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)

photoshop disaster

screenshot from this morning's new york times website:

yes, i'd be horrified too if the top and side of my head were blown away by some overworked intern ...

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.

waiting for OMGodot

---

dedicated to "squeeky":

i listened to the interview and it was certainly interesting. but i am starting to get that feeling i get when i watch destination truth or ghost hunter on TV. you know when they are out looking for werewolves in minnesota and right before the commercial somebody hollers OH MY GOD!!!

then you stick around through the commercial to see if they found the werewolf or big foot or whatever they are hunting for and when it comes back on, somebody tripped over a log or something or there was raccoon in the bush.

or if it’s ghost hunter the "spirit orbs" turns out to be dust reflecting lights. sooo, i hope if corsi* has something good, he gets it out in a hurry and doesn’t make this last through another few books or something. because i am not sure my heart can take all this.

* jerome corsi, shameless peddler of stillborn expose where's the birth certificate?

and acknowledgments to ray bradbury, whose title i stole from his 1951 short story about existential doubt — an astronaut loses his confidence in evidence or memory, his sense of object permanence, his belief in his own existence and, ultimately, his life:

i don't believe in anything i can't see or hear or touch. i can't see earth, so why should i believe in it?

... when i'm in boston, new york is dead. when i'm in new york, boston is dead. when i don't see a man for a day, he's dead. when he comes walking down the street, my god, it's a resurrection. i do a dance, almost, i'm so glad to see him. i used to, anyway. i don't dance any more.

... you have no mental evidence. that's what i want, a mental evidence i can feel. i don't want physical evidence, proof you have to go out and drag in. i want evidence that you can carry in your mind and always touch and smell and feel. but there's no way to do that. in order to believe in a thing you've got to carry it with you. you can't carry the earth. or a man, in your pocket. i want a way to do that, carry things with me always, so i can believe in them.

... there was always that gap of proof. that gap between doing and having done. what is done is dead and is not proof, for it is not an action. only actions are important. and pieces of paper were remains of actions done and over and now unseen. the proof of doing was over and done. nothing but memory remained, and i didn't trust my memory. could i actually prove i'd written these stories? no. can any author?

however, unlike the doomed astronaut, birthers aren't actually sincere in their endless demands for "evidence"; they simply hide behind such claims in order to deny the results of the 2008 election.

a day in june

as enjoyed by howard cruse in the june 1984 edition of heavy metal magazine:

celebrity psychology

1) pro•jec•tion |prō'jek SH ən|
a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others have those feelings.

2) ex•ag•ger•a•tion |ig'zajərā SH ən|
the grandiose sense of self-importance observed in narcissists also uses exaggeration to thwart any recognition of fallibility ...

3) vic•tim•i•za•tion |viktəmə'zā SH ən|
a way of dealing with the cognitive dissonance that results from inconsistencies between the way they treat others and what they believe about themselves; a way of escaping harsh judgment or condemnation they may fear from others.

the (com)passion of the donald?

"when it comes to racism and racists i am the least racist person there is. and i think most people that know me would tell you that. i am the least racist. i've had great relationships. in fact, randal pinkett won on the apprentice a little while ago, a couple years ago, and randal's been outstanding in every way. so i mean i am the least racist person. but [van jones] is a guy trying to get some publicity for himself by attacking donald trump. but that's OK 'cause a lotta people do that."

ceci n'est pas en couleur

(story and art by bill watterson, 1989)

and a meme is born

for the record

via steve benen @ the washington monthly:

IF CANTOR REALLY WANTS TO GO THERE.... house majority leader eric cantor (r-va.), shortly after president obama's remarks on [the death of] osama bin laden, issued a related statement. it included this gem:

"i commend president obama who has followed the vigilance of president bush in bringing bin laden to justice."

there's a fair amount of this rhetoric bouncing around this morning, and it's not especially surprising — republicans aren't going to credit president obama, regardless of merit, so it stands to reason they'll try to bring george w. bush into the picture.

if this is going to be a new gop talking point, we might as well set the record straight.

in march 2002, just six months after 9/11, bush said of bin laden, "i truly am not that concerned about him.... you know, i just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

in july 2006, we learned that the bush administration closed its unit that had been hunting bin laden.

in september 2006, bush told fred barnes, one of his most sycophantic media allies, that an "emphasis on bin laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism."

