this is the song of cliven bundy

cliven bundy
deadbeat on monday
rebel on tuesday
fox news hero on wednesday
racist on thursday
doubled down on friday
cast out on saturday
forgotten by sunday
and here ends the song
of cliven bundy

not the civil war they dreamt of

hostage-taking 101: time is not on your side! — especially when your confederates chase different goals, expect different ransoms, serve different masters and respond differently to stress. should the theatrics play out too long, hands at each others' throats may be your only reward ...

salon: appearing on MSNBC on friday, congressman peter king continued his epic verbal assault on ted cruz — and, to a lesser extent, rand paul — by describing the texas senator as a "RINO" (republican in name only) and a "fraud."

speaking with MSNBC's andrea mitchell, king called the ongoing government shutdown "the strategy of ted cruz" and wondered aloud "why more republicans around the country didn't join me in denouncing ted cruz" before the shutdown began. "we cannot allow our party to be taken over by the likes of ted cruz and rand paul," king continued, describing cruz and paul as "isolationists" and "RINOs" who "don't represent traditional republican principles."

"ted cruz, what he did here, was lead the party into a dead end with no strategy, somehow convincing a number of house republicans that we just sent this to through senate as far as defunding and closing down the government, he would manage to get harry reid and president obama to back down," said king. "he never had a plan. it was fraudulent from the start. and we have to cut this guy off now."

TPM: mccain's appearance on fox came shortly after sen. ted cruz (R-TX), the leader of the movement to defund the health care law, spoke at the values voter summit. maccallum asked mccain how he felt about cruz "representing" republicans at a meeting scheduled for friday at the white house.

"first of all, martha, please, he's not representing us there" ...

daily kos: [tex rep louis gohmert:] "when it comes to the shutdown that's going on, i heard just before i came some senator from arizona, uh, a guy that liked qaddafi before he wanted to bomb him, a guy that liked mubarak before he wanted him out, a guy that's been to syria and supported al qaeda and rebels, but he was saying today the shutdown has been a fool's errand. and i agree with him. the president and harry reid should not have shut this government down!"

TPM: tensions are flaring between house and senate republicans over how to defuse the crisis ahead of an oct. 17 debt ceiling deadline. house GOP members expressed concerns during a private saturday meeting that the senate GOP would undercut and jam them by striking a deal with president barack obama that conservatives dislike.

... "they're trying to cut the house out, and trying to jam us with the senate," a fired-up [WI rep. paul] ryan told reporters after the GOP meeting. "we're not going to roll over and take that."

breitbart: on his radio show on friday, fox news host sean hannity said house speaker john boehner (R-OH), along with the rest of the republican leadership in the house, had to be replaced.

"i do think leadership in the house needs to change," hannity said. "i don't think john boehner is equipped for the job. i don't think he has the stomach to negotiate. i don't think he has the ability to communicate the positive, solution-oriented vision for the country."

... he said the GOP has a "communications problem" that has been reflected in the party's bad poll numbers.

hannity also ripped republican leaders in washington for "alienating" the tea party. hannity named senators like john mccain (R-AZ) and bob corker (R-TN) for being the top offenders and said their "unwillingness to stand strong" and constant bashing of the tea party is "irritating every conservative i know."

AP: "we're not saying obama is right. we're saying what republicans are doing is wrong," said matt cox, a former executive director of ohio's cuyahoga county GOP.

TPM: erick erickson, prominent conservative blogger, said on his blog friday that he will be donating to the primary opponents of house speaker john boehner (R-OH) and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell (R-KY) because of the way both leaders are approaching negotiations on the continuing resolution and debt ceiling.

"republican leaders in washington, DC are signaling they will cave on the fight against obamacare," erickson wrote. "GOP leaders, by caving, are signaling they want us to primary them."

erickson blamed the GOP's sinking approval ratings on boehner and other republican leaders.

