When Your Face Freezes That Way!!! (Or, The Madness Of Paper Terrorism)

Even Fava Beans Couldn’t Make Birther Pre-frontal Lobes Digestible

When I was little, and pouted with my bottom lip stuck way out, my Mother used to tell me, “Squeeky, you better stop that right now, or your face might freeze that way!”  I used to worry a lot about that.  Thankfully, it wasn’t true, as Nat Segaloff points out:

Unless one is afflicted with a form of paralysis such as Bell’s palsy or myasthenia gravis, there is little chance that one’s face will ever “freeze” in a specific position. This advice falls into the same category as “Don’t cross your eyes. I knew a kid who did that and his eyes stayed that way forever.” For either change to occur, one’s muscles would have to become detached and replaced, or lock in spasm. And either contingency can be surgically corrected.

http://www.netplaces.com/tall-tales-legends-lies/old-wives-tales-or-bad-advice-from-well-meaning-relatives/your-face-is-going-to-freeze-that-way.htm

But, I think something like that does happen with our thought processes. If we play with delusions and paranoia on a daily basis, perhaps we risk our brains freezing that way.

Many of the two citizen parents Birthers seem to have Sovereign Citizen roots. I see the Sovereign Citizens as their Big Brother, who teaches them bad habits, and slips booze to them on the Q.T.  Both groups have major difficulty accepting the simple legal reality that the 14th Amendment simply put into writing, and into the U.S. Constitution, the English common law concept of natural born citizen.  Persons born in the United States are natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of the parents. (As long as the parents aren’t foreign diplomats or invading soldiers.)

The delusion comes in when both groups refuse to accept decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts which are contrary to their mistaken beliefs .  In their minds, what is a legal question, and what has already been decided by the courts, is meaningless to them. Instead, they invent delusional Imaginary Laws to support their tenets. This is hardly the only idiotic legal argument they advance.

To some of them, Gold Fringe on a flag in the court room changes the whole thing over to some kind of Admiralty Court. Capital letters and punctuation in court filings provide either complete safety or total danger, depending on the situation. I have provided this link before, but it very important to establish the grossly insane and delusional belief system of these people:

http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp

The Birther legal arguments fit right in with this nonsense. The two citizen parent nonsense is made out of whole cloth, or more appropriately the  hole cloth of discarded ideas.  But these idiotic notions don’t just sit somewhere in Limbo and poke their heads out once in a while as grist for late night drunken conversations in a Hillbilly Honky Tonk.  Which brings us to Paper Terrorism, which Wiki defines this as:

Paper terrorism is a neologism to refer to the use of false liens, frivolous lawsuits, bogus letters of credit, and other legal documents lacking sound factual basis as a method of harassment, especially against government officials. These methods are popular among some anti-government groups and those associated with the redemption movement. Mark Pitcavage of the ADL states that these methods were pioneered by the Posse Comitatus. Some victims of paper terrorism have been forced to declare bankruptcy.

An article by the Southern Poverty Law Center states that another tactic is filing reports with the Internal Revenue Service falsely accusing their political enemies of having unreported income. Such frivolous lawsuits also clog the court system making it more difficult to process other cases and including using challenges to the titles of property owned by government officials and others. Another method of paper terrorism is filing bankruptcy petitions against others in an effort to ruin their credit ratings.

The Birthers have followed in their Big Brother’s footsteps, and now even have a Do It Yourself Eligibility lawsuit template to make it easier for more idiots to sue in more courts. The same result follows as each Birther lawsuit crashes and burns, but the nonsense continues.  If the whole issue stayed here on some juvenile delinquent loony lawsuit level, then sooner or later when Obama is out of office, the Birther lunacy would die by suffocation as all the oxygen gets sucked out of the movement.

But the danger is that the Birthers will also imitate the other bad behavior of the Sovereign Citizens.  I think you can just toy with madness for so long, and then you simply slip into full-time delusional and paranoid thinking. At some point, these people can completely lose any connection to reality. As happened once again this last week in Louisiana:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — At least some of the seven people arrested in a fatal shootout with Louisiana deputies have been linked to violent anarchists on the FBI’s domestic terrorism watch lists, a sheriff said Saturday.

Detectives had been monitoring the group before Thursday’s shootout in Laplace in which two deputies were killed and two more wounded, said DeSoto Parish Sheriff Rodney Arbuckle. His detectives and other law enforcement discovered the suspects were heavily armed adherents to an ideology known as the “sovereign citizens” movement.

Sovereign citizens are a loosely organized movement founded in the 1970s and more fully developed in the 1980s, according to the Anti-Defamation League website. Sovereign citizens believe that all levels of government have no jurisdiction over them and resist — sometimes with violence — authority including police, the website said.

