Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Everyone's favorite dentist/lawyer/nutter, Orly Taitz, has a post on her blog that provides key insight into how the mind of a conspiracy theorist works. The principle dynamic at work in such a mind is confirmation bias; everything that weighs against their theory is automatically filtered out and explained away, while entirely mundane facts are twisted to make them appear to support that theory even when they don't. A perfect example is her response to the latest judge to dismiss one of her many cases:
Another point - Judge Carter state in court and in his order that I told people to call him This is not true. Who told it to judge Carter? His new clerk, fresh out of Perkins Coie, law firm, that represented Obama, in some 100 cases?
A textbook example of how the mind of the conspiracist will seize on any connection, no matter how tenuous, to dismiss anyone who opposes him and wrap them up into the conspiracy. Perkins Coie is a huge law firm with over 700 attorneys. So Taitz finds out that one former Perkins Coie attorney is a clerk for this judge and notes that Bob Bauer is from Perkins Coie and - A HA! - that explains everything. Except, of course, it doesn't.
The funny thing is that when this case was assigned to Carter and he ordered a hearing, Taitz praised him, saying, "For the first time, we have a judge who's listening." Press releases were sent out praising Carter and noting that he's a former marine. The Worldnutdaily was all over it, saying this was a big turning point. Now, of course, he's just a mindless judge under the control of one of his clerks.
How long will it take for those citizens to revolt? Washington Post has written that 8 out of 10 Americans know about this issue. According to AOL-it's 85%. This number is growing. How long will those people be silent?
Another classic bit of confirmation bias. In Taitz mind, 80% of the public knowing about the issue goes through that silly straw filter in her brain and magically transforms into a massive silent majority who supports her and knows she's right. And if she has to vastly exaggerate their numbers, that's fine:
4,5 million marched on Washington DC on September the 12th.
4-5 million? For crying out loud, even the organizers of the damn thing only exaggerated it up to 2 million and that was an obvious enough lie. But this is routine for the conspiracist. Contrary information is automatically filtered out and irrelevant information is twisted and exaggerated - whatever it takes to maintain one's delusion.
Politics
Comments
I don't know about you, but I heard it was a 12 million person march led by the tooth-fairy and Father Christmas. They would have changed Washington for the better if not for Obama emerging from his lair and, with one swipe of his Godless Socialist Tax-Vision, sending them all scurrying for cover.
Posted by: Julian | November 4, 2009 9:41 AM
Orly Taitz is a smoking hot babe!
Posted by: Skip | November 4, 2009 9:44 AM
Possibly some California lawyers who read this blog can explain why Ms. Taitz has not been disbarred for her unconscionable conduct.
Posted by: SLC | November 4, 2009 9:45 AM
Eesh, if Orly gets any sloppier with the punctuation, the next thing you know people will say it was forty-five million at the 9/12 whinefest...
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 9:47 AM
Orly also seems to think that it is somehow indicative of... something, that the law clerk graduated from Columbia Law School, the same school that Barack Obama graduated from 25 years earlier
Posted by: Alan B. | November 4, 2009 9:51 AM
Washington Post has written that 8 out of 10 Americans know about this issue.
Yeah, and probably the same number of Americans also know there are people who still think the Earth is flat.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 9:54 AM
why do reporters say things like: "some people are angry with Obama because of his spending and tax increases" without ever noting that there have been NO tax increases but instead there were tax cuts, and that 90% of spending was in place before Obama took office?
Its like getting mad at someone for something you think he may do at some time in the future, even when he keeps saying he won't (raise taxes on people
I think this is a form of confirmation bias as well.
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | November 4, 2009 9:55 AM
Is decent spelling and grammar no longer a requirement for passing the bar?
Posted by: NoAstronomer | November 4, 2009 9:59 AM
Kevin: That's easy; they say things like that to mislead the public into supporting the purely partisan interests of whoever owns their station/paper/radio show.
As an aside, if you really want to drive up your blood-pressure, you should start reading the "Beat the Press" blog which tracks all such outright lies passed on by the media, albeit only regarding the economy.
Posted by: Julian | November 4, 2009 9:59 AM
Taitz did have right on her website instructions for her supporters to call Judge Carter.
Cites:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=2117
Update in CA- Keyes et al v Obama et al
Submitted on 2009/06/09 at 9:05pm
These are some numbers I found for the Santa Ana Judges associated with this case #: (redacted)
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=2856
On July 5, 2009 Taitz posted a letter from Gary M. Wilmott of Simi Valley, CA and she posted and responded to it directly:
# dr_taitz@yahoo.com
July 6th, 2009 @ 12:48 am
the letters need to go to the court, not to me. You can fax me a copy, but send it to the court.
Then her supporter blogs posted as per her direction:
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2009/07/letters-needed-to-judge-david-carter.html
Orly Taitz would like letters of support to take with her to court on July 13. Please take the time to write a letter to Judge Carter regarding the eligibility issue and emphasize how important it is to respect the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. If you have written letters before on this issue, then it will be an easy task to just change the salutation. Regardless, everyone should do their part. This is not asking too much if you believe that Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama has defrauded the American people and usurped the office of POTUS.
You may fax your letters to me at 805-306-9400 and I will get them to Orly before July 13. FOR MORE INFO ON THE CASE, PLEASE SEE PRIOR POSTING BELOW. PLEASE SIGN YOUR LETTERS.
PLEASE ADDRESS YOUR LETTER TO:
HON. DAVID O. CARTER
U.S. District Court
(redacted)
Posted by: Just Browsing | November 4, 2009 10:01 AM
I've been following the legal pleadings of the batshit insane for some time now, not just Taitz but also Kent Hovind's tax case, the ICR and others. One thing they have in common is their bizarre use of legal jargon, especially latin phrases. Bits of lingo seem peppered in at random without regard for context or meaning. They also seem so emphasized, so projected, as if the author expects each latin phrase to fly like a tiny dagger into the heart of their adversary's argument.
There was something strangely familiar about the whole tone of it, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was or where it came from.
Until now.
Excerpt: Orly Potter and The Certificate of Live Birth
Scene: A courtroom, present day.
Seated at the plaintiff's table, Orly Potter fidgeted nervously as she looked over her notes. Oral arguments had not been going well, to say the least. Her best points seemed to evoke nothing more than a look of amusement on the face of the judge, her worst points one of annoyance and scorn. She could not understand how this judge could be so unsympathetic towards her and her cause.
Suddenly, the lightning-shaped dent in her forehead seared with pain. The room seemed to swim around her, and she saw herself as if looking through the eyes of the judge. It was as if she was the judge. The scene changed again and now she saw herself looking into the eyes of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, the Dark (skinned) Lord himself! She watched as she extended a man's hand to greet her arch-enemy. She knew that hand. It was the same that now grasped the gavel.
The pain in her dented head disappeared and the world snapped back into focus. It was all so clear now. The judge had been in league with the Dark (skinned) Lord all this time! Clearly the time for legal maneuvering was long past. Hoping to use surprise to her advantage, she snatched up her pen from the table in front of her and jabbed it towards the judge, yelling "SUA SPONTE!"
The judge, however, was too quick for her. Before her jinx could reach him he waved his gavel and snapped "Pro se!", causing Orly's hex to bounce harmlessly away.
Undeterred, she raised her pen again and cried "De fact-
But by now the bailiff's sluggish reactions had caught up to her. As he shouted "Ex parte!" a bolt of light sprang from his nightstick and knocked Orly's pen across the room.
Standing before the hostile court, alone and unarmed, Orly Potter heard the Dark (skinned) Lord's laughter in the back of her mind...
Posted by: DaveL | November 4, 2009 10:02 AM
I don’t know if this is the most productive use of your time. Considering what a large segment of the “truther movement” the left currently occupies, your “in-depth” analysis of conspiracy theories might lead you to some uncomfortable conclusions about your ideological brethren.
Posted by: Mike H | November 4, 2009 10:04 AM
"4,5 million marched on Washington DC on September the 12th."
It's simple math. She went around asking everyone there how many people each person saw and then she summed it up. Assuming that there were 70,000 people and each individual sees only about 10% of the crowd. That roughly translates to 7,000^2. And therefor there was about 4.5 million people. And Jesus was there, and he counts for a million people by himself.
Posted by: Holytape | November 4, 2009 10:04 AM
I just think it's awesome that people are named ORLY.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=orly
Posted by: Jeremy | November 4, 2009 10:23 AM
Mike H @12: I don’t know if this is the most productive use of your time.
You're, uh, you're talking to yourself there right? Because A: Ed's a Libertarian and B: Truthers are idiots, too. They also aren't bringing spurious lawsuits over and over again to try to get someone, anyone, to agree that the sitting President shouldn't be President. Hell, I don't think that the Truthers even did that when Bush was in office.
Also, the Truthers aren't a large segment of any part of the population, left, center, or right. The only time anyone ever brings them up any more is when they're trying to create false equivalences between the Truthers and the Birthers/Deathers/Tea Baggers, who are a much larger, more annoying, and destabilizing force in politics than the Truthers ever were or will be.
So take your tu quoque BS elsewhere, k?
Posted by: Geds | November 4, 2009 10:30 AM
James Sweet:
To be fair, the comma and period are inverted in various regions, with the comma separating decimals and the period for higher groupings (thousands, millions, etc.), so the amount of $3,000.43 might be written as $3.000,43 (or in various places, $3 000,43). Whether or not that would apply to Orly is beyond my knowledge.
Posted by: Mr. B | November 4, 2009 10:33 AM
She wasn't being sloppy with punctuation. She's a foreigner, from Commiestan IIRC. Foreigners use commas to mark the decimal place instead of good, ol' American periods like our Founding Fathers, including Jesus, intended.
Posted by: jpf | November 4, 2009 10:43 AM
It's also funny that Mike H would try to create a false equivalence between trufers and birfers when Orly is also a trufer.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | November 4, 2009 10:43 AM
Orly also seems to think that it is somehow indicative of... something, that the law clerk graduated from Columbia Law School, the same school that Barack Obama graduated from 25 years earlier
It's more than that. Obama only went to Columbia for undergrad, not law school. And the clerk went to Dartmouth for undergrad, not Columbia. So not only were they 25 years apart, they wouldn't have had the same professors, or taken the same classes, or even used the same buildings.
Posted by: Loren | November 4, 2009 10:44 AM
Orly Taitz is a dentist. "Perkins Coie" is an anagram of "Incisor Peek" - in other words, "I see your teeth!". Isn't it obvious that there is an unspoken (or sublingual, if you must) deal being done between them? She's selling out he faithful tribe of birthers for thirty pieces of amalgam!
But it gets worse! Another anagram is "Peskier Icon"! It must be Orly's own firm, and she's acting on both sides of the case!
The final proof of the reliability of the anagram method of detection is seen in the transformation of "Orly Taitz is a wingnut" into "A snarling twit, you zit!"
Posted by: Amadan | November 4, 2009 10:45 AM
Mike H. @ 12 stated:
Bullshit. The only statistically significant query I've encountered had an incredibly flawed question that conflated truthers with those aware of the fact that the President had been warned of a pending terrorist attack prior to 9/11. Therefore, there is zero empirical evidence that truthers make-up a "large segment" of the Left.
What is "large segment"? Appears to be a weasly way to assign a feature to a group without having any empirical evidence to back up your assertion. It also appears to be an impotent attempt to detract attention from the fact that one's own group contains at least a significant chunk that are unable to think critically.
Mike H., you are in a ScienceBlog.com forum, your juvenile attempts wholly dependent upon rhetorical and logical fallacies will not get you very far here. May I suggest becoming a premium member of Bill O'Reilly's web forum where you'll do far better. Possibly Glen Beck's site if you strike-out there as well.
Back on topic, this past summer more than a quarter of Republicans believed that Obama was not born in the U.S., in spite of the fact they have zero empirical evidence to base that opinion on while there is also overwhelming empirical evidence he was born in Hawaii.
Mike H. - when you did you realize you were going to be such a dishonest weaselly fuck-up and resigned yourself to it rather than developing into someone with integrity?
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 4, 2009 10:46 AM
Mike H @ # 12: I don’t know if this is the most productive use of your time. Considering what a large segment of the “truther movement” the left currently occupies, your “in-depth” analysis of conspiracy theories might lead you to some uncomfortable conclusions about your ideological brethren.
The truthers I've met are all over the political map, except for the slight problem of their feet not touching the ground. Besides, the truther/birther overlap seems to be fringes of the fringe - you seem to be saying that Ed can't criticize anybody, as if you just want to make him cry.
And our host's ideosibs are generally libertarian, sharing Little with the Left except an initiaL.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 4, 2009 10:49 AM
Geds:
Ed’s a libertarian like I’m a multiculturalists.
Also, the polling wouldn’t seem to support your belief that Truthers aren't a large segment of any part of the population, unless you don’t consider 42% of the democrat part responding either as a truther or a truther sympathizer in a Zogby poll to be significant.
But you are correct about the whole “false equivalences” thing. The notion that two groups of extremists can be considered on par is ludicrous when one believes a politician has been less than forthcoming with his own personal credentials and the other believes a politician murdered three thousand people through some convoluted and sinister shadow government so that he could wage war on yet more people around the world.
Posted by: Mike H | November 4, 2009 10:50 AM
The Park Police used to estimate crowds on the Mall by assuming that about one million people would fit, if standing and relatively close. For the entire space, Capitol to Lincoln Memorial, was a bit over two million. The only space large enough to fit 4.5 million would be Arlington National Cemetery.
To be fair, Orly was probably counting Arlington's dead among the attendees.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 4, 2009 10:55 AM
Hi Mike,
Care to provide a cite on that Zogby poll? Also, as I mentioned earlier, how do you explain the fact that Orly is also a Trufer? Would you define her as "on the left"? Also, for the record Mike, are you a trufer, do yo believe Obama was born in the US?
Posted by: MyPetSlug | November 4, 2009 11:00 AM
The only statistically significant query I've encountered had an incredibly flawed question that conflated truthers with those aware of the fact that the President had been warned of a pending terrorist attack prior to 9/11. Therefore, there is zero empirical evidence that truthers make-up a "large segment" of the Left.
As much as I hate both Truthers and Birthers, I think you've read Mike's statement backwards. He said that leftists make up a large segment of the Truther movement, not that Truthers makes up a large segment of the left.
Now the conclusion he draws from that is fallacious, but the observation itself is true.
Posted by: Loren | November 4, 2009 11:02 AM
To be fair, Orly was probably counting Arlington's dead among the attendees.
Orly *has* stated that the only thing that would convince her that Obama is eligible would be digging up Obama's dead father.
Posted by: Loren | November 4, 2009 11:04 AM
Only 4.5 Million?
Heck I heard it was 4.5 Billion. Everybody was there except for you... and the people that you know... and the liberal media. That should account for the whole world... yeah.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | November 4, 2009 11:04 AM
Ah, but that's not the point. If a large segment of the left was involved with the truther movement, that would be a problem. But if a large segment of the truther movement happens to come from the left, so what?
I hail from New York State. A large segment of the New York State Republican party is currently occupied by people from New York State. Does that mean I'm responsible for everything the NYS Republican Party says now?!? That's retarded.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 11:14 AM
And to build on what I said in #29.. when the day comes that a nationwide survey says the percentage of Republicans who, in answer to "Is Obama an American citizen?", reply either "No" or "Not sure" drops below 10%, I hereby solemnly swear to never criticize the Right for pandering to the birther movement again.
But as long as 40% of the party could be rightly described as birthers, and another 20% of the party as birther sympathizers, I reserve the right to associate the party with the movement, and criticize them in the harshest possible terms.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 4, 2009 11:17 AM
Re: Judge Carter's clerk. It certainly helps that the young man in question is of foreign descent, and brown-skinned foreign descent to boot. Yes, he's Indian, and statistically likely Hindu, but in birther-land, anyone brown is either an illegal immigrant or a Muslim terrorist, possibly both.
I do worry about his safety - it only takes one nutcase with a gun and a grievance to cause a tragedy, and the birthers have both in abundance.
Posted by: Sanjiv Sarwate | November 4, 2009 11:23 AM
Just to repeat, there is no poll showing a large number of the Left being trufers like we see with the Republican party where greater than 28% of the GOP are birfers (as of this past summer).
The only statistically significant trufer poll question I've encountered incompetently or disingenuously conflated truthers with awareness that W. was warned of a 9/11-like attack prior to 9/11. That effectively lumps the intellectually honest and well-informed in the same answer set with the trufer nuts making the answer useless except for talking points amongst the deluded on the Right.
The only people I've encountered who don't distinguish this fact are being informed of it are either defective thinkers and/or pieces of shit. When it comes to Mike H., I observe both are in play.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 4, 2009 11:36 AM
I've been following the legal pleadings of the batshit insane for some time now, not just Taitz but also Kent Hovind's tax case, the ICR and others. One thing they have in common is their bizarre use of legal jargon, especially latin phrases.
Yes. You could call it "cargo cult law", the same way that creationism has been called "cargo cult science". Basically they start with their desired conclusion, sprinkle in a bunch of law-like or sciency-sounding words, and believe that they've created an argument that's just as valid as anyone else's. The idea that arguments need to be based on established facts is foreign to them.
If I had to blame something, I'd blame the influence of religion. If two people are arguing religious doctrine, there usually aren't any established facts about the physical world that could settle the argument. All they can do is to come up with religious texts that support their views...and they're allow to write their own texts in an emergency. Then the argument gets won by whichever side can scream the loudest.
It's all fun and games as long as we're just talking about religion, but it does get tedious when the very best religious debaters decide they're going to try their luck in other fields.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | November 4, 2009 11:37 AM
Neither is being a troll. For some reason, people do it anyway.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 4, 2009 11:37 AM
Mike H urped:
For Pete's sake now they're dropping the "y" as well as the "ic"? Soon now we'll just be the DP.
Er...
Posted by: chris | November 4, 2009 11:38 AM
And so it begins.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | November 4, 2009 11:47 AM
Mike H,
Cite to the poll, please?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 4, 2009 11:54 AM
"But you are correct about the whole “false equivalences” thing. The notion that two groups of extremists can be considered on par is ludicrous when one believes a politician has been less than forthcoming with his own personal credentials and the other believes a politician murdered three thousand people through some convoluted and sinister shadow government so that he could wage war on yet more people around the world."
I like this piece of back-handed verbal trickery. At first he agrees with you, but in reality he doesn't.
Mike H., you're so full of malarky. Reading blog postings at WND or anything in a comments section by "borderraven" you'll know that birthers aren't just people who think Obama is simply being private in a sneaky way. They believe a variety of things, but the overriding feeling seems to be that "the usurper" has hijacked our nation and is taking it to deep, dark and dangerous places. They believe we are all going to be rounded up and taken to internment camps, have our civil liberties stripped while this expert con-man turns this nation into a failed muslim state.
Also, to further destroy your tongue-in-cheek comparison, there are people out there labeled as "truthers" because they think that Bush simply had some level of prior knowledge of 9/11 that could have prevented it, but didn't act on it out of ignorance or incompetence. They do not believe he helped plan the attack so he could allow his cabal of uber-rich allies to rape Iraq in some 1984esque eternal war.
Stop being a disingenuous moron and use your head.
Posted by: Incredulous | November 4, 2009 11:56 AM
Obama, of course, has no memory of his birth. He only believes he was born in Hawaii because that's what THEY want him to think.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 4, 2009 12:07 PM
The only statistically significant trufer poll question I've encountered incompetently or disingenuously conflated truthers with awareness that W. was warned of a 9/11-like attack prior to 9/11.
That's probably the same poll that Mike H, or some other, equally empty-headed loony-right apologist, cited here before and had smacked down. Either Mike H didn't get that memo, or he's just pasting the same tired old refrain over and over because he has nothing better to do and nothing else to show for his right-wing lunacy.
And yes, Greg Laden should ban him. He (and Ed, for that matter) gave him plenty of opportunity to speak, and all he had was half-assed diversionary nonsense and junior-high-level name-calling.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 4, 2009 12:09 PM
SLC @3:
IANA-California-L (or any kind of L except Liberal), but 'kathy a.', a regular commenter at COGITAMUS is. Apparently the CA Bar Association and its disciplinary committee are both funded by a state fee on lawyers, one that needs regular reauthorization from the State Legislature. The legislation was passed, but is currently sitting on "The Last Action Hero's" desk, unsigned.
Once it is, Orly may find her dental career more desireble.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 4, 2009 12:12 PM
I believe mike_h is referring to this poll, specifically page 8.
Note that the poll doesn't specifically allow for the position that Bush had been warned, but chose not to believe the warning. A person who took that position should properly answer "Official story" but "Let it happen" is superficially similar. A person not listening carefully might very well answer "Let it happen" even though they didn't believe that Bush deliberately let it happen.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | November 4, 2009 12:25 PM
@Raging Bee #40:
After going through that discussion, it looks like Greg decided to let Mike H continue posting, but with a new rule for him to not link back to his (Mike H's) blog. Mike H ignored that request, said he wouldn't accept those restrictions, and said he wouldn't comment there any more. He then closed with a perfectly apt "Smell you later losers" shot. I mean, that phrase was pretty old and lame when I was in high school, many, many years ago. Has it made a comeback?
Posted by: Shawn Smith | November 4, 2009 12:26 PM
More commaphilia. I'll repeat my comment at #91 here.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | November 4, 2009 12:35 PM
You know, if a judge had more or less accused me of suborning perjury, I'd be worrying about that instead of claiming I didn't ask supporters to call the judge. Especially when that claim is demonstrably false.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 4, 2009 1:02 PM
"Washington Post has written that 8 out of 10 Americans know about this issue."
There is a vast chasm between "know about" and "agree with a specific view of".
Posted by: Rev Matt | November 4, 2009 1:20 PM
Is decent spelling and grammar no longer a requirement for passing the bar?
Not sure it ever was, really. Graders look at the essays pretty quickly--they're looking for bullet point arguments raised and borderline coherence as much as anything. Doesn't make it any less embarrassing to see a licensed attorney writing like an 11-year-old, of course.
Posted by: Solly Hofman | November 4, 2009 1:32 PM
Ok, lemme straighten this whole Obama/Kenya thing out ferya:
kenyans are widely known to be excellent runners...many Kenyans have even won prizes for their running abilities! Further, many of these Kenyans have won these prizes for running WITHOUT WEARING SHOES AND SOCKS!!!!! (emphasis mine)
Obama RAN for office, multiple times! And he WON PRIZES for said running (he's the Prez, dontcha know? A mighty sweet prize!). AND it is well known that, underneath his shoes and socks, Obama has BARE FEET!
THEREFORE, Obama is Kenyan! And not just Kenyan, but a PRIZE-WINNING KENYAN RUNNER!
I need to give Poorly Taste this vital info...
Posted by: How | November 4, 2009 1:34 PM
You know, if a judge had more or less accused me of suborning perjury, I'd be worrying about that instead of claiming I didn't ask supporters to call the judge.
Well, they're both pretty serious issues for attorneys--suborning perjury's a big deal, but so's soliciting people to attempt to influence a court ruling.
Posted by: Solly Hofman | November 4, 2009 1:36 PM
John Hiatt is considered by many to be "A songwriter's songwriter.".
Ed Brayton is considered, by some to be "A bloggers' blogger."
Mike H. is considered by all who read his trenchmouted excresences as a lying fuckbag's lying fuckbag.
Posted by: democommie | November 4, 2009 1:49 PM
Orly is not just a lawyer and dentist, she is also a realtor. In SoCal, no less, center of the real estate bubble. I think she is carrying on her birther crusade to distract attention from the fact that she single-handedly is responsible for the financial crisis.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 4, 2009 1:57 PM
Incredulous @38: Also, to further destroy your tongue-in-cheek comparison, there are people out there labeled as "truthers" because they think that Bush simply had some level of prior knowledge of 9/11 that could have prevented it, but didn't act on it out of ignorance or incompetence.
Quoted for truth...
I'd probably be technically in that camp even though I take an even more nuanced view of 9/11 than that. The American intelligence community had known about Bin Laden and his anti-American terrorism potential even before the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He was a regular feature in reports during the Clinton Administration. I think it was fairly well known (and, as I recall, this came up in the Congressional hearings on the topic) that Bin Laden was up to something.
What I don't think anybody knew, probably because of inter-department rivalries and information withholding, was that the "something" in question was 9/11. As I recall we can track the 9/11 hijackers to pilot training schools and somebody or other knew they were learning to fly jumbo jets at the time.
But there is a world of difference between "know to look for something" and "know that they're going to fly these specific planes in to a bunch of buildings on 9/11/01." There's also the tiny issue that as long as the future hijackers were here legally they couldn't be arrested on suspicion of being up to no good (ah, the carefree, lawful innocence of just under a decade ago...). And I'm pretty sure that tooling around in a flight simulator is not illegal.
The situation is actually far more analogous to Pearl Harbor than any fevered imaginings of a false flag operation. There was a conspiracy theory (which still occasionally gets dredged up) that FDR knew of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in advance, but allowed it to get the country in to WWII. This is false. Historical records plainly show that the U.S.'s intelligence knew that the Japanese were up to something, but they didn't know when it was coming, where it was coming from, or what it was directed towards (the idea of an attack on Pearl was considered preposterous, as I recall the going theory was that the Japanese would strike at the Philippines, which they also did).
Neither 9/11 nor Pearl Harbor require a conspiracy, whether false flag or simple intentional inaction, to explain. They require an understanding of the nature of intelligence gathering and that the intelligence picture is basically a 10,000 piece puzzle that's been stored in a collection of an unknown number of plastic bags due to loss of the box years ago. No one knows what the puzzle is supposed to look like and no one knows if all the pieces are there.
It's not like a Tom Clancy novel where everything just snaps in to place because of the dictates of plot. And it's never as clear beforehand as it is in hindsight.
But I suppose that sneering idiots like Mike H. would just ignore everything I said and say, "Aha! I knew you were a Truther!"
Posted by: Geds | November 4, 2009 2:16 PM
Aha! I knew you were a Harborer! I'm not surprised, 86% of you lefty, pinko, feminist, marxist, postmodernists are.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 4, 2009 2:29 PM
Aha! I knew you were a Harborer!
Drats! Foiled again. And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddlesome...uh...
Hey! Look! Over there!
Posted by: Geds | November 4, 2009 2:38 PM
No way Bush could have been involved in 9/11. After all, it was brilliantly planned and executed....
Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 4, 2009 2:57 PM
Judge Land and now judge Carter, smack down the crazies (case dismissed), poor little Birthers.
Not even “Fake News” Bill O’Reilly believes the crazies, how funny.
http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/29/bill-oreilly-slams-orly-taitz/
To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up.
In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that is who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.
I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).
I wonder if she is a mail order bride, just like her law degree? She is perfect reporter material for “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme , unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present documented facts, not half baked lies (prepare for more failures).
A lawyer, dentist, realtor and black belt, WOW I must say a JACK of all trades master of none.
Posted by: Preston | November 4, 2009 3:20 PM
DaveL @ 11: Well done, sir.
Posted by: Kris | November 4, 2009 4:23 PM
As to why Taitz hasn't been disbarred: it's really not that easy.
Disbarment is serious stuff. You're taking away someone's livelihood (though I guess Taitz has her "dental practice"). And we ought to be very careful about disbarring someone based on bringing politically sensitive lawsuits.
Yes, Taitz is ridiculous, but so far as I know, only Judge Land has sanctioned her. Judge Carter didn't, and I don't recall hearing that any of the other judges have. Part of the problem is that many judges are reluctant to impose sanctions, whether because they don't like sanctioning lawyers or because it's more time taken away from an already crowded docket. But if a single Rule 11 violation was enough to get someone disbarred, I suspect you'd see even fewer sanctions imposed.
The other allegations -- about suborning perjury and such -- are just allegations so far. The bar would need to investigate and hold hearings, and I suspect the funding issue someone mentioned above is not an irrelevant factor. I occasionally look over the California bar disciplinary reports, and it seems to me that their hands are full just dealing with all the lawyers who embezzle client funds, commit felonies, and/or completely blow off responsibilities (usually due to substance abuse issues).
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 4, 2009 4:24 PM
@ Mike H.
Scienceblogs uses the "nofollow" tag for the links posted in the comments. Posting a link to your blog won't affect search engine results.
I hope that influences your decision to post on this site in the future.
Posted by: TBRP | November 4, 2009 4:27 PM
I read her column, then just for fun I read some of the comments - I wonder if the Secret Service has been apprised about some of the commenters. One called for people to "Bring down this devil", and another closed his/hers with "Sic Semper Tyrannus" - I HOPE that last person is a citizen of Virginia, but I'm more inclined to believe he/she was quoting JW Booth.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | November 4, 2009 5:10 PM
Re Screechy Monkey
It is my information that a lawyer in Cleveland, who is a member of the California bar, as he once practiced law there, has filed a complaint wilth that body against Ms. Taitz. In addition, Judge Land forwarded his finding of misconduct by Ms. Taitz to the California bar. If Ms. Taitz can't be disbarred for incompetence, for making libelous comments about the judges who have the temerity to disagree with her, and for filing frivolous law suits, then what good is the damn Bar Association?
Posted by: SLC | November 4, 2009 5:16 PM
I read somewhere that there were at least 45 million people at the 9/12 protests...
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 4, 2009 5:40 PM
If so, then someone is guilty of mail fraud.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | November 4, 2009 5:44 PM
dogmeatib:
I think a meme on this has started inside the social conservative world. I haven't seen a viral email on it yet but one of the few commenters on the crazy GOP Carolinian with the horridly designed site Ed linked to yesterday claimed that the 9/12 march was the biggest gathering ever held in the Mall.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 4, 2009 5:52 PM
I think everyone should show some compassion and give Orly a break regarding her lack of spelling and punctuation skills in her legal briefs.
After all, it's not easy using a word processor while wearing a straitjacket.
Those little keys are built for hands, not toes and noses.
Posted by: CHV | November 4, 2009 6:22 PM
Really it depends on what you consider a "truther." I've met some people who have, what I consider, legitimate questions about what the hell happened to the east coast air defense network, or what are the odds that Flight 93 was actually shot down rather than accidently crashed.
Both of those are relatively realistic, reasonable questions. When you consider some of the major airbases within just a few miles of all three major cities involved, both AF and Navy, the likelihood of there being virtually no aircraft available for interception seems a bit strange. On the other hand if the military did scramble, albeit late for most of the game, but shot down Flight 93, it would be a logical scenario with an acceptable outcome, the passengers on one aircraft versus literally hundreds or thousands on the ground? Who would blame them for shooting down the plane.
Personally I don't know the answers to these questions, haven't really looked into them, etc., but I certainly consider the people who ask these questions quite different from those who argue that the WTC was detonated, or that Bush & co. knew about 9/11 before hand, or that they planned it, etc.
On the other side of the spectrum, the birfers flat out reject reality. Documentation has been provided, political opponents would have taken down Obama long before he ever got anywhere near the candidacy for the president let alone the actual oval office, hell, his own VP and SecState would have taken him out if there was any evidence that he was foreign born. McCain would have pounced like a cat on tuna. There are huge differences between the miniscule truther movement and the disturbingly large birfer movement.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 4, 2009 6:46 PM
Perhaps, except that the poll in question doesn't give the numbers and doesn't really equate to "truthers," but I'm sure Mike H was only mistaken, not lying. The interesting thing is, the way the poll is worded, 26.4% of all respondents felt that "someone in the Bush administration" knew the attacks were coming but let it happen. You add in the not sure's and you get 31.8% of all of the people polled were at least skeptical towards the idea that "someone" in the Bush administration allowed it to happen.
Now if you assume that this question establishes the "truther" movement, which the majority here agree is idiotic, you end up with slightly less than 52% of the "truther" movement being self identified Democrats, a rather slim majority.
Now in '06 Zogby did a poll that dealt more with the question of the 9/11 commission, whether it asked the right questions, came up with the right results, suppressed or ignored questions, etc. That poll did see a level of Democrats on one side more similar to what Mike H claims, but it isn't talking about truther crap, it's talking about abusing the events of 9/11 to advance a political agenda, suppression of information that (likely) may have made the Bush administration look bad, etc.
http://www.zogby.com/features/features.cfm?ID=231
Before long we'll likely see, "Liberal Blogger Ed Brayton's website admits that 45 million people attended the 9/12 rally!!!eleventy!!1!!1!" Based on my joke post and your comment, of course. We should get royalties. ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 4, 2009 7:07 PM
Only about 591,833 people live in DC according to the Census Bureau. So she thinks that about 7 times the number of people who live in DC were here?
We have more open space than the average city, but I'm not sure where we could have put them all. There would have been food shortages and the sewer system would have been done in.
Posted by: katydid13 | November 4, 2009 7:18 PM
"If Ms. Taitz can't be disbarred for incompetence, for making libelous comments about the judges who have the temerity to disagree with her, and for filing frivolous law suits, then what good is the damn Bar Association?"
It's good for protecting the public from unethical and dishonest lawyers, or ones who can't handle a case. It's not there to punish every loud idiot just so we can stand and cheer. Let's not exaggerate the harm she's done. She didn't swindle money from clients or cause a client to lose her house or get sent to prison. She caused the government a bit of expense in defending a lame lawsuit, for which she's been fined.
Lots of lawyers make dumb arguments. And of course, dumb arguments are in the eye of the beholder to some extent. Prior to Lopez, most lawyers would probably have said that claiming a federal statute exceeded the Commerce Clause power was a dumb argument. I think the Justice Department lawyers who equated gay marriage with incest made a dumb argument. I'm not real wild about having a bunch of bar association officials decide whether an argument is sufficiently good. And I don't think that really happens much, fortunately. As I said, I browse the disciplinary reports from time to time, and I don't think I've ever seen a disciplinary action based on making poor arguments. To the extent people are disciplined for incompetence, it seems to be of the "waived your client's rights by blowing a deadline" variety.
I definitely don't want bar associations deciding if someone has libelled a judge. Many of the comments I read on this and other blogs are arguably libellous of various Supreme Court justices. Outside the courtroom, lawyers still have First Amendment rights, and we ought to be real careful about taking away someone's livelihood for criticizing a public official. If a judge has been libelled, let him or her sue. He already has the power of contempt if it happens in court.
As to frivolous lawsuits, sure, that's certainly a discplinary offense. But again, we only have the one sanctions order so far. And it's not like the law is clear in this area. And there have been some good civil rights lawyers who have been sanctioned over the years.
I think Taitz is an idiot and a bit of an embarrassment, and I'd like to see the judges who are subjected to her nonsense get a little more aggressive with sanctions orders. And if those orders and findings pile up, at some point disbarment might be appropriate. But I don't want to create bad precedent just for the cheap thrill of seeing it happen.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 4, 2009 7:25 PM
"This Space Intentionally Left Blank"
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 4, 2009 7:52 PM
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 4, 2009 7:58 PM
#14: I may have said this here before, but "Orly" is not just lolspeak - it's quite a popular name in both Israel and France. It means "My light" in Hebrew. I know two Orlys IRL, and I live in Toronto.
More to the point, this woman is the greatest entertainer in America. Don't disbar her - give her a movie deal!
Posted by: KristinMH | November 4, 2009 10:51 PM
I want DaveL to write a sequel. Best parody I ever heard.
Posted by: GenY | November 5, 2009 3:35 AM
TPBR, perhaps because I haven't seen that done very much, but your "link" via Google really made me laugh. Thanks!
Posted by: trog69 | November 5, 2009 4:09 AM
GenY - how about: "Oily Titz & Chamber of Echoes" - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 5, 2009 6:14 AM
"The other allegations -- about suborning perjury and such -- are just allegations so far. "
Yes and no. Technically yes, but it's not like someone's just alleged it on the internet. Several of the alleged subornees have signed affidavits to that effect. Her own client dropped her because of her activities. She admits hiring a private detective to spy on Land - in a court filing to Land. Of course there needs to be a hearing, but the question is why proceedings haven't started. She's doing more to bring the Bar into disrepute than anyone I can think of.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 5, 2009 7:57 AM
Re Screechy Monkey
I definitely don't want bar associations deciding if someone has libelled a judge. Many of the comments I read on this and other blogs are arguably libellous of various Supreme Court justices. Outside the courtroom, lawyers still have First Amendment rights, and we ought to be real careful about taking away someone's livelihood for criticizing a public official. If a judge has been libelled, let him or her sue. He already has the power of contempt if it happens in court.
Come on Mr. Monkey. There's a difference between a non-lawyer such as myself or Mr. Brayton bad mouthing a judge on a blog and a lawyer who's a member of the bar doing the same to a judge who ruled against him/her. Ms. Taitz publicly called Judge Land a traitor and falsely accused him of meeting with the Attorney General to get his marching orders. If Mr. Monkey thinks that the various Bar Associations should put up with that kind of conduct from their members, then I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree, hopefully not disagreeably.
Posted by: SLC | November 5, 2009 7:58 AM
@Screechy Monkey:
There is the pesky problem with Orly’s association with Charles Lincoln III. Even if we ignore Lucas Smith’s accusations of an extramarital affair between the two (immaterial to her ability to be a lawyer, I agree) there is still the issue that he is a disbarred lawyer in her employ. Or at least associated with her in a manner that makes her responsible for his actions in a legal sense. The Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct are quite clear on this. There is strong evidence in the form of documents submitted to the court that indicates that on at least two occasions, Taitz did allow Lincoln to act in an unsupervised legal capacity.
He is a disbarred lawyer. He can not do that. Orly is responsible for his actions as such, and at the very least she should have her license suspended.
(I also strongly suspect that Orly failed to notify her clients that she had a disbarred lawyer working with her on the case as is also required under the rules of professional conduct.)
Posted by: Chillidog | November 5, 2009 9:10 AM
dogmeatlib @ # 66: ... legitimate questions about what the hell happened ...
If you want to define truthers as those with serious doubts about the 9/11 Commission's Official Version™, then hey, count me in!
My definition has to do with those who have a laundry list of answers they demand a new inquiry to find, not those who have lots of questions.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 5, 2009 9:58 AM
I have to admit that I don't quite understand what the birfers are trying to say. They are claiming that Barack's mom went to Kenya to give birth to him? Even though her passport shows she was never there? When did she arrive there? How long was she there? When did she come back to the US with Barack? Why did his grandparents take the ad out in the Hawaiian newspaper saying that Barack was born there? Did they know that one day he would run for president? If so, why didn't Barack's mom just fly back to the US to have her baby? Or are they claiming that Barack's mom wasn't actually his mom and that some mysterious (presumably white) person gave birth to him in Kenya and then smuggled him into the US? I am very confused.
Posted by: Tom | November 5, 2009 12:00 PM
Here's the problem I have with that... I don't see any way in hell that you could have kept that a secret for 8 years. That plane had to have been on the radars of several airports and they all would have been able to see that the plane was shot down. There is no way that they could have kept so many people with that information quiet. Plus there would have been no way to guarantee that no one on the ground didn't see it.
Posted by: Tom | November 5, 2009 12:08 PM
I have to admit that I don't quite understand what the birfers are trying to say.
Neither do the birfers. None of them have ever managed to cobble up a coherent case, none of them know shit about citizenship, passport law or international travel, and none of them have ever even acknowledged a single one of your questions, let alone tried to answer them. Even by conspiracy-buff standards, they're literally at the bottom of their class.
re: dogmeat @#66: shooting down unarmed passenger aircraft, in one's own country's airspace, with no previously acknowledged state of war existing at the time, is NOT something any air force would do without clear protocols and orders set out in advance. The idea that someone coulda-shoulda-woulda intercepted even ONE of those hijacked planes before it got to its target, and can be blamed for not doing so, is beyond ridiculous. And that's just the LEAST idiotic allegation I've heard from the troofers. Wait til' you get to the bit about holograms being used to disguise cruise-missiles as passenger-jets...or the bit about a passenger-jet firing a missile just as it hits the WTC tower...
Seriously, you don't need to bother with research. All of the "legitimate questions" have been answered years ago.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 5, 2009 12:36 PM
I like her!!
Not since the Marx brothers have we had such entertainment.
Posted by: Bob | November 5, 2009 1:32 PM
ABC is running a new miniseries, "V", a rehash of the 1983 show about alien visitors with nefarious motives.
So I innocently searched the web for reviews since I missed the first episode.
I wound up here-
http://www.prisonplanet.com/v-review-resistance-is-mostly-futile.html
and started reading the comments. Oh My FSM, what have I stumbled into????
Posted by: Rick R | November 5, 2009 1:41 PM
Prison planet is not for anyone with an once of sanity.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 5, 2009 1:44 PM
Rick: Thanks (I guess) for the Prison Planet link. Wow, what a bunch of loonies they obviously are. And this bit from the review of "V" pretty much sums up my own opinions of the series:
Wolf’s character, Chad Decker, gets one of the best lines of the premiere when he incredulously asks Anna, “You want to provide universal health care?” It’s a timely line, and I’ve already seen more than one reading of the Visitors, with their heady promises and darker motives, as stand-ins for the cult of personality surrounding Barack Obama.
It is relevant to note that the original "To Serve Man" episode of the Twilight Zone came out during the McCarthy era, when welfare-state elitist liberals were equated with the evil Commies who wanted to poison our precious bodily fluids. The original "V" series came out during the Reagan era, when liberals and national healthcare proposals were again routinely trashed as evil alien ideas. Now there's a "V" remake -- obviously done in haste, since EVERYTHING is the same as before, lizards, logo and all -- that blatantly panders to ALL the latest waves of insanity, from "Obama is the Antichrist" to "Obama is not really an American" to "Obama is using un-American liberal socialist atheist ideas to destroy America" to "The evil alien liberals are in league with terrorists."
Also, the series is being carried by ABC, which also gave us a "documentary" packed with blatant lies about how Dear Leader allegedly handled 9/11. This series is obvious propaganda, aimed at the most insane reactionaries in America.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 5, 2009 2:18 PM
SLC@77: "There's a difference between a non-lawyer such as myself or Mr. Brayton bad mouthing a judge on a blog and a lawyer who's a member of the bar doing the same to a judge who ruled against him/her."
Not any difference that should matter, in my opinion. Many people had harsh words for the five justices who signed the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. Some of them were lawyers. And some of that criticism was pretty harsh, accusing justices of ruling based on their personal interests (Alan Dershowitz wrote an op-ed claiming that O'Connor acted unethically because she was biased by a desire to retire and be replaced by a Republican president; many others accused the Court of getting its marching orders from the Bush family, etc.) I don't know if David Boies or any other member of the Gore legal team did so, but I think they should have every right to do so (subject to the same constraints of libel lawsuits as everyone else) without being subject to disciplinary action.
"Ms. Taitz publicly called Judge Land a traitor and falsely accused him of meeting with the Attorney General to get his marching orders."
Which makes her an idiot and a blowhard. And if Judge Land wants to sue her for defamation, he should have at it, though he'll have a hard time showing damages since nobody who matters takes her seriously. And that's partly my point: I don't think there's really any damage to the system from sore loser idiots spouting nonsense. Certainly not enough to justify treading on free speech.
"If Mr. Monkey thinks that the various Bar Associations should put up with that kind of conduct from their members, then I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree, hopefully not disagreeably."
That's fine with me.
Again, as to the other stuff that's been pointed out (frivolous filings, associating with a disbarred lawyer, etc.), it may all be grounds for discipline and eventual disbarment. My only issue with those aspects of the argument is the impatience people seem to have.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 5, 2009 2:22 PM
To be perfectly honest, I think Orly Taitz is a troll. Have ever since she talked to Colbert and acted like Colbert was sincerely agreeing with her.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's the only way I can imagine a lawyer making these arguments; On the outside, "THE MAN IS A FURINNER", on the inside "AHAHAHAHAHAHA, pay me you conservative idiots who will believe any damn thing you hear!"
Then again, I also think Glenn Beck is a hammy charlatan who earnestly was asking for the Daytime TV Emmy.
Posted by: Rutee | November 5, 2009 9:25 PM
Screechy Monkey:
"My only issue with those aspects of the argument is the impatience people seem to have."
Yeah, Counselloser Taitz has only been behaving like a fucking loon for, what, five months or so?
Posted by: democommie | November 5, 2009 9:27 PM
Evidently, most here are not aware of Oily Orly's history. Born in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldavia, she left for Israel at 21. Her characteristic leaves out at least three years, which may have been spent at KGB school, by the look of her performance lately. Law degree is correspondance course. Her makeup is Soviet style. Thus, her outrageous accent is explained. She seems to be a high strung, arm-flailing hysterical type.
Judge Carter indicated she basically interfered with her sort-of partner, Kreep, in court. Kreep is with USJF, and neither would admit to the existence of the other. Kreep is a regular on Newsmax, and made a number of whining shmoozes for money, while ignoring the role of Oily. Oily's blog never mentions Kreep.
The whole thing is too weird for words.
Posted by: Ray T. Perreault | November 5, 2009 10:13 PM
Ray T. Perreault:
Since you know so much about Orly. Her legal training is, obviously, deficient. That she got her degree from someplace other than Harvard is self-evident. I'm a bit more concerned with where she got her degree in denstistry-anything you care to tell us?
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2009 7:52 AM
Not any difference that should matter, in my opinion...
The difference is in how a lawyer's client, and his/her case, is affected by the lawyer's loose lips. It's perfectly okay for people like us to bad-mouth a judge; but when a lawyer, who is arguing a case before that judge for a paying client, does the same thing, that affects the client, and the credibility of his case. Everyone who goes to a court needs, and is entitled to, counsel; and lawyers who provide counsel are obligated to behave in a professional manner so their clients get the fair hearing to which they are entitled by law. When said counsel acts like an idiot, that puts the client at an unfair disadvantage (as any defendant in a capital case will confirm).
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 6, 2009 8:36 AM
Demo - is "denstistry" figuring out dense something 'tis? ;)
If calling a judge, the chief officer of a court, a traitor in their own courtroom (and by extension treating the court with utter contempt), isn't a open-and-shut case of Contempt of Court, what is? How much contempt do you have to show before you get a red card? Whatta have to do get disbarred in OC? The mind boggles. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 6, 2009 9:30 AM
DingoJack:
I thought at first "densistry" was a typo, then I realized that we're talking about Orly; so, yeah, you're prolly right.
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2009 9:51 AM
DingoJack:
I thought at first "densistry" was a typo, then I realized that we're talking about Orly; so, yeah, you're prolly right.
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2009 9:51 AM
Re democommie
It is my understanding that Ms. Taitz got her degree in dentistry in Israel. I have no knowledge of the quality of dentistry schools in that country, although I understand that the medical schools there are perfectly fine.
Posted by: SLC | November 6, 2009 9:56 AM
Has Mike done a Sir Robin?
"Bravely bold Sir Robin
Rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid
To be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin.
He was not in the least bit scared
To be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out,
And his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split
And his body burned away,
And his limbs all hacked and mangled
Brave Sir Robin.
His head smashed in
And his heart cut out
And his liver removed
And his bowls unplugged
And his nostrils raped
And his bottom burnt off
And his pen--
"That's... that's enough music for now lads, there's dirty work afoot...'
Posted by: Coryat | November 6, 2009 11:39 AM
Oily Orly's dentistry degree was indeed from Israel. She also met her American husband there, which is how she got here. While in California, she got a real estate license, and a correspondance school law degree. CA is the only state legalizing such a law degree. The real estate license is lapsed, and she operates two dental clinics through managers.
Maybe if she hits the skids with the legal business, she can start up a line of Soviet nostalgia makeup, and even branch out into Soviet sexy flannel lingerie.
Ray
Posted by: Ray T. Perreault | November 7, 2009 2:30 PM
Orly has filed another complaint, even more whacko than before. Details at Daily Kos here.
Posted by: wheatdogg | November 10, 2009 3:17 AM
Well I hate to drag this thread up from the dead, only to drive a stake through it's heart, but
An Indiana Appeals court just destroyed the birthers' "Two citizen parests" arguement.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
LOL
Posted by: Chilidog | November 13, 2009 9:58 AM