It may be time to stand up to the long entrenched tyranny of sleeves.

Or something like that.

Attorney/dentist Orly Taitz — whose crusade against the legitimacy of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate earned her marginal fame in 2009 — appears to be at her wit’s end.

Responding to a fan’s post to her Web site, Taitz highlighted both her opinion of the U.S. government and her prowess with the English language, claiming that now is the time for citizens to “bare arms.”

ADVERTISEMENT

She likely meant “bear” arms, as in, to carry, convey, deliver or fetch. But that’s beside the point.

Taitz’s full passage reads: “Seeing targeted destruction of our economy, our security, dissipation of American jobs, massive corruption in the Government, Congress Department of Justice and Judiciary, it might be time to start rallies and protests using our second amendment right to bare arms and organise in militias.”

To put that in a complete sentence: the de-facto leader of the birther movement wants armed people to organize against the government.

Unless she truly meant going sleeveless, Taitz is a little late to that party.

As though to make her December even worse, a longtime friend and so-called “law clerk” by the name of Charles Lincoln confessed his love for Taitz and accused her of “treachery” in a lengthy blog posted last week. The disbarred attorney tore into Taitz, who is married, for allegedly mishandling the conspiratorial legal filings against the president.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Orly’s lack of judgment in the handling of our relationship exactly paralleled her lack of judgment in handling the constitutional eligibility litigation,” he wrote. “She needed me and probably still needs me in every possible way, but I don’t have her husband’s money and so she chose to DUMP me, to DUMP real love, for the illusion of piles of federal reserve notes and other credits, and she goes on with her reckless rage and fire.”

“Read the whole thing, and understand why I’ve been less concerned with Taitz than with the elected Republicans who have been willing to jump on board with this conspiracy,” quipped David Weigel in a post to The Washington Independent.

Earlier in December her appeal of the eligibility litigation was once again shot down by a U.S. district judge, who criticized Taitz for repeating the same arguments he had previously rejected. She was additionally fined $20,000 in October for repeated, frivolous court filings.