When I started constructing web sites for other people, I could no longer rely on a ‘free’ stream of graphics and photos (either from my own library or ‘borrowed’ from Googleland). If more people are going to see your page than your three best friends in high school and your own mom, then you need to respect copyright law and make sure you only use graphics and images that you have a legal right to share with the world.
So, I did some quick searches and found some fantastic photos that were a perfect fit for each site — and I never did have to ask for anything custom-made because there are just so many out there to choose from. For instance, for a site that provided access, recommendations, and advice for people buying hold music and voiceovers for their business phone system, I found and edited the photo used in the background of this banner graphic:
…which I now have a legal right to use as many times as I want, because I bought with it a ‘royalty-free’ usage license. What this means is that I don’t have to make an accounting of how often it is used, how many people see it, or how many times I need to cut a check to the seller — I paid a one-time fee and the photographer has (through a vendor that manages the transaction for a small fee) made a one-time sale.
So this week, we’re talking to a friend who has the equipment and the chops to crank out beautiful images, but thus far hasn’t shopped them around to potential buyers.
Below are a few articles with favorite lists and descriptions, from the perspective of content providers (photographers) — but I think more important is the more general advice some of these articles include regarding ownership, payments, sole-use licenses, ease-of-use, and how professionally your photos might be presented. It’s also important to note that most of these vendors do not charge for the privilege of selling your photos — but some do, so be aware that this is NOT a necessary or expected expense for most photographers.
I’ve decided it’s time. I never knew that I would have the courage to admit it, since most of the people in my life are very definitely not in this camp; and I don’t know if they will ever really understand where the attraction is for me.
But I have to stand up and be true to my own self. And I have to hope that those who love and have loved me will understand that I don’t feel this way because I’m trying to hurt them — or because any one of them has let me down.
Our generation’s ‘thought leaders’ have convinced a critical mass of people that socialism is what’s ‘cool’ now — this is the stuff the groovy people sit around in dark cafes and write poetry about… and how they believe they are going to ‘save the world from itself’. They view all who don’t see what they see as obstacles to ‘enlightenment’. The thing is, I hate being treated as an obstacle.
Millions of people have come to the understanding that capitalism is no longer working. From extreme weather caused by climate change and the relentless drive to slash workers’ living standards to the epidemic of police brutality, the signs of a society in crisis are all around us. The question isn’t whether society has run amok; the question is what to do about it.
The Socialism 2013 conference will bring together hundreds of activists from across the U.S., and around the world, to tackle the many discussions and debates that confront anyone interested in changing the world. How can women’s liberation and LGBT equality be won? What will it take to win real justice for immigrant workers? Can organized labor make a comeback? What lessons can be learned from the revolutions shaking the Middle East? Why is Marxism relevant today?
Featured speakers include teachers on the front lines of the fight to defend public education, anti-racist fighters against police brutality and the New Jim Crow, trade unionists, Marxist authors, radical historians, and much more. Start making your plans to attend.
Think of all the people we let influence us every day. The newspeople, the musicians, the politicians, fellow students and coworkers, our significant others (and potential people who might take that station), our pets, our favorite television shows, the people who’s advice and counsel we value and esteem…
QUESTION: Were these people put in our lives by God, or by someone who yearns to tear down more than build up? And once we figure out whether the influence these people have on us is positive or negative — what actions do we take to put our own personal focus on those people who look out for us?
What actions do we take to remove our focus from those people who look to use and abuse our attention?
How often do we simply resign ourselves to where and who we are today, and claim no ability or right to avoid those who are not of God?
Now, take a look at the list below and try measuring our elected Representatives by each side… what kind of people are we trusting the future of our country to?
Did you know that Indiana doesn’t have a ‘concealed carry’ permit? We have a ‘carry’ permit.
