Hitler never got a Nobel Prize, Barbara

Posted on October 10, 2009 by obot1
Barbara Coe

Barbara Coe

Immigration activist (that’s a euphemism for “bigot”) Barbara Coe said in a recent speech last month:

Barak [sic] Obama and his anti-American “czars” are taking a page from Hitler’s Nazi Germany playbook – only worse, much worse. Be afraid, be very afraid!

Perhaps Ms. Coe thinks Hitler is a much nicer person than I do. Perhaps she believes that the holocaust is a myth and that the death camps were just labor camps where the conditions were just a bit harsh because the whole country was on short rations.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Vitriolic, conspiracy-minded and just plain mean, Coe routinely refers to Mexicans as “savages.” She claims to have exposed a secret Mexican plan (the “Plan de Aztlan”) to reconquer the American Southwest. Last May, at a “Unite to Fight” anti-immigration summit in Las Vegas, she launched the kind of defamatory rant for which she is infamous. “We are suffering robbery, rape and murder of law-abiding citizens at the hands of illegal barbarians,” she warned her cowering audience, “who are cutting off heads and appendages of blind, white, disabled gringos.”

…offhand comments to the Denver Post this November. In a profile of her close friend, U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), the paper said Coe described speaking to and belonging to the Council of Conservative Citizens. That group, which has called blacks “a retrograde species of humanity,”

Well perhaps somebody is taking a page from Hitler’s playbook.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Hitler never got a Nobel Prize, Barbara

Birthers trash the US Flag

Posted on October 10, 2009 by obot1

If anything, most of us Obots are patriotic Americans. We wouldn’t be obots except that the evil birther tribe and the teabaggers are trampling on our Constitution, insulting our elected officials, and generally trashing our political institutions with their lies and their disrespect. I hear reported that one birther blog refers to President Obama as BOZO!

The Flag Code of the United States clearly defines what is respect for the flag of the United States, and what is disrespectful, and in fact ILLEGAL. This is from section 285b of title 2 of the U.S. Code.

(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery.

flag-desecrators1

flag-desecrators3

Barbara Coe (click image for story)

Barbara Coe (click image for story)

Posted in Birthers Exposed | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Birthers trash the US Flag

Taitz hit with 2nd CA Bar complaint

Posted on October 9, 2009 by obot1

Cleveland lawyer, and native-born United States citizen, Subodh Chandra filed a complaint against birther crusader Orly Taitz with the California bar–at least the second formal complaint to be so filed. In explaining his reasons for filing the complaint Chandra said:

While lawyers have a wide range of latitude to advocate for their clients, they do not have professional license to just make things up. In a self-regulating profession, lawyers have a responsibility to report when other lawyers engage in conduct that reflects on fitness to practice law.

Here, Ms. Taitz has waived around demonstrably phony documents (the Republic of Kenya was the “Dominion” of Kenya on the date of the fake “Republic of Kenya” birth certificate she’s been brandishing), ignored the state of Hawaii’s own official statement that its records reflect the President was born in Hawaii and failed to explain how a Hawaii newspaper reported on President Obama’s birth back at the time — did the wily conspiracy extend to the president’s grandparents when he was infant?

Ms. Taitz also accused a (Bush-appointee) federal judge in Georgia of “treason” and corruption without any reasonable basis. She reportedly advocated positions contrary to her clients’ direct instruction. And the federal judge sanctioned her for “frivolous” conduct. These are things for which we mere mortal lawyers normally face consequences.

The Cleveland Scene

Posted in Orly Taitz | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Taitz hit with 2nd CA Bar complaint

Judge notes Orly trying to pressure the court

Posted on October 5, 2009 by obot1

It won’t work, informs Judge.

In proceedings in Santa Ana, California, in the case of  Barnett v. Obama, Judge David O. Carter complained that Orly had been urging her followers to pressure the court. He said:

Quietly, calmly, Carter replied that he didn’t want to “chill” the audience’s enthusiasm, but the America that Taitz alluded to was not the America he grew up in: one where opposing parties could confront one another in a “thoughtful” manner in the courts and in the legislature. He said that he had heard that Taitz had exhorted followers on her blog to contact the court, and that his receptionist had to take as many as forty calls a day from Taitz’s supporters. “I can assure you that during the proceedings, the government or President Obama haven’t contacted me,” he said. “If there’s any undue pressure [on the court], it’s from you.

The Judge wondered why President Obama should be called to testify about his eligibility to hold office:

“He doesn’t have any memory of his birth,” Carter said.

While I do not have the full transcript, I think Orly replied something like: “In Soviet Union all Citizens are required to remember birth.”