and don't even get me started on bush's failed strategy that allowed bin laden to escape from tora bora.

i'm happy to extend plenty of credit to all kinds of officials throughout the government, but crediting bush's "vigilance" on bin laden is deeply silly.

update: donald rumsfeld added this morning that obama "wisely" followed bush's lead. he either has a very short memory, or he's lying and hopes you have a very short memory.

meanwhile, from every birther's favorite faux-wingnut talking hairpiece:

i want to personally congratulate president obama and the men and women of the armed forces for a job well done. ... i am so proud to see americans standing shoulder to shoulder, waving the american flag in celebration of this great victory.

we should spend the next several days not debating party politics, but in remembrance of those who lost their lives on 9/11 and those currently fighting for our freedom.

god bless america!

after months of flinging racist birther-poop at obama, the donald once again demonstrates, through well-timed magnanimity, that he knows how to separate himself from the crowd.

would'ja believe ... ?

voltaire, 18th-century philosopher:

qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde est en droit de vous rendre injuste.

[those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.]

william craig lane, 21st-century christian moralist:

if we believe, as i do, that god's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of [the canaanite] children was actually their salvation. we are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. therefore, god does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

whom does god wrong in commanding the destruction of the canaanites? not the canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. not the children, for they inherit eternal life. so who is wronged? ironically, i think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the israeli soldiers themselves. can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? the brutalizing effect on these israeli soldiers is disturbing.

p.z. myers, 21st-century biologist and atheist:

it's always interesting when some god-walloper honestly follows through on the logical implications of his beliefs — he basically is compelled to admit that if you worship a tyrannical monster, you have to end up rationalizing monstrous tyrannies.

i don't think william lane craig is an intrinsically evil human being. but this is a case where it is clear that religion is a tool that allows good people to bypass decent moral positions and find justification to do evil.

'scuse me while i whip this out

james fallows:

"and you know it."

the "affably" acid comments in the first 20 seconds of this clip (from the white house) almost justify the whole birther extravaganza. well, actually, they don't — and don't even come close. but the hyper-controlled obama's decision to let out that bit of bile about how the press works, including dropping the affable mask for a few seconds with the punchline "and you know it," reveals the real feelings of every politician about the instincts and workings of the press. ... it's fascinating to see how obama instantly, perhaps instinctively, lightens the mood again with a heartier-than-needed laugh, and his super-radiant smile, at a mild witticism someone calls from the crowd. but that doesn't take away the edge of the way he began.

free republic:

obama was supposed to produce HIS birth certificate, the one mama gave him. one that he is supposed to have in his possession since birth, like everyone else does. original, authentic, used, wrinkled.

instead the President of mighty USA has to send the clerk to hawaii, to buy a copy, certification, (another forgery?), all of two copies for $10 and $4? let us see one his mama gave him, not another photoshoped "certification"!

---

the whole thing reeks. i realized six months ago that the well had been poisoned: that any document he released confirming what he has been claiming could not be trusted and would not be. the window of opportunity to come clean (even if this document is authentic) expired over a year ago. this will never be resolved.

we are reaching that point with the college transcripts. life is not a john grisham novel.

---

today was a victory for those of us who have been fighting to see the constitution matter.

obama has taken a baby step in addressing the real issue of his concealment of ALL past records.

... we are starting to see the lies that have been told on this issue unravel. now we know that we could see ALL of the past records of obama's life if he and the left-wing will permit it.

so will obama's records continue to be concealed or will he release them ALL???

---

at long last, barack obama jr. released his long form birth certificate today, clearly proving he is NOT a natural born citizen. so, why has there been virtually no call in the senate to begin impeachment proceedings? and why are so many news reporters acting as if all obama needed to substantiate he was a Natural Born Citizen was to prove he was born in the U.S.A?

terry lakin action fund:

after more than two years of concealment and obfuscation, this document must be submitted for forensics testing to determine its authenticity. similarly, the kenyan birth certificate that has been widely circulating on the internet and on capitol hill — should be tested.

had the obama administration agreed to allow the document unveiled today and other related documents as requested for discovery in terry lakin's first pre-trial hearing, the matter would have been resolved and soldiers assured their military orders were lawful, given by a lawful commander-in-chief.

