Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Judge Slaps Birther Queen Orly Taitz with $20K Fine!

Washington Examiner reports:
Thanks to her "frivolous arguments and disrespectful personal attacks" in court, Orly Taitz, the part-time lawyer who leads the so-called "birther" movement has been slapped with a hefty fine today for abusing her privileges as a lawyer.

In levying sanctions and a $20,000 fine against attorney Orly Taitz, Judge Clay Land wrote that Taitz's most recent court filing, meant to defend herself against sanctions, "is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional."

Taitz had brought suit on behalf of two members of the military who did not want to be deployed under a supposedly illegitimate president. The purpose of the cases, as she made clear in several press conferences, was to compel the White House to produce President Obama's "real" birth certificate.

In the course of her second military case -- which the plaintiff, an Army doctor, quickly abandoned -- Taitz even alleged that Judge Land had met secretly with Attorney General Eric Holder in Columbus, Ga. Holder was thousands of miles away in Los Angeles on the day of the alleged ex parte meeting.

Judge Land wrote that court precedent dictates abstention from matters related to the running of the armed forces except in very special cases. He also offered an acid reply to Taitz's demands for further proof of President Obama's birthplace:

[P]erhaps the Court should issue a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. Army from sending any soldier to Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else until Ms. Taitz is permitted to depose the President in the Oval Office.

Under the court's order, Taitz has 30 days to pay the $20,000 fine. In addition to poisoning the public airwaves with the worst television interview of all time, Taitz and her kookery can also be blamed for ruining the careers of two soldiers whose naivete got the better of them.


Paul said...

$20K fine, Maybe when she becomes a real lawyer she will appreciate what just happened. I wonder if she is a mail order bride, just like her law degree?

Vicente Duque said...

Republicans Criticizing and Crucifying Obama - This is nothing but betting against America - Petulant Useless Fury

This is a wonderful article that shows that Republicans and Right Wing Fools that hate the President of the United States are wasting their time.

Nothing constructive or positive follows of such Irrationality and Absurdity.

I add of my own bag that they are strongly suspicious of Racism, even if some of them are not so mean, just fools following the herd.

And they may not gain power with such poor ugly and dirty tactics.

Betting against America
Praying the country will slip into chaos, to make Obama look bad, is not a good place for a political party to be
By Garrison Keillor
Oct 15, 2009

Betting against America


Some excerpts :

The wailing and gnashing of teeth that you hear among Republicans is 68 percent envy and 32 percent sour grapes. Here is an idealistic, articulate young president who is enormously popular everywhere in the world except in the states of the Confederacy, and here sit the 28 percent of the American people who still thought Mr. Bush was doing a heckuva job at the end, gnashing their teeth, hoping and praying for something horrible to happen such as an infestation of locusts or the disappearance of the sun, something to make the president look bad, which is not a good place for a political party to be, hoping for the country to slide into chaos. When you bet against America, you are choosing long odds.

A person can run down the list of all that's wrong with this country, including the lobbyists who cross back and forth from public service to influence-peddling like alligators on the golf course, or the bankers who lost their minds in the great mortgage mania, but the country has a history of rising to challenges and turning away from demagogues and doing what needs to be done. Because we are a passionately patriotic people, infused with a love of our history and our land, and so we have limited patience for fools, such as the ones who now dominate the right.

Conservatism is a powerful strain in American life that ordinarily passes as common sense. Save for a rainy day. Don't foul the nest. Don't burn your bridges. Don't sacrifice the future for short-term profit. But when it contradicts itself and becomes weighted down with bigotry and cynicism, then it doesn't hold water anymore.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." And conservatives tried to keep functioning through the Bush administration but the contradictions wore them down, and last fall, when the federal government wrote a blank check to stave off collapse of the financial sector, conservative principles came crashing to the ground, and now all they have in common is that they don't like President Obama. OK, but resentment of an American president being honored by the Norwegians is not a good point from which to build a Republican revival. Petulant fury isn't a winning hand in politics. Get over it.


Vicente Duque

Vicente Duque said...

Altruism, Good Behaviour, Family Dysfunctionality and Neurogenesis - What Science says about People that are Socially Benign and others

Prospect Magazine - United Kingdom

Left brain, right brain
Brain and behaviour research is increasingly being incorporated into political and policy debate in Britain. It is forcing both left and right to re-examine old assumptions
by Matthew Taylor
September 23, 2009

Left brain, right brain


Some excerpts :

The answer is that people who feel supported are more likely to be socially benign. This was demonstrated in a recent study by anthropologist David Sloan Wilson, which examined the citizens of Binghamton in upstate New York. Addressed envelopes were dropped in random streets. Those areas in which people were most active in delivering them to the right door were deemed the most “pro-social.”

These neighbourhoods were distinguished not by their income or physical environment but by whether residents themselves felt they were benefitting from multiple sources of social support. Our brains pick up subconscious signals from those places where receiving and giving social support is the norm. Evolutionary psychologists have explained our capacity for altruism to strangers by claiming it must play a role in helping humans compete. But this view was recently challenged by anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, who argues that human survival and evolution owe much to the fact that, unlike most other species, adults can bond with and nurture infants who are not their own. Whatever its origins, our evolutionary predisposition for altruism needs to be reinforced by the right social clues.

The neuroscientist Elizabeth Gould overturned much conventional wisdom by showing that brains can generate new neurons, a process called neurogenesis. Her research with monkeys showed those who had suffered stress or a lack of stimulation had lower levels of neurogenesis. The impact of nurturing in early years is not simply on our attitudes—which we might be expected to overcome—but on the physical capacity of our brains to develop. Gould’s work has been used to make a case for early intervention in deprived and dysfunctional families. Psychologist Walter Mischel tested four year olds on their ability to resist eating a marshmallow, and showed that childhood inability to defer gratification predicted low achievement and antisocial behaviour well into adult life.

It turns out that messages which cause emotional disturbance impair our reasoning ability; this provides a physiological basis for the negative effects of labelling and stereotyping. Claude Steele, a professor of psychology, gave a group of his students a test that he said would measure their innate intellectual ability. White students performed better than black students. But when Steele gave a different group the same test, but stressed that it was a meaningless practice exam, the scores of white and black students were virtually identical. Similarly, women will do less well in a maths test if they are told it measures “cognitive differences between the genders.”

Altruism makes us happy. Supportive communities create better people. Inequality and stigma rob us of potential. Good guidance helps us make wise decisions for the long term. All these seem commonsense conclusions, all are now based on evidence. They break the oppressive grip of Homo economicus on the right and the alluring but dangerous myth of human perfectibility on the left. Instead, we are left with the mission of progressive humanism; to develop practical utopias based on the good enough people we really are.

On Racial Relations, Racism and Criminality :


Vicente Duque

Page Hits