Lt. General Thomas McInerney (Ret) Signs Affidavit Requesting Obama’s Birth and School Records

Air Force Lt. General McInerney, (Ret)

You know, I thought the birth certificate issue was over except as a fodder for libs to taunt Republicans with during an election year. But I was wrong. There is still at least one case still pending. Army Lt Col Terrance Lakin is set to go to trial October 13-15, and retired three star Air Force Lt. General McInerney is the highest ranking officer yet to support his case.

The website, Safeguard Our Constitution has been covering this story:

McInerney’s sworn affidavit was filed in Court-Martial in support of Lakin’s motions for subpoenas for all of the president’s school records, and for a deposition of the custodian of Obama’s birth records in the possession of the State of Hawaii. The Judge has set a hearing in the Court Martial on these motions for this coming Thursday, September 2nd at 11:00 at Ft. Meade, Maryland. All court proceedings are open to the public. The courthouse is located within Ft. Meade at 4432 Llewellyn Avenue, which is on the corner of Llewellyn and Ernie Pyle Road. At the first intersection after the Reece Road gate, you should turn left on to Ernie Pyle Road. The courthouse is approximately 1 mile south of the intersection of Reece Road and Ernie Pyle Road.

LTC Lakin is a physician, and is in his 18th year of service in the Army. He is Board Certified in Family Medicine and Occupational and Environmental Medicine. He has been recognized for his outstanding service as a flight surgeon for year-long tours in Honduras, Bosnia and Afghanistan. He was also awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan and recognized in 2005 as one of the Army Medical Department’s outstanding flight surgeons. In March of this year, he announced in a video posted on YouTube that he w ould refuse to obey orders until receiving proof of the President’s eligibility. So far, more than 225,000 people have viewed that video.

McInerney’s affidavit can be viewed here.

The following are excerpts:

The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.

As a practical example from my background I recall commanding forces that were equipped with nuclear weapons. In my command capacity I was responsible that personnel with access to these weapons had an unwavering and absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential– vital– in the event the use of those weapons was authorized. I cannot overstate how imperative it is to train such personnel to have confidence in the unified chain of command. Today, because of the widespread and legitimate concerns that the President is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, I fear what would happen should such a crisis occur today.

In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. That training mandates that he determine in his own conscience that an order is legal before obeying it…Indeed, he has publicly stated that he “invites” his own court martial, and were I the Convening Authority, I would have acceded to his wishes in that regard. But thus stepping up the bar, LTC Lakin is demonstrating the courage of his convictions and his bravery. That said, it is equally essential that he be allowed access to the evidence that will prove whether he made the correct decision.

For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that LTC Lakin’s request for discovery relating to the President’s birth records in Hawaii is absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this President whether his service as Commander in Chief is Constitutionally proper. He is the one single person in the Chain of Command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship. This determination is fundamental to our Republic, where civilian control over the military is the rule. According to our Constitution, the Commander in Chief must now, in the face of serious– and widely held– concerns that he is ineligible, either voluntarily establish his eligibility by authorizing release of his birth records or this court must authorize their discovery. The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here. Our military MUST have confidence their Commander in Chief lawfully holds this office and absent which confidence grievous consequences may ensue.

Whoa!

General McInerney joins Sarah Palin, Andrew McCarthy, Lou Dobbs and Bernard Goldberg who have all previously said that the birth certificate question is fair game.

Hat  tip:Ace, who says what I’ve been basically saying for two years:

I’m getting sort of tired of telling other people they’re crazy to want to see this.

They’re not crazy. They want to cross the t’s and dot the i’s.

Why the hell is Obama playing games? You wanted the job, dickhead, so go down to Human Resources and put your friggin’ Social Security card on the copying machine like every other person.

UPDATE:

Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry (Ret) believes that this issue, among others is reaching critical mass with this President:

Share

87 thoughts on “Lt. General Thomas McInerney (Ret) Signs Affidavit Requesting Obama’s Birth and School Records

  1. “You know, I thought the birth certificate issue was over except as a fodder for libs to taunt Republicans with during an election year. But I was wrong.”
    __

    No, I don’t think you were wrong.

    From a legal perspective this case has nothing to do with the birth certificate. Military laws make it clear that LTC Lakin was required to obey his orders regardless of his convictions about the President’s eligibility — in fact, he was required to obey his orders even if the President was ineligible. Does that sound odd? Maybe so. But ask any military lawyer — there’s no doubt about it. (And, by the way, LTG McInerney is no military lawyer.)

    What this means is that, since the President’s eligibility has no bearing on LTC Lakin’s guilt or innocence, it is widely expected that no evidence on that subject will be admissible at the court-martial. LTC Lakin had better find some other defense to the crimes with which he is charged, as the penalties are rather severe.

    Disagree? The hearing is tomorrow. We’ll find out.

    Like

  2. This is just stupid. This issue was DOA back when it first popped up. It’s completely pointless now.

    We have many, many perfectly legitimate reasons to criticize the President. Let’s focus on the facts we have, rather than wildly speculate on the facts we don’t. This guy is plummeting in the polls: all we need to do is keep pointing out how misguided and ineffectual his economic polices are, and how intrusive and expensive all his other initiatives are.

    This sort of thing just undermines our credibility on the real issues.

    Like

  3. I wasn’t sure that I understood the necessity of making Obama reveal the birth certificate in the case. But I do understand why they feel it’s important for him to do so.

    It’s a constitutional requirement, and he’s spent untold amounts of money on lawyers to keep it hidden.

    I don’t think it’s stupid, or silly or moot. I think he’s a jackass for not revealing it, since so many Americans have questions, including members of the military.

    And I agree with what the guys in that second video were saying. We’re reaching critical mass with this President. People have just about had it with the lies, the insults, the flouting of the country’s laws, the trampling of the Constitution…taking the worst possible position on every single damn issue.

    Critical mass. Somethings got to give.

    Like

  4. nicedeb, maybe you can explain this.

    LTC Lakin has said in his videos and in his public appearances more than once that he would be satisfied as soon as the birth certificate were shown.

    But now, “Safeguard our Constitution,” the web site that’s supporting him, say that Lakin’s defense team has requested “subpoenas for all of the president’s school records.”

    What the hell is that all about? Now they’re moving the goalpost!?

    Are you honestly going to tell me that any uniformed officer should feel free to disobey his deployment orders until the President turns over any documents demanded of him?

    Come on, get real! What kind of military works like that?