... the terry lakin action fund is calling for a full and complete presidential pardon for ltc terry lakin including restoration of pay, benefits, and service. terry holds no malice towards barack obama nor did he when he chose to bring the issue to a court martial. terry simply wanted confirmation of obama's eligibility, a process that has finally begun in earnest.

daily kos:

that the birthers aren't satisfied with the release of the long form birth certificate isn't surprising. birthers aren't satisfied because no matter how many documents barack obama releases it will never be enough, because there isn't a document in the world that will turn him white.

---

dear jonah goldberg: obama did not sucker you guys into becoming birthers.

matthew yglesias:

if it's true that barack obama couldn't get into college without a boost from affirmative action, then the fact that he later went on to become President of the United States of America would surely go to show that affirmative action is a good idea! the concern that super-talented people were getting locked out of opportunities is exactly the sort of thing affirmative action is supposed to resolve.

here

on a large enough timescale, the ephemera of each corner our lives becomes simultaneous. "here" is richard mcguire, appearing in raw magazine, the '80s comics anthology published by art spiegelman, of "maus" fame:

(story and art by richard mcguire, 1989)

the great debater

during a debate trump will toss all kinds of stuff at obama and he will not be able to rehearse enough to prepare for answers. he will be thrown off his great debate trait ... and in a debate with someone who is as rehearsed as obama you are going to need to take risk and just throw things at him. trump takes risks, that is why he is so successful and will beat obama.

a palin/obama debate would likely be termed a toss-up, while a trump/obama debate would leave obama a weeping pile of goo on the stage. again, i'd REALLY like to see that.

donald trump wouild chew up obama in a debate and spit out the pieces as far as chicago — WITHOUT a teleprompeter.

trump will destroy the boy king in a debate.

a debate between obama and trump would be a debate to watch!

obammy crying!

trump could tell him he's fired.

in open debate i suspect trump could crush obama. putting the birth certificate aside, trump would kill him on china, the handling of iraq and now libya, obamacare, and on and on. trump is very smart and i am sure can argue all sides of an argument effectively. his tendency to be very direct is clearly a byproduct of his new york life.

meanwhile, back on planet earth ...

trump:	when you see what china is doing to us, where we're gonna lose this year, three hundred billion dollars to china — and they're taking all of our jobs — they're doing it through manipulation of their currency —
guthrie:	well, it is a sovereign nation — you can't tell china not to manipulate its currency.
trump:	if you have the right messenger, they won't be doing it for long. let me just tell you something —
guthrie:	seriously, you think you could just tell them —
trump:	we have the cards. yeah, they don't have the cards, we have the cards. my policy is very very simple. i would tell china, very nicely, fellas, you're my friend, i like you very much — i've made a lot of money with china, by the way, a lot of money with china. i would say we're going to put a 25% tax on all your products coming in and that's gonna do a number of things ... number one, as soon as they believe it's gonna happen, they would behave so nicely, because it would destroy their economy.

guthrie:	the, um, debt ceiling vote, the republicans are saying they don't think the debt ceiling should be raised. businesses have warned there could be dire consequences.
trump:	i don't care. i wouldn't raise it.
guthrie:	and you know most economists say that would send the us economy back into a recession?
trump:	what do economists know? most of them are not very smart.
guthrie:	you don't think if —
trump:	excuse me, excuse me ...
guthrie:	— the US defaults on its obligations it would be grave for the economy?
trump:	i don't think we'll have to default. you'll have to make a deal someplace. you might as well do it now. because if you keep raising it and raising it, let's keep raising it, you'll go ten years, let's keep raising the debt ceiling. i'd stop it right now. i'd go out, negotiate, i'd make deals ...
guthrie:	who's the deal to be made with?
trump:	well, the president should be leading the deal, but i don't think he's capable enough to lead the deal. instead you have the republican here, the democrat —
guthrie:	are you talking about a political deal?
trump:	well, ultimately, it's all political when you get right down to it, isn't it savannah?

guthrie:	is there a right to privacy in the constitution?
trump:	i guess there is. i guess there is ...
guthrie:	so ...
trump:	why do you — why, just out of curiosity, why do you ask that question?
guthrie:	well, i'm just wondering how that squares with your pro-life views?
trump:	well, umm, it's a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. i mean, it's a very unique way of asking about pro-life. why are you — what does that have to do with privacy? how you are ... how are you equating pro-life with privacy?
guthrie:	well, you know about the roe v. wade decision ... ?
trump:	yes, sure, look, i'm for pro-life ... i'm pro-life. i've said it. i'm very strong there and i'm strong on pro-life ...

giddy-ap (updated* yet again)

the donald is trumping his GOP competitors.

the billionaire real estate mogul has taken a rather shocking nine-point lead in a national poll of the hypothetical republican presidential field, according to a new survey by public policy polling ...