That means that those who have passed the background check and paid the fee can carry openly (a la ‘the Duke’) OR concealed — but most do so in the ‘concealed’ fashion in order to 1) not freak out the hoplophobes in our midst and 2) increase the ‘mystery’ factor (when a Bad Guy enters a room, we would rather he not know just HOW MANY PEOPLE are ready to deal with him — the philosophy leans toward the belief that WONDERING WHETHER ASSAULTING SOMEONE IS STUPID keeps many Bad Guys from attempting it).
Did you know (many Bad Guys do) that ONE OUT OF EVERY FIFTEEN ADULTS IN INDIANA HAS A CARRY PERMIT? That doesn’t tell the Bad Guy how many people are carrying today — but it does tell him how many MIGHT.
Listen to Reagan’s read on the Change that was being recommended to us by the ‘experts’ in 1964 — does it sound in any way familiar? It should — except back then, there were still checks and balances between the three branches of the Federal government — those checks and balances restrained Change in the Fundamental Design of our nation… at the time, and still now, many of us think that restraint necessary, Good, and important.
But now, we have reached a point that these Adversaries — to what it means to be American — have infiltrated positions of power, academia, media, and other stations of influence.
THIS IS NOT A NEW PUSH; THESE ARE NOT NEW IDEAS OR IDEALS. They ARE, however, newly becoming successful at convincing enough voters of their inherent ‘goodness’.Will your children be able to dial it back?If you and they will be able to rescue this nation, it must begin by having an awareness of what it at stake, and exactly how we are being attacked.
So long as the People Who Hate Guns (more than they hate Evil People and Evil itself) keep trying to say that the NRA cheers the gun that Evil used, they make themselves out to be Fools That Believe People Have No Responsibility In The Matter. This is IN NO WAY DIFFERENT FROM THE RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS WHO SAY THAT AN EXPOSED ANKLE FORCED A MAN TO RAPE A WOMAN.
Thus, it becomes clear that the irrational zealots here are the anti-gun idealists.
Those of us who ‘cling to our guns and our religion‘, on the other hand, feel that our BEHAVIOR MATTERS more than what we may have clipped inside the back of our pants.
The NRA is simply one of many organizations that is working to KEEP LEFTISTS OUT OF OUR PANTS.
—
I would think that any decent marketing person looking for fans would appreciate that the public is smart enough to consider the NRA a benefit, not a detriment — regardless of the bigotry of Leftist zealots who value politics over human life and our right to self-defense.
Many people haven’t caught on yet to the fact that:
ObamaCare will centralize medical records. Not all of them at once; but by creating a vetting process which doctors must traverse in order to get ‘authorized’ for procedures on individual patients, the federal government will be creating a clearinghouse for all medical procedures, prescriptions, analyses, and visit history that will be protected only by an internal ‘honor system’ from misuse and abuse. How long do you feel your own personal information (remember ‘doctor-patient privilege ‘?) will remain private?
Doctors can’t be responsible for keeping your information private once it’s connected to the centralized database. Current medical professionals are taught that federal law prevents them from sharing your personal information with anyone you don’t personally allow access to (there are forms you sign at the hospital, and whenever setting up a relationship with a new doctor). How long do you think it will take before the forms you are required to sign include access ‘for administrative purposes’ so that the federal overlords (death panels, if you will…) can rifle through your underwear drawer?
The increased reach of these new firearm background checks will necessarily have to somehow ‘touch’ a repository for where, at a federal level, someone can check to see if a person fits their floating definition of a ‘mental health’ risk.
Soooo… Have you ever been prescribed anxiety medication? Have you ever had a nervous breakdown? Fainted? PTSD? Autism spectrum disorder in your family tree? Treated for alcoholism? Marriage counseling? Has your doctor put in his notes that you have ‘avoided professional consultation’ in favor or your crackpot religious mentor (family minister)? HERE’S YOUR SIGN.
On February 5, Schmecker’s hospital primary care doctor called and heard a message on Schmecker’s answer machine that “sounded peculiar,” prompting him to contact the local police and urge them to visit Schmecker to perform a “wellness check”.
“The police came to my home, and, without any justification whatsoever, hauled me away for a psychiatric evaluation at a local hospital. I submitted to their forceful insistence under duress and fear of arrest or worse. I wasn’t arrested, no crime was committed nor any threats were made to myself or others,” Schmecker told Survive and Thrive’s George Hemminger.
“They confiscated my guns and pistol permit. I was released two days later from the evaluation on my on recognizance. I have since attempted to use the courts and attorneys to fight the revocation of my pistol permit. Then on top of everything else, the bills from the short stay at the hospital and EMS bills that they billed me, along with what I had to pay the attorney adds up to a large amount of money,” he adds.
Mr. Lewis’s case will not end with him picking up his guns Monday. His lawyer said he plans to file a federal lawsuit within the next two weeks, accusing the state of violating Mr. Lewis’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
…an Army combat veteran and Purple Heart recipient in west central Ohio who was the victim of a police raid on the evening of August 22nd during which Miami County Ohio Sheriff’s deputies executed a search warrant to seize the man’s firearms for the “safety of the defendant and the general public,” according to the warrant.
The veteran, who is currently unnamed, had his guns taken because he was adjudged to be mentally incompetent, despite the fact that his previous VA psychiatric evaluations were all clear, he is not on medication, and he had no criminal record. The man appears to be a respected member of the community – he works for a Christian company and his father is a police officer and a pastor.
David Sarti visited his doctor complaining of chest pains, only to have the doctor later commit him to a psychiatric ward and alert authorities, before Sarti was declared “mentally defective” and put on an FBI list that strips him of his second amendment rights.
I was asked to visit http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/protect-2a to chime in with my opinion on why I believe the Second Amendment is relevant to our nation today. Their server is apparently being overwhelmed; but luckily I did a quick Select-All/Copy before I hit the submit button (I’m a little paranoid where the stability of web forms is concerned). Here’s what I’ll paste in eventually (when their web guy feeds the squirrels):
It’s true that our politicians regularly lie to bolster their personal ideologies.
It’s true that our politicians regularly lie to strengthen their positions of power.
It’s true that our politicians abuse their authority up to and until they get caught and either have to dial it back or are ousted.
It’s true that any human being given power, unchecked, will consider their own needs before those they purport to serve.
So this country was founded with checks and balances that were not to be undone — not just including the web of inter-dependencies between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Federal government — but also between the State itself and the People, who are armed with the written word, the ability to assemble, and the right to self-defense. These rights mean nothing if the People aren’t aware of them; they mean nothing if the People can’t exercise them; they mean nothing if they can be rescinded by a tyrannical State which deems them inconvenient.
Any politician who dares to lessen the strength of these checks and balances doesn’t just risk an end to his political career; by turning their backs on their oaths of office, they have committed vocational suicide — those who do not uphold that which they swear to protect have LET GO OF THE STEERING WHEEL, and are by definition no longer fit to drive the car.
A note for my friends who aren’t following this ‘discussion’ as it is (as usual) mishandled by the fawning Media: The idea of ‘universal background checks’ sounds fine to some, on its face; however it would require a national (federal) REGISTRY of all guns, and all gun owners.
And, let’s be honest about just how ‘universal’ this background check system would be, and not be:
It would NOT show who has a gun illegally (stolen/borrowed/smuggled/manufactured in an alley for a felon or crazy person…). Criminals will not line up to log their escapades into a database.
It would mandate that private citizens could not transfer a firearm to another person at a garage sale, loan to a coworker, or pass down to a younger relative without that person submitting to a federal vetting process. (You want to allocate your great-grampa’s old rifle to your son in your Last Will and Testament? If the government doesn’t approve of your son, he doesn’t get to take possession of the weapon and it may end up forever in escrow or worse yet — be confiscated.) This is what has been commonly referred to in the Media as the ‘Gun Show Loophole’ — currently, only federally-regulated firearms dealers have to do a background check on a customer before completing the sale; private individuals can (in most states) just bring in firearms they would like to sell or trade to anyone they see fit.
The Bill of Rights‘ motive of resisting tyranny — that is, preventing the subjugation of a people by force of authority not granted to them by the People — is negated if the government has a clear list of who to kill or imprison first.“A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!” -Thomas Jefferson
The way to enforce such a mandate is to inflict penalties on those who do not follow the rules. Firearm owners do not want to risk fines, jail time, or the loss of their licensing priviledges so they will be compelled to comply. Criminials do not and will not care about a risk of fines, already ‘work very hard to avoid imprisonment’, and the least of their concerns would be whether they lose a license to possess what they likely haven’t obtained legally in the first place.
When the 2nd Amendment was written, as an attempt to remind future leaders at the federal level that Individuals and states, not federal authority, would be the LAST LEVEL OF POWER THAT COULD NOT BE UNDONE — it was made clear that at the federal level, the right of self-defense SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Understand that in EVERY society that has implemented a national weapons registry has eventually used it as a simple checklist to confiscate those weapons (UK has done it, Australia has done it, Germany has done it, despots all around the world have done it right before seizing control of their own people and their property with military force, etc. — this is not ‘ancient’ history… it’s OUR history…).
“Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s ‘universal’ background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.“
President Obama wants us to believe that 90 percent of Americans support background checks – a dubious claim to be sure. But even if true, since when do liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights become subject to a popular vote?
Polls that throw around the 90 percent figure are suspect for many reasons. For starters, they claim that roughly 80 percent of Gun Owners of America and National Rifle Association members support background checks. But after polling our members, we found that fewer than 5 percent support such restrictions — thus obliterating the credibility of these polls which purport to speak for our supporters.
Not only did a Quinnipiac poll say that, by a margin of 48 to 38 percent, Americans think background checks will lead to confiscation, a recent CBS News poll found that only 47 percent of Americans want stricter gun control. So if that’s true, how is it that twice that number supposedly want background checks expanded? The numbers just don’t add up.
The fact is, background checks are dangerous because:
They force law-abiding citizens to prove their innocence to the government before exercising a constitutionally protected right – something that we wouldn’t tolerate with the First Amendment;
They require the names of gun owners to be sent to the FBI, thus creating the framework for a national registration system – a cause for concern when politicians like Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York and others have called for gun confiscation; and
They use a database through which government bureaucrats unduly denied more than 150,000 military veterans their constitutional rights, without any due process whatsoever, based on things such as PTSD.
Proponents claim that background checks prevent thousands of people from buying guns every year. It’s a lie. In 2010, only 13 people were incarcerated for illegally trying to purchase a gun – meaning that the thousands of people with initial denials weren’t ultimately stopped from buying a gun on the street. It’s also a lie that 40 percent of gun purchases are done through private sales; The Washington Post gave Obama “Three Pinocchios” for this claim.
Laws are followed by the law-abiding, and those are the very people we shouldn’t feel uncomfortable with at all.
Criminals don’t follow the law, and that’s what makes me uncomfortable. So it follows that any legislation passed to control guns won’t have much effect since criminals don’t feel compelled to follow the law anyway.
“This amendment won’t ease the pain … but nobody here, not one of us in this great capital of ours in good conscious could sit by and not try to prevent a day like that from happening again,” Manchin told the press at today’s announcement.
But aides on Capitol Hill admit that there is not a thing in the bill that would have prevented the killer, Adam Lanza, from killing 26 at the school in Newtown, Connecticut.
“There’s nothing in this legislation that addresses the fact pattern at Sandy Hook,” a senior Senate aide told me on the phone. The aide explains that the bill expands on the background-check system already in place, but that the system doesn’t work properly.
“They are expanding on a broken system that we know will fail,” says the aide. Under this law, I’m told, Adam Lanza would still have been able to steal the so-called assault weapon that his mother legally owned—and use it to shoot up the school.
“You see, the federal government has no business monitoring when or how often you go to church; what books and newspapers you read; who you vote for; your health conditions; what you eat for breakfast; and the details of your private life– including your lawful exercise of your rights protected by the Second Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights.”
The modern argument over the shape, style, accessories, ammunition capacity, and configuration of this firearm or that is merely a smokescreen to cover a very old agenda, Civilian Disarmament. Step number one in discussing the issue is to set the ground rules and reject the term “gun control” as both deliberately misleading and illegitimate. Refuse to accept that term.
If someone says “gun control” stop them right there and correct them. “You mean disarmament.” If they protest and claim gun control is not disarmament there are either a woefully naïve or a purposeful liar.
I’m a big advocate for firearms training for every human being that is legally allowed. Even if you will never own one. Even if you will never get a permit. To me, it ranks right up there with CPR, jumper cables, finding the mute button on the remote, and remembering the number to 911.
But, there are many people who have grown up believing that guns are such an Evil Thing, that some of the Evil might rub off on them if they get too close. To those folks, I apply the following logic:
If given the opportunity, would you turn down the chance to learn how to properly and effectively use a fire extinguisher? Even if you never planned on having/owning one?
If given the opportunity, would you turn down the chance to learn how to properly and safely use a lawn mower — even if you lived in an apartment and didn’t have a lawn to mow?
If given the opportunity to learn how to drive a stick-shift, would you turn it down because your car is an automatic?
If given the opportunity to learn how to properly apply EVERY tool in a first aid kit — would you turn it down just because there is a nurse on-call where you work?
If offered the opportunity to learn how to swim — even though you live in a landlocked state and there are no pools nearby, would you turn it down?
So tell me, what is so horrible about people learning how to properly load (and unload), check the safety, ensure bystanders are not put at risk — and if necessary, even make the noisy thing stop the bad man?
Don’t be the person that could have saved a life; but let a child, a criminal, or a careless individual ‘play’ with a firearm just because you are unschooled in their operation. EVERY HUMAN ADULT (even those — or perhaps especially those who dislike firearms) should know how to do the following, even if they never pull a trigger in their lives:
Know how to hold a firearm without accidentally causing it to ‘go bang’.
Know how to remove the magazine (the thing that holds the bullets) and verify that if a bullet has already been moved from the magazine into the chamber (where the bullet needs to be for the firing pin to hit it) — how to eject that last bullet so the gun is truly empty.
If you can’t do these two things, your ideology won’t really matter if a firearm is in front of you, and you want it to NOT ‘go bang’. If a child alerts you to a discarded firearm, or if a bad guy drops one, or if you are able to wrest one from the grip of an attacker … how stupid would it be for you to NOT know what to do next? GET TRAINED.
Only content that is publicly available to view is available in Facebook’s Search Graph; in other words, if a user has set their settings to be private, than their information will not show up and their content will not be indexed in the internal search (read more on making your Facebook settings private in How to Block Searches Of Your Facebook Profile).
If you take the recommended steps, all you really do is remove your friend’s updates, Likes and Comments from YOUR view. You are not protecting yourself, or them. You simply won’t see their updates when you use Facebook. Why would you do that? Why remove your friends’ updates from YOUR view? Isn’t that why you are friends in the first place, so you can see what they are up to? There are 3 recommendations I make to better protect your information, and they will quickly get progressively more draconian. …
Contrary to what’s claimed, Graph Search won’t make any of your Facebook content or other activities visible to strangers unless they’re already visible to the general public per your own privacy settings. It simply gives other members another way to find your stuff. For example, if your current privacy settings only allow friends to view photos and status updates, Graph Search won’t change that — only friends will be able to see your content in search results. However, if your current settings allow your content to be viewed by everyone, then everyone, friends and non-friends alike, will be able to see it in Graph Search results. That’s pretty straightforward.
Hoplophobia: “irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.”
After the NRA recommended that we put a police officer in each school, the chatter about how to pay for that wasn’t very loud. What was intense was the finger-wagging Leftists who teach behavior through fear: “We can’t have guns with bullets around our children… what an aweful thing to make them face every day!” … “What will the children think when they see a gun on the hip of someone RIGHT THERE IN THE HALLWAY?”
You can feel the idiot vibrations coming off these people who either believe — or desperately need others to — that the very presence of a gun means that someone… no one can tell the time and place… is going to be randomly killed by a random action taken by that far-too-dangerous ‘thing’ carried by a lawman.
With that kind of mentality, it’s no wonder that many kids grow up fearing the police. Their parents are nuts. Defective.
When I was young (just a few decades ago…), kids grew up watching shoot’em-up movies and understood that it was ‘good guys against bad guys’ — no one was stupid enough to think the stories were about ‘people vs. sentient and self-actuating objects’. But, perhaps this generation put too much stock in the film ‘Terminator’ and they really believe that tech is our mortal enemy.
Just in case you don’t think these people are out there, and acheiving some level of power and influence at all levels of our society, I bring you ‘Exhibit D’ (for DUMB):
Here we see a failure of society to recognize the difference between ‘logical discrimination’ and ‘unfair discrimination’.
Discrimination itself is not a negative thing — but the Left has warped the language to ‘teach’ (propagandize) that it is.
For instance,
When we say someone has ‘discriminating tastes’, we’re not saying that’s a bad thing.
When we say that a colorblind person has trouble ‘discriminating between red and green lights, ‘discrimination’ is not a bad thing.
When we say that an employer made an biased decision based on racial prejudice, that is what we all accept as ‘bad discrimination’.
Universities that put ‘zero tolerance’ policies in place that negate any possibility of discrminating, are saying that there is never a case for making a judgement based on knowing the difference between what fits, and what doesn’t. In negating the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ of discrimination, they are teaching that discernment is not only of no value — but that it is against the ethos they want promoted on their grounds. They are saying that driving through a red light is OK, because making a behavioral choice based on discriminating between what fits and what doesn’t is wrong on it’s face.
“The University of Michigan is accused of kicking an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship chapter off campus because the group requires its leaders to be Christians – an apparent violation of the university’s non-discrimination policy.”
…
“‘I can’t imagine the Muslim Student Association saying you don’t have to be a Muslim to help lead our group,’ he said. ‘I think the university’s decision will impact any religious group that’s being honest about their leadership criteria.’”
Remember that time in August when the Great Enabler got a bruise on his cheek from not being told how to hold a shotgun correctly? [Oh, then it must not have actually been fired while he was holding it like that...]
But how is there smoke coming out of the Big Manly Gun if the Great Enabler didn’t shoot it? [Well, there is smoke, so we'll assume that it's coming out of the gun in all the right places and that the rest of the photo agrees with ... well, we'll agree that there is smoke.]
Skeet (or clay pidgeons, as some call them) are objects flung up into the air that follow an arc, and shooters follow the arc with their shotgun to target much as they would a waterfowl as it flies up and away from hunters. [The fact that he is shown aiming laterally, not up in the sky, should not be taken to mean that he doesn't know what he is doing, or that he is posing -- but rather that the people having him pose were happy to let him look like an idiot while constructing this 'photographic evidence of a Manly president...]
“…we do skeet shooting all the time”. -the Great Enabler [I don't have a lot of friends who enjoy this sport regularly; but those who do are often heard saying 'we shoot skeet', 'we shoot clays', 'we shoot trap' -- never will they be heard saying 'we *do* skeet shooting'... perhaps he was just away from the TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) or perhaps worse, it fed him the wrong verbiage just to make him look like a lying fool. We hope that it won't be damaged 'accidentally' the next time he 'does skeet shooting'.]
About the only thing that appears to be accurate, truthful and transparent in this photo — is that our Great Enabler does just about everything… FROM THE LEFT.
“Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.”
VERSION OF HISTORY FOUND BY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH:
“Senator Harry Reid’s great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. On the back of the picture obtained by Judy Walkman, a professional genealogy researcher, is this inscription: “Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.”
The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory:
(So, you’ll forgive us ‘birthers’ who won’t go away just because you call us names when we question why the Great Enabler has been able to become the most powerful man in the free world while obfuscating every detail about his real credentials for years — to the point of clearly breaking the law and never being challenged for it.)
