengthy prison stays.

Mehdi Karroubi, the former chairman of Majlis, charged that arrested protesters, male and female alike, had been raped and their genitals torn. In a letter to the Assembly of Experts, he asked for an investigation. The Assembly of Experts consist of 86 Mujtahids (or Islamic scholars) whose duties entail electing the Supreme Leader and supervising his activities. The Assembly also possess the power to remove the Supreme Leader from power.

General Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam, Iran's chief of police, acknowledged that prisoners had been abused and raped.

Several protesters died while in prison. The Iranian government claimed these detainees died as the result of "pre-existing conditions. Later examination of the bodies indicated that the victims suffered torture including broken boned, fingernails being torn off, and rape.

Neda Agha-Soltan

Neda Agha-Soltan, a previous nonpolitical musician, has become the face of the Green Revolution. While nonviolently protesting on 20 June, 2009. Ms. Agha-Soltan was shot and killed by the Basij. Her body was seized and buried in one of several plots set aside for slain protesters. Her family was denied a proper funeral and was not permitted to mourn her demise. Ms. Agha-Soltan's tombstone was removed, and a photograph of the slain woman placed at the grave site by her family was used for target practice by the Basij.

Arash Hejazi Attempts to Save Ms. Agha-Soltan's Life

Arash Hejazi, a physician-turned-writer, was photographed and filmed as he vainly sought to save Ms. Agha-Soltan's life. Because of this, Mr. Hejazi was later sought by the police, and he reputedly fled Iran for his safety.

The Iranian government's abuses against its own citizens are far too numerous to account here, and its electoral process is even more complex than our own. Nonetheless, the Green Revolution speaks to the desire of average Iranians to share some of the basic freedoms enshrined in the founding documents of our own nation. My friend Ken, whose comments are ever insightful and informative, described watching a great crowd of Iranians on television, its members chanting over and again, "Help us, Obama." If only that were possible.

Some individuals belonging to my very small number of readers may have noticed my turning my background green slightly over a month ago. I did so as to commemorate the Green Revolution in my own manner.

Fox's New Math

2010-04-27T13:47:00.002-05:00

Writing of the bizarre opinion poll results in my last post brings to mind an even more demonstratively inane opinion poll broadcast on WFLD Fox 32, the local Fox affiliate in Chicago, Illinois. Byron Harlan, a former weekend anchor at the station with a penchant for upsetting certain Chicagoans, explained the meaning of this strange pie-chart:

It looks as if the rogue route is helping Sarah Palin. Her book tour has meant new support. A new Opinion Dynamics poll for 2012 shows her on top when it comes to landing the nomination. Palin is at 70 percent, about a third higher than this past July. Mike Huckabee stands at 63 percent. Mitt Romney’s 60.

If we take Mr. Harlan at his word, a whopping 193 percent of Republican respondents favor one of these three candidates. Sane individuals recognize this as impossible.

In the following YouTube clip, you can see and hear Mr. Harlan explain the poll results yourself.

After watching this video, YouTube wag HardChargerBattery felt compelled to exclaim "this pie... will save world hunger!!!!!"

Think Progress, the site on which I originally discovered these incomprehensible polls results, offers an explanation which brings sanity to this impossible situation. It seems the poll had actually asked Republican respondents as to which candidates they viewed favorably, not which candidate they actually favor. Nevertheless, someone at Fox 32 assumed the latter question had been asked and squeezed the results into a pie-chart. Mr. Harlan unquestioningly followed suit.

Fox News, Ideology, and the Fall of Nations

2010-04-27T11:36:00.001-05:00

I posted this in part because I am current engaged in three running debates on YouTube with individuals who -- the scientific peer-review process be damned -- insist that global warming is a conspiracy promoted by the world's leading scientists. I also made this post because it demonstrates the poor reporting practices followed Fox News, and finally I posted this amusing illustration because I thought it was pretty darn funny.

I will not trouble you with the ineptness and limitations of the possible supposed responses to the poll.

What troubles me is the fact that, if this poll is to be believed, 94 percent of the respondents believe it is somewhat likely or very likely that scientists falsify research while 26 percent reach an opposing conclusion. This accounts for an improbable 120% percent of respondents.

This flawed poll reporting speaks to more than Fox News twisting numbers far beyond the limits of reality to support an already reached conclusion. It also speaks to a disturbing trend among conservatives to define certain fields of science as liberal and thus undeserving of acceptance and research. The mass of poor-educated individuals guided by Fox News and others of its ilk and given form in the Texas State Board of Education have identified such sciences as evolution, cosmology, geology, global warming, comparative DNA studies, and others as "liberal" sciences, and thus reject their findings out of hand notwithstanding any supportive evidence.

Conservative anti-intellectualism has spread beyond science and now attacks our recorded national history, our literature, our understanding of the Founding Fathers, and basic interpretations of the United States as having a liberal bias. The correct method of understanding prose and poetry, our past, and the foundation of our nation and our laws, if they are to be believed, is through a conservative lens.

I am reminded of others in the past who tried to politicize science, history, and literature. Nazi Germany, for example, rejected Jewish science, burned the books of liberal writers, and attempted to impose a new history on Europe in keeping with the principles of National Socialism all the while promising Germans a return to traditional values. Such measures played a major role in Hitler's defeat.

Likewise, the Soviets rejected Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckian theory leading to successive crop failures, locked away liberal writers away in insane asylums, and retouched official photographs to crop out those who had fallen prey to the most recent purge. These efforts weakened the social fabric of the Soviet Union and discredited Communism.

We should look to Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union as examples of what becomes of nations which try and stamp science, literature, and history with a political bias. And these are not isolated examples. Let's avoid being an example of a nation which destroys itself by viewing everything through an ideological prism.

I discovered the illustration accompanying this post on Wonkette,

An Honest Lawyer

2010-04-26T09:40:00.002-05:00

Indonesian lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea comments on the legal profession:

If I say I'm a clean lawyer, I'll be a hypocrite, that's all I can say. And if other lawyers say they are clean, they will go to jail, they'll go to hell.

When asked if he had ever given bribes to prosecutors or justices, Mr. Hutapea replied thus:

I cannot comment on that. I don’t want to comment on that because all I’m saying is that there is no lawyer on earth who is clean. That’s all I can say. I think you know how to make a conclusion from that.

Yes, I think we can,

Damn. I'm glad I decided not to practice law after finishing law school.

Mr. Hutapea and His $630,000 New Red Ferrari California —

The First One Sold in Indonesia

I learned about Mr. Hutapea's ethics at Above the Law, a useful site to anyone having any interest in legal affairs. I gathered additional information from The New York Times.

Asked and Answered

2010-04-24T15:29:00.003-05:00

"Miss me yet?" asks a leering George W. Bush from this billboard situated somewhere in Minnesota by patrons of the former president.

A reply was soon posted in response.

I discovered both these images on PolitiJab, one of the more intellectually-stimulating and informative sites to find a home on the internet.

The Biggest Teabagger of Them All

2010-04-24T14:35:00.002-05:00

Goldman Sachs, long a respected member of the Wall Street elite, is accused of having betrayed some of its own wheeler-dealer clients during the height of congressional debate on the regulation of investment banking.

Goldman Sachs has its own opinion on the issue of new regulatory reform. The real question is whether the populist Teabaggers will now take up their placards and banners in defense of predatory malfeasance on Wall Street.

This delightful cartoon was drawn by the very talented and insightful Mike Luckovich for the 23 April 2010 edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Political Types: Libertarians

2010-04-23T18:35:00.003-05:00

I found this very amusing portrait of a libertarian on Paul Krugman's New York Times blog, The Conscience of a Liberal. The Noble Laureate economist entitles this wonderful illustration "The New Yorker Explains Resolution Authority."

I am pleased to see that individuals possessing far more knowledge than I do also find absurdity in libertarian philosophy.

I judge from the illustration's title that it originally appeared in The New Yorker.

Geico Fires the Gecko?

2010-04-22T15:22:00.000-05:00

Today, I learned that D. C. Douglas had been fired by Geico. So who is Mr. Douglass and why has he been fired? Mr. Douglass is best known as the voice of the Grecko who appears in so many of Grecko commercials. He was apparently discharged for leaving a disparaging and, I must admit, somewhat tasteless message on the answering machine of Freedom Works.

Freedom Works is a corporate front which endorses and supports the Teabaggers in their unending shrills against all things of which Barack Obama approves. If the president went on television today and praised home-ownership, the skies tonight would blaze as Teabaggers across America set neighborhoods afire. Freedom Works supports the freedom of corporate America to work its depredations unchecked by the regulation of an elected government. Among the organizations funding Freedom Works are Verizon and AT&T.

In response to their firing of Mr. Douglas, I fired off the following e-mail to Geico.

Persons,

My name is Larche Osborne-Simmons. I am 48 years old and a homeowner in Chicago, Illinois. I have a BA in History from Loyola University Chicago and a JD from Loyola Law Chicago. As you might imagine, I am a major consumer of insurance although I am not currently a client of Geico.

I have in the past expressed my disdain for the roll [sic] Freedom Works plays in the promotion of Tea Parties. I have discovered members of the various Tea Parties frequently to be racist, antisemitic, and seditious. I feel that Freedom Works and other entities of their ilk knowingly promote these views in hope of blocking regulatory reform. Regardless of a citizen's view on reform, he or she should pause before engaging in activities promoting these attitudes.

I am very dismayed by your recent firing of D. C. Douglass (the voice of the Gecko) on the behalf of Freedom Works. His firing creates an image of a workplace in which employees are punished for having controversial opinions, and it suggests an employer feeling no sense of loyalty to employees who are attacked by dubious groups or organizations.

While I have been charmed by your commercials in past years, and have given thought to utilizing your services, the positive image I once held of Geico has faded. I will from this time forward encourage others not to purchase policies from your company unless restore Mr. Douglass to his prior position.

Note that in my letter, I misspelled "Douglas" by attaching an additional "s" to his name. I have also noted at least one grammatical error and some awkward sentences. For this, I apologize.

As Americans, we have a duty to safeguard the public from corporations which best succeed by preying on the vulnerable. Visit the following site and send your own message to Geico.

Holy Moley! Mark Fiore Receives Pulitzer Prize

2010-04-22T11:49:00.001-05:00

On Monday of last week, Mark Fiore made journalism and internet history by become the first exclusively online journalist to be awarded the Pulitzer Prize. As an admirer of this great progressive talent, I can say that Mr. Fiore's honor was well-deserved and timely.

Today, Mr. Fore released his animated response in the form of a "Thank You" to his many fans.

Quote of the Day

2010-04-21T17:56:00.000-05:00

On the judicial activism of our five conservative Supreme Court justices:

It's amazing how conservative judicial activism goes so unnoticed by Republicans. If any other court had decided so many major issues geared toward a specific ideology, you wouldn't hear the end of it. But as we all know, the founding fathers are channeled spiritually through conservatives, who's [sic] philosophy supersedes all others.

This insightful comment was posted by Democurmudgeon on his blog on the same name.

Marbury v. Madison: The Musical

2010-04-17T10:50:00.002-05:00

I first saw this amazing video on Is That Legal, an intriguing blog maintained by Professor Eric Muller of the University of North Carolina Law School. I quickly tracked the video to its original source on YouTube because I just had to post it here as well.

While the video does detour from the actual events of Marbury v. Madison, it displays the decision in a far more interesting manner than it taught to me in law school. I especially enjoyed Justice Marshall announcing his discovery of Judicial Review to the theme of Jesus Christ Superstar.

This wonderful video was made by Zoe Fujii, Aya Mantel, and some of their equally-talented friends. I can only hope they make similarly themed videos in the future.

"Thirteen Angry Men?"

2010-04-16T09:44:00.000-05:00

Maura R. Grossman and Ronald Hedges penned an interesting piece for the Georgetown law blog commenting on the increased flow of information made available to jurors through improved technologies. Traditionally, the judge controlled the flow of information made available to a jury, protecting its members from outside influences that might affect its role as the ultimate trier of facts. In a sense, the judge servers as a gatekeeper, deciding on what information should and should not be disseminated to jury members. The judge rules on which evidence is admissible and cautioned jurors against reading newspapers or visiting the site of the crime. Now, however, jurors may access information about the very case on which they are selected to be the finders of fact by means of the ubiquitous electronic devices we possess. Such tools as personal computers, cell phones, and PDAs are capable of accessing media sources. Thus they enable jurors to research cases and make decisions based on information other than that approved by the judge.

Not only are the opportunities for independent research multiplied by the sheer variety of Internet sources, but the media itself can be carried into the jury room and the results of the research can be shared, “real time,” among the jury. Thus, the Internet can easily become the invisible “thirteenth” juror.

Evidentiary rules insist that the jury, as the trier of fact, consider only that evidence subjected to rigorous standards. Evidence considered by the jury through means which bypass evidentiary standards established by judiciary standards can create substantial problems for trial parties. For example, such evidence denies the injured party its right of cross examination. As the use of evidence obtained by violating the judicial procedure of evidence may result in mistrials and overturned convictions, such evidence can also waste the resources of the parties and the court alike.

Because of such problems, some courts are not beginning to warn jurors against using the internet to conduct independent research during a trial and instructing juries to turn off electronic devices when viewing evidence and jury deliberation.

What does the future hold in store for this problem? The authors offer little assurance:

Courts can instruct members of venires and jurors against conducting independent research, can punish wrongful conduct and can relieve prejudiced parties from the consequences of independent research – as they always have. Courts cannot, however, prevent the harmful effects of the wayward juror who succumbs to the temptation of quick and easy Internet research that is never discovered.

As noted above, this post was entirely based on an article posted on E-Discovery Law Blog, the Georgetown law blog.

Barack Obama Birth Certificate Collectible Porcelain Historic Plate

2010-04-10T11:33:00.000-05:00

The good people of Democratic Underground have come up with a remarkable idea to counter the inane ramblings of Birthers and their voluminous collection of patently false Barack Obama Kenyan birth certificates. Some wag using the pseudonym zulchzulu generated the following image and the rest, as they say, is history.

I could only wish that such keepsakes actually existed. It would certainly become a collector's item. I personally would like to send one to Orly Taitz.

Free Republic Frothings: Sedition Edition

2010-04-08T10:36:00.002-05:00

Sedition refers to any activity designed to incite lawless action against our government, namely action, which if carried to fruition would result in treason. Treason is defined as attempting to overthrow the lawful government of the United States, waging war against our government, or rendering aid and assistance to our enemies.

The election of our first African-American president has driven our friends at Free Republic off the deep end of the political pier. No, they are yet to commit treason, but their comments are beginning to verge on sedition. Consider, for example, a 18 July 2009 posting by Jim Robinson, the Master Freeper.

Mr. Robinson suggests the necessary for millions of Americans to gather and march on Washington D.C. "Why?," a reasonable citizen might ask, and Mr. Robinson obliges with an answer.

It cannot be denied that the central government has become destructive of our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and our rights to live free. The government is no longer responsive to we the People. They have stretched and shredded the constitution to the point that they have illegally seized for themselves virtually unlimited powers over the citizens and act as if we have no rights and no powers of our own. They are acting without our consent.

A reasonable American might also ask, "In what manner has President Obama and his administration stretched and shredded the Constitution?" "What rights have you lost since the president has taken office?" This question might seem relevant as Mr. Robinson and his sycophantic following unquestioningly supported President George W. Bush who was known to have stretched the Constitution himself on occasion. Apparently the current president's abuses are self-apparent because Mr. Robinson fails to provide a list of grievances. He merely asserts his authority to dismiss a sitting president.

Our Founders established that when our government becomes destructive of our rights then it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

We have reached the point where the government's long train of abuses and usurpations has achieved absolute Despotism, therefore it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for our future security.

Therefore, We the People of America choose to exercise our right to throw off and alter the abusive government by peacefully recalling and removing from office the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States and all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives effective immediately.

The Framers of the Constitution did indeed provide us with the means to peacefully recall officeholders. The mechanism most commonly employed to remove elected officials is known as an "election." Seeing that Mr. Robinson is urging the immediate removal of popularly elected office holders, I infer that he is suggesting the use of extra-constitutional methods. It is difficult to imagine federally elected officials surrendering their office peacefully just because a crowd gathers on Washington.

But once the current office holders "peacefully" abandon the posts to which they have been elected, how shall they be replaced?

The Secretary of State shall immediately assume the office of interim Chief Executive.

The Chief Executive shall appoint and the interim Senate shall confirm an interim Vice President.

An immediate election shall be held within each state legislature to appoint two interim senators to represent each sovereign state.

A special election shall be held by all states within 30 days to elect interim members of the House of Representatives.

It seems that in order to protect the Constitution, Mr. Robinson finds it necessary to remove constitutionally-elected officials and replace them by unconstitutional means. But protecting the Constitution means, apparently, altering the Constitution. For example, note this passage from Mr. Robinson's call for action.

The central government has illegally expanded its powers. They've done this by ignoring or stretching their constitutional limits. They have usurped powers limited to the states and the people. We must reestablish and reaffirm the enumerated powers and limit the central government strictly to just those powers.

As you can see, Mr. Robinson argues that the federal government has no implied powers. Yet the Constitution itself suggests otherwise. For example, after listing Congress's enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Framers further endowed the legislative branch with one additional power:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Additionally, the Commerce, Defense, and General Welfare Clauses all involve the granting of implied powers. The 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th Amendments all grant Congress the powers necessary to enforce their provisions. Removing Congress's implied powers involves a whole-scale rewriting of the Constitution. (Nowhere in his proclamation does Mr. Robinson mention the Supreme Court's implied power of judicial review. Could that be because he finds this very conservative and entrenched Supreme Court to his liking?)

Rewriting the Constitution is not outside the scope of Mr. Robinson's self-granted mandate. For example, he abolishes those portions of the Constitution he abhors.

The central government has denied the states their constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government by introducing the 17th amendment which alters the way the senators which were to represent the sovereign interests of the various states to the central government. We must reestablish that representation by repealing the 17th amendment and allowing the state legislatures of the various states to elect their own senators as intended by our founders. This was never intended to be a function of the people. We the People are represented to the central government by our elected representatives in the House of Representatives. The sovereign states were to be represented by the state's senators to keep central powers and encroachment in check. Power is from the people to the states, and from the states to the central government. They've turned this upside down and inside out. We must correct it.

We hereby repeal the 17th amendment.

The central government has expanded well beyond the limits established for it by the founders and pay for that expansion by directly taxing the people and severely restricting our rights through an enslaving income tax.

We hereby repeal the 16th amendment.

The IRS and all sub departments and agencies are hereby dissolved, disbanded and closed.

The "We" Mr. Robinson speaks for seem to forget that the various states themselves ratified these offensive portions of the Constitution, and they are free to repeal them at any time should they so choose. The people of the United States need no self-appointed saviors to unilaterally amend the Constitution on their behalf.

Mr. Robinson would go so far as to seize major holdings and properties of the United States.

Ownership and responsibility for all federally held buildings, lands, parks, waterways, oceans, seas, etc, other than those in Washington, D.C. or military bases, forts, reservations, or local federal buildings owned by valid constitutional federal departments (see schedule) are hereby transferred to the sovereign state governments within which they reside or are located.

Yes, our superb national parks system, national forests, and national wildlife preserves, bought and paid for by American taxpayers would be handed over to the tender mercies of state politicians to dispose of as they desire without compensation to their current owners -- namely US citizens. What is to become of the citizens' property.

Responsibility for all natural resources found within any of the various states or within lands, oceans, lakes, rivers, waterways, seas out through our international boundary limits are hereby returned to the various states. All laws for mining, drilling, logging, or otherwise capitalizing on any minerals or natural resources are to be determined by the various states within which said resources are found.

In short, Mr. Robinson would allow notoriously corruptible state legislatures to sell off our national holdings to notoriously corruptible industries. Allow the great redwoods of the west coast to be cut down and turned into Asian furniture and deck boards for the winter homes of the very rich? No problem! Want to dam the Grand Canyon to generate power for new industrial complexes? Full speed ahead! Have an urge to prospect for oil in Arctic endangered wildlife preserves or in Yellowstone National Park? Drill, baby, drill!

Mr. Robinson's plans to end federal control of coastal and internal waterways raises an entirely new problem as well. The federal government has devised uniform rules of navigation which govern shipping traffic in US waters. These rules were created in conjunction with other maritime nations. Thus, a ship traveling from New York City to New Orleans or from England to the United States need not learn several systems of buoy markings, marine signaling, and so on. Would Mr. Robinson have each state create its own code of maritime rules? What of our nation's airports? Must they create their own air traffic control rules as well? It would be easy to answer that the states would simply adopt the already established rules, but these rules change constantly as technology improves, and I would never trust at least one state altering its rules to suit the unique character of its waterways. Furthermore, no state, unlike the federal government, may negotiate any treaty regarding international rules of navigation unless Mr. Robinson intends to toss Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution as well.

Of course, the cost of all this state regulation would create a massive drain on state tax coffers. In the place of one federal agency working with other nations seeking to create and enforce interstate and international navigation, we could have as many as fifty-one -- one federal and fifty state agencies. Furthermore, each state gaining authority over previously federally dominated waterways would each have to provide its own coast guard to assert that authority.

Even greater burdens will be realized by state governments when they are forced to take on the many tasks now the province of the federal government. For example, the Corps of Engineers current dredges many waterways ensuring that certain ports remain viable. Similarly, they undertake herculean labors to prevent flooding in many states -- but no longer under Mr. Robinson's rules. He specifically returns control of waterways to the states.

Now, of course, some individuals will agree with me and the Supreme Court by arguing that the Commerce found in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution endows the federal government with the powers that Mr. Robinson seeks to grant to the states, but, then again, Free Republic has never been very fond of the Commerce Cause.

My problems with Mr. Robinson's proclamation aside, his followers on Free Republic responded enthusiastically.

Said one commentator:

First thing it would do is scare the crap of all the politicians. Could you imagine a speaker whipping the crowd into a frenzy? “They are not our rulers, they’re our servants! We shouldn’t fear them, they should fear us!”

Crowd stomps and chants “Fear us! Fear Us!”

Windows rattle. Chandeleirs sway. Bureaucrats huddle in basements in fear, aides cry in the corner.

“They do not own us. We will no longer remain silent. We shall be heard!”

It would be glorious. I expect the politicians would all be taking the day off. It would have to be on a weekday, the media would be able to ignore us completely on weekends.

It must be a very long event, a short rally will not cut it.

Forget the park or the mall, we will pack the entire federal district if we had millions. For one day, at least, we would own DC

This intriguing suggestion was made by GeronL, a self-described conservative libertarian who spends too much of his time decrying liberal laws and and the liberal justice system, seeming unaware that conservatives are responsible for much of the legislation he abhors and these statutes survived liberal challenges in conservative courts. GeronL's failing history is evident in his approvingly contrasting the fiscal restraint of the Reagan era with that of the current congress.

GeronL, realizing perhaps, several thousand mildly racist white males marching on a majority African-American city intent on tossing out the popularly-elected first black president might not be a wise idea, offers an additional suggestion.

Maybe a 5-million gun-owner March on DC would be in order if things get bad enough., [sic] I wonder if the media would ignore it?

We are a nation of 380 million individuals. I wonder if GeronL and his fellow Freepers feel any sense of entitlement in suggesting that they possess the right to march on the capital and overthrow our constitutional government.

Sonic109 speculates of the pleasures in which he and others can indulge upon reaching Washington D.C.

Block all entrances to the Senate , block traffic , caus eserious [sic] civil unrest . That’s just for openers

Actually, such behavior would likely strike Sonic109 as rather mild as he is sometimes given to encourage others to take more violent action against our elected government.

One Freeper with the juvenile pseudonym of 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten presents his own faulty misreading or history.

The parallels with 1775 are fairly exact (also parallels with Germany in the 30’s as well).

Had he paid attention in high school, 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten would realize the lack of parallels between the American Revolution and the Nazi takeover of the German government, and how neither is similar to the 21st-century United States.

A female speaker broke the Freeper reverie with a healthy dose of the paranoia so commonly found on Free Republic.

Very succintly [sic] written Mr. Robinson and so many others share this deeply felt, fiercely held belief system. One of the concerns that I’ve expressed, is getting us all in one place. With the insanity going on, what in your opinion, would prevent this monster from calling in armed troops/thugs and killing us, or at the very least, herding us into prisons where we would never see the light of day again?

This event is no secret and is on the minds of many. The brazeness of this current government is astonishing and they are ‘pro-death’ anyway.

Outlaw Woman hails from the great state of Missouri, and she is evidently very fond of firearms, perhaps seeing them as a deterrent against that "monster" Obama's "armed troops/thugs." Outlaw Woman is very religions, but she does not extend her Christian duties to all possible recipients. She explains:

Isn’t liberal friend now an oxy-moron? [sic] It is in my lexicon. They are the enemy in my world. They have brought us to the brink of ruination and we may go over the cliff any day now.

Mr. Robinson personally intervenes to reassure Outlaw Woman.

We get the military on our side.

Is Mr. Robinson suggesting the military will join the great Freeper march on Washington, even a military coup perhaps? Would the military resist orders from the lawful commander-in-chief?

Mr. Roberson's call for Revolution elicited over 800 supportive comments, no few of which came from individuals who have justified, at some point, armed assault against government agents or officials. Reading Mr. Roberson's post and the comments which follow it makes clear two facts about Free Republic.

One: No president, congressional member, or political appointee will ever be considered legitimate by Free Republic members unless they first pass the Freepers' stringent, ideological, and reactionary litmus test.

Two: Free Republic requires a spell-checker for the use of its members wishing to leave their inane comments.

Fox News on the Passing of Kurt Vonnegut

2010-03-26T12:18:00.004-05:00

I only recently noted this Fox News commentary on the passing of Kurt Vonnegut, the American author who garnered lasting fame for Slaughter-House 5, a fictionalized account of the British and American bombing of Dresden from the viewpoint from an American prisoner-of-war. Mr. Vonnegut's account of those tragic days are based on the author's own experiences. Like the protagonist of the short novel, Mr. Vonnegut was an inexperienced infantryman captured by German forces at the Battle of the Budge, and shipped eastward to a prison camp in Dresden.

From 13 to 15 February 1945, the inhabitants of Dresden were exposed to an hellish inferno inflicted by the Royal Air Force and United States Army Air Force. British and US bombers dropped 3,900 tons of high explosives and incendiary devices on the city, destroying 15 square miles of the city center. Flames climbed so high into the sky that bomber crews approaching the city to dump even more bombs on its hapless inhabitants could see the fire while still several score miles distant.

The intensity of the flames was unspeakable. The flames created massive drafts which fed oxygen to the fires, and drew in anyone so unfortunate as to be nearby. Even those inhabitants locked away in the city's deep bomb shelters were not secure from harm. The violent blazes, always hungry for more oxygen, sucked the air from the deep bunkers and from the lungs of their occupants, reducing them to a condition resembling jellied, deformed corpses attached to skeletons. Between 18,000 and 25,000 human beings died in the bombings, a small number, perhaps, when compared to the luckless inhabitants and combatants in Warsaw and Stalingrad. Still, the human toll was not lost on Vonnegut.

Those American prisoners-of-war who survived the bombing were ordered to clear the wreckage and search for victims. This commonly included digging into cellars and bunkers, and removing the mangled remains of the pitiful individuals who sought safety therein.

Slaughter-House 5 painted World War II in terms foreign to Americans who preferred the sterile combat depicted in John Wayne movies. In the war described by Mr. Vonnegut, death is random and meaningless. The lines of morality become burred, and readers are introduced to a war seeming to have a mind of its own, a war consisting only of survivors and the dead, each playing an inescapable role assigned by fate. As in The Naked and the Dead, another masterful, if much longer book by Norman Mailer, another survivor of that awful war, the good die and the bad survive. (I have been told that Fox News announced Mr. Mailer's death in an distasteful manner as well.)The war is inevitable and inescapable; chance, not experience and skill, determines life and death. And so it goes.

Mr. Vonnegut wrote a book that did not agree with the public conception of war, and it was downplayed by many critics. Paul Fussell, another survivor of World War II, has become deservedly famous for this criticism of literature pertaining to both World Wars. Upon on viewing Saving Private Ryan, he is reputed to have commented that only the first thirty minutes of the movie should be retained and retitled as Aren't You Glad You Weren't There. Fussell recognized the sublimity of Vonnegut's writings on the war. Good treatments of World War II are difficult to produce; in most cases, they resemble recruiting propaganda. Kurt Vonnegut, Norman Mailer, Joseph Heller, and James Jones are among the few individuals who both survived the war and described it so vividly that a reader would conclude, "I'm glad I wasn't there."

It is apparent that Fox News takes a dim view of Mr. Vonnegut's observations on war. Perhaps their disdain results from Mr. Vonnegut's view of war as irrational at a time when they were actively promoting the current war in Iraq. That would explain their seeming failure to mention Slaughter-House 5 in the obituary described below. Maybe they simply disliked his politics and desire to dismiss him as a liberal hack. Whatever their reasons for disliking Mr. Vonnegut, their vehemence is deep and bitter: Note, for example, the attention given to a long-ago suicide attempt by the author. But Mr. Vonnegut, despite his modesty, has won enduring admiration and a lasting place in our literary canon for his frank depiction of unspeakable events. Perhaps Fox commentators simply envy his fame.

Healthcare and the Death of Civility

2010-03-24T16:35:00.001-05:00

Two days ago, I noted House passage of healthcare reform. It was a long-fought and well-deserved victory for Americans and for those Democrats who supported the legislation, but this triumph did not come without cost. Among the causalities in this battle for better healthcare was civility.

As soon a President Obama announced his plan, numerous and poorly informed of the various health-care bill's actual contents gathered in protest. These individuals, typically supported and bused to protest sites by conservative organizations or corporate interests, came to be known as Teabaggers, a term they first adopted and then abandoned when they learned of its sexual connotations.

Teabaggers are united in opposition to all things associated with President Obama, convinced that the president's sole intention in all causes he endorses is to harm Americans and ruin our democratic tradition. For example, a major complaint of Teabaggers and their Fox News enablers is President Obama appointing advisers to sub-Cabinet executive departments, a practice introduced by George Washington and followed by every subsequent president. Nevertheless, Teabaggers often challenge the constitutionality of such appointments by the sitting president.

The Teabagger movement overlaps other conservative movements. For example, among the Teabaggers, you can find Birthers, racists, homophobes, and antisemites aplenty. In recent months, these Teabaggers seem to dominate the scene. This was especially true on the day House members actually passed the bill. When Democratic representatives left the Capitol, they assaulted by angry Teabaggers hurling racial and sexual slurs. Some Teabaggers actually spat upon certain Democratic lawmakers.

I would hope that the Washington Police Department arrests those who spat upon congressional members and charge them with assault. I sure the offenders also violated some federal law as well considering the location of the crime and the standing of its victim. Democrats have been far too lenient with Teabaggers who feel free to incite or indulge in violence.

At Long Last, Healthcare Reform

2010-03-22T15:02:00.004-05:00

Last night, 21 March 2010, the House passed into Congress's historic healthcare bill. The bill is not perfect by any means, and additional reform still awaits passage. Of course, Republicans possessing a partisan reflex voted en masse against the bill.

I sometimes suspect that were they to fall off a pier, Republicans would prefer to drown if their only means of survival rested in a flotation device tossed them by President Obama. If our president warned Americans against staring directly into the sun, outraged GOP members would rush from their offices, take off their dark shades, and gaze into the heart of that burning orb.

These same Republicans have vowed to overturn what will become the law of the land as soon as the President signs it, on the grounds that it is onerous to the well-being of Americans and it will not take full effect for another four years. Several GOP state attorney generals, claiming the bill is unconstitutional, despite the Constitution tasking Congress with the duty to "provide" for the "general Welfare of the United States." Apparently, the attorney generals complaints also lie in that portion of the bill which become effective in 2014. How will these GOP members find anyone with standing to challenge legal mandates which lie four years in the future escapes me.

But, contrary to Republican claims, very important parts of the healthcare bill just passed by the House become effective very soon. Listed below are some of the provisions becoming effective within six months.

Community health centers will be funded in all 50 states. These centers will provide primary healthcare, dental work, and vision services. Fees will be based on a sliding scale according to the recipient's ability to pay.

Everyone may receive free preventative healthcare.

Insurance companies may no longer place annual or lifetime caps on treatment.

Prescription medications will become less expensive for Medicare recipients.

Insurance companies may not deny coverage to patients under the age of 19 years of age because of a pre-existing condition. Older individuals with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until healthcare exchanges become available. While buying into a national high-risk pool will be by any means inexpensive, such pools will make healthcare insurance available to those insurance companies otherwise refuse to cover and, because of the number of individuals in the pool, costs will be less than the out-of-pocket expense individuals with pre-existing conditions must now pay when obtaining healthcare.

All insurance providers must post balance sheets online. Additionally, they must fully disclose administrative costs, benefit payments, and executive compensation packages.

Children may be listed as dependents on their parents' insurance policy until they reach the age of 27.

Small businesses which insure their employees will receive tax credit for 2009 and 2010.

This credit could total as much as fifty percent of their employees' healthcare insurance costs.

Effectively immediately, rescissions are history. In other words, your insurance company cannot drop you when you become sick.

To be sure, additional reform is demanded. For example, the bill lacks a public option. Discussions among Senate Democrats suggest that further healthcare reform may be forthcoming. Of course, much will depend on the outcome of the November elections. The Republicans are likely to pick up a handful of seats, but wise Democrats would continue to focus on reform. Soon it will become apparent that heathcare reform does not consign grandma's fate to the arbitrary dictates of misanthropic death panels, and even the most devout Teabagger will be reluctantly admit that he or she has not yet been imprisoned in a FEMA camp for refusing to submit to the N1H1 inoculation. The vast majority of Americans will realize true benefits from the healthcare legislation. Those who voted against reform will have to run with that baggage for the remainder of their hopefully-short careers.

Reform in America has always been a process of three steps forward and two steps back, but lasting change has been effected. I can only hope to see a single-payer system before I die.

Reconciliation: or "The Dangers of Democracy"

2010-03-18T17:06:00.000-05:00

Much talk has been make in recent weeks about reconciliation and how harmful it can be to the political process. Most such talk comes from the Republicans and others on the political right who recognize meaningful healthcare reform looming on the horizon, and realize they might suffer politically if it proves popular and successful.

Most of these people labor under two very common misconceptions, both of which merit mention.

1. Healthcare reform is not possible without reconciliation. Reconciliation is not required to pass healthcare. Both chambers of Congress have already passed healthcare reform bills. To have healthcare reform become law tomorrow, all that need happen is for the House approve the bill already passed by the Senate. Reconciliation is not used in the House.

2. The Framers of the Constitution would find use of reconciliation repugnant. The falsity of this claim can be demonstrated by a simple reading of Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution itself. "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings ... ." In only one instance does the Constitution require more than a simple majority to pass a bill, that occasion existing when Congress attempts to override a presidential veto. (Congress overriding a presidential veto is discussed in Article I, Section 7.) The Framers of the Constitution were perfectly comfortable with the Senate passing a bill with a 51% percent majority. (For that matter, so were Republicans when they controlled Congress: Most uses of reconciliation have occurred when Republicans controlled the Senate.)

Republican politicians and press persons do know better than to buy into these two myths, but become conveniently forgetful when the issue is discussed

This delightful video was made by the incredibly gifted Mark Fiore. More of Mr. Fiore's work may be seen on his blog or his YouTube Page.

On Using Taxpayer Money to Assist the Poor and Unemployed

2010-03-14T21:00:00.000-05:00

Recently, I was exploring Media Matters, a worthwhile website which tracks particularly outrageous or telling assertions made by conservative media figures. I was reading the comments below a recent posting about another inane rambling attack on social justice made by the redoubtable Glenn Beck. For those readers willing to risk their lunacy for two minutes, I have placed Mr. Beck's insipid statements below so you can peruse them yourself. Just click on the link.

Additional reading uncovered a defense for denying government assistance to the poor and needy by NoNannyNeeded. I extracted from that comment the following statement:

Conservatives do not want anyone to stay poor. We want them to have a chance to make something out of their own lives & not live off someone else. Benjamin Franklin said we should make poverty uncomfortable in order to kick people out of poverty. The damage of poverty is being increased by the comfort entitlements are creating.

I was unable to locate the offending statement in a short search of Mr. Franklin's more well-known quotes (which is not to say such a malodorous sentiment was never uttered by the great man), and such thoughts seem to an injustice to the memory of the great man. Nevertheless, I voiced my opposition to the comment immediately, creating an inane rambling response of my own. Should any reader doubt the liberalism of my mindset, merely read my response and your beliefs in my progressive politic views will soar.

Making the poor uncomfortable in order to motivate them into enriching themselves hasn't worked very well has it, NoNannyNeeded? Otherwise, Somalia would be dominated its large and healthy middle class and upwardly mobile business leaders instead of renegade warlords and fast-boat pirates. I must admit, however, the advise offered by the sage Doctor Franklin offers the perfect salve to heal the wounded consciences of Republicans who profess their loyalty to Christian values while ignoring Biblical exhortations to address the needs of the poor.

I came from an exceptionally poor background and was the recipient of a less than desirable childhood education and a rather unhealthy -- even abusive -- upbringing. Somehow, I acquire an excellent, even superior education and a comfortable -- if precarious -- middle class life. I wish I could credit my success to my high intelligence, superior work habits, and undiverted motivation. Unfortunately, I can't. I'm not exceptionally intelligent, not a particularly hard working, and especially motivated. But, unlike many of the very intelligent, workaholic, and driven people I grew up with and who still suffer the pangs of poverty, I was very, very lucky to be in the right time at the right place.

I, knowing how close I came to joining them, feel we owe a debt to those bypassed by success. After all, they build our homes, grow our foods, wait our tables, fight in our wars, pave our streets, drive our buses, and provide a million other serves that we never think twice about in addition to agreeing to a common currency which caters most to those with means. The very least we can do for the poor, whose labor created our nation's wealth, is to allow taxes to help them when they are in need of shelter, food, clothing, or protection.

We can survive well without the pittance of tax money used to help the poor, and we should all remember that each of us could easily join their ranks through a simple twist of fate -- my apologies to Bob Dylan. But since I stealing words from the more talented, I will conclude with the eminently-quotable Oliver Wendell Holmes, who thusly replied when asked by a secretary, "Don't you hate paying taxes?":

“No, young fellow, I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilization."

I have encountered difficulties in the past when attempting to post to Media Matters, so I copied the my response so I could post it a second time should the first effort fail. Apparently, both my first and second attempt faltered. After my second effort, I received a message that my remarks are subject to moderation, and would be displayed if approved. (I hope it's not posted twice!)

Another Gay Date at the Prom Story: or Mississippi Seeks to Rejoin the Confederacy

2010-03-12T04:57:00.003-06:00

The gay agenda has struck a telling blow in the heart of Dixie. Constance McMillen, an 18-year-old high school senior, stated her desire to bring her sophomore girlfriend to the Itawamba Agricultural High School Prom. This news garnered the most fright witnessed in the Itawamba County School District since those rumors that the United States had elected a black president were circulated. Equally alarming as a lesbian presence among the "normal" kids, it seems, was Ms. McMillen's intended garb. It would appear that the young lady planned to wear a tuxedo to the prom -- which would seem perfectly appropriate if her date donned a prom dress for the occasion.

Given the severity of possibly having other young adults exposed to a lifestyle considered normal only among people who are not Yahoos, the Itawamba County School Board quickly realized the single option available to them: The canceled the prom.

Needless to say, Itawamba Agricultural High School senors were not elated by this news. Nor was Ms. McMillen. Perhaps a little wiser than those seated on the school board, she quickly realized the consequences of the decision:

Oh, my God. That's really messed up because the message they are sending is that if they have to let gay people go to prom that they are not going to have one. A bunch of kids at school are really going to hate me for this.

The Mississippi ACLU immediately leaped to Ms. McMillen's defence, demanding that the school board reverse its decision to cancel the prom -- and allow Ms. McMillen to attend -- wearing a tuxedo -- accompanied by her date. (What? An ACLU branch in Mississippi? Inconceivable!)

Fortunately, being immune to sound reasoning, the school board may be considering an alternative plan, one which could still prevent those dirty little lesbians away from the decent kids: A private prom like the ones Mississippi schools had when the federal government forced them to allow colored boys into school prom where they would sometimes dance with unsuspecting clean white girls -- none of whom were lesbians back in those days. But Ms. McMillen already smells the rat in this plan: "If they set it up privately they probably aren't going to allow gay people to go and there is nothing that you can do about it."

The Mississippi ACLU is requesting a preliminary injunction preventing the Itawamba County School Board from canceling the prom and prevent them from disallowing Ms. McMillen's to attend the restored school function. All I can say to that is best of luck. Should the ACLU fail to win relief, and I were able to provide Ms. McMillen with a bite of advice, it would be this: Stay home with your sweetheart, cuddle, and watch a movie together, preferably one about lesbians. Who wants to party with a bunch of Yahoos anyway.

By the way, the Itawamba County School Board is not the first group of school administrators to grapple with this issue. Let's see out gays are treated in school proms in more sane regions of the United States.

The Russellville Alabama school system once practiced the same discriminatory policy now followed by the Itawamba County School Board, but change its ways after the Alabama ACLU became involved, enabling a lesbian to attend the prom with her girlfriend. (What? An ACLU branch in Alabama? Inconceivable!)

The Utah Pride Center based in very Mormon Salt Lake City hosts a "Gay Prom" every year for homosexual students. Still, Utah Pride Center Executive Director Valerie Larabee states its been years since school districts have enforced prohibitions on same-sex couples at proms.

For 15 years, Prideline Youth Services has hosted gay proms in South Florida. Fuigi Ferrer, executive director of Prideline Youth Services note that all schools within the Miami-Dade County School District allow gay dates at attend proms.

Schools within California's Los Angeles Unified School District allow gay couples to attend proms.

Maybe Ms. McMillen and her date are at fault in the Itawamba Agricultural High School Prom debate; perhaps they should have chosen to be born in one of these more enlightened regions of the country, one with a name less difficult to pronounce.

This posting is based on three online scouces I've read online elsewhere. The first source was Wonkette, a sometimes humorous site which commonly reports on political foibles. The second article appeared in the online edition of USA Today which is sometimes ... readable. Finally the Mississippi ACLU, in addition to its very worthy legal assistance, devoted pages to Ms. McMillen's plight.

Orly Taitz Watch

2010-03-10T11:23:00.005-06:00

Orly Taitz, best known for her numerous fruitless, incompetent, quixotic, and always humorous efforts to topple Barack Obama from his illegal, Marxist-Muslim, and fascist takeover of America, is now seeking office as California's Secretary of State. (Yes, I know that Marxism and fascism are mutually exclusive, but you must take that up with Dr. Taitz.) Unfortunately, Damon Dunn, another African-American male, blocked Dr. Taitz's path to glory by winning the Republican primary in a massive victory.

Orly Taitz Seated at Left Wearing a White Coat --

You Know, the Woman Who Looks Like a Porn Star

So now Dr. Taitz returns to practicing that which she does most: Quixotically attempting to reverse the will of the majority so as to deny victory to an African-American male.

Why does Dr. Taitz seek to become California's Secretary of State: Very simply, President Obama's faced about 65 lawsuits challenging his citizenship. All have failed, typically because the plaintiff (or the individual filing suit) lacked standing. Standing refers to the plaintiff's right to make a legal claim or to seek the court to enforce a legal duty or right. As this definition makes obvious, a plaintiff must have standing to file a civil suit against another party.

Were she to become the California Secretary of State, Dr. Taitz somehow believes she would then possess standing in a lawsuit which could unseat the president. She also seems to think she, by virtue of her newly acquired office, will possess authority to file such a claim. Apparently, she has forgotten that a state claim of this nature must be commenced by California's Attorney General. It seems that Dr. Taitz has run for the wrong office.

Several of Dr. Taitz followers -- as well as a number of her foes having similar goals -- have advanced a novel idea on how they might remove that usurper from the Oval Office. They have united in "Citizen Grand Juries," each of which has unanimously discovered the "de facto" president to be guilty of being born in Kenya, condemned him of high treason, discovered proof of his having once represented ACORN as a lawyer on one occasion, and several other equally heinous acts as well. They then delivered these results to federal judges with the expectation that one jurist will possess enough courage (or perhaps senility) to force President Obama to show his true Birth Certificate, flee to Kenya, submit to being publicly lynched, or some other suitably dire punishment.

Unfortunately, most federal judges know that "Citizen Grand Juries" lack any legal or Constitutional place in the political puzzle the Founding Fathers created and thus reject the finding of these self-appointed kangaroo courts out of hand.

Dismayed by the lack of deference shown to these unconstitutional grand juries, a follower of Orly Taitz recently made a modest comment on her website, demonstrating how law abiding citizens could force federal judges to treat their findings more attentively:

Click on Image for Larger Display

I have not given the address to Dr. Taitz's home page as it seems to be throbbing with malware. However those daring, adventurous few with excellent and expensive browser protections may visit there by clicking here.

I have it on good authority that Minuteman's comment has been forwarded to Washington D.C. law enforcement (the location of the court to which the comment referred) and to the judge to whom the comment referred.

The contents of this post were largely based on my following Dr. Taitz recent activities on PolitiJab, Home of the Obots. PolitiJab participants are perhaps the most intelligent and well-informed individuals to comment regularly online, and they occupy far too much of my time.

Mr. Hague's Nugget of Wisdom

2010-02-18T08:08:00.002-06:00

Frank Hague (17 January 1876 – 1 January 1956), the famed Boss of Jersey City, was a shining star among the great Democratic city machine bosses of his era. He was known for his corruption, his generous bribes, his ballot box stuffing, his accumulating ten-million dollars on a city salary that never exceeded 8,500 dollars per year, his loyalty to his friends, and even, at one point, his efforts as a political reformer.

Frank Hague is also noted for making one comment that has, in one form or another been repeated by every fanatical American conservative since the October Revolution.

We hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press. Every time I hear those words I say to myself, "That man is a Red, that man is a Communist." You never heard a real American talk in that manner.

This remarkable nugget of wisdom was dispensed on 12 January 1938 in a speech before the Jersey City Chamber of Commerce.

Quote of the Day

2010-02-10T13:20:00.000-06:00

I was not looking for some response to the Teabaggers or others who wish to strangle the government by withholding their taxes when I recently visit a site listing one-hundred benefits of government. When read the comments, however, I discovered the following quote which I thought perfectly described the the tax resisters fail to realize.

I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.

This succinct statement was made by Civil War hero and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Quote of the Day

2010-01-27T17:46:00.000-06:00

“You’re trying to avoid Citizens United. This is a new world: corruption means a lot less than it did before."

Judge Thomas B. Griffith of the D.C. Circuit Court

A Tip of the Hat to Fox News.

2010-01-25T12:31:00.002-06:00

I typical spit immediately after saying the phrase "Fox News," but once again I must tip my hat to Fox News for a speaker's boldness and courage in the name of honesty. Watch as Bob Beckel, a professor at George Washington University, describes the Republican Party. I might even watch Fox News if they only included more guests of his caliber. I like Mr. Beckel's use of alliteration as well.

Free Republic Frothings: The Anti-Semitic Edition

2010-01-12T20:12:00.006-06:00

After African-Americans, Jews are the largest cultural group in America to support Barack Obama. Indeed, Jews support President Obama by a much higher percentage that do Christians. All of this is something of a mystery and an outrage to our friends at Free Republic who recently discussed the issue.

I suspect Christian conservatives such as those who post on Free Republic are puzzled as to why American Jews support the Democratic Party. They point to United States foreign policy with Israel. Both Republicans and Democrats give considerable, generous, and desperately needed assistance to our strongest ally in the Middle East.

Under George W. Bush, such assistance was given with no strings attached. While President George W. Bush was in office, American assistance enabled Israel to maintain its national health-care system (which, ironically, conservatives deny Americans), build even more settlements in the West Bank, launch its second failed war in Lebanon, and restrict the movement of Arab inhabitants within the occupied territories.

President Obama, on the other hand, attached certain certain conditions to the aid granted Israel. For example, he strongly urged Israel to slow the rate of constrution in the West Bank and he pressured Israeli leaders to make serious peace overtures toward the Palestinians. American conservatives feel that peace with the Palestinians would not be in Israel's best interest. They support Israeli politicians who are hawking, and support the incorporation of the West Bank and Gaza into a Greater Israel. The Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories would be presumably be pushed into neighboring Arab states or remain within the Greater Israel as stateless inhabitants. This, Christian conservatives believe, should be Israel's goal. And American Jews should support conservative candidates who will not push Israel into make peace with the Palestinians or limit its growth. There are two flaws with this conservative Christian model of the reasonable Jewish mindset.

Americans Jews are Americans first. They vote for the candidate they believe to be best for America. Their primary loyalty is to America, not Israel.
Americans Jews may not agree with Christian conservatives as to what lies in Israel's best interest. They do not share the Christian conservatives' vision of a Greater Israel and continued war with the Arab states. To be sure, they know that Israel will be forced to confront terrorism for decades to come and many anti-Semitics will never become convinced of Israel's right to exist. Still, something would be gained by aiding the Palestinians to form their own state in the currently occupied territories. Such a Palestinian state could be created in such a manner that it would greatly depend on Israel for food, employment, technology, training, and natural resources. Israel has much to gain by having a friendly Palestine as a neighbor. Given a homeland and a higher standard of living, most, while not all, Palestinians would cease being so bellicose toward Israel. With the creation of Palestine, many Islamic nations would lose any pretense it might possess for not recognizing Israel.

More attention to this topic is merited, but first consider Free Republic's reaction to Jewish support of President Obama:

Dalbert, apparently a Birther who suspects our commander-in-chief of being Islamic, offered a one world reply to Jewish American who vote for President Obama: "fools."

Nyawiyah, who adopts as his pseudonym the name of the famous Sunni ruler, cites G. Gorden Liddy as his most revered hero and the Federal Election Commission as his most hated arch-foe. Myawiyah questions, "So how was it Jewish guys got a reputation for being smart?"

ExTexasRedhead answers Nyawiyah's question with a question, "Who told you that?" This particular redhead also holds President Obama and the Democrats (possibly a great meanly moderate Republicans as well) as being the enemy within -- guilty of treason, thievery, and several other crimes as well. Redhead predicts a more positive view of American Jews however: "They wake up like they did in 1935 Germany."

XanaLee offers her opinion on Obama and possible revolutions against our elected officials as well as this little tidbit about the intelligence of Jewish people; "they were given a choice of saving Jesus and saving Barabbas. How smart were they back then?"

Raptor29 comments on Redhead's prediction: "And they’ll hope that just as in the 1940’s, a large number of those conservative Christians (same ones they criticize and undermine so much) come to their aid and bail them out." Whatever the future may hold, I suspect most American Jews realize that the very same conservative Christians that American Jews "criticize and undermine" damn Jews to Hell. A latter remark by raptor29 questions the loyalty of American Jews: "Jews simply have a much stronger position among the American left than they do among the American right, so they continue to embrace the leftist power structure they control and use to their benefit. They are Jews first, Americans 2nd (or 3rd or 4th). They would rather be on the wrong side but in charge, than on the side of right but in a subordinate role. Collectively, they have been a negative influence on this country overall." I cannot provide a link to raptor29's Free Republic account as it seems to have been suspended. However, these remarks do not seem to have offended moderators as they have not been removed.

Rcmgroup suggest that American Jews are somehow intellectually flawed to vote for a candidate who is communist, a fascist, a Muslim, and a usurper: "American Jews? Is there something in the water they drink that makes them so stupid as to support a socialist-fascist-commie pig usurper 0bozo, who is a Muzlim thru & thru, and would love nothing better than to see Israel destroyed and a final solution for the Jews in this country. What makes the Jews so stupid & gullible so as to support 0bozo or any of the demoRATs for that matter???" Rcmgroup makes notes of one possible method of saving American, despite being handicapped by stupid and gullible people: "Maybe we need massive failures across business, eduction, & politics in order to see an awakening in American and a massive outrage against against the socialist-commie pigs who put us into this mess!!!" Many members of Free Republic apparently harbor hatred toward America's freely-elected government, but I must express surprise at the desire to have Americans to become poorer and less well-educated as well as hoping for the failure of our system of democratically electing our government representatives so that their form of government by reactionary anger can succeed.

Attention Surplus Disorder, who opines that we shouldn't have to wait an entire election cycle to rid ourselves of lawfully elected officeholders, offers another explanation for the behavior of the majority of American Jews: "Stuck on Stupid."

Mamelukesabre suggests that American Jews were bribed to vote for Barak Obama; "they got all the best jobs. Or at least that’s the impression." He offers a critique of American in general; "the United States faces so many problems today because we have rejected the Christian path selected by God." I cannot help but question why America, which is 75 percent Christian, is punished, while some majority atheist nations, such as Finland, are doing so well.

Even while urging us to fight the "marxist [sic] occupation of America," fortunate sun offers his observations on Jews in general: "One need only read the history of the Holocaust and the how the jews [sic] would grovel, beg and connive to be the highest on the totem pole above their fellow jew [sic]. disgusting [sic]."Fortunate sun's account at Free Republic has been suspended, but obviously not for this anti-Semitic remark as it has not been removed by moderators as of this time.

ScottinVA holds a similarly low view of American Jews: "U.S. Jews will be the ones assigned to watch over the digging of the mass graves." ScottinVA also disdains Muslims, as evidenced on his comment on two Blackwater employees charged with the murder of hapless Iraqis: "I'm thinking maybe cruelty to animals or something, but not murder." Unlike fortunate sun, ScottinVA seems to have avoid offending Free Republic moderators as his account remains active and his comments have not been removed.

SeekAndFind differs with those who find Jews to be stupid. Rather, he comments that while Jews are intelligent, they are foolish and there exists too damn many of them: "The problem is we have too many intelligent but FOOLISH Jews. But then why am I not surprised ? Their own history as recorded in scripture shows us how foolish even their ancestors have been." Elsewhere, SeekAndFind expresses his opinion of the intelligence of Arabic peoples: "The Arabs can accomplish NOTHING or LITTLE without outside help." SeekAndFind seems to have skipped, in addition to his Jewish history lessons, and his studies of the European Middle Ages, in which he would learn that many European scientific innovations and considerable literature were acquired from the Arab world.

There are well over 100 comments on the topic of why the American Jewish community supports the President. Most of the posts I read are decidedly anti-Semitic in tone. Two or three Jewish members of Free Republic left comments defending themselves or their Jewish friends, but only one, Dov in Houston, condemned the several anti-Semitic remarks made by other members of Free Republic. Someone else may have left a similar comment, but it didn't appear among any of the replies I read.

Something remains to be added to the discussion of why American Jews tend to vote for Democrats. American Jews are more devoted to social equality than are typical non-Jewish Americans. American Jews are conscious of the anti-Semitic stereotypes that float about and tend to vote for candidates that are more likely to fight discrimination. Jewish Americans often have parents or grandparents who were denied entry to elite universities as the result of quotas established by Christian conservatives, refused admission to clubs possessing "no Jews allowed" rules drafted by conservative Christians, or not allowed to move into certain neighborhoods because of housing covenants signed by conservative Christians. Jewish Americans are inclined to vote for candidates they deem to be most protective of civil rights, partly as a result of historical discrimination against Jews by conservative Christians, and partly because of their cultural teachings in human equality. These candidates most likely to share their views tend to be Democrats.

And something also merits mention on why Christian conservatives are so supportive of a small and largely socialist nation possessing few real resources. Why do conservative Christians place so much interest in Israel? To answer this question, we must investigate the eschatology believed by so many of these individuals. Jews play an essential role in the End Times. Jews from around the world will gather into Israel, and the nation will grow to match its Old Testament glory, expanding in might and size. The Dome of the Rock will be destroyed, and a new Jewish temple will be built in its place which happens to be the location of the Biblical Temple. The nations of the world will ally themselves in agreement to destroy Israel, and a great battle will occur. This conflict is John's Apocalypse. The Jews will totally defeat those who would destroy them. At some point during all this chaos -- exactly when varies from religion to religion -- Christ will return to earth and rule for 1,000 years. Some Jews will accept Christianity and be taken to Heaven; Jews who do not accept Christ will, like all Jews since the the days of Jesus, will go to Hell.

This chronology does not purport to explain why Jewish people are so important to conservative Christians, but it is a representative example. Some conservative Christians believe differently and support Israel without question because "the Jews are God's Chosen People." But the fact remains that most conservative Christians support Jewish or Israeli causes, not simply because it is the right thing to do, but merely because they are motivated by religious fervor. Contrast their reaction to American intervention under President Bill Clinton which saved Bosnian Muslims from genocide. The Christian conservatives who wrongly opposed saving the people of Bosnian while justly supporting the continued survival of Israel are no more righteous than were their ancestors who murdered Jews for "poisoning" wells during medieval plagues.

Freethinkers Not Allowed

2010-01-03T13:26:00.006-06:00

On 1 January 2010, an Irish Republic Law went to effect, the stated goal of which was to make blasphemous statements punishable by law. A conviction can carry a fine of up to 25,000 Euros. In response to this law, the group Atheist Ireland released the following statement listing 25 blasphemous assertions in defiance of the law.

From today, 1 January 2010, the new Irish blasphemy law becomes operational, and we begin our campaign to have it repealed. Blasphemy is now a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted.

This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

We believe in the golden rule: that we have a right to be treated justly, and that we have a responsibility to treat other people justly. Blasphemy laws are unjust: they silence people in order to protect ideas. In a civilised society, people have a right to to express and to hear ideas about religion even if other people find those ideas to be outrageous.

The blasphemies listed take aim at several religions, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and even Buddhism. A brief list of some the blasphemies listed by the Irish Atheists follow. Note that four of these quotes are taken from the writings of famous and undeniably great thinkers of varying value; the remaining statement is taken from the pope, the most important figure in Christianity. All are blasphemies.

Also it [the Bible] has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it. (Mark Twain)

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (Richard Dawkins)

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes. (Salman Rushdie)

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. (Pope Benedict XVI quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor)

There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all… Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require… It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender’ as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption. (Christopher Hitchens)

I with the best of luck to the Irish Atheists, and happy blaspheming! I hope this law meets the quick demise it merits.

Fox News English

2009-12-10T16:26:00.003-06:00

Fox News today offered a chance for its readers to voice their opinion on President Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize. Note the manner in which the answers are phrased.

Does Obama Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Yes, compared to Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela and others he does not deserve this award.
No, after watching the speech, I believe he is one of the few leaders in the world today with the moral authority to bring peace to it.
I'm not sure.

Even the gullible readers of that most esteemed media outlet -- I hate to call it news, but I must admit it is amusing at times -- must have paused before answering this question. I pose a question of my own: Are the Fox writers simply inept or are they attempting to deceive their own audience?

Frankly, I'm surprised that Fox would even suggest that Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela are deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize: You must remember, they were all liberal activists acting on the behalf of oppressed minorities.

A Date Which Will Live in Infamy

2009-12-07T09:12:00.003-06:00

On 7 December 1941, planes of the Imperial Japanese Navy launched an attack on the United States Naval Base at Pearl Harbor. The attach resulting in America being thrust into World War II, the most costly and destructive war in human history. Below, find the famous speech given by FDR to an anxious congress.

Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleagues delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

This morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Burning Battleship USS West Virginia Moored Alongside the USS Tennessee

After the United States regrouped and applied its industrial strength against Japan, the later nation's defeat was inevitable. Japanese forces held out until 1945. In early August of that year, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August. Between the dropping of the two bombs, the Soviet Union invaded Japanese-held Manchuria, rolling up several Japanese armies. Confronted with total disaster, Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945. The surrender documents were signed in Tokyo Harbor aboard the deck of the American battleship USS Missouri on 2 September 1945, formally ending the war

The Jimmy Swaggart and Fundamentally Oral Bill Syndrome

2009-12-04T19:46:00.007-06:00

The impetus behind this rather amusing cartoon lies in the behavior of the man upon whom it was based. Jimmy Swaggart was once best known as "that television evangelist who happens to be Jerry Lee Lewis’s cousin." But all that changed in early 1988. I must warn you that this is a tawdry tale not meant for the chaste and pure of heart.

In a 1986 revelation he would come to greatly regret, Mr. Swaggart exposed fellow Assemblies of God minister Marvin Gorman for having several affairs. The Assemblies of God Church defrocked the New Orleans-based Pentecostal minister and his flock largely abandoned him. As a successful minister, Mr. Gorman seemed finished but the desire for revenge lingered. Mr. Swaggart would have done well to remember his old Sunday school lessons, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” or even, “Judge not least you be judged.”

Mr. Gorman hired his son and son-in-law to stake out the Travel Inn on New Orleans’ Airline Highway. The two men photographed Mr. Swaggart and Debra Murphree, a known prostitute outside Room 7. It appears, according to later investigations, that contrary to her statements, Ms. Murphree was working with Mr. Gorman. The two men flattened all of Mr. Swaggart’s tires to prevent him from leaving and then called Mr. Gorman who quickly arrived at the hotel.

Mr. Gorman arrived at the Travel Inn and confronted Mr. Swaggart. According to Mr. Swaggart’s unofficial biographer, Ann Row Seaman, Mr. Swaggart promised that, in return for Mr. Gorman’s silence, he would begin the process of the defrocked minister’s reinstatement in the Assemblies of God Church, publicly apologize to Mr. Gorman, and publicly state that he had lied about the disgraced minster’s affairs.

Almost one year passed, and Mr. Swaggart had delivered on not one of these promises. On 16 February 1988, Mr. Gorman contacted the Executive Presbytery of the Assemblies of God. A meeting was arranged with Raymond Carlson, the Assemblies Superintendent of the Church. Mr. Gorman presented photographs proving that Room 7 at the Travel Inn was used for prostitution and then with a photo of Mr. Swaggart. The 13 member Executive Presbytery suspended Mr. Swaggart’s television ministry for three months.

"I have sinned ... ."

On 21 February 1988, Mr. Swaggart addressed his audience and congregation, tearfully proclaiming, “I have sinned against you, my Lord, and I would ask that your precious blood would wash and cleanse every stain until it is in the seas of God's forgiveness.” Mr. Swaggart offered no details of his misdeeds, but that proved unnecessary. Ms. Murphree was all too eager to offer details. Four days later, she appeared on a New Orleans morning news program. She had discovered new avenues of income thanks to her photographic customer. She described Mr. Swaggart as a regular visitor, but insisted that the two had never engaged in sexual intercourse. Apparently he paid her to pose nude. By now, the video clip of Mr. Swaggart’s tearful confession was being played repeatedly on television programs across America.

The National Presbytery soon extended the three month suspension on Mr. Swaggart’s broadcast ministry to two years, their normal standard for sexual immorality. Mr. Swaggart ignored the lengthened suspension. At the end of the initial three month penalty, he returned to the television. The Assemblies of God Church immediately defrocked Mr. Swaggard, revoked his Assemblies of God credentials, and withdrew his ministerial license.

July 1989 Penthouse

In March of 1989, Catherine Campen gave an interview to Penthouse magazine in which she claimed to have been Mr. Swaggard's mistress from July of 1987 to January 1988. Mr. Swaggard simply denied the affair, but Penthouse enjoyed phenomenal sales. Thereafter Penthouse featured Ms. Murphree in its July edition, and again profits soared.

The brash Mr. Swaggart was undeterred. He continued his television ministry, remaking it as an independent, non-denominational Pentecostal program. Mr. Swaggart did well as an independent. Oh, a few of the faithful strayed to be sure, but he still retained a large flock to fill the coffers and even won new converts.

Rosemary Garcia

But old habits die hard. On 11 October 1991, Mr. Swaggart was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol in Indio, California for driving on the wrong side of the road. With him in the car was Rosemary Garcia. When a reporter Ms. Garcia asked why she was in Mr. Swaggart's car, she helpfully replied, “He asked me for sex. I mean, that's why he stopped me. That's what I do. I'm a prostitute.”

Mr. Swaggart was again confronted with the task of explaining his behavior. But this time, God came to his rescue. If Mr. Swaggart lacks any virtue, it is not chutzpah that's missing. "The Lord told me it's flat none of your business,” he announced to his stunned audience. He then stepped down as head of Jimmy Swaggart Ministries for “a time of healing and counseling."

So what is Mr. Swaggart up to today. Alas, Mr. Swaggart’s multi-million-dollar empire has crumbled around him, but some few of the truly faithful remain true to their religious shepherd. He maintains the The Jimmy Swaggart Telecast, radio and television programs entitled A Study in the Word, and a website. His much forgiving wife, Frances Swaggart helps tend to the flock with her daily radio show "Frances and Friends." The ministry has expanded to include offspring. Son Donny Swaggart has followed in his father’s footsteps as a Pentecostal minister. Grandson Gabriel Swaggart has become a minister as well and leads the family’s youth ministry, Crossfire.

If you bothered to follow any of the links provided in the preceding paragraph -- and I see no reason why you would -- you will quickly realize the family is still plucking the flock. This habit of continuing to pay the con man, even after the con is blown, I call this the Jimmy Swaggart and Fundamentally Oral Bill Syndrome.

A Lawyer's Duty

2009-12-03T15:05:00.000-06:00

During the spring of 1905, reformer and future Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis received an invitation from the Harvard Ethical Society. Mr. Brandeis choose as his topic "The Opportunity in the Law." In his speech, Mr. Brandeis spoke on the failure of lawyers to press for to consider the needs of all when they advanced their careers:

Instead of holding a position of independence, between the wealthy and the people, prepared to curb the excesses of either, able lawyers have, to a large extent, allowed themselves to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected the people. We hear much if the "corporation lawyer," and far too little of the "people's lawyer."

As a lawyer, Mr. Brandais was lawyer who worked for the people. His goal was to render to each party what they fairly deserved. When taking a case, he would investigate the public effects of each possible solution, the effect on the defendant, and the needs of his client. He went beyond the law and studied the social and economic effects of the suit. Then he would propose a legal position. Mr. Brandais is known for making use of the "Brandais Brief," a brief that references such information in addition to a legal claim. Undoubtedly, the most famous Brandais brief ever filed was that of the plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education.

Have things changed today? Yes, to a degree. I attended a respectable law school. Yet in many ways they remain the same. I witnessed first hand the mad scramble among top students to apply for the positions offered by top law firms and corporations. Most of the best and most talented students were hired. Those not accepted by the high paying positions became public defenders, prosecutors, military lawyers, school lawyers, or like me, choose not to practice law.

Fortunately, the Bar had changed considerably since 1905. Layers are encouraged to donate pro bono publico hours. Pro bono publico in merely a Latin term meaning for the public good. The phrase is typically shortened to pro bono. These are hours for which the lawyer is not paid. Lawyers typically devote this time to defendants, civic causes, charities, religious organizations, or similar parties that could not otherwise afford the fees other demanded demanded by a quality lawyer. The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct state, "A lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year" Rule 6.1. Many of America's leading lawyers donate more than their share of hours to pro bono clients. Yet, far too many innocent men and women are sent to prison because they are defended by inexperienced or incompetent counsel.

Incidentally, in the audience on that 1905 day when Mr. Brandais addressed the Harvard Ethical Society was a young Felix Frankfurter. The two men spoke after the speech. Mr. Brandais made a deep and lasting impression on the younger man. The two later served on the United States Supreme Court together in the early months of 1939.

Free Republic Frothings

2009-12-01T14:59:00.006-06:00

Again this morning, I awoke and browsed through recent Free Republic posts seeking something amusing to place in my blog, and again I was not disappointed. Today it was a hard choice. Between post advocating going “Galt” and arguments calling Sara Palin too moderate to be the GOP’s Choice in 2012, I concluded that those who criticized Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints for appearing in an advertisement with Obama might best serve as an example of Free Republic’s reactionary ideology. The advertisement was non-partisan, and served to encourage children to get plenty of exercise.

On a commercial break from Monday Night Football, there was a commercial for NFL's Play 60, where they promote kids to play outdoors for 60 minutes. In the commercial, Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints is set to throw a pass on the White House lawn with children running in slow motion, with the White House in the background.

At first thought, I was waiting for Drew to pass to one of the kids. Then I thought he might sling that sucker through the White House window hopefully getting Obama in back of the head. Then Obama pops up in the scene catching the football from Breese and denying the children from catching the ball.

Obama is such a putz showoff not letting the kids catch the football.Brees should have slung one side his big ears and see if he catches it then. (Chemicalman)

Chimicalman, despite being a Louisianan, disdains the governor of his own state, the mayor of New Orleans, and Sarah Palin. Chemicalman has a fondness for the eccentric ramblings of Nostradamus, guns designed to kill people, distortions of the truth by Fox News, and David Vitter, better known as the Louisiana senator with a diaper fetish.

Poster 1raider1 saw the sinister scheme being played out beyond the commercial.

I was stunned on Sunday when I saw a Play60 ad. The one I saw said they want kids to get their “required” sixty minutes of play. When did playing become required and is this a sneaky way to get people to accept government mandated physical excercise For our own good, of course.

1raider1 proclaims himself to be a "devoted Glenn Beck listener," and this may explain his fondness for conspiracy claims and his constant denial of new scientific advancement.

Finally its Humbug's turn to attack Mr. Brees using the worse imaginable insult possible: Liberal

Doesn’t surprise me. I remember back when Brees played at Purdue i happened to catch one of his games and the announcer was saying that Drew and his head coach would often get into heated debates about politics, with Brees taking the liberal side of issues. Apparently his outlook hasn’t changed much.

So making an advertisement with the president encouraging young children to exercise more indicates that an athlete is liberal? What if the Super Bowl winning team receives the traditional invitation to the White House for photo appearances with the president, would that mean the team is liberal? Have the Super Bowl victors of the past eight years been totally conservative since they met with President Bush?

Castlegreyskull hypothesized that the entire Saints team possesses some sort of devious underhand dealing with the president.

Maybe that might explain the Saints undefeated season. Apparently President Obama has NFL connections, we saw that when the NFL denied Rush the St Louis Rams.

Judging from his post, it is safe to assume that Castlegreyskull dislikes global-warming popularizers and black people in positions of authority. Seeing his pseudonym, I guessing his likes include He-Man toys.

Jmouse007, who boasts of his PHD in Biblical Studies, his MA in the New Testament, and BA in the Bible "from theologically conservative, evangelical schools" (this typically means unaccredited diploma mills, because everyone knows the accredited schools are infested with liberals), goes on an absolute rage against the commercial and President Obama.

ALWAYS has to be about him because if it isn't... we are RACISTS and we can't have that now can we...?

The self centered man-boy Obama makes me ill; can't watch him ("Me, me, it is all about me, look at ME, me, me!"), his duplicitous smile and demeanor barely conceal his seething, Marxist, socialist, anti-American, Afrocentric black-racist hatred/agenda for America and everything we have held dear since the countries inception. I refuse to listen to him because everything coming out of his mouth is a self serving, calculated set of lies who's only purpose is to deceive all those who hear him. (Has anyone else notice the fact that everything he says has the exact opposite meaning of what he says and means?)

So it came as no surprise the man-boy stole the ball from children by not giving THEM the chance to catch it. You see he is bigger, he is faster than children and most importantly... it is all about HIM.

Like everyone else I unsuspectingly began watching the commercial but as soon as I saw HIS body and face begin to enter the picture frame I immediately changed the channel because I instinctively knew where this was going and I REFUSE TO GO THERE. You see, like you and every other normal, sane person with any kind of conscience or scruples... I don't spoil the lives of children... like you; I let THEM catch the ball.

I do not know what the commercial was supposed to be about nor do I care because the message it was intended to and did send was this: "Look at me, Obamessiah, it is all about ME and no one else, nothing else matters, not even children, because they are just props there to serve a bigger purpose, the worship of ME."

For God's sake, Mr. President, let the kid catch the ball!

Note that according to Jmouse007, not only is President Oboma a "seething, Marxist, socialist, anti-American, Afrocentric black-racist," he is not normal or sane. Furthermore, he possesses no conscience or scruples. Jmouse007 doesn't see how anyone can't see what the president is up to.

Come on, you should know by now that it is ALL ABOUT OBAMESSIAH THE NARCISSIST, "the one", the taker of balls from children. The spot light ALWAYS has to be on him, it He is purposely destroying the economy so that he can implement his Marxists, socialist, communist "utopia" where Obama and HIS POLICIES will eventually take EVERYTHING (including our freedom) away from those HE and his administration view as the real "enemy": the elderly, all those evil conservative, patriotic, Bible-believing, gun toting, "rich white people", and redistribute it to HIS constituents, those HE views as real "americans"; blacks, Hispanics, illegals, homosexual perverts, union hacks and thugs, Acorn, the young and all of the Obamessiah Obots and sycophants.

You may have noticed, if you've read his posts, that Jmouse007 has a slight obsession with protecting "rich white people." I suspect that he distrust people whose skin is of a different shade or whose eyes are oddly made. He also submits that there are two types of Walmarts: You may choose between a "WHITE Walmart or SPANISH Walmart"

The disgust over President Obama appearing on a NFL commercial engendered another thread, this one called Vanity: NFL Obama Commercial." I did not bother with citing any of these posts as they largely consisted of hopes that the president be injured by some exceeding aggressive and huge linebacker.

Ah, Free Republic: You are always available with comic hatred and ill-formed political content when I need humorous relief when I need it most.

A True Irish Ghost Story

2009-11-28T08:27:00.001-06:00

The story which follows was sent to me by Pat Cody, a good friend from my military days. Pat was born in raised in New York City, and he was of Irish heritage, a fact in which he takes great pride. Pat knows of my lack of belief in all things supernatural, and that, I suppose, was his motive for sending me the following story. I thought it was funny as hell. See what you think.

This happened a while ago in Dublin , and even though it sounds like an Alfred Hitchcock story, it's true.

John Bradford, a 20 yr old Dublin University student, was on the side of the road hitchhiking on a very dark night and in the midst of a storm. No cars were traveling that night. The storm was so strong he could hardly see a few feet ahead of him.

Suddenly, he saw a car slowly coming towards him and stop. John, desperate for shelter and without thinking about it, got into the car and closed the door.... only to realize there was nobody behind the wheel and the engine wasn't on!!

The car started moving slowly. John looked at the road ahead and saw a curve approaching. Scared, he started to pray, begging for his life.

Then, just before the car hit the curve, a hand appeared through the window and turned the wheel. John, paralyzed with terror, watched as the hand repeatedly came through the window, but never touched or harmed him.

Shortly thereafter John saw the lights of a pub appear down the road. So, gathering strength, he jumped out of the car and ran to the pub.

Wet and out of breath, he rushed inside and started telling everybody about the horrible experience he had just had.

A silence enveloped the pub when everybody realized he was crying and....wasn't drunk.

Suddenly the door opened and two other people walked in from the stormy night. They, like John, were also soaked and out of breath.

Looking around, and seeing John Bradford sobbing at the bar, one said to the other... 'Look Paddy...there's that freakin' idiot that got in the car while we were pushin' it.'

Quote of the Day

2009-11-26T10:23:00.000-06:00

Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out.

-- Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471 to 1530)

Free Republic Frothings

2009-11-25T20:42:00.002-06:00

Today, I again visited Free Republic to discover if I might find something that might prove of use in demonstrating the absolute idiocy that hold reign there. My search was not conducted in vain. I discovered this bit hidden in a group of postings that discussed President's Obama's secret plan to fire all Republican civil servants and replace them with his loyalists.

I am sure Obama would not be sad if 6 million of his conservative opponents suddenly fell off the earth.

we are the only thing preventing the implementation of his marxist agenda.

When he is done there will be no Constitution. It will be rendered moot by his illegal decrees, and anyone who invokes our Founding Documents will be labelled an extremist terrorist by a fawning, compliant media.

The way I see it, the war is already on, I'm just waiting for the masses to get up to speed and join me. I need an ammo bearer; I can't carry all this stuff by myself!

This means of filling civil positions, called the "spoils system," was once commonly used by American office holders. It has been banned for over 125 years. Were the Free Republic fringe to check their high school history books, they would realize that President Obama lacks the authority to take such action even if he desired.

On 2 July 1881, President James A. Garfield was shot by Charles J. Guiteau. Mr. Guiteau's motive was revenge. He had been repeatedly rebuffed in his efforts to secure the post of American consul in Paris, a position for which he possessed no qualifications. President Garfield died on 19 September, very possibly the victim of his incapable medical doctors.

Mr. Guiteau, when on trial for the crime, offered a plea of insanity. It was rejected, and Mr. Guiteau was hanged for his crime. Now there is little doubt that Mr. Guiteau was quite insane when he shot the president.

In no small part because of President Garfield's assassination, the Pendledon Civil Service Reform Act was passed on 16 January 1883. Ironically, President Garfield stressed the need for civil service reform in his inaugural address.

Free Republic posters make some very grandiose claims on occasion and at other times they make some rather bellicose comments. This posting, written by I Buried My Guns, combines the two attitudes.Many of his other posts contain similar comments.Consider his religious ire on 20 November 2009: "Sure, the Bible's New Testament preempts the message of the Old Testament, but I sorta dig the violence of the OT. There are many examples in it of early Christians picking up the sword when circumstances dictate.Yea verily, I will be picking my AR-15 when circumstances dictate." Or take this quote taken from 23 November 2009 post: "Those 2 or three cases of ammo and TP I have stockpiled may not look pretty smart right now, but it’s certainly looking less and less stupid by the day!" I Buried My Guns may have use for all that toilet paper, because he is definitely full of shit.

It would be well if the posters of Free Republic acquainted themselves with the Constitution and the nation's body of law. It was George W. Bush who violated the Constitution and statutes of the United States. To date, Obama has done so only in the feverish minds of his more agitated detractors. He is the elected president of the United States. To try and remove him by force violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Dissent against a Constitutionally elected government official is fine; actual or implied threats of force could be interpreted as treason, or, at the least, a threat against the life of the president.

Those of you with an agile memory may recall that my very first Free Republic Frothings contained a lines from a I Buried My Guns posting. That first posting was not his sole comment containing a tinge of racism. For those interested in learning more thinkings of I Buried My Guns need simply follow the link.

Conservative Christians and the Panama Canal

2009-11-24T18:32:00.003-06:00

In this amusing cartoon, Berkely Breathed explores the closeness of conservative politics and fundamentalist Christianity. Most, but not all, fundamentalist Christians embrace right wing politics with abandon. Note that the vast majority of Sara Palin's boosters are conservatives who admire her jingoist nationalism. To many of these individuals, embracing liberal politics is more than just poor policy; it is a sin and will be punished by God.

The United States effectively stole the land through which the Panama Canal would be built from Colombia in 1903. The United States began work on the canal within a few years. The first ship passed through the newly-completed canal on 15 August 1914, just as most of Europe had been engaged for over three weeks in what would become a protracted war. By signing the Torrijos-Carter Treaties of 1977, President Jimmy Carter promised that the United States would relinquish control of the Panama Canal. On 31 December 1999, Panama gained sovereignty over the canal.

