Thursday, January 8, 2009

What? More Money, Barack?

The press for "unprecedented" (understatement) money continues, using whatever excuse and presumably from all quarters, legal, or scofflaw, or worse. Italicized words are I.O's. So are the new and improved links -- I.O. encourages you to click them in order.

Deadline: Midnight
Thursday, January 8, 2009 12:08 PM

To: the cells in the matrix @ everywhere . we can plug into you

Sycophant --

On January 20th, our journey to bring change will officially begin.

We're organizing the most open and accessible inauguration in our nation's history. And we're doing it without contributions from Washington lobbyists or big corporations.

Just like we did on the campaign, we're relying entirely on supporters like you -- ordinary people giving whatever they can afford to make this an event for all Americans.

I know we've asked a lot of you. But changing the way business is done in Washington will take a commitment from all of us. Right now, you can help give this administration a strong start.

And if you make a donation of any amount before midnight tonight, you could be selected to come to Washington, D.C., and be part of the welcome ceremony, the swearing in, the Inaugural Parade, and the Inaugural Community Ball.

Make a donation of $5 or more and be part of the historic moment you made possible.

We have a long road ahead of us, and we're going to face some major challenges as soon as we start. But I know I can count on you every step of the way.

Thank you for everything you've done and happy New Year,


P.S. -- You could be there for this historic moment even if you cannot make a donation. You can show your support by sharing what this Inauguration means to you. Learn more here:


Please donate

Paid for by Obama for America

This email was sent to: said sycophants

To unsubscribe, go to:


Victor said...


You may wish to rethink how you've "improved" the links in this post.

Specifically, by displaying a secure HTTP or "https:" link to "" that is actually a standard, nonsecure HTTP link to "", you may be committing an act of phishing - computer fraud.

In addition, the unsubscribe link at the bottom of your post may contain personally-identifiable information about you.

I would encourage you to update your post, without the links.

Parody and satire are your Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, but fraud is not.


Arlen Williams said...

Thanks for the tip about the unsubscribe link, Victor.

However, with the intent of the article clearly portrayed, and with the actual, unsecured Web page of this link very apparent, your self-portrayed concern for me about phishing is obviously unfounded. And since you admit to that, yourself, why do you bring it up?

Arlen Williams said...

Okay, I double-checked the unsubscribe link and there is nothing private about it -- to assuage your concerns for me, Victor. ;-)

Victor said...

Arlen, the intent of the article is to encourage people to click on the links, as you yourself have written:

"So are the new and improved links -- I.O. encourages you to click them in order."

The "actual, unsecured Web page of the link" is only clearly apparent to those who are more than passingly familiar with how browsers work. (as an IT specialist, I would be one of those people.)

It's not an unfounded concern. The advice is given willingly, freely and openly.

Rose said...

I don't see what's wrong here - is it the use of https? the s indicating secure?

Victor said...

Rose, the short answer is "yes".

The explanation is a little longer, but if you post a link to a site (let's use the example of that actually redirects you to a different site (let's say, then you're committing an act of fraud. The term for it is "phishing."

Let's be clear: I am not an attorney, and I am not accusing Arlen of doing anything malicious at all. I think his intent is to parody, and he's fully within his rights to do so.

I do think that he's skating on pretty thin ice in the case of the "https" link, though, because as you say, "https:" is the prefix for a secure web site, and Arlen is encouraging his readers to click on the link.

Anonymous said...

Look at this...

Arlen Williams said...

"Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt"
Victor, it seems you are a pretty good propagandist. Did you ever work as a "community organizer?" Are you in something like that, now?

Arlen Williams said...

Anonymous said...
Look at this...
January 9, 2009 12:52 PM

Yes, it is something to flesh out.

Victor said...


On the contrary.

I base my arguments in sourced fact, which anyone is free to verify independently.

I attempt to use clear logic to build the argument's foundation, which anyone is free to refute.

Those are not the actions of a propagandist. They're the actions of someone interested in learning, which is why I enjoy offering a voice of dissent here.


PS: As always, Google is your friend. You're welcome to search for me, as my background is open for all to see.

Arlen Williams said...

The best deceit is comprised of sound reason, based upon falsity.

Victor said...

Arlen, that's why I base my arguments on both facts and logic.

Anyone is free to verify the facts that I present, for either content or relevance.

Likewise, anyone is free to dispute the logic of the arguments I present.

That's how good argumentation works, and it's a standard I encourage everyone to adopt.

Arlen Williams said...

But what you were basing your conclusions on were at best, half-truths, which when presented as whole-truth is....
You can fill in the rest of the sentence, Victor.

Victor said...

Very well, Arlen. Since you've thrown down the gauntlet, I'll pick it up.

Which specific fact or facts that I have presented are "at best, half-truths"?

You have accused me of lying before, and you are doing so again, but you have yet to refute any of the facts I have offered you.

Unless you can offer a refutation, then I accuse you, Arlen Williams, of exactly the same obfuscation that you have accused me of.

Arlen Williams said...

Good grief, Victor, round and around. Read my article. Read my answer to your question. I will reason with people who can have the ability to think and communicate reality.

You asked me why the Lightfoot case had a greater validity. I answered. You claimed it did not and refused to look toward the answer I gave, only referring to the elemental position of the case, not to jurisdiction and standing.

That is dealing in half-truths and refusing one the respect of accurate discussion. But it is the sign of an agitprop mongering troll.

You may be influencing me to be a harsher editor of comments. Is that what you want?

Victor said...

First things first, Arlen. It seems as though these past few messages should be in the thread concerning your interview with Dr. Taitz, not here.

In this thread, we're talking about your parody of the Obama letter. Are you saying that your reply from January 9, 2009 10:35 PM is referring to the interview thread instead? If so, let's pick up the conversation there, shall we?

As far as how you edit comments, as always, this is your blog and your rules. You've already demonstrated that if you don't like a post, you'll delete it. If my comments aren't welcome, say the word, and I'll refrain from commenting here in the future.

Anonymous said...

i have posted my first article on newsvine, PLEASE go to the link and comment as many times as you can to try and push it to the front page

Arlen Williams said...

Rose, I didn't want concerns for me to be too taxing. ;-) I've updated the posting and the appearance of the the link at the bottom.