the gop finally settle on an impeachment strategy

reliving doonesbury's watergate

only the names have changed ...

original 1973 artwork © g.b. trudeau:

the birther era

... cliff notes version:

a short quiz on big brother

1. if there were a clickbox labled "allow gov't surveillance", would you click "yes"?

2. do you believe anyone else would click "yes"?

3. if not, then why is there unlimited gov't surveillance?

"better guilty than impotent"

sometimes there is no third option to use, you can't get out of a situation without making yourself look bad. so your best option is basically to take the lesser of two evils.

the catch is that the options that gives you the least problems is also the ones that makes you look like you had no idea what you are doing. so instead you make yourself look guilty in an effort to keep up your reputation.

named from the film version of the sum of all fears, where the russian president takes responsibility for a military strike done by a general acting without orders so it doesn't seem like he was incompetent.

"better guilty than impotent", tvtropes.org

this trope's been rattling around in my head since obama's chosen to vigorously defend the wholesale rifling of all domestic messages by the nsa. in "the sum of all fears" (2002), newly minted and wholly innocent russian president nemerov, after ordering the rogue generals responsible "disappeared", defiantly defends the atrocity as a legitimate response to "a nation of criminals" attacking innocent russians, in order to not appear not in control of his own military. the hero, cia analyst jack ryan, to the derision of washington's defense and intelligence chairs, correctly surmises that nemerov isn't the hardliner he pretends to be and didn't order the attack — ultimately helping both countries avoid being manipulated into global thermonuclear war.

it's difficult to reconcile a constitutional scholar and government transparency proponent defending, much less overseeing, a massive ongoing violation of the fourth amendment. but it's not hard to imagine the nsa (with profiteer booz allen) doing what they're paid to do, in secret, and in the name of the war on terror, simply deciding they could and would eavesdrop on everyone. these are not revelations of new ambitions. so we're left to scratch our heads and wonder if obama chose the lesser of two evils rather than plead ignorance and admit that our intelligence agencies are out of control. or maybe a movie is just a movie. perhaps we'll find out in fifty years or so after the papers are finally declassified (or even sooner if wikileaks or anonymous ever gets hold of them).

carnival cruz

ain't i just the devilish thang?

CRUZ: Would [Senator Feinstein] deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing to the Second Amendment, in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?

FEINSTEIN: Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I'm not a sixth grader. Senator, I've been on this committee for twenty years. I was a mayor for nine years, I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot by these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered.

Look, there are other weapons. I've been up close — I'm not a lawyer, but after twenty years, I've been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn't mean that weapons of war, and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I, you know, it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here a long time, I've passed on a number of bills. I've studied the Constitution myself, I'm reasonably well educated and I thank you for the lecture.

Incidentally, this does not prohibit. You used the word prohibit. It exempts 2271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so — so I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views.

predictions

a mere twenty-four hours ago:

guess what is up for today?

first on the news will be: O-BOMB-A-CARE!

next on the news will be: holder won't be holding his job!

what a beautiful day this will be!!!:)

by seekthetruth

the whole law will get tossed because there is not enough pretzel logic on earth to find the mandate constitutional. and there is no severability clause. and there is no way in hell the court is going to wade through a 3000 page bill to try and create one.

the result will be much wailing, crying, and stamping of feet, culminating in a long-range leftist plan to undermine the supreme court (an FDR court packing scheme or something similar). it will become the bush v gore bloody shirt of the next decade.

electorally though it will actually help obama, as it will remove a huge unpopular albatross from around his neck. it will also get the catholic church to shut up about the mandate and many catholics will go back to voting democrat.

by buckeye mcfrog

SCOTUS will strike it down, POTUS will ignore the ruling.

by kosciusko51

by hotlanta mike

obama's responses usually have the flavor of vindictiveness, as in the arizona case. whatever his response, it will have to be an executive order, because most dems in congress just want this thing to go away.

of course, he will lash out verbally at both the republican party and the supreme court, but as to politically effective actions he could take, he may be boxed in. the most politically effective thing he could do would be to graciously accept the supremes' decision, but he won't do that. i hope he tries something, because it's just going to make it worse for his election chances.

by wayoverontheright

i predict there will be much sadness...

by vrwcArea51

me too, but not for us or this grand nation

by bornToBeAmerican

a constitutional crisis is about to be created, and obama, i hope, will be clapped in irons.

by candor7

and the rest, as they say, is history ...

from hero to zero ... once more with feeling

on january 20 birthers found a savior in georgia deputy administrative judge michael malihi, who rebuffed obama's lawyers' attempt to quash their "subpoenas" and who invited all to make their cases in open court. it was not the first time birthers thought a true liberator had come:

"god willing nobody gets to this judge, as they did with judge carter."
— orly taitz, co-counsel for the plaintiffs (malware alert!)

"LOL. the chances of [obama] showing are nil but i admire this judge."
— paul51

"i think it is turning out that an honest judge is the biggest problem for obama. that, and his hubris."
— pa-river

"pray for him. with god's help, this will cause a tidal wave to sweep obama out."
— pray4liberty

"the good people of GA need to find and fund professional personal security folks to insure this judge does not fall victim to an "accident" or other means of demise...."
— manly warrior

"god bless the great state of georgia! this is one judge that intends to uphold his sworn oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america."
— godebert

"OH *U** YEAH!

oh I LIKE this judge! he is following the LAW!!!! who knew! RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh it's a good friday now, even if i don't have my chemistry homework done!!! WOOT!!!!!"
— danae

"gingrich/mahili 2012."
— churchillspirit

"i am beginning to wonder if this judge mahili may just go down in history as one of the many people who saved this great republic."
— nesnah

a week later on january 26 birther fortunes only soared higher when obama's team boycotted the hearing; the cowardly usurper had ceded the field, both legally and morally, to america's protectors:

"we have won our case. the judge is going to declare a default judgement against obama."
— david farrar, plaintiff

"now we're merely awaiting the publishing of this judge's ruling which, as previously stated, will be a default judgment.

in other words ... we won."
— carl swensson, witness for the plaintiffs

"the "birthers," who have been ridiculed if not ignored by the media and much of the american public for the past three years, have officially been vindicated today."
— floyd brown

"bring it to 'em, judge malihi!"
— backwoods-engineer

"i grilled steaks tonight and we're getting ready to eat pineapple cream pie and coconut cream pie here at our house — to celebrate that there is still apparently one honest judge in the country.

wish i could treat all my fellow patriots here."
— butterdezillion

"georgia does not play!!!! finally a judge with courage!"
— julie

"not showing up makes the judge's job real easy... facts/evidence is undisputed. bamm! (gavel cracking judge's bench)"
— freepersup

"remember to pray for this judge, he has a lot of eyes looking at him and weighing a judgment in this case is going to be a heavy decision."
— an american!

