Main Menu

Winding down

Map of KansasI don’t know whether the birther movement is folding up its tents and going home, or  just pausing to catch second wind. In any case, I needed some sort of introductory theme to justify mentioning that Orly Taitz’s lawsuit in Kansas to block Obama from the Ballot there was rejected by Shawnee County Kansas District Court judge Larry Hendricks last Friday, reports the Topeka Capital-Journal. Taitz was also rebuffed by a state court judge in Indiana.

NBC also reports that Defendants Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein and Elizabeth Emken have been dismissed from her California suit for several reasons that cannot be remedied. So that’s the end of that.

Taitz has active federal lawsuits in California, Mississippi and Texas. Her RICO claims, of course, are not made moot by the election; they are made moot because the lack any basis in fact.

Print Friendly

, ,

27 Responses to Winding down

  1. avatar
    Scientist November 8, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    I suppose there will be some fevered calls and letters to GOP members of Congress demanding that they challenge the vote certification in January. A couple of weeks ago, when it looked as though Obama might lose the popular vote while winning the Electoral College, I posted here that that I could imagine such a scenario (though the challenge would go nowhere). Since he has, in fact, won the popular vote, I don’t see much chance of a challenge even being filed. Especially given the fact that even the densest of Republicans now knows that pissing off the most rapidly growing demographic groups is a formula to become a regional party that will be uncompetitive in national elections.

    For 2016, I see a decent chance the GOP might nominate Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz (who was born in Canada to US citizen parents) or Bobby Jindal in an attempt to appear diverse. I wonder whether the Vattelist crew will try to raise an outcry. I doubt it.

    However, I also doubt that simply nominating a non-white (or non-Anglo white in the cases of Rubio and Cruz) will solve the Republican problems. The truth is that, as Obama said, the GOP increasingly looks like they want to go back to the social policies of the 1950s. That isn’t where the country is on a whole range of issues from pot, to contraception, to same-sex marriage (legal now in 9 states) to religion (the fastest growing affiliation is unaffiliated). Obama isn’t winning the votes of non-whites, women and young people simply because of his race. Any strong white Democrat (whether Hillary, Cuomo, or whoever) would do so as well, especially if Obama bequeathed them his formidable ground operation.

  2. avatar
    Thrifty November 8, 2012 at 11:46 am #

    I’m thinking about Faithless Electors.

    Florida and its 29 votes is still up in the air.

    If Romney wins Florida, the final score will be 303 to 235.
    If Obama wins Florida, the final score will be 332 to 206.

    Without Florida for Obama, getting 35 faithless electors to switch from Obama to Romney makes it 268 to 270 and gives the election to Romney.
    With Florida for Obama, getting 64 faithless electors to switch from Obama to Romney has the same results.

    So I wonder about the Birthers: have they or will they go after the electors. It only takes 35-64 to win! Given that there’s only been, like, 1 faithless elector in the entire history of the United States, it can’t be that hard!

  3. avatar
    The Magic M November 8, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    Scientist: Especially given the fact that even the densest of Republicans now knows that pissing off the most rapidly growing demographic groups is a formula to become a regional party that will be uncompetitive in national elections.

    Though some may be tempted to try, given that the next elections are 2 years away.

    Scientist: I wonder whether the Vattelist crew will try to raise an outcry. I doubt it.

    Of course they would. Otherwise we could say “so now Obama is retroactively OK for you?”. Although the volume of cries would depend on how much they can invent about the Democratic candidate to be “ineligible” as well.
    If all else fails, I fully expect some pretzel-twisting along the lines of “because they nominated the usurper, they are legally barred from ever nominating any other candidate ever again, therefore making any future Dem candidate ineligible” or something.

