Roland, You Aren’t Helping
ArchPundit
Burris insists on a public option.
In other stopped clock news, he was also, along with Dick Durbin, one of the few Senators to vote against the ACORN amendment. Now, if he’d shut up until he goes away.
2009
The Teabaggers Have Killed Both Irony and Satire
I’ve honestly had a hard time posting lately because the teabaggers are so over the top insane, it’s hard to comment on them. Today’s edition:
Paging Judd Apatow
David Kurtz | September 17, 2009, 11:47AM
The politically charged Texas Board of Education has kicked off hearings today on whether school textbooks should have a more conservative slant. Things began auspiciously when one member of the public got up to announce that she is a 56-year-old virgin.
“Judge Land is a typical puppet of the regime — just like in the Soviet Union,” she said.
Tai(n)tz goes on off Judge Land:
In an interview with TPM just now, Birther evangelist Orly Taitz fired back at Clay Land, the U.S. district court judge who tore apart Birtherism and threatened Taitz with sanctions in an order today, saying that “somebody should consider trying [the judge] for treason and aiding and abetting this massive fraud known as Barack Hussein Obama.”
“This is so outrageous what this judge did — it goes in the face of law and order,” said Taitz, reached at her office in Mission Viego, CA. “Not every judge is as corrupt as Judge Land. Some judges believe in the Constitution. And some judges believe in the rule of law.”
We are marching into Andy Martin land where he was banned from filing federal lawsuits.
I asked Taitz what she will do next with the Rhodes case, which was filed and tossed out in another district before it was refiled with Land. “This is the decision of Connie,” she said. “I will be talking to her and making a decision.”
And if Rhodes is open to continuing the fight, would Taitz go along?
“Oh absolutely, absolutely,” she said. “Listen, Nelson Mandela stayed in prison for years in order to get to the truth and justice.”
And Taitz brushed off the possibility of sanctions. “I’m not afraid of sanctions. Because I know this is not frivolous. I know this is extremely important — the most important issue in this country today.”
Irony Meters Blowing Up All Over
Tea Party Protesters Protest D.C. Metro Service
Protesters who attended Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.
Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services.
Seriously.
The Texas Republican on Wednesday released a letter he sent to Washington’s Metro system complaining that the taxpayer-funded subway system was unable to properly transport protesters to the rally to protest government spending and expansion.
“These individuals came all the way from Southeast Texas to protest the excessive spending and growing government intrusion by the 111th Congress and the new Obama administration,” Brady wrote. “These participants, whose tax dollars were used to create and maintain this public transit system, were frustrated and disappointed that our nation’s capital did not make a great effort to simply provide a basic level of transit for them.”
This reminds me of the US Taxpayers Party Convention (now the Constitution Party) in Saint Louis where I got on Metrolink with a train full of US Taxpayer Party members talking about how great it was.
The New Andy Martin–Orly Tai(n)tz
When the first paragraph threatens sanctions if you bother the Court again, it’s pretty bad:
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is
hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court,
which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).
As a friend described her, Sacha Baron Cohen character Orly Taitz, has annoyed the court to the point of this line:
To the extent that it alleges any
“facts,” the Complaint does not connect those facts to any actual
violation of Plaintiff’s individual constitutional rights. Unlike in
Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it
so. The weakness of Plaintiff’s claim certainly weighs heavily
against judicial review of the deployment order, and in fact, would
authorize dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a
claim.
Fun at the Taintz expense:
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has
become known as “the birther movement.” She maintains that President
Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and, therefore, he is
not eligible to be President of the United States. See Dr. Orly 1
Taitz, Esquire, http://www.orlytaitzesq.com (last visited Sept. 15,
2009). Counsel has filed numerous lawsuits in various parts of the
country seeking a judicial determination as to the President’s
legitimacy to hold the office of President. The present action is
the second such action filed in this Court in which counsel pursues
her “birther claim.” Her modus operandi is to use military officers
as parties and have them allege that they should not be required to
follow deployment orders because President Obama is not
constitutionally qualified to be President. Although counsel has
managed to fuel this “birther movement” with her litigation and press
conferences, she does not appear to have prevailed on a single claim.2
In fact, Plaintiff previously filed the present action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas. That Court
summarily dismissed her complaint upon finding that Plaintiff “has no
substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Rhodes v. Gates,
5:09-CV-00703-XR, Order Den. Mot. for TRO 3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28,
2009). Counsel then re-filed the same action in this Court.
I believe the shorter District Court Judge Clay D. Land is this:
Stop wasting my time you fucking nutbag Birther.
More fun. AOL polls are now evidence.
Using the Mindes factors as an analytical framework, the Court
finds that it is not authorized to interfere with Plaintiff’s
deployment orders. First, Plaintiff’s challenge to her deployment
order is frivolous. She has presented no credible evidence and has
made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated,
conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is
ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Instead, she
uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric,
such as her claims that the President is “an illegal usurper, an
unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.” (Compl. ¶ 21.)
She continues with bare, conclusory allegations that the President is
“an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted
illegal alien . . . without so much as lawful residency in the United
States.” (Id. ¶ 26.) Then, implying that the President is either a
wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that
the President “might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social
security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.” (Id. ¶
110 (emphasis added).) Acknowledging the existence of a document
that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that
the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed
fraudulent.” (Id. ¶ 113 (emphasis added).) In further support of
her claim, Plaintiff relies upon “the general opinion in the rest of
the world” that “Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped
through the guardrails to become President.” (Id. ¶ 128.) Moreover,
as though the “general opinion in the rest of the world” were not
enough, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that according to an “AOL
poll 85% of Americans believe that Obama was not vetted, needs to be
vetted and his vital records need to be produced.” (Id. ¶ 154.)
I do think the Judge is overestimating the ability of middle school civics students to understand irony, but the point is spot on:
Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of
proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to
prove his “natural born” status. (Id. ¶¶ 136-138, 148.) Thus,
Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty
and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a
citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his
innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and
speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily
recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which
our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and
preserve” those very principles.
As they say, read the whole thing.
I Guess One Could Call The Driving of a Yellow and Black RV to Champaign Gutsy Given Saturday’s Disaster
Hoffman’s announcement launched a multi-city tour of the candidate via an RV clad in his campaign colors of yellow and black. The political newcomer goes to Springfield this afternoon and then will make weekend trips to Alton, Carbondale and Champaign to introduce himself to downstate reporters and voters.
Or just dumb.
Hynes on Kos
At 4:30 Today.
How I Spent My August
A good portion was spent following teabaggers around Saint Louis which was far more active than in Illinois–until the other day at least.
I do think Democrats will lose House seats in 2010–it’s both an off year election and the Dems have a lot of seats in marginal districts. How bad it will be largely depends on whether health care passes and the state of the overall economy and especially job growth. While many are comparing it to 1994, I see it far more like 1982 which I’ll explore more later. Ultimately, 1994 was about marginally higher Republican turnout compared to marginally lower Democratic turnout. It’s a very different world from 1994 though with significant demographic shifts and especially in Illinois, that will have an impact on how deep the change is. Additionally, in 1994, the GOTV operations weren’t nearly as good as they are now. Voters are highly identified and the targeting is far more effective. If health care doesn’t pass with what most Democrats see as a strong bill, that may not matter for Democrats–Dem voters may just not show up. Again, more on that later.
On top of following teabaggers around locally, the start of 1st grade for my daughters, 2 sinus infections, and very busy time at work and I just didn’t have time to post much.
Oh, and this:
From phenom to felon
I once held a position of public trust. I write today as a felon, having broken that trust, and I don’t want anyone to make the terrible mistakes I made.
I thought I could get away with it. If anyone learned of what happened, it would be my word and the word of my friends and staffers against that of a loner with a shady past.
It was easy to think this way. I had arrived on the political scene.
When I decided to run for Congress in 2004, I was a nobody. It was a familiar role. As a boy I was the smallest kid on the court, scrappy and hypercompetitive, and I tried to overcome my political weaknesses with the same drive. Eventually I went from a non-entity to a contender.
As Election Day drew near, I authorized a close friend and two aides to help an outside consultant send out a mailer about my opponent but without disclosing my campaign’s connection.
Fiercely competitive, I was seeking any advantage I could get. I knew that hiding my campaign’s involvement was against the law. I was raised better than that, but I thought the ends justified the means. I was stupid and wrong.
Yes, he was. He’s also my friend. He’ll have to pay for his crime now. It’s hard to watch the entire thing unfold. Jeff had a very promising political career and as always, the cover-up was far worse than the initial act. As one friend put it to me upon first hearing it had to do with flyer not properly disclosed—“what did he tear off the tags to some mattresses too?”
Anyone who has been active in campaigns know these kind of mail or phone calls or any number of silly schemes go out with some regularity and usually if anyone gets caught it results in a fine. In this case, Jeff and the others lied about it, and then lied some more, and lied some more all the way to Nick and him getting two counts of federal obstruction of justice. The cover-up is worse than the initial act, but that cover-up is inexcusable.
I can’t and won’t justify any of it. I will say that out of that campaign and the 2006 campaign, came some of the most talented young political workers I have ever seen and every day I see their names in my e-mails working for progressive causes, candidates, and office holders. This doesn’t make what Jeff did better or wash away his sins–it does say that regardless of the outcome for Jeff, all that effort was not a waste. Those young, energetic progressive operatives are changing politics and I have every confidence where Jeff failed, they will not. It was never only about Jeff and even if they question where they started, they have gone on to be successful in their own right.
Your Modern GOP
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dUy0L_BD5c[/youtube]
I can’t tell the difference anymore….
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVSsYDqNeoI[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEgaXcPxhsc[/youtube]
Financial Reporting Done Wrong
I was tentatively planning on coming back tomorrow after a very long month that I’ll fill you all in on later.
However, a story reminded me of an e-mail discussion with a friend a while ago. A politician was floating his name out for higher office seemed particularly unsuited and yet no one was making fun of him. I asked my friend why.
He pointed out it isn’t polite to make fun of the retarded.
That may be true, but I’m going to make fun of Crain’s and Steve Daniels anyway.
The hit piece on Alexi is pretty atrocious and it’s hard to find the worst part, but let’s start with this:
“Those (dividends) are appalling,” says Bert Ely, a Virginia-based banking consultant. “They basically were sucking capital out.”
Broadway says a “substantial” portion of the dividends went to tax payments, but won’t say how much. As a Subchapter S corporation, Broadway passes tax liabilities on to shareholders. Such companies often pay dividends to reimburse shareholders for tax payments. If Broadway shareholders paid taxes on the bank’s earnings at the highest rate, 40%, $39 million would have covered their tax payments. But that still leaves $31 million that appears to have gone to the family and today could help the bank weather the recessionary storm.
This is a pretty amazing quote to use. First, the bank is wholly owned by the Giannoulias family so the suggestion that they are acting against the interest of the bank itself is a bit bizarre.
That’s not the most ridiculous part though. There’s something materially different about the state of the bank ownership before 2006 and after—the death of the primary owner and the need to settle his estate which includes bank assets and thus dividends were used for regular taxes as a Subchapter S corporation, but also to settle the estate.
The final question is would Alexi back restoring the dividends as if that was just cash sitting around. It was used for taxes and settling the estate, the cash isn’t sitting around to just be put back in. It could be possible to use some of the estate portions that went to the family to recapitalize the bank, but that isn’t simply restoring dividends, it will be a separate agreement to provide additional capital. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how the estate would be divided and the process to then utilize those funds isn’t just putting cash back in because the ownership has fundamentally changed.
The question of Alexi is another bizarre part of the story. Did the bank go overboard like almost every other bank in relation to the housing boom? Yes and Alexi had some part in those decisions. But he has not had an operational interest in any of the time since 2005 so the question is why is he mentioned in the article other than it was suggested that it was an interesting topic by someone out there (read Republicans). Alexi has no responsibility for the current practices of the bank and all of the dividends aren’t an issue for his time in the bank. It’s a non-story related to him. In fact, the scandal would be if he did have something to do with the decisions.
Extra irony points for quoting Bert Ely who wants to abolish reserve requirements on banks about how bad the reserves are at Broadway. You really have to try and find someone that kooky to reach that level of irony.