bam-bam's eligibility status.....

[Jay]

I know there have been lots of threads about this subject, but this item I just received this morning, is a bit different......

A commentator at Canada Free Press who earlier exposed the Democratic National
Committee used two separate forms to affirm Barack Obama's constitutional
eligibility to be president has heard back from readers and research – and now
reports Democrats failed to certify their candidate's eligibility in 49 of the 50
states.

The writer further reports that in most cases, certification of eligibility was also
missing from DNC filings during the primaries.

Read the latest on WND.com.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111286

 

[redneckmedic]

Yeah, Yeah, same old song and dance... So many facts, but nothing will ever come of it!!!

 

[Jay]

I just hadn't seen the original certification documents before. I'm sure he'll be able to dodge it. I would've never thought the Presidency would be able to be purchased so blatantly.

Just my opinion.....

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

However much truth might be in these reports...

It's from World Net Daily.

And as much as I'd LIKE them to be considered a reputable and mainstream news source, that just isn't the case.

(It may also be that the folks in charge of "deeming" someone or something to be reputable just don't like WND because they are quite far right)

-J-

 

[JetGirl]

However much truth might be in these reports...

It's from World Net Daily.

-J-

I see people write that a lot... but I've never seen why. What is it, like The Enquirer or something?

 

[Whosyer]

Any site that Chuck Norris has a column on, is ok by me. And I think anyone that says otherwise,should get a smackdown from the Chuckster himself.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

I see people write that a lot... but I've never seen why. What is it, like The Enquirer or something?

By reputation, the tend to play fast and loose with the facts.

Again, this is all colored by OTHER people's glasses. I, for one, just don't know. And, as I said, the OTHER people are those folks in the main-stream-media who will always look down upon A) upstarts B) Conservative viewpoints, and C) anything at all written from a Christian perspective, by Christians, and/or for Christians.

So, when you've got a news organization that combines elements of C with both A and B....

Plus, I'm personally skeptical of just about ALL news-reporting organizations. Yes, I'm a cynic.

-J-

 

[glockpatriot]

Any site that Chuck Norris has a column on, is ok by me. And I think anyone that says otherwise,should get a smackdown from the Chuckster himself.

AMEN! Whosyer.

 

[CarmelHP]

By reputation, the tend to play fast and loose with the facts.

So, it's like MSNBC or The New York Times then?

 

[StarKing]

The trick is to use them as a guide to find other more reliable sources to check, then do your own verification of the facts . . . assuming there actually are any.
I've learned not to trust any media reports, MSM or otherwise, but they are a good source of leads to find out for yourself what's up.