  4. avatar
    john November 8, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Actually, birthers should go after Congressman and Senators. Now that Obama has been re-elected, they may be open to reaching out to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. One Senator and One Congressman has the power to stop obama dead in his tracks with a written objection based on Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation (Arpaio’s investigation has never analyzed or dedunked, just riduled…Doc C and FogBlow are NOT credible authoritative sources) Congress MUST honor the objections and Congress MUST debate the objection. Congress cannot DENY the objection WITHOUT DEBATE. Will it happen? Highly doubful unless Orly Taitz has won Senator of CA.

    The Joint Session of Congress is lot like a wedding where the pastor asks…If any person has an objection to these persons getting married please speak now or forever hold your peace.

  5. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate November 8, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    Thrifty: Given that there’s only been, like, 1 faithless elector in the entire history of the United States, it can’t be that hard!

    Where did you get that number? Wikipedia has a detailed chronological chart of faithless electors from 1796 to 2004.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_faithless_electors

  6. avatar
    JPotter November 8, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    1% Silver Nitrate: Wikipedia has a detailed chronological chart of faithless electors from 1796 to 2004.

    That reminds me of something I forgot to look into ….. a couple down states have laws punishing “faithless electors”, as they are now bound by laws to cast votes a certain way.

    But any such penalty would be levied after the votes are cast. And what are the penalties, anyway?

    Yes, I am sure the birfers will have much success lobbying Obama supporters that took the time to get themselves nominated and elected to the job of voting for Obama. Are the birthers aware that electors are, by their nature, partisan? That each candidate has a separate set of electors?

    … well, in all the states I am aware of. No doubt there is still some variation in state procedures. Things sure have changed since 1790 ;)

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 8, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    I think it’s fair to say that I and the Fogbow reports are credible sources, but we are not authoritative sources. The problem is that Mike Zullo and his volunteers aren’t any more expert than those who have debunked them. The debunking wins because it is logically sound. Plus Mike Zullo has been caught lying and fabricating evidence, which makes him not credible either.

    I note that an actual expert did look at Arpaio’s investigative products and said they were wrong; he was interviewed on a Phoenix TV station earlier in the year.

    I would, however, greet any move by Congress to challenge the votes with bemusement, since it would hasten the end of the Republican Party as we know it.

    john: Actually, birthers should go after Congressman and Senators. Now that Obama has been re-elected, they may be open to reaching out to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. One Senator and One Congressman has the power to stop obama dead in his tracks with a written objection based on Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation (Arpaio’s investigation has never analyzed or dedunked, just riduled…Doc C and FogBlow are NOT credible authoritative sources)

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 8, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    See also:

    http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm

    1% Silver Nitrate: Wikipedia has a detailed chronological chart of faithless electors from 1796 to 2004.

  9. avatar
    Thrifty November 8, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    Foggy memory of remembering just one election and not being committed enough to making my point to do the research.

    1% Silver Nitrate: Where did you get that number?Wikipedia has a detailed chronological chart of faithless electors from 1796 to 2004.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#List_of_faithless_electors

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 8, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    “The 24 states that do have requirements issue a small variety of rarely enforced punishments for faithless Electors, including fines and misdemeanors.”

    JPotter: And what are the penalties, anyway?

  11. avatar
    Norbrook November 8, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

    john:
    Actually, birthers should go after Congressman and Senators.Now that Obama has been re-elected, they may be open to reaching out to Sheriff Joe Arpaio.One Senator and One Congressman has the power to stop obama dead in his tracks with a written objection based on Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation (Arpaio’s investigation has never analyzed or dedunked, just riduled…Doc C and FogBlow are NOT credible authoritative sources)Congress MUST honor the objections and Congress MUST debate the objection.Congress cannot DENY the objection WITHOUT DEBATE.Will it happen?Highly doubful unless Orly Taitz has won Senator of CA.

    The Joint Session of Congress is lot like a wedding where the pastor asks…If any person has an objection to these persons getting married please speak now or forever hold your peace.

    But they don’t have to accept the objection, John. You seem to have the delusion that if only there’s an objection, somehow all the “evidence” which birthers have accrued – none of which has stood up in a court – would be “decisive.” Sorry, you might find a Representative stupid enough to file it – Bachmann springs to mind – but none of the Senators are going to go that route.

    Even if there was, after the “debate” – which would likely entail everyone else in the chamber going “are you really that stupid?” – they’d dispose of it, then move on to accept the results.

  12. avatar
    BillTheCat November 8, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    You and your kind lost John, get used to it.

  13. avatar
    misha marinsky November 8, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    john: The Joint Session of Congress is lot like a wedding where the pastor asks…If any person has an objection to these persons getting married please speak now or forever hold your peace.

    Hey John: You forgot the Amero, the NAFTA super highway and the kitchen sink.

    Tinfoil is on sale at Wal-Mart.

  14. avatar
    J.D. Reed November 8, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

    So ironic that John says Doc is not a credible source, when over the months — years? — how much credibility has John shown? Even if a “debate” must occur after the filing of an objection, the debate could consist of letting the objector have his/her two minues, followed by someone speaking for the rest of the body declaring “Balderdash!” and then immediately voting this delusional piece of …. down.

  15. avatar
    JPotter November 8, 2012 at 11:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: “The 24 states that do have requirements issue a small variety of rarely enforced punishments for faithless Electors, including fines and misdemeanors.”

    Soooo…. all upside with little downside! Get to conspiracizing, birfers! Again, good luck influencing people who wanted the chance to do the ‘real’ voting for Obama!

    Getting the rMoney electors to vote against Obama shouldn’t be too hard. I suggest starting there.

  16. avatar
    Northland10 November 9, 2012 at 12:25 am #

    john: The Joint Session of Congress is lot like a wedding where the pastor asks…If any person has an objection to these persons getting married please speak now or forever hold your peace.

    But, the Pastor would not necessarily have to even do anything when an objection is made. If crazy uncle Joe shouts out that 25 year old Jill was married to Joe 35 years ago, then the Pastor would politely ignore crazy Joe (as the Congress would ignore the crazy birther and vote to move on). In the Book of Common Prayer and the canons of my denomination, there is no requirements of what to do if an objection is actually made.

  17. avatar
    JPotter November 9, 2012 at 12:37 am #

    Rogue elector attempts to subvert electoral vote …. in 1960.

    Henry D. Irwin was a Republican Presidential Elector (from Oklahoma) for the 1960 U.S. presidential election who became a “faithless elector” when he declined to vote as pledged. Irwin is the only presidential elector in American election history to try to convince his fellow presidential electors to change their vote.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_D._Irwin

    Well, there’s your model. A wingnut that couldn’t “stomach” Nixon!

    He used telegrams. How quaint.

  18. avatar
    JPotter November 9, 2012 at 12:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: “The 24 states that do have requirements issue a small variety of rarely enforced punishments for faithless Electors, including fines and misdemeanors.”

    A little more detail:

    Most of the laws cited above require electors to vote for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector, or require the elector to sign a pledge to do so. Some go further: Oklahoma and Washington impose a civil penalty of $1,000; in North Carolina, the fine is $500, the faithless elector is deemed to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed. In South Carolina, an elector who violates his or her pledge is subject to criminal penalties, and in New Mexico a violation is a fourth degree felony. In Michigan and Utah, a candidate who fails to vote as required is considered to have resigned, and a replacement is appointed.

    http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/the-electoral-college.aspx

    A thousand bucks? C’mon! Just imagine what price an electoral vote would command in the age of superPACs!

    Of course, selling a vote would be flirting with much stiffer criminal penalties …. conspiracy …. fraud ….

  19. avatar
    The Magic M November 9, 2012 at 8:32 am #

    john: Congress cannot DENY the objection WITHOUT DEBATE

    Well, let’s assume arguendo that you are 100% correct in all your respective assumptions. What then?
    Do you think Congress will vote to not certify the EC votes? Yeah, right.
    Do you think there will be an armed revolt by 200 million Americans who suddenly realize the President is a gay Muslim usurper? Dream on.

    Haven’t you realized that none of your desired OMG moments is going to happen, ever?
    This is not a Hollywood movie where the bad guy’s plans are foiled at the last minute and somebody defuses the bomb showing “00:00.1″ on the clock. Except in birfers’ wet dreams.
    Actually, I believe many birfers’ dreams consist of a replay of “A Few Good Men” with Obama in Jack Nicholson’s role, going “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH” when pressed by crack lawyer Orly Taitz. Esqesqesqesqesqesq.

    Obama: You want answers?
    Taitz: I think I’m entitled to them.
    Obama: You want answers?
    Taitz: I want the truth!
    Obama: You can’t handle the truth! Girl, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Lakin? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Romney and you curse the Marxists. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Romney’s defeat, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and ineligible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me in that White House. You need me in that White House.
    We use words like honor, birth certificate, loyalty…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ‘em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I was born! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a subpoena and start a ballot challenge. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!
    Taitz: Were you born in Kenya?
    Obama: (quietly) I was born where my mother gave birth to me.
    Taitz: Were you born in Kenya?
    Obama: You’re goddamn right I was!!

  20. avatar
    RuhRoh November 9, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    Don’t know if this is going to turn into a new round of birtherism or not, but folks on Republican-leaning sites are starting to talk about George Bush III’s political ambitions and also saying he is not a NBC.

    I suppose it’s inevitable that George Bush III will garner some attention as the R’s start to realize the Hispanic vote is important, but the far right-wingers are already trying to portray him as a foreigner who is ineligible to the Presidency.

  21. avatar
    Scientist November 9, 2012 at 11:03 am #

    RuhRoh: Don’t know if this is going to turn into a new round of birtherism or not, but folks on Republican-leaning sites are starting to talk about George Bush III’s political ambitions and also saying he is not a NBC. I suppose it’s inevitable that George Bush III will garner some attention as the R’s start to realize the Hispanic vote is important, but the far right-wingers are already trying to portray him as a foreigner who is ineligible to the Presidency.

    This shows conclusively that the Rs have learned nothing from their trouncing. Not just the birtherism, but the fact that they think they can attract Hispanics simply by running someone with a real tan, rather than Mitt’s spray-on variety. It’s the policies, stupid!!!

  22. avatar
    JPotter November 9, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    WND sure is winding down … they’ve had the same (predictable) headline running since Tuesday night!

    How disappointing. Creative writing dept needs new talent?

  23. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG November 9, 2012 at 11:33 am #

    JPotter:
    WND sure is winding down … they’ve had the same (predictable) headline running since Tuesday night!

    How disappointing. Creative writing dept needs new talent?

    I think that unless they have a change of venue, WND is finished.
    The eligibility movement is dead, made 100% obsolete by Election Day coming and
    going. And we all know that complaining about the president’s every move isn’t going to make them much money. Even Faux News figured that one out.

  24. avatar
    Arthur November 9, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

    Speaking of winding down: Post and Email hasn’t added a new article since the middle of August. And that’s unfortunate, because I’m just dying to know the latest on Darren Huff!

  25. avatar
    JPotter November 9, 2012 at 12:33 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: WND is finished.

    Nah, they’re still flogging the religious angle out of everything. They’ll get new material. It’s easy to be negative.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 9, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    You might find something on Fitzpatrick’s blog. This was from Sept. 25

    http://thejaghunter.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/a-special-report-on-the-case-of-darren-wesley-huff-2/

    Arthur: Speaking of winding down: Post and Email hasn’t added a new article since the middle of August. And that’s unfortunate, because I’m just dying to know the latest on Darren Huff!

  27. avatar
    misha marinsky November 9, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    Arthur: I’m just dying to know the latest on Darren Huff!

    Huff is huffing.