Main Menu

Pick a running mate for Orly Taitz

If Orly Taitz runs for President in 2012, and I strongly encourage her to do so, who would make a good running mate?

Orly Taitz running mate

  • Michelle Bachmann (29%, 28 Votes)
  • Internet powerhouse Andy Martin (17%, 16 Votes)
  • Lucas Smith (15%, 14 Votes)
  • Major General (Ret.) Paul E. Vallely (15%, 14 Votes)
  • Glenn Beck (9%, 9 Votes)
  • Sharon Rondeau (6%, 6 Votes)
  • Pamela Barnett (5%, 5 Votes)
  • Dr. Kate (2%, 2 Votes)
  • Sharon Meroni (2%, 2 Votes)

Total Voters: 96

Loading ... Loading ...

32 Responses to Pick a running mate for Orly Taitz

  1. avatar
    Viking (Phil Cave) January 1, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    I say ol’ boy. You left of my favorite, Kerchner.

  2. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 1, 2011 at 5:19 pm #

    Viking (Phil Cave): I say ol’ boy.You left of my favorite, Kerchner.

    I agree, Kerchner belongs on the short list (and his 350 pound Samoan lawyer… I mean Mario). Although I think that Bachmann is the only one crazy enough to be Orly’s veep…

  3. avatar
    Sef January 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    I would love her to try to explain how the NBC requirement doesn’t apply to her.

  4. avatar
    Rickey January 1, 2011 at 5:43 pm #

    I would enjoy the irony of her picking Pamela Barnett. Since they both live in California, a Taitz-Barnett ticket would be ineligible.

  5. avatar
    Rickey January 1, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    Sef: I would love her to try to explain how the NBC requirement doesn’t apply to her.

    I would encourage her to get around it by applying for a Hawaii COLB! She claims that they are so easy to obtain.

  6. avatar
    Sef January 1, 2011 at 5:49 pm #

    Rickey:
    I would encourage her to get around it by applying for a Hawaii COLB! She claims that they are so easy to obtain.

    Maybe she could ask her “friends” at the U.N. or The Hague to rule on her candidacy.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 1, 2011 at 7:08 pm #

    Viking (Phil Cave): I say ol’ boy. You left of my favorite, Kerchner.

    I just couldn’t see that one working. [tongue firmly implanted in cheek]

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 1, 2011 at 7:13 pm #

    Sef: I would love her to try to explain how the NBC requirement doesn’t apply to her.

    Can you see Secretary of State Bowen denying her a ballot position in the grounds that she’s not a natural born citizen? The nuances and ironies of that are quite lovely to contemplate.

  9. avatar
    G January 1, 2011 at 8:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Can you see Secretary of State Bowen denying her a ballot position in the grounds that she’s not a natural born citizen? The nuances and ironies of that are quite lovely to contemplate.

    LOL! Agreed.

  10. avatar
    Prairie Blue January 1, 2011 at 9:25 pm #

    Rickey said,

    I would enjoy the irony of her picking Pamela Barnett. Since they both live in California, a Taitz-Barnett ticket would be ineligible.

    Well, the Taitz-Barnett ticket would only be ineligible in California. The 12th Amendment begins,

    The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; [Emphasis mine]

    So there’s nothing that prevents the two Californians running in, say, New York, as a joint ticket. Actually, I’ve been waiting for Orly to run, since that might be her one chance to gain one big thing she’s been lacking all along — standing. Were she to change her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, she could challenge the President in the primaries. As soon as one Secretary of State refused her a place on the ballot because of not being a natural born citizen, could she not sue, claiming Equal Protection and Due Process becuase she’s held to a different standard than other — ahem — candidates? (I believe she’d only have this chance in a primary against the President. If she tried it in the general running on a third-party ticket, she’d find she had the same standing issue that she did when she coaxed Alan Keyes to join one of her little misadventures. Since Keyes wasn’t on the ballot in enough states to gain the necessary electoral votes to win, he lacked standing to challenge the election anyway.

  11. avatar
    Keith January 1, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Prairie Blue: As soon as one Secretary of State refused her a place on the ballot because of not being a natural born citizen, could she not sue, claiming Equal Protection and Due Process becuase she’s held to a different standard than other — ahem — candidates?

