Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
It looks as though God is going to answer my prayers and Orly Taitz is going to run for Secretary of State in California. The OC Weekly reports:
Lately, the Laguna Niguel dentist who loves suing Obama has been rallying her supporters to help her win the Republican nomination for California Secretary of State.One problem: There's already a Republican who has been running for a few months now. His name is Damon Dunn, he's from Irvine, and Taitz doesn't like him.
Well of course she doesn't like him; he's not a birther. She says of him:
The only reason he was endorsed so far, is because he is an African American, and Republicans want to have an African American to show diversity. He admits to having no knowledge or experience with law, elections or election law.
As opposed to Taitz' vast experience with election law, which is non-existent? But here's my favorite part. On her blog she writes:
Please, let me know if any of you talked to Damon Dunn, and if he is willing to drop out of the Secretary of State race? I don't have his phone and address. I only know that he lives in Irvine, CA.
Oh, this is gonna be fun. God loves me.
Politics
Comments
"He admits to having no knowledge or experience with law, elections or election law."
Bah! Who needs those? All you need to run is COMMON SENSE!
Posted by: axilet | March 9, 2010 9:15 AM
Wow, that takes "clueless" to a whole new level. Her birther-business is just garden variety conspiracy theorizing, but this--thinking a guy might drop out of the Secretary of State race at the request of someone who has no political expertise and no statewide funding base--this is a new insight into just how deeply delusional Taitz is. I may have to start feeling sorry for her; she may have a true mental illness instead of just being loony.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 9, 2010 9:35 AM
axilet @ 1 states:
Actually Saint Sarah Palin clearly notes in her book that it's unpopular common sense (sometimes also referred to as uncommon common sense, that'd be Palin riffing a quip not written on her hand and showing us how, unlike the President, she's in no need of a teleprompter). She even provides an example of such sense that would cause an Alaskan Middle School student to fail.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 9, 2010 9:35 AM
WHERE is Damon Dunn's LONG form BIRTH certificate?!!one11!!!
Posted by: t_p_hamilton | March 9, 2010 9:36 AM
Well, we know she knows the meanings of sanctions, dismissal, and, I believe, contempt of court?
Posted by: Lambo | March 9, 2010 9:37 AM
Dunn's web page has his contact info.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 9, 2010 9:38 AM
I live in California. If Orly actually manages to:
A. Fill out the forms correctly, and;
B. Deliver them to the correct elections office, and;
C. Actually qualify to be on the ballot ...
Then ...
I will re-register Rethuglican for the primary, just so I can vote for her.
I figure helping that batshit-crazy conspiracy loon make the Rethuglican ticket will do more to help the Democrats' cause than any other primary vote I might make.
I like to think of it as my own little spanner in the works ...
Posted by: Steve | March 9, 2010 9:40 AM
Spring must be here: the sap is running.
Posted by: DaveL | March 9, 2010 9:46 AM
There are only three lines on the CA "Intention to Run" form, and poor, poor Orly's managed to mess up two of them.
http://crazyinternetpeople.blogspot.com/2010/03/orly-taitz-for-secretary-of-state-talk.html
Top marks for spelling her own name right, though.
Posted by: Scaryduck | March 9, 2010 9:52 AM
I second Steve @ 7, I'll re-reg as a Repub just to vote for her in the primary. I hope she gets enough press that Dunn feels the need to start running attack ads against her. Those would be priceless.
Posted by: peaches | March 9, 2010 9:58 AM
I have learned to dismiss Orly Taitz as statements about her opponents as time and time again they have been found to be false. So I don't believe anything that she says about Mr. Dunn.
Please, let me know if any of you talked to Damon Dunn, and if he is willing to drop out of the Secretary of State race? I don't have his phone and address. I only know that he lives in Irvine, CA.
So it seems that the entire birtherism is based on Ms. Taitz not being able to do a simple internet search.
Posted by: Anthony | March 9, 2010 9:58 AM
Sometimes I wonder about that as well. Do people like her represent the tail-end of the primary Gaussian distribution of intelligence, or is she part of a secondary hump with genuine disabilities? Then again, I'm not sure if that's the most relevant measure. Either way, they were just born dumb, and perhaps should be pitied for that.
My pity ends though, when they start to get arrogant about their ignorance. It's a commonly studied phenomenon that many of the most ignorant people will grossly overestimate their intelligence, and they can be very dangerous if they aren't taken down a peg. Anyone who persists in denial of reality at this point is fair game for mockery.
Orly has had plenty of chances to take a hint that she's in the wrong, but she consistently manages to dig her hole deeper. Her ego somehow seems to grow with every setback, and I doubt it'll stop until she's run for President, been disqualified for not being a natural-born citizen, and spends the rest of her life raving that she won the election and is actually the President.
Posted by: Infophile | March 9, 2010 10:13 AM
If he has any pride, I'm sure he will now.
Posted by: Phillip IV | March 9, 2010 10:16 AM
Re: Infophile.
I don't think Taitz can be in the bottom rung for stupidity, though. However bogus her degrees in law and dentistry may be, the dumbest people don't even get those. And you can't be a complete idiot and pass the California Dental Boards--you have to successfully complete a prescribed set of procedures (so she obviously is a better dentist than she is an internet researcher). My suspicion is it's something akin to schizophrenia--an actual cognitive disconnect with reality, so that despite some level of native intelligence, she can't correctly interpret what's going on in the world.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 9, 2010 10:42 AM
James Hanley,
I vote for autism from lack of vaccinations as a child. :)
Autism might fit better than schizophrenia but maybe both.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 9, 2010 10:46 AM
Something I just have never been able to get my mind around. Given that she has passed the California Dental Boards, and that she practises...do people actually let her put her hands in their mouths?
Posted by: Vincent Manis | March 9, 2010 10:51 AM
But the question remains, is she dumb, or is she delusional? While her law degree may be from a university that accepts box tops for tuition, her original dental degree is from Hebrew University, not exactly a "crappy school." She also passed the California Bar, not exactly an easy test.
I can't support the "dumb/stupid" arguments, I think she's intelligent enough, just as nutty as a cross eyed squirrel.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 9, 2010 10:59 AM
Maybe she's a little less clueless than we think - maybe she's using this opportunity for a "send me money so I can run" bit as a way of getting money to pay her court costs. Possible, but given her addled state of mind, I'd say unlikely, but I figured I'd toss that into the pile.
Posted by: Badger3k | March 9, 2010 11:02 AM
The Democrats need Orly Taitz in public office, like the American Independent Party needs Barack Obama as POTUS.
Posted by: borderraven | March 9, 2010 11:09 AM
I do like the term "uncommom commom sense".
Posted by: borderraven | March 9, 2010 11:12 AM
I do like the term "uncommom common sense".
Posted by: borderraven | March 9, 2010 11:20 AM
dogmeatib @ 17:
I think so, too. Intelligence helps you deal with reality in a reasonable manner - but if your very perception of reality is distorted to begin with, you can be a genius and still won't end up with correct conclusions.
Posted by: Phillip IV | March 9, 2010 11:21 AM
Was Obama born in Kenya, I mean, was it possible, in 1961?
Weigh the evidence and decide.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28068666/Timeline-Obama-Kenya-Possibility
Posted by: borderraven | March 9, 2010 11:43 AM
There was a recent study showing the effectiveness of imprecatory prayer when used to encourage crazy nutbags to run for public office. See, first they recruited a bunch of crazy nutbags (the recent Tea Party Convention made this easy). Then, they divided them into two groups. The control group was left alone. A picture of each member of the experimental group was taken, and then provided to bloggers who were asked to pray that the nutjob would run for public office. Those in the experimental group were three times as likely to run!
Prove it's not true (without searching PubMed).
Posted by: James Sweet | March 9, 2010 11:44 AM
Imagine the contortions she has to go through to put her hands in other people's mouths while she has her foot in her own.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 9, 2010 11:45 AM
Orly is now trying to get Dunn disqualified on a technicality. She's claiming that he was a registered Democrat until May last year and that you must be registered with the party for a full year before you can run for office.
Doesn't anyone have the right qualifications to run for office these days??
Posted by: tacitus | March 9, 2010 11:58 AM
A long while back I read a popular book called Emotional Intelligence. As I recall, its thesis was that there are some forms of intelligence which aren't captured by standard IQ tests, but which were still recognizable as a way of being "smart."
This didn't just involve being good with people and understanding social skills (though that might be one variable.) The E.Q. also included things which I might have loosely categorized under the label of "character." Could you pace yourself? Are you realistic? Could you weight different goals and choose rationally between them? Did you have self-control? Could you see the 'big picture?' Were you good at assessing not only other people's strengths and weaknesses, but your own? I can imagine someone with genius I.Q. who lacked those qualities.
