I’ve been pointed to a rather remarkable set of messages at FreeRepublic.com. It appears that they have created an account for me and others who post here and then banned them. What do they call that — prior restraint?
Of course they are free to call me a “CON” and “turd” and “head Rat.” I’ve been called worse. While there have been a few folks (I can count on one hand) that were obscene, obnoxious, abusive and so disrespecting of the community that I banned them, I most certainly have not banned anyone just because of who they are or their point of view about this blog’s topic.
I frankly think that the members of Free Republic are quite capable of speaking for themselves and do not need to be protected from the likes of me. If they are afraid of facts and opposing points of view, then I suggest that this is an admission of an essential weakness in their position, and I daresay many of them know that this Obama ineligibility business is just imagining pictures in the clouds.
There is an accusation in the thread that a comment by James777 was deleted. But it’s still there, so I don’t know what that is all about. If you search on Google, it points to the top of the page and you have to scroll down. The link I gave goes directly to it.
For the record, I have not said that I doubted the authenticity or the timing of the Danae document; it is just not a birth certificate. It is an unauthenticated photocopy of a birth certificate, and would not be valid, for example, for obtaining a passport. I am certain that if President Obama were to release a similar document, on plain paper, lacking a raised seal and a stamp, and a date of issuance, no birther would consider it acceptable. How many posts on the Free Republic forum say that Barack Obama’s COLB is not authentic because it lacks a stamp and a seal? To call the Danae document a “birth certificate” would be hypocritical.
There were also some messages from an exchange between Mario Apuzzo and James777 where someone who does not follow the language carefully might be fooled into thinking that James777 falsely accused Apuzzo of lying. Apuzzo is hiding behind a technical distinction between “briefs” and “opening brief”. The fact of the matter is that the Appeals Court cited Apuzzo for failing to include the Berg decision in his opening brief, and Apuzzo only addressed it afterward. So while Apuzzo might be technically correct that he addressed Berg (after a thinly veiled threat of sanctions from the court), he failed to do so at the beginning. The court said:
We also note with concern that Appellants failed to cite Berg in their opening brief. See, e.g., N.J. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(3) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client. . . .”). Although Berg was filed only some two months before Appellants’ brief, it is unlikely it had not come to their attention given the identity of the issues.
It turns out that the Free Republic software issues the message: “This account has been banned or suspended” even when the account doesn’t exist. It doesn’t necessarily that the account has actually been banned or suspended. It might not have ever existed. The Free Republic comment by Red Steel is nonsense.