    Fortunately, the military law on the subject is clear. Obama’s records have nothing to do with the charges against Lakin. Lakin is toast.

    Like

  5. nicedeb, maybe you can explain this.

    I can’t explain anything having to do with military law. And I agree that this case is probably doomed.

    But I do understand where they’re coming from, since proof of citizenship is a constitutional requirement for POTUS, and because of his particular background, people would like to see that long form. School records I suppose would indicate if he was attending college on a student visa.

    Like

  6. Yes, I understand. But if “this case is probably doomed,” what’s the point? LTC Lakin, if convicted, could spend years in prison; and every expert on military law agrees — raising questions about the President’s eligibility does not qualify as a defense against the charges. Unless he has some totally unrelated defense, his is practically guaranteed a conviction.

    Why are people encouraging him to do this? Aside from riling up the base, it will accomplish absolutely nothing, while LTC Lakin himself will suffer the consequences.

    How can you claim to care about this man? Why are you throwing him under the bus?

    Like

  7. What are you talking about? This is the first I’ve reported on or even heard of the case.

    I’m neither encouraging him or discouraging him.

    It’s a news story.

    Like

  8. I’m really surprised that a LTC would do this. It’s what’s known in some circles as “career-limiting”.

    We know he’s not going to win this one. If he wins, Obama gets thrown out the window, Biden becomes President, and the world collapses. If he loses, we’ll hear no more from LTC Larkin. In the best possible outcome, he’ll be assigned to running a clinic in Reykjavik. In the second-best, the clinic will be in Leavenworth.

    In an entirely unrelated issue, it has been worrisome that we haven’t seen any of Obama’s school records and papers (there is one school paper article, which isn’t very comforting). Even Hillary’s graduate thesis is public (it’s not very comforting, either).

    Why is this avid promoter of “transparency” so guarded about his past?

    That crack about “wearing my birth certificate on my forehead” is a typical debater’s rhetorical trick. “Birthers” might have more credence if they posted Bush’s and Clinton’s; then they could say, “here’s these, where’s yours?”

    Like

  9. @nicedeb: “It’s a news story.”
    __

    I wasn’t referring to the news story. I was referring to the comment in which you said that you “understood the necessity of making Obama reveal the birth certificate *in the case.*”

    We can have a separate discussion about “the necessity of making Obama reveal the birth certificate.” But to play into the fantasy that somehow it can be done through this case is to feed the frightfully self-destructive choice that Lakin has made. There is essentially no chance that a birth certificate will be revealed in this case, and if LTC Lakin realized that perhaps he wouldn’t be sacrificing himself to a case that — according to you — “is probably doomed.” Others with more legal knowledge than yours have expressed the same sentiment in stronger terms.

    So why do you play to the destructive fantasy that there is a plausible connection between the Lakin court-martial and Obama’s birth certificate and, now — LOL!! — school documents?

    Like

  10. Someone said:

    “since proof of citizenship is a constitutional requirement for POTUS…’

    If that were true, then every president before Obama would have broken this requirement. Not one of them proved that he was a Natural Born Citizen. Not one of them even showed a birth certificate. Not one, until Obama did. He showed the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed twice by the two top officials of the department of health and department of vital records of Hawaii, and most recently by the governor of Hawaii.

    However, as has been said above, none of this is relevant to the Lakin case. All that has to be shown is that Lakin as given an order by a superior officer, and that the order was legal. Since the Afghanistan War is a legal war, approved by Congress during the Bush administration, the order to go and serve in it is a perfectly legal order. Lakin will lose, and the court will not demand any documents from Obama.

    Like

  11. I wasn’t referring to the news story. I was referring to the comment in which you said that you “understood the necessity of making Obama reveal the birth certificate *in the case.*”

    Huh? Reread what I said. I said I wasn’t sure I understood the necessity….

    In other words it didn’t make sense to me.

    Dude, your troll-fu is weak.

    Like

  12. Not one of them proved that he was a Natural Born Citizen.

    Yes, It was made a question in 2008 re McCain because he was born on a military base in Panama, and he settled it, promptly. Obama never did. The certification of birth that his campaign posted online was insufficient proof, since it’s the long form only, that would settle many of the questions people have because of the particular circumstances of his personal history, (growing up in Indonesia, eg.) If you really want to understand the issue better, read the Andy McCarthy post I linked to in the article.

    Like

  13. You said: “It was made a question in 2008 re McCain because he was born on a military base in Panama, and he settled it..’

    I said very clearly previous presidents, and McCain was only a previous candidate.

    McCain MAY have settled it or not. Did you actually SEE his birth certificate? (Hint, the one that is online is not his. He said that he was born at the family hospital on the Naval Base in the Canal Zone. The one that is online says that he was born at the Colon Hospital, which is not even in the Canal Zone. That “birth certificate” was posted by McCain’s enemies.

    McCain never posted anything. But then he is in good company. Neither did Bush, or Clinton, or Bush41, or Reagan, or any of them. They neither posted nor published their birth certificates.

    Re: “The certification of birth that his campaign posted online was insufficient proof, since it’s the long form only, that would settle many of the questions people have…”

    Answer: The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. It is used every year by thousands of people. Since it is the official birth certificate of a US State, it is sufficient. But, more than that, the officials of the Department of Health and the Department of Vital Records and most recently the governor of Hawaii have all confirmed that the facts on Obama’s Certification are accurate, that he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

    Re: “because of the particular circumstances of his personal history, (growing up in Indonesia, eg.).”

    If you search for the birth certificate of the Nordyke twins, and compare it with the Certification, you can see easily that there are different formats. Well, sure, the Certification is the new official birth certificate and the other is the 1961 long-form. But, as far as I can see, the only things that the short-form eliminates from the original birth certificate is the name of the doctor and the name of the hospital. The original would not show anything about Indonesia or his religion or the marriage status of his parents.

    Then why doesn’t he show it? First because it is unnecessary, the Certification is the legal document. Second because it is impossible. Hawaii did not send it to him. Hawaii has not sent out the original birth certificate since 2001.

    Then why has Obama spend $XX million defending lawsuits? Answer, there was never a lawsuit against Obama for his birth certificate. The overwhelming majority of the lawsuits tried to stop the election, stop the Electoral College from voting, stop the congress from certifying or stop the Inauguration. The remaining lawsuits (and there are only a few) always asked that a court declare that Obama was ineligible to be president. These also were not lawsuits for the birth certificate, they were to have Obama declared not the president.

    So Obama has shown the official birth certificate, and the facts on it were repeatedly confirmed.