They also like to use what is dubbed “paper terrorism.” It involves using frivolous lawsuits and fake documents and of using genuine documents such as IRS forms to intimidate, harass and coerce public officials, law enforcement officers and private citizens.

http://news.yahoo.com/suspects-deputy-killings-linked-extremists-005244499.html

This isn’t the first such incident, and won’t be the last. What started off as stupid and delusional legal beliefs morphed over time into something far worse.  Reasonable paranoia about government crossed the line into psychosis. My GUESS is that these people are Birthers to boot, but that is probably secondary to what happened. The perps sound like they were well on the way to Madness before Obama.

But what I wonder is, when will Birthers fall into the same pattern? How long will it be before somebody who continues to deny legal reality slips over into denying other aspects of reality??? How long will it be before somebody who thinks Obama is kept in illegitimate authority by a corrupt judicial system, a corrupt Congress, and traitors galore – – – how long before some of those people succumb to the delusions and paranoia and just snap???

If this Reality isn’t satisfying enough, for Heaven’s sake they should join a Renaissance Group, or historical re-enactment troup.  Or, apply at their local Little Theatre.  Delusions and paranoia are just not things you can play with on a daily basis without serious risks.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is the well known psychiatrist, Dr. Hannibal Lector, from the Thomas Harris novels and related movies.  I think this particular shot is from the 1991 film, Silence of the Lambs. In a later film, Hannibal (2001), Dr. Lector feeds one of his victims slices of his own pre-frontal cortex.

The caption is Birther Appropriate. As Wiki says:

It is believed that at least some of the human abilities to feel guilt or remorse, and to interpret reality, lie in the prefrontal cortex. 

The Image Easter Egg is a “demonic French” word play on “You! hypocrite lecteur! – mon semblable, – mon frère!”: or, “Hypocrite reader! – my likeness, – my brother!” from a famous poem.  The Easter Egg line, “Hypocrite Birther! Vous semblable votre soeur!” poorly translates as  Hyprocrite Birther, you like your sister(soeur)!  But soeur sort of sounds like “sewer”, thus. . .  Hyprocrite Birther!, You like your sewer!

This is a “All your base are belong to us” kind of translation. Semblabe properly translates as either like the adjective meaning similar, or like the noun meaning likeness, but not as like the verb meaning to feel an attraction for.  Sooo, don’t say this in France. They will look at you strangely.

Note 2. Made Out Of Whole Cloth: I found this on the Internet:

The phrase “made out of whole cloth” (and variants) currently means “utterly without foundation in fact, completely fictitious.” This sense for “whole cloth” dates to 1840.

The meaning of the phrase “made out of whole cloth” appears to have begun to change in the United States in the first half of the 19th century. The OED labels the falsehood sense “U.S. colloquial or slang”, and provides a citation from 1843: “Isn’t this entire story … made out of whole cloth?” The change of meaning may have arisen from deceptive trade practices. Charles Earle Funk suggests that 19th-century tailors advertising whole cloth may really have been using patched cloth or cloth that was falsely stretched to appear to be full-width.

Alternatively, the modern figurative meaning of “whole cloth” may depend on a lie’s having sprung whole ex nihilo, having no connection with existing facts. All-newness distinguishes garments and lies made out of whole cloth. This is a positive characteristic for clothes, but not for the average tissue of lies and deception.

See here for the entire fascinating discussion of the phrase:

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxwholec.html

Advertisements

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

31 responses to “When Your Face Freezes That Way!!! (Or, The Madness Of Paper Terrorism)

  • G

    Bravo Squeeky! A very important and most excellently written article!

    This post is so full of important points to ponder and keep in mind, that it is better for me to just declare it as required reading in its entirety for everyone, and leave it at that.

    I do also suspect that these types of delusional beliefs can turn into real, full-blown madness, when left unchecked. I think a number of the Birthers have already done very real damage to their own sanity and cognitive abilities…perhaps even near-permanent damage.

    I would almost putting “snapping” in a category of its own – as a “step beyond” mere madness. (i.e. where they go beyond just being crazy and brain damaged, to actually acting out upon their delusions in some sort of bout of physical harm).

    But again, awarding you multiple Kudos for this Must Read article!!!

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      G:

      Thank you for the compliments. You may be right about “snapping”, because there is a discrete step legally speaking between the thought and the act. But psychologically, maybe the step is more discreet, where the bad thought patterns slowly sink in over time.

