Orly campaign video By Dr. Conspiracy on May 8, 2012 in Orly Taitz, Videos Narration by KBOA. California, Senate
So. Exactly how is a US Senator going to influence the California budget. Seems to me she should be running for Governor if she wants to do that.
this is a joke, right?
Shhh! It’s supposed to be a secret! Orly only runs for office to generate free publicity for her Birther cases. But you didn’t hear that from me. 😉
What a ridiculous load of crap!!
Is the 20th Century Fox bit a copyright infringement?
Also, I think it is hilarious when Dr. Taitz uses photos from the Colbert Report interview. She really has no idea she was being mocked.
And last but not least, it is interesting that she would use blatantly unflattering photos of her female opponents when the likelihood of such photos of her exist is fairly high.
Orly traveled “ON HER OWN DIME?” – I guess her Paypals will be happy to hear that!
Well that does it. I’m pulling up stakes and moving to California so I too can vote for Dr. Orly Taitz. The fate of the entire free world depends on her. I hear she’s offering a free root canal for anyone donating $100 or more to her campaign. Somehow, it seems very appropriate.
Parodies are generally considered fair use. They didn’t actually use the same music, so I think they’re in the clear.
I’m pretty sure this isn’t an official ad from the Taitz campaign, but rather a third party freelancer. You can do all sorts of things on the internet, but an official ad would have to include a disclaimer at the end with the real voice of the candidate (“I approve this message”).
“You can do all sorts of things on the internet, but an official ad would have to include a disclaimer at the end with the real voice of the candidate (“I approve this message”).”
Such a comment will only appear if the candidate and / or his or her staffers are competent enough to do so. Do you think Orly’s campaign fits that bill?
My favorite bit: Orly’s deranged eyes peering out of Frank Frazetta-ish Joan of Arc helmet.
May I suggest more appropriate music: ☞LINK
Except it’s not an oral procedure.
please excuse my last comment. I think there were two thoughts in my head, and both came out at the same time.
Does this mean that KBOA is in Orly’s corner of the birther infight?
Hilarious! This looks like a grade-school civics project, with narration by a 5th-grade boy who’s been smoking 2 packs a day since he was in the womb.
This is actually the second cut of the “video”, the first one had Tracy altering her voice to sound terribly mannish……emphasis…terrible…. 😎
The trouble was it sounded rather less “Trust me I’m Walter Kronkite” and more “Hello little boy would you like to see some puppies…..in my basement”.
Now it sounds more like Trace needs to cut back on the 100 Gauloises a day habit.
As for Bobj’s question, Tracy aka KBOA aka KenyaBornObamAcorn lurves her some Orly, when she’s not trying and miserably failing at creating “outing” video’s of wicked evil Obots and Fogbowers.
A couple of things, Bovril.
First, if you think a “We the People” patriot like Tracey would ever smoke a French cigarette, you’re out of your foie gras mind! She smokes Salems, and sometimes Kools, well anything with menthol, but never an import.
Second, Tracey is not about to cut back on her five pack a day habit. She’s being considered for the role of “Grandma” in an upper-Midwest touring production of “Napoleon Dynamite” and she needs that handsome gravel to her voice to get the part. She also up for the part of “Death Bed Kathleen Turner” in an upcoming bio-pic about the sultry actress.
Tangentially on topic as it relates to running for senator….. 😎
IOKIYAR (It’s OK If You’re A Republican…..)
Remember Ole Crazy Eyes running for the GOP nomination….? Remember Michele Bachmann and how holier than thou American and Apple Pie she was/is? Remember her going on about the Presidents suspicious dual nationality…?
Guess what, during the whole nomination process she was applying for Swiss dual nationality for herself and all her family which she just got……
The denial over at Freeperville is astonishing, the same folks who have been a-birfin about Obama and his POTENTIAL, EXPIRED and never taken up Kenyan dual nationality think its all OK that Bachmann mad a conscious decison and swore an oath of allegiance to Swittzerland…….Whilst still being a contender for the GOP nomination and President and a Senator….
Marathon Man is fiction. Orly didn’t get the memo.
Coming soon to a drive-in near you: ORLY, SHE-WOLF OF THE BIRTHERS.
(For those not in the know:
Close but no cigar…….I’m sure I saw her in “Dead Snow”…. 😎
(actually quite good as far as this genre goes….)
According to the Politico article, Marcus Bachmann had Swiss citizenship through his parents. He registered for it this year. When it was approved, his wife and minor children received it automatically. Switzerland has jus sanguiis citizenship, unlike the US. You can be born there and not be a Swiss citizen.
As far as her security clearance, the State Department says they evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. If she didn’t take any positive action (other than saying “OK, honey”) they probably wouldn’t have a problem.
I’m not a fan of either Bachmann, but the truth is the truth.
She doesn’t have POTENTIAL citizenship, as the President did WRT Kenya, she took an affirmative action to gain Swiss citizenship. The fact that her husband applied for and received citizenship gave her the option for citizenship which she took up by definitive act.
According to the article, Marcus took the action. She didn’t have to do anything. Do you have any evidence otherwise?
Just to double check the Birther line… foreign citizenship gives you foreign influence, which is like HIV–it’s like an infection that passes down from parent to child. And just like HIV disqualifies you from donating blood and organs, foreign influence is a taint that prevents you from being qualified to be president.
Yes and no.
The ad is real, but Orly Taitz is a joke. It’s like if you put on purple tinted glasses, and the sky is purple.
Hey, it’s okay Thrifty… since Switzerland was neutral when Hitler was expanding his dominion, I mean!
As I understand it, Marcus was eligible, but had never filed for Swiss citizenship until earlier this year. Swiss law changed in 1992, but since the Bachmanns were married in 1978, the rules in place at that time apply. Accordingly, once Marcus is a citizen, Michele had the automatic RIGHT to citizenship, she would not have to apply individually.
“Michele and Marcus Bachmann finalised a naturalisation process on March 19.”
A spokesperson for Michele is quoted as saying they went through the process as a family, also indicating affirmative action and not just a result of the actions of Marcus.
“However, recently some of their children wanted to exercise their eligibility for dual-citizenship so they went through the process as a family,” said Bachmann spokesperson Becky Rogness.”
Marcus was automatically entitled to Swiss citizenship as the child of Swiss parents. Their children would be similarly situated, due to his Swiss citizenship. However, as a spouse, the Congresswoman’s situation is different. She would not be automatically entitled to Swiss citizenship.
According to this article, as someone not residing in Switzerland she would need to demonstrate:
six years of marriage to a Swiss citizen; and
close ties to Switzerland.
Now, while she can certainly demonstrate marriage to Marcus for more than 6 years, what exactly are her “close ties to Switzerland”? Furthermore, given that such processes normally take many months, it is almost certain that the application was made while she was still a presidential candidate. Yet, there was no mention whatsoever.
Imagine the birther outcry if the President had actually applied to the Kenyan government for citizenship and been accepted based on “close ties to Kenya”.
I linked to a Swiss article above. They say that the Michele gets in under the rules from 1978, since that is when they were married. At that time, the spouse of a citizen has the automatic right to citizenship. I think she still had to accept it/affirm it, but she does not have to qualify and apply on her own.
Also, the Politico article says Marcus applied in February of this year. Michele’s campaign was over by then.
So Michele and her family have chosen to become citizens of a country where health insurance is compulsory. That goes so nicely with her position that Obamacare should be repealed.
“Congresswoman Bachmann’s husband is of Swiss descent so she has been eligible for dual-citizenship since they got married in 1978. However, recently some of their children wanted to exercise their eligibility for dual-citizenship so they went through the process as a family,” Bachmann spokeswoman Becky Rogness said in an e-mail today.”
I wonder if she has applied for a Swiss passport? That would certainly require an affirmative act.
Again, no law forbids a dual citizen from being in Congress or even the White House, but, given her dalliance with the birthers, it is odd, to say the least. I have to believe that this was something the family discussed prior to actually doing it.
I would be interested in hearing a song and dance from any of the birthers (most of whom expressed support for Bachmann) who have often stopped by here with their crocodile tears over “divided loyalties”. Apparently the influence of a long-dead father whom one saw for a total of about 1 week of one’s life after infancy, is a show stopper, but the influence of a spouse one sees every day is no big deal at all.
O/T: Many people asked if any specific numbers were discussed in Monday’s Strunk hearing. None were, although several attorneys brought detailed statements.
Apuzzo mentioned on his blog this morning that the fees for the Brzezinski defendants totaled $80,000. ( I assume Strunk must have shared this number with Apuzzo following the hearing.)
Absolutely. With the birther mantra that one can’t be an NBC and have dual citizenship, what are they going to do with all those Bachmann 2016 bumper stickers?
Regardless, she isn’t required to accept the Swiss citizenship. She could reject it for herself without affecting her husband or children.
She took positive action:
“Congresswoman Bachmann’s husband is of Swiss descent so she has been eligible for dual-citizenship since they got married in 1978. However, recently some of their children wanted to exercise their eligibility for dual-citizenship so they went through the process as a family,” Bachmann spokeswoman Becky Rogness said in an e-mail today.
In an interview with Swiss TV, Bachmann joked that her competition would be “very stiff,” as she pointed to a group of Swiss parliamentarians who were standing behind her.”
Bachmann TV interview:
Obama lost his Kenya citizenship when he turned 18. Orly Taitz renounced her Moldovan citizenship, but she is a dual US/Israel citizen.
Seems to me we now have a legislator with DUEL ALLEGIANCES.
The interesting thing about Michele’s decision to accept dual citizenship is that it could affect her security clearances as a Congressional representative. I don’t think she’s bright enough to have realized that, but surely her staff would’ve pointed it out to her. Which has me suspecting that she doesn’t think she’s likely to win re-election, so it won’t make any difference anyhow. (Due to redistricting, she no longer lives in the district she represents, so she’s going to run as a non-resident candidate. That may not play well with conservative voters.)
Bachmann has triple allegiances:
– Christians Should Control Government:
The Swiss were Adolph Schicklgruber’s bankers. That’s why he did not invade.
Elected officials are not subject to security clearances.
I disagree with the article, by the way. IMO, the people have the right to elect whom they choose and the FBI does should not have a veto in a democracy. That said, Bachmann’s colleagues have the right to not put her on the Intelligence Committee. But then, Intelligence and Bachmann don’t exactly go together…
Or for the state legislature. Orly appears to be as clueless about how the legislative branch works as she does about how the judicial one does.
Can anyone explain to me why Orly seems to think she is going to win a default judgment in the Taitz v Astrue case? She is crowing about this on her site, but I thought the case was over.
Because she fails to understand the rules of procedure. She thinks that because the docket listed a timeframe in which the defendants must return a response, should they wish to submit one, this COMPELLED them to file a response.
Since she believes they were compelled to respond and then failed to do so, she thinks she scored some points.
I don’t think she understands the difference between a default a dismissal and a decision, either.
Some segment of birthers have said in the past that “How could ob0z0 [sic] have gotten a security clearance with forged documents!” or “We have a president that couldn’t even get a security clearance, why didn’t the FBI step in!” or “I can’t believe the President doesn’t have to go through a Top Secret background check!” and the like.
They don’t seem to get that the President doesn’t “need” a security clearance, he (through the executive branch) is the one that issues the security clearances. He is by nature of being elected to the office given the highest clearance by the land by leave of the people/electors who elected him and the Congress that certified said election. If the people and electors install a ten time convicted felon as President and said election is legitimate and certified, then said person’s conviction history will not prevent them from being granted the power of the Presidency. It is inherent in the office.
Members of Congress are also granted clearances by dint of their election, but not given access to all information automatically – for example, those on the Intelligence Committee are given more information than those not, but those placed on said committee do not need a special clearance to be there. That is what happens when there are elections – the people should have the right to deem someone worthy of said sensitive data, and no bureau or agency should be able to trump that.
Absolutely. The FBI are, essentially, police, and when police have a veto on who the people can elect, that is a police state.
Yeah, but I’m pretty sure he was given some level of security clearance once he was elected a US Senator.
Any comments on the results of the PPP yesterday in WVa?
Ah we forget how in the Birther’s Universe, anything THEY SPECIFY about Natural Born Citizenship is accommodated by their then-current declaration of the Founders’ “obvious intent” unmistakably apparent in the term’s birther-driven, and un-yieldingly narrow while infinitely elastic capability when being fashioned into a noose to get rid of our first Black President.
They don’t need to ever reconcile their lies about this issue; their only intent is to politically damage Obama in the eyes of low-information voters.
New birther mantra:
Thomas Jefferson was President while a French citizen, which he obtained as an adult. So, from now on, foreign citizenships taken by free will as an adult do NOT disqualify someone from being President and is NO impediment to being a natural born citizen, but anything done by parents or during childhood during which the child had no choice is an absolute disqualifier.
Presto! Bachmann is eligible, President Obama (in Birther-world with nonexistent Indonesian, Kenyan, or British citizenship) is not.
I think my brain just got a charlie-horse from those mental gymnastics.
To add to what RuhRoh says, at the District Court level Judge Lamberth dismissed the lawsuit. Orly filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. In January Astrue’s attorneys filed a Motion for Summary Affirmance – i.e., a request to affirm Judge Lamberth’s dismissal. Orly was given an extension of time to respond and on 3/16/12 she filed a response to Astrue’s motion and she also filed a motion for Summary Judgment (which the court is treating as a motion for Summary Reversal).
Orly apparently believes that Astrue was required to respond to her motion, but she is mistaken. Astrue has no obligation to respond. The Court of Appeals will not grant her Summary Judgment under any circumstances. The best-case scenario for Orly would be for the Court of Appeals to reverse the dismissal and return the case to the District Court. That’s not going to happen, of course, but that is the best she could hope for – if she actually understood what she can hope for.
I’m not sure the second part is actually true; I’ve certainly read about it, but always from American non-authoritative sources; I’ve never seen anything from the French side on this topic.
Between Mourdock winning in IN and Orly in CA, this is going to be a memorable election season.
We simple common Americans are going to be treated to a circus of Tea Baggers and harassed establishment repubs. Nowhere else on earth can one get such top-flight political soap opera than the good ole USA! I predict that this year is going to top all others for sheer lunacy and idiocy.
Yes, just like the candidacy of Christine (I am not a witch) O’Donnell.
Or Sue (bring a chicken to your doctor) Lowden.
And Sharron (privatize social security.) Angle.