(us news and world report)

congrats to the billionaire toupee life-support system and born-again birther (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 birther, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the birther. the birther 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 birther to place bridle and saddle upon him. the birther mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him. "the horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the birther, and said: 'now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.' "whereupon the birther laughed loudly and replied, 'the hell you say. giddy-ap, dobbin,' and applied the spurs with a will."

(* see "giddy-ap" from january 2008 and "giddy-ap upated" from september 2010)

predictions

but who's keeping count ...?

CNN: with a short video on barackobama.com, the sitting president of the united states has launched his bid for re-election.

using what apparently will be one of his campaign slogans, "it begins with us," the campaign has told supporters that the kickoff of the campaign has started and that means the race for contributions is on.

the familiar-looking blue "o" over red and white stripes is back again for 2012. and at the bottom of the website, the candidates' names are clearly identified: obama-biden — for vice president joe biden. [apr 2011]

as i posted many times, 0b0z0 won't be running for reelection, precisely because of the fear of being "REQUIRED" to prove his eligibility.

to make certain of ousting 0kaka, an accented, naturalized american should run for POTUS in '12. if he/she is thrown out as he/she should be, then he/she WILL HAVE STANDING to sue for proof of ALL other candidates' eligibility!

this is why i believe that 0b0z0 will never dare to run for reelection

by melancholy [mar 2010]

i'm here to tell you right now.

hillary will be VP early next year. the zero will be forced from office 3+ months later.

same story with agnew, nixon and gerald ford.

by imJustAnotherOkie (zerogottago) [mar 2010]

here's the scenario i see being played out where BHO is concerned. he will be allowed to serve one term as POTUS ... he will announce the fact he won't run for president for a second term sometime early in his fourth year. it is indisputable BHO is ineligible to be POTUS ... he will be allowed to serve one term simply because removing him from office would roil political & economic conditions in this country that would have enormous consequences, both here and abroad. he will be allowed to walk away with the distinction of being the first black president. if he refuses, and runs for office again, he will be defeated ... because his ineligibility will be front and center. better to leave with a modicum of dignity then have your reputation besmirched by the ineligible issue.

by bluH2o [dec 2009]

2010 leads to a massive GOP victory in both houses, even with dem voter fraud. the dems will then try to shove every socialist bill they can through between the election and swearing in of the new congress. they will use every underhanded technique they can because this is their last chance. once obama loses the ability to pass his agenda he because useless to the socialist cause. that is when a perfect storm of the blago [disgraced former IL gov. rod blagojevich] trial wake, his eligibility and a closer look at the impact of his nationalization efforts will intersect. he will then be removed either through impeachment or illness claim. biden will be left in charge and to really muck things up for the 2012 election where the GOP is surely to win. however, the dems will have tried to damage the country so much through cloward-piven that it will take a reagan time 10 to fix it all.

one good thing that has come of the obama presidency is that we now know who and where many of the power communists are and have been hiding. it will be easier to clean house.

by dutch boy [jul 2010]

here's the bet: he resigns before 2012 or doesn't run for second term.

by 1234

my bet is no elections in 2012.

by ml/nj

i’m in on that bet. i’ll go so far as saying there will be no elections this fall.

by vanilla swirl [jul 2010]

i think the LBJ scenario is the most likely. and obama will need to claim it has nothing to do with the eligibility issue which means he will have to make the announcement sometime this year before there is any ballot qualification unpleasantness.

by menehune56 [feb 2011]

by now, all those politically motivated to question obama should be confident that he is never going to release it under any circumstances. i believe he will not even seek re-election as president if forced to prove his eligibility by showing his long-form birth certificate.

by joe farah, publisher, world net daily [sep 2010]

i am so confident about the eventual outcome now that i am increasingly persuaded that barack obama will not even seek re-election.

that will be the tipoff that our suspicions about obama's eligibility and/or life story were correct all along.

by joe farah [feb 2011]

send off the clown

somebody haz a sad ...

the negotiations that led glenn beck to announce his departure from the fox news channel on wednesday ended with an expression of "let's part as friends," according to several people with knowledge of the talks. but behind that moment was a torrent of acrimony that underscored just how fractious the relationship between mr. beck and the network had become during his three-year run on fox.

