This is the third part of the Birther Feud Trilogy and deals with the schism between Dean Haskins of The Birther Summit, along with his supporters, and Orly Taitz, Esq., the most well-known Birther attorney. The numbers in parentheses refer to Note 1 below, which identifies the source Internet Article. The first two parts of this Trilogy, may be found here:
The Parable of the Prodigal Son is found in the Bible at Luke 15: 11-32. It is a well known story, and it is the part where the son “comes to his senses” that is relevant here is:
13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.
I hope from reading Dean Haskins’ Internet Articles at The Birther Summit, that something like this may be starting to happen in some Birther Circles. That perhaps some small number of Birthers are slowly rousing themselves from their mental slumber, poking their heads up out of the Birther slop, and starting to ask, ” Where am I??? What I am doing here???”
Reality, for the Prodigal, was realizing that he was so hungry he was considering eating the corn cobs out of the pig slop. Reality, for the Birthers, should be a ravenous hunger for mental nourishment, aggravated along by realizing how atrociously some of their compadres comport themselves in combination with a new appreciation that the Courts are not Satan’s Spawn after all. As Haskins states it:
For more than three years, we have literally screamed our disapproval of the vast numbers of Americans who have accepted statements at face value made by a campaign, an administration, Congress, and the media, and we have labeled such people “sheeple.” But, sadly, many in our movement have done the same thing regarding the one person who has garnered the lion’s share of public attention in this matter, by accepting at face value that anything positive was occurring.
Add to the seemingly insurmountable task of working within the current law to obtain any damning evidence for our cause, there is yet another legal mountain that would have to be scaled, and that is the proper legal use of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. While it was improperly, and laughably, argued in Hawaii that the FFC Clause would give Georgia jurisdiction over Hawaii, the proper interpretation of the FFC Clause would be that, in a court of law, whatever a state certifies as a birth certificate is deemed to be “self verifying,” meaning that a court will regard it as valid apart from any corroborating evidence. If a court automatically regards evidence as valid, then no counter-evidence will be considered. We might not like it, but it’s the law, folks.
To overcome the present laws that apply to birth certificates, if that is even possible, would require a legal mastermind and a brilliant argument that has not yet even been constructed.(6)
So, in those 3 paragraphs we see a self-realization that Birthers are just as capable of deluding themselves as any other human being, a recognition that substantial evidence against Obama is lacking, and an acceptance that there may not be any legal recourse. He continues:
Here’s what will probably happen: after Jablonski (Obama’s Attorney) recovers from his blanket party, he will likely file an amended Motion to Quash; and it will probably be one of the most thorough Motions to Quash in the history of Motions to Quash, and Judge Malihi will probably grant that motion.
In the unlikelihood that Judge Malihi does not grant his amended Motion to Quash, there is something that is virtually guaranteed to happen: Obama not showing up to an administrative law hearing in the state of Georgia. Jablonski would appear on his behalf, and present a certified “birth certificate” and proof of residency for the past 14 years. As the certified “birth certificate” will be considered self-verifying by the court, nothing Orly will say will sway it. And remember, the end result of this hearing is a non-binding recommendation to the Secretary of State. So, no, Obama will not be handcuffed in Atlanta next week (he won’t even be there).
I’m not trying to be a downer, or burst anybody’s bubble—but, honestly folks—we need to stop spreading the spin all over the internet, just to be made fools of when what was posted never happens. I’m amazed at the number of people who haven’t figured that one out with Orly yet. It’s just not going to happen like we want it to. (5)
Now, we are seeing a deeper acceptance of the legal system, as neither skewed in favor of Obama, nor skewed against Birthers. The laws just are what they are. Then we see below, a recognition that norms of behavior apply to Birthers the same way they do to any other human being. That nastiness is nastiness, untruth is untruth, and that each of us have a duty to promulgate the truth, even when that truth is unpleasant to us.
As long as I rationalized that, with everyone on the planet, acceptance is accompanied with both good and bad, then my silence wasn’t so much a betrayal of truth as it was an assent to the human condition, and a belief that unity could help usher in our desired result. But then, a funny thing happened on my way to sanity—I asked myself a salient question, and my head nearly exploded: Where’s the good?