"[n]ow that john boehner and the orange man group of capitol hill are the faces of the GOP, obamacare's popularity is going back up and the GOP's popularity is going back down," erickson wrote.

redState: but john boehner, eric cantor, mitch mcconnell, and john cornyn will ensure that obamacare is fully funded and give the american public no delay like businesses have.

in doing so, they will sow the seeds of a real third party movement that will fully divide the republican party.

washington post: conservative groups that advocated for a standoff spoke openly about their motives. at a breakfast with reporters wednesday, michael needham, chief executive of the conservative group heritage action, freely admitted that he was "pretty optimistic" that we will soon see a crackup of the old republican order.

thinkProgress: as the government shutdown enters its eleventh day and the nation races towards a possible default, a growing number of republican lawmakers, leaders, and voters are publicly blaming congressional republicans for the budget impasse. ...

"it's time for someone to act like a grown-up in this process," former new hampshire gov. john sununu (R) told the associated press. michigan gov. rick snyder (R) agreed, remarking on monday that "this is not how we should operate. it shouldn't be about people fighting and yelling.' "the bottom line is we need that money in our economy to save rural hospitals and jobs in the rural areas," arizona gov. jan brewer (R) told the arizona daily star on thursday, criticizing the GOP'e effort to defund the affordable care act.

the criticism comes as an associated press-GfK poll released wednesday showed that "three-quarters of republicans nationally said their party in congress deserves a moderate degree or most of the blame for the shutdown" ...

in yet another sign of trouble for the GOP, business interests are also showing signs of discontent, signaling a possible rift with republicans ahead of the 2014 mid-term elections.

iowa republicans "are recruiting a pro-business republican to challenge six-term conservative rep. steve king (R), a leader in the push to defund the health care law," the associated press reports and party establishment leaders in michigan are threatening to recruit and fund challengers to rep. justin amash (R) and other tea party aligned candidates.

TNR: "the business community has got to stand up and say we are not going to back the most self-described conservative candidate. we are going to back the candidates that are the most rational," says john feehery, a former aide to delay and hastert who is now president of quinn gillespie & associates, a washington lobbying firm.

what washington business lobbyists say on-the-record about the house republicans and about tea party activists pales before what they are willing to say if their names aren't used. one former republican staffer says of the anti-establishment groups, "they want to go in and fuck shit up. these non-corporate non-establishmentarian guys — that is exactly what they are doing. and the problem with that is obvious. what next? what happens after you fuck shit up?"

conservatives went looking for fresh plunder from the administration in a raid that was supposed to pit republican vs. democrat — not GOP vs. GOP and certainly not along every conceivable fissure:

house vs. senate.

extreme vs. moderate.

upstart vs. established.

ideology vs. money.

anarchy vs. order.

none of them came prepared for a suddenly resolute president or a unified party behind him. no one expected to run into a veritable stone wall — against which the GOP, to its own horror, seem incapable of thwarting the urge to batter itself delirious, in what historians might one day call the "republican war into irrelevance".

what a difference a week makes

freeperville, oct 4:

lol. the plan is obama caves.

what don’t you understand?

we are on the verge of an historic CONSERVATIVE victory.

what’s not to like?

(by st_thomas_aquinas)

oct 11:

[texas congressman louis] gomert [sic] on beck’s show today, just before noon EST, saying that boehner is now in a meeting with obama, and is “giving up on 98-99% of obamacare, so they [RINOs] can say that they got something from obama.”

so yeah, the cave is in progress.

i guess the NBC/WSJ rush is talking about spooked them.

as beck says, it's time to defund the GOP. tea party candidates only. no collaborators need apply.

(by st_thomas_aquinas)

RINOs = "republicans in name only"

u.s. v. g.o.p.

atul gawande @ the new yorker:

this kind of obstructionism has been seen before. after the supreme court’s ruling in brown v. board of education, in 1954, virginia shut down schools in charlottesville, norfolk, and warren county rather than accept black children in white schools. when the courts forced the schools to open, the governor followed a number of other southern states in instituting hurdles such as “pupil placement” reviews, “freedom of choice” plans that provided nothing of the sort, and incessant legal delays. while in some states meaningful progress occurred rapidly, in others it took many years. we face a similar situation with health-care reform.

the sad trombone

via tumbler, scenes from the night republicans discovered that reality really does have a liberal bias:

four more years ...

cartoon of the day

(art by tim egan)

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"

enemy of the taitz

this assistant sec of state, attorney general, sec of state and 5 appointee puppets on the committee are nothing but lying traitorous scum, which will be standing trial for fraud, forgery and treason. as a reminder, penalty for treason — is life in prison or death penalty. that what all of them deserve together with obama, pelosi, onaka, fuddy and a few corrupt judges.

— birther "queen" orly taitz
(malware warning)

birtherism died, along with donald trump's always-dubious presidential ambitions, a very public death on the last week of april 2011, when a visibly-irritated president obama made public his "long-form" birth certificate, quelling pesky doubts about his right to hold office. birtherism's coffin was sealed days later with obama's announcement of the dramatic death of osama bin laden, firmly establishing without further question who indeed was wearing the pants in washington.

so if birtherism is dead, why are we talking about it? well, i'm glad you asked ...

on friday november 18, the new hampshire ballot law commission entertained a challenge to obama's inclusion on its primary ballot from none other than moldovan energizer birther "queen" orly taitz. given that birthers have never won anything but ridicule in their three years of tireless and tiresome attempts to unseat the kenyan usurper, the commission's ruling against the worst lawyer on the face of the planet was of course a foregone conclusion — as was, to those who've been keeping score, the birther reaction, captured in rare public display:

"traitors!" shouted one woman. "spineless traitors!"

"saying a treasonous liar can go on our ballot?" yelled state rep. harry accornero, a republican from laconia. "you're going to have to face the citizens of laconia. you better wear a mask."

... [the commission's] response to the testimony during the hearing angered many of those in the room, including state representatives.

"unbelievable," fumed state rep. susan delemus, a republican from rochester, walking around the room during a break in the hearing, before the commission took its vote.

"let's just bury the constitution now and have a funeral," delemus said. "it just makes me want to throw up."

the situation was "getting ugly," mavrogeorge said, so he suggested to his client, assistant secretary of state karen ladd, that they walk to the state house to prepare for the subsequent hearings. but mavrogeorge said they were stopped in the hallway by delemus and rep. harry accornero of laconia, who promised to follow them across the street because accornero said they were "demanding answers to why this liar was being allowed on the ballot."

"at this point i knew there was no way that we were going to be able to leave the legislative office building without having an angry mob following us to the state house," mavrogeorge wrote.

looking to his left, mavrogeorge said rep. al baldasaro of londonderry was silently "staring at me with an angry look on his face."

"i did not know what these people were capable of in the state of mind that they were in at the time," mavrogeorge said.

mavrogeorge recalled ducking into a nearby room with ladd and calling delaney's office and state house security for help. members of the crowd yelled and banged on the door, he said."

... "they showed a complete lack of respect for me as an assistant attorney general and as a human being," he wrote. "yesterday was the first time in my professional career that i felt that my safety was in danger."

colin manning, spokesman for gov. john lynch, said the "disgraceful" conduct at the hearing deserves investigation.

"a line has been crossed in terms of civility and decorum that cannot be tolerated," he said."

... rep. al baldasaro, an o'brien leadership team member, is visibly amused and comfortable with the proceedings documented in the video, and in fact goes on to highlight how he and other birthers can work with the speaker to pass legislation barring president obama from the ballot.

birthers behaving badly after losing badly ... again. so what? birtherism is still dead. who cares? well, i'm glad you asked ...

after the 2010 midterm "tea party revolution" a soon-to-be-discovered number of sore losers and obsessed crackpots gained elective office across the country and they are committed to preventing the marxist muslim imposter from stealing another term in their white house. new hampshire was only the first salvo:

the OBAMA STATE BALLOT CHALLENGE 2012 is what is going to stop obama from taking office again in 2012. obama’s name on the ballot will be legally challenged in every state. the evidence of a forged birth certificate on whitehouse.gov and the evidence that he is using a connecticut social security number that does not belong to him, will be submitted in each court. ... this is where you come in. we need people to contact their states secretary of state and find what the rules are for challenging a candidate ...

