For why he never should have been Attorney General, see http://sanityfringe.blogspot.com/2007/09/another-moral-idiot-for-attorney.html

So they "love America" while hating its government and most of its voters? What they profess to "love" is not the actual country that exists today, or that existed in the past, but their idea of that country.

A notice of appeal is normally just one sentence on one page, stating who is appealing and what order or decision they are appealing. You don't need to explain why you are appealing or present any legal or factual arguments. Or even what part of the order or decision you're appealing. Just that you are filing an appeal.

But Taitz uses the notice to go on another 8 page rant.

It would be within the power of the judge to find her in contempt and issue another sanction based on the language in the notice of appeal. (I doubt he will. He'll probably decide that $20,000 is enough and let the appellate court strike the next blow.)

(c) Payment to charitable, etc., organization on behalf of person rendering services. The value of services is not includible in gross income when such services are rendered directly and gratuitously to an organization described in section 170(c). Where, however, pursuant to an agreement or understanding, services are rendered to a person for the benefit of an organization described in section 170(c) and an amount for such services is paid to such organization by the person to whom the services are rendered, the amount so paid constitutes income to the person performing the services.

So if, as part of a pre-arranged plan, person A performs services for B and B pays a charity for the services of A, A realizes income equal to the payment by B to the charity.

And there are several IRS Revenue Rulings confirming that the IRS believes that the regulation means what it says.

I don't think I've ever seen a judge so pissed that he spent 43 pages just to eviscerate a lawyer.

Here's hoping that Taitz does appeal, because the Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to impose additional sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

My understanding of the public option would be a federal health insurance program that individuals could elect to join. Sort of like Medicare, except with premiums paid by the individual based on actuarial costs. The only federal (or state) subsidy would be the same subsidy that will apply to any other health insurance coverage.

So the state government would have nothing to do with it. No funding, no administration, no nothing.

So why should a state be able to elect out of a federal program? Can states elect out of Medicare? Can states elect out of Social Security?

Adverse selection at the state-wide level does not seem actuarially significant. And the states most likely to opt out would be the states with the worst health records.

And there's no reason to believe that Republican Representatives and Senators will vote for the bill merely because the citizens of their states might be denied benefits allowed to citizens of other states.

So I don't see it.

I often stop reading messages as soon as I run into complete nonsense, and here I only got as far as the first sentence:

"It is to our amazement that the leftist liberal democrats in this nation continue to assault traditional values and America's Judeo-Christian foundation in order to attempt to achieve their long coveted agenda."

For "traditional values" read "traditional prejudices." Jesus said "Judge not, that you not be judged," and "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." If two people love each other, and want to live together in love, who am I to judge them, or cast the first stone?

But it's the last part that's really crazy. How could it possibly achieve "leftist liberal" "long coveted agenda" by "assaulting traditional family values and America's Judeo-Christian foundation? A primary coveted agenda item for many "leftist liberals" is universal health care. How could it possible advance that cause by simultaneously promoting gay rights?

The author is both wrong on the theology and wrong on the politics.

That statement is only half true.

Insured patients are often divorced from many of the true costs of health care (other than often nominal co-pays).

But doctors are NOT divorced from the costs, because doctors are part of the costs, and when doctors are part owners of the hospital or group practice, the costs of medical care can double. Medicare and Medicaid may control the price of a procedure but they don't try to interfere with medical decisions, and so doctors who want higher profits order more tests and more procedures and drive up costs with no increase in the quality of health care.

Now, conservatives look at this imbalance and think that the solution is to shift more of the costs to the patient, but that's nonsense. People (other than hypochondriacs) don't go to the doctor because they think it's free but because they think that need to see the doctor. Trying to ration health care by imposing costs on the patient is simply irrational.

The real solution is to divorce the doctor from the economics of health care. If a doctor is on a fixed salary (such as is the case in the Mayo Clinic, one the highest-quality and lowest-cost facilities in the US), then the doctor will focus on the patients who need help and not on those that are profitable.

What we really need is a system in which both the doctor and patient really are divorced from the costs and economics, because they the doctor will try to provide what the patient needs, no more and no less, and the patient will take only what the patient needs.

Is it because he thought he could make more money working for a phony astroturf organization than a legitimate law firm/lobbying group? Or is it because he thought he could influence policy more with phony astroturfing than with overt lobbying?

Or did he have a choice at all?

But can a corporation assert the 1st Amendment rights of its shareholders?

In the commercial context, that would be workable. Commercial speech can be regulated more than political speech without violating the 1st Amendment, but there is still a constitutional right of commercial speech and it is appropriate to let the corporation represent the economic rights of its shareholders when an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech would adversely affect the corporation and its shareholders.

But should a corporation be able to assert 1st Amendment rights to political speech? I think it should depend on the purpose for which the corporation was formed.

The 1st Amendment guarantees not only a right of free speech but a right to "peaceable assemble," which has been interpreted as a right to freely associate for political or other purposes. So if a group of people have a political goal, and they assemble and form a corporation for the purpose of carrying out that goal, one would think that the corporation would have a right of free speech in order to carry out the right of the people to assemble and associate and express their views. So, for example, if a corporation is formed for the purpose of supporting a particular candidate for office, and it collects contributions for that purpose, and spends money for that purpose, one can see how that activity might be protected by the 1st Amendment.

But a commercial corporation organized for profit has shareholders with different political views and should not be able to use the collective economic power of all of the shareholders to support the political views of the management.

And this kind of distinction is actually made in the statute that is now before the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, because section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–155), 2 U.S.C. 441b(c), distinguishes between electioneering by political organizations and by business organizations or funds earned or contributed by business operations.

As far as I have read, that distinction, and the constitutionality or validity of that distinction, is not at issue in the Citizens United Case.