    I have read the Andy McCarthy post (I read it back in July 2009). He says that the birthers have legitimate questions. He does not say that these questions would be answered by the original birth certificate. He says: “The overwhelming evidence is that Obama was born an American citizen on Aug. 4, 1961, which almost certainly makes him constitutionally eligible to hold his office. I say “almost certainly” because Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues.”

    But we were not discussing anything but birth in Hawaii so far. McCarthy says that the evidence that Obama was born in Hawii is overwhelming. If you grant that Obama was born in Hawaii, as the overwhelming evidence shows, then we can discuss the other aspects of Natural Born Citizen status, such as the two-parent theory and the dual nationality theory, and if you like the “lost citizenship in Indonesia theory.” One at a time. Which would you like first?

    Like

  14. I said very clearly previous presidents, and McCain was only a previous candidate.

    I didn’t address that because it was a dumb point. Nobody questioned the citizenship of “Bush, or Clinton, or Bush41, or Reagan, or any of them”. Although it would be a very good idea, if going forward, we made proof of citizenship a requirement for all Presidential candidates, and an FBI background check might have been helpful in Obama’s case, too.

    As for McCain, the question was settled for the vast majority of Americans.

    A senior official of the McCain campaign showed reporters a copy of McCain’s birth certificate issued by the Canal Zone hospital,

    Then in April 2008 the Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain’s status as a natural born citizen. In September 2008 a judge ruled it is “highly probable” that McCain is a natural born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural born citizen retroactively.
    -Wikipedia

    Obama’s citizenship questions has never been settled. The certification may be a legal document, but it’s inadequate because of questions about his duel citizenship. He may not HAVE to produce the document, but he should because a significant number of Americans would like the question settled. Um, he’s been to Hawaii number of times, and could have produced the long form birth certificate, if he had wanted to.

    But we were not discussing anything but birth in Hawaii

    I’m not questioning his birth in Hawaii.

    I totally agree with McCarthy’s appraisal. It pretty much mirrors mine. I think there’s a question of duel citizenship to be answered. I have no doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii, but there’s something on the long form he doesn’t want people to see, or he would have released it.

    When did asking for someone to be vetted become a bad thing?

    Obama and his handlers may have thought this was a winning issue for him early on, when he was riding high in the polls….but he’s not anymore. After watching this man operate for a year and a half, Americans are recoiling. The ”birther’ smear may not have quite the punch it once did.

    It boils down to an issue of trust. As McCarthy pointed out in the article, Obama has lied to the American people so much, a significant number of us – perhaps a majority at this point, do. not. trust. the. man.

    Like

  15. http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/08/31/ayfkm-its-not-about-the-birth-certificate-or-the-religion/

    It is about dual citizenship and the rule of law. If he can ignore this requirement, why can’t kids drive when they are 10? (I don’t have to show my birth certificate, the president didn’t)

    “Obama states he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. If that is the case, he was then both an American citizen and a British citizen at birth because his father was a citizen of the protectorate of British East Africa. Because the region had, in 1961, not yet declared its independence from Great Britain, Obama was, like his father, a British citizen under Section 32(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948. Both Obama, Sr. and Obama, Jr. then automatically became citizens of Kenya when that independent nation was formed in 1963. Obama’s British/Kenyan citizenship automatically expired when he turned age 21, but he was born with dual citizenship and split loyalties, and thus was arguably not a natural born citizen of the United States. [219, 258, 492, 549]”

    Like

  16. obama could NOT have security clearance to become an FBI agent with the documentation he has produced so far. But we gave him the keys to the whole country, and this was a clear mistake.

    Like

  17. 1. Name of Doctor and nurses at Birth.
    2. Name of hospital.

    All these records would clean up this mess in 10 seconds. Why is he hiding these two very simple items that would end this fiasco forever?

    Like

  18. Re: “Nobody questioned the citizenship of “Bush, or Clinton, or Bush41, or Reagan, or any of them”

    You mean that because there are Web sites that quote Obama’s Kenyan grandmother as saying that he was born in Kenya when she actually said that he was born in Hawaii, Obama should show something in addition to the legal birth certificate of Hawaii which has been repeatedly confirmed?

    You mean that because there are people who are willing to forged “Kenyan birth certificates’ Obama should show something in addition to the official, legal birth certificate of Hawaii which has been repeatedly confirmed?

    You mean that because some people think that the original “must be hiding something” but there aren’t any fields in the original that would show anything about religion or Indonesia or in fact anything significant other than the official (The name of the hospital is hardly significant if you grant that Obama was born in Hawaii) Obama should show the original?

    You mean when Hawaii did not send him the original and might not send in the original even if he begged for it because it doesn’t send it to anyone else (Not since 2001), Obama should show the original. I said MIGHT. It might or it might not, but why should Obama request something that other people do not get? Why do that when it is unnecessary?

    Yes, the original would show the name of the doctor and nurses and the name of the hospital. But revealing those things would not “clean up the mess.” Birthers would simply claim that the original was forged. Four Hawaii officials have said that Obama was born in Hawaii. Most who have posted on this site agree that he was born in Hawaii. What could the original show that affects this?

    If you will agree that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the posting of his original birth certificate cannot affect this, or the Indonesia issue or the dual citizenship issue, then we can move on. I will discuss any one of those issues or all of them (one at a time), but not until you agree that the original birth certificate is irrelevant to them and that Obama has proven his birth in Hawaii.

    Like

  19. @nicedeb — “Obama’s citizenship questions has never been settled. The certification may be a legal document, but it’s inadequate because of questions about his duel citizenship.”
    __

    It *may* be a legal document? It *is* a legal document, and under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution it is full legal proof of the information it contains unless the document itself can be proven to be invalid.

    But now you’re making no sense. If your concern is about “duel [sic] citizenship,” what difference would a “long form” make? We know about his father’s Kenyan citizenship; there are no facts in dispute. So why is the COLB inadequate?

    And, by the way, we also know what the unanimous of the Indiana Court of Appeals said in a decision specifically about Obama’s eligibility, Ankeny v. Governor:

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    Now that you’ve shown yourself to be a full-fledged Birther, how about giving up the lame pretense that you’re just reporting the news?

    Like

  20. You mean that because….

    As I’ve already said, I mean because he spent a good chunk of his youth in Indonesia and there are questions concerning his duel citizenship.

    I will discuss any one of those issues or all of them (one at a time), but not until you agree that the original birth certificate is irrelevant to them and that Obama has proven his birth in Hawaii.

    No, I will not agree that Obama has proven anything with the document he provided online.

    And if the more detailed birth certificate would confirm that he was born in Hawaii, why is he keeping it sealed, (along with so many of his other records? Why the cover up? Why is it so difficult for him to produce his birth certificate once and for all, and prove his American citizenship to an increasingly dubious public?

    And why are you “discussing” this issue with me, anyway?

    Like

  21. Re the Indonesian duel citizenship issue…

    What I have read online, and this could be wrong…is that if Obama had been adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii, his original vault copy Hawaii birth certificate would have been sealed; a new vault copy Hawaii birth certificate would have been issued under his new name and any future documents would show Lolo Soetoro as his father.

    At any rate…we all know there are more details about the President on the birth certificate, and people would like to know what his true personal history is, since he hasn’t been square with us about much of anything.

    Like

  22. Re: “No, I will not agree that Obama has proven anything with the document he provided online. ‘

    Well then there is no point in discussing the Indonesian or dual citizenship claims.

    If you can prove that Obama was born outside the USA, go right ahead. But only proof that he was born outside the USA would affect the fact that he has a legal birth certificate showing that he was born in the USA and that four officials in Hawaii (the original clerk, the two officials who confirmed and the governor) all said that he was born in Hawaii. Also there is the witness and the Kenyan grandmother.

    If this does not prove that he was born in the USA what would the original birth certificate do to prove it? (Sure it would give the names of the doctor and the hospital, which would be nice, but what would it prove?)

    Once again, unless you say that Obama has proven that he was born in Hawaii, I will not discuss the Indonesia or dual nationality issues with you.

    Like

  23. @nicedeb — “What I have read online, and this could be wrong…is that if Obama had been adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii…any future documents would show Lolo Soetoro as his father. ”
    ___

    “[A]ny future documents,” like the COLB issued in 2007? So are you saying that, since it does not show Soetoro as his father, according to your source that shows he was not adopted?

    And are you aware that, even he were adopted, that would have no impact on his presidential eligibility?

    Like

  24. NICE DEB,
    I see you have kicked up rucus with some Lefty Trolls who have been well coached on this issue. But no matter who says what, yours is the Last Word in this when you write that: It boils down to an issue of trust. As McCarthy pointed out in the article, Obama has lied to the American people so much, a significant number of us – perhaps a majority at this point, do. not. trust. the. man. (Sura 2:29)

    Like

  25. Trust has nothing to do with eligibility. If you do not trust him, vote against him. But the absence or presence of trust does not show that a president was born in or out of the country or that he was adopted or that his father’s citizenship affects his status.

    Lack of trust would certainly affect an election. But it does not affect eligibility.

    Like

  26. The lack of trust is what’s driving the issue. People want to know more about his background because he’s been dishonest about it. Obama refuses to reveal it.

    Once again, unless you say that Obama has proven that he was born in Hawaii, I will not discuss the Indonesia or dual nationality issues with you.

    Well, thank you so much for deigning to discuss the issue with me as much as you did. I won’t take up any more of your time.

    Like

  27. @nicedeb — Are you claiming that he’s been “dishonest about [his background]” insofar as it concerns his eligibility for the presidency?

    Can you document that please — you know, as part of reporting the news?

    Like

  28. “[A]ny future documents,” like the COLB issued in 2007? So are you saying that, since it does not show Soetoro as his father, according to your source that shows he was not adopted?

    No, I have no idea how that would work. That’s why I think it would be nice to see the long form certificate.

    And are you aware that, even he were adopted, that would have no impact on his presidential eligibility?

    No, my understanding is that he would have become an Indonesian citizen at that point. That is where things become unsettled.

    Like

  29. He has been dishonest about his background, yes, (among so many other things). He’s got a massive credibility problem with a majority of the American people because of it, in case you haven’t noticed.

    You can go read the Andrew McCarthy piece for examples.

    I’m moving on.

    Like

  30. Well, your understanding is incorrect. US federal law is very clear on the fact that there is nothing that a child’s parents can do — remarriage, adoption, etc. — that would have any effect whatsoever on the child’s American citizenship. That should be easy enough for a news provider to find out, but I’ll give you a reference if you like. I know you wouldn’t want to continue to report falsehoods.

    Now, I asked you to document your claim that he has been “dishonest about his background” and you have offered nothing.

    And I suspect you have nothing, or you wouldn’t be so interested in moving on.

    You are engaged in very shoddy journalism.

    Like

  31. Oh, and by the way:

    “FORT MEADE, Md. (AP) ― A military judge in Maryland has refused to order the release of school records that could include a copy of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

    The judge ruled Thursday that those records and any other evidence or witnesses pertaining to Obama’s birth are not relevant to the case and will not be admitted.”

    wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/Md.judge.denies.2.1892398.html

    Like

  32. Dude. This is not an issue I follow closely, as I indicated at the very beginning of my post…yet you want to drag me into a debate all the minutiae of it.

    Here’s my position in a nutshell:

    A significant number of Americans including Active Reservists & Inactive Ready Reservists are questioning his questioning his eligibility. Now, there’s an active duty Lt. Col. who faces PRISON if found guilty.

    Obama could very easily put an end to this by releasing his birth certificate and other documents he has sealed. He hasn’t. Why not? What’s he hiding? What kind of damaging or embarrassing information is he hiding?

    Nothing, you say?

    Then let’s see it.

    Now, I asked you to document your claim that he has been “dishonest about his background” and you have offered nothing.

    Oh please. Shoddy journalism? We’re in the comment section. When I post a story about Obama’s lies (which is quite often because he lies constantly)I offer tons of documentation. I tabulated his lies for 5 months during the election year, for crying out loud. But I’m not gonna waste my time in the comments tracking down all of his well established lies. I’ve got better things to do.

    I told you Andrew McCarthy covered those well in his piece I linked. So, you’re being dishonest when you say I’ve “got nothing”.

    And if you can sit here and tell me Obama’s a man of stellar character who doesn’t lie to the American people on a regular basis, you’re either lying or a complete idiot. I figure you’re just a typical dishonest lefty.

    Like

  33. Nonsense, I’m only trying to get you to back up the statements that you yourself have made, and I’m not about to do your research for you.

    Now are you actually trying to imply that it’s Obama fault that Lakin will likely go to prison? How do you figure that? Lakin has taken the contumacious position that any officer, in time of war, can simply refuse to obey his deployment orders because he has doubts about the President’s eligibility.

    It’s a free country and he’s free to have his doubts. But he is not free to disobey his orders if they are facially valid. I know you’re not up on this issue, but that’s the law. And Lakin actually has the nerve to suggest that he has the right to put together any list of documents that he alone determines to be relevant, and then sit back and fold his arms until the President drops what he’s doing and complies with his demands.

    LTC Lakin announced in public that he was planning to disobey his orders unless the President met his demands. He thereafter received a counseling letter reminding him that his doubts about the President’s eligibility would not constitute a legal defense. He went ahead and did it anyway, and is likely to suffer serious punishment. There’s not a single military lawyer in the United States who will tell you that what he did was a legal option for any member of our armed forces.

    If you don’t like the President, don’t vote for him. But he has more important things to do than appeasing flagrant violators of the law.

    Like

  34. My suspicion is that Lakin knew he would get nowhere, but that he would be able to raise attention for his cause. He’s pretty dedicated, though – not many people would throw away a colonel slot on an issue like this.

    Like

  35. Okay, from the Andy McCarthy piece I linked to above which you refuse to click:

    Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Hussein Obama claimed it was a “smear” to refer to him as “Barack Hussein Obama.” The candidate had initially rhapsodized over how his middle name, the name of the prophet Mohammed’s grandson, would signal a new beginning in American relations with the Muslim world. But when the nomination fight intensified, Obama decided that Islamic heritage was a net negative. So, with a media reliably uncurious about political biographies outside metropolitan Wasilla, Obama did what Obama always does: He airbrushed his personal history on the fly.

    Suddenly, it was “just making stuff up,” as Obama put it, for questioners “to say that, you know, maybe he’s got Muslim connections.” “The only connection I’ve had to Islam,” the candidate insisted, “is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from [Kenya]. But I’ve never practiced Islam.” Forget about “Hussein”; the mere mention of Obama’s middle initial — “H” — riled the famously thin-skinned senator. Supporters charged that “shadowy attackers” were “lying about Barack’s religion, claiming he is a Muslim.” The Obamedia division at USA Today, in a report subtly titled “Obama’s grandma slams ‘untruths,’” went so far as to claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother is a Christian — even though a year earlier, when Obama’s “flaunt Muslim ties” script was still operative, the New York Times had described the same woman, 85-year-old Sara Hussein Obama, as a “lifelong Muslim” who proclaimed, “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith.”

    Such was the ardor of Obama’s denials that jaws dropped when, once safely elected, he reversed course (again) and embraced his Islamic heritage. “The president himself experienced Islam on three continents,” an administration spokesman announced. “You know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father . . .” The “Muslim father” theme was an interesting touch: During the campaign, when the question of Barack Hussein Obama Sr.’s Islamic faith reared its head, the candidate curtly denied it with an air of what’s-that-got-to-do-with-me? finality: “My father was basically agnostic, as far as I can tell, and I didn’t know him.” And, it turns out, the spokesman’s fleeting bit about “growing up in Indonesia” wasn’t the half of it: Obama had actually been raised as a Muslim in Indonesia — or, at least that’s what his parents told his schools (more on that in due course).

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227978/suborned-u-s/andrew-c-mccarthy?page=2

    See also:

    https://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/the-lies-of-barack-obama/

    Like

  36. Yes, I read that myself. But I stopped after a couple of pages because it did not begin to address the question I asked you — “Are you claiming that he’s been “dishonest about [his background]” insofar as it concerns his eligibility for the presidency?” (@1:41)

    And you still haven’t touched upon the subject. Please show how he has been dishonest about his background insofar as it concerns his eligibility for the presidency.

    Like

  37. I have maintained that he has been dishonest about his background, (as well as many other matters..too numerous to catalog here) period.

    Don’t put words in my mouth. He’s alarmingly dishonest, and people don’t trust him. That’s why they’re asking for more info.

    Like

  38. But it matters, doesn’t it? People always distrust politicians with whom they disagree; that’s par for the course.

    On the other hand, if there’s reason to believe a President has misrepresented his eligibility, there may be cause for concern.

    Which is why I ask what reason you have to believe that he misrepresented his eligibility. You said, for example,

    “The certification of birth that his campaign posted online was insufficient proof” (@11:47)

    …but that’s false. A Hawaiian COLB is an official Birth Certificate, the only one Hawaii issues, and it proves when and where he was born.

    “No, my understanding is that he would have become an Indonesian citizen [if he was adopted]. That is where things become unsettled.” (@1:50)

    …but that’s false. U.S. law is very clear on that point; nothing regarding U.S. citizenship becomes “unsettled” by an adoption.

    So far you have not cast any doubt upon his eligibility, so simply saying you don’t trust him for other reasons just sounds like typical political posturing.

    Like

  39. I find the concealment of his school records very bizarre — not to mention the utter lack of curiosity from the hole where our free press used to be.

    Like

  40. Arthur B, another unemployed (by the ability to post all day during a typical work day) leftist troll. Gee, if you could actually get a life and half a brain someday you might unravel all this and realise WHY you dont have a job.

    Like

  41. People always distrust politicians with whom they disagree; that’s par for the course.

    This President goes far far FAR beyond par for the course. A lot of politicians lie. This guy takes it to far different level. If you can’t see that, you’re blind, or it’s your job to defend him.

    My position here has been consistent.

    For some reason Obama is concealing his records. That, and constant lying makes people suspicious.

    If he doesn’t have anything to hide, he could put an end to and disclose the long form birth certificate.

    Like

  42. @nicedeb — “If he doesn’t have anything to hide, he could put an end to and disclose the long form birth certificate.”
    __

    No, you know that’s not true. You yourself have raised the issue of the purported Indonesian adoption. How would the “long form birth certificate” put an end to that?

    You yourself have raised the issue of his “duel” citizenship. How would the “long form birth certificate” put an end to that?

    And your own article, above, makes it clear that he must produce his school records as well. How would the “long form birth certificate” put an end to that?

    Who do you think you’re kidding when you pretend that the long form birth certificate would be the end of anything?

    Like

  43. Arthur B.: You’re carrying the argument to extremes. (But then, so is everyone else.) It’s a “slippery slope” argument.

    Seeing the birth certificate would resolve those other points.

    The bit about school records is really a separate subject. It would hold even if we knew for certain that he was born in Virginia.

    The issue of school records goes to the matter of “transparency”. It goes to the issue of “just what do we know about this man?”. We know a little – for example, that he came of age in Chicago, under the influence of Saul Alinksy’s radicalism. We know that he’s been running for the next office ever since he was first elected. We know that he likes to vote “Present” on controversial issues. We know – from absence of evidence to the contrary – that he’s not much impressed with this country, its military, or its form of government.

    Not exactly what one would like to see in an ideal President.

    Like

  44. @ZZMike — “Seeing the birth certificate would resolve those other points.”
    ___

    What do you mean? How would showing the birth certificate resolve the claim that he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father and thereby lost his American citizenship?

    How would showing the birth certificate resolve the claim that even if he was born here, his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship precludes him from being a natural-born citizen?

    I realize you don’t like him as president; fair enough. But when the claim is made that there are factual and legal reasons to question his eligibility, then evidence is required. And legal procedures must be followed. Otherwise, it’s just — as I said to nicedeb — typical political posturing.

    Like

  45. And your own article, above, makes it clear that he must produce his school records as well. How would the “long form birth certificate” put an end to that?

    Who do you think you’re kidding when you pretend that the long form birth certificate would be the end of anything?

    You mean the article I linked to?

    The long form birth certificate would end the questions about his citizenship for most people.

    The other questions are periphery, but certainly people have a right to ask to see these too. Why is he hiding so much? Where’s the transparency?

    Like

  46. “Who do you think you’re kidding when you pretend that the long form birth certificate would be the end of anything?”

    Arthur b,
    Your a fraud, and here’s why.
    Never once have you agreed to releasing the information of the attending doctor, nurse and Hospital of birth. Everyone would just go away after these facts were investigated and people interviewed.
    Being an old cop I fear that Nicedeb has the key to the whole problem. Every nerve in my body is screaming ‘liar’ about our president.
    You sound like all the defense lawyers I’ve ever dealt with. Knowing their clients are guilty ,then obscuring and obstructing any and all evidence.
    You work for someone on the left Arthur. Your strategy is typical. This is why this ‘birther issue’ is getting out of hand. Because people believe this president has the “Audacity” to pull something like this off.
    People smell the smoke and the elite are hiding the fuel of the fire. I wouldn’t be surprised the information comes out after the next election when he’s out for good.
    But useful idiots will keep up the obscuring and obstructing. That’s why they’re useful.

    Like

  47. @nicedeb — “The long form birth certificate would end the questions about his citizenship for most people.”
    ___

    I’m afraid you are wrong — and, as you have said, “This is not an issue [you] follow closely.” In fact, in the bulk of the birther material that I have read in the last 6-12 months, most serious birthers have backed off from insisting that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, leaning instead on the lack of U.S. citizenship of his father. (The Indonesian adoption theory seems to have been given a bit of a rest except for some of the more extreme elements.)

    From that point, the argument takes one of two related paths. In the first one, the claim is made that the Constitutional requirement for a “natural born citizen” in fact requires two citizen parents, even for someone born on U.S. soil. The second builds on the fact that, under British law, Obama’s father’s British citizenship would have been passed along to Obama himself. This is true, but there is no conflict between dual citizenship and natural born citizenship, not to mention the fact that the President’s British citizenship expired on its own years before his campaign.

    But both of those arguments, invalid though they be, are currently in vogue in the birther community — they form the backbone of most of the more recent law suits — and perhaps it is just your ignorance of the situation that leads you to maintain that the waters would be calmed by the release of an obsolete form of birth certificate in addition to the legally valid one he has already released.

    Here’s a question for you: Do you agree that both of those citizenship arguments are bogus? If not, then your statement that “The long form birth certificate would end the questions about his citizenship for most people” isn’t even true when applied to you.

    Like

  48. @oldwolves — “You sound like all the defense lawyers I’ve ever dealt with. Knowing their clients are guilty ,then obscuring and obstructing any and all evidence.”
    __

    LOL, that’s a good one! Have I been obscuring and obstructing your attempts at producing evidence? I didn’t realize I had so much power on this blog!

    Please, if you’ve got evidence, let us have it! Of course, as an old cop, you must know that whatever “[e]very nerve in [your] body is screaming” is not evidence.

    But please, if you’ve got real evidence, let’s see it!

    Like

  49. Here’s the evidence: People don’t believe him and don’t trust him because he’s a pathological liar. Millions of Americans are not sure he’s natural born citizen, and would like to see his birth certificate to prove it. What I personally believe doesn’t matter here. Those are the facts. We’ve got active duty members of the military who are not sure their Commander in Chief meets the requirements to lead them.

    Even if his certification proved he is POTUS already, he could be should be magnanimous and remove all doubt by releasing his long form birth certificate. But he refuses to do that. Either he thinks this is a cute political issue that benefits him, or he’s got something to hide. Either way – Disgusting.

    Like

  50. @nicedeb: “he could be should be magnanimous and remove all doubt by releasing his long form birth certificate.”
    __

    I’m sorry — did you miss my question? Do you really think the long form birth certificate would “remove all doubt” given the citizenship arguments I outlined a short time ago? Would it “remove all doubt” for you?

    And, by the way, I’m sure the “old cop” will confirm that no matter how strong your gut feeling of distrust may be, that’s not evidence. I shouldn’t have to tell you that.

    Like

  51. He’s right Deb, it’s not evidence. It’s substantial belief due to previous proven lies and continued evasion of practical data leading to the belief that the personal integrity of the subject is leading to a reasonable conclusion that the subject is currently lying.
    Having said that you’ll find people like Arthur debating what reasonable is. This is what lawyers do. Defend the guilty.

    Like

  52. Thanks for the confirmation, oldwolves. (By the way, I’m not a lawyer.)

    I’m getting a big kick out of the fact that nicedeb’s idea of a strong argument seems to be that the President of the United States should go out of his way to be “magnanimous” in appeasing the demands of those who consider him a “pathological liar”! But, I guess when you’ve got no evidence, that’s all you’re left with.

    Like

  53. Arthur. Arthur. Arthur.

    You tell me everything I need to know about you when you pretend that it’s unreasonable to consider Obama a pathological liar.

    Wow….

    Dude.

    But you’re absolutely right. I have no evidence. Obama does…and he refused to release it.

    Like

  54. What our friend Arthur here keeps dancing around, is the known fact that it WAS possible at that time to obtain the “Certificate of Live Birth” in Hawaii, by something as simple and possibly less “legal” , as an announcement in the local newspaper. This is what leads to the questions. I love how, with his pretentios tone, he keeps using the term “lack of evidence”. When it is clearly BHO that has no evidence to back up any claim that he makes. Like – “The Recovery is Strong!” and “this is the summer of recovery” Where is the evidence for these statements?