I know there are times in life wherein one believes his cause to be so just that, to assure what one deems a proper conclusion, he must find, and rely on, a bulldog advocate—that one ruthless counselor who is ultra-versed in the necessary knowledge, and is tenacious and unforgiving in the righteous pursuit. That person is normally not often accused of being overly gracious—but, that’s why we’re enamored—because that person will go after the opposition’s jugular to accomplish what we know to be right. We accept the nastiness simply because it furthers our cause.
And, as I saw the purposely misleading messages, and thoroughly invalid legal statements being made across the internet (along with a seemingly steady stream of vicious attacks against anyone who was thought to either be siphoning her deserved donations from her, or garnering a bit too much of the limelight), I realized that what I had been doing was accepting the bad with the bad. Why on earth would we accept both the nastiness and nothing but failure in furthering our cause? (4)
If I am to be “blamed” for telling the truth, then so be it. I suppose there will always be those who believe that Orly is the face of our movement, and I’m sure they now believe I am the movement’s ass. Well, as I’ve stated, I’m not interested in popularity contests, I’m only interested in the truth. If you don’t like what I have to say, then don’t read what I write. It’s that simple. But, I will promise those who choose to spend an occasional couple of minutes hearing from the voices in my head, I will try my best to present the truth the best I can, and will not lie simply for the purpose of promoting myself or prying a donation from you. I will not be boxed into any mandate for group-speak, and even when I hate the truth I share, I will share it anyway. In life, I have learned that the truth will set you free, but it will usually piss you off first. Ultimately, friends are no substitute for truth; and, if one’s friends abandon him for speaking the truth, they weren’t friends anyway. (4)
Then, in his response to a slammed door from Sharon Rondeau, Haskins reiterates his recognition and characterization of Birther misinformation as just that, misinformation, and his intention to stop being a part of it:
Some of us entered this movement for no other reason than wanting to know the truth. Along the way, it was as if something other than pure truth was being disseminated, and suddenly, the masses congregated like jackals being fed red meat, each morsel a new, tantalizing twist of events that titillated our anticipation that some new and improved “effort” would finally bring about our much-anticipated goal of Obama’s eligibility finally being addressed in broad daylight.
Well, it has come to a point that some of us have stopped and tasted what is being tossed into the community trough, and realized that it doesn’t taste like meat at all. In fact, it tastes like something that the cattle have previously eaten. (3)
You see, because of the things I have done, I am necessarily identified as being a part of this movement, and I am not willing to be “guilty by association” of the blatant dishonesty that gets bandied about as patriotism. We are either fully for the truth, or we are fully against it. When I see something posted that is misleading, deceptive, or blatantly false, I’m going to call it what it is.(3)
Finally, Haskins endorses an objective standard of analysis, as opposed to the vague, illogical, knee-jerk ,World Net Daily–ish condemnations and name-calling:
As for those very few members of the team who have such a problem dealing with the truth I have been sharing, I invite you to refute anything I have said. I have stated that there has been a steady stream of disinformation shared on Orly’s website, that there are many pleas for donations based upon deceptive information and incompetence, that there is constant self-aggrandizement, and that it is very typical for Orly to trivialize, marginalize, and/or demonize others within our movement—for no other reason than her fear that they might receive attention for their efforts. And, because of what I think at least appears to be clinically definable, she believes she deserves all attention (and donations).
So, since sane people view those behaviors as ethically/morally questionable at best, the only viable conclusion one may draw about someone who supports it is that either his ethics/morals must be questioned, or his intelligence must be. With her minions who supposedly send the supportive emails that she posts on her website, I would likely suspect the latter. As for those who are active leaders/bloggers in our movement, I would be more inclined to question the former. So, if you cannot refute what I have said, but you still want to vilify me, then I believe it necessarily becomes a matter of character, and maybe that should be exposed also. (1)
Now, summing this up, we have:
realization that Birthers are capable of self delusion;
recognition that evidence against Obama is lacking;
acceptance that there may not be any legal recourse;
acceptance of the legal system as neither skewed in favor of Obama, nor skewed against Birthers;
recognition that norms of behavior apply to Birthers too;
belief that we have a duty to promulgate the truth, even if unpleasant to us;
recognition and characterization of Birther lies, as lies;
intention to stop being a part of the misinformation system; and
endorsement of an objective standard of analysis, as opposed to the vague, illogical, knee jerk, World Net Daily-ish sort of condemnations and name calling.
