I'm sure you assumed that title was an exaggeration, which it was, but just barely; the actual headline is "Will Obama Build A Death Star Next?". Now, this is obviously the most ridiculous question one could ask, since A) we lack the space engineering infrastructure to build even a functional X-Wing (we couldn't even build a proton torpedo or the most basic of hyperdrives), let alone a full battle station with a superlaser able to vaporize an entire planet and B) no, Obama is not trying to build a Death Star because that's crazy. Where did they get this idea?
It sounds like a case of “May the farce be with you,”
It does.
but at this
moment, in a galaxy not far away, there is a real-life petition on a
White House website pushing for the funding and construction of a Death
Star like the one featured in the “Star Wars” film saga.
Holy shit, you guys are treating those petitions like real things that you should take seriously? Let's look at some other examples of real-life petitions on a White House website. We have people who want to have the country of Canada secede from the United States:
OK, so maybe that one was just a few idiots. But we also have people pushing to make "The Rock" starring Nicolas Cage into the "Official Movie of America":
People who want to establish motorcycle judges to replace our current legal system:
People who want to punch Grover Norquist in the dick:
And whatever this is:
I wouldn't be that surprised to discover that Odd Future actually sent this one in.
So, it's safe to say that these petitions are more closely related to internet comments on Yahoo! Answers or Youtube than they are to binding legislation passed by Congress. WND, however, is convinced that the Death Star is a legitimate potential goal of the Obama administration. The next bit of the article is reproduced here in an entirely unaltered form (first caption theirs):
ZOMG THAT'S SUCH AN OBAMA MOVE, WANTING POWER TO DESTROY ENTIRE PLANETS
The specific petition is on the White House’s “We the People” site, and states:
We petition the Obama administration to: Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016. Those who sign here petition the United States government to secure
funding and resources, and begin construction on a Death Star by 2016. By focusing our defense resources into a space-superiority platform
and weapon system such as a Death Star, the government can spur job
creation in the fields of construction, engineering, space exploration,
and more, and strengthen our national defense.
In the “Star Wars” movies, the Death Star was an armed battle station in
space that produced enough concentrated firepower to instantly destroy a
planet.
WND is concerned that their readers might not have seen Star Wars, which is sensible since this is the same crowd that boycotted Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. Besides, Rebel Alliance? Sounds like a Commie revolution scheme to me. Look, we get it--it's a space station that blows up planets.
So far, there’s no official response from the White House
Are they covering up progress on an already-built Death Star? Someone get Boba Fett on this pronto.
but there could be one should the petition collect 25,000 signatures by
mid-December. As of Monday afternoon, more than 800 people signed the
online measure.
Just think, if 24,200 more people sign, the White House might have to officially respond to one of a bazillion fake petitions that have sprung up on their remarkably ill-thought-out petition website.
Interestingly, one of the names on the petition is “Darth V.” from Burlington, N.C., who signed the measure Dec. 1.
"Yo Barack, come check this out. I went on the petition site and signed it--get this--as Darth Vader. Man, I crack me up!"
Darth Vader is the legendary character from “Star Wars” who was the
father of Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia, and was seduced to the “dark
side of the force.”
WHAT? Luke and Leia are related and Vader is their fucking DAD? Give me a fucking spoiler alert next time, assholes.
Orly Taitz (another friend of our favorite media outlet, WorldNetDaily) appeared in court again last week, and I do not understand how she has not been disbarred in every state. She's best known for filing approximately three hundred motions attempting to obtain Obama's birth certificate, and now that that's been released she's also attempted to obtain his school records, Social Security info, and basically anything else that might have his name and a birthplace on it. She's also a really, really terrible lawyer, by pretty much any standard of lawyering you might want to pick. For example, back in October, she filed a sprawling suit about...something, which seems to involve defamation, voter fraud, and candidate ineligibility for office in several apparently unrelated cases. It was described by one named defendant (also, helpfully, a lawyer) as follows:
It appears that she has now filed, or tried to file, yet another
lawsuit, and that this one has my name in it. At least, she has filed
paperwork that is partly a challenge to the California results, mostly
another iteration of the Obama charges, and in one small part accuses me
of defamation for the post above. (I've asked her if there is anything
in it that isn't an accurate statement of fact, and will let you know
what I hear.) There is a document that is labeled a "complaint," that
is, although so far as I can tell it has never actually been filed in
any court, and I am named as a defendant along with 31 others, ranging
from the President, Nancy Pelosi, and both candidates for the California
Senate seat, to various state officials, Chris Matthews of "Hardball,"
the U.S. Postmaster General, and the "John and Ken Show" on KFI AM 640
in Los Angeles.
In summary: she filed some paperwork, which might be a lawsuit, against some election results, several individuals, and one radio show. Her named defendants include the Postmaster General, Chris Matthews, this random lawyer, and the President. Unfortunately, there were some errors, as our lawyer friend details:
It's a real challenge to list all the mistakes Orly made in this case
in a reasonable number of words, and this doesn't even include the
original state case, but here goes, to the best of my knowledge
(quotations are from the court's order):
After some initial proceedings in state court, which were not to her liking, she removed her own case to federal court.
She filed a notice of removal in the state court, but not in the federal court.
Instead, she filed a "First Amended Complaint" in federal court,
which was not the same as the complaint she filed in state court. (If
you're removing a case, it has to be the same case.)
Actually, no one is really sure what she filed: "Perhaps some
confusion is due to the fact that the manually filed First Amended
Complaint had 'First amended complaint' crossed out. Someone wrote
'Notice of Removal' in pen above the crossed-out text, which then became
the document’s title in the docket."
I'm not 100% clear on what this means (but, to be fair, I don't think Orly is either). It sounds like Orly, in an attempt to remove a previous complaint, accidentally entitled her new complaint "Notice of Removal".
She did not file whatever this was electronically, as the court's rules require.
Because of the handwriting issue, when the court ordered her to go
back and file "Docket #1" electronically, it meant the complaint but she
thought it meant the notice of removal, which is what she filed
electronically, thus having successfully confused everybody including
herself.
And what she filed was the notice she had filed in state court—meaning she never did file an actual federal notice of removal or an electronic copy of her new complaint.
In the meantime, she was trying to serve this bogus complaint on the
defendants; as far as I know, she did not serve any of the 29
defendants correctly.
"At least one Defendant has reported that the paper copy of the
complaint he received, which is the only copy to which he has access, is
missing pages."
No, seriously, I'm an actual lawyer! Look at these serious-looking lawyer papers I'm holding!
I didn't really mean to go so in-depth into Orly's previous failed efforts, but that list of items was too fun. Anyway, the point of referencing that whole article was that it notes that Orly is now a cool 0-158 in her birther cases. Now, in case #159, Orly is going after Occidental College, in an effort to compel them to release President Obama’s college records. This case was unusual for Orly in that the opposing counsel actually showed up; generally, her filings are so ridiculous that opposing lawyers can just let the judge throw them out. In this case, the counsel for Occidental called Orly up and concisely presented his defense ahead of time:
“It is the college’s position that your application is without merit, frivolous, and warrants sanctions.”
This snooty attorney called me and stated that he intends to appear
tomorrow and oppose my motion to compel production of Obama’s
application to Occidental college, and seek sanctions because it is
frivolous. I told him that I will be seeking sanctions againsty [sic] him for
committing treason, for obstructing justice and filing a frivolous
opposition.
"You're calling me frivolous? No, YOU'RE frivolous! Also, being a lawyer for someone I disagree with is treason now. Boom, you've been lawyered."
I told him that evidence submitted in the case shows Obama having
Indonesian citizenship, forged birth certificate, forged selective
service certificate and a forged /fraudulently obtained Social Security
card.
I filed an afidavit
Oh come on, Orly, you're supposed to be a lawyer. At least make an effort.
from Sheriff Arpaio to this extent. His
opposition represents obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting
elections fraud and treason.
I'm pretty sure this is just gibberish. If anyone can produce a definition of "extent" that makes sense in this context or figure out who "his" in that sentence refers to, please let me know.
He followed up with en e-mail, where he tried to intimidate me again.
Intimidation? He accused you of filing a frivolous suit. For doing that, you accused him of TREASON.
I know a lot of Obama’s people will be there and our left to Lenin
lying media as well. It would help to have my supporters there.Can someone get in touch with Trump. He was willing to to pay Obama
$5mil for these records, maybe he will be willing to donate to my work
and help me out. I think he might be interested in being in court.
It's funny because Trump probably would be interested if it would get him on the teevee. Also, it's funny because this is the same shit you were doing four years ago, when a few people may have actually cared, and your supporters are all gone because you haven't produced a shred of evidence and all of your cases get thrown out of court for being wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Things didn't get much better for Orly when she got to court, as the judge threw the suit out and fined Orly $4,000 for wasting everyone's time. She continued to protest and attempted to introduce a folder of new "evidence" after the decision was handed down, to which the judge responded, "“You should know that evidence is not stuff printed from the internet.” Which: that's news to me, but at least I don't go around telling people I'm a lawyer. Orly's opposing counsel was quite pleased with the result:
“He let Ms. Taitz have her say in court and then he ruled appropriately,” Botterud said. “It’s always good to find a judge that follows the law and does the right thing.”
Ms. Taitz was less enthused:
“The judge did not give a damn about this country,” she wrote on her blog in response to the ruling. “Sadly he is not any different from all the other judges. I am yet to see one single judge who gives a damn about this nation. I feel like I am in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.”
Yes, Orly, Nazi Germany happened because some people couldn't see someone else's birth certificate.
Judson Phillips is upset that Obama won the election. Unlike most disappointed Republicans, though, he's got a bold plan to fix things. He's discussing this plan over at WND, which some of you may recognize as the "media outlet" responsible for propagating the birther conspiracy and Joseph Farah's mustache.
I believe that if left untrimmed, it would just continue to grow outward horizontally forever.
What's the way forward, Judson?
We have one last, final chance to save America. We have one last, final chance to stop Barack Obama. One final chance.
This should be good. Let me go make some popcorn.
What is this final chance? Will the Republicans step up to the plate and do what is necessary?
Barack Obama has not yet been re-elected president.
I can't wait to see whether this article will rely more on denial, anger, bargaining, or depression! Based on that sentence, it definitely won't be acceptance.
Yes, the election is over – but remember, a presidential election in
America is not by popular vote. We vote for the candidate, but what we
are really doing is voting for the electors who will meet on the Monday
after the second Wednesday in December.
That is when the actual re-election of the president occurs.
OK. I guess technically, that's accurate, although it is already clear that your "plan" is to find an absurd loophole based on a misreading of the Constitution regarding the Electoral College. At this point, it may help to have a better idea of who Judson Phillips is; he's the founder of Tea Party Nation, which has a wide variety of goals, of which most are summed up in this screenshot of their website (purple highlights are me, pointing out the more inane items):
Alright, the twinkie thing is pretty good. I see you, Tea Party Nation.
Anyway, let's move on! So far, I get that Judson wants us to understand that the actual re-election hasn't occurred yet, but even if it hasn't, is there any chance that Obama won't win the Electoral College at this point?
Is there a way to stop this?
I don't know, Judson! You tell me.
Yes, there is.
(Tea) Party time!
And the best part – this is totally constitutional.
The 12th Amendment of the Constitution as well as Article II of the Constitution govern the Electoral College.
According to the 12th Amendment, for the Electoral College to be able
to select the president, it must have a quorum of two-thirds of the
states voting. If enough states refuse to participate, the Electoral
College will not have a quorum. If the Electoral College does not have a
quorum or otherwise cannot vote or decide, then the responsibility for
selecting the president and vice president devolves to the Congress.
The House of Representatives selects the president and the Senate selects the vice president.
Since the Republicans hold a majority in the House, presumably they
would vote for Mitt Romney, and the Democrats in the Senate would vote
for Joe Biden for vice president.
So, first of all, this is all entirely untrue. The 2/3 quorum refers to what is required in the House of Representatives to vote on things like who will be president IF the electoral college can't decide on a president for whatever reason. Having 1/3 of the electors refuse to show up will do nothing. Second of all, do you not feel at least a little weird about basically advocating a course that would circumvent our entire electoral process? Not only will it not work because you got the law wrong, but also this sounds like the kind of thing that happens in countries run by people whose names rhyme with Gladimir Bootin.
Democratic process? Nah, that doesn't sound fun at all.
Can this work?
All together now!
No, Judson, no. It can't.
Sure it can.
Sigh. I'm not going out and finding more gifs just for you, Judson.
Democrats have actually set this precedent of refusing to participate to
deny Republicans a quorum. They did this in Wisconsin and in Texas. Why
can’t we do this with the Electoral College?
Like I said, it's because that's not how the rules work in the Electoral College.
[Several paragraphs redacted for being further explanation of Judson's incorrect understanding of the Electoral College]
It does not matter who gets credit for this. The credit is not
important. Using our last chance to defeat Barack Obama is important.
You guys, I'm pretty sure Judson wants some credit for his terrible wrong idea. Far too often the Republican Party seems more interested in losing gracefully than winning and governing.
Fox's election night coverage would like a word.
This is our last chance. We the people must contact the electors,
party officials and secretaries of state from every red state and insist
that they refuse to participate in the Electoral College.
We can still save America and use the Constitution to do it. But this truly is our last chance.
We can still save America! By refusing to participate in our Constitutionally created democratic institutions!
UPDATE: Before I finished writing this, it appears that someone alerted Judson to the fact that the entire basis of his article is incorrect, since this disclaimer appeared at the top:
Editor’s note: Since this column was posted it has
been discovered that the premise presented about the Electoral College
and the Constitution is in error. According to the 12th Amendment, a
two-thirds quorum is required in the House of Representatives, not the
Electoral College.
In true WND style, while they do acknowledge an error, they won't change the initial article to reflect the true facts, and put up a vague disclaimer that isn't clear as to how much of the article depended on that one fact.Journalism!