so get ready for a bit of loud, pointless, protracted and divisive mischief coming soon to a state legislature near you, inspired by orly taitz, tireless defender of the freedom to persecute anyone and everyone that gets in her way: (malware warning)

i am in process of writing to the speaker of the house of representatives of NH as well as the supreme court of NH, seeking emergency hearings. house of representatives can recall the sec of state who is committing elections fraud and treason. supreme court can stay the designation on the ballot. we have to fight for every inch of the terrain. we can’t let thugs rule. keep in mind, you are fighting not just for yourselves, but also for your children and granchildren against this criminal enterprise, that took over this nation. sooner or later we will try for elections fraud, forgery and treason all of the involved individuals, all of the corrupt officials and all of the corrupt judges, who are involved.

will you be the next enemy of the taitz?

a debt ceiling carol

now that all the shouting's over — for a few hours at least — i believe it's time in the program for our musical number ...

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.

quote of the week

rare candor from 91-year-old nazi-sympathizer and freshman martin harty (r-of course):

i'm a new hampshire republican representative. got slid in during the republican landslide last fall. so far i really don't know what i'm doing. the whole process is so alien to anything else. a new rep really needs a coach along with him at first but there is no room for anyone to sit with him, and no way they could holler at him in a committee meeting.

am learning the hard way. little by little. i think that a few of the other first time reps must be in the same boat with me. we're all sort of bluffing it out. the few votes i've made so far i really didn't know what i was voting for or against. just looked at the people around me and went along with them.

there is so much pomp and circumstance connected with the legislature. you have to separate the real doings from all the fluff. people who obviously are making very generous salaries come and go as witnesses before the various committees with tidbits of usually self-serving information. you wonder where the money is coming from to pay these people.

yes, slowly if i keep my health, i'll master this trade and hopefully be of some use to the state. i like to write about things and applied for this job mostly to have the opportunity to write about politics from the inside. they say the pen is mightier than the sword but you've still got to get your scribbling read by the people.

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.

it isn't a costume

rich iott, ohio teabagger, republican congressional candidate and goose-schtepping playboy, inspires yet another winning untergang redub:

she who denied it, supplied it

there is an apocryphal story that is told about former president lyndon johnson, who built his reputation as the most effective majority leader in the senate's history on his no-holds-barred style of political warfare. the tale is placed during his first congressional race, when he purportedly directed one of his aides to spread rumors about his opponent that alleged a too-familiar knowledge of barnyard livestock. the aide balked at the assignment, protesting that no one would believe the stories, to which johnson countered: "i know that, but i just wanna hear the s.o.b. deny it!"

... which brings us to connecticut teabag darling christine o'donnell and her first television ad in her long-shot senate campaign:

"i'm not a witch ..."

o'donnell's problem is, of course, that the charges of witchcraft she's now forced to publicly deny can't be blamed on shameless political opponents.

fright wing

burning up the interwebs this past week was the village voice's cover story on white fright, but i thought the cover itself, by unforgiving longtime favorite stippler of the stars drew friedman, was worth the trip for its own sake. if you've ever wondered who actually got the commission to paint the portrait of dorian gray ... look ye no further:

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?

the art of the backdown

former white house spinmeister karl rove sizing up delaware republican senate primary winner christine o'donnell (sep 14):

i've met her. i wasn't frankly impressed by her abilities as a candidate ... one thing that o'donnell is now going to have to answer in the general election that she didn't in the primary is her own checkered background. ... there were a lot of nutty things she has been saying that don't add up. ... why did she mislead voters about her college education? how come it took nearly two decades to pay her college bills so she could get her college degree? how did she make a living? ... we were looking at eight to nine seats in the senate. we are now looking at seven to eight in my opinion.

it does conservatives little good to support candidates who at the end of the day while they may be conservative in their public statements do not event the characteristics of rectitude, truthfulness and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for. ... but we also can't make progress if we have candidates who got serious character problems, who cause ordinary voters who are not philosophically aligned with us to not vote for our candidates out of concern of what they said and what they do. ... but look, she attacked him by saying he had a homosexual relationship with a young aide with not a bit of evidence to prove it. ... she had already previously spread the rumor. come on! look, she's got a chance now. let's you and i have a private side bet on this one. i think at the end of the day she has to answer these questions in a way that people of delaware find convincing or we are going to find ourselves with somebody who says conservative things, but doesn't have the character that the people of delaware want to have.