Although Jimmy Carter himself was a "born again" Southern Baptist, he was castigated by many Christians for his role in giving the canal to the people of Panama. Many conservative Christians are strongly nationalistic and believe that the United States has a unique destiny due to God's graces. They have become God's chosen people.

Farewell to Isaiah

2009-11-24T00:55:00.000-06:00

My wife and I lost a member of my family tonight. Our cat Isaiah died.

I remember when I first got Isaiah about 12 or so years ago. I went to the Animal Shelter to pick out a kitten. My heart was set on a kitten. When I entered the area in which the cats were kept, I heard loud plaintive meows. The sounds drew me to a cage containing a grown gray and white male adult hiding in its litter box fearfully crying.

The cat had been named Cosmos by its previous owner who had left the frightened creature here because her boyfriend had proven allergic to cats. I immediately selected this cat to be mine. No one else had even bothered to look it over, and I feared it might soon be destroyed.

I had to leave my new cat at the shelter for three days while it was neutered. When I came to pick him up on the third day, I bestowed upon it a new name: Isaiah. At the time, I was reading James McPherson's The Second American Revolution. I had just finished the part in which Professor McPherson juxtapositions the 13th Amendment with Isaiah Berlin's writings on negative and positive freedoms. And so, my cat received the name of the great philosopher.

During Isaiah's first few days in his new home, I seldom saw him. He moved furtively from place to place, rarely revealing himself when I was home. At first, he refused even to come out for food when I was present. But on about the third night, after I had covered myself and prepared for sleep, he came forth from his hiding place, climbed atop my futon, and made himself a place to slumber atop my legs. This became a lifelong habit for Isaiah, and only one of his many odd qualities.

Later, I acquired a new girlfriend, Lynn. Isaiah took to Lynn instantly. He adored her, and began following her about like a lovesick puppy. When Lynn and I married some years later, Isaiah instantly became a member of our new family.

Isaiah’s odd habits increased as he grew older. Like most cats, he was fascinated by birds, but he also intensely feared my cockatiels. He ceased to play, but when it came to demanding attention, he was a debutant. In his later years he became disdainful of litter boxes except when he had to urinate: he would urinate only in his litter box, but he came to steadfastly refuse to depose of solid waste there. When his litter box was freshly filled, the strange old cat enjoyed nothing more than taking a nap there.

But goodbye to all that now if I may be so bold as to steal from Robert Graves. This morning, my wife awoke me early with a disturbing cry to come to her room. (We each have a room set aside to our own activities in addition to our bedroom.) I entered and found her crouched over Isaiah’s limp body. He was unconscious, but breathing. Lynn rushed him to the veterinarian, but the doctor told Lynn that she could do nothing to save Isaiah: His life was ebbing away. My wife and I discussed our next step. The animal doctor offered to put the poor creature into permanent rest on the spot, but we declined. Isaiah was in no pain, and he had always hated trips to the veterinarian. We decided he would die at home. And so he did several hours later.

I am so depressed.

Free Republic Frothings

2009-11-23T20:55:00.001-06:00

Today I checked Free Republic's recent postings to see if I could find anything amusing. I didn't did have to search far to find this gem:

When the government no longer responds to the will of the people who have elected and entrusted their counsil and betsowed authority, then either revolution or adversity will soon follow! The latter occurs when good men do nothing in the face of iniquity!

This beauty was posted by Dittos Rush! whose pseudonym well describes his political views. Despite his ravings on revolutionary action, Dittos Rush! states toward the end of his blog that he is not actually endorsing revolution. One day, I suspect, some lunatic will act, basing their behavior on the statements of these "the revolution is now" nuts while ignoring their small print disclaimers, and someone will be injured or worse. Only then might the political discourse of the far right become civil.

Fundamentally Oral Bill

2009-11-23T20:18:00.002-06:00

Animal rights promoter, vegetarian, and fellow atheist Berkeley Breathed sarcastically skewered Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, the religious right, homophobes, the rich, and the powerful of all stripes. Mr. Breathed excelled at at making the comfortable itch; in other words, he was the ideal political cartoonist of the 80s and 90s.

The cartoon below was taken from his anthology Tales Too Ticklish to Tell. (How's that for alteration: Now say it three times really fast.) Mr. Breathed drew this strip in 1987 shortly after Pentecostal television evangelist Oral Roberts proclaimed that God would "call me home" unless he raised eight-million dollars in donations.

In addition to performing many healing miracles, Mr. Roberts boasts of have spoken to Jesus personally and to have raised the dead.

Oral Roberts reminds me of Birther queen Orly Taitz. He claims a name too humorous to be wasted on a conservative: His name should rightfully belong to a porn star.

Paying to Be Punished?

2009-11-23T19:15:00.002-06:00

I taught in the Chicago Public School System for over ten years, and I fell in love with my job. I taught seventh grade in two of Chicago’s most poverty-stricken neighborhoods. I spent the bulk of my teaching career in Englewood, a large community on the Chicago Southside. But my first true teaching position was in what was, at that time, the poorest urban neighborhood in the United States: The name of the community was Stateway Gardens.

Stateway Gardens was a truly unique experience. I think I learned more than my students did. I really didn’t know what to expect. I had never been in an intercity school before. The students were not what I expected, and I suspect that I bewildered them as well.

I distinctly remember the first time I encountered a discipline problem. I had arranged all the students’ desk in a circle before class. The students came in and took their seats. As had been my habit throughout my teaching career, I sat at a student’s desk. (I’ve never used the teacher’s desk except for recordkeeping, and rarely even then. Teachers should never place huge, bulky items between themselves and their students.) I began it impart the students with knowledge, and I was certain that they wanted nothing more than to devour my wisdom.

About fifteen minutes into the lesson, a female student rose abruptly from her seat, pointed to another female student (who happen to be her cousin), and shouted, “You cocksucker.”

I was stunned. I’d never heard a thirteen-year-old girl use that word. I retrieved several parent conference forms from my desk and began filling one out. The girl whom had been the subject of the verbal attack, seeing me filling out a parent conference form, asked incredulously, “You’re not writing her up for saying ‘cocksucker,’ are you?”

“Yes, I am,” I heard myself saying calmly. “And you are receiving a parent conference as well.”

In the military, I sometimes guarded special weapons. I was taught a simple aphorism; subdue a threat with the minimum required force. Over the years, I learned to apply that lesson to the classroom. Experience taught me that I did not have to raise my voice to temper a class; heavy punishments were not inducements to better classroom behavior. I acquired the bearing necessary to teach. I became a good, polished teacher.

Still, as most teachers will tell you, there always exist problems. And one disruptive child can ruin a lesson for the other 25 or 30 students. If Johnny throws his textbooks, his classmates find that much more interesting than they do my worksheet on the proper use of pronouns. I’ve confiscated more weapons than I can remember. I’ve witnessed assault and battery. I’ve seen students attempt sexual crimes. As a mandated reporter, I’ve child abuse to child services. I’ve dealt with gang violence. Twice, I have intervened with court authorities on the behalf of students. All this aside, my main tool in dealing with habitually unruly students has been the parent.

The Author and His Students, circa 2000:

The Students in this Photograph Comprised an Excellent Class -

These Children Were Intelligent, Hard Working, and Well Behaved

Good parents rarely produce misbehaving students, and the vast majority of students are eager learners. But sometimes, especially with young mothers, a parent’s intervention was required.

The aforementioned Englewood school on Chicago’s Southside invented a unique and very useful policy for dealing with repeat offenders. Before a malefactor was allowed to return to class alone, a parent or guardian had to accompany to school and spend a half-day with the wayward child in class.

This policy had real benefits. One, it demonstrated to the parent or guardian the content we were teaching the students. Two, it had a calming effect on any other students inclined to be disruptive; most of our parents and guardians knew each other and communicated on a routine basis, so students knew their poor behavior would be reported. Three, disruptive children were less likely to act out if it meant they may be forced to bring a parent with them when they returned to school.

Of course, this practice had no legal strength. If push came to shove, we could not prevent a disruptive student from returning to class. But the policy was effective because we convinced the parents or guardians and students that we would carry it out.

Other schools try other methods of discipline. One of the more common efforts is detention. Detention works well but it fails to make that all-important connection between parents or guardians and the child. New Jersey’s Nutley School District has plans to change all that.

Nutley School District plans to force parents to pay the costs for their children’s detention should the students in question prove to be high school students. Of course, the proposal doesn’t resonate well with certain parents to be sure. "I feel teachers should be responsible for detention. They should be staying after school if necessary. It's all part of it, disciplining our children," claims one unhappy parent. "Taxes are high enough in Nutley. We shouldn't be paying for that," notes another.

On the other hand, taxpayers with no children find no fault with the idea. "I don't feel that I should be responsible for paying higher taxes. I think parents should start being accountable for their children," one homeowner noted.

Board of Education Members

Philip Casale and Steven Rogers

The proposal is being sponsored by two Nutley Board of Education members, Philip Casale and Steven Rogers. If they have their way, the new program would target students who habitually serve detention. Mr. Rogers points out that the proposal would save the district 10,000 dollars per year. Furthermore, he argues, if put into effect, the proposal would force parents to assume responsibility for the behavior of their children, "We're not looking to make money. We're looking to cut costs. We're looking to reduce the number of students that go to detention."

Some educational experts claim the proposal to be a violation of New Jersey's constitution. This assessment sounds correct if the state’s constitution guarantees every child a free public education. If the proposal fails to pass constitutional muster, school board officials say they will consider community service for their habitual offenders. However, should the proposal survive any legal challenges, it will certainly impact parents.

I, for one, find merit in the Nutley plan. I hope the proposal survives the inevitable court challenges. The students most likely to have discipline problems are those whose parents are uninvolved in their education. The Nutley School Board proposal will force such parents to play a role in what is being taught to their children.

A Call to Arms

2009-11-20T16:51:00.002-06:00

The Republican Central Committee of Lafayette County Missouri urges citizens to "starve the beast, keep your money," apparently inciting them to withhold their taxes. Those citizens who manage to escape detection by the IRS are then reminded to vote out incumbents - presumably Democratic incumbents. Should preferred candidates fail to garner the majority of the popular vote, hell, storm the capital and install them by force. Is this really what the Republican Party has come down to?

Barack Obama Genetically Unfit to Hold Office?

2009-11-20T12:24:00.001-06:00

The Washington Times has never been kind to President Barack Obama. They have decried and denounced his policies since he has taken office. But columnist Wesley Pruden has discovered a new, and hereunto unsuspected defect in our president. It seems as if Barack Obama is genetically unfit to serve as president. In his Washington Times column of Wednesday, 17 November, Mr. Pruden makes his case.

But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.

Nor is this the first time Mr. Pruden has implied that President Obama is inherently unfit for office. Note this passage from his Friday, 5 June column.

Mr. Obama's revelation of his "inner Muslim" in Cairo reveals much about who he is. He is our first president without an instinctive appreciation of the culture, history, tradition, common law and literature whence America sprang. The genetic imprint writ large in his 43 predecessors is missing from the Obama DNA. He no doubt meant no offense in returning that bust of Churchill ("Who he?") or imagining that a DVD of American movies was appropriate in an exchange of state gifts with Gordon Brown. Nor did he likely understand why it was an offense against history (and good manners) to agree to the exclusion of the Queen from Saturday's commemoration of the Anglo-American liberation of France. Kenya simply routed Kansas.

Bad Fiction blogger Patrick asks what I consider to be a reasonable question: If Mr. Pruden evaluates President Obama on his ancestry, can we judge Mr. Pruden on the same basis? Patrick suggests we turn to the Southern Poverty Law Center and see what information it may have on Mr. Pruden's pedigree. A visit to the Southern Poverty Law Center website proves illuminating:

His father, the Rev. Wesley Pruden Sr., was a leading spokesperson for Little Rock's racist Capital Citizens Council, which fought bitterly against school desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s. During the landmark confrontations at Little Rock High School in 1957, when President Dwight Eisenhower sent National Guard troops to protect nine black teenagers as they entered the white school, Pruden Sr. reportedly told the assembled mob: "That's what we've got to fight! Niggers, Communists, and cops!"

James Wesley Pruden also earns mention in The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and Culture.

Pruden’s failures most likely can be attributed to his poor managerial skills and his personal agenda centered on race. Once established at Broadmoor, Pruden looked for a political outlet for his racial views. The Capital Citizens' Council (CCC) proved to be the ideal organization from which Pruden could voice his racial political opinions. Pruden served as chaplain and then president of the CCC. White "citizens' councils" had become a common tool to battle integration throughout the South by the mid-1950s. Moreover, along with other CCC leaders, Pruden pressured Governor Orval Faubus to stay the course of segregation. He gave support to those who made up the mob in front of Central High School—verbally encouraging them, according to Reed, “to fight niggers, communists, and cops!” He also placed ads supporting segregation in local newspapers and led the fundraising activities to pay the bail bond of those whites arrested for demonstrating at Central.

By now, a reasonable reader is thinking, "enough about his father - judge Mr. Pruden on his own merits. I agree, and yet, Mr. Pruden finds the president lacking because of his ancestry. Take, for example, this description of a 1992 interview:

After singling out the Southern culture warrior, Sen. Jesse Helms, as a political hero, Pruden bragged about his great-grandmother shooting a Union cavalryman and boasted that the Times was the most "in-your-face" conservative newspaper in America. When Robert E. Lee's birthday rolls around every year, he said, "I make sure we have a story" — especially because the occasion "falls around Martin Luther King's birthday."

The Southern Poverty Law Center also informs us that Mr. Pruden denounced the Southern Baptist Church for its renouncing slavery.

All and all, it seems that some of Dixie's worse instincts still thrive in the breast of Mr. Pruden, a man who would judge our President on the basis of his ancestry.

Free Republic Frothings

2009-11-20T08:37:00.000-06:00

Free Republic, the extreme right-wing website, has made a number of interesting claims about liberals and Democrats over the years. I once read the postings religiously for the amusement they provided, but gradually lost interest as similar views began to percolate throughout the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Recently, I surveyed Free Republic and found an interesting topic called The Sociopathic Epidemic. (Of course, the "epidemic" consists of President Obama and his supporters.) One enlightening post , from Wednesday, 9 November, by I Buried My Guns contrasted the political right and left. Note particularly the focus on "white people." I am unclear if the poster realizes that most people to the left of the political spectrum are "actual white people."

Things the left hates:
Respect for others
A sense of humility
Deference to others not based on violence, strength and fear
Rules and norms they associate with white people
Actual white people.

Things the right loves:
Family and all loved ones
God, faith, and the respect and humility it engenders
An orderly, smoothly-functioning society
Safety and security for themselves and their loved ones.
Law-abidingness

Unfortunately, I suspect many subscribers to Free Republic actually believe such inane nonsense. No wonder they fear us so much and cling so tightly to their guns.

What Has Oboma to Do with the Rotchschilds?

2009-11-19T19:32:00.003-06:00

On 7 November, I mentioned Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel's disgust at the political hatred displayed at the GOP Tea Party protest of the preceding day. Elie Wiesel's tweeter was also reported by the online newspaper Politico where it drew considerable interest. What was especially noteworthy about the response to Mr. Wiesel's remark was the anti-Anti-Semitism expressed. Below are just some of the responses to the Politico piece.

Hypocrites. It's OK for them when liberals scream "nazi" at anti-tax protestors or scream about Israeli Jew conspiracies. But if a single sign mentions the name "Rotchschild", oh man, suddenly these putrid hypocrites are up in arms. Scum.

You know what? The fact is that at a time in history, The Rosthchild family controlled practically everything.This is a fact. Not anti semitic. I resent the Jewish outrage at everything. I am a tea partier. obama is a Marxist and takes his orders from George Soros... it is similar and these people need to get a life., Why any Jew would support the Obama administation is a mystery anyway. He is a Muslim sympathizer and the greatest threat to Israel ever to sit in the White House. Wake up Jewish community. Take off the blinders.

Anti-Semitism? What? This old man has gone clean out of his mind. Bush=Hitler signs got no commment so it can't be that. Rothschild sign? Well its factually true. They were one of the primary families involved in founding the Federal Reserve and are still in it up to their necks. Obama, Bush, and every president since Wilson have done as the Fed told them. Since it a valid historical fact that this family was involved in creating and still has ownership of a substantial piece of the Federal Reserve (but nobody seems to know how much), I guess its now Anti- Semitic to discuss anything a Jew does critically? This guy is a Hebrew Al Sharpton.

This comes from a man who charged several thousand $ for a lecture about Auschwitz, invested with Berni madoff and calls George Soros, a Nazi collaborator, a close friend.

"most American jews are not very religious and many are outright unbelievers, Jews in name only." Many older Jews in America feel shame for BEING in America, rather than emigrating to Israel in the late 1940s. Many sent money to help the colonization, and a few sent Army-surplus rifles, but the majority came up with the most interesting excuses for not answering the call to gather together and forge their homeland.

Elie Weisel is disgusting PR-seeking profiteering demagogue who has made a fortune off playing on the world's guilt trips about the what happened to the Jews during WW2. Most objective WW2 researchers agree now that the beastial Nazi''s, who happened to be anti-capitalist Socialists, killed even more Slavs and Gypsies in their concentration camps than Jews, but you don't see the Slavs and Gypsies trying to profit off the "Holocaust" like some of the shameless powerful Jews in the media. BTW... I have Gypsy relatives on my mother's side of the family that were killed by Nazi's.

This hollowcost thing is totally overblown by the jewish.

80% of the Jews voted for Obama. And now this left winger Wiesel thinks he can brow beat true patriots from expressing their views by bringing up the holocaust and anti-semitism. Hey Elie who founded Communism and the ACLU. The commies were responsible for killing at a minimum 50 million people. You people steal our tax payer $$$, steal our state secrets and don't forget "The LIBERTY", where your brave pilots staffed this defenseless ship for hours. How do you like those Apples.

When Republicans Do Bad Things

2009-11-17T17:45:00.003-06:00

Last year brought a story of a Rhode Island gay man who was unable to claim his partner’s body for months although the couple had been together for seventeen years and had been legally married in Connecticut. In response, State Senator Rhoda Perry and Representative David Segal sponsored a bill that would allow a member of a same-sex union to plan the funeral of his or her partner if the two had lived together longer than one year and owned property in common.

Governor Don Cartcieri

Last Tuesday, 10 November 2009, Republican Governor Don Cartcieri vetoed that bill, purporting that "This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue." Fortunately, Democrats hold a veto-proof majority in the Rhode Island legislature and commonly override the governor’s veto. We can hope the General Assembly quickly does so in this case.

Is the Governor just being mean-spirited and inhumane? Is he attempting to appease the extreme right of his own party? Or does Governor Cartcieri really believe that schlock? At any rate, let’s be thankful that Rhode Island term limits will prevent this bigot from running for re-election in 2010.

Columbus Go Home!

2009-11-17T12:38:00.002-06:00

Tea-baggers are best known for their virulence to all things tainted by Obama and liberalism. But can their odium be directed upon themselves? Actually, yes. Watch carefully as the speaker in the clip which follows encourages an anti-immigration group of Minnesota Tea-baggers into cheering the idea that they should be returned to Europe. At the end of his speech, the speaker leads the enthusiastic crowd in shouts of "Columbus go home."

The text of the speech is also given.

Hi, my name is Robert Erickson and I’m really excited to be here. Its people like all of you, and events like this that make our country great! Give yourselves a round of applause!

I just want to talk about a couple themes this afternoon because I love this country and I want to see America be the best place it can be.

Mr. Gutierrez is getting ready to propose an immigration bill in just a few short days, and we have to make sure he knows that we want a bill that’s tough on immigration. Now is the time for us to stand up and make our voices heard!

In Minneapolis, where I’m from, we have a huge immigrant population that’s been causing a number of problems. With the economy in recession, and so many people getting laid off, and unable to find work, immigrants should not be competing for the few jobs that are out there. Its just not fair to the folks who have a claim to this land and the right to be here. All across America, they are contributing to the flooding of our job markets making it hard for American’s to find jobs. Well I’m fed up and its time to let our politicians know that enough is enough, and we’re not gonna take it any more!

We need to secure our borders to protect our country. We need to restore order and put an end to the anarchy that’s sweeping the nation. We need tougher immigration laws to make sure that we send these people back where they came from. We need to protect the sovereignty of the real Americans. We need to hold our politicians accountable.

Its no secret that with an invasion of immigrants, comes waves of crime. We see them involved in massive theft, in murder, and bringing diseases like smallpox, which is responsible for the death of millions of Americans. These aren’t new problems though, they have been going on for hundreds of years, and continue to this day.

I say its time for us to say enough is enough! Are you with me? Are you with me? Lets send these European immigrants back where they came from! I don’t care if they are Polish, Irish, English, Italian, or Norwegian! European immigrants are responsible for the most violent and heinus crimes in the history of the world, including genocide and slavery! Its time to restore the sovereignty of people native to this land! I want more workplace raids, starting with the big banks downtown. There are thousands of illegals working in those buildings, hiding in their offices, and taking Dakota jobs. Let's round them up and ship them out. Then we need to hit them at home where they sleep, I don’t care if we separate families, they should have known better when they came here illegally!

If we aren't able to stand up to these European immigrants, who can we stand up to? We need to send every one of them back home, right now.

Thank you very much, and we’ll see you in the streets!

Columbus go home! Columbus go home! Columbus go home!

Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire, Real Estate Agent at Law

2009-11-16T10:38:00.012-06:00

Just who is Orly Taitz? Any rational person, if confronted this name would come to the only logical conclusion: “She’s an onomatopoeic porn star.” She does resemble a porn actress doesn’t she? (Are they actually called actresses?) The blonde-dyed hair and the overdone false eyelashes suggest such a conclusion. But she isn't; she a dentist with a law degree from an internet law school who practices real estate on the side. Well, actually she doesn’t sell estate anymore; her California real estate brokers expired in February of 2008. But Dr. Taitz still practices law, and she’s a woman with ambition. Recently, Dr. Taitz’s ambition has brought her into conflict with the American electoral system, and the system must yield.

The brassly Dr. Taitz has some peculiar ideas about President Barack Obama. For example, she believes that several homosexual members of the president’s former church have mysteriously died. She insists that President Obama has possessed several stolen social security numbers over the course of his life. Dr. Taitz claims that his passport is falsified. (She had a FBI informer supplying her with information on the fraudulent passport, but he died, “shot in the head.”) She notes that President Obama’s first act in office was to grant money to Hamas; this money will be used to purchase rockets with which to pelt Israel. Not content with simply stirring up terrorist in the Middle East, President Obama had ordered FEMA to make haste in building concentration camps. These camps will eventually contain the president’s political opponents and perhaps people who refuse swine-flu vaccinations. I presume this includes Dr. Taitz herself. Why would the president do this? Because he is a radical communist and secretly Islamic. As Dr. Taitz explained at the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot and reported by Esquire, Barack Obama represents an unthinkable threat:

I am extremely concerned about Obama specifically because I was born in Soviet Union, so I can tell that he is extremely dangerous. I believe he is the most dangerous thing one can imagine, in that he represents radical communism and radical Islam: He was born and raised in radical Islam, all of his associations are with radical Islam, and he was groomed in the environment of the dirty Chicago mafia. Can there be anything scarier than that?

But Dr. Taitz has discovered the means whereby she can rid America of this menacing man. You see, she possesses access to the president’s real birth certificate, and it proves that President Obama was born at Coast General Hospital in Mombasa Kenya on 4 August 1961, thus rending him ineligible for the office of POTUS.

Find below a supporter of the redoubtable Dr. Taitz exploring the intricacies of the Usurper's true birth certificate.

Dr. Taitz ardor known no bounds. She is currently bringing suit in the state of California to have President Obama's real birth certificate verified, thereby removing the Usurper -- as her followers in the "Birther Movement" call the president -- from office. Until she accomplishes this mission, we are under the domination of a totalitarian state.

Unfortunately for the children of America, Dr. Taitz is meeting unexpected resistances from the courts. And her unpatriotic detractors are picking unmercifully at the carcass of her case.For example, blogger Harl Delos actually questions the authenticity of the document.

As with the Hawaiian birth certificate, no doctor is listed. What has surfaced is a certified copy of the original, issued in February 1964 by Joshua Simon Oduya, Office of Principal Registrar, Coast Province, Republic of Kenya.

Nobody has come up with an explanation as to why the certificate would be issued in 1964 for a child that wasn't living in Kenya at the time, but that's only a mild curiosity.

However, the document says it was issued February 17, 1964, on a form which reads Republic of Kenya. At that point, the country was called the Dominion of Kenya. It didn't change its name to the Republic of Kenya until December 12, 1964.

Now, I grew up in a small county, and I've seen plenty of forms still used after they became obsolete. Counter checks, for instance, giving the year as 195_ continued to be used in the 1960s; one simply crossed out the 5 and wrote "61" or "62" instead of a single digit. I have seen forms used which had the name of an official who no longer held office; they used up the forms anyhow, and sometimes they bothered to mark out the name of the old official and sometimes they didn't.

But I've never seen someone use a form that was preprinted with the name of an entity that wouldn't exist for a year to come.

Obama's Real Birth Certificate

The implications of President Obama’s not being a natural born citizen was not lost on all of Obama’s political opponents. Alan Keyes, a perennial presidential candidate and President Obama’s opponent for the United States Senate in 2004, seized upon the chance to advance his political aspirations at the president’s expense; in November of 2008, Keyes filed a lawsuit against the California secretary of state, stating that the official had failed to thoroughly vet Barack Obama’s credentials before placing him on the presidential ballot in 2008. Mr. Keyes’ attorney in this quixotic quest is – you guessed it – Dr. Orly Taitz.

While Dr. Taitz very much desires to remove Barack Obama from office, she cannot simply a file a federal lawsuit to remove a national elected official, much less the president, without standing. Standing refers to a plaintiff's right to make a legal claim or to seek the court's enforcement of a duty or right. There are two requirements an individual must satisfy to possess standing in a federal court. First, the plaintiff must show that he or she has suffered actual harm from the conduct being challenged. Second, the plaintiff must show that the injured interest actually is one intended to be protected by statute or the Constitution.

Presumably, Mr. Keyes has standing his lawsuit as he competed against Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. (Mr. Keyes ran as the candidate of the American Independent Party, and finished the seventh highest total vote count. About 86 percent of Mr. Keyes votes came from California.) Should Mr. Keye's lawsuit prove successful, Dr. Taitz assumes that California's electoral votes will be removed from President Obama's total and awarded to the candidate with second highest popular vote.

Oh, did I mention that Dr. Taitz received her law degree from an online college? She is a graduate of William Howard Taft University. Its law school offers "distance learning law programs to qualified students around the world."

Dr. Taitz cast her net wide for plaintiffs who might have standing to challenge a sitting president and it was her good fortunate to stumble upon Captain Connie Rhodes. Captain Rhodes is a medical doctor in the United States Army. The Army paid for the final years of Captain Rhodes medical schooling, and, in return, Captain Rhodes agreed to serve in the military for two years. To her dismay, she received orders to report to Iraqi, so she employed Dr. Taitz to prevent her deployment.

Dr. Taitz sought a temporary restraining order on Captain Rhodes behalf in United States District Court in Georgia. The argument she put forth follows thusly: The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. Military personal are required to obey all lawful orders given them by the president. All military orders originate from the president. Only a natural born citizen can hold the office of president.

So far Dr. Taitz's reasoning is based on a sound reading of the Constitution, but this is where she strays from reality. Dr. Taitz further declared that Barack Obama, because he was born in Kenya, he is not a natural born citizen. As a result, he is an usurper and not the legitimate president of the United States. Should Captain Rhodes deploy to Iraq, she would serve there under orders that have no force of law, and could be accused at some future date of war crimes. Were Captain Rhodes been ordered to Iraq, she would have served willingly for former-president George W. Bush lawfully filled the office. Furthermore, should the Army decide that Captain Rhodes is to remain in the United States, she would fulfill her duties without demur.

Federal Judge Clay D. Land received Rhodes v. McDonald, and Birther hopes soared. Judge Land was a solid conservative, recommended to the bench by non other than Saxby Chambliss, and appointed by George W. Bush himself. As they insisted, Judge Land allowed Dr. Taitz to present her case and treated it with all the dignity it merited. Judge Land handed down his opinion on 16 September 2009.

First, Plaintiff’s challenge to her deployment order is frivolous. She has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Instead, she uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the President is “an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.”

It is never good news when a judge calls your motion frivolous. Bad things happen to lawyers who file frivolous motion.

She continues with bare, conclusory allegations that the President is “an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted illegal alien ... without so much as lawful residency in the United States.”

The judge alleges that our heroine reached a conclusion without evidential substances. Judges like substantive facts, and they generally draw their own conclusions.

Then, implying that the President is either a wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that the President “might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.” (emphasis added).) Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudulent.” (emphasis added).

Judge Land introduces us to his unique brand of humor. He is most amusing for a consecrative. Do you think Dr. Taitz finds this funny.

In further support of her claim, Plaintiff relies upon “the general opinion in the rest of the world” that “Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped through the guardrails to become President.” Moreover, as though the “general opinion in the rest of the world” were not enough, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that according to an “AOL poll 85% of Americans believe that Obama was not vetted, needs to be vetted and his vital records need to be produced.”

I can't help but wonder if Judge Land laughed as hard as I did at this. Lawyers must be careful when they cite things. Recently, a Wisconsin received a fine for merely listing the wrong citation. Unscientific polls are not a good thing to reference as evidence. Judges also find it humorous when lawyers cite unscientific polls to support their contentions -- not!

Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status. Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles.

This is United States, Dr. Taitz. Here you are considered innocent until proven guilt. Dr. Taitz grew up in the Soviet Union, and she never saw Parry Mason as a child. Thus, she was unfamiliar with this facet of the American justice system. I thought they would have explained that to her at the online law school.

Plaintiff’s complaint is not plausible on its face. To the extent that it alleges any “facts,” the Complaint does not connect those facts to any actual violation of Plaintiff’s individual constitutional rights. Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so. The weakness of Plaintiff’s claim certainly weighs heavily against judicial review of the deployment order, and in fact, would authorize dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.

Now, I’m not a practicing attorney, but, although I sleep through many a class, I did finish law school. I distinctly remember learning that any claim for relief must present a basis for relief. In other words, the Judge Land is stating that Dr. Taitz offers no actionable facts. She gives the judge no legal reason why he should grant her motion. Failure to state a claim automatically dooms a case – Law 101.

Plaintiff has demonstrated no likelihood of success on the merits. Her claims are based on sheer conjecture and speculation. She alleges no factual basis for her “hunch” or “feeling” or subjective belief that the President was not born in the United States. Moreover, she cites no legal authority supporting her bold contention that the alleged “cloud” over the President’s birthplace amounts to a violation of her individual constitutional rights. Thus, for these reasons alone, she is not entitled to a temporary restraining order.

Judge Land could have dismissed the case on its failure to state a claim, but instead he rules on the merits of the case ... and finds none.

Plaintiff does not seek to be discharged and apparently is willing to follow all orders from her military command except for any order that deploys her to Iraq. Although close proximity to any combat zone certainly involves personal danger, Plaintiff, somewhat disingenuously, claims that fear is not her motivation for avoiding her military duty. She insists that she would have no qualms about fulfilling her duties if President George W. Bush was still in office.

Judge Land suggests that Captain Rhodes might be a shirker. Yes, she's going to very popular with her fellow soldiers in Iraq.

Plaintiff has failed to establish that the granting of the temporary restraining order will not be adverse to the public interest. A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.

Judge Land calls Dr. Taitz's allegations "spurious." That's not good, and he hasn't even began his conclusion yet. Then there's the use of that word frivolous again. Lawyers are not suppose to file frivolous motion. The name plaintiff may not know he or she is bringing forth a frivolous claim, but its the ethical duty of a lawyer to explain to a client that a suit is frivolous.

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is denied and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Defendants shall recover their costs from Plaintiff.

Usually when a novice files a suit and fails to state a claim, the judge will allow the plaintiff to amend his or her complaint or motion, but not this time. Not only does Dr. Taitz lose the case, but Captain Rhodes must reimburse the Army its cost of defending against the motion, Traditionally, in the American justice system, each party must bear its own expenses. There are exceptions to this rule, however, and one of these exceptions is the filing of a truly frivolous motion. Not only did Judge Land toss out the suit, he warned Dr. Taitz that, should she file any similar motions in his court, she would be subject to Rule 11 sanctions. Civil Procedures is a first year law school class, required of every student, even those of Dr. Taitz's online university. Law students are drilled in the correct application of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Time and again students are warned to not invoke sanctions.

Despite her poor showing, I must surrender one compliment to Dr. Taitz, this dentist-lawyer has spunk. She immediately announced her intent to appeal the decision. When asked about Judge Land's decision, Dr. Taitz replied, "He should be tried for treason along with Obama." Judge Land's ruling, she added, "showed a total disrespect for the Constitution of the United States of America."

Dr. Taitz was truly shocked by Judge Land's ruling, but she's not the type of freedom fighter suffer defeat quietly, especially when so close to removing the Usurper from office. So, of course, she charges back into the fray. Sanctions be damned! On 17 September 2009, Dr. Taitz filed a motion for a stay of deployment. In drafting her motion, Please note on this and all other documents filed by Dr. Taitz, the defendant Barack Hussein Obama is listed as the de facto president (bold print in original documents). Dr. Taitz minced no words in warning the court of her righteousness and ire:

Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto President is not even nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Article III Judiciary.

This claim is difficult to decrypt, to say the least. Dr. Taitz is correct in saying the president is not in command of the Article III Judiciary. Article III of the Constitution establishes an independent Judiciary. Article II of the Constitution spells out the duties and powers of the president. We call this separation of power. But in the very same sentence, our good lawyer states that Judge Land is "most likely" subservient to an illegitimate "chain of command." Dr. Taitz's logic fails her. Judge Land of the very conservative 11th Circuit does not answer to the president, nominally or otherwise.

The Court in fact had provided the Plaintiff with no such notice of any intention to vary the procedural framework of the local rules in this case. The Court should, upon this ground alone, vacate its September 16, 2009, order of dismissal and STAY THE DEPLOYMENT of Plaintiff Connie Rhodes. Further, both Plaintiff and her counsel were denied meaningful access to the Courts by the very fact that this Court entered its September 16, 2009, ruling without reference to any of the key issues actually raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint or TRO.

Advice to the aspiring law student: Use of all upper case letters in a brief is an excellent method of impressing a judge. Dr. Taitz alleges that Judge Land failed to rule on the merits of her case. But, as we have seen, Judge Land did address the merits of the case although he could have dismissed the plaintiff's motion out of hand for failure to state a claim.

It is reasonably certain that the men who framed the Constitution did not anticipate the election of a man as a President who appears to have prevaricated about his place of birth and then ordered his loyal followers to ridicule all those who questioned the contradictions inherent in his own biography, such as the obvious fact that his Father was an (admittedly disloyal and possibly treacherous) Subject of the British Crown when he was born, even though this fact alone would disqualify the President as a “natural born citizen”, regardless of his place of birth.

Here, Dr. Taitz reminds the judge that Barack Obama does not legitimately hold office. Not content with merely taking down the president, our dentist-lawyer fires her cannons at Barack Obama's father as well. Then she states that, even if Obama was born within the United States, he would not be a "natural born citizen."

This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.

"Encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic Communistic dictatorship?" I feel dumber just typing that. Birthers seem divided on rather President is a Fascist or a Communist. Sometimes they describe him as both, seemingly unaware that the two terms are mutually exclusive. Dr. Taitz is absolutely correct on the right to petition being protected by the First Amendment, but that right does not obligate the Judiciary to recognize fraudulent evidence.

This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for failure to present facts, and yet has ignored or disregarded the facts concerning Barack Hussein Obama’s birthplace sub iudice aliena which were submitted to the Court in the form of the 1961 Hospital Birth Certificate submitted in the Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice ... .

Be honest. Doesn't she look like a porn star? Note her poise and the "come hither" look in her eyes. She would be a natural, and she wouldn't have to change her name.

Sub iudice aliena is a legal expression meaning "whose judgement belongs to another court." Dr. Taitz seems to be suggesting that the question of the validity of her frogged birth certificate is the subject matter of another court, and Judge Land should grant Captain Rhodes her temporary restraining order until that issue is resolved. The court to which the good Dr. Taitz is referring is that of United States District Judge David O. Carter in California. The case is Barnett, et al. v. Obama, et al. Et al is simply a Latin term meaning "and all." Social gadfly and perennial presidential candidate Alan Keys is one of the "et al" in Barnett v. Obama.

. . . in so ruling, albeit in obiter dicta this Court ignores some of the soundest and most carefully researched and professionally assembled and presented evidence, collated and substantiated by a former agent of England’s Fabled “Scotland Yard”. By its contradictory and condescending tone, the Court thereby denigrates its own asserted standard of adherence to evidence as the primary arbiter of legitimacy of any position asserted in litigation.

Wow! Some of Dr. Taitz evidence was provided by a former Scotland Yard agent, and the judge ignored it. Shame on you, Judge Land! Should you wonder, obiter dicta refers to something a judge says in passing. In fact, it's simply a fancy term meaning "by the way." Obiter dictum is not binding on a case. A non-binding statement judge says in passing is called obiter dictum. It is typically shortened to dictum. (Dicta is the plural form of dictum.) Less commonly, the term obiter is used instead. Here, Dr. Taitz is chastising Judge Land for mocking her claims.

Plaintiff submits that the clear preponderance of the credible evidence is that, in quite a few ways, Defendant Barack Hussein Obama has toyed with and manipulated his identity in order to obtain the President, and therefore won the “hard fought” Presidential Campaign of 2008 by fraud and trickery against the American People. The Court should reconsider the seriousness of its swift dismissal of this Plaintiff’s claims.

Dr. Taitz again reiterates that Obama stole the presidential election of 2008, and urges Judge Land to reconsider his previous decision.

Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.

In this passage, Dr. Taitz accuses Judge Land of violating his constitutional oath of office and calls him disloyal to the United States. Essentially, she is accusing him of treason. Again, potential law students, this is a very good way to score points with a judge.

[A]bsent judicial warning to the contrary, for good and just cause, Plaintiff expects that she should have ten Court business days, which is to say until September 30, 2009, to file her Motions for Reconsideration and to Amend or Alter Judgment, although it would be just and right and therefore authorized by law for the Court to vacate its own judgment of dismissal immediately and simultaneously grant this Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Stay of Deployment.

Finally, after rebuking Judge Land for his previous decision, and despite his order for her not to make a similar pleading in his court again, Dr. Taitz declares her intention to refile her motion for a temporary restraining order. Indeed, she demands the court grant her ten additional days in which to file. Furthermore, she states that it would only be "just and right" for Judge land to reconsider his previous order and save her from having to apply. This lady has.chutzpah!

The court rejected Dr. Taitz well-honed argument before it ever reached the judge; it seems she filed the wrong type of claim and then forgot to sign it. Ah well, anyone can make a mistake once. The claim was dismissed without ever being heard. But you can bet that Dr. is not the sort of lawyer to abandon a client. (Or is she?)

Unfortunately for Captain Rhodes, Judge Land proved intractable. On the following day, he issued a ruling. It began with a legendary quote: “It was deja vu all over again.” In a footnote, Judge Land attributed this quote to "New York Yankees baseball legend and philosopher, Yogi Berra."

Judge Land continued,

In her most recent tirade, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action. Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”

It's usually a bad thing if the judge describes your pleading a "tirade." It seems that Judge Land objects to the tone of our dentist-lawyer's motion.

This filing contemptuously ignores the Court’s previous admonition that Plaintiff’s counsel discontinue her illegitimate use of the federal judiciary to further her political agenda. The Court finds that the claims and legal contentions asserted in the present motion are not warranted by existing law and that no reasonable basis exists to conclude that Plaintiff’s arguments would be accepted as an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Simply, put the motion is frivolous.

"Contempt" and "frivolous" are two words a lawyer never wants to hear a judge say. Take my word for it.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied, and counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the Court should not impose a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 upon Plaintiff’s counsel for her misconduct. Counsel shall file her response to this show cause order within 14 days of today’s order.

"You got som 'plaining to do, Lucy." This is what happens when you really upset a judge, and accusing a judge of treasonable conduct for not ruling the way you want him to is very likely to upset a judge. I sure hope that Dr. Taitz comes up with something to placate Judge Land withing 14 days. Well, she has two weeks to draft a conciliatory and apologizing pleading.

But Judge Land hasn't finished with Dr. Taitz yet.

Notwithstanding the Court’s finding that Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous and that this Court had no legal authority under the facts alleged to interfere with a lawful deployment order, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the present motion seeking reconsideration of that order and seeking a stay of Plaintiff’s deployment. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks this drastic relief based upon the following arguments, each of which is frivolous.

Judge explains that even if the facts alleged were true, he would have no authority to grant her motion. Judicial intrusion into military matters is rare and is seen in only unusual circumstances. And he keeps using that word "frivolous."

Let's see how Judge Land summarizes Dr. Taitz's arguments.

First, counsel contends that the Court dismissed her Complaint without giving her an opportunity to respond adequately as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules. Counsel ignores that she sought to have the case heard in an expedited fashion in the first place because of Plaintiff’s imminent deployment. The Court modified its schedule to accommodate this request, and in fact held the hearing during the lunch break in an ongoing jury trial. Yet, she now complains that she only wanted the temporary restraining order expedited and not the entire case.

Dr. Taitz asked for an expedited hearing, and, now, after receiving one, she's complaining about it. Additionally, Judge was engaged in another trial, and he skipped lunch to give Dr. Taitz her rushed hearing. The dentist-lawyer had pissed off a hungry judge!

What Plaintiff’s counsel either fails to understand or refuses to acknowledge is that in order to address the motion for a temporary restraining order the Court had to satisfy itself first that it had jurisdiction and legal authority to decide the matter.

A court cannot hear a case unless it has jurisdiction. If a court does rule on a case over which it has no jurisdiction, that ruling is invalid. There are two sorts of jurisdiction a court must have. One type of jurisdiction is "personal jurisdiction." (You can call this jurisdiction in personam if you desire to sound erudite.) Personal jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to rule on a person and his or her rights. In the case at hand, the court possesses personal jurisdiction. It could rule on a motion involving Captain Rhodes.

But the second type of required jurisdiction is lacking. Judge Land explains that his court lacks "subject-matter jurisdiction." Subject-matter jurisdiction encompasses the type of relief sought and the nature of the case. For example, the typical court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear bankruptcy cases; only bankruptcy courts can hear such cases. In the case of Captain Rhodes, the court lacked the subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on the issue of her deployment to Iraq.

Then the court delivered another body check to Dr. Taitz. "... competent counsel would have understood that the Court was required to address abstention prior to ruling upon the motion for a temporary restraining order." Did Judge Land just imply that the good dentist-lawyer might be incompetent?" Yes, I think he did.

Oh, by "abstention," Judge Land means that his authority over Captain Rhodes is limited by the authority of another entity, in this case the United States Army. Judge Land is part of the Judiciary, as describe in Article III of the Constitution; the Army is commanded by the Executive branch, outlined in Article II. In the United States, we have this pesky thing known as separation of powers, meaning that one branch of government cannot willy-nilly intrude into the authority of another branch of government.

Judge Land moves on to Dr. Taitz's second argument:

Second, counsel argues that the Court ignored her arguments when it dismissed her Complaint. The Court considered Plaintiff’s Complaint, her motion for temporary restraining order, and all evidence Plaintiff submitted in support of her motion, including testimony from the Plaintiff. Upon its consideration of Plaintiff’s allegations in her Complaint and the evidence submitted prior to the hearing, the Court found that under well established precedent Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed based upon abstention principles.

Judge Land informs Dr. Taitz that he did her her arguments and found them baseless. Nothing in her previous complaint extended to him the authority to invalidate a military transfer.

Remarkably, in her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff does not even attempt to distinguish the legal precedent cited by the Court in its order of dismissal. She simply repeats the same bare and conclusory allegations that the Court found frivolous in its previous order. A motion for reconsideration that does not even address the legal basis for the Court’s previous order is frivolous.

Judge Land finds it remarkable that Dr. Taitz did not address the objections he made to her first filing and simply continues to repeat rhetoric. Damn! He uses that word frivolous again. And he's amazed that the dentist-layer doesn't concern herself with the fact that he found the first motion to be frivolous. Bad news.

Finally, it is clear that Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to continue to use the federal judiciary as a platform to further her political “birther agenda.” She has provided no legal or factual basis for 4 the Court to interfere with deployment orders of the United States Army. She supports her claims with subjective belief, speculation and conjecture, which have never been sufficient to maintain a legal cause of action. She continues to file motions that do not address legal issues but that describe the President as a “prevaricator,” allege that the President’s father was “disloyal and possibly treacherous” to the “British Crown,” accuse the undersigned of treason, and suggest that the United States District Courts in this Circuit are “subservient” to the “illegitimate” “de facto President.” Although the First Amendment may allow Plaintiff’s counsel to make these wild accusations on her blog or in her press conferences, the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes and not as a platform for political rhetoric that is disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action.

Now Judge cuts to the bone of Dr. Taitz's intentions. She's on a mission from God, and the tenor of the law be damned! He points out that she can make almost any sort of claim she desires on the street or internet, but in court she is legally bound to assert facts, not wild conclusions devoid of any material basis.

They say rats have the sense to abandon sinking ships, and anyone who finishes medical school must be smarter than a rat. Captain Rhodes bailed out on Dr. Taitz and deployed annoyed to Iraq. She faxed a letter to the court that before leaving.

Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night's local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling that was given on September 16th, 2009.It is evident that the filing order for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not in my interest. I have no intentions of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.

With that said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish it to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not be aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.

Furthermore, I do not want Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.

I am faxing this as advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerks office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.

Perhaps Captain Rhodes realized that clients who file frivolous suits are also liable for Rule 11 Sanctions. After all, she was already on the hook for the military's attorney fees.

Upon hearing of Captain Rhodes dropping Dr. Taitz like a hot potato, the dentist-lawyer's supporters howled. First, they insisted that the letter was a forgery. When it turned out otherwise, Birthers realized that the soldier must have been dissuaded by the military. Dr. Taitz found herself alone with no one else to draw fire. The dentist-lawyer filed a motion to withdraw as Captain's Rhode's attorney on 29 September -- with a catch:

The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the court ... , and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between the Plaintiff and her counsel.

The documents Dr. Taitz refers to are her own previous motions, Judge Land's previous decision, and the letter faxed to the court by Captain Rhodes. Note that Dr. Taitz questions whether or not Captain Rhodes actually faxed the letter. In fact, Dr. Taitz publicly stated that the letter did not originate with the now deployed soldier. But the dentist-lawyer takes no chances: She employs the old "You can't fire me, I quit" trick.

This conflict of interest sounds suspicious. What is she talking about? Read on.

In order to defend herself, the unsigned attorney will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately and divulging what would usually constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client's recently stated position on this litigation.

Ah, it become clear now. If indeed Captain Rhodes did not authorize Dr. Taitz to file the appeal on her behalf, Dr. Taitz is guilty of filing a phony lawsuit. A lawyer is never allowed to file without a client. That's a big no-no. Dr. Taitz wants to now insist that the client encouraged her to file, but she is not allowed to break attorney-client privilege. She hoping that Judge Land will grant his imprimatur to her blaming Captain Rhodes for the appeal. A asteroid striking the earth and wiping out all life is more likely to occur than Judge Land agreeing to this. You would think that a lawyer would at least get a client to sign a piece of paper before trying to dethrone the president of the United States with a lawsuit. I actually feel some measure of pity for Dr. Taitz here, simply because I don't think any lawyer is stupid enough to file a motion without a client.

The undersigned will offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client's most recently stated position in this case.

Did Captain Rhodes sign something that Dr. Taitz can offer as evidence? If Captain Rhodes signed something such as a fee agreement, introducing the document at trial would not be a violation of the attorney-client privilege. If Dr. Taitz jotted notes as she and Captain Rhodes discussed their trial strategy, that would be. Did Captain Rhodes say to Dr. Taitz in the presence of a third party? Then no privilege attaches. Why does Dr. Tialz speak of the need to violate privilege? Perhaps she was seeking to bluff Captain Rhodes into rescinding her own letter denouncing the dentist-lawyer and assuming the useful position of client once more. After all, Dr. Taitz can't go anywhere without a vehicle.

A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned's former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to fling this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client's ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client relationship between them.

The fact that Dr. Taitz gave Captain Rhodes five days notice before filing the request reinforces my suspicion that she was trying to bring her soldier client back in from the cold. If so, Captain Rhodes, already bitten once, didn't take the hook a second time.

[T]he Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.

Perhaps recognizing that no court in the land would allow her to share privileged information under these conditions, Taitz makes one last impassioned plea for release from her ethical obligation of attorney-client confidentiality.

Taitz's motion was rejected by the court; she neglected to sign it. Well, anyone could make a mistake once twice. The good dentist-lawyer quickly resubmitted her motion, this time with a signature.

On Friday, 2 October, Dr. Taitz proved her audacity to anyone's satisfaction by serving another motion on Judge Land, this one signed. The new filing requested that the judge recuse himself from the case. To ask a judge to recuse himself or herself from a case is to ask that judge to step aside and allow another juror hear the case. A motion to recuse is appropriate if a judge is biased or suffers from a conflict of interest. Why might Judge Land show bias in this case? From what conflict of interest might he suffer?

[T]here is some circumstantial evidence that Judge Clay D. Land may have had some extrajudicial and ex-parte contacts with the Obama administration, in particular from Attorney General Eric Holder.

Eric Holder fills the position of Attorney General of the United States. This means he is the chief lawyer for the United States. The evidence Dr. Taitz presents of his involvement is an affidavit offered by Robert D. Douglas, a supporter of Dr. Taitz efforts to oust the Usurper. Mr. Douglas alleges that he saw Mr. Holder in a coffee house across the street from Judge Land's court on the date when another, similar trial was occurring.

I looked up and immediately recognized an individual entering and approaching the serving counter, due to his well know [sic] TV displayed distinguishing features: his trim upper lip mustache, not large of stature and general olive complexion. I new [sic] instantly that it was none other than Eric Holder, the currently Attorney General of the United States. I called this to the attention of those present and they all agreed that it appeared to be who I readily recognized [sic]. He entered unguarded, no accompanying entourage and probably thought he would not be recognized.

Red flags went up immediately in my mind and the questions remain, as yet. Why does the Attorney General of the United States need to be present at this obscure hearing well off his beaten path? Could it possibly be, since Holder did not present himself in open court, he might have had "a little whisper in the ear" of a Federal Judge in order to bias his judicial vision and adhere to the presidents [sic] agenda of obstruction.

Only Judge Clay D. Land can answer those questions.

Judges are sometimes asked to recuse themselves with good cause, and this is exactly the sort of thing that Dr. Taitz needed to get this obstructionist fellow out of her path. I strongly recommend evidence of such compelling quality. Apparent Dr. Taitz forgot to attach this affidavit to her filing. This brings to mind the comment of one wag: "I hope Orly fills fillings better than she files filings."

It turns out just as well that Dr. Taitz bungled the filing of the affidavit. Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems to have outwitted the dentist-lawyer by having Attorney General Holder appear in Los Angeles the very day that Mr. Douglas spotted him in that coffee shop. Not only that, Attorney General Holder also appeared in Los Angeles the day before he was sighted in Georgia, as well. So for Mr. Douglas to have been correct, Attorney General Holder would have to had taken a overnight flight to Georgia, meet with Judge Clay, and then somehow make it back to Los Angeles in time to give another speech. This makes me wonder why he just didn't pick up a phone and call the judge. Furthermore, Dr. Taitz, as a lawyer, must realize that the Attorney General of the United States has absolutely no authority over Article III judges. Constitutional law is a requirement in law schools, presumably even online law schools.

Never mind all that stuff about Attorney General Holder, Dr. Taitz has another ace up her sleeve. She's done a little digging into Judge Land's economic dealing.

[A] preliminary review of the results of the Honorable Judge Clay D. Land's public disclosures concerning his investments, it also appears to the undersigned that Judge Land may because has equity ownership of certain securities (e.g. Microsoft and Comcast) which are aligned both politically with a key Defendant in this case, namely the de facto President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in such a direct and personal way that it could be said that this Judge has a financial stake in the outcome of the former Plaintiff Connie Rhodes's original case-in-chief.

I bet Dr. Taitz squeals like a little girl every time she says Barack Hussein Obama. And note that she again placed de facto in boldface print to insure the judge wouldn't miss it.

That's right, Dr. Taitz insists that Judge Land owns stock in Microsoft and Comcast. In addition to being one of the richest men in the world, Bill Gates, the creator of Microsoft is decidedly liberal about everything at Dr. Taitz esteems: for example, he is an atheist and he donates to causes that conservatives abhor. Still, Dr. Taitz, who thinks that President Obama is a Muslin Communist, must admit that Mr. Gates in a damn good capitalist. But he does have some tendencies that other American capitalists view with alarm. For one, he have given away hundreds of millions of dollars to charities, and much of that money went to Africa, the very continent where Dr. Taitz adamantly insist President Obama was born. A coincidence? You tell me. Mr. Gates may have supported the current president in the election, but that doesn't explain how Microsoft stock is bettered by Obama's holding office. After all, unlike the real American capitalists on Wall Street and in the automobile industry, Mr. Gates didn't need a tax payer bailout to keep his company afloat. The connection could lie in the fact that if Dr. Taitz succeeds in her goal of removing the entire administration from office, the Republicans would take over and continue Bush's policy of driving the economy into the ground, thereby harming Microsoft's ability to sell computers. Then it is entirely reasonable to assume that Judge Land would ignore Dr. Taitz's evidence to maintain the value of his stock portfolio.

A similar line of thought would show similar results for Comcast, thereby explaining why Judge Land's holdings in that company creates a conflict of interest.

The primary reason for the undersigned counsel to file this Motion to Recuse, however, is that Judge CLAY D. LAND has by his own actions created a constitutionally intolerable situation in which he is both complaining party, prosecuting attorney, judge and jury regarding the charges of frivolous filing and sanctionable conduct which he has leveled sua sponte and filed pursuant to Rule 11(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Note that Dr. Taitz used all upper case letters when spelling Judge Land's name. Thus she was sure to get his attention. She also demonstrates that she knows a little legal Latin by spelling sua sponte in bold print. This phrase means "of his own accord," "without the prompting of someone else."

Dr. Taits next quotes from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Now what are the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? Congress grants to the Supreme Court the power to propagate the rules which are followed by federal courts. The means by which a judge handles motions, decisions, procedure, and most other details of the routine courtroom behavior are known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Federal Rule of Civil Pocedure 11(b) and 11(c) describe sanctions. Rule 11(b) assists the judge in deciding when a sanction may be imposed.

(b) REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

This portion of Rule 11 states that any document placed before the court must conform to certain guidelines. When advocating - or arguing before the court or jury, the lawyer and plaintiff must abide by the same guidelines. Also any claim advanced before the court must be true to the best of that person's knowledge, and it must be reasonable. Other lawsuits are frivolous.

So what are the four prongs of the frivolous lawsuit test? The filing must meet all the conditions mentioned below to be considered non-frivolous. Guess conditions Dr. Taitz's filings failed to meet.

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

Rule 11(b)(1) is very important. Sometimes when someone make a claim about an industry, the industry will file a lawsuit against that person. hoping to intimidate them into silence. Consider, for example, Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey. In April of 1996, Oprah Winfrey invited a number of food safely experts onto her show to discuss how Mad Cow disease among other food related issues. In the course of the show, former rancher and current food-safely expert Howard Lyman mentioned that ranchers feed cows the remains of other cows. Ms. Winfrey appeared disgusted and announced that she would never again eat another hamburger.

The show aired on Monday, 16 April. On Tuesday, beef futures, already in decline, plunged. This fall in prices was to become known as the "Oprah Crash." The offended beef industry responded by yanking hundreds of thousands of dollars in television advertising. Several West Texas beef raisers filed suit under a "food disparagement" law only recently enacted as Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act. The law provided that anyone who knowingly spreading false and damaging information about a perishable food could be held for damages. The defendants included Ms. Winfrey and Mr. Lyman.The cattlemen also sued under several common tort theories. The request for damages included the request the the defendants pay the plaintiffs' court costs. In other words, the cattle raisers were suing Ms. Winfrey and Mr. Lyman while asking the court to force them to pay for the price of being sued. In the final appeal, the court considered the case in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. According to the court, Mr. Lyman had not spoken untruthfully and Ms. Winfrey had only given voice to her opinion. Furthermore, the court opined that the law did not apply to "fed cattle," and nowhere in the show at issue was Texas or any part of Texas even mentioned. Finally, the court noted that the plaintiffs were asking the court to deny Ms. Winfrey and Mr. Lyman their basic First Amendment right of free speech.

To be honest, there is no mention of Rule 11 in this ruling. Apparently the defendants' lawyers did not request it. You can bet that Ms. Winfrey can afford lawyers who know more about law than I do. Had there been a chance of Rule 11 sanctions being applied to the plaintiffs, Ms. Winfrey's lawyers would have made the request. In my very humble opinion, the judges should have applied Rule 11 sanctions nonetheless.

One need not be a lawyer to see the goal of the Texas cattlemen in this case. To brief, this suit was a cannonball across the brow of any future party that might publicly question the safety of their products. The cattle raisers were saying, "If you suggest our beef might be unsafe, we will hammer you the same way we hammered Oprah." The suit served to intimidate potential critics.

Suits like this are very old, and are sometimes used against ordinary people who cannot afford the cost of a lawsuit to coerce them into silence. Some industries have used unnecessary motions to delay judgments or increase the cost of lawsuits to other parties thereby making it financially impossible for them to continue ligation.
Sometimes plaintiffs file suit simply to harass other people. This can take the form of filing one lawsuit after another against a defendant for no valid reason.

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

All legal contentions must be based on existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for changing argument for changing existing law or for establishing new law. Such motives were the rule for those African-Americans who changed existing changed Southern law during the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King defied existing law by Civil Disobedience. In his defense, he stressed that the laws he violated were unjust. Thus, old laws were replaced with new laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voters Protection Act of 1965, and other, similar legislation. Future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, on the other hand, eschewed Civil Disobedience in favor of directing a direct legal attack upon the Supreme Court-sanctioned doctrine of "Separate But Equal." Justice Marshall won many legal victories in his struggle with unjust law, the best-known of which was Brown v. Board of Education. In this landmark, the Warren Court, in my opinion, the greatest collection of men to wear the black robes unanimously ruled that "Separate But Equal" was inherently unequal and unconstitutional.

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

If a lawyer asserts a fact to the court, that fact must be able to withstand the weight of the evidence. Don't waste the court's time insisting on facts that the opposing party can refute with evidence. For example, if a plaintiff asserts that I committed a tort in New York while knowing that I was recorded using a ATM machine in Chicago, he or she is violating Rule 11(b)(2).

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

I have a friend who insists that the Warren court arrived at the correct conclusion in Brow v. Board of Education, but for the wrong reason. Instead, he claims, the Court should have simply stated that "Separate but Equal" laws violate the Constitution because they were designed to exclude minorities. Nevertheless, realizing that they were asking the Court to reverse over a half-century of precedent , the plaintiffs offered a litany of historical injustices committed under the sanction of "Separate by Equal" and sociological evidence demonstrating that practice's baneful effects on African-Americans. The plaintiffs realized that if the defendants could successfully challenge their claim that "Separate but Equal" had a detrimental effect on African-Americans, they might have no case. Because of the massive amount of evidence massed by the plaintiffs, the defendants claim that "Separate but Equal" did no harm to African-Americans were refuted, and they could not legitimately point to a lack of information concerning such harm. The defendants' denials and contentions drown in a sea of evidence.

Dr. Taitz's lawsuit fails all four prongs of the test.

Judge Land then only need cast his eyes to Rule 11(c)(1)

Rule 11 (c)(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

So Judge Lands opines Dr. Taitz has filed a frivolous law suit. Where does he find the authority to sanction her: He need only to cast his eyes to Rule 11(c)(3)"

On the Court’s Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

Then Dr. Taitz goes on to cite several cases demonstrating why her case is not frivolous or merely political, and forgetting that the First Amendment does not apply to what you may state as true in a courtroom, claims the court violated her freedom of speech.

Did you notice that Dr. Taitz is still arguing a case that is now moot. She can no longer demand the court rule on whether or not Obama is legimately president because she has no client with standing. Eventually, the dentist-lawyer decides to address the issue of sanctions:

[T]his Court has ordered the undersigned to show cause why a "monetary penalty of $10,000.00" should not imposed on her. The word "penalty" suggests that the Court considers this to be a CONTEMPT proceeding, as does the fact that, on pages 1-2 of the same September 18, 2009, order, the court [sic] writes "This filing CONTEMPTUOUSLY ignores the Court's previous admonition that Plaintiff's discontinue her illegitimate use of the federal judiciary to further her political agenda." (all caps and bold italic highlighting added for emphasis). [sic]

Dr. Taitz argues against the sanctions, intertwining her self-defense with support of the Birther Movement and another attack on Judge Land.

[T]he imposition of [sanctions] based on an order to show cause which focuses most of it's [sic] real energy on criticising and [sic] attorney for vigorous and exuberant political advocacy raises a number of deeply troubling Constitutional questions, some of which relate to the inherent power of a court to use its punitive power of sanction to suppress unpopular views and some of relate the availability of this judge as a detached and impartial magistrate.

Here, apparently Dr. Taitz forgets to do a little proofreading. Writing like list will lower a law student's grade. These are amateurish mistakes. Note that Dr. Taitz again attacks the court.

This is clearly one of the situations in which the line demarcating "law" and "politics" is extremely unclear. "Politics" is, after all, the process by which "beliefs" become law. The original Plaintiff in this case, Captain Connie Rhodes retained the undersigned counsel for the purpose of advicating her "belief" that the words of the United States Constitution, regarding which highly meaningful and significant oath this Court has never written a single word.

Dr. Taitz returns to defending her moot case, implying that Judge Land ruled against the Constitution of the United States.

I should point out that when given a period of time to show cause why one should not be sanctioned, an attorney typically need only to apologize to the judge and all will be forgiven. Dr. Taitz shows no interesting in apologizing.

How exactly does the Court know about the "birther agenda" and why does the Court use such a pejorative term to refer to the contention that the words of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution are critical qualifications to be enforced by the people in Court when Congress and the electoral college fail to do so? The undersigned counsel submits that this Judge has, among other things, radically PREJUDGED the case which the former Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes brought, when he finds there is "no legal or factual basis" for her contentions, as when he states that "she supports her claims with subjective belief, speculation, and conjecture ... ."

In this passage, Dr. Taitz returns to her original argument, and submits that Judge Land had prejudged her case. However she now raises the issue of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution defines the powers, responsibilities, and prerequisites of the President. Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II states which individuals are allowed to fill the office of the Chief Executive includes this relevant passage: "No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President ... ."

Since President Obama, according to the birth certificate presented by Dr. Taitz, was born in Kenya to a father of British citizenship, he cannot be a natural-born citizen. But Dr. Taitz detractors claim otherwise, insisting that the president was born in Hawaii, and point to the following portion of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States wherein they reside."

Rebutting this claim, Dr. Taitz notes that even if Obama was born in the United States, he is not a natural-born citizen: Both parents must be parents must be citizens in order for a child to be a natural-born citizen. As evidence of this rule, Dr. Taitz points out that the Senate ruled unanimously that, if elected, then candidate John McClain was a natural-born citizen despite being born in the Canal Zone because both his parents were American citizens. (In all fairness, I must concede that in the past, the dentist-lawyer has questioned McClain's natural-born status as well.) If Dr. Taitz's logic seems a bit screwy, that's because it is.

Is/was this Court not even mildy curious why the President of the United States would have, on the day after his inauguration, two Executive Orders ... sealing his personal records from public scrutiny? Is the entry of such a pair of executive orders on January 21, 2009 ... not relatively strong circumstantial evidence that this court could consider both relavent and admissible (as a public record easily authenticated) to deciding the question of whether Barack Hussein Obama's photoshop birth certificate from Hawaii should be taken at face value?

It's true I fear. President Obama did sign an Executive his personal papers from private scrutiny. However, so did George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and so Order sealing on. This order, which Dr. Taitz neglects to mention, applies only to papers he generates as president. This is done to enable the president to formulate policy. As for the president's birth certificate, it being a photoshop image is merely more of the dentist-lawyer's mad ramblings.

After reaching for ever more extensive language, the dentist-lawyer compares this case to those which seated George W. Bush, upended Richard M. Nixon, and desegregated the South among other decisions. Dr. Taitz proceeds to lecture Judge Land on his constitutional duties. A representative excerpt follows:

The Constitutive was adopted to achieve and maintain certain political goals, such as the procurement of "the blessings of liberty", [sic] as well as economic prosperity and the general welfare. The Constitutional restrictions on the "natural born" citizenship and status of the President likewise has the expressly political purpose of preventing foreigners, insofar as "foreigners" could be defined or excluded in a nation of immigrants, from taking command of our armies, our vast executive departments and administrative bureaucracy, and all other associated powers of the Presidency.

Here again, Dr. Taitz reminds Judge Land of his responsibility to remove that "foreigner," Barack Obama, from office, but note Dr. Taitz's contrasting of immigrants and foreigners. This might well be because she herself is an immigrant. Dr. Taitz was born in the Soviet Union, moved to Israel where she was educated in dentistry, and then married an American man and moved to the United States. Dr. Taitz still hold duel US/Israeli citizenship. In Israel, she is held in high regard by those on the far right wing who share her beliefs that President Obama is a true servant of Islam.

[I]n relating to this Motion to Recuse, the undersigned counsel submits that the tenor of this Court's orders, and the rapidity of their rendition, both support the inference that the Court harbors a deep-seated prejudice and bias against counsel, and that such bias, because of its very nature and substance is extra-judicial in origin and transmission to the Court.

Actually, Dr. Taitz is probability speaking the truth. Judges do develop a bias against poor attorneys who repetitively file frivolous lawsuits. Dr. Taitz rambles on for 22 pages, repeating her claims and offering as precedent several suits having vaguely similar, but nonetheless unsupportive case law.

Note that while the dentist-lawyer was initially summoned to give cause why she should not be required to pay 10,000 dollars in contempt of court fees, she instead reargued her case and demanded that Judge law be removed from the case.

Despite her best use of lawyerly wiles to distract Judge Land, Dr. Taitz could dissuade him from applying the ten-thousand-dollar sanctions he had threatened to levy. I have no personal experience with these matters, but I've been told that when a judge gives a lawyer a chance to show cause why sanctions, that lawyer can usually simply apologize to the judge, and no monetary damages are applied; clearly, Dr. Taitz didn't apologize. In fact, Judge Land found Dr. Taitz to be more than a little insolent.,and he doubled the sanctions. That's right, Now Dr. Taitz faces a twenty-thousand-dollar fine. She did not take the ruling gently, as you can see from the following clip taken from a television show.

If Dr. Taitz found a ten-thousand-dollar fine to be unreasonable, you can well imagine her reaction this increased penalty. Where does Judge Land think he gets the authority to levy such a huge penalty? My guess would be Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(4):

Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.

It may be said that Dr. Taitz sanction is too low, because she is still espousing her inane ideas in other courtrooms across the country.

Dr. Taitz boldly announced that she would not pay the sanctions, and of this date, she has not. Unfortunately, however, Judge Land proved unyielding.

Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated November 13, 2009 and for the reasons stated therein, JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of the United States of America against Orly Taitz in the principal amount of Twenty Thousand and 00/100ths Dollars ($20,000.00). This amount shall accrue interest from the date of entry of judgment at the rate of .36% per annum until paid in full. This 13th day of November, 2009.

When Dr. Taitz made no offer of payment, Judge Land took one additional step:

Orly Taitz has failed to pay the $20,000.00 sanction ordered by the Court on October 13, 2009. Accordingly, the Clerk is ordered to enter final judgment in favor of the United States of America and against Orly Taitz in thrincipal amount of $20,000.00. The United States Attorney is authorized and directed to collect the judgment as provided by law.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of November, 2009.

In short, Judge Land ordered the United States government to collect the money.

Should anyone prove interested in any of the other suits filed against President Obama, I urge to view documents placed online by Jack Ryan. Mr. Ryan has gone above and beyond the call of duty in making these filing available to the public.

If the ending of this post seems slightly rushed I concede that it is, I suspect the California Bar Association will soon strip Dr. Taitz of her license to practice law. I wanted to publish this post before they do so. Furthermore, not all relevant documents are yet available on line. Still, several other suits in this vein, including some filed by Dr, Taitz herself, are available on Mr. Ryan's site. They are all dreck, but they are amusing and worth a look.

Oh, since I started this post, Dr. Taitz California suit - the suit with Mr. Keyes as a plaintiff - has been dismissed as well.

One last time: Doesn't she really look like a porn star?

Racism and Birthers -- Two Peas in a Pod?

2009-11-13T16:13:00.000-06:00

Those who consider Orly Taitz Birther movement to be free from the taint of racism need only consider this quote taken from her Facebook page:

We all Support Orly's Cause - We do it for our own Reasons - My reason is purely about Truth and non-Political Correctness - I truly believe Hussein is a Mulatto and does not Qualify as a Human Being - 1/16 th or less tainted Animal blood would Dequalify him as animal - Right Now Hussein is a Beast and living in my White House-Politics aside - We r not discussing Racism here - I am discussing Animal Husbandry - not Racism.

This comment was made by one Leonard McCauley. Mr. McCauley also refers to the infamous Dred Scott ruling as current law, and wonders why modern courts do not cite it. For those of you without a legal or historical background, Dred Scott is considered the most erroneous decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court. In his decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney voiced his opinion that Africans-Americans had no rights that white people had to respect and they could never become citizens of the United States. This decision helped set into motion the chain of events that led to the Civil War.

Elsewhere, Mr. McCauley dropped this little racist tidbit: "The Viet Nam Vets carry some very Serious Muscle...The Viet Nam Vets Might Just be the Resurrected 'KKK'... Hussein is now 'Toast.' " I've known some Vietnam veterans who would soundly object to being associated with the Klu Klux Klan.

Mr. McCauley also possesses some odd ideas about religion:

Muslims rank side by side with VooDoo, Budhist's, Hindu's and all lesser religions...Freedom of Religion was never Intended to embrace this type of Dark Worship...It was meant to acknowlege Christianity in all of it's Denominations...Again "Intent" vs." Wording" The State's have the Authority to consider allowing lesser... religions to Fluorish within their borders. It is time for the State's to Act on their Authority!

Mr. McCauley's ideas offend our Constitution.

Quote of the Day

2009-11-07T16:22:00.003-06:00

On Friday, 6 November, GOP congressmen led by Michele Bachmann led a demonstration against the healthcare bill now before Congress. GOP leaders declared the proposed bill to be the greatest threat facing Americans. Comparisons between Nazism and healthcare reform ran rampant at the protest. Some signs displayed images of Holocaust victims over which denouncing labels of healthcare reform were written. On Saturday, Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel stated his opinion on Tweeter:

Elie Wiesel on the GOP Tea Party's anti-Semitism and Holocaust comparisons: "This kind of political hatred is indecent and disgusting"

Good News on Healthcare Reform

2009-11-06T09:22:00.001-06:00

Good News!

The AARP, the American Medical Association, and the American Cancer Society have all announced that they're supporting the House health reform bill.

Any Democratic senators – or Independent Joe Lieberman – who support a Republican attempt to block a vote on health care reform should be stripped of their leadership titles. Americans deserve a clean up-or-down vote on health care reform with a public option.

Over 120,000 signatures – can you help us reach 150,000? Add your signature!

AARP endorcement follows.

Christian Apologist of Slavery

2009-11-05T13:08:00.001-06:00

One of the most difficult questions for Christians to confront is the issue of slavery. Time and again, the Bible justifies slavery. Defense of this horrid institution can be found in both the Old and New Testament. Most Christians rationalize the issue when asked about slavery. However, when I was a boy in the segregated, South I heard Christians time and again justify African-American slavery by claiming that God had ordained the Peculiar Institution because of the "Curse of Ham." This story is found in Genesis 9:20-27. For those of you without a Bible at arm's length, I offer the text below:

Now Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard.When he drank some of the wine, he became drunk and lay naked inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness, and he told his two brothers outside about it. Shem and Japheth, however, took a robe, and holding it on their backs, they walked backward and covered their father's nakedness; since their faces were turned the other way, they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah woke up from his drunkenness and learned what his youngest son had done to him, he said: "Cursed be Caanan! The lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers." He also said: "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! Let Canaan be his slave. May God expand Japheth, so that he dwells among the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.

The Curse of Ham is sometimes, unsurprisingly, referred to as the Curse of Canaan. To the ancient Hebrews, this curse led to God's command for the Hebrews to conquer and enslave the inhabitants of Canaan. Later, in the eighteenth century, certain Christians came to insist that Canaan or one of his elder bothers had given rise to Africans. Thus, African slavery was sanctioned by God. This inane belief resulted in African slaves being referred to as Hamites, a term now thankfully largely lost to history.

Unlike the racist Christians I knew in my youth, few modern Christians attempt and justify slavery. However, one Christian has attempted an apology to justify slavery. The You-Tuber appropriately self-named jezuzfreek777 attempts to defend all things Biblical, even the indefensible. In his video "Slavery in the Bible was Not Evil," he performs his duty with respect to slavery. Jezuzfreek777 has since removed this very odd video from YouTube, but not in time to prevent it being animated by a hostile viewer. Panman38 is the illustrator who saved this amoral treatment of human bondage from total annihilation.

Sam Harris and Criticism of Religion

2009-11-02T13:30:00.001-06:00

In the clip below, author and atheist Sam Harris discusses why he criticizes religion. He specifically discusses the role of religion in the 9/11 attacks and the irrational beliefs demanded of certain religions. Sam Harris is an articulate advocate of atheism and a much-needed voice in the wilderness.

99 Red Balloons

2009-11-01T14:45:00.005-06:00

Had the Soviet Union and the United States engaged in a conventional war while I was in the military, West Germany would have been the battlefield. Although the forces of the Warsaw Pact outnumbered those of NATO, the United States and its Allies generally possessed equipment of superior quality. The West decided that to make the best use of their equipment, they should practice a Defense in Depth should the Soviets attack. If they attempted to defend at the West German border, the Western Allies might be overwhelmed by shear numbers. Then the Soviets could break through and roam at will behind the Western lines, attacking reserves, depots, and supply lines. By falling back and defending in depth over the whole of West Germany, NATO would fall back on its own supply lines while making those of the Warsaw Pact ever longer. The Allies would also fall back to prepared defenses, while the Soviets would be forced to abandon their own. Falling back would secure the Allied rear positions while enfeebling those of the Soviets. This plan would take a huge toll on Soviet material and soldiers. It would also be costly to Germany. The war would again lead West Germany in ruins.

Not unsurprisingly, many West Germans opposed their role in the Cold War. Many farmers objected to tank maneuvers across their fields. Some objected to the idea that their nation was being proposed as one huge battlefield. Many young people, learning of WW II, became pacifists or objected to the US presence in Germany. Others feared that a misunderstanding might provoke an overreaction by one side or the other. Reality gives basis for such beliefs. NORAD has been alerted numerous times to supposed Soviet attacks, including one equipment malfunction resulting from the failure of a part that cost less than one dollar.

I once heard a military historian explain that, in the heat of a war scare, it would easy to mistake, "Put some troops on my flanks" for "Put some nukes on those tanks." I remember remember military personal in the Persian Gulf shooting down a passenger liner full of innocent civilians after mistaking it as a Iranian fighter. Those men who mistakenly IDed that plane as hostile were doing the very same job that I once performed in the Persian Gulf. In fact, my team mates in the Gulf once falsely IDed a passenger liner as a fighter, but an crewman visually IDed it before we could arm a weapon. Such is the risk of brinkmanship, a game popular with both the US and the Soviets during the Cold War. I have starred at hostile weapons several times during my five tours of duty, and am thankful that not one of the wielders of them took the American bait.

The song below speaks to the hair-trigger of the Cold War. It is said to be based on an incident in which someone released 90 balloons in Berlin. Some of these balloons were made of aluminzed mylar and reflected on NATO radar. Unable to identify the intruders, the Allies scrambled fighters.

The White Rose

2009-10-31T19:17:00.002-05:00

White Rose was among first German movements to oppose Adolf Hitler. The movement was non-violent in nature and offered intellectual resistance to National Socialism. White Rose consisted of students from the University of Munich and their philosophy professor. The group became known through an anonymous leaflet campaign, which lasted from June 1942 until February 1943. The group called for active opposition to the Nazi regime. Among the evils described by White Rose was the Holocaust. From the second leaflet distributed by White Rose:

We do not want to discuss here the question of the Jews, nor do we want in this leaflet to compose a defense or apology. No, only by way of example do we want to site the fact that since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way. Here we see the most frightful crime against human dignity, a crime that is unparalleled in the whole of history. For Jews, too, are human beings - no matter what position we take with respect to the Jewish question - and a crime of this dimension has been perpetrated against human beings. Someone may say that the Jews deserve their fate. This assertion would be a monstrous impertinence ... . Is this a sign that the Germans are brutalized in their simplest human feelings, that no chord within them cries out at the sight of such deeds, that they have sunk into a fatal consciencelessness from which they will never, never awake? It seems to be so, and will certainly be so, if the German does not at last start up out of his stupor, if he does not protest wherever and whenever he can against this clique of criminal, if he shows no sympathy for these hundreds of thousands of victims. He must evidence not only sympathy; no, much more: a sense of complicity in guilt. For through his apathetic behavior he gives these evil men the opportunity to act as they do; he tolerates this "government" which has taken upon itself such an infinitely great burden of guilt; indeed, he himself is to blame for the fact that it came about at all! Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!

Hans Scholl, his sister Sophie Scholl, and Christoph Probst.

All three were executed in 1943.

The six core members of White Rose were arrested by the Gestapo. Four hours after their 1943 trial, they were executed by decapitation in 1943. Leader Hans Scholl's last words were Es lebe die Freiheit! -- Long live freedom!

George J. Wittenstein, a surviving participation member of White Rose, discusses this and other German resistance movements. Men and women of White Rose are now considered heroes in Germany. Mr. Wittenstein tells of other German heroes forgotten by history.

Harper Valley P.T.A.

2009-10-31T11:24:00.004-05:00

Jeannie C. Riley first sang this country and pop hit in 1968. Harper Valley P.T.A. was written by country and bluegrass legend Tom T. Hall.

I was a boy when Ms. Riley first sing this song. I enjoyed the song at the time, but only later did I realize the song was describing the hypocrisy of those so quick to condemn others for not leading a pure and Christian lifestyle. I am reminded of family-values republicans who have been caught in their own transgressions when I hear this song.