    Like

  55. Your welcome Arthur,
    I try to explain to people how the guilty are always defended by those who should know better, but ladies like nicedeb are always trying to find the good in people.It’s a flaw we find admirable in her.She may actually believe, that she may convince you, but she doesn’t accept that your agenda won’t permit any thing other than the ‘point of law’ which you so expressly defend. She finds it frustrating to argue with justifiable theories and they being ignored.
    But we know better , don’t we, Arthur. Some people look for light. Others seek only the shadows that lie.

    Like

  56. @nicedeb — “You tell me everything I need to know about you when you pretend that it’s unreasonable to consider Obama a pathological liar. ”
    __

    No, now you’re lying. I never said anything like that. I have maintained all along that you are entitled to your opinions and never spoke of them as unreasonable. If you trust him, if you don’t trust him, if you consider him a total truth-teller or a pathological liar, I accept that. As I’ve said many times, that’s a fact of political life.

    Where I have my dispute is with your claim that your opinions of his credibility constitute evidence of his lack of eligibility. On that you are simply dead wrong, as oldwolves has confirmed.

    By the way, would you finally care to answer my question? Since you said “he could be should be magnanimous and remove all doubt by releasing his long form birth certificate,” does that mean that he would remove all your doubts? You would not claim either of the citizenship arguments as pointing to his lack of eligibility?

    I wonder why you’re dodging that one so furiously!

    Like

  57. @Steve — “the known fact that it WAS possible at that time to obtain the “Certificate of Live Birth” in Hawaii, by something as simple and possibly less “legal” , as an announcement in the local newspaper.”
    ___

    LOL, talk about lack of evidence! Why don’t you show me where you got that one from? Got a good source?

    Don’t forget, the Certification of Live Birth that he posted was issued not “at that time” but in 2007, and the State of Hawaii makes it perfectly clear on one of its web sites that “Certifications of Live Birth … are official government records documenting an individual’s birth.” (hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl)

    But I’ll wait and see. Perhaps your evidence is equally convincing!

    Like

  58. I’m dodging because it’s none of your damn business what I personally think. I’m not going to let you inside my head. This post wasn’t about what I believe. It’s about what a significant number of Americans believe, and why doesn’t Obama just put an end to it and release the stupid document.

    Period. End of discussion.

    Now, you’ve wasted enough of my time.

    Like

  59. @Steve —

    Sorry, nice try. The statement that “Certifications of Live Birth … are official government records documenting an individual’s birth” is a simple statement of fact concerning Hawaiian law. Can you tell me why you think it applies only to the COLBs of people applying for the Hawaiian Homelands program?

    On the other hand, as far as your “evidence” goes, did you notice that the page you pointed to has a little “L 1982” at the end of it? That refers to the fact that the law was passed in 1982, over twenty years after Obama was born.

    And when the Governor of Hawaii states that Obama was born in Hawaii, is she lying or simply mistaken?

    Like

  60. @nicedeb — “why doesn’t Obama just put an end to it and release the stupid document.”
    ___

    Oh, you are hysterically funny! You keep pretending that the “stupid document” will “put an end to it” but you won’t even confirm that it will put an end to it for you!

    Do you really think you’re fooling anyone with this tripe?

    Like

  61. “And when the Governor of Hawaii states that Obama was born in Hawaii, is she lying or simply mistaken?”

    We will never know WHICH, now will we? 🙂

    I am Out of Arthurs loony bin C-Ya

    Like

  62. @Steve — We will never know WHICH, now will we?
    __

    Actually, we know it was neither — unless and until such time as someone proves that he wasn’t born there!

    Like

  63. but you won’t even confirm that it will put an end to it for you!

    Of course releasing the long form would put an end to the B.C. issue for me…

    That’s what I’ve been saying from the beginning. Have I been unclear?

    Like

  64. @nicedeb — “That’s what I’ve been saying from the beginning. Have I been unclear?”
    __

    No, not unclear — dishonest.

    What you actually said was:

    “The long form birth certificate would end the questions about his citizenship for most people.” (@11:48, emphasis added)
    ..and I’ve been asking if you are among those people for whom “[t]he long form birth certificate would end the questions about his citizenship.”

    So, what’s your answer?

    Like

  65. Aw…you want to revisit the duel citizenship issue, don’t you? But this post wasn’t about that. It was about releasing his birth certificate to put an end to the B.C issue. And it would.

    Like

  66. @nicedeb —

    No, I’m not looking to revisit anything. I’m looking to point out the blatant hypocrisy of those who, like you, say that “the long form birth certificate would end the questions about his citizenship for most people.”

    You said it, but it’s not true, as you’ve demonstrated by your own example. As is customary with birthers, you are perfectly happy to move the goal posts. And for most of the serious birthers — those who, unlike you, pay close attention to the issue — the birth certificate question, as I pointed out earlier, has already proved to be a dead end — it’s gotten harder and harder to deny that the COLB is in fact a valid, legal Hawaiian birth certificate, and with the Republican Governor of Hawaii confirming publicly that Obama was born there, most of the birthers have shifted their ground to what they consider greener pastures.

    So spare us please your sanctimonious appeal for Obama to be “magnanimous.” The people who, like you, consider him to be a “pathological liar” are hardly in a position to request magnanimity, especially since you’ve made it clear that even if he released the “long form birth certificate” absolutely nothing would be resolved and the false charges concerning his eligibility would continue.

    In the legal system of the United States, we don’t ordinarily require people to repeatedly prove things that they have already proved. The Hawaiian COLB is legal proof of when and where he was born, a document used and accepted every day in Hawaii and elsewhere.

    If you’ve got evidence that he was not born in Hawaii, that’s another story. But as you’ve admitted repeatedly, the only evidence you have is distrust. I wouldn’t expect the President of the United States to show you any magnanimity on that basis.

    Like

  67. @nicedeb —

    You know, it occurs to me, you may well be telling the truth when you say you don’t follow the issue closely, and so I may be unfairly assuming that you know more of the history than you really do.

    When the COLB was first posted online, the birther response was “It’s not valid, the serial number’s blocked out” and “There’s no seal on it.” When the next set of pictures came out showing the serial number and the seal, the response was “It’s a forgery,” and a couple of self-styled “document experts” — who refused to give their names — posted elaborate “proofs” of why the COLB was fake. Those claims were quickly discredited by real document experts and they were dropped — except for the small band that still follows “Polarik,” and even the freepers are getting sick of him. (Polarik, who has been unmasked and definitively shown not to be a qualified document expert by a long shot, was actually saying at one point that there never was an Obama COLB — that the photos shown online were photoshopped from scratch and that no hard copy ever existed.)

    So then it shifted to “Anyone can get a Hawaiian COLB — even his half-sister, Maya, who wasn’t born there has one.” But it took a couple of months to establish that no, Maya doesn’t have one. And of course in all that time no one — not a single person — ever showed a State of Hawaii COLB that had false information on it. The BC issue lost steam.

    There were still murmurs around the edges — “I won’t trust any BC that doesn’t have the doctor’s signature and the little footprints on it — and “Oh yeah, what’s the name of the hospital?” — but that died down when the Governor of Hawaii announced publicly what the name of the hospital was.

    And, little by little, the complaints about the COLB abated. You still hear it, especially from those who don’t follow the issue closely and just remember the old stories. But it’s not main-stream birtherism anymore, it’s been thoroughly debunked. The current birther theories are in a different category, because they are legal theories — in other words, there are no factual disputes, so no evidence is required. You know, theories like “You have to have two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.”

    Now, to be sure, those theories leave a little bit to be desired. If Obama used a fake birth certificate to get elected, he’s probably guilty of fraud, a serious crime. But since it’s universally accepted in legal circles that, under current Supreme Court rulings, anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen, all that can be hoped for is that the current Supreme Court will reverse that position. Of course that’s possible; but it’s hard to blame Obama for that because he was operating within the law as it was accepted at that time.

    Anyway, that’s why I’ve been so impatient with the birth certificate stuff. It’s old fake news; very few people buy into it any more. And since that’s the only part of the issue that the “long-form” BC would address, it’s very hard to take seriously the assertion that it would have any bearing on anything except giving a few birthers the satisfaction of saying “See, we made him do it, he’s running scared now!”

    Like

  68. nicedeb said:
    “Aw…you want to revisit the duel citizenship issue, don’t you? But this post wasn’t about that. It was about releasing his birth certificate to put an end to the B.C issue. And it would.”
    —–
    Why bother to “put an end to the B.C issue” when you have the next nutty “issue” in the pipeline?

    Then there will be the “foreign student” BS and more ad nauseum

    Better to just ignore you nutjobs.

    Like

  69. Why bother to “put an end to the B.C issue” when you have the next nutty “issue” in the pipeline?

    Yes, that’s pretty believable when you consider the Left’s history with Bush & Palin.

    Like

  70. Arthur,

    You have abused ND’s courtesy to the point of distraction. Unlike her, I have no compunction about shunting you into moderation, and frankly I think its overdue. She regularly posts 2-4 stories a day, and yet you have continued to perpetuate a pointless discussion on this particular topic for over day now.

    Do I think that he isn’t a citizen? No. I have issues with having everyone who would have to be going along to pull off such a deception. Do I think that there is an issue that he’d rather not confront? Yeah, but only because as a lawyer, I have issues with clients spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on well-heeled sharks from firms like Perkins Coie to prevent the disclosure of information that the public likely DOES have an interest in knowing, especially when it comes from the leader of the MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVAR!, and when those hundreds of thousands could be saved by the disclosure sought. Either there is something to hide, or he is getting the worst advice ever (which could be a possibility…the last guy from Perkins Coie I dealt with wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed). However, I see it as a dead issue, because even if we were to discover that he is foreign born, I fully expect that either nothing would happen, or we would be left with Slow-Joe Biden as the C-in-C, which I would look forward to as much as a gum extraction.

    Either way, this conversation is pretty much played out, and your adherence to it has grown very tiresome. Move on, or get used to moderation.

    Like

  71. You are correct that I have taken a great deal of space on your blog. Thank you — I appreciate the tolerance and hospitality that you have shown to an opposing view.

    Like

  72. Arthur.
    You haven’t responded to my very simple answer.
    Which hospital? What doctor and nurses?
    All this could be quickly investigated in a matter of days and finished once and for all. Forever!
    Why are you avoiding this? Where is the sense of not releasing these very simple and checkable facts?
    You’ve managed to evade reason so lets deal with facts. or how about a more direct question to you. Would you be satisfied if he released this info? Why or why not?
    Do you believe this information should be available?
    If the doctor and nurses were questioned , being the good citizens they are, and readily answered, wouldn’t that answer the question?
    Well?

    Like

  73. @oldwolves —

    I don’t recall failing to answer any of your questions, and I apologize if I did.

    But, as you can see, I have been placed on moderation for having “abused ND’s courtesy to the point of distraction,” and I really have no desire to participate in a conversation on other than a level playing field.

    Don’t get me wrong — I don’t quarrel with the moderator’s decision; had I been in his or her position I probably would have done the same thing.

    But it does end up creating the potential for stifling a free exchange.

    Like

  74. I unmoderated you because I thought you got dropped in the spam filter by mistake, but now I’m thinking one of the guys banhammered you…. for being such a pest.

    Anyhoo, I think we’re through with this discussion. We are at an impasse.

    Like

  75. @nicedeb —

    There shouldn’t be any doubt — “Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere” made the notice of my being placed on moderation public yesterday at 9:20 PM. As you can see, I thanked him for his hospitality, and I had no intention of returning.

    But then oldwolves asked me a question and chided me for not having responded in the past. I didn’t want to be rude and ignore him, but neither did I want to respond without knowing whether my responses were going to go through or not.

    This is your site and of course I respect your rules. If you are telling me that the discussion that oldwolves was trying to raise is finished, I certainly accept that.

    Like

  76. nicedeb, can you help me here?

    oldwolves is telling me that my “unmoderation has been removed” — whatever that means — but my previous post is still marked as “awaiting moderation.” There is no way I can tell whether I am under moderation or not until after I post.

    Let’s leave it at this: I will assume I am under moderation — which means I will not participate further in the discussion — unless you or another moderator explicitly tells me that I am not.

    Like

  77. oldwolves, you are being unfair. Those whose blog it is have a perfect right to place me under moderation. It was my decision not to participate under those conditions. You may not like the result, but I don’t think anyone is pretending about anything.

    Perhaps you and I will meet in another place at another time, and if that happens I will be happy to address your questions.

    Like

  78. I unmoderated you because I thought you got dropped in the spam filter by mistake, but now I’m thinking one of the guys banhammered you…. for being such a pest.

    Wasn’t me.

    Like

  79. “Perhaps you and I will meet in another place at another time, and if that happens I will be happy to address your questions.”

    No, you won’t. I allready know what your response will be. Good luck.

    Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s