The woman has a correspondence school law degree that is from a school neither accredited by the state of California, nor approved by any Bar association or chapter, which probably explains why Orly Taitz is so extravagantly incompetent as a lawyer. Apparently she isn't any better at dentistry or real estate. (She doesn't appear to be competent at much of anything.)
About the only thing she IS good at doing is exploiting the racism of the right, and conservative paranoia for money. Well.......that and being an unintentional source of hilarity for the rest of the nation who aren't racist or paranoid conservative extremists. Machine gun shoots are a favorite location for batshit crazy Taitz to troll for clients from current and former members of the military, and for her financial contributors to lunacy like this. Her support tends to come from the less educated red necks in the so-called 'red' states.
Being ignored is about the best that Orly Taitz and her birther nut jobs can hope for; they could be subject to worse consequences, like the $20k fine for contempt against Tatiz by Judge Clay Land. His legal decision in that matter was one of the most well written, articulate, and in places wonderfully witty legal documents I have ever read.
And yet, people keep giving money to this ditzy dumbass .......... and not only her, but Ron Paul, and when he makes comments about black people not being familiar with paychecks, they give money to people like the Nut Gingrich and other conservatives as well.
from the HuffPo : Georgia Birther Hearing Proceeds Without Obama, Without Effect
A hearing to determine whether President Barack Obama is eligible to be on the primary ballot in Georgia took place on Thursday, with the defendants, Obama and his legal team, notably absent.
Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi subpoenaed the president last week after refusing to hear his legal team's challenge to the case, but neither Obama nor his lawyers ever planned on showing up.
Instead, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski wrote a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican and the ultimate arbiter on the question of Obama's ballot eligibility, telling him that he expected Kemp to throw out the "baseless, costly and unproductive" case.
Kemp responded, telling Obama's counsel that they would skip the ballot hearing "at your own peril."
The true nature of the "peril" Obama might face, however, began to play out during Thursday's proceeding.
The complaints being presented at the hearing are based off various claims that Obama is either beholden to an 1875 Supreme Court ruling that determined "natural born citizens" were people born in the United States to parents who are both U.S. citizens, or that he is using fraudulent documents to prove his eligibility.
California attorney Orly Taitz, queen bee of the birthers and a proponent of the latter belief, stood before what Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution described as "100 people ... most of them older white Americans" to argue her plaintiff's case.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Judge Malihi was forced to cut her off during her closing arguments, when she attempted to serve as both lawyer and witness.
In the end, no groundbreaking arguments, testimony or evidence were presented at Thursday's hearing, perhaps a testament to the tired nature of these challenges. Taitz is one of the most seasoned veterans of the birther movement, and the fact that she was even granted a hearing came as her first "victory." She was fined $20,000 last year by a Georgia judge for filing frivolous lawsuits of the same nature.
Even with the decision by Obama's legal team to completely ignore the supposed merits of the case, Bookman writes that Secretary of State Kemp is likely left with only one choice:
At any rate, the final decision is Kemp's. Regardless of what Malihi recommends, Kemp does not want to become the Republican secretary of state who ruled Barack Obama off the ballot in Georgia. Becoming a birther hero would not begin to compensate for the lasting infamy such a step would bring him, especially because such a ruling would be challenged in state or federal court and almost immediately overturned on any number of reasons. Kemp would then look like a fool and put an end to any further political ambitions he might have. I doubt that’s the course he will choose to take.While Kemp, Malihi and the plaintiffs watched the case unfold, Obama was in Las Vegas, expanding upon an energy blueprint that he had unveiled at his State of the Union address.
Explain how Obama, who is a citizen, can be a 'natural born citizen' when he was a British citizen at the time of his birth.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law
It really is sad to see people so desperate that the only thing they have is the race card.
And let's not forget that the KKK was started by the democrats, not republicans or the Tea Party. Why do you think they called that Democratic Convention the KLANBAKE!
Obama is a citizen, was born a citizen, and never was a British citizen.
DeleteHowever, even if he had held dual citizenship, and that is an IF, it would not have made him any less a natural born American citizen.
Just as our co-blogger Laci, who holds dual citizenship (U.S.& U.K.) who was born in Michigan, is eligible to be president, although I doubt e job.
