rssWorldNetDaily Responds to Hoax Accusation
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 at 10:09 am
- 14 Comments
The editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily left a comment at TWI’s sister site, The Minnesota Independent, taking issue with the statement that the site “has been accused” of publishing hoaxes in the past, such as “poorly written and unauthenticated emails” allegedly between Barack Obama and Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga.
Who was it that challenged those emails? Nobody. They go unchallenged to this day. Why? Because they are authentic. Are you challenging them? On what basis? Because they were poorly written?
The answers are: Politico, because they’re obvious fakes, because they’re obvious fakes, because they’re obvious fakes, and “yes.” The fact that neither the Kenyan government nor the Obama campaign never commented on WND’s story should give pause to conspiracy theorist, not hope.
On his own site, Farah writes that he “strongly suspects” that the Kenyan “birth certificate” fronted at WND yesterday and Sunday is not real.
Follow David Weigel on Twitter
14 Comments
Pingback posted August 4, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
[...] Article: WorldNetDaily Responds to Hoax Accusation – Washington Independent Share and [...]
Comment posted August 4, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
So in saying that he's not sure if the birth certificate is real, this douchebag Farah manages to throw a few more smears on the president.
Way to stay classy, Joe. I bet you and Savage are getting a lot of yucks out of all this.
Comment posted August 4, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
This could be settled once and for all with the simple presentation of a real birth certificate. If there were nothing to this story, why not put it to bed?
Comment posted August 4, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
President Obama already did all that was required of him to become President of the United States of America. God, that feels good to day. “President Obama.”
Comment posted August 4, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
A real birth certificate has been presented, and this will never end for the birthers. You will always irrationally oppose the president and dream up ridiculous reasons why he shouldn't be in office, no matter how stupid or unfounded. And you will believe these fantasies, because you are deranged.
Comment posted August 4, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
Farah knew exactly what he was doing and why while maintaining a fall back position. The WND should remove the word “News” from it's title.
The question to ask about everything published – is the article reporting fact versus just relaying activities, hearsay, conjecture and pictures. If they are relaying facts then the author cannot use the media as a means to insight fear and anger. They would be responsible for the facts they report and be forced to correct.
Comment posted August 4, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Don't blame Republicans. The only one claiming that that Republican believe Obama's not eligible is WND. What about last August when WND verified the official BC was authentic?
Ask WND to explain this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE….
Comment posted August 4, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Don't blame Republicans. The only one claiming that that Republican believe Obama's not eligible is WND. What about last August when WND verified the official BC was authentic?
Ask WND to explain this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE….
Comment posted August 4, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Don't blame Republicans. The only one claiming that that Republican believe Obama's not eligible is WND. What about last August when WND verified the official BC was authentic?
Ask WND to explain this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE….
Comment posted August 4, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Don't blame Republicans. The only one claiming that that Republican believe Obama's not eligible is WND. What about last August when WND verified the official BC was authentic?
Ask WND to explain this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE….
Comment posted August 5, 2009 @ 3:07 am
It feels even better to say The First Black President of the United States of America, President Barack Hussein Obama. Oh, yeah, did I say that he was black? Blackety, black, black, black! BLACK!
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 11:21 am
Well, it's getting out in the drive-by media now.
From David Hahn, “Publisher StatePaper.com ” August 5, 2009.
Publisher: Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate
At StatePaper.com, we know by making this statement we will be instantly tagged as “racist,” “birther,” or other pejorative terms by those who defend the President of the United States. We often defend the President and the job he is doing and are regularly lambasted for being “too liberal” or an “Obama lover” by some of our most prolific critics.
But, here is the issue:
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our country. Article II of the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Without reciting them here, there appears to be some serious questions raised about whether President Obama was born in the United States or Kenya. We have not checked sources, but there are reports that some witnessed his birth in Kenya.
The President's campaign staff and then his administration have released and placed on the internet a “Certificate of Live Birth.” We do not dispute the validity or correctness of that document as others have tried to do, suggesting the use of computers to alter seals and names. By releasing this document the President agrees that the claims about his status as a natural born citizen is an open, important, public issue.
But, this “Certificate of Live Birth” is simply not the best evidence that the President and his administration could offer to lay to rest any doubt about his status as a natural born citizen.
Barack Obama is a lawyer and a graduate of Harvard Law School. All law students study the body of law we call “Evidence.” One of the core tenets of American law is the “best evidence rule” which requires the production of original, or certified copies, of original document to prove a fact. Abstracts and summaries are not original documents.
The President has offered an abstract (Certificate) of his birth, but not an original birth certificate which would be the best evidence of his birth. We need the best evidence so that it can do what the best evidence is meant to do; dispel the doubts about a fact. We need to see the Birth Certificate. That's the one that is often handwritten and signed by the doctor.
Lawyers and legal thinkers will, obviously, argue the finer points of the “Best Evidence Rule” and its applicability to this matter. But, that misses the point. The notion of “Best Evidence” is solidly-grounded in law. This is an important public matter and it seems now that the President has started down the path of offering some evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), he should offer the “best evidence” (Original Birth Certificate) which is the source document for his birth. The document behind the document which has been released. This is what is needed now in the court of public knowledge.
The fact in question here is the constitutional qualification of the President of the United States to hold office. With a simple nod, the President could offer the American people the best evidence, the source document(s), as he learned about at Harvard, and dispel those who question his birth as a natural born citizen. His failure to provide this best evidence, when it could be so easily done, raises only more questions, which fuels an ugly public debate.
I guess there are some things that not even a journalism school graduate can stomach.
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
Tuci, you loveable little Paulbot moron, an opinion column in a web-only college newspaper is the best you can come up with?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
