Orly Taitz is NUTS

There is a lot going on, but Orly Taitz is as good a place to start as any. On October 5, 2009, Judge Carter in California was expected to rule on the government’s Motion to Dismiss. Instead, he adjourned in the afternoon saying he would make a decision in 1 day to 1 year. While the actual transcript is not available, someone who goes by the moniker “Waveydavey” at the blog that follows this and other birther cases, Native Born Citizen, attended and posted a summary.

The judge tried many times to get Taitz to convince him that she had standing in the case. He dismissed various claims she made by applying prior legal rulings, some of which were not applicable and others which were not precedent-setting. She attempted to discuss the “Kenyan” birth certificates, but he said the only one he was interested in was the US one. She tried to discuss Obama’s “100+” fraudulent Social Security numbers, but the judge was not interested in that, either. She asked about deposing Obama, but the judge said he did not see the point since it was unlikely Obama would recall being born.

At the same time, the judge did not strike me as a very sharp tool. I have read all the filings, and I think the government’s case–as Judge Clay Land affirmed–is watertight. Yet, Judge Carter expressed a desire not to “shut” anyone out from the court system, said that if he did rule against her he would provide her with advice on how she could get standing, and suggesting that Washington D.C. might be a more appropriate venue. It seemed like he recognized the validity of the government’s case from a legal perspective but from a personal one does not want to throw the case out. There are many possible reasons for this; perhaps he wants the nonsense to end; perhaps he has doubts himself (though it did not seem that way); perhaps he wants 15 minutes of fame.

The best point Judge Carter made was when he said he did not agree with the premise that if an American woman had her child outside the country that child should be disqualified from being president. What if an American woman had her child en route to the United States in an airplane? he asked. It does seem illogical that the authors of the Constitution would differentiate between the child of a lifelong American and resident of the country who happened to give birth overseas during a vacation, for example, and a similar woman who had her baby on American soil. Does a baby born to an American overseas develop an allegiance to a country in which he has resided for no more than a week or a month?

The question that also occurred to me in reading a recap of the proceedings is why the definition of who is a citizen is arbitrary and something that Congress has the power to change. At some point, a political majority could theoretically legislate that those registered with the minority party were not American citizens. I have always found it odd that “birthers” argue that because the laws in place at the time Obama was born say his mother had to be a citizen so many years after the age of 14 to confer citizenship on him abroad, he would not be a citizen if born in Kenya. However, if he had born just a short time later when the laws said 3 years after the age of 14, he would be a citizen. Yet he would not be any different. It seems to me that once Congress decides what constitutes a citizen, that definition should apply retroactively–otherwise, how does the definition have validity?

Today, Judge Carter’s office issued an order confirming the dates set previously but noting the Motion to Dismiss was still under consideration. Some at Native Born Citizen have said this is merely an administrative act. Orly Taitz and the birthers, however, has taken it as affirmation that the judge will rule against the Motion. If that were his impetus for the administrative order today, wouldn’t he have just ruled on the Motion, as well? Orly’s assistant, a Texas attorney disbarred for criminal actions, then sent an e-mail to the US attorney handling the case asking them to stipulate to disclosure (against which the Judge has issued a stay), who replied with one word, “Nuts.” He later explained it related to military history, and a quick online search uncovered its origins:

The 101st Airborne had sent all of its supply trains west out of Bastogne (presumably empty) during the night of Dec 21st (and just in time: they were shot at by recon elements of the 2nd Panzer, who were looking for a crossing over the Ourthe River) and now that the encirclement was complete, there was no chance of getting more ammunition, food and medical supplies, already badly needed, except by air, and no planes could fly due to “Hitler’s weather”. The fog and snow continued until the morning of Saturday, December 23rd when the temperature plummeted, the sky dawned clear and bright with unlimited visibility, and the longed-for air drop became possible. The resulting 1446 bundles parachuted in by low-flying C-47s (several were shot down) surely saved the defenders of Bastogne, for ammunition was so low that artillery batteries were firing air-dropped shells while the air drop was still under way.

On the previous day four Germans had appeared under a flag of truce with a written demand for the Americans’ surrender. When shown the message, General McAuliffe had just been awakened and uttered a one-word contemptuous reply. This word has been variously reported, but there is no disagreement as to what he wrote on the paper delivered to the Germans. It was the now famous “Nuts”, which had to be explained to the Germans, and incidentally, also to civilian Belgian and French friends. The latter, when told it was a gesture of defiance, replied “Ah, the word of Combrun”, referring to an unprintable that Napoleon’s General Combrun had used under similar circumstances. There is now a “Nuts” street in Bastogne, as well as a “Place McAuliffe.”

Taitz decided the “Nuts” response was a lack of respect for her because she is a woman, rather than a lack of respect for her because she is insane. Taitz then filed a motion asking for an expedited ruling or a lift of the stay so she could proceed with deposing Barack and Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and just about anyone who has ever had contact with the President.

Also of interest, the Washington Postdecided to give Taitz the glamor treatment, providing a somewhat sanitized profile of the lunatic. Here is how the writer describes Taitz:

If you were the producer of an opinionated news show and wanted to book a birther, whom would you choose? A nondescript Pennsylvanian or an excitable Moldovan American lawyer-dentist described by Lincoln, her assistant, as a “fierce blonde” reminiscent of the warrior goddess Athena? Easy call! Today Taitz, 49, is wearing white high-heeled slingbacks; bare legs; a white skirt; black and white shirt; enormous eyelashes; and her characteristic air of charming but ferocious tenacity, part Meg Ryan, part Madame Defarge.

If I were Meg Ryan, I would sue for defamation. If I were Madame Defarge and a real person, I would also sue for defamation. I love this quote by Taitz:

She also dismisses the concern that this president might be uniquely vulnerable to violent extremism. “There’s no reason to believe that that’s going to happen,” she says. “There is a lot of protection — the Secret Service. I think there is a much higher chance of violence against me than against” the president.

In other words, the president might get shot at, but he’ll be okay, because he has the Secret Service. She’s the one in real danger. The Postdoes shed light on some of Taitz’s crazier claims, like the idea that there are already 600 FEMA death camps set up, waiting to execute political prisoners. As Judge Carter told Taitz, her version of America–where the media are brownshirts, we’re all in danger of being thrown in concentration camps and gulags, and our rights are about to vanish–does not resemble the America that he sees. Indeed, if Taitz’s version of America were real, she would not be able to make these frivolous findings in courtrooms across the country as she searchers for that one judge who has just enough of her mental malady to rule that the case can go forward.

Comments are closed.