    IANAL, but I doubt she could get standing in that way either.

    Her beef would be with the State, not Obama. The State requires the Candidate to certify their eligibility. She can lie to get on the ballot, and suffer the consequences of perjury, or she not get on the ballot.

    Either way, it isn’t Obama’s eligibility or non eligibility that is causing her any harm, nor can the courts provide any remedy to her by punishing Obama in either case. This is analogous to Lakin. Obama’s eligibility has nothing to do what-so-ever with his failure to obey orders, nor does it have anything to do with Orly’s ability to qualify as a candidate.

    Even if she were to somehow demonstrate that there was a double standard and the state discriminated against her by challenging her certification when they didn’t challenge others, giving her access to Obama’s documentation would not giver her any remedy for that.

  12. avatar
    G January 1, 2011 at 9:54 pm #

    Prairie Blue: As soon as one Secretary of State refused her a place on the ballot because of not being a natural born citizen, could she not sue, claiming Equal Protection and Due Process becuase she’s held to a different standard than other — ahem — candidates?

    NO. Read the Constitution. The NBC clause is right there as a requirement for President. No state can ignore that and that standard applies to ALL candidates for that office.

    Your post about being held to some different standard than other candidates doesn’t make any sense and is complete bunk …unless you are trying to be a birther fool and think you are being cute and insinuating nonsense about Obama.

    There is no credible evidence nor any legitimate reason to ever believe that Obama was not an NBC.

  13. avatar
    Prairie Blue January 1, 2011 at 10:28 pm #

    Perhaps my original posting was too cute by half, and some have misconstrued my point. That is my error.

    When this whole birther thing started with Phil Berg during the 2008 primaries, I thought, “That’s crazy. Certainly someone seeking to run in the presidential primary would have to provide a birth certificate. At the very least, candidates would have to prove that they were at least 35 years old.”

    So I looked at the Nebraska Secretary of State’s web site for filng requirements for the President, and . . . the birth certificate is not required.

    So, let me restate the scenario. Not so much to spin my own birther fantasy, but to possibly peek into the demented brain case that is Orly Taitz:

    Taitz changes her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat (necessary to challenge Obama in the primary). She’d want to do that now because she’d want to vote straight Democratic tickets between now and whatever state she’s going to run against the President. (Otherwise, the state may deny her a ballot space, claiming her party change was for convenience only.)
    Taitz files in some Democratic primary (pick one — it doesn’t matter) where a birth certificate is not required (at this stage, I’m not sure which states — if any — require it)
    The Secretary of State denies her a place on the primary ballot because she is (obviously) not a natural born citizen
    Orly then sues the Secretary of State in federal court. She claims that, because she was denied a spot on the ballot, she was held to a different standard than the President.

    Her equal treatment argument would be based on (get ready for it…) Bush v. Gore, because the SOS was applying a different standard to her candidacy than to the President’s.

    (Late Disclaimer — I’m not a birther, he was born in Honolulu. U.S. Birth qualifies him as a full natural born citizen under US v. Wong Kim Ark. ‘Nuf said.)

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 1, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    Prairie Blue: Her equal treatment argument would be based on (get ready for it…) Bush v. Gore, because the SOS was applying a different standard to her candidacy than to the President’s.

    I think you need some refinement in the scenario to make this work. Both candidates are being required to be born in the US with Tatiz obiously not meeting the requirement, and Obama obviously meeting it. Now if Taitz were asked for proof and Obama not, then she might have an argument.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 1, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    Sheesh! I left off the most obvious running mate:

    Dr. Terry Lakin!

    Of course he would never be her running mate because he would demand proof of eligibility before taking any steps to run.

  16. avatar
    obsolete January 2, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    But Lakin would accept a COLB from her, because she is white. (Remember Lakin posted his own COLB, but refused to accept Obama’s COLB).

  17. avatar
    Birther Watcher January 2, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    How could leave Charles “The Love Sponge” Lincoln III off of your list? Given that he and Orly already have worked intimately together I think this is a natural ticket.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 2, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    Birther Watcher: How could leave Charles “The Love Sponge” Lincoln III off of your list? Given that he and Orly already have worked intimately together I think this is a natural ticket.

    Orly and Charles had a falling out, so I didn’t think she would consider him for a running mate. Kiss and tell is hard to get over.

  19. avatar
    Joey January 2, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

    Michelle Bachman should be disqualified because she voted for HR Res. 593 commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Hawai’i statehood and containing the phrase, added by Neil Abercrombie: “The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

  20. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 2, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    Joey: Michelle Bachman should be disqualified because she voted for HR Res. 593 commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Hawai’i statehood and containing the phrase, added by Neil Abercrombie: “The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

    I guess she has some ‘splainin to do…

  21. avatar
    Joey January 2, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    G: NO. Read the Constitution. The NBC clause is right there as a requirement for President. No state can ignore that and that standard applies to ALL candidates for that office.Your post about being held to some different standard than other candidates doesn’t make any sense and is complete bunk …unless you are trying to be a birther fool and think you are being cute and insinuating nonsense about Obama.There is no credible evidence nor any legitimate reason to ever believe that Obama was not an NBC.

    Roger Calero was the presidential candidate of the Socialist Workers Party. In the 2008 presidential election, Calero was on the ballot in five states, where he received 7,209 votes.
    Obviously five states ignored what is right there in the Constitution.

  22. avatar
    Joey January 2, 2011 at 7:55 pm #

    I neglected to mention that Roger Calero was a natural born citizen of Nicaragua and a naturalized US citizen.

  23. avatar
    Sef January 2, 2011 at 8:10 pm #

    G:
    NO.Read the Constitution.The NBC clause is right there as a requirement for President.No state can ignore that and that standard applies to ALL candidates for that office.Your post about being held to some different standard than other candidates doesn’t make any sense and is complete bunk …unless you are trying to be a birther fool and think you are being cute and insinuating nonsense about Obama.There is no credible evidence nor any legitimate reason to ever believe that Obama was not an NBC.

    Our system is an adversarial one. If a person adheres to the states’ requirements for filing as a candidate it is not up to the state to make a challenge. One of the other candidates would need to file suit against an ineligible candidate.

  24. avatar
    G January 2, 2011 at 11:24 pm #

    Joey: I neglected to mention that Roger Calero was a natural born citizen of Nicaragua and a naturalized US citizen.

    Well I agree that Calero was definitely ineligible and shouldn’t have been on the ballot then. I think the SWP should be held responsible to for not doing proper vetting.

    Then again, a fringe candidate that only gets on 5 state ballots has ZERO chance of becoming President…

  25. avatar
    Joey January 3, 2011 at 2:07 am #

    G: Well I agree that Calero was definitely ineligible and shouldn’t have been on the ballot then. I think the SWP should be held responsible to for not doing proper vetting.Then again, a fringe candidate that only gets on 5 state ballots has ZERO chance of becoming President…

    I agree with you but I believe the responsibility for vetting should ultimately be with the Chief Elections Official in each state. Usually that is the Secretary of State but there are some states (like Hawaii) that don’t have a position called Secretary of State and either the Lieutenant Governor or the Attorney General fulfills that function.

  26. avatar
    Scientist January 3, 2011 at 7:30 am #

    Sef: Our system is an adversarial one. If a person adheres to the states’ requirements for filing as a candidate it is not up to the state to make a challenge. One of the other candidates would need to file suit against an ineligible candidate.

    I agree with Sef. The electoral system is adversarial in nature. The idea of some official “vetting” candidates for office veers too close to what occurs in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the Guardian Council of Mullahs decides who is “fit” to run based on constitutional criteria (which inevitably will involve someone’s political biases, or will carry that perception).

    Suppose an “ineligible” candidate like Calero is on the ballot. Who is harmed? You certainly don’t have to vote for him, The only aggrieved parties are his opponents, assuming the “ineliigible” one actually wins.

    And if such an “ineligible” one did win, despite the attacks from opponents, the ball would be in Congress’ court. Tthey could and should reject him or her and choose someone else as provided in the 20th Amendment. At the end of the day, people shouldn’t buy into the birther premise that “natural born citizen” is of monumental importance. It isn’t. Someone who didn’t meet YOUR or anyone’s definition of that term could be a terrible or great President and their birth status would have nothing to do with that. As a serious real-world problem it ranks at # 14, 567 on the list. Even as a threat to the Constitution it ranks at # 1,212, behind such things as warrantless wiretappping which happen every day under this and previous Administrations.

