Monday, November 03, 2008

Debunking the slander about Obama's Citizenship.

Now I wasn't an Obama supporter obviously, being a rather devout Ron Paul fan etc.

But after the past few weeks of arguing with the dishonest insanity I see rampant on Republican and Libertarian discussion groups and mailing lists, I've learned a lot about the facts involved around many of the lies being told about Obama and I have to say that it's given me a lot more respect for the moral high ground his campaign has stuck to.

I wanted to include below a message I sent to one of the groups I'm a part of in response to their several times a day repetition at this point of the lies about Obama's Citizenship. I wanted to illustrate how desperately they keep telling these lies and how little effect it has to show them the facts and the evidence to the contrary.

Excuse my obviously aggravated insults therein, I think if you start reading back through the past few weeks of exchanges, you'll start to understand why I started resorting to using such accurate, if juvenile, monikers to address them.

(In response to Scott saying he was glad he'd signed a petition against Barack Obama challenging his Natural Born Citizen status.)

Because you're an idiot who can't read? Grow up you pathetic child.

I'll illustrate here for everyone how thoroughly I've debunked your childish insistent and desperate lies here.

And for the sake of thoroughness:

Every time you tell this lie again, dishonorable as you are, I'm going to paste this message again from now on showing that you've been told the truth repeatedly but have no interest in the truth or the facts. Only in intentionally trying to spread misinformation and lies to try to win an argument through dishonorable and dishonest means, through scare tactics and slander.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I tried to stop you from saying these stupid lies again.

If you read those you'd know that you're lying (not that you don't already know, which you do. You just don't care because you can't help it but be a stupid liar).

Obama's step-father couldn't have renounced his citizenship and I linked the US Code section a few weeks ago that explicitly stated that fact. MORON.


Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

I've covered this before.

See that? I pointed this out to you THREE WEEKS AGO.

It's pathetically obvious at this point that you have no interest in the truth. You deny all evidence and FACTS presented to you that debunk your lies and desperate conspiracy theories. If you were interested in truth, you would acknowledge things like what I pointed out above and STOP REPEATING THE LIES.


Of course you won't acknowledge that the state government, local government, health department and everyone else there has explained what the difference is between them, why the certificate looks the way it does, even had some of the people their show their certs as well that DID look identical etc.


I've explained all this before and linked you to numerous articles clearly explaining it. You stink of desperation and a pathetic need to flatly ignore the truth when it's right in front of you.

First link is more for Scott to explain the matter of jurisdiction in the case and why Berg's case was so amateur and unfounded. It's pretty embarrassing to read actually (and unlike some people here, I actually read the entire thing.)

Then this one for Aaron about citizenship and travel etc.

Then we move on to the pages that explain the situation:

Having read those, is it starting to sink in yet?

Maybe you need to go back and read them again... and pay close attention.

Let me know how it goes. :)

At this point Aaron has basically resorted to even more pathetic attempts at slander and has challenged me to come fight him in person to force him to be honest. Something that for any mature, rational, intelligent adult would have long since been accomplished by the repeated presentation of the facts, with evidence, with references, and with repeated explanations of the subject matter. As they say, you can lead a horse to water... *sigh*

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Update on UK "extreme porn" legislation

I reported on this back in July of last year and now it's back in the news again as it rolls forward.

As this new article in The Register points out, this legislation would make it illegal to have pictures of acts which themselves are perfectly legal under the government's justification that so called "extreme pornography" leads to violence. A very weak claim at best on their part.

Aside from the obvious comments on the trouble with the government becoming the "thought police", I found this quote from Lord McIntosh of Haringey rather poignant; "What does it matter to the Government whether what we have in our homes for our own purposes is for sexual arousal or not? What is wrong with sexual arousal anyway? That is not a matter for Parliament or government to be concerned about."