"lord, give the judge and the SOS the courage to do the right thing and keep this miserable spawn of hate off the georgia ballot."
— enterprise

cruelly, even unfettered and unopposed testimony on the record in open court proved insufficient to keep afloat their savior, who delivered his judgment on february 3:

"this behavior of judge malihi was so outrageous, that not only his advisory opinion needs to be set aside, as not grounded in any fact or law, but state and county grand juries and the attorney general of georgia need to launch a criminal investigation into actions of judge malihi ..."
— orly taitz, co-counsel for the plaintiffs (malware alert!)

"the question remains, who got to him or was his mind already made up before the hearing. his ruling is NOT written in his usual style and the ankeny case he cited was provided by someone. who, we may never know but FOGBOW and or perkins cole are the prime candidates."
— carl swensson, witness for the plaintiffs

"i guess bath-house barry could walk into this bastard's court, piss in his face and malihi would just apologize for not helping barry lower his pants."
— mortrey

"UNBELIEVABLE! THE VERDICT IS IN! THERE ARE ZERO GOVERNMENT MEMBERS WITH INTEGRITY."
— anonymous

"TRAITORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"
— kenyanBornObamAcorn

"may he die in his sleep tonight, and all other traitors of the USA"
— margie urban

"all of this is not surprising that the "evil ones" would place a muslim judge to again squash any dealings in a court of law. the "evil ones" planted a seed of hope for us folks that possibly, just possibly, there might be a person of character and a noble and honest judge who would find the answers. then they dashed everything, as part of the plan to again destroy any evidence."
— betsy

"i believe the judge was threatened. most of these people in bench positions, have gotten cushy in their lives, and have "strange skeletons" in their closets. some skeletons they would rather sell america up the road than have exposed. ...then remember that 2 of the supremes are o appointed. and of course, roberts is tainted, having sworn the "illegally sitting resident" into our whitehouse. i am praying hard for our military, and hope they will step in."
— true patriots, navy vet

"i suspect this ruling was not written by judge milihi. ... in his final ruling he makes several constructed opinions based on assumptions ... completely contrary to what he wrote several days earlier. i swear this ain't the same person"
— p5151

"that is what happened in the california case with judge carter. remember the bauer law firm in seattle sent a law clerk down to work for carter and then the case went south from there. i wonder who wrote judge malihi's so called decision."
— iontheball

"that really sucks that the judge caved. i guess the chicago muslim mafia convinced him that was the best way to keep himself and his family breathing."
— hm

"it is a significant number of cowards who fear to stand up to power. the fix is in, IMHO. its gonna take some stones to do the right thing. Beyond the every day set of stones that is. we have not seen a judge with a set yet."
— danae

"just saw the ruling from malihi. there is no other rational explanation than the obama thugs got to him or he saw the gravitas of his decision and he HID HIMSELF like a frightened child."
— dr. david earl-graef (malware alert!)

""we" were defeated because a craven judge decided he would like to live to see his children and grandchildren grow up."
— hinckley buzzard

"judges are the most pusillanimous and obsequious of the entire political class. you will not find a courageous judge, it is essentially an oxymoron."
— hinckley buzzard

"he is iranian for sure. i have somewhere a printout of his background info. his parents names, last names, all iranian

god knows, what kind of a deal was done there

... this judge belongs in prison in the best caes scenario, he should be sharing a cell with obama"
— orly taitz, co-counsel for the plaintiffs (malware alert!)

"well, what scares me is what's coming in november. now that we know that judges can't be trusted to support and defend the constitution, i'm betting that we'll see a very strong showing by the republican nominee (probably mitt romney) and that somehow, the courts will deny him the presidency. once that happens, obama will be in complete control and the increasingly rapid strangulation of our once free country will commence. i foresee that this november will probably be our last free election—unless the bravery of real americans waters the tree of tyranny with the blood of traitors. i haven't fired a weapon since 1974—i came back from viet nam sick of violence (hell, i just a medic), but this bullsh*t makes me so angry i'm going out tonight to cabelas to see what they've got in the way of a nice warm rifle. it's clobbering time!"
— ralph swain

"in the interest of public safety i would like to request of all who are aware of this stinking rotten judge's actions, to please refrain from mugging the low down lying cockroach, throwing rocks at this dog's house, slapping this treasonous corrupt scoundrel's children, spitting on this disgusting animal's wife, to just go directly to the whorse's mouth. give him a call or stop in to see him, for a polite civilized discussion, on why he chose to turn his back on the country that provided the means for him to be in the position he is in.

i am sure that he would want to hear from the people who pay his salary, who put food in his family's stomachs and puts clothes on their backs. naturally, he would want to thank you personally.

for conversing, socializing, bonding with his neighbors and undermining the american legal system, he lists his address as: [redacted]

or, people always love a good fax
why not? he faxed us good."
— mark mcgrew

but let's not judge the judge too harshly, folks:

"all through the past three years there have been judicial decisions wrought with errors ... like breadcrumbs along a trail. one suspects the decisions to have been done purposefully in an effort to propel this issue to SCOTUS."
— satinDoll

see? these so-called traitor judges are really just helping birthers — if the lower courts ever let them win a case, the issue would never make it to the supreme court! just a matter of keeping their powder dry for them ...

(photoSnark via verbalobe)

see also:

"from hero to zero"
"certifigate: from hero to zero, in under 60"

ill adjudication

in a surprise to no one but a birther, alabama tells a "tired old man" not only that the kenyan usurper will stay on the state primary ballot but also that everybody's day in court will be on his dime:

judge in obama citizenship lawsuit orders man who sued to pay democratic party's lawyer, court fees

birmingham, alabama — the jefferson county judge who dismissed a luverne man's lawsuit to block president obama from alabama ballots today also ordered him to pay the state democratic party's court costs and lawyer fees within 45 days.

lawyers for mark kennedy, the state party chairman, sought the sanctions in a motion his lawyers filed last week filed last week in the suit filed by harold sorensen. but one of the lawyers said during a hearing today that party officials would not try to collect if sorensen does not file any similar lawsuits during the 2012 election cycle.

"the democratic party has no desire to chase after a retired military man to collect," barry ragsdale, one of kennedy's lawyers, told circuit judge helen shores lee.

ragsdale then turned to address sorensen. "but if i read you're bad-mouthing the court and this decision, you will feel the full wrath of me."

sorensen told lee he cannot afford to pay the court-ordered costs.

ragsdale said sorensen's suit in jefferson county is the second one he has filed challenging obama's citizenship and right to serve as president. a montgomery county judge in 2009 dismissed the other sorenson suit, which also challenged then-republican nominee john mccain's citizenship.

"this needs to stop, mr. sorensen, and it needs to stop today," ragsdale said during the hearing.

ragsdale also criticized a request sorensen filed last week asking lee to step aside from his case. the motion, which sorensen filed without counsel, cited "racial bias, lack of judicial discretion as well as lack of knowledge of the u.s. constitution, article ii, section 1, clause 5," court records show.

"this is scandalous," ragsdale said to sorensen during today's hearing. "it's uncalled for and you owe this court an apology."

sorensen apologized. he told lee he did not seek a new judge because of the black judge's race.