By flooding the court with last minute filings, the final judgment [pun intended] will be delayed as the Judge ponders the complex issues before him. Despite birther spin, there is no indication that the Judge will do anything other than dismiss the case.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Judge notes Orly trying to pressure the court

Obot free zone?

Posted on October 4, 2009 by obot1
obamalr

Normal View

What was that the Joker said to Batman, “you made me?” There would be no Obots without the Birthers. It is the Birther’s attempt claim normalcy for their insane view of the world that drives the Obot jihad to quell the fire, stem the flood, expose the lies and stop the madness!

Bozo the Clown

Birther View

Here is an island of sanity on the Internet, a respite from the Birthers. In case you haven’t noticed, the blog’s About page has changed to make it clear what our tag line, “Birthers need not apply” means.

This brings us to the tangled mass of web sites making up the Texas Broadcasting Network, and its forum illiterately labeled, “This Forum is a OBOT free zone”. Struggling to communicate their twisted view of the world, they have taken to calling President Obama: “OBOZO”. This as much as anything demonstrates their distorted perception of reality that turns Barack Obama into Bozo the Clown.

Posted in Introduction | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Obot free zone?

Birthers think all blacks look alike

Posted on October 3, 2009 by obot1
AG Holder

Eric Holder

In a remarkable legal brief, Attorney Taitz, included this affidavit:

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary, Lamar Rozier
on this 26th day of September, 2009, personally appeared Robert D. Douglas, known to me to be a credible person and of lawful age, who being by me first duly sown on his oath deposes and says:

On the day of he hearing for Major Stephan Cook before Federal Judge Clay D. Land, Columbus, Ga., my wife, my wife’s sister, her husband and I had entered the little coffee shop directly across from the Court House while waiting for the doors to open to the public. I was sitting in the small seating area, set aside for their customers, while facing and looking directly at the entrance to the shop. All persons entering had to pass withing 8-10 feet from where I was sitting.

NOT Eric Holder

NOT Eric Holder

I looked up and immediately recognized an individual entering and approaching the serving counter, due to his well known TV displayed distinguishing features: his trim upper lip mustache, not large of stature and general olive complexion. I knew instantly it was non[e] other than Eric Holder, the current Attorney General of the United States. I called this to the attention of those present and all agreed it appeared to be who I readily recognized. He entered unguarded, no accompanying entourage and probably thought he would not be recognized.

Not Eric Holder

Not Eric Holder either

Red flags went up immediately in my mind and the questions remain, as yet. Why does the Attorney General of the United States need to be present in an obscure hearing well of his beaten path? Could it possible be, since Holder did not present himself in open court, he may have had a little “whisper in the ear” to a Federal Judge in order to bias his judicial vision and adhere to the President’s agenda of obstruction?

Only Judge Clay D. Land can answer those question.

Robert D. Douglas

What’s the problem? The hearing in question was in Georgia on July 16th. Holder was in California on that day. I guess to birthers all blacks look alike.

Posted in Rumors and smears | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Birthers think all blacks look alike

Birther cat fight

Posted on October 2, 2009 by obot1

Do not try this at home!

The Orly Taitz web site is a minefield of malicious software that can destroy your computer. Don’t go there. You have been warned.

Orly pours dirt on self (see below)

In an article today, Birther lawyer Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq, RSVP, EIEIO says:

It was reported to me by an Attorney Larry Miller and a number of other parties that Willey [sic] Drake is again saying things that are absolutely not true.

1. Willey [sic] Drake is spreading rumors that I was kicked of [sic] the legal team in Barnett et al v Obama, that Gary Kreep is the only attorney on the case.

2. Gary Kreep is sending heavy solicitations through the media, specifically WND and Newsmax, completely misrepresenting the case and presenting it as if he is the only attorney on the case.

3.  Willey [sic] Drake claims that I no longer represent Alan Keyes  – that is a lie. [No wonder they fired you. You can’t even spell your own client’s name!]

…Kreep recently filed a motion to severe [sic] the case, which I stipulate to (I agree to). I used this motion to simply pour dirt on me. [huh?] Most of it is not true or misrepresentation of what really took place. For example he claimed that I couldn’t serve the case properly. This is nottrue [sic]…. Judge Carter stated at the hearing on July 13ththat [sic] I should just serve the US attorneys for expediency or the case will be dragged [sic].

…Ii[sic] am pretty busy, but keep in mind one thing. Kreep ran solicitations this whole year telling people "[sic] I’ll fight for you, [sic] I’ll file law suits every time Obama signs a law or executive order. In reality he didn’t file one single law suit, absolute zero [brrrr!]. He just joined me in prior [sic] case in state court and squeezed himself [sic] in this case…

Posted in Birther Blogs, Orly Taitz | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Birther cat fight

Orly lies in court…

Posted on October 2, 2009 by obot1

…and I don’t mean that she took a nap.

Y’all know that miz Orly has two o’dem law suits a’goin’ on. But she done file thangs in one dat don’ say whut it say in de udder. I give a big ole thank’e to PolitiJab.com wh’r I done stole dis.

In dis’un she be a’arguin’ dat the judge gib her standin’ and in de udder she say he didn’. Land o’ mercy. A Christian woman aughtn’t a’lie like dat.

Motion for Leave to file a Surreply, filed in Barnett v. Obama on September 26, 2009 Motion for Recusal, filed in Rhodes v. MacDonald on October 2, 2009
It is true that Judge Land ruled in favor of defense in a case seeking stay of deployment of active duty military pending verification of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the President and Commander in Chief. What is most important in that case, is that for the first time after over a 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation challenging Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for presidency, a judge in this case found standing, as judge Land got straight to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, assuming standing of the members of the military to challenge the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, but deciding to exercise discretionary abstention on the issue of deployment. Most of the plaintiffs in this case before His Honor, judge Carter, are members of the military, and as such, based on the precedent set in Rhodes case, they have standing to challenge legitimacy of Mr. Obama, therefore contradicting the defendants’ main argument in the motion to dismiss, their claim that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The fact that Judge Land decided to abstain on the issue of deployment is irrelevant in this case, as it goes to the final disposition of the case, and whether the judiciary should abstain from reviewing a certain procedure within the military. (Motion to file Surreply at page 2.) It is clear and obvious from Judge Land’s determination of Plaintiff Connie Rhodes’ lack of standing (and the undersigned counsel’s “negligence” or “contemptuous disregard” of the court’s orders in failing to stand down when ordered to do so ) in and from the fact that Judge Land clearly and plainly did not read the Plaintiff’s Complaint or Application for TRO, and from the rapidity of his decision to deny Plaintiff his Seventh Amendment right to a trial-by-jury without first evaluating the sufficiency of 85%-90% of the issues in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Recusal Motion at page 12.)
Judge LAND has also completely failed to evaluate or even pretend to have read enough of Plaintiff Rhodes’s Application for TRO and Complaint to determine whether or not Plaintiff Rhodes has standing, for example, to demand a declaratory judgment regarding the procedures by ….(Recusal Motion at page 15.)
…Plaintiff submits that Judge LAND’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney. (Recusal Motion at page 16.)
Motion for Leave to file a Surreply, filed in Barnett v. Obama on September 26, 2009 Motion for Recusal, filed in Rhodes v. MacDonald on October 2, 2009
It is true that Judge Land ruled in favor of defense in a case seeking stay of deployment of active duty military pending verification of Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the President and Commander in Chief. What is most important in that case, is that for the first time after over a 100 legal actions filed all over the Nation challenging Mr. Obama’s legitimacy for presidency, a judge in this case found standing, as judge Land got straight to the substance of the Plaintiffs’ case, assuming standingof the members of the military to challenge the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief, but deciding to exercise discretionary abstention on the issue of deployment. Most of the plaintiffs in this case before His Honor, judge Carter, are members of the military, and as such, based on the precedent set in Rhodes case, they have standing to challenge legitimacy of Mr. Obama, therefore contradicting the defendants’ main argument in the motion to dismiss, their claim that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The fact that Judge Land decided to abstain on the issue of deployment is irrelevant in this case, as it goes to the final disposition of the case, and whether the judiciary should abstain from reviewing a certain procedure within the military. (Motion to file Surreply at page 2.) It is clear and obvious from Judge Land’s determination of Plaintiff Connie Rhodes’ lack of standing(and the undersigned counsel’s “negligence” or “contemptuous disregard” of the court’s orders in failing to stand down when ordered to do so ) in and from the fact that Judge Land clearly and plainly did not read the Plaintiff’s Complaint or Application for TRO, and from the rapidity of his decision to deny Plaintiff his Seventh Amendment right to a trial-by-jury without first evaluating the sufficiency of 85%-90% of the issues in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Recusal Motion at page 12.)
Judge LAND has also completely failed to evaluate or even pretend to have read enough of Plaintiff Rhodes’s Application for TRO and Complaint to determine whether or not Plaintiff Rhodes has standing, for example, to demand a declaratory judgment regarding the procedures by ….(Recusal Motion at page 15.)
…Plaintiff submits that Judge LAND’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney. (Recusal Motion at page 16.)
Posted in Orly Taitz | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Orly lies in court…