... from fox's perspective, the facts about mr. beck's run on the network have been public and indisputable. among those were the refusal of hundreds of fox advertisers to allow their commercials to be placed on mr. beck's program, and a history of incendiary comments that attracted harsh backlash, including one where the host called president obama a racist and another where he compared reform judaism to radical islam. (he later apologized for both comments.)

computer comix v3.0

while 1988 saw prometheus steal color, 1990 gave him painting.

less than five years after 1985's "shatter", the first entirely computer-generated (cg) comic series and less than two years after 1988's "crash", the first full-length cg graphic novel — featuring marvel comics' invincible iron man — artist pepe moreno, still a relative newcomer who'd assisted in illustrating "crash", brought the ever-accelerating desktop computing revolution to one of the biggest properties in mass-market comics:

between 1937, when the first all-original comic book come out, and the release of the first computer-generated comic in 1984, the tools used in the creation of comic art remained fairly stagnant. that all changed with the introduction of the first affordable graphics-oriented computer. all of a sudden, we had a machine that could do anything. most miraculously, that bottomless box of microchips and cathode rays has allowed our medium to grow — from the standpoint of technology — more in the ensuing five years than it did in the preceding forty-seven. — mike gold, editor, dc comics

faster chips, more memory, bigger drives and falling prices brought with them higher resolution and a vastly expanded color palette: pixelization, "jaggies" and color-banding were beginning to give way to a richer and smoother result approaching traditional oil or airbrush and less harshly cg.

like its predecessors, "digital justice" explores the consequences of all this brave new technology as gotham city, having once again succumbed to corruption "sometime in the next century", erupts in a cyber-showdown between two rival a.i. systems covertly left behind by their now-dead creators: a malignant "joker" virus and a no-longer silent "batcom" surveillance program.

a couple of old friends, peter gillis and mike saenz, showed me some rough printouts of a story that was produced entirely on a 128k apple macintosh computer, using but one disk drive. the artwork was chunky and brittle: it looked like some amphetamine addict had been given a box of zip-a-tone that suffered from a glandular disease. but the look was totally unique to comics. within several months, we refined the look and the resulting effort — shatter — was one of the best-selling comics of the year. it completely astonished the folks over at apple computer, inc., who never perceived such a use for their hardware.

we've come a long way in the past five years: the book you are now holding was produced on a macintosh computer that has 64 times the internal memory, 400 times the storage capacity, about 8 times the speed, and hundreds of software packages. more important, digital justice takes advantage of different devices that, five years ago, were barely dreamed of for the home or studio: computer-aided design, 3-d imaging programs, high-resolution and direct-to-film printers, graphics scanners, and color. a whole lot of color. in fact, there's the potential for more than 16 million colors. back then, naysayers and technophobes looked at the end result and, seeing only its shortcomings, declared the computer useless in the creation of comic art. since that time, that bottomless box has become so useful it is now almost invisible: artists have been using their machines to generate special effects, designers have been doing their design work online, letterers have been creating their own fonts, and craftspeople have been coloring comics with a palette (and the resultant special effects) heretofore unknown in the medium. dc comics even has its own in-house computer coloring department.

pepe wanted to turn cold computer technology into a warm "product" and to make the computer invisible. this is a formidable goal; there is a certain point an artist can reach wherein the end result no longer appears to be computer generated; at that point, the project will appear to be self-defeating. his early experiences with the commodore amiga computer and primitive art programs gave pepe a head start on the color macintosh ii. in creating the movie-like look of digital justice, pepe conceived and executed his work directly on the monitor with the electronic medium in mind. he used a wide variety of tools to bring the book to life: cad programs, vector illustration, 3-d modeling, text effects, and such paint programs as image studio, studio/8 and photoshop. pepe then arranges these images into panels, and then, using quark xpress, the panels are assembled into pages, and finally, balloons, text and sound effects are added: the completed work ultimately is sent out so that printing negatives can be made directly from over 200 megabytes of computer files. no "physical artwork" is produced. indeed, the full color digital separations in digital justice represent a genuine technological breakthrough.

(story and art by pepe moreno)

see also:
computer comix v1.0
computer comix v2.0

what nature may have neglected

a "fashion first" from the village voice, circa july 16, 1991: