R-Money / Ryan OFF the State of Washington ballot??????????????

I have often found great truth in the statement that truth is stranger than fiction, otherwise more colloquially stated, you couldn't make up stuff this crazy.  Reality exceeds the reach, on occasion, of imagination.

The antics of bat-shit crazy Orly Taitz and her Tea Partier Birther supporters has afforded me hours of amusement.  They have on occasion been laugh-out-loud ridiculous.

Likewise, I have on occasion been mildly entertained as the Tea Partiers cannibalize the Republicans, as it seemed poetic justice, albeit of the roses are red violets are blue quality.  But nothing could have prepared me for this latest development from the nasty, dirty-trick employing right against themselves for a change, instead of against more moderate and frankly SANE candidates.

I can't believe that the Libertarians will win this suit; it would be bad, it would be wrong.  These antics, these cheap, low tactics were wrong against Obama and they are wrong here against R-money and Ryan.  But it is funny to see them used on their own for a change. 

It is too much to hope that in having to deal with the possibility that they will find themselves off the ticket by a stratagem the right has used against their lawful, legal, more fair and honest opposition, the right will come to recognize the error of their ways.

But then, I hadn't the imagination to believe the right would try this against R-money and Ryan either, so maybe I will be surprised.  I'm not sure which would surprise me more, R-money and Ryan being off the ballot, or the right changing their tactics of voter suppression, election tampering, voter intimidation, running false candidates, and of course the perennial favorite gross distortion and campaign dishonesty.

But I wait to be dazzled by how fact might next be stranger than fiction.

From the Tacoma Tribune/ McClatchey:
Washington state Libertarians sue to keep Romney off ballot

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/17/162605/washington-state-libertarians.html#storylink=cpy

Kim Bradford | The (Tacoma) News Tribune
The Libertarian Party of Washington has notified the Secretary of State’s office that it has filed suit in Thurston County Superior Court asserting that Republicans’ presidential ticket does not qualify for a place on the November ballot.
Libertarians say the GOP does not have major party status, which it contends is reserved for parties that hold a nominating convention within the state and collect at least 1,000 signatures by Aug. 3. The party cites a state law that Secretary of State spokesman Dave Ammons says was used during the pick-a-party primary from 2004 through 2007 and remains on the books.
Ammons points out that top two, a nonpartisan winnowing process, does not use the terms major and minor parties.
“The major-minor distinction is, however, retained for the presidential tickets,” Ammons wrote. “Libertarians’ attorney, J. Mills of Tacoma, argues in his complaint that to remain a major party, the Republican nominee needed 5 percent of the vote for U.S. Senate in 2010, and that neither Dino Rossi nor Clint Didier was officially nominated by the Republican Party.”
The state’s view, as expressed in a memo from Katie Blinn, elections co-director, is that the 2008 presidential race kept the Republicans in major party status.
“Because the Republican and Democratic nominees for president and vice-president both received at least 5 percent of the total votes cast for that office in the 2008 presidential election, those parties retain their status as major parties until the next presidential election at which their nominees do not receive at least 5 percent of the votes cast,” she wrote.
The Libertarians contend that GOP presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney must run as a write-in in Washington.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/17/162605/washington-state-libertarians.html#storylink=cpy

 

And here's a more contextual elaboration:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bat-s**t Crazy Birther Queen Orly Taitz, and the January 2011 SCOTUS decision



(not an actual photo
of Orly Taitz )



Orly Taitz: the gift that keeps on giving......giggles.

Today the giggles (occasionally guffaws) may have finally wound down.  The Supreme Court of the United States has rejected  the plea of Orly Taitz to overturn the contempt sanction of $20,000 imposed on her by my favorite author ever of legal documents, Judge Clay Land. 

A Salute

Court Order by Judge Clay Land
regarding the $20,000 sanctions against Orly Taitz
footnote 11
page 42 of 43


"The Court wishes to explore the possibility of directing the financial penalty to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning, Georgia, which has as part of its mission the recognition of our brave soldiers who do their duty regardless of the personal sacrifice required and their own personal political beliefs. The Assistant U. S. Attorney shall file within thirty days of today's Order a short brief outlining the position of the United States as to whether such a monetary sanction can be used for this intended purpose. The Court emphasizes that the Court is ordering the penalty to be paid to the United States as required under Rule 11 and not to a third party, but the Court seeks to determine whether the Court is authorized to subsequently order that the proceeds be paid by the United States to the Foundation."

page 43 of 43

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of October, 2009

Judge Clay D. Land
United States District Judge


www.scribd.com/doc/20996403/Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-28-0

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the legal decisions of Judge Land in response to the various antics of Orly Taitz. Reading this order, in its entirety, was no exception. While I am not an attorney, Land is understandable even to the non-professional reader. He writes with clarity, and with a certain eloquence and even hints of humor. I delight in his use of quotations in his other Orders; we share an appreciation for using the words of others to augment and focus our written thoughts.

Judge Land was appointed to his position by former President George W. Bush, who I have been known to criticize from time to time. Let me in fairness not only applaud him for his choice of Land, but give him an enthusiastic standing ovation for this choice. While I am not familiar with the other (than Taitz) decisions of Judge Land, I can only hope that this is an example of our judiciary.

I hope all of the readers of Penigma will join me in an even more joyous ovation for Judge Land. His words in the above quoted footnote are a better tribute to the mind of the man than anything I can write to laud him. Judge Land, I salute you, your mind and your heart, for your administration of justice, and your thoughtful concern for those members of our armed forces that may benefit from this footnote in your Court Order.

A reading of the various legal actions to further the 'birther' movement filed by Taitz, the resulting Court Orders and Decisions, and the complaints filed against her with the California Bar, all strongly suggest that Taitz has been exploiting gullible, trusting, tragically misled members of the United States armed forces solely to promote her own notoriety and political agenda to the detriment of their military careers. Rather than serve the interests of her clients, Taitz acted primarily to serve her own agenda; her intent to continue to do so was one of the reasons for the size of the sanction. This is what makes the effort outlined in the footnote so poignant.

Well done, your honor. Well done.

The Explosion of the Judge Clay D. Land Mine

"I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers. "
Voltaire

"If you would judge, understand. "
"If you judge, investigate. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

On Wednesday, September 16th, Judge Clay D. Land presiding in the United States District Court of Georgia, for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division handed down an order in Connie Rhodes v. Col. Thomas D. McDonald, et al. I'm not an attorney, but I have been told by members of that profession that reading court documents is usually not what would be considered entertaining reading.

Not so when Judge Land writes an order. Land was nominated to the District Court back in September 2001 by President George W. Bush, shortly after the events of 9/11. Judge Land shows a remarkable wit, and grace in the face of provocation, which makes his orders different from the usual - at least, these orders. I'm perhaps slightly prejudiced in favor of his writing, because of his use of widely ranging quotations to punctuate his meaning and set tone; so far, from Lewis Carroll and Yogi Berra. Judge Clay has gained national attention for his decisions due to the controversy brought before his bench by the notorious Orly Taitz, Esq. on behalf of anyone she can convince to let themselves be used to promote her birther movement. Don't take my word for it; Judge Clay makes the point particularly sharply, in the Order of September 16th, he not only makes it excruciatingly clear, he makes it repeatedly, including a warning to Taitz not to file similar frivolous suits in his court again on pain of sanctions. Taitz wanted a restraining order to prevent the army from shipping Captain Rhodes, MD off to Iraq on the premise that President Obama maybe isn't really the Commander in Chief. Apparently, Taitz has confused Judge Land's use of wit with joking. Because Taitz did exactly what she was warned not to do; she filed another suit, and she did a lot of trash talking about the judge before whom she was appearing as well, something that is generally unethical conduct for lawyers despite First Amendment rights.

On Friday, September 18, 2009 Judge Clay D. Land handed down a new order in Rhodes v. McDonald et al., which includes a show cause order for Taitz to persuade the Judge why he should not fine her $10,000 for defying his warning. http://static.mgnetwork.com/rbl/pdf/rhodes_mcdonald_order.pdf
In an interesting wrinkle to the story, it appears that Captain Rhodes shipped out to Iraq on Friday. But before she left, Rhodes wrote a letter to Judge Clay in which she states that she did not authorize Taitz to file the second frivolous action on her behalf, that she only found out about it from the news coverage, that she did not want Taitz to represent her in that or any further action, and (because in anything involving Taitz, there always seems to be more) that the action Taitz had brought before Judge Clay's bench in the first place was not the action that she had authorized, and finally, that she intended to file a complaint against Taitz with the California Bar, which would make the third such complaint. http://static.mgnetwork.com/rbl/pdf/birther_letter.pdf

A local television station provided excellent coverage of the event, or...non-event. http://www2.wrbl.com/rbl/news/local/article/10000_sanction_proposal_against_birther_lawyer/93364 It will be interesting to see how the newest complaint reads, if Captain Rhodes follows through; I think it fair to qualify Captain Rhodes as an unhappy, and possibly very embarrassed client. Which brings me back to my continuing curiosity, who is paying Taitz for all of these actions, and the cost of traveling to different states, judge shopping for new locations to submit her cases before the court? Clients, some sort of slush fund, donations? This is just a guess, but I think after this recent round, and the show cause order is resolved one way or the other in front of the cameras, Taitz will be judge shopping in some new jurisdiction, with more travel expenses.

Unless the California bar acts expeditiously; I don't know if these things work on a first come first serve basis. I wonder if they have an equivalent to the express checkout lanes in grocery stores, with an item limit, for attorneys with 'x' number of complaints.... and wonder what the limit would be - 3 complaints, 5 complaints, more? If they don't, perhaps they will take this as a suggestion. As I understand it, and I'm hoping ToE will correct me if I get this a bit wrong, the way complaints to the bar which can result in sanctions and even disbarment, can come from any officer of the court - the defense lawyer, the judge, other lawyers NOT involved in an actual case. What prompts this flight of whimsy is that it would be my expectation that Ms. Taitz by now must not be below the radar of the California Bar, and the embarrassment she is bringing to it might very well be something they opt to address before it gets too much greater. We may not be there yet, but I can't help but speculate if the resolution of the $10,000 fine show cause order might produce enough fire works from Taitz to just be the 'tipping point'.

Orly, Alice in Wonderland, and AOL

“Man gives every reason for his conduct save one,
every excuse for his crimes save one,
every plea for his safety save one;
and that one is his cowardice."
- George Bernard Shaw
Irish literary Critic, Playwright, Essayist; 1925 Nobel Prize for Literature
1856-1950

The brave man inattentive to his duty,
is worth little more to his country
than the coward who deserts in the hour of danger.
- Andrew Jackson
Seventh President of the United States
1767-1845

To be afraid is the miserable condition of a coward.
To do wrong, or omit to do right from fear,
is to superadd delinquency to cowardice.
- David Dudley Field
American Jurist
1805 - 1894


Yesterday I read the decision in Rhodes v. McDonald, United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division, Case No. 4:09-CV-00106(CDL).

Why read this 14 page Court Order from Georgia? The suggestion from a friend was that I read it because it was so very funny, a "hoot". And...oh, yes, it WAS. It really, really was.

What the heck is 4:09-CV-0016? It is one of the latest court decisions in the continuing 'adventure' those of us who are NOT birther fanatics find so inexplicable on the part of what is largely the extreme political right. In this case, it entertains, as it informs.

Plaintiff Army Captain Connie Rhodes tried to sue Colonel Thomas McDonald, the garrison commander of Fort Benning, et al, so that she could avoid being deployed to Iraq, citing as the grounds for her suit that President Obama is not properly the President. She claims those orders are unconstitutional, and sought a restraining order, a request which was dismissed and deemed frivolous.

What makes this so entertaining, although I assume that was unintentional, is the details, and ohhhh my, is there a devil in these details. This suit, one of many, was considered so exceedingly frivolous that the attorney - our Mrs. Doctor Orly Taitz, Esq., sometimes realtor - was addressed directly at the end of the very first paragraph of the order dismissing the suit thus, "Further, the 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)".

The document goes on to elaborate that Taitz is the self-proclaimed leader of the birther movement, and then gets to this part,"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." So, the court identifies Orly Taitz as deliberately USING members of the United States military to serve her own political purposes. This is from the first paragraph on page 2 of the order. It gets better, it continues, "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." A footnote documents that this court had previously dismissed a similar claim, Cook v. Good that was brought on behalf of a reservist; the Court Order also indicates that the Rhodes case was first filed in Texas where it was no better received before trying it out in Georgia.

On page 3, the Court addresses the short form birth certificate provided by the President, and in a footnote at the bottom of page 3, the court addresses President Obama's Presidential campaign, information from the Federal Elections Commission, and the formal position of Congress on the status of the President of the United States as an eligible citizen for the office by virtue of being born in Hawaii. Page 3 goes on to elaborate how Captain Rhodes had a substantial part of her medical schooling paid for by the army, in exchange for her commitment to serve in that same army.

Page 4 goes on to elaborate that Captain Rhodes began her service in July 2008, and had no problem continuing that service under President Obama, right up until she received deployment orders in September 2009. The Court Order observes that she simply doesn't want to comply with orders sending her to Iraq or anywhere else that would put her in harm's way. She does not seek to leave the Army; she wants her conscientious objection simply to keep her on American soil.

The Court Order continues with the nuts and bolts of the legal matters, until we get to page 7 of 14, where it states, "First, Plaintiff's challenge to her deployment order is frivolous. She has presented no credible evidence and 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." The court order continues further in the paragraph to state with what appeared, to me at least, to be blatant derision of Ms. Taitz by the court, where on page 8 it states, "Then, implying 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 the President." My favorite part of the 14 pages is mid-page 8, where the Court addresses an item brought by Ms. Taitz in support of her contentions on behalf of Captain Rhodes, where it states, "Moreover, as if 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 produced." I looked up that Poll, Ms. Taitz is dishonest and inaccurate; it was 58%, and is not considered in any way a scientific poll, not that those kinds of polls are something I would expect a court to consider anyway. Or a teacher, if I was writing an essay or a term paper; I'd expect a low grade, heck, I'd expect an 'F' for submitting that.

The document continues "Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that the Defendant has the burden to prove his "natural born" status." The final sentence of page 8, which continues on page 9, states in perhaps the most telling statement from the court about the values of the "birther movement", "Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order purportedly to "protect and preserve" those very principles." So much for the 'birthers' understanding our government, knowing our constitution, and espousing the values of this country.

I particularly enjoyed the sense of the Court's feeling expressed in a scathing opinion of Orly Taitz' arguements and proof, near the end of page 9, "Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so." I've always enjoyed Lewis Carroll's work.

The pages go on and on to delineate the failures of Ms. Taitz legal arguments and documents entered in support of those arguments, but one of the most interesting of those comments is the footnote at the bottom of page 10, which addresses again in quite scathing terms the observations on yet another of the bogus Kenyan birth certificates, at too great a length to quote here. There are still 4 more pages of the order, which includes a passing reference to the Terri Schiavo litigation.

I enjoyed the top of page 13, the first full sentence, "Although close proximity to any combat zone certainly involves personal danger, Plaintiff, somewhat disingenuously, claims that fear is not her motivation for avoiding her military duty. She insists that she would have no qualms about fulfilling her duties if President George W. Bush were still in office. The Court cannot find from the present record that deployment to Iraq under the current administration will subject Plaintiff to any threat of harm that is different than the harm to which she would be exposed if another candidate had won the election." In other words, apparently the Court is not persuaded by Captain Rhodes' assertion that she is not, simply, a coward. To have allowed herself to be used by someone with the dubious competence and motives of Orly Taitz also suggests she is a fool. Such demonstrations of courage and patriotism, such devotion to the foundation principals on which our country was founded; those patriots on the right political fringe must be so very proud.

And then there is the end of page 13, following over into page 14, which we might term the beginning of the end of the Court Order, the end of this case, and the end of similar cases if we are lucky as a country, " A spurious claim questioning the President's constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court's placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest."

I was curious Ms. Taitz professional credentials. I looked it up; she was admitted to the bar in California, where one is not required as a condition of membership to the bar to have attended an accredited law school, and where one can do their law degree course work by correspondence school. I have checked where Taitz got her law education, it is from Taft Law School, and it is a correspondence school, although it has to have even so, an ethics class requirement. I'd like to suggest that Orly Taitz would even be an embarrassment to one of those correspondence schools that ask you to draw a turtle or a pirate, from the back of a matchbook cover or a glossy newspaper insert ad. I now know from having inquired, what the disbarment process is, in the state of California where she is licensed, where not one but two complaints have been filed - and I've read them both, cover to cover. I'd like to know why something so egregious has taken so long, and still has no conclusion. But then, I'd like to know what color the sky is on the planet she is from too.

And now, despite the warning to Ms. Taitz about sanctions should she persist with frivolous law suits in this court, yes, Orly Taitz has filed yet another one. And yes, this one is just as funny as the preceding filing. Undeterred, Ms. Taitz has recruited more of her 'clients' to provide her with fodder after this one is finally tossed out for good.

Naturally

"I think if the people of this country can be reached with the truth, their judgment will be in favor of the many, as against the privileged few.”
- Eleanor Roosevelt
American United Nations Diplomat, Humanitarian and First Lady (1933-45), wife of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US president.
1884-1962

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
(and)

"No man who ever held the office of president would congratulate a friend on obtaining it."
-John Adams, Founding Father, Statesman and Diplomat, 2nd President of the United States (1797-1801) 1735-1826

Orly Taitz is the crazy blond lawyer who has been popping up on both serious and comedic media all over the place, presenting the birther case why Obama is not a valid citizen. But did you ever wonder where Taitz and the birthers get their info?

Now, apparently the Birther followers failed to take the usual Civics classes that I would hope the rest of us have passed. It does not matter where Obama was born, although clearly he has documented to a fare-thee-well that he was born in Hawaii. It does not matter WHERE Obama was born; because no one is disputing that his MOTHER was born in the United States, and was a valid U.S. citizen at the time of Obama's birth; or his maternal grandparents. Our laws require ONLY one parent be a citizen for their offspring to be born natural citizens, and in most instances, acquisition of natural born citizenship is also available through either set of grandparents who are citizens.

Article I of the Constitution, Section 8, gives the Congress the right to establish and define who is a citizen, and naturalization is 4th item down on the list:

"Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, "

For those who slept through American History, the Constitution was ratified in 1788, effective in 1789, with the various amendments expanding it over a number of years. The subject of who is and who is not eligible to be a citizen came promptly under the Naturalization Act of 1790; they weren't wasting any time defining who was and was not a citizen. (No surprise, it was pretty much white immigrants of European origins; people of other races and ethnicities, indigenous Americans, and so on were 'tagged in' later, in some cases, surprisingly later than you might expect.)

Here is one of the places where Orly Taitz has something; the Naturalization Act of 1790 defined citizenship as automatic at birth if born abroad rather than inside the U.S. for the children of FATHERS, but NOT MOTHERS, who were U. S. citizens.

EXCEPT that this has been amended in 1934 legislation to give equal acquisition of citizenship through a child's mother; and was further specified in 1952 legislation, well before Obama was born. That legislation was the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Title III addresses acquisition of citizenship - the correct term for what is under discussion. Title III also addresses the issue raised about John McCain's legal right to be President, as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

CHAPTER 1-NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
301 NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
for Obama:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or20(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24 , 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

The section applicable to McCain:

303 PERSONS BORN IN THE CANAL ZONE OR REPUBLIC OF PANAMA ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 26, 1904SEC. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403]
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the20time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

McCain is old, but he is not pre-1904 old; he comes from a family of famous admirals on his father's side, and his mother was born in Oklahoma. Had he been elected, he would have been 'legal' for the office of president, under these provisions. Interestingly, this is not a new topic; other presidents, notably Chester Arthur for one, also have faced the issue of presidential natural citizenship qualification.

So... why would Orly Taitz, herself from a foreign country, keep insisting that Obama is not eligible to be President? I decided to do a bit of research into that, since my own civics class days were a while ago. There are two conflicting legal premises involved, "jus soli", which roughly translates as "law of ground" and "jus sanguinous", the concept of "law of blood" which requires both parents to be considered citizens of the country, for natural at-birth citizenship purposes. Birthers seem fond of quoting the Law of Nations; the Law of Nations, which favors jus sanguinous, is not the law of the United States. In Europe, different countries opted for either citizenship based on jus soli, or jus sanguinous; in the U.S., we have more of a hybrid citizenship-by-birth, and we have over the course of our history passed laws in Congress defining that hybrid form.

It is fairly obvious that those in the House and Senate who have not taken a firm stand in support of President Obama in response to the Birther movement are not sincere. None of them appear to genuinely believe this is an issue. Others seem equally disingenuous in their statements. However, there are those who are perhaps more gullible, certainly misguided individuals who seem to sincerely believe that Obama is not our legal president. These people have the frantic kind of fear that is unique to ignorance. They are desperate to believe that however unlikely, it makes some kind of sense that we do not have a bi-racial black man legitimately occupying the oval office.

We cannot any of us know what their motivation is, although racism seems the most likely explanation. In watching the news footage, I have yet to see anyone who appears to be a person of color who is in terror of the results of the 2008 election. It is possible that fact and reason might succeed with these frightened birthers, but not probable.

There are few options to resolve the divide other than to try. The alternative is to laugh at them, but that doesn't solve the problem of segments of our political whole breaking off into little extremist shards. That process, the fragmenting of our political spectrum, ultimately weakens the whole, the opposite of unifying divergent views. Education is the only possible solution, beginning with our own information, and our own education.