      Like with internet porn or video game addiction. From the one or two Internet Articles I have read about this stuff, over time what was a voluntary act morphs into a more involuntary choice where the person just can’t seem to stop. At that point, stopping is what requires a discrete act, because the person has to admit what they have become and then work to change it.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • David Farrar

    Squeeky,

    This is a new low for you. All you are trying to do is ‘swiftboat’ legitimate questions raised over the constitutionality of the WKA interpretation of the 14th Amendment with this Sovereign Citizen group.

    The question you and others of your ilk can’t explain is why would the ‘Consent of the Governed’ allow those who have not pledged to support and defend the US Constitution access to they ruling class?

    “Both groups have major difficulty accepting the simple legal reality that the 14th Amendment simply put into writing, and into the U.S. Constitution, the English common law concept of natural born citizen.

    Here is where you make and the Ankeny Court make your mistake: an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, unlike an English common law natural born subject, is completely different in terms of access to their ruling class. Natural born subjects have little, if any, real access to the British Crown, while all natural born Citizens simply have to be 35 years of age and been a resident within the United states for 14 years; that’s it. Even by today’s standards, this is quite exceptional.

    But, apparently, that’s not good enough for you or the Ankeny Court. You want anybody who happens to find themselves born within the borders of the territory of the United States to have access to our ruling class (i.e. the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States).

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Jim

      David says: “Here is where you make and the Ankeny Court make your mistake: an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, unlike an English common law natural born subject, is completely different in terms of access to their ruling class.”

      So what? They are the same in how natural born is created in their societies. And, since you have no legal or constitutional backing for your delusions, they are the law of this country.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Hi DavidF:

      Sorry you think this is a new low for me, but I think you are underestimating the whole point of Birther legal analysis. It does not take the form of, “Wow, the law is really wrong on this stuff, and we need to organize and work to change these laws.”

      It takes other forms, such as, “Wow, the law says you have to have two citizen parents to be President, and Obama doesn’t meet this standard.”

      The state of the law can usually be determined by lawyers and Courts, and when there is a dispute,our laws say that Judges are the people to make the call. Quite often, this comes down to a vote among the judges. This is why appeals level courts have more than one judge. People see things different ways.

      BUT, once a Court rules, that is the way things are. If people don’t like it, they start working on their legislators to change the laws.

      The law on natural born citizenship for people born in the United States, has already been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, way back in 1898 in Wong Kim Ark.

      Unlike Obamacare, which about half the lawyers and judges think is unconstitutional, and the other half that thinks it is, the law on NBC is like 99.999% agreeing with WKA, and a mere handful of lawyers, and no judges to date on the other side.

      The issue has now been heard again by several courts, including Ankeny, and the issue is over. There may be a legitimate reason to think the law is wrong, but there is no legitimate reason to question Obama’s eligibility on this issue.

      It is like with Abortion. Nobody really thinks it is crazy for people to disagree with Roe v. Wade, or work to change the law. Or even wrong to protest.

      But imagine if there was a group of people who maintained that Abortion was ILLEGAL, and tried repeatedly to get the cops to arrest women who had the procedure, and to arrest those providing the services.

      If people acted like that, and made citizen’s arrests of girls who had abortions, then the rest of the population would be justified and worried about those people’s grip on reality. Because there is a big difference between disagreeing with a law, and not believing in its existence.

      Read some of CDR Kerchner’s handouts and ads, and tell me if you think he has a good grasp of reality or not. He don’t.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    • G

      Sorry David, there is no “low” in pointing out the truth and real correlations between the bad behavior of Sov Cits and Birtherism.

      Again, you abuse and twists words into the opposite of what they really mean. There is NO “swiftboating” here. Swiftboating requires unfounded smears. The problems and errors of the Sov Cit movement and its thinking are very real.

      Face it, you simply can’t deal with being confronted and called out on your bad behavior and nonsense. You simply take “offense” to this article, because in your heart, you know you are guilty.

    • G

      David, stop lying!

      You said, “The question you and others of your ilk can’t explain is why would the ‘Consent of the Governed’ allow those who have not pledged to support and defend the US Constitution access to they ruling class? ”

      Which is false, because every time you’ve tried that nonsense argument, a number of us have refuted it and explained why it is nothing but bogus nonsense.

      So now you are not only continuing to spout nonsense, which has been repeatedly pointed out to you to have NO connection to how our laws actually work, but also abject LYING about never being challenged and confronted on it.

      Have you no shame, sir?

    • G

      David, you said, “You want anybody who happens to find themselves born within the borders of the territory of the United States to have access to our ruling class (i.e. the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States).”

      HINT: That is how US law actually works!! So yes, of course we want that. But we not only want it, we HAVE it!

      YOU are the one who wishes our laws were different and would instead restrict people’s rights. Good luck with getting that Amendment written and passed. That really is the only avenue you would have. But of course, you are unwilling to go the honest route and be open about your beliefs, so you simply continue to spew lies and live in delusion.

      • Slartibartfast

        G,

        The problem with the honest route is that it doesn’t include the big red “RESET” button to magically make the Obama Presidency disappear…

        • G

          Good point, Slarti. As always.

          There really does seem to be two “goals” driving these Birthers. One, directed towards Obama himself, as the embodiement of what they fear/can’t accept about a modern and open society (I’m being polite).

          The second, a longer-term ideological goal, based on a “broader restrictive application” of what Obama really “represents” to them…

  • Sam the Centipede

    David ex ano: you really don’t get it, do you? Squeeky is talking about paranoid, delusional fools … like you. Yes, you. Your legal arguments are frothy-mouthed insanity, a jumble of imagined inanities with little collection to reality. But the crucial point is that you are in a state of complete denial: nobody buys your nonsense, and even if they did, the settled view of the courts and the legal system is that you are wrong.

    Even if your arguments weren’t a stew of stupid, the fact is that no court agrees with you so you are de facto wrong. Can you not understand that? Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “la la la! I can’t hear your noes!” doesn’t make the facts go away. And the facts are (1) Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the USA, (2) no court agrees with you, (3) you are an idiot.

  • Slartibartfast

    Squeeky,

    Wow, you’re really churning these articles out! You also seemed to have hit a nerve with David—could it be that he’s a Sovereign Citizen whackjob as well as a birther loony? I’ve always suspected as much…

    David said:

    Squeeky,
    This is a new low for you.

    Did Squeeky hit a little to close to home here? Could it be that you are a member of both of these groups? Is that why you’ve got your panties in a bunch?

    All you are trying to do is ‘swiftboat’ legitimate questions raised over the constitutionality of the WKA interpretation of the 14th Amendment with this Sovereign Citizen group.

    The SCOTUS interpretation of Wong Kim Ark is Constitutional by definition until it is overturned or overridden by an Amendment. That is the function of the SCOTUS—to tell us what the Constitution means. This is why Dred Scott required the 14th Amendment to invalidate it. Similarly Bush v. Gore and Citizen’s United are both Constitutional even though, in my opinion, they rival the Dred Scott decision as the biggest mistake the SCOTUS ever made. Also, given the context of the debates around the 14th Amendment and the text of the Amendment itself, there are no legitimate questions raised by the Sov Cit’s.

    The question you and others of your ilk can’t explain is why would the ‘Consent of the Governed’ allow those who have not pledged to support and defend the US Constitution access to they ruling class?

    The question we’re all struggling with is: can David really be as stupid as he appears? You are arguing that only naturalized citizens (those who have pledged to support the Constitution) should be allowed to be the POTUS. What a schmuck.

    “Both groups have major difficulty accepting the simple legal reality that the 14th Amendment simply put into writing, and into the U.S. Constitution, the English common law concept of natural born citizen.
    Here is where you make and the Ankeny Court make your mistake:

    Like a SCOTUS decision, Ankeny is the law until overturned—it can be cited in other courts across the country and means that (at least in Indiana) President Obama is a natural born citizen.

    an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, unlike an English common law natural born subject, is completely different in terms of access to their ruling class.

    Exactly where did the Founders tell us this? When they intended to use terms differently than they were used in the language of English law (which is the language the Constitution was written it—we didn’t reject the English language did we?) they SAID SO. Why isn’t natural born citizen defined in the Constitution like the term treason is? I’ll tell you why—because it’s meaning is completely analogous to “natural born subject”.

    Natural born subjects have little, if any, real access to the British Crown,

    No, but foreign royalty have had access to the British Crown—exactly the circumstance that the Founders were trying to prevent by restricting the presidency to those who were born citizens.

    while all natural born Citizens simply have to be 35 years of age and been a resident within the United states for 14 years; that’s it. Even by today’s standards, this is quite exceptional.

    The only thing exceptional here is your inanity.

    But, apparently, that’s not good enough for you or the Ankeny Court. You want anybody who happens to find themselves born within the borders of the territory of the United States to have access to our ruling class (i.e. the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States).

    It’s not what I want David, it’s what the Founders wanted. I just recognize the fact while you continue to delude yourself that your birther and sovereign citizen asshattery is reality.

    ex animo

    Are you aware that this phrase translates to “out of breath? Maybe you should get more exercise…
    davidfarrar, birther, sovereign citizen, and all-around whackadoodle

    • G

      Agreed. David’s rants and weird use of language comes across very similar to Sov Cit BS.

      Hence why he is so offended and defensive when his “ilk” are properly called out for their bad behavior. It is simply the cowardice of selfish entitled bullies everywhere – they like to push their bad behavior around, free of consequence. The moment you confront them, they play the victim card and cry foul…

      Crocodile tears, if you ask me.

      • Slartibartfast

        Bingo!

        • David Farrar

          Okay, try this verbiage and see if it makes a dent.

          “The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is inadmissible in the US, that matter settled by the Revolution.” Cushing, Foreign Relations of the United States, Part 2, pg. 1280 (Cushing was a member of the first Supreme Court)”

          “Perpetual Allegiance is a concept of British Common Law. Therefore the idea that natural born Citizen is the same as natural born Subject is nonsense.”

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Jim

          Sorry David, that was the dissenting opinion in WKA, and it lost.

    • David Farrar

      A Point in Time

      “To understand Article 2 Section 1 Clause 4, one must simply look at it through the prism of the time it was written. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, 1789, the time referred to in the clause, there were only 2 sets of “citizens” in America, and all were eligible to be President. Those two sets werethe citizens of the new states in 1789, and the natural born Citizens, or those born of the citizens of those new states since the Declaration of Independence.”

      “John Inglis stood on the same ground as Barack H. Obama stands today, born inAmerica (supposedly) as a British subject, of a British subject father. John Ingliscertainly was not a natural born Citizen at that point in time; he could not eveninherit land in America, much less be President. Likewise, Barack H. Obama, born British in 1961 is certainly not natural born by the holding of Inglis.”

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • bob

        The British occupied Hawaii in August 1961?

        • G

          Exactly. Another complete logic FAIL by whomever wrote that nonsense that David is merely cutting and pasting from. Whoever David’s source writer is, they are just another RWNJ hack, like David and touting nonsense, which has no correlation to how our actual laws have worked and currently worked.

          These folks are twisting desperately to turn the term NBC into something other than it actually is. This lazy “magic thinking” is quite frankly, annoyingly pathetic.

        • bob

          Farrar is “quoting” Voeltz, one of the birthers who filed a losing ballot challenge in Florida.

        • G

          No surprise there. Birthers suffer from circular reasoning, as their entire worldview is nothing but a self-perpetuated myth. All they have is their fellow delusional cult members to cite…

          Which is why I consider their particular style of “magic thinking” to me nothing more than a Cult in the first place. They give new meaning to the term “circle jerks”…

      • Slartibartfast

        David quoted (thanks for the link, bob): “At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, 1789, the time referred to in the clause, there were only 2 sets of “citizens” in America, and all were eligible to be President. Those two sets werethe citizens of the new states in 1789, and the natural born Citizens, or those born of the citizens of those new states since the Declaration of Independence.

        About the only thing this gets right is that there were 2 groups of citizens in 1789 and both were eligible for the presidency. The two groups were the natural born subjects of the several states—who became natural born citizens of the United States—and the naturalized subjects of the several states—who were eligible due to the grandfather clause. This would include those (like the Marquis de Lafayette) who were naturalized by one of the states before ratification. Since the first draft of the eligibility clause didn’t include the grandfather clause, it is clear that the Founders didn’t believe that it would exclude, say, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from eligibility and it is also clear that it was added so that people in the position of Alexander Hamilton would be eligible.

        The meme that there were no natural born citizens of the US that were born prior to July 4, 1776 is one of the larger leaps of birther idiocy and, in my opinion, a foundational part of their egregiously fallacious reasoning.

        • G

          Slarti said, “The meme that there were no natural born citizens of the US that were born prior to July 4, 1776 is one of the larger leaps of birther idiocy and, in my opinion, a foundational part of their egregiously fallacious reasoning.”

          Agreed! Well put.

      • Northland10

        David ex animo: John Inglis stood on the same ground as Barack H. Obama stands today,

        Barack Obama was born during the revolution? I hope I look that good when I’m 220 something.

        Funny, Inglis was taken away to Britain by his royalist father. Yet, Obama did not live in Kenya or Britain with his father. How are they on the same ground?

        I will assume that ex animo has not actually read the Snug Harbor ruling. Too bad, though. It is filled with fun Latin phrases that he could through around: in praesenti, in futuro, feme sole, ante nati, pro tanto, quod fuit concessum per curiam, and his favorite prima facie.

        To express your point succinctly, David, I highly suggest you begin using the phrase: faecus sum plenus. Everybody will be impressed.

  • RoadScholar

    Really? Your mother called you “Squeeky”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: