Birther Queen Orly Taitz Loses Primary in Landslide
Ex-NFL player Damon Dunn beats her 3-to-1
By Kevin Spak, Newser User
Posted Jun 9, 2010 9:13 AM CDT
Orly Taitz lost big-time.   (YouTube)

(Newser) – Breathe easy, California: Orly Taitz is not going to be your next secretary of state. Several political experts had actually believed the so-called “birther queen” had a shot at winning yesterday’s Republican primary for the job, according to the Huffington Post, but when the dust cleared, ex-NFL player Damon Dunn—a guy who’d never voted before 2008—had trounced her nearly 3-to-1. Still, 365,684 did pull the lever for Taitz, taking a stand for delusional dentist/lawyer/conspiracy theorists everywhere.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Birther Queen Orly Taitz Loses Primary in Landslide is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 36 comments
Jan 12, 2011 6:18 PM CST
You know, nearly everything concerning the office of president, is somehow tied to this issue. An old friend who is very much an independent thinker, and not so paralyzed with fear of things going wrong that he won’t speak, told me the following; If the Supreme Court were to entertain the ‘birther’ issue and the literally mountains of proof against Obama's lawful citizenship, they would be forced to rule against him; therefore all of the legislation that he has signed would be null and void with no legal or lawful significance. The international bankers would be subdued by such an action and therefore you can understand why the Supreme Court justices have been quietly mandated "in the back room" to not allow any such issues to even be litigated. They call the lawsuit "frivolous" so that they do not have to examine, by their very own set of rules, all of the facts, and exposing details publicly. Who is to determine whether an action is frivolous or not until it has been litigated? It is not within the jurisdiction of ‘any’ US court to determine whether they will hear an issue or not... only to determine the facts of such an issue and render a ruling on which entity is correct. By labeling a lawsuit "frivolous" they have essentially ruled on the issues at hand before hearing them, with bias or malicious intent. These appointed jurists have stated that the person who brought forth the lawsuit cannot even talk about it... and to enforce the fact that they don't wish to be confused with constitutional requirements of an elected servant’s qualifications, they fined the attorney (Ms. Orly Taitz) $20,000 to teach her and others a lesson, that this issue is not to be submitted before a biased court again. To illustrate the danger of such a position, imagine someone murdered an innocent citizen such as yourself, and our republics highest jurists were instructed to call any efforts to bring the murderer to justice, ‘frivolous’… merely because the murderer enjoyed a top ranking position in government. Are crimes against the constitution any less heinous? Are not such crimes often considered treasonous? What types of governments come to mind when you think of its citizens no longer having the very basic right to discuss openly, above a cautious whisper, the words and actions of their democratically elected politicians? Is this still the Republic you agreed to defend? Whether you think this attorney’s charges are ‘frivolous’ or serious, do you believe unconstitutional actions by the highest court in the republic sets a positive tone for future decisions? Decisions that will someday affect you personally? How much longer will the silent majority remain silent?
Jun 9, 2010 9:03 PM CDT
Jun 9, 2010 7:48 PM CDT
Orly Taitz and Sarah Palin should make a run for the White House come 2012. They would make a fine team of crazies.