  27. avatar
    Rickey January 3, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    Prairie Blue:Well, the Taitz-Barnett ticket would only be ineligible in California.

    Yes, that is correct. Thanks for the clarification.

    I believe that the question of ballot access is more ambiguous. The Constitution does not explicitly say that one must be a natural born citizen to run for president. It only says that one must be a natural born citizen to serve as president.

    The only case of a candidate being denied ballot access due to ineligibility that I am aware of is when California refused to put Eldridge Cleaver on the ballot in 1968 because he was only 33 years old. Cleaver still received about 36,000 votes. There also is no Constitutional prohibition against voting for an ineligible candidate. If an ineligible candidate were to win, it is up to Congress to refuse to certify the electoral vote.

    Also, you mentioned citing Bush v. Gore as precedent. The problem there is that the Supreme Court specifically stated that Bush v. Gore cannot be cited as precedent.

  28. avatar
    Black Lion January 4, 2011 at 10:25 am #

    LTC Terrence Lakin Court-Martial Aftermath

    LTC Lakin received a sentence of six-months and a dismissal; a lower sentence than expected. We have had many inquiries since the completion of the Lakin trial. The overwhelming majority of the inquiries have been supportive of our efforts to assist Dr. Lakin and applauded the tremendous success we had in limiting his punishment.

    As many of you know, the Army prosecutors sought a 24-month jail term. His sentence was only six months. Knowledgeable observers of the military justice process believed that the minimum punishment he could possibly get was a 12 months, matching the length of a standard tour in Afghanistan that he missed by refusing his orders during wartime.

    Military appellate procedure allows for an automatic appeal of a court-martial whenever a Dismissal is adjudged and approved. In LTC Lakin’s case, the issue of the military judge’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence pertaining to the eligibility of the President to issues orders can still be addressed. However, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals is unlikely to grant any relief.

    Most inquiries have asked how to support LTC Lakin and his family now that his trial is complete. The best way to do that would be to contact the Terry Lakin Action Fund: A Family Trust (TerryLakinActionFund.com)

    Marco Ciavolino, Administrative Trustee
    Trustees@TerryLakinActionFund.com
    Mailing address: PO Box 1116 Bel Air, MD 21014

    LTC Lakin can be reached at the Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, KS at the following address: Terrence Lakin #89996; 830 Sabalu Road Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027

    http://www.puckettfaraj.com/2011/01/ltc-terrence-lakin-court-martial-aftermath/

  29. avatar
    Black Lion January 4, 2011 at 11:08 am #

    Birhter blather…

    Leo Patrick Haffey says:
    Monday, January 3, 2011 at 12:53 PM
    Amen!

    Contact your congressman, senators, County Sheriff, DA, State Legislators, Governor, and County Grand Jury Foreman and demand that they indict and prosecute BHO Jr. and all his local co-conspirators for the Voter Fraud, Identity Theft, Illegal Foreign Campaign Contributions, Poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico, Embezzlement of Government funds, TSA Sexual Assaults, WikiLeaks etc.

    http://dewdropwarriors.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html

  30. avatar
    G January 4, 2011 at 11:19 am #

    Black Lion: Birhter blather…Leo Patrick Haffey says:
    Monday, January 3, 2011 at 12:53 PM
    Amen!Contact your congressman, senators, County Sheriff, DA, State Legislators, Governor, and County Grand Jury Foreman and demand that they indict and prosecute BHO Jr. and all his local co-conspirators for the Voter Fraud, Identity Theft, Illegal Foreign Campaign Contributions, Poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico, Embezzlement of Government funds, TSA Sexual Assaults, WikiLeaks etc.http://dewdropwarriors.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html

    In other words, the same bogus filings and complaints that they’ve been doing for two years. Like all the rest, it will appropriately fall on deaf ears and fill many trash bins.

  31. avatar
    Black Lion January 4, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    Interesting…It looks like Huffington Post has started a page specifically for the birther masses…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/birthers#

  32. avatar
    G January 4, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    Black Lion: Interesting…It looks like Huffington Post has started a page specifically for the birther masses…http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/birthers#

    Interesting. Thanks for sharing.