i believe the questions [about] why she had a problem for five years with paying her federal income taxes, why her house was foreclosed on and put up for sale, why it took sixteen years to settle her college debt and get her diploma while she went around for years claiming she was a college graduate," rove said. "i think a lot of voters in delaware are going to want more than she is offering to them right now, and we'll see.

conservative pundit michelle malkin:

might as well have been olbermann on MSNBC. the establishment beltway strategist couldn't even bother with an obligatory word of congratulations for o’donnell. ... rove came across as an effete sore loser instead of the supposedly brilliant and grounded GOP strategist that he’s supposed to be. expect more washington republicans to start sounding like tea party-bashing libs as their entrenched incumbent friends go down.

conservative blogger dan riehl:

... fox should suspend him and investigate. ... rove was working behind the scenes on behalf of the castle campaign to negotiate a deal that would have led to some delaware tea party groups not supporting christine o'donnell, while giving mike castle a pass. especially given his comments on fox news tonight, until this is resolved, it seems impossible to trust rove as an objective analyst. in terms of the conservative movement, we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us.

conservative bitch-slapper rush limbaugh (sep 15):

this is about conservatives taking back the republican party. ... who the hell are they, anyway, to anoint or disanoint somebody as electable or not electable? i'm in charge of that! ... that's always been my purview and nothing's changed. ... look at the petulant attitude. 'screw you — christine o'donnell wins, she's on her own. you're on your own.' ... we're going to throw in the towel here? why not fight for it?

christine o'donnell (sep 15):

[rove] is the same so-called political guru that predicted i wasn't going to win. and we won and we won big. so i think, again, he is eating some humble pie and he is just trying to restore his reputation.

anti-establishment teahadist karl rove (sep 16):

i, i don't like being called the establishment. i've supported marco rubio and todd tiahrt and a lotta — sarah palin and i tuesday night backed kelly ayotte in new hampshire, so before you start calling me that establishment guy be, be careful. ... i'm helping raise fifty million dollars, three million of which we've already spent on behalf of sharron angle in nevada so be careful when you call me an establishment republican. i'm not certain what that is. ... no, no, look, i'm a huge tea party fan. i've enjoyed meeting with people as i go around the country, i've got a great many friends who i've made during the book tour and leaders in the tea party movement. in fact, i met christine o'donnell when i was in delaware last december to do the sussex county christmas day, GOP christmas day party and in one of the interesting parts, i got to meet with about twelve tea party leaders from southern delaware and had a wonderful conversation. this has given us energy, enthusiasm and in many instances it's given us highly qualified candidates who are going to be able to take the fight to the democrats this fall. ... look, i, i endorsed [o'donnell] the other night, i said i'm for the republicans in each and every case. i mean, i was one of the first to do it. look, i'm also helping her. i've gotten so many people have written me an e-mail saying i'm irritated with you, saying what you said the other night, i'm giving her a campaign contribution, i'm sending her a lotta internet contributions. ... fox had one thing wrong on election night. we mistakenly said that the republican senatorial committee said they weren't going to send her my money. i called rob jesmer, the executive director of the committee, the morning after and said "why the heck did you say that?", and he said we never said that, in fact we're cutting a check, the maximum we're allowed to give her, $42,000, and we're raising money from the PACs, and campaign funds and republican senators, including cornyn and mcconnell to send her additional cash immediately.

giddy-ap (updated*)

congrats to christine o'donnell and her fellow triumphant teabaggers (and apologies to isaac asimov):

"there is an old fable," said hardin, "as old perhaps as humanity, for the oldest records containing it are merely copies of other records still older, that might interest you. it runs as follows: "a republican horse having a democratic wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of permanent minority status. being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. whereupon he approached a teabagger, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the teabagger. the teabagger accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at his disposal. the horse was willing, and allowed the teabagger to place bridle and saddle upon him. the teabagger mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him. "the horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the teabagger, and said: 'now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.' "whereupon the teabagger laughed loudly and replied, 'the hell you say. giddy-ap, dobbin,' and applied the spurs with a will."

(* see "giddy-ap" from january 2008)

master of communication

yes, this guy claims to have earned a degree in this stuff: