BREAKING! SURGEON KILLS MULTIPLE PATIENTS. BLAMES HOSPITAL.

Editors Note:

The editor of The Steady Drip has not publically expressed an opinion on this conflict between Dean Haskins and Orly Taitz.  Both parties are welcome to submit their opinion for publication.

I have received many emails discouraging me from publishing any more posts on this subject.  My personal history doesn’t support the idea that ignoring an issue is helpful.   Issues ignored usually grow larger.

Sam Sewell, Editor

The Steady Drip

# # # # 

BREAKING! SURGEON KILLS MULTIPLE PATIENTS. BLAMES HOSPITAL.

Posted by: Dean C. Haskins
dean@birthersummit.org
202.241.3648
Posted: February 14, 2012
© 2012 The Birther Summit

Download a PDF

What if you read this chilling headline, and further discovered that it was even worse than initially thought . . . that everypatient upon whom this surgeon operated died as a result of the surgeon's incompetence? But, imagine even further that this surgeon had a blog, and on that blog were statements like, “I am, surgeon who does 99%, of work advancing medical, science,” and the posts were full of scientific falsehoods and medical impossibilities, and usually included pleas for donations so that the surgeon could “operate” on more unsuspecting patients?

No rational adult would ever state that this was a surgeon who deserved support and gratitude. No, we would be wondering why the surgeon even had a medical license, and why malpractice complaints and fines hadn't shut down the horrendous enterprise.

But wait, folks, it gets even more outlandish than that. What if all of the deaths were the result of a completely false interpretation of proper medical procedures, and the patients all died during appendectomies—because the surgeon was convinced that the appendix should be removed through the patient's skull? And, not only that—the surgeon had a nearly endless stream of blog posts proclaiming that the appendix should be excised through the skull; so many, in fact, that a little army of followers who simply did not know any better started repeating the appendix/skull mantra.

Additionally, at the death of every patient whose skull is broken open in search of an appendix, the surgeon merely proclaims that the demise was the fault of the hospital and its staff—the deaths never have anything to do with the surgeon's glaring incompetence. Moreover, the obedient army of gullibles repeats the mantra ad nauseum, while the surgeon begs for more money to be able to find the next patient. Rinse. Repeat.

And, all the while, those in the medical community, who privately scoff at the horrendous behavior of the surgeon, maintain their silence with the public—so as not to “divide” their community.

Doesn't this really clarify our current picture? And yet, there are still some in our “community” who choose to vilify me for telling the truth, rather than accepting the facts and altering their beliefs.

Let me put it this way: if you are in a protracted Internet argument with an Obot, and you keep stating that Obama should open access for forensic document examiners to inspect his original hospital-generated birth certificate in a vault at the Department of Health in Hawaii, and the Obot ends up calling you an idiot? Trust him—he's right.

Recently, I had a lengthy email exchange with a blogless mass emailer (you know, the ones who fill everyone's inbox with the articles you're not bright enough to find yourself). In the numerous messages that were tossed back and forth, he repeated the falsehood he has read so many times on the Internet, that Obama should give permission for the vault copy of his birth certificate to be examined. In more than one email, I explained why that would be against Hawaiian law (and even provided him with the applicable statutes), and his repeated response was that it was only my “opinion.” I don't think he was ever able to grasp that the law is not my opinion.

He even suggested that my articles were driving people to support Orly. That would be like someone telling folks not to drink from a well that's been poisoned, and that message causing them all to drink even more from it. If what I have written causes anyone to support Orly, then they ultimately deserve the scorn-worthy nothingness their efforts will always produce.

His final email sent the irony meter off the charts; he said that I needed to “remove my blinders.”

Here's our problem: just like in the opening metaphorical example, if one who has no understanding of medicine, or medical procedure, were to be given access to an operating room to witness a surgery, and someone dressed as a surgeon were to enter the room and use language that sounded like what a surgeon might use, it is highly unlikely that the surgeon's history of success in his field would ever cross that bystander's mind. Not knowing the difference between an endoscope and a lancet, the surgeon's methods would probably go unquestioned by such a bystander.

However, once someone, who understands that an appendix cannot be removed through the skull, explains that to the bystander, it would be absurd for him to continue repeating what is demonstrably false.

The truth regarding birth certificates in Hawaii has been explained many times, yet there are still die-hards who cannot bear the thought that the lie isn't true, so instead of adjusting their understanding in the matter, it appears they believe that shooting the messenger will make their misinformation true. So, to them, 2 + 2 = tater tots, and I have “blinders” on.

But, of course, those within the bubble of the narcissist believe that her cases are dismissed because of corruption in the courts, rather than the obvious lack of knowledge of the law and legal procedure. “It must be corruption,” for that plays much better in the PayPal Civic Arena.

Adding insult to the deception about her total incompetence, and her pleas for donations based on that deception, we get blatant attacks on those within our movement, which is, ultimately, the Taitz Trifecta. On February 10, she published a post in which the efforts of Sheriff Joe Arpaio were trivialized with the heading, “Is That It?” (*Malware Warning*) It's funny that such a post was run two days after my article in which it was demonstrated that Taitz has tried both to hijack and sabotage the Cold Case Posse's investigation. She based her demoralizing post on a WND article in which issues about the long form birth certificate were discussed. I guess she didn't expect anyone to notice that the article was published November 1, 2011.

More recently, Orly has started to repeat her typical smear campaign against anyone in our movement that is not her, by posting provocative questions about Larry Klayman, who is being retained as counsel for the Florida and California ballot challenges.

Furthermore, in a recent mindless rant reminiscent of cries to burn books (*Malware Warning*), Taitz suggests that nobody who posts criticism of her Barney-the-Dinosaur understanding of the law should be read by anybody . . . ever. Funny, but she even gets this one wrong, as those she listed as “verboten” post their writings on websites, and don't usually send them by email; so her suggestion to block our email addresses doesn't seem like it would actually accomplish anything (but then, what's new?).

In a recent conversation I had with my friend Sam Sewell (Steady Drip) about the handful of folks who are upset about what I have written, Sam suggested, in a conciliatory effort, that I needed to follow the lead of the ancient Greeks, and issue an apologetic defense for my writings—explaining why I have found it necessary to say what I have said. That doesn't seem like a bad idea, although, it's probable that the nuances of an “apology” in that vein might be lost on some, and I'd get skewered for sharing no regret for speaking the truth.

But, in the spirit of explanation, there is something here that might be helpful for those who are having such a hard time with the truth, since the truth can sometimes feel a bit harsh.

Like many of you, I once accepted all the false drivel as truth, and even publicly supported it. I also (even though I found it disgusting, unethical, and immoral) kept my mouth shut about the gross self-idolization, the begging for donations based on misleading information, and the attempted cutting-off-at-the-knees of anyone in the movement who isn't Orly. Yes, I was also lulled into stupidity by the “team” mentality, and the ludicrous notion that a flurry of activity was advancing our cause.

First of all, there are always at least TWO teams in this cause—Orly, and then everybody else. If one is not an avid adorer of (and financial donor to) all things Taitz, then one is “worthless” and part of the “controlled opposition.” Orly plays on nobody else's team. And, second, a constant barrage of incompetent activity should never be considered moving forward in anybody's book (see: calling oneself to the witness stand in the middle of one's closing argument in response to a judge's sarcastic question).

So, once the outright lies about “judge-issued subpoenas” and Obama being “ordered to stand trial” were being preached to the faithful followers, I arrived at a serious dilemma of conscience. Should I go along to get along, or should I say something? I knew there had to be a reason why most everyone privately condemned Orly's bizarre world, yet nobody dared even whisper the slightest public disapproval. Well, as far as I can tell, the reasons came down to two things—the fact that Orly will publicly attack anybody who exposes her, and she has a group of useful idiots who believe her utter garbage, and who will attack like rabid chihuahuas on a moment's notice.

As a matter of conscience, I could no longer keep silent. There are so many levels of wrong in that camp that biting one's tongue should not be considered a morally sound alternative to rocking the boat. One does not silently accept a cancer in the hopes that, in the end, one's body will thrive because of physical “unity” with the disease. No, to strengthen the body, and increase one's chances for survival, the cancer must be eradicated, as painful a process as that sometimes can be.

I have been speaking the truth because I care about this movement, and because I must make certain that my name is never again associated with that which I have exposed. Believe it or not, I have heard rumblings from more than a couple of people that Orly is suggesting that she should sue me. As truth is an absolute defense against defamation, I would welcome such action. You see, frivolous claims can often be quite costly for the claimant, and daddy wouldn't mind a new car.

As for that truth, I still find it amusing that those who have voiced such displeasure with what I have said have never once attempted to refute the facts I have shared. No, it's always just an ambiguous condemnation of me. Just like Sharon Rondeau's silence after her personal and professional integrity were questioned because of her defense of the indefensible, I view the blanket disapproval of me, without any refutation of that for which I am being condemned, to be cowardly. If you are upset with what I've said, then defend those sentiments—don't castigate me because you don't like the truth I speak.

There are currently several state ballot challenges being mounted. Understand that, if you should decide to involve Orly Taitz in any legal action concerning them, you will be shunned by the others bringing challenges. Great lengths will be taken to assure that your case is removed as far away from the other actions as possible, and you will likely taste nothing but defeat for your efforts. Of course, that's merely an opinion—which is accurately based upon every single bit of the applicable history involved. If you want the support of those in our movement who are overseeing these challenges, then visit the Obama State Ballot Challenge website for information and assistance. You may, however, ignore that advice at your own peril.

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.

###

If you would like more information about the Birther Summit, please visit our website often at www.birthersummit.org or contact Dean Haskins at dean@birthersummit.org.