Comments from Left Field

ACORN? Really?

Michael Tedesco — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:07:11 PST

Ok, I know I have been out of the loop for a while here but how did this one completely miss my radar? 52% of Republicans think ACORN stole the election for Barack Obama? That is either some serious mass delusion or highly effective propaganda.

The poll asked this question: “Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?” The overall top-line is legitimately won 62%, ACORN stole it 26%.

Among Republicans, however, only 27% say Obama actually won the race, with 52% — an outright majority — saying that ACORN stole it, and 21% are undecided. Among McCain voters, the breakdown is 31%-49%-20%. By comparison, independents weigh in at 72%-18%-10%, and Democrats are 86%-9%-4%.

Now, the obvious comparison would be that many Democrats felt that George W. Bush didn’t legitimately win the 2000 election. But there are some clear differences.

First of all, Al Gore empirically won the national popular vote in 2000, and lost in a disputed recount process in Florida. By comparison, John McCain lost the national popular vote by a 53%-46% margin.

In order to believe that Obama wasn’t the true winner of the 2008 election, one would have to think that ACORN (and perhaps other groups) stuffed ballots to the tune of over 9.5 million votes, Obama’s national margin.

Share and Enjoy:

Sarah Palin, Fauxpulism, and Right-Wing Identity Politics

matttbastard — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:49:16 PST

(Image: Tacoma Urbanist, Flickr)

Sarah Palin is back — and, seemingly, everywhere, as she launches a book tour (and, perhaps, a run at the White House in 2012).

Max Blumenthal:

In a Republican Party hoping to rebound in 2010 on the strength of a newly energized and ideologically aroused conservative grassroots, Palin’s influence is now unparalleled. Through her Facebook page, she was the one who pushed the rumor of “death panels” into the national healthcare debate, prompting the White House to issue a series of defensive responses. Unfazed by its absurdity, she repeated the charge in her recent speech in Wisconsin. In a special congressional election in New York’s 23rd congressional district, Palin’s endorsement of Doug Hoffman, an unknown far-right third-party candidate, helped force a popular moderate Republican politician, Dede Scozzafava, from the race. In the end, Palin’s ideological purge in upstate New York led to an improbable Democratic victory, the first in that GOP-heavy district in more than 100 years.

Though the ideological purge may have backfired, Palin’s participation in it magnified her influence in the party. In a telling sign of this, Congressman Mark Kirk, a pro-choice Republican from the posh suburban North Shore of Chicago, running for the Senate in Illinois, issued an anxious call for Palin’s support while she campaigned for Hoffman. According to a Kirk campaign memo, the candidate was terrified that Palin would be asked about his candidacy during her scheduled appearance on the Chicago-based Oprah Winfrey Show later this month — the kick-off for her book tour — and would not react enthusiastically. With $2.3 million in campaign cash and no viable primary challengers, Kirk was still desperate to avoid Palin-backed attacks from his right flank, however hypothetical they might be.

“She’s gangbusters!” a leading conservative radio host exclaimed to me. “There is nobody in the Republican Party who can raise money like her or top her name recognition.”

In contemporary politics, money + brand recognition = power –period. For a Republican party scrambling to maintain its ever-shrinking base, that makes Sarah Palin its most influential personality. And with the Democratic Party and the White House being seen, rightly or wrongly, as the party of Goldman Sachs, an avowed fauxpulist like Palin (she’s ‘one of us!’) driving the tone and tenor of conservative politics in an age of economic instability is not something to airily discount.

Tim Egan:

Right now, a time when only 20 percent of Americans call themselves Republicans and Democrats are shrinking as well, the independents are disgusted with both parties. In large part, it’s because neither one seems to be on their side.

The early warning shots came on Nov. 3, against an ineffective former Wall Street executive, ousted New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, and the billionaire mayor who barely bought himself a third term, Michael Bloomberg of New York. Both felt the back hand of an electorate that feels as if the system is rigged against them.

A year ago, most people were open-minded about the ground-shaking changes that came with the economic collapse. Polls found a slim majority in favor of Wall street bailouts to save the economy. They would listen, watch, wait.

By this fall, the majority were not only against the bailouts, but in favor of curbing pay on Wall Street, and tightening government regulation of same.

The continuous drip of perceived unfairness continues. One day it’s news that Goldman Sachs seems to have stepped ahead of the line of those waiting to receive H1N1 vaccines, prompting questions about why investment bankers were getting doses rather than children or pregnant women. This week, Gallup found one in five parents saying they were unable to get swine flu vaccine for their children.

Another day brings a report that the top banks are raising credit card interest rates – some as high as 29 percent, which would shame a Mob extortionist — even against people who have always paid on time. This is the thanks we get?

If Congress steers through the Great Recession without responding to the thousand points of pain among average Americans, people will see them for what they are in bottom-line terms: an insulated club. Proof, just recently, came from a Center for Responsive Politics report that 237 members of Congress — 44 percent — are millionaires, compared to just 1 percent for the country as whole.

It’s difficult to take the clumsy rhetorical and symbolic excesses of the so-called Tea Party protest movement seriously. The ham-fisted polyester populism employed by some of the more exuberant adherants seems designed to drive a stake through the barely-beating heart of parody. But the (partly manufactured) rage that is driving teabaggers to target moderate Republicans like Dede Scozzafava or burn Speaker Pelosi in effigy isn’t simply fodder for mockery by progressive bloggers and #p2 snarkmeisters; it’s a bellwhether for a burgeoning class divide that threatens to leave the Congressional millionaire elite behind — and give a boost to any political movement that figures out how to tap that rage, regardless of where that movement lies on the ideological spectrum.

The fall of social democracy in Europe may provide clues as to how this could play out if progressives fail to heed the mood of the electorate. In a piece for Red Pepper published in June of 2008, Magnus Marsdal tried to explain how and why the populist right has been ascendant in Europe over the past decade, using the Norwegian Freedom Party (FrP) as an example:

Talking to people who voted for the Norwegian populist right offers useful insights for anyone trying to fight radical right-wing populism elsewhere in Europe, particularly when it comes to what I call ‘identity politics’.

How does the FrP make the worker-voter identify with a party that is positioned so far to the right? Hostility towards foreigners and mobilisation of ‘white’ or ‘Norwegian’ identity plays a big part. So does the male- orientated FrP’s anti- feminism, which mobilises identity among male voters.

The right-wing populists also play with a particular type of consumer identity that sets the population as consumer individuals against the state, the tax system and the elite. These are the obvious side of the FrP’s identity politics.

There are two other elements that are less apparent but even more important to consider, both in Norway and in other countries where right-wing populism is on the rise.

Worker identity
First, the FrP’s rhetoric offers its own worker-identity. This is not the worker as opposed to bosses and owners. It is the worker contrasted to the lazy and dole abusers ‘below’ and ‘posh’, cultured people ‘above’.

It is quite normal for people to imagine society as if it were split into three different sections, with themselves in the middle. Moral values determine who is worthy, and who is unworthy, both ‘up there’, ‘down below’ and among ‘proper working people’. The unworthy ‘up there’ include all those who represent the state, the Labour Party, the government and everybody else who ‘lies and steals money from common workers’, as Hans Erling Willersrud, the car worker who is the main character in The FrP Code, puts it.

Among people ‘down there’, the worthy are those who, through no fault of their own, have become ill, disabled or been made redundant. Everyone else is unworthy, including those who don’t do their jobs properly. For many workers worthiness equals skills – you are worth something because you have skills and you do something. This way of measuring worth and dignity is an alternative to measuring by income or education. On this essentially moral scale, the ‘honest worker’ comes out on the same level as, or above, the rich person or the leading politician.

The unworthy also include the dishonest: those who turn with the wind, pay lip service to all, who are not ‘solid wood’, as Norwegians say. The worst are probably those who suck up to ‘posh’ people and intellectuals one moment, only to denounce them among workers the next. Not being perceived as ‘solid wood’ has created quite a few problems for politicians, especially for the Labour Party, which needs to present itself favourably to different groups at the same time.

From my interviews with working-class FrP voters, I made a simple model to show how those ‘up there’ and ‘down there’ stand in relation to the ‘proper working people’. The elite ‘up there’ are divided into three different types:

the ‘know-it-alls’ linked to the education system and the state;

the greedy, found at the top of the economy; and

the politically powerful (often connected to the ‘know-it- alls’ and the greedy).

[...]

A second element to the FrP’s identity politics is that of aggrieved identity. ‘I’m just an ordinary worker, I have no fucking say,’ says Hans Erling Willersrud. He knows what it means to be at the boss’s beck and call and he’s had enough of the condescending attitude of Labour politicians who ‘can’t be bothered to listen to what [he’s] got to say’.He had some contact with the social security office when he was sick, and ‘has had it up to here with the system’. ‘They wouldn’t even believe he was in pain,’ says his mother Eli.

Hans Erling thinks politicians and bureaucrats are driving his country into the ground. He believes the social democratic elite has arranged things so the rich, the shrewd and the sleazy can take advantage of the system at the expense of the common man. He’s at the bottom of the pile at work. He’s at the bottom of the pile at the dole office. He’s at the bottom of the pile in the trade union (as an FrP voter) and in politics in general. He sees himself as a ‘political underdog’.

This doesn’t mean he is weak. On the contrary: being an underdog is not about lacking personal strengths, but finding that they don’t count for anything. More powerful people, regardless of their competence, are lording it over theunderdog, without recognising his skills or paying attention to what he actually knows, thinks or wants. It’s humiliating. He feels aggrieved.

And how does a political party like the FrP exploit the popular mood? It uses political language and images to touch a nerve with people who feel ignored, trampled on and overruled.

Carl Hagen’s most important ploy is to place himself in the role of the underdog. When he rages against the other parties wanting to keep a strong FrP out of government, he says, ‘Our voters will not be treated as second-rate.’ This simple sentence is perfect for connecting with people who on a daily basis, whether at work, at school or in the media, feel that they are treated like second-class citizens. Widening the focus, Hagen implies that what ordinary workers are in the workplace, the FrP is in the party political system. The voters can identify only too readily with what he is saying.

At the same time, Hagen – in the role of the affronted man who refuses to back down – offers the promise of vindication. For more than 30 years he has paid for the conceited sins of others, he tells them. But he turns the other cheek. Unlike the powerful and the arrogant, he is not driven by haughtiness or personal ambition. He is only fighting for what’s fair.

This underdog pose is brilliant because it can be applied to so many different voter groups. Above/below is a relationship that most people can recognise. Because he understands the underdog mentality, Hagen can connect with social-democratic workers as readily as with Christian fundamentalists who feel that their Christian cultural heritage is under threat.

Other subjects that mobilise the affronted population’s sense of themselves as the underdog include the FrP’s attacks on ‘politicians and bureaucrats’, its protest against schemes such as ‘the new opera being paid for by taxpayers’ and accusations that overpaid journalists are ‘persecuting the FrP’.

So where does Sarah Palin and her overwhelming ubiquity fit in all this? Like Barack Obama in 2008, Palin could prove to be a blank canvas on which citizens could project their desires en masse. Only instead of hope and change driving a national popular movement, hate and fear would be the engine of political change in 2012.

Of course, recent polls make the likelihood of a Palin run for the Presidency seem dim for the moment, as Joan Walsh notes.

But that doesn’t mean progressives should exhale:

The main reason not to fear a President Palin can be seen in recent polling among independents and moderates. In a the most current ABC News/Washington Post poll, Greg Sargent drilled down to find that: only 37 percent of independents and 30 percent of self-described moderates think she’s qualified for the presidency, and 58 percent of moderates view her unfavorably. Even more intriguing (but not surprising): Palin’s approval rating with men is higher than with women, 48 percent to 39 percent, and just a third of women believe she’d be qualified to be our first female president. (So much for Palin’s appeal to Hillary Clinton fans!)

So I think the Sarah Palin rehab tour is more about Sarah Palin Inc. than Sarah Palin 2012. She’ll rack up the speaking fees, raise some money for red-state, red-meat Republicans, further polarize the party and live the high life she thinks she deserves. Still, even as I dismiss Palin as a serious GOP threat, increasingly I believe that the faux-populism of the right is something to worry about. It may be fun to mock Sarah Palin, but Democrats shouldn’t laugh at many of the people who admire her – who see a folksy, new kind of self-made mom trying to fight the bad old Eastern elites.

Digby nails it:

I’m not saying that we should panic. These people are politically weak in their own right. But when I see the liberal gasbags on TV blithely dismissing this as if it’’s impossible that Americans could ever fall for such lunacy, I feel a little frisson of alarm. I’ve read too many accounts of people who, 80 or so years ago, complacently made the same assumption. And the whole world found out that under the right circumstances even the most civilized nations can throw in with the crazies.

Bottom line: If the ugly momentum of right-wing identity politics carries into 2012, we could see the nastiest, most polarizing Presidential campaign since 1972, regardless of who gets the GOP nomination.

Share and Enjoy:

Miniature Manhattan

Michael Tedesco — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:56:30 PST

If you are into photography you know that Tilt-Shift – the process of making a normal scene look miniature – is all the rage these days. Once you have seen these photo’s you will know why.

Traffic approaching the Queensboro Bridge.

Isn’t that one hell of a cool effect? For more examples check out this Google Images tilt shift search.

Share and Enjoy:

“Legal, yes; ethical, NO.”

Michael Tedesco — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:01:13 PST

Yikes!

Have you ever got hit with a $1.99 data charge on your Verizon bill for accidentally hitting a button that connects you to “Get It Now” or “Mobile Web?” This design “flaw” might be netting Verizon $300 million per year.

Share and Enjoy:

Apparently Palin Lied…

Michael Tedesco — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:39:57 PST

Thirty two times according to Andrew Sullivan.

Remember: we are not including contested stories that we cannot prove definitively one way or another or the usual spin that politicians use, or even hypocrisy or shading of facts. We are merely including things she has said or written that can be definitively proven as untrue, by incontestable evidence in the public record.

Go see the list for yourself. All I can say is I wish all public officials were forced under the same microscope Sully has Palin under.

Share and Enjoy:

Who Is Leading The Charge Against Health Care Reform

Michael Tedesco — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:08:47 PST

According to this AP piece there is at least one shadowy group that wishes to remain unknown.

One clue to the mystery group may lie in its goals: to oppose any government-run insurance option, the approach favored by President Barack Obama and most Democrats, and to support requiring all Americans to buy insurance.

Those aims match two of the health insurance industry’s top priorities. Several industry officials disavowed any knowledge of the group and said they’re not behind it, including the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans, Blue Cross-Blue Shield of North Carolina, and other large national and North Carolina insurers.

‘They want to stay in the background’
Presented evidence that the activities in Maine, Nevada and Louisiana involved employees of Moore & Van Allen, one of North Carolina’s larger law firms, the firm’s spokesman Matthew French acknowledged the connection and said the firm runs the health care group for clients. He declined to name them, but he referred to “member companies of AQAH,” the group’s acronym.

“They want to stay in the background and off the front page,” said French. “They want the message to be the important thing.”

Moore & Van Allen has more than 300 attorneys and numbers financial, manufacturing, technology and health companies among its clients, although it won’t name them. It says they include “some of America’s foremost hospitals, multi-institutional health care systems, physician groups, specialty providers, lenders and insurers.”

French would not discuss the health group’s financing or provide much detail about its activities, saying it gives materials to like-minded organizations to distribute to their members.

The three states where the group’s activities have been noticed are focal points of the health care fight. Nevada is home to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat who is putting together the Senate’s health overhaul bill. Louisiana and Maine are represented by two senators viewed as swing votes: Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

French acknowledged the group is hoping its activities will build pressure on lawmakers.

“Obviously we want to educate to an end purpose. Otherwise we’re just kind of preaching to trees,” he said.

So the question remains, should a group with this much money and influence remain anonymous? I am not suggesting this is the case here, but if any group is allowed to hide their principles and their funding from public view what is to prevent nefarious foreign interests from participating in the U.S. political process?

Share and Enjoy:

File This Under Sexy

Michael Tedesco — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:57:22 PST

This baby makes me shutter.

Show me the money...$14,000 to be specific.

Share and Enjoy:

The Japanese Reinvent the Mobile Home

Michael Tedesco — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:02:42 PST

Talk about a trailer park upgrade!

Share and Enjoy:

Google Search Box Fun

Michael Tedesco — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:30:38 PST

Michael Agger at Slate got the ball rolling by putting Google Suggest through it’s paces and trying to identify the most awkward Google suggestions. What he has uncovered is that there are some seriously messed up people out there. Seriously.

Yikes

Actually, what Agger discovered is that Google’s search suggestion technology – which attempts to figure out what you are asking and then serves up suggestions based on real previous searches from other… er… people – can be funny as hell to play with.

Of course, not wanting to be out done by some MSM-type “journalist.” I decided to test it out for myself.

My first search, inspired by my previous post, returned this…

Or how about this one…

And of course, when contemplating my Movember stash I had to ask…

So here is your challenge, head over to Google and let us know what kind of human depravity you can uncover.

Share and Enjoy:

Palin Contemplated Suing Sully

Michael Tedesco — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:34:32 PST

Then realized she would lose.

At one point, according to people familiar with the discussions, Ms. Palin considered pursuing a libel suit against at least one blogger, the Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan. Ms. Palin decided against such a move because of the publicity it would bring.

Mr. Sullivan, in response, said asking “factually verifiable questions is obviously not libel.”

A spokeswoman for Ms. Palin didn’t respond to email requests seeking comment.

Sullivan’s reply…

And so the pattern of refusing to be accountable on anything continues.

By the way, that is one hell of a stash Sully has going eh?

Which reminds me, I am two weeks into my crazy Movember stash and any and all donations are welcome!

Share and Enjoy:

Sunday Afternoon Distraction

Michael Tedesco — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:33:09 PST

I give you, “God’s Hands.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

ht to Gizmodo.

Share and Enjoy:

Victory Puts Health Reform One Step Closer

Michael Tedesco — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:38:13 PST

In the words of President Obama (as contained in the fund raising email that hit my inbox a scant 1 hour and 24 minutes after the event),

“This evening, at 11:15 p.m., the House of Representatives voted to pass their health insurance reform bill. Despite countless attempts over nearly a century, no chamber of Congress has ever before passed comprehensive health reform. This is history.”

History indeed, and it was passed with 39 Democratic defections and only 1 Republican – Anh Cao, of Louisiana – the man who replaced William “I left hid the money in the freezer” Jefferson.

Congratulations are in order but don’t celebrate too soon. The fight now moves to the Senate where I am certain things will only get more complicated.

Share and Enjoy:

NY-23’s Mission Accomplished Moment: Thanks For Coming Out, Kids

matttbastard — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:27:53 PST

Ban-happy GOP purity gatekeeper Eric Erickson struggles with maintaining his already tenuous hold on reality as he gamely attempts to squeeze broken eggshells into lemonade (or something):

The race has now been called for Democrat Bill Owens.

This is a huge win for conservatives.

“Whaaaa. . . ?” you say.

There are two big victories at work in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.

First, the GOP now must recognize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives. In 2008, many conservatives sat home instead of voting for John McCain. Now, in NY-23, conservatives rallied and destroyed the Republican candidate the establishment chose.

I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy. A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do — crush the establishment backed GOP candidate.

And make no mistake, despite the Beltway spin, we know for certain based on statements from the local Republican parties, that they chose Scozzafava based on advice from the Washington crowd.

So we have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted. The GOP spent $900,000.00 on a Republican who dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. Were we to combine Scozzafava and Hoffman’s votes, Hoffman would have won.

Yes, and if only Bill Owens had been kidnapped by bug-eyed extraterrestrials from Ganymede, Scozzafava and Hoffman’s votes could have combined to form a giant robot that would crush godless liberalism once and for all!

If only.

TBogg tickles the 800lb gorilla in a navy power suit/red tie combo:

And Erick and Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson and Rush Limbaugh and Tim Pawlenty and George Pataki and the New York Post all endorsed Doug Hoffman and now the Republican Party (that Erick wants purged of nonbelievers) should listen to him because the teabaggers favorite son just lost a seat that Republicans have held for 140 years.

Right. This makes sense.

Pssh. Wevs. Pay no attention to the greaser in waterskis sporting a Palin 2012 button:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Share and Enjoy:

Who are we fighting and what are we fighting for?

tas — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:23:31 PST

Matthew Hoh, a Marine veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, was rising quickly through our Foreign Service ranks, serving as a Senior Civilian Representative for America in Zabul Province, Afghanistan. Hoh had a bright government career ahead of him until he quit because the Afghan war is bullshit.

The Washington Post has posted Hoh’s resignation letter — which has earned the attention of the Oval Office. Generally, resignation letters from members of the foreign service don’t reach eyeballs in the executive branch because, feh, who cares about such low officials? But Hoh’s letter is a clear, concise, and cogent summary of the situation America presently faces in Afghanistan. You should read the whole thing (especially since I can’t quote from it because, just now, I found out Adobe Reader is missing the text selection tool; and I haven’t the time to troubleshoot it).

Having led men into battle before, Hoh’s concern is whether or not the injuries and loss of lives suffered by soldiers is for a cause that’s worth it. In Hoh’s estimation, Afghanistan is no longer a battle worth a soldier’s life. He implies that if the history of Afghanistan was a play, then America’s part would be merely a supporting role — not of importance. Right now, America isn’t fighting terrorism in Afghanistan — rather, we’re involved in Afghanistan’s 35 year old civil war. In fact, our very presence gives militias a reason to assemble as Afghans in some Pashtun provinces will fight against all invaders, be they domestic or otherwise, since anyone not from the province is perceived to be part of a “continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions, and religion.” We’re not fighting al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan. Instead, we’re fighting “the Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups.”

Furthermore, Hoh argues, if the government attempts to justify our war in Afghanistan by claiming we’re fighting terrorists, then why aren’t we invading other countries like Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen? Hell, Hoh also points out that terrorists have done some planning in Western Europe — why not invade those countries?

Who are we fighting? What kind of war are we fighting? And why?

These are basic questions. If the government and the military cannot answer athem is clearly as Hoh has stated the fundamental problems with the Afghanistan war, then the war becomes a money hole that could sink the American economy. Worse, soldiers are dying for no good reason.

In short, if these basic questions cannot be answered, then President Obama needs to deny General McChrystal’s request for more troops and bring all the other troops home.

Would that be embarrassing? Yes, but what’s worse is not admitting when a mistake has been made. Yes, some will complain — rightly — that we’ve abandoned Afghanistan for a second time. Yes, this is cruel. Yes, we made a mistake by going back there. But just because we made a mistake doesn’t mean we should perpetuate it.

Share and Enjoy:

Another Judge Dismisses Birther Case; Slams Orly Taitz Hard

Kathy — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:45:29 PDT

David Weigel has the story:

Central District of California Judge David O. Carter has dismissed Barnett et al v. Obama et al, Orly Taitz’s most successful lawsuit — that is, the one that got the furthest through the legal system — demanding proof of the president’s citizenship.The entire decision is here, and it’s devastating to Taitz. Here’s an excerpt of the disposition, with emphasis in the original:

Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

Judge Carter was not through with Taitz, though:

[T]he ruling is limned with criticism of Taitz for the screwball, media-grabbing tactics she used to promote her doomed, frivolous lawsuit. Here, Carter confirms that he got complaints from Taitz witnesses like Larry Sinclair, claiming that Taitz wanted them to lie on the stand.

[T]he Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court. While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.

How crazy is Orly Taitz and her birther friends? So crazy that Bill O’Reilly thinks they’re crazy:

O’Reilly commented on Tuesday that he thinks the “birther” lawsuits are “crazy.”

The off-the-cuff comment didn’t go by unnoticed by Taitz’s followers, and now they are planning a protest outside Fox news headquarters in New York on Veterans’ Day.

On her Web site, Taitz wrote, “Keep in mind, what OReilly did, is more dangerous, more harmful then what some idiots like Rachel Maddow or Keith [Olbermann] did, since people believe O’Reilly to be fair and balanced.”

Taitz told the news blog Conservative Monster that O’Reilly is “not a legitimate journalist” because he had not contacted her about the story he planned to air. Taitz “stated that if Fox gave her a 30-minute show for her to display her evidence, Obama would have to resign from office within 48 hours,” the Web site reported.

Share and Enjoy:

Links for 2009-10-18 [Digg]

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:00:00 PDT

H1N1: Yes, You Should Vaccinate Your Kids
There are times when I wonder whether we’re really living in the 21st century. I’ve been having that feeling a lot recently, observing other parents (both online and off) discuss whether or not getting the H1N1 “Swine Flu” vaccine for their kids is a good idea.

Links for 2009-09-12 [Digg]

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:00:00 PDT

Charles Darwin film too controversial for religious America.
A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.