Maybe Taitz's problem isn't low I.Q. -- it's low "E.Q."
Or, she could just be kinda nuts, as already suggested.
Posted by: Sastra | March 9, 2010 11:59 AM
Borderraven,
Piss off, troll. All these questions have been answered many times.
1. The timeline you link to provides no evidence--it just keep repeating the question, "where was Obama's mom at X date." If they don't know, they need to find out before they make any fucking assertions, otherwise they're making accusations without evidence, and only a complete tool would fall for that. For god's sake, that stupid timeline actually says, "If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a U.S. Citizen and a dual citizen (with Britain), but not a natural born citizen." It actually claims you can be born in the U.S., to a U.S. citizen mother, and not be a natural born citizen! How fucking brain-dead do you have to be to not see through that? It's completely contradictory to the laws of the U.S.!
2. The evidence shows he was born in Hawaii. There's a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper listing the Hawaiian hospital he was born in, and there's a Hawaiian birth certificate attested to by the relevant state officials. The latter is all that is required of anyone to prove they are a natural born citizen.
3. It wouldn't matter if he was born in Kenya, because his mom was a U.S. citizen, and that automatically makes him a natural born U.S. citizen, too.
There are two ways to be a natural born citizen: Be born in the U.S., regardless of your parents' citizenship; be born to a U.S. citizen, regardless of where in the world you are born. That's the law of the U.S., no matter how badly asshats like you wish it wasn't.
Now go put your mittens back on and get back into your mom's basement, the grownup are having a conversation.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 9, 2010 12:02 PM
"Um, you know Damon? From first period? Yeah, him. I kind of like him, okay? And I'm wondering? Does maybe he like me? Cuz if he does that's totally cool and you can tell him I kind of like him too? And maybe you can get his phone number or he can call me but definitely my cell cuz mom is still mad over that Barack guy?
Posted by: xebecs | March 9, 2010 12:07 PM
Does anyone have info on the relevant California law on this point? My understanding is that the US Sup Ct has ruled that states cannot set registration requirements for voting more than 30 days out from the election. A logical corollary would be that you can't require someone to register more than 30 days before a filing deadline to run for office.
A state party might have some different rules, but they're no longer treated legally as private organizations, as they once were, so I have doubts that such a rule--assuming there is one--could be upheld.
Any California lawyers on this blog?
Posted by: James Hanley | March 9, 2010 12:07 PM
"I am requesting an investigation of the above facts and administrative action."
Oh Orly, haven't you learned your lesson about these things yet?
Posted by: JohnV | March 9, 2010 12:15 PM
Re James Hanley @ #28
Mr. Hanley puts his finger on the main problem with the birthers claims, namely that they have thus far provided not a jot or a tittle of proof that the presidents' mother, Ms. Dunham, was ever in Kenya. It would appear quite obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that in order for the president to be born in Kenya, his mother must have been in Kenya.
Posted by: SLC | March 9, 2010 12:45 PM
James @ 28 - while I share your temperment and position your point #3 is not correct. The law at that time required the U.S. citizen-parent to have resided for a certain number of years after the age of 14 in geography under the control of the U.S. for the baby to be 'natural born' if born outside the control of the U.S. Ms. Dunham, at 18 yrs. old didn't meet that criteria; I forgot by how much but at least one or two years.
Now I happen to believe that one could have a shot at successfully appealing such a law if need be, especially since it no longer applies and appears unconstitutionally discriminatory under the equal protection clause. But that was the law in 1961.
However as you note this is all useless information given that all the evidence clearly validates that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii while there is absolutely zero evidence he was born in Kenya.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 9, 2010 1:51 PM
Michael Heath,
You are correct, but Congress repealed that law and made it retroactively void.
But since natural-bornness is a constitutional concept, Congress it is dubious that they have the authority to define it. They currently do define citizenship, in Title 8, section 1401 of the U.S. Code, but the code is carefully designated, "citizens at birth (emphasis added), which I would guess is Congress's way of signaling that they're not trying to define the constitutional term, "natural born citizen."
That is to say, the statutes are largely irrelevant, as it is a constitutional determination, that can only authoritatively be made by the courts. They have not, to my knowledge, ruled on the precise question--a foreign-soil birth to a U.S. Citizen--but my out-of-my-ass reading of cases leads me to believe that they would rule that as long as a parent is a citizen who is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., their child automatically would be, too.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 9, 2010 2:19 PM
Re Michael Heath @ #33
I seem to recall that Mr. Michael Heath and I have had this discussion before but since it was some time ago, I will repeat it. Mr. Michael Heath is quite correct that the law in effect at the time of the presidents' birth would have required his mother to have been 19 as it required residence in the US for a continuous period of 5 years after her 14th birthday. However, subsequent to his birth, the law was changed with the effect, among other things, of shortening the period of continuous residence to 2 years. Under the subsequent law, he would have been eligible. The question is, if evidence were produced that unequivocally demonstrated a Kenyan birth, which law would be in effect? It is my contention that an argument could be made that the latter statute should be determinative under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I don't know of a federal precedent but I sure as hell know of a state precedent, namely the assignment of a regular trial court, rather then a juvenile court for the trial of Michael Skakel for the murder of Martha Moxley in Connecticut. The trial court ruled that, even though the law at the time of the crime required that Mr. Skakel (who was 15 at the time of the murder) be tried in a juvenile court, since Mr. Skekal was now some 43 years old, it made no sense to try him in that venue. AFAIK, the conviction has not been overturned.
Of course, the entire issue is academic anyway because no court, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to provide a remedy by removing the president from office. This is clear in the two decisions in Georgia and California as it was specifically cited by the judges in both cases.
Posted by: SLC | March 9, 2010 2:35 PM
What makes you think she has autism?
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 9, 2010 3:12 PM
Only if by "possible" you mean "cannot be proven false beyond an unreasonable doubt."
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 9, 2010 3:15 PM
James Sweet (#24) - Spiney Norman, the giant purple hedgehog that only I am permitted to see, sez yer wrong. If you don't believe me you're a BLASPHEMER and a PAGAN, and not to be trusted. (Well, it works for the Republican Religious Right, why not me?)
Vincent Manis (#16) asked "do people actually let her put her hands in their mouths?" Knowing (& loving) 'Oily Titz' as we do, and having seen her attention to detail and careful nature, it's gonna make the exercise of 'kissing hands and shaking babies' a truly icky affair. BYO latex gloves and masks.
Michael Heath (#33) - I believe that is true only for Naturalised Citizens, no residency restrictions exist for Natural-born Citizens. Or so I have been informed. -Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 9, 2010 3:22 PM
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | March 9, 2010 3:26 PM
Actually, she doesn't.
"I never had any sanctions assessed against me: never before and never after. I never had any reprimand against me. I have a perfectly clean record."
http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/03/special-update-dr-orlys-quo-warranto-response.html#more
Posted by: Shay | March 9, 2010 4:22 PM
Well, shoot. I meant to include the sentence "Taitz is completely clueless," but I guess that would be redundant.
Posted by: Shay | March 9, 2010 4:24 PM
Re James Hanley @ 30.
The question Taitz raised about Dunn's eligibilty has nothing to do with voting, so the 30 day limit is irrelevant.
In California, to qualify for a partisan office, you have to:
be a member of the party for (iirc) three months before applying. Dunn passes that because he registered as a Republican in May '09.
AND,
you can't have been a member of any other party for at least a year.
Taitz' claim hinges on the fact that Dunn was registered as a Democrat ... in Florida ... some time ago. Thus, she claims, he fails the second clause of the requirements.
What Orly fails to consider, (which seems to be typical for her), is that Florida has laws that if your mail from the elections department bounces, and you fail to vote in two federal elections, your registration is canceled.
So Dunn was essentially not registered with any party when he became a Republican.
Posted by: steve | March 9, 2010 4:59 PM
Steve,
Thanks for the info.
I wonder if the requirement would hold up in federal court if challenged? Running for office is not, as you note, the same thing as voting, but it's closely analogous because both are forms of participation in the political process. That has nothing to do with Taitz, of course. The issue just set my mind to wondering.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 9, 2010 5:18 PM
SLC, #35: The question is, if evidence were produced that unequivocally demonstrated a Kenyan birth, which law would be in effect?
If I recall a similar conversation correctly, that change in law was made to be retroactive, so it would have applied to Obama. That is if, taking into account James Hanley's comments concerning whether Congress even has the authority to make such a law, it is even relevant.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 9, 2010 5:31 PM
James @ 43
Good question.
IANAL, but in my opinion qualifying for a party's primary ballot should be separate from qualifying for an office, and handled entirely by the party internally.
It's also my opinion that political parties are private, not public groups, and the state should get out of the business of managing their internal balloting anyway.
I feel that if a political party wants the state to manage its primary for it, it should pay its share of the costs of that election. If a political party wants me as a taxpayer to foot the bill, then I want the right to vote for its slate of candidates.
Open primaries. Let me vote in the Democrat's primary. AND the Rethuglican. AND the Peace & Freedom, American Independent, Green, Libertarians and whatever parties. Or, if you want to limit participation to just those registered with your party, you pay for the privilege.
Posted by: steve | March 9, 2010 5:42 PM
James Hanley @34:
Tell that to the myriads of foreign mothers' children fathered by U.S. military members in foreign countries. I knew well a sailor whose parents used congressional pressure to preclude his return to Japan to marry his daughter's mother. Thousands of American-fathered children in places like South Korea and South Vietnam have been brought here so they could be adopted and naturalized by unrelated Americans, ignoring any natural parental rights in either this country or their native lands.
Posted by: | March 9, 2010 2:19 PM
Posted by: JakeR | March 9, 2010 6:03 PM
JakeR,
Yes, our politics are often at odds with our laws.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 9, 2010 6:52 PM
SLC | March 9, 2010 12:45 PM:
All they needed to do was transport the egg Obama was in to Kenya after his mother laid it. There's no reason Obama's mother had to follow the egg he was in all the way to Kenya when inferior human slaves could care for it. Or did you not know Obama is a shape-shifting reptoid alien?
Posted by: llewelly | March 9, 2010 9:28 PM
I wonder if filling out the intent form correctly is a requirement to run for office? Check out her address and office sought! (h.t. crazyinternetpeople)
Posted by: Tim | March 9, 2010 11:32 PM
Re Chiroptera @ #44
Actually, as I recall, the subsequent law said nothing about retroactivity but I may be wrong about that. Obviously, if it did, then there is no question that the president would be eligible.
Re JakeR @ #46
The situation relative to Ms. Dunham and Mr. Obama Sr. is different as they were legally married in the US before the president was born.
Posted by: SLC | March 10, 2010 6:43 AM
We so need to move.
Posted by: Buffy | March 10, 2010 6:59 AM
RE: 44 & 50
My recollection, FWIW and Im too damn lazy to re-look it up, is the portion of the law that revised the residency requirements was not retroactive. However, there was another portion of the law that was retroactive, and the standard summary quoted (from the Code Annotated, IIRC) is ambiguous as to which portion was retroactive. However, the language of the statue itself was clear that the revised residency requirements were not retroactive.
Posted by: Dave | March 10, 2010 7:52 AM
Dave - ever thought of running for California Secretary of State, all you gotta do is fill in a form, you don't even need to fill it in correctly (evidently) :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJAck | March 10, 2010 9:14 AM
Nope - they were illegally married. Sr. never divorced his first wife, and according to Hawai'ian law, that means their marriage is void. Technically, Ms. Dunham was a single mother at the time of Obama's birth. Children of single mothers with US citizenship and residency are citizens by the law at that time. This did not apply to children of single fathers.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | March 10, 2010 9:23 AM
Re Kevin Vicklund @ #54
It is my understanding that the marriage in Kenya was not recognized in the US. As I understand it, Ms. Dunham obtained a divorce from Mr. Obama in, I believe, 1964. If the marriage was not legal, then there would have been no need of a divorce.
Posted by: SLC | March 10, 2010 6:28 PM
You're assuming that she knew that the marriage was illegal and technically void. Alternatively, it may have been easier, more convenient, or more beneficial to apply for divorce.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | March 11, 2010 12:23 AM
There has been a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation of American law forward birther claims.
Birthers continue to shift their focus. This latest action my Orly Taitz is one of them. She believes that she can keep Obama of the ballot if she is Security of State.
Now we have borderraven asking the silly question "Was Obama born in Kenya, I mean, was it possible, in 1961?" He honestly believes that there is some evidence to support his conjecture. Why? Why, don't they just accept the proof that Obama was born in Hawaii based on the evidence of a Hawaiian birth certificate.
It is much easier to accept that Obama's birth information was sent to the Department of Health by a hospital in Hawaii than a confusing story about impossibilities.
Posted by: Anthony | March 11, 2010 12:41 AM