The KKK was started by conservatives, who in the south have been Republicans ever since the mid 1960s when civil rights legislation was passed. They were democrats dating back to Lincoln having been Republican. We can trace parties back to when they had names like Democratic-Republican (Jefferson's party), but what it really comes down to is the conservative reactionaries have a history of racial prejudice and bigotry that goes back over a long, long time.
The birthers and other racists in the south NOW belong to the Republican and Tea Party, the Tea Party largely being a subset of the GOP, and substantially composed of people who identify as having been Republican.
I think it is sad when there are people who ignore reality because of racial hatred and bias, Anonymous. Claiming Obama was not a natural born citizen is silly, and out of touch with reality. It has been established, by the government of Hawaii, and by Congress, who are the constitutionally designated authorities to determine the outcome of any question on the issue.
As to those who make up outrageous fantasies about anchor babies and some of the other nonsense we see coming from the same conservatives, it is stupid, and it does not reflect well on those who make such arguments.
If someone is eligible to be president, and gets elected, whatever their ethnic heritage, and whatever date their ancestors came to this country - or if they are native americans who effectively have been here from prehistory - good for them. Lets judge them on their merits and character, not their identity as defined by race/ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.
I don't care if someone is of Asian descent, or Hispanic/Latino, or African or African-American parentage, or European, or Native American or from any other group of people on this planet.
Nor should you.
Well said Greg; thank you.
This is tiresome. The question of a person's citizenship and place of birth is legitimate, given the constitutional requirements for the office of the presidency, but that has been settled with regard to Obama. He was born in Hawaii, a state in the United States.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you're going to have to explain what the British Nationality Law has to do with this, but I suspect that the answer is exactly nothing.
"This is tiresome."
ReplyDeleteWho posted the piece that we are commenting on?
There is no denying that Obama is a citizen, but he is not a 'natural born citizen.'
The link I provided shows that a person born of a British subject is a British citizen. It is a well established fact that Obama's father was indeed a British subject. No one denies that.
Notice the plural, "PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS"
An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (original French title: Le Droit du gens), stating that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens," was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[17] as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[18]
The Democratic Party is the party of the KKK, regardless of all your nonsense, DG. Surely you've heard of George Wallace & Robert Byrd, both Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klanbake
Anonymous, it is only necessary for ONE parent to be an American citizen, regardless of where they are born, for someone else to be a citizen.
DeleteAnd anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of their parents - which does not apply in this case because of the preceding.
I doubt you've read de Vattel; I have, some of it in the original French, some of it in translation. It is NOT the law of the land in the U.S., Dred Scott was a poor decision that was subsequently superseded, and a dissenting opinion means that was not the opinion which became precedent.
The Democratic party is NOT the party of the KKK; the KKK members all left to become republicans. You are horribly out of date; they are right wingers, who now dominate the southern GOP and Tea Party.
Wallace and Byrd both repudiated their earlier 60's and prior affiliations so that doesn't hold up either.
Heck, don't take MY word for it:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/02/16/poll-birthers-now-make-up-a-majority-of-gop-primary-voters
http://www.frumforum.com/poll-45-of-gop-voters-are-birthers
then there is this:
New Study Links Racism and Conservative Beliefs with Low IQ
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/new-study-links-racism-and-conservative-beliefs-with-low-iq.html#ixzz1l4ld9VSj
Apparently our birther commenter kind of missed the courts have ruled quite consistently in favor of Obama.
DeleteI love it when they quote Vattel, since clearly none of them actually read it.
I'll leave it for Laci to get into the finer points of jus solis and jus sanguinis, since he has law degrees from both sides of the Atlantic.
What a moron.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletedog goneJan 31, 2012 02:24 PM
ReplyDeletehttp://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/remember-the-birthers-theyre-still-here/Content?oid=3587476
Remember the birthers? They’re still here
Poll of S.C. conservatives shows ‘kicked puppy syndrome,’ says professor
by Paul Bowers @CCPNews
A new poll of registered South Carolina voters shows that, among other things, the birther movement is alive and well in the Palmetto State.
Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (henceforth referred to as RRLs), who were the focus of the Winthrop University study, 75 percent said the term "socialist" describes President Barack Obama well or very well. Thirty percent of the same group said Obama is a Muslim; 36 percent said he was definitely or probably born in another country.
Scott Huffmon, the political science professor who organized the study, says he was not interested in finding out whether voters knew the definition of socialism or could back up their claims about Obama's origins. Those claims, he says, are part of "the kicked puppy syndrome" — that is, if someone asked you whether your enemy had kicked a puppy, you might be inclined to say he had.
"They make up a part of the general disappointment of conservatives in Obama," Huffmon says. "These folks are using any means that they can to express disapproval of the president."
The poll, which was conducted from Sept. 11-18 and had a sample size of 1,552 registered voters, showed a slight decrease in the percentage of S.C. RRLs who said the president was definitely or probably born in another country. An April poll of the same population, taken in the wake of Donald Trump's birther proclamations and before the White House had published Obama's long-form birth certificate, showed 41 percent of RRLs saying the president was definitely or probably born in another country.
Apparently, some people don't get it. Anyone who is born within the territory of the United States is a natural born citizen. Obama was born in the State of Hawaii.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone, that IQ study is typical of psychological studies: Take a few people who are willing to participate and draw broad conclusions about everyone. And as one commentator pointed out on another site, this may be an indication that extreme views of any type correlate with low intelligence, not just far right positions.
DG, So, your contention is that anyone born in the United States can be president.
ReplyDeleteYour other contention is that only Tea Party members and Republicans are racists and that there never was a Klanbake.
Okay. All righty then. ROTFLMAO!
Yes, anyone born in the United States can be president under the Constitution. Well, so long as the person is at least thirty-five years old and has lived in country for at least fourteen years. That's it. What other qualifications do you think exist?
Delete"Stupid, Old, White, Ill-educated Bigoted Southerners"
ReplyDeleteWow, what a nasty, bigoted comment. There is no doubt racism still exists, just read DogGone's posts and comments.
"The Democratic party is NOT the party of the KKK; the KKK members all left to become republicans. You are horribly out of date; they are right wingers, who now dominate the southern GOP and Tea Party."
ReplyDeleteDo you have some proof that the GOP and Tea Party is dominated by KKK members, or is this just another of your hate-filled, bigoted opinions?
Birthers - hahahaha
ReplyDeleteGeogria birthers - hahahahahahahaha
"and a dissenting opinion means that was not the opinion which became precedent."
ReplyDeleteInteresting point DG. Why does Laci refer so much to the dissenting opinion in cases like Heller and McDonald if the dissenting opionion does nothing to establish legal precedent?
Yes, anyone born in the United States can be president under the Constitution. Well, so long as the person is at least thirty-five years old and has lived in country for at least fourteen years. That's it. What other qualifications do you think exist?
ReplyDeleteSo, you think that the founding fathers used the words, 'natural born citizen' only under the requirements of eligibility for only the president and vice-president, where as any 'citizen' was okay for Congress? Why do you think they did that? Did they make a typo?
Could a native American be president?
If you really care about this issue, which I don't think you are, you may want to delve into the allegiance aspect of what they meant by 'natural born citizen, and the part allegiance of the parents to the US plays in that phrase. But, go ahead, just let it go down the memory hole just like the Habeus Corpus, the Bill of Rights and all the rest of the Constitution.
Anonymous,
DeleteRather than playing hit and run argument, why don't you just make your point? You keep hinting at something profound about "natural born citizen," but you've yet to explain what you see here.
I do understand that the Founders were concerned about a person having allegiance to the United States when he (at the time, at least) runs for office. Can you provide evidence that Obama doesn't hold allegiance to this country? And don't blather on about socialism, because even if Obama were a socialist (he isn't, to the dismay of many of his former supporters), socialism is a political philosophy, not an act of treason.
Greg, instead of me going over this again, why don't you explain how there is no difference between a 'citizen' and a 'natural born citizen.'
ReplyDeleteHow 'birthright citizenship' becomes a 'natural born citizen' especially when it involves 'dual citizenship'. How does that translate into allegiance to one country?
I will wait for your explanation.