Add to that, a growing sense of humor, a refusal to be bullied into GroupThink and GroupSpeak, a willingness to engage with “Obots”, and the recognition that sometimes the “Obots” may even be right. Sooo, what I wonder is, when you add all this up, why are Haskins and his supporters still Birthers??? I mean, if the above is your New Normal, isn’t this the equivalent of admitting that your Old Normal was a moral and logical pigsty??? That your Old Normal was just time and energy squandered in wild living with Orly, Leo, and Mario???
Perhaps Haskins and the others are waiting for the results of Sheriff Joe’s Cold Posse Investigation to reanimate the Birtherism Cadaver. I don’t see much happening in the way of “Our investigation reveals Obama was not born in the United States.” I sure don’t see Sheriff Joe playing “judge” and endorsing the two citizen-parent stuff. I could be wrong, but I suspect there will be tons of heart-broken/rabid Birthers come March 1. Time will tell on this.
Maybe Haskins and his sect need to realize that Orly Taitz, with all her many problems, isn’t the basic problem. She is only a symptom of the basic problem with Birtherism. . . the fact that there never was any real substance to Birtherism other than a vague suspicion that Obama may have been born someplace other than Hawaii . . . and the fact that the whole two citizen-parent thingy is an imaginary requirement invented in late 2008 by Leo Donofrio. Of logical necessity, any movement based on those two non-existent foundations had to be one of excess, bluster, naked partisan politics, theatrics, and hot air.
With their new resolve to boldly forth and tell the truth, do Haskin and Company still plan on preaching to the world that Minor v. Happersett was precedental for natural born citizenship??? That not necessary to solve these doubts really means just the opposite??? Or that Wong Kim Ark does not mean exactly what the Ankeny court said it meant??? Or, if Sheriff Joe comes up empty-handed, that it isn’t time to fold the tents and steal away???
Because if all that stuff doesn’t stop, then what’s the point??? Sooo, here’s hoping that something good comes from all of Haskins’ self-introspection. That like the Prodigal above, he points his feet towards home, and takes that next step.
Note 1. Reference Table for Dean Haskin Quotes:
|1||BREAKING! SURGEON KILLS MULTIPLE PATIENTS. BLAMES HOSPITAL.||2/14/2012|
|2||HAS THE COLD CASE POSSE’S INVESTIGATION BEEN DELAYED?||2/08/2012|
|3||AN OPEN LETTER TO THE POST & EMAIL’S SHARON RONDEAU||1/23/2012|
|4||HAS DEAN HASKINS LOST HIS MIND?||1/21/2012|
|5||HAS ORLY ACTUALLY WON!!! WON!!! WON???||1/20/2012|
|6||OF SUBPOENAS, TRIALS, AND A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT||1/19/2012|
Note 2: Don’t Have A Cow, Man!!! Wiki says:
Don’t have a cow is a humorous cautionary phrase, dating from the late 1950s at least, possibly of US origin. It appeared in the 1984 movie, “Sixteen Candles”. The metaphoric warning means “don’t get so worked up.” If one pauses to reflect on the physical aspects of a human being giving birth to a full-grown cow, one can see what this phrase alludes to in terms of emotional expressiveness. Prior to “Don’t have a cow,” the phrase was “Don’t have kittens” (or “Don’t have a cat”). A variation in the past tense is also used when someone has already become worked up, e.g. “She had a cow when she found out he’d been smoking.”
Bart Simpson used the phrase “Don’t have a cow, man!” as a catchphrase in early episodes of The Simpsons. Shaggy Rogers from Scooby Doo uses this phrase often.
Its meaning here is two fold. First, don’t get worked up about leaving Birtherism, just do it. You’re not leaving anything of value behind. Second, it is a reference to the Fatted Calf in the parable. The Fatted Calf should be given, and not retained by the offeror, hence, “Don’t have a cow, man!”
Note 3: The Image above is from the 1937 Oswald Rabbit film, The Mechanical Handy Man. As a side note, no cows were harmed in the making of that film, and Bossy made it safely down from the electrical lines.