"after watching you in court and observing you last week, i felt i would not have a chance with you in court," he said.

sorensen was referring to a hearing last week in which lee dismissed a similar lawsuit filed by birmingham resident albert e. hendershot.

the suits contended obama is using a forged birth certificate and fake social security number. they said he is not a natural-born citizen and is not qualified to run and serve as president.

lee explained in detail to sorensen today why she dismissed his suit, citing the state law that strips courts of jurisdiction over election-related challenges unless another law specifically grants the courts that power.

"the court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter," she said.

sorensen, who sought to have his case dismissed before tuesday's hearing, said he was trying to exercise his rights and duties as a citizen.

"i just want to go back home and go to bed," sorensen told lee. "i'm done."

more to read: the hendershot lawsuit

motion to dismiss suit

judge's ruling dismissing hendershot suit

attorney barry ragsdale, in an as yet unsourced report:

the hearing was mostly a non-event. sorensen filed a motion to dismiss his case (without prejudice) first thing this morning and was planning on skipping the hearing. judge suggested he stick around.

judge lee then announced that after reading all the motions, she was dismissing the case, not on sorensen's motion, but on our motion under the "jurisdiction stripping statute." she indicated, however, that the dismissal would be WITH PREJUDICE and that she was awarding us all costs and attorney's fees to be paid within 45 days. i thought sorensen was going to pass out and he was audibly distressed when she awarded us fees. i was actually afraid that he would have a stroke.

sorensen then told that judge that he was "a retired senior citizen, who has no money." i then reminded the judge that mr. sorensen had filed a motion for recusal which i thought needed to be addressed on the record. the judge asked sorensen to stand and explain his recusal motion. sorensen said that he was "not feeling very well" so judge let him speak seated at the table. sorensen said that the recusal was "certainly not about race" but was based on his observation of judge lee during the hendershot hearing. he said that after watching judge lee, he knew that he "didn't stand a chance" if she was the judge. he also said that he was just "an old man" who was tired of all of this and wanted to go home and never deal with this again.

i then said a few things. i demanded that sorensen apologize to judge lee for his recusal motion, which he did (albeit, accompanied by a short speech about why the citizenship of the president's father meant that the president was not a NBC). i also said that if mr. sorensen was truly sincere about quitting this nonsense, that we would forego attempting to recover fees and costs, but if he filed another case or even collaborated with the filing of another case, or even got on the internet and complained about judge lee or how she handled this case, then we would come after him for the full amount. judge lee will enter a formal order later today.

from sorensen's motion for recusal directed against judge lee:

harold sorensen ... respectfully believes that circuit [judge] helen shores lee recuse herself from this case on the following grounds: due to racial bias, lack of judicial discretion as well as lack of knowledge of the U.S. constitution ... additionally, judge has violated her oath of office under the alabama constitution ...

"respectfully" ... heh.

---

[1] actually, almost 100 cases, for a birther batting average of .000

ridicule is all they need

ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
— thomas jefferson

under the classical definition of dramatic irony, the victim of this literary device remains completely unaware of his own victimhood. irony is intended for the audience to savor ...

Ridicule Is All They Have
AS BLOGGERS AND ALTERNATIVE MEDIA CONTINUE TO UNCOVER THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA
by Dean C. Haskins, ©2011

(Jun. 27, 2011) — "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." — Saul Alinsky

My friend Gary Wilmott called me yesterday, mostly just to vent. He had just called Tom Sullivan's Radio Show, wanting to discuss what was on his mind. When Sullivan's call screener came on the line, Wilmott asked, "Why are you discussing Obama's failed public policy in Libya and ignoring the number one issue in this country?" The screener gruffly responded with, "Oh? What's that?" "The fact that Obama released a forged birth certificate to the American people," Wilmott replied. The only response the screener could muster was, "Have you been in a coma for the past two months?" The conversation eventually ended with Wilmott promising to email him some of the mountains of evidence, which I'm sure Mr. Screener will studiously and impartially consider.

Is there any evidence that this document is authentic?

The media appears to have done their job so well. They have worked overtime to condition everyone in this country they can to believe that the first, and only, response to any valid question about Barack Obama's eligibility is ridicule. And, the shallow-minded sheeple have fallen into line. As Saul Alinsky pointed out, "It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule," however, we must embrace one word in that statement: almost. About the only thing short of physical violence that defeats ridicule is truth — and that's the one place where these folks don't want to go, for they know they have no defense against the facts. That's why they invariably attack the messenger — they know that they have no substantive argument against the facts.

Recently, I posted a letter I had written to two public officials, in response to their statements that demonstrated that very line of reasoning — that ridicule can somehow defeat the truth. I had planned to leave these arrogant fools, and move on to the next batch of buffoons, but a response I received from the official in Montana was so blatantly denigrating and pompous that my wife insisted that the world needs to see this person for who she is. I thought about it, and decided that everyone needs to be reminded how these non-arguments work, and how to combat them. Oh, and when your wife insists ...

Before we get to the more serious of the two offenders, let me share how it went with the more benign Arkansas character.

Subject: RE: your emails
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:33:31 -0500
From: [AR State Senator Jimmy Jeffress]

Dean,

I unsubscribed to not have to read this drivel ... now, you are still e-mailing me with it.

Please drop my name from your address book.

To: [AR State Senator Jimmy Jeffress]
Subject: RE: your emails
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:00:27 -0400

Senator Jeffress:

This is me not writing back to you.

Please rest assured that you are not, nor have you ever been, on any of my email lists. I simply emailed you directly because of your insipid commentary on my article that was emailed to you by somebody else.

Ignorance is sometimes an unavoidable consequence of circumstances; however, willful ignorance is purely volitional. You now have a choice. The evidence I have provided you (and, believe me, there is much, much more available) is irrefutable. You may no longer claim circumstantial ignorance, as the truth has been shared with you. If you choose to be willfully ignorant about this matter, then that will be nothing less than shameful.

Choose not to be a disgrace, Senator Jeffress.

For our Constitution,

Dean C. Haskins

P.S. Oh yeah, you might enjoy this: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37864

Subject: Re: your emails
From: [AR State Senator Jimmy Jeffress]
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:09:11 -0500

Dean,

The reason I am even responding to this is to tell you and anyone else who have written articles and sent me e-mails is that as a state-level legislator in Arkansas, I have zero input on being able to have any impact on the situation. For anyone to think otherwise is the height of ignorance. Now leave me alone, please!

To: [AR State Senator Jimmy Jeffress]
Subject: RE: your emails
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:16:54 -0400

Senator Jeffress:

You're obviously not familiar with a little thing called the Constitution, then, for your statement is erroneous — especially in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the 9th and 10th Amendments: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf.

Also, the criminal code I cited applies to every citizen equally, and that includes state-level legislators in Arkansas.

So, I don't think I've yet reached the specific "height" you referenced. Do some reading, and maybe you won't either.

For our Constitution,

Dean C. Haskins

[snip]

Subject: Re: your emails
From: [AR State Senator Jimmy Jeffress]
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:53:00 -0500

Do you always believe everything you read? Please slink back into your cave and do whatever it is that you do whenever you are lonely. I'm tired of your little game. I actually have a life ... a wife and family and I plan to spend the week-end in uninterrupted bliss with them. Your e-mail address is in the process of being permanently blocked from my receiving it. Good night.

To: [AR State Senator Jimmy Jeffress]
Subject: RE: your emails
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 23:08:55 -0400

Do you even read? Why are you so afraid of the evidence? Do you believe Major General Paul Vallely should slink back into his cave as well? How about the experts who have proclaimed the piece of trash computer image to be a forgery?

Only an imbecile would reject evidence before examining it.

Of course, I had a difficult time sleeping last night knowing that my email address was being permanently blocked from this Einstein's inbox. But, let me ask, do you see anywhere in his communication that he was willing to have a frank conversation about the evidence? Oh, sorry. He's probably reading this, and the word "frank" invariably makes him think about Anthony Weiner, and it brings a tear to his eye.

And now, on to the other brainwashed liberal elitist. It's so amusing that they consider themselves to be so intelligent, but are not capable of discussing something as elementary as evidence.

Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:36:59 -0600
From: [MT Rep. Robyn Driscoll]
To: dean@deanhaskins.com; [AR State Senator Jimmy Jeffress]
Subject: Re: your emails

You and your ilk are, as my much beloved Governor would say, "bat-**** crazy." If you would spend as much time on the deep issues facing our country as you do on your loony ideas and so-called "proof" of your utter nonsense, you could quite possibly make a difference. Ever gone to a school housing our low-income students and volunteered to help them with their reading skills? Ever participated in a fundraiser for people with severe illness who can't afford medical care? If you weren't so pathetic, you would be every bit as laughable as you find me and the Honorable Senator Jeffress. Take your energy (and obvious fabulous research skills ... yeah right) and put them to use in positive, progressive ways. You will feel much better about yourself and others may begin to look at you as a legitimate member of society. I'll look forward to hearing from you after your first growing experience.

Robyn

To: [MT Rep. Robyn Driscoll]; [AR State Senator Jeffress]
Subject: RE: your emails
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:33:29 -0400

Representative Driscoll:

It's so amusing to see one vacuous liberal show that another vacuous liberal is an equally "deep thinker." Why am I not surprised that Governor Schweitzer's class reaches no higher than yours?

Apparently, to socialists like you, the Constitution doesn't qualify as a "deep issue," however there are multitudes of us out here who still regard it as the highest law in the land, and about the only thing that we have to try to keep political miscreants (read: liberals) from destroying our country. Barack Obama and his congregation have broken that law, and we will not be handily dismissed by anyone, let alone someone like you.

It is always so clear when someone is faced with evidence they cannot refute, for they will invariably attack the one who has presented the evidence to them. Let me reiterate — the evidence I presented you is irrefutable, regardless of the lies that you allow to lace your thought processes. But then, you wouldn't be a liberal if you didn't do that.

Your lofty sounding rhetoric sounds honorable, until one realizes that those "low-income students" are there largely because of tax and spend liberals like you; and, the moronic, unconstitutional health care legislation that was passed in the dark of night last year will simply make medical care that much harder to obtain for those "people with severe illness."

I do want to point out a glaring error in something else you said. Politically speaking, "positive" and "progressive" are actually mutually exclusive. Moreover, the rule of law in this nation is not based on how anybody feels about himself; and, I was born in this country to citizen parents, so I am a natural born Citizen, and that sufficiently makes me a legitimate member of society. Your warm and fuzzy feelings about me do not determine that.

As I just wrote Mr. Jeffress, "Ignorance is sometimes an unavoidable consequence of circumstances; however, willful ignorance is purely volitional. You now have a choice. The evidence I have provided you (and, believe me, there is much, much more available) is irrefutable. You may no longer claim circumstantial ignorance, as the truth has been shared with you. If you choose to be willfully ignorant about this matter, then that will be nothing less than shameful." I also urged him to choose not to be a disgrace.

However, it certainly appears that you are not only willfully ignorant, you are proudly ignorant, which makes you already a disgrace. I pray your political career is as insignificant as the depth of your intellect.

For our Constitution,

Dean C. Haskins

P.S. I shared this with your liberal friend, and you should enjoy it as well: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37864

Just like her Arkansas counterpart, she never once actually discussed the evidence, other than to ridicule the thought of it. Of course, when ridicule is met as the first response, it's sometimes fun to fight fire with fire, and reply in kind. However, we need to make sure that we only pepper the facts with ridicule, and not allow ridicule to be the entire basis of our argument; otherwise, we will be reduced to their incipient level.

When you're faced with this type of argument, keep these things in mind:

• Consider the source (it's not personal — they hate the truth in this)
• Always present the facts (there are innumerable resources available)
• Trust in the truth (in the end, the truth must prevail for America to exist)

By the way, I have purposely included the email addresses of Jeffress and Driscoll. Their comments were not directed primarily to me, for they don't know me. They were leveled at you as well. You might want to take a moment and let them know how you feel about being called "crazy idiots." I have a feeling they might not be so quick to respond the next time.

---

Dean Haskins is a freelance writer, professional musician/producer, and the former chairman of Restore the Constitutional Republic, one of the original "birther" organizations. He can be reached at dean@deanhaskins.com, and his blog is here.

© 2011, The Post & Email.

(emphases and redactions mine)

birthers on books

who says birthers can't read? ^[1]

concerned citizen youtuber LoneStar1776, who provided some post-conviction pizzazz to the wrap-up of december's birther court-martial, has returned to the limelight (as a federal "person of interest", most likely) with a review and a question for preemptively debunked conspiracy author jerome corsi:

alright — hey guys, i hope everyone is doin' well. this is rudy.

hey, uh, see this book here? where's the birth certificate by jerome corsi? y'see that? ok, um, i've started to read it, i haven't read the whole thing yet. um, one thing i noticed, is that, uh, i looked in the index — i don't see lt. col. terry lakin's name. i don't see pastor james david manning's name. i don't see walter, ah, fitzpatrick, cmdr. walter fitzpatrick. i don't see cmdr. kerchner. i do see orly taitz and phil berg, which are two, uh, lawyers and so that's a good thing and i'm not here to get on jerome corsi's case, but ... y'know the title of this video is are you willing to die?, right, and that's what it's gonna take and so i hope jerome corsi is willing to die. because that's obviously what's it's gonna take to bring the tu— truth out in the atmosphere that we have today.

and a lot of people have asked me and i know a lot of you people, uh, like trump and quite a few of you people don't like trump. and so, you have to ask yourself, y'know — trump pushed the issue — he obviously released a forged, fraudulent piece of crap. anybody that knows anything about computers knows that that, uh, adobe pdf document is not a scan of a real document, that it's a computer-generated fraudulent piece of junk, right? but people have asked me what do i think about trump? well, trump did push the issue and he was very bold so there's only, there's one of two things: either he was in on it, right — that's one possibility, i dunno the man's heart — one possibility is that trump was in on it and that, uh, y'know, he's been promised some big payoff like he gets to built his casino somewhere, y'know, he gets some kind of government, uh, okay or whatever. i don't know what the big deal is with buildin' a casino somewhere, but let's just say that that was a possibility, that he was in on it and now he gets to build a casino.

the other option is — that they threatened him, right? that he actually was threatened. okay, either one of those options. either one of those options, whether he was in on it, right, or he was threatened ... i don't like donald trump. the reason i don't is, when he pushed the issue, to the point, uh, y'know, and, and got, and he took, took up the mantle and he stood on the backs of giants. he stood on the back of pastor james david manning. he stood on the back of lt. col. terry lakin. he stood on the back of orly taitz. he stood on the back of phil berg and he became, uh, the flag-bearer, for the birth certificate and the constitutional eligibility bearers. when donald trump did that, he shoulda been willin' to die. and if he was threatened and he backed off, then he's no leader of mine.

so, if he, if he's in on it, he's total scum, he needs to be hung, until dead, from the nearest tree, and if he was threatened and he backed off, he's still scum, because he shoulda been willin' to die.

now many of you people will say, "well, it's easy for you to get behind a youtube camera and to play mr. tough guy." and i would agree with you. it's easy for people to get behind youtube cameras and to play mr. tough guy. uh, but i would just offer for your consideration: it's up to you to discern whether somebody's bein' truthful or not. and i would offer that pastor james david manning has been at this for three years and i know, just from my association with him and following him that pastor james david manning is willin' to die and i would feel a whole lot more comfortable with pastor james david manning being the flag-bearer for the constitutional eligibility issue and also the, uh, birther issue. i would feel much more comfortable with him in the driver's seat, rather than this corsi guy.

is, is corsi a good guy? is he willin' to die? uh, i hope he is, because that's what it's gonna take. has he wroten a book and prost — and uh, progressed the issue? yes, and i thank doc, uh, dr. jerome corsi. i thank him for that. right? but i ain't gonna bow down to him if he's not willin' to die.

uh, we got people that are being deployed by a, uh, leader and a, ah, leader and thief, right? a constitutionally ineligible president that is the head of our military. that's deployin' our military around and engaging them in activities, and he's not even constitutionally eligible to be president. and, and, and, when you go, uh, address somethin' like that, you better, you better have it fixed in your heart and you better know with 100 percent certainty that you're right and you better be willin' to lay your life down.

and if you're not willin' to lay your life down, then get the hell outta the way and let somebody step up to the plate who is willin' to do what it takes and to risk what it takes, and to put their life on the line to do what's right! that's what i gotta say about that!

and if jerome corsi, if he's gotta, if he's got the heart for it, and he's, he's, and he's willin' to fight the fight, then i applaud him and i thank him. but if he's gonna back down when they threaten him, or if they threaten his family, then i'm asking jerome corsi to get the hell outta the way! GET THE HELL! OUT! OF! THE WAY! AND LET SOMEBODY GET UP TO THE MICROPHONE THAT'S WILLIN' TO DIE! THAT'S WILLIN' TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT! THAT'S WILLIN' TO, UH, TO RISK ALL THEIR TREASURE! ALL OF THEIR LIFE! ALL OF THEIR FRIENDS! TO BE RIDICULED IN THE MEDIA AND TO TELL THE TRUTH! AND JEROME CORSI, IF YOU'RE THAT MAN, I WILL APPLAUD YOU AND I WILL THANK YOU! BUT IF YOU'RE NOT THAT MAN, GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY AND LET PASTOR JAMES DAVID MANNING UP TO THE PLATE! LET CMDR. KERCHNER UP TO THE PLATE! LET, LET, LET LT. COL. TERRY LAKIN UP TO THE PLATE! BECAUSE THESE MEN WILL RISK EVERYTHING THEY GOT! AND I HOPE JEROME CORSI IS THE MAN OF HEART AND OF COURAGE AND OF TRUTH! AND IF HE'S NOT, THEN I WILL SPIT ON HIM BECAUSE HE IS A PIECE OF SHIT!

that's all i gotta say about that! god bless every one of ya and my question, my question to jerome corsi is: are you willin' ta die?

---

[1] ok, like most folks, i may have said as much, to someone, somewhere ... somewhat often.

a question for sharron angle

from seneca doane @ daily kos:

i'm tired of beating around the bush arguing about evidence of whether jared loughner was or wasn't motivated to assassinate rep. gabrielle giffords last saturday by far-right-wing craziness. of course the republicans can disavow him — his being "crazy" and a "lone wolf" and all — as quickly as they like.

my interest is: can they disavow his actions — categorically? is what he did fundamentally wrong, in their eyes? or did he just choose the wrong target? the wrong time? the wrong place — what with all those people around? they're sorry, they're sorry, they're incensed at being presented as in some way sympathetic to these actions — but why?

if you want to keep a rifle in your house in case the oppressive government comes after you, then i think i understand what you mean by a "second amendment remedy." but we're not talking about home defense here; we're talking about guns in public, about shows of force. what i want to hear from republicans (and others who favor the NRA line) is: why in their opinion was what jared loughner did not a legitimate appeal to a "second amendment remedy"?

that's a question i'd love to see answered.

is it because "it's polling poorly"?

due to work, i've missed full coverage for the past two days of the festering counter-reaction to this weekend's righteous rejection of the rhetoric of death, so maybe others have already started asking this pointed question: why is what jared loughlin did wrong?

it's not because it's murder. a "second amendment remedy" will inherently involve murder — or at least killing someone, under an attenuated theory of self-defense. it's not even because bystanders were killed as well — these things happen in a revolution. had he shot rep. giffords and then threw down his gun, does anyone want to say that their reaction would be otherwise? (let him or her speak up, if so. i'd like to be forewarned.)

in fact, the problem with "second amendment remedies" is that this is what they look like.

here, listen to sharron angle:

you know, our founding fathers, they put that second amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. and in fact thomas jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

i hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those second amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? i'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take harry reid out.

well, wasn't jared loughner fighting against a "tyrannical government," as represented by rep. gabrielle giffords — who at a similar 2007 event had had the temerity to reply to his question about the government's using language for mind control by replying to him in spanish?

don't we get to decide for ourselves what constitutes "tyranny," under this theory? surely we don't have to wait for the government to say "we're officially tyrannical now, so as a matter of constitutional law it's ok to start shooting at us."

well, jared loughner was more convinced that the government was tyrannical than most of us will ever be convinced of anything! so, why was his acting on that belief illegitimate, second amendment supporters from the republican and tea parties? because we disagreed with his judgment?

did he look around and say "my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around?" well, he probably didn't say "my goodness." but let me ask you, those of you who think that this wasn't "political" — do you think he would have shot gabrielle giffords and all these others if she had lost rather than won this past election by 1% of the vote? do you think he would have gone to find her at her old family tire store and shot her there? i highly doubt it (and not just because they sold it to goodyear.)

"i'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take harry reid out," is what sharron angle said — and the first thing loughner thought he needed to do was to take gabrielle giffords out.

isn't this what it's all about, fans of violent rhetoric? in what sense was his action not legitimate — by the standards of what those who blather about being "armed and dangerous" and who shoot up pictures rather than people and who pointedly remark about murder as a conceivable alternative to political victory?

please explain! please do explain — the children are listening. i'm sure they'd like to understand the distinction.

i don't have to explain why i think what he did was morally repulsive. i don't talk about "second amendment remedies" because i know that when we enter the arena in which logic and civility are no longer the means to victory, i've lost my advantage. i'll fight in the gutter if dragged into the gutter, but the gutter is not where i want to be.

is the real problem that republicans and tea partiers have with jared loughner is that he, unlike them, turned out not to be a poseur? that he actually went and did something that was only supposed to be threatened?

if so, then they need to do a better job of explaining "the rules" to those whom they influence with this sort of talk.

so in the meantime, if no one has already had the chance to do so, i'd really like to see someone ask sharron angle and sarah palin and michele bachmann and whoever else why jared loughner's "second amendment remedy" — his attempt, frankly, to overturn the results of an election with the bullet when the ballot didn't work — is illegitimate.

i don't even want to hear it — assuming they'll have a coherent answer — for my own benefit. but i sure would like the alienated 22-year-olds — who are watching jared loughner, head like a clenched fist, in the wake of this massacre and silently thinking "well, he sure went and did it. he had the courage of what he believed, what i say i believe" — to hear it.

explain to them, please why — believing in second amendment remedies in a political culture such as ours, as opposed to that of nazi germany or communist czechoslovakia or such — why what jared loughner did was wrong.

i know what i think it was wrong, but those sorts of kids won't listen to me.

they'll listen to you, maybe. so please, sharron angle and others, explain why this "second amendment remedy" was wrong.

a new year's guarantee, revisited

exactly one year ago birthers promised me a few healthy giggles for the new year:

the 2010 new year's resolution of all good conservatives should be to achieve the goal of restoring the u.s. constitution this year. if the kenyan usurper is still in office a year from now, we will have failed.

yes, that was way too easy, but i'll get my yucks in where i can ...

♦ ♦ ♦

update: leave it to the birthers to never disappoint. i'll be looking forward to reposting next year these resolutions for 2011:

... i have up here a few resolutions, just a few, but i hope we can all agree on them.

number one — i think we can all agree on this: defend and obey the u.s. constitution. we have — don't have that, we have nothing. no order, no rule of law.

number two: hold congress accountable. they're starting to listen, we voted a lot of them out, we can vote these — wonderful people — out as well.

number three, and almost as important: hold the media accountable. and that includes fox news. that's one of the reasons i'm standing up here right now, on new year's eve.

[number four:] free the patriot [former] lieutenant colonel terry lakin. he put it all on the line for his country. a true patriot. we must stand behind him and free him — with honor.

number five falls in line with all the above: expose the truth about barack obama. one of the catalysts for me standing up here right now — aside from glenn beck, as you all know — is [fox news reporter] megyn kelly and the ludicrous, asinine news show she has. where she covered abercrombie, neil abercrombie, the governor of hawaii, and used as a forum to insult concerned americans. was she fair and balanced? well, i don't think so. uh, megyn ... ? call me!

and that leads me to the last one: if necessary — and this is not something i necessarily wanted to do — glenn beck, are you listening? a new internet and/or tv news show. we need a real news show and — not entertainment, not megyn kelly showing her cleavage, making fun of concerned americans. real news. real fair and balanced news. and if necessary, i'll be involved in it. this may be the first show ...

... giggles guaranteed.

a message to you, rudy

it is a dog-bites-man story. the military justice system proceeded in a way that was not merely predictable but predicted. the case makes our top-10 list largely because the dog was barking-mad and there was a three-ring flea circus performing on its back.

— JAG dwight sullivan, CAAFlog

i'm not gonna mince words, rudy: we told you so.

we told you so from the very beginning and at key steps along the way, but you refused to listen and you continued to insist you were right, in the face of folks actually paid to know what they're talking about and in the face of your perfect 0-70+ record for being wrong — though if you were the type to listen, you'd never be a birther, now would you? and as a birther, you thought that this was the case that was somehow gonna be different.

well, rudy, as it turned out, you were right: terry lakin's court-martial was in fact different. your hero and would-be martyr pulled an about-face on you, chose not to carry your cross and entered a guilty plea. i know that had to hurt, rudy.

as you jeered from the sidelines of previous court thrashings you could always find yourself some space where you could pretend you'd won something. you could always find some rickety perch where you could self-righteously puff yourself up (often just over the effort of getting into a courtroom) in preparation for the usurper's demise, where you could ignore all your previous losses and crow and spin and dive feet-first down the throat of anyone rude enough to point that out.

but not this time, rudy. because this time you were up against the u.s. military and like an efficient, well-oiled machine, they took your nonsense and checked it at the door, leaving you nothing to salvage from this trial, nothing to take home and proudly show off to momma:

no obama, no birth certificate, a guilty plea, a lengthy, thorough and painful allocution by the accused rejecting birthers and everything you claim to stand for, real punishment, no throngs of supporters or admirers or protestors and no military rebellion as a consolation prize.

and last but not least of all, the knowledge that just about every turn of the case was predicted, weeks in advance, by everyone you love to hate. clearly that proved just a bit too much for your bloated ego to take:

... as my friends fall away, and as my social circle of friends gets smaller and smaller ...

i guess sacrificing friends and family is a small price to pay for your country and constitution, but on this trial you bankrupted yourself thinking that the outcome was ever in doubt or could be spun any other way.

not all losers created equal

on phil cave's military law blog CAAFlog a birther smugly asks:

it would be interesting to see what most of the posters here would be saying if, say, the president in question were GWB. and the issue was whether he was legit based on the election fiasco of 2000. you guys would be crying just like the birthers over the MJ [military judge] denying discovery. i think this case is the only time i have ever seen any one on this blog attack a defense counsel.

to which accusation phil effortlessly responds:

actually you have the answer to your question already. no-one who refused deployment orders while president bush was in office did so because they thought he was a usurper or illegal office holder. and clearly none of those on this blog did. the refusniks did refuse or go UA [unauthorized absence] did so on personal animosity to the wars and a belief the wars were illegal, not that the president was an illegal. so your question has been answered and refuted with fact, IMHO.

it seems that the differences between the losers of the 2000 and 2008 elections are invisible only to the losers of 2008. only one set of losers has filed and failed more than 70 eligibility lawsuits when in the same circumstances the other set filed none. only one set has flooded the coffers of gun dealers in every state when in the same circumstances the other set put gun dealers into a slump.

only one set has called for rewriting the constitution; only one set has called for military overthrow and violent revolution, whilst waving the long-discredited flags of long-dead seditious movements; only one set has obstructed all efforts to move forward and threatens to repeal all efforts they cannot obstruct; only one set is still throwing a tantrum two years running and childishly insists on holding the entire nation hostage until they "get their country back".

does it really need to be made any more clear that one set does not deserve to win?

birther on toast

u.s. army lieutenant colonel dr. terrence lakin is toast:

and he can't say i didn't warn him.

of course it's always possible that what looks, to both layfolk and seasoned practicioners, like a fatal drop kick to the groin, may be, to more astute eyes, a carefully orchestrated manuever in a larger overarching strategy:

if convicted, easy reversal and remand by SCOTUS [*].

this is a case where def[ense] adnits the alledged action but claims justicication in doing so, so pros[ecutor] must show "criminal intent." they are denying him the ability to show the lack of a "criminal state of mind," a "mens rea" in latin, a criminal intent.

[* supreme court of the united states]

umm, ok ... whatever.

or it's possible that he knows he's tilting at windmills and wants all the glitz and glory that comes with martyrdom — or at least as much as he can get from his cheerleading squad.

but whichever narrative is unfolding, everyone seems to agree that he's one step closer to his all-expense-paid vacation to fort leavenworth:

CNN — a judge on thursday denied a request for president barack obama to testify at a court martial for a U.S. army flight surgeon who refused to deploy to afghanistan until he saw proof that obama was born in the united states.

the judge, army col. denise lind, said any evidence or witnesses related to obama's citizenship is irrelevant to the charges against lt. col. terrence lakin, who has 17 years of service in the U.S. military.

after failing to deploy with his unit in april, lakin was charged with missing a movement, disobeying a lawful order and dereliction of duty.

the uniform code of military justice says the maximum punishment for both offenses -- missing his plane and disobeying lawful orders -- is a dishonorable discharge and up to two years in confinement. a guilty verdict could also result in forfeiture of lakin's pay, which totals $7,959 a month, according to a charge sheet provided by a group sponsoring his defense.

lakin's lawyers argued that all military orders stem from the commander-in-chief. without evidence that obama is eligible to be president, they say, the doctor's deployment order was illegal.

in addition to putting obama on their witness list, lakin's lawyers had asked lind to order obama's official birth records from hawaii be brought to court for trial.

"if the president is ineligible, you need to know that," lakin's civilian attorney, paul jensen, told lind. "col. lakin needs to know that, the government needs to know that, america needs to know that."

the prosecutors in the case argued that obama's eligibility is not relevant because the officers who ordered lakin to go to fort campbell and then ordered him to answer questions about why he didn't go were his proper superiors in the military chain of command, and they gave him legal orders. jensen later conceded that point.

the judge ruled that the matter of obama's eligibility is not relevant because he did not give any orders in the case. she pointed out that while the president is commander-in-chief of the military, it is congress that is constitutionally empowered to raise armies, pay them and equip them.

any contention that any orders are invalid if the president is ineligible "is erroneous," the judge said.

lind also said that military law says that a soldier's personal beliefs or convictions are not sufficient to allow that soldier to determine that an order is illegal. the soldier has to have "no rational doubt" that the order is illegal before he or she can ignore it.

finally she ruled that a military court martial is not the forum in which to determine a president's eligibility, because the constitution says only congress has the power to impeach and remove the president.

afterward, jensen said he respected the judge's ruling, but called it distressing.

"it completely deprives us of any opportunity to present a defense in this case," jensen said.

the court martial is set to begin in october, but jensen said he's not giving up on the matter of obama's eligibility.

"we will be giving the army court of criminal appeals in the next week or two the opportunity to take up the issue, and we are going to fight on for justice to be served in this case."

lakin is among 27 percent of americans who doubt or deny that obama is american-born, according to a recent CNN/opinion research corp. poll. they compose the birther movement, which demands that obama present a birth certificate signed by the doctor who delivered him in 1961.

CNN and other news organizations have thoroughly debunked the rumors about the president's birthplace. the obama campaign released a copy of a birth record issued by the state in 2007, called a "certification of live birth," and allowed reporters to examine the document in person in 2008.

last year, hawaiian state officials issued a statement that they had personally viewed the president's original hawaiian birth record, called a "certificate of live birth," and verified it to be authentic. state law bars the release of the original certificate. in addition, two hawaiian newspapers ran notices in 1961 announcing obama's birth in the state.

lakin's fate was sealed the moment he disobeyed his orders to report to duty. under military law all orders are presumed to be legal, which places the burden of contesting an order on the subordinate. there is only one perilous defense for disobedience:

an order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. this inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

but lakin wants to argue that:

1. his orders come from the president.
2. barack obama might not really be president.
3. obeying obama's orders could therefore be a crime.

unfortunately for lakin, his argument fails on all three points.

first, while obama is certainly his commander-in-chief, lakin's april orders to report came from his immediate superiors, as reflected in the specific formal charges leveled against him:

CHARGE I, VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ. ARTICLE 87

THE SPECIFICATION: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin, US army, did. at or near arlington, virginia. on or about 12 april 2010, through design, miss the movement of US airways flight number 1123. departing from baltimore/washington international airport arriving in charlotte. north carolina. in order to deploy for a temporary change of station in support of operation enduring freedom with the 32nd calvary regiment, 101st airborne division (air assault), fort campbell, kentucky. with which he was required in the course of duty to move

CHARGE II, VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ. ARTICLE 92

SPECIFICATION 1: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. having knowledge of a lawful order issued by lieutenant colonel william judd. to report to the office of his brigade commander. colonel gordon r. roberts. at 1345 hours. or words to that effect. an order which it was his duty to obey. did. at or near arlington, virginia. on or about 31 march 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not reporting as directed.

SPECIFICATION 2: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. having knowledge of a lawful order issued by colonel gordon r. roberts. to wit: a memorandum signed by the said colonel gordon r. roberts, dated 31 march 2010, an order which it was his duty to obey. did, at or near arlington. virginia. on or about 31 march 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully not reporting as directed.

SPECIFICATION 3: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. having knowledge of a lawful order issued by colonel peter m. mchugh. to wit: temporary change of station orders 099-17. dated 9 april 2010, issued by colonel peter mchugh. requiring the said lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin to report to fort campbell, kentucky not later than 1500 hours on 12 april 2010, an order which it was his duty to obey. did at or near washington. district of columbia. on or about 12 april 2010, fail to obey the same by wrongfully failing to report to 32nd calvary regiment. 101st airborne division (air assault), fort campbell, kentucky.

SPECIFICATION 4: in that lieutenant colonel terrence l. lakin. US army. who knew or should have known of his duties at or near washington. district of columbia. on or about 12 april 2010. was derelict in the perforrmance of those duties in that he willfully failed to report to fort campbell, kentucky in accordance with temporary change of station orders 099-17. dated 9 april 2010, issued by colonel peter mchugh. in support of operation enduring freedom. as it was his duty to do.

note that the name "barack h. obama" does not appear anywhere in these charges, and even if it could be demonstrated that every military order traces back to the president, no court is going to agree that every latrine assignment since noon january 20, 2009 has been illegal.

second, lakin takes careful pains to avoid claiming that obama isn't the lawful president (possibly to avoid added charges of contempt). he only claims that he's unsure and just needs his mind put at ease. unfortunately for soldiers, there is no room for doubt in the chain of command, no matter how sincere. lakin is obligated to follow orders unless he has damning evidence in hand at the time of his refusal. asking for the judge's help to find the evidence that he's required to bring to court himself counts for real chutzpah if nothing else.

third, even if obama were proven ineligible, his orders would nonetheless remain perfectly valid, according to the de facto officer doctrine:

the de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

... the de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.

all of lakins arguments collide head-on with well-established mechanisms essential to maintaining military discipline and those mechanisms are designed to turn recalcitrants like lakin into toast, which he must full well know:

i attempted all avenues i could over a year ago. i submitted an article 138, which is the only way that i could research how to &mdash how to address this issue, asking and begging my leadership for guidance in how to — how to address this issue. and the answers that i got were not ...

... answers that he wanted to hear, apparently — confirmed by former JAG defense attorney charles gittins:

i told LTCOL lakin that he was being badly advised when he called me to join his legal team. i gave him my (very) candid advice. i told him to seek opinions from other military justice experts if he was not willing to accept my advice. he is where he is for a reason. i am very sad for him. he has been deluded by a very incompetent attorney, who has done a disservice [to] our profession and military justice.

now that lakin's legs have been predictably cut from under him, his attorney and his cheerleaders claim that he's not being allowed a defense. but the judge, rightly, wants lakin to defend against the charges he's facing. all that lakin's being denied is the opportunity to rant incoherently. during his trial for the murder of dr. george tiller, scott roeder was not allowed to rant incoherently about perfectly legal abortion procedures. instead, facing a charge of first degree murder, roeder was allowed only to explain if he believed someone's life was in imminent danger or if he were legally insane when he pulled the trigger, because those are the only justifications allowed.

as noted in the cnn report above, lakin's attorney has already been forced to concede in court that lakin's orders were legal. if that leaves lakin without a defense, the person at fault is not the judge.

the toast is ready. it is only waiting to be served.

not worth rescuing (revised)

sometime during the last half century, blacks pulled off a most amazing trick: they kidnapped a word. they kidnapped it from the white majority that had been using it to demean and oppress them.

there are two parts to this trick that make it so amazing. first, the word's ongoing captivity has served to extend its natural lifespan and potency far beyond that of its increasingly quaint contemporaries. second, blacks have convinced whites that what they've taken from them is something of real value, something that they need to take back.

most offensive words have only a limited shelf-life. whatever signifigance that originally makes them offensive is usually bound up in the zeitgeist of the period in which they are born. eventually, after the passing of enough generations, whatever context that gave them life and power becomes drained by everyday usage and is lost to those who grow up never having personally felt their emotional sting. the surest sign that an offensive term has hit its expiration date is the lifting of any bans on its public usage. after the word "bitch" became allowable on public airwaves, it has since become so flaccid (despite an initial period of titillation) that the slang term "bee-yatch" was squeezed from it in a naked but ultimately futile attempt to milk new life from it.

but in a feat drawing the envy of professional outrage manufacturers and propagandists everywhere, blacks have locked the n-word away in a kind of linguistic cryogenic freezer, safe for blacks' own endless private indulgence, whose continued undisguised flaunting of their hostage has now driven self-annointed self-help counselor and moralist dr. laura to commit professional suicide.

black guys use it all the time. turn on HBO and listen to a black comic, and all you hear is n****, n*****, n*****. i don't get it. if anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing. but when black people say it, it's affectionate. it's very confusing.

their exclusive use of n-word is one of the few possessions that blacks have that whites don't, but most whites fail to realize that its enjoyment comes not from being able to say it, but from being able to watch the veins jealously swell up in the foreheads of racists and race-baiters as the word gets stuck in their throats, trapped there because the consequences of freeing it have become so personally damaging. comedian elon james white conveniently enumerates for us all the different types of outrage he feels free to unleash upon a white person unwise enough to utter the word:

listen, i'm not saying that white people can't say the word "ni**er", okay? what i am saying is that if you say it, i can also hate you, okay? i can mock you; i can not buy your product; i can ask for your firing; i can write letters, march, chain myself to shit. i can do that, okay? but you, you can totally say the word "ni**er". go for it!

to many whites, but especially to shock-jocks and professional rabble-rousers like dr. laura, rush limbaugh, andrew breitbart and sarah palin, being deprived of the use of one more insult is "very confusing" and simply too unfair and blacks are being too oversensitive about their attempts to use it.

well, duh!

of course it's unfair! slavery was unfair. segregation was unfair. redlining was unfair. what happened to shirley sherrod and especially what happened to her father was unfair. that's the whole point! so get used to it, guys!

besides, do whites really want to go to the mat over the right to demean their former chattel? it's just not a fight they're going to win, not when it's being fought for by paid and pampered blowhards, cranks and cynics.

still, there are two ways the n-word will die the natural death it is certainly long due. option one: when blacks release their hostage and no longer exact a price from whites for daring to use it, which, considering its continued effectiveness, as dr. laura can surely attest to, is not bloody likely to happen in this lifetime.

realistically then, this leaves us in the present with only option two: when whites let go of their n-word envy and realize that this is one hostage that's not worth rescuing. it seems most whites already have.

---

addendum: like every white person before her who grossly miscalculated that they could juggle the n-bomb without detonating it, dr. laura and her supporters want to turn her darwin-award-worthy implosion into an heroic constitutional auto-da-fé:

... my contract is up for my radio show at the end of the year and i have made the decision not to do radio anymore. the reason is: i want to regain my first amendment rights. i want to be able to say what's on my mind, and in my heart, what i think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is a time to silence a voice of dissent, and attack affiliates and attack sponsors. i'm sort of done with that. i'm not retiring. i'm not quitting. i feel energized actually, stronger and freer to say the things that i believe need to be said for people in this country.

i'm not sure which document she's referring to, but the first amendment of the united states' constitution protects her freedom to speak or write from infringements by the government.

so, if president obama had picked up the phone and said to attorney general holder:

yo, eric ... i'm sick of this dr. laura bee-yatch getting all up in my peeps' grills with her shizz. man, she took it to goddam eleven this time. even clarence's gotta get behind us on this one. put the word out: her hole is closed — today.

... well, then she'd have something to complain about.

but the first amendment does not protect you from public criticism. it does not protect you from your listeners, your sponsors, your owners or your neighbors. and it certainly does not protect you from your own big mouth.

so if dr. laura thinks she can find a venue somewhere on this planet where she can spew her special brand of wisdom "without somebody getting angry" (translation: without someone cutting off her income stream), well then, good luck to the lady. wherever that is, i'm sure it's pretty crowded there already.