Can Anyone Trust WND?

[jvn]

I don't see how.

Here's their "story" today about the President's Mother:

Obama 'mama': 15 days from birth to Seattle class
Dunham signed up for assignments just 2 weeks out of delivery room

Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, was registered for college classes in Seattle only 15 days after reportedly delivering her first-born child in Honolulu, according to school records obtained by WND.

How Dunham was able to travel the 2,680 air miles from Honolulu to Seattle only a few days after the birth of her baby – at a time when trans-Pacific travel likely was at a speed half of today's jets – is not disclosed in the currently available public record concerning President Obama's birth.

Nor is there anything on the public record to explain how Dunham managed to find an apartment and relocate with her infant son so she could begin taking university classes within 15 days of the baby's birth.

<snip>

The transcript clearly documents that Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington in Seattle for two classes that began on Aug. 19, 1961: Anthropology 100, "Introduction to the Study of Man" and Political Science 201, "Modern Government."

Obama 'mama': 15 days from birth to Seattle class

Some pretty good slander, huh? Somehow this "story" is relevant to whether or not the Presidnet was born in Hawaii? Or is this just a chance to sling some mud at the President's deceased mother?

But then you look at the transcript and note that the two classes they reference ARE listed on the transcript -- but they are listed in a section entitled: "Extension and Correspondence Courses."

Surely even the "professional journalists" at WND can understand what a correspondence course is, right?

Can anybody here defend this nonsense?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You need to look up the definition of slander before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

 

[AllieBaba]

I tried to go to work (with big bad boys, in a group home for diminished capacity sex offenders) the day my last baby was born. My co-worker called our boss almost in tears begging her to forbid me from coming in.

I was back at work on day 3 afterwards. Work included cleaning, cooking and (if necessary) doing take downs. Personally, I was only involved in a couple of those. I was the program manager, I generally made sure I had workers who could back me up.

My guess is she had the apartment in place already, regardless of where Obama was born. People do that when they're heading to school and/or new jobs. I have a client who is heading to school at the end of the month...she's already got her apartment waiting for her, but she's working here until it's time to go.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well it looks to me that as a follwoer of the Messiah, you'd be all over this... and DEMANDING that WND was a ROCK of virtue and Journalistic integrity...

It seems to me that the timeline they've produced would indicate that the BOY King was born in Hawaii...

Granted he was conceived a bastard, but she did manage to get the socialist fuck to man-up and marry her; he just had nothing else to do with her beyond the technical license; which is typical of feminized leftist males.

But setting all that aside; if this is true, WHY doesn't he just provide his Birth cert? I mean as I've always said, the questions regarding his birth origins are CREATED BY HIM!

Now there's no reason why a guy born in Hawaii would spend MILLIONS of dollars to prevent people from seeing his Birth Certificate proving that... which means that there is SOMETHING amiss... what that is, is known only to him and if he wasn't the President of the US and didn't suffer the Constitutional resposibility to prove his birth origins, then such would be HIS BUSINESS.

The whole thing stinks... and as a general rule, where there's stink, there's rot... much akin to the 'smoke/fire' principle.

 

[noose4]

BREAKING NEWS ON WND!!!!!!!

 

[geauxtohell]

No WND can not be trusting. It's a right wing crank website that is heavily involved in the birther nonsense. I would take anything they say with about as much credibility as I give the Daily Kos.

JVN:

Libel is defamation in the written word. Slander is defamation in the spoken word.

 

[Neser Boha]

I don't see how.

Here's their "story" today about the President's Mother:

Obama 'mama': 15 days from birth to Seattle class
Dunham signed up for assignments just 2 weeks out of delivery room

Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, was registered for college classes in Seattle only 15 days after reportedly delivering her first-born child in Honolulu, according to school records obtained by WND.

How Dunham was able to travel the 2,680 air miles from Honolulu to Seattle only a few days after the birth of her baby – at a time when trans-Pacific travel likely was at a speed half of today's jets – is not disclosed in the currently available public record concerning President Obama's birth.

Nor is there anything on the public record to explain how Dunham managed to find an apartment and relocate with her infant son so she could begin taking university classes within 15 days of the baby's birth.

<snip>

The transcript clearly documents that Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington in Seattle for two classes that began on Aug. 19, 1961: Anthropology 100, "Introduction to the Study of Man" and Political Science 201, "Modern Government."

Obama 'mama': 15 days from birth to Seattle class

Some pretty good slander, huh? Somehow this "story" is relevant to whether or not the Presidnet was born in Hawaii? Or is this just a chance to sling some mud at the President's deceased mother?

But then you look at the transcript and note that the two classes they reference ARE listed on the transcript -- but they are listed in a section entitled: "Extension and Correspondence Courses."

Surely even the "professional journalists" at WND can understand what a correspondence course is, right?

Can anybody here defend this nonsense?

I don't think WND can be considered a reliable and unbiased news source - by any stretch of imagination. Yours is another proof of that.

 

[KittenKoder]

I don't see how.

Here's their "story" today about the President's Mother:

Obama 'mama': 15 days from birth to Seattle class
Dunham signed up for assignments just 2 weeks out of delivery room

Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama's mother, was registered for college classes in Seattle only 15 days after reportedly delivering her first-born child in Honolulu, according to school records obtained by WND.

How Dunham was able to travel the 2,680 air miles from Honolulu to Seattle only a few days after the birth of her baby – at a time when trans-Pacific travel likely was at a speed half of today's jets – is not disclosed in the currently available public record concerning President Obama's birth.

Nor is there anything on the public record to explain how Dunham managed to find an apartment and relocate with her infant son so she could begin taking university classes within 15 days of the baby's birth.

<snip>

The transcript clearly documents that Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington in Seattle for two classes that began on Aug. 19, 1961: Anthropology 100, "Introduction to the Study of Man" and Political Science 201, "Modern Government."

Obama 'mama': 15 days from birth to Seattle class

Some pretty good slander, huh? Somehow this "story" is relevant to whether or not the Presidnet was born in Hawaii? Or is this just a chance to sling some mud at the President's deceased mother?

But then you look at the transcript and note that the two classes they reference ARE listed on the transcript -- but they are listed in a section entitled: "Extension and Correspondence Courses."

Surely even the "professional journalists" at WND can understand what a correspondence course is, right?

Can anybody here defend this nonsense?

While WND is not more or less credible than any other media outlet, I am of the mind that "You sir, are an idiot."

 

[jvn]

Geez, it seems I have to spell it out for some of y'all...

WND and their reporter on crack, uhm, "crack reporter" Jerome Corsi draw the conclusion that Stanley Ann D. Obama was present in the Seattle area because they "found" on her "official transcripts" that she was registered for and "took" two specific classes in the Fall semester of 1961.

In drawing their grand conclusion, the conclusion upon which they base their entire story, they neglect the fact that these were listed on her "official transcript" as being either "extension course" or "correspondence courses," which would mean - in either event - THAT SHE DID NOT ATTEND CLASSES IN THE SEATTLE AREA IN THE FALL SEMESTER 1961.

In fact, the actual "proof" they have of Ms. Obama returning physically to the area is based on a time frame when the President was seven months old.

So, Ms. Obama took several correspondence classes while the Presidnet was an infant. What of it?

And yes, I am aware of the definitions of "libel" and "slander." In my opinion this stupid story did not rise to the level where one could even consider it a written document. This story is more like speculative gossip, a slanderous conversation.

But it serves as an example of the lengths people will go to in an attempt to smear the President and his family and the facts they will ignore and hope their readers ignore them as well...

 

[KittenKoder]

Geez, it seems I have to spell it out for some of y'all...

WND and their reporter on crack, uhm, "crack reporter" Jerome Corsi draw the conclusion that Stanley Ann D. Obama was present in the Seattle area because they "found" on her "official transcripts" that she was registered for and "took" two specific classes in the Fall semester of 1961.

In drawing their grand conclusion, the conclusion upon which they base their entire story, they neglect the fact that these were listed on her "official transcript" as being either "extension course" or "correspondence courses," which would mean - in either event - THAT SHE DID NOT ATTEND CLASSES IN THE SEATTLE AREA IN THE FALL SEMESTER 1961.

In fact, the actual "proof" they have of Ms. Obama returning physically to the area is based on a time frame when the President was seven months old.

So, Ms. Obama took several correspondence classes while the Presidnet was an infant. What of it?

And yes, I am aware of the definitions of "libel" and "slander." In my opinion this stupid story did not rise to the level where one could even consider it a written document. This story is more like speculative gossip, a slanderous conversation.

But it serves as an example of the lengths people will go to in an attempt to smear the President and his family and the facts they will ignore and hope their readers ignore them as well...

Show me one media outlet that has never reported something outrageous ... just one.

 

[Neser Boha]

Geez, it seems I have to spell it out for some of y'all...

WND and their reporter on crack, uhm, "crack reporter" Jerome Corsi draw the conclusion that Stanley Ann D. Obama was present in the Seattle area because they "found" on her "official transcripts" that she was registered for and "took" two specific classes in the Fall semester of 1961.

In drawing their grand conclusion, the conclusion upon which they base their entire story, they neglect the fact that these were listed on her "official transcript" as being either "extension course" or "correspondence courses," which would mean - in either event - THAT SHE DID NOT ATTEND CLASSES IN THE SEATTLE AREA IN THE FALL SEMESTER 1961.

In fact, the actual "proof" they have of Ms. Obama returning physically to the area is based on a time frame when the President was seven months old.

So, Ms. Obama took several correspondence classes while the Presidnet was an infant. What of it?

And yes, I am aware of the definitions of "libel" and "slander." In my opinion this stupid story did not rise to the level where one could even consider it a written document. This story is more like speculative gossip, a slanderous conversation.

But it serves as an example of the lengths people will go to in an attempt to smear the President and his family and the facts they will ignore and hope their readers ignore them as well...

Show me one media outlet that has never reported something outrageous ... just one.

This is not the only bullshit article this 'media outlet' has put out... Media outlet? Seriously? This is a website for all the whackos out there that couldn't get their shit published with any esteemed and real media outlets out there. What is exactly your point KK? Do you for some reason value WND?

 

[KittenKoder]

Geez, it seems I have to spell it out for some of y'all...

WND and their reporter on crack, uhm, "crack reporter" Jerome Corsi draw the conclusion that Stanley Ann D. Obama was present in the Seattle area because they "found" on her "official transcripts" that she was registered for and "took" two specific classes in the Fall semester of 1961.

In drawing their grand conclusion, the conclusion upon which they base their entire story, they neglect the fact that these were listed on her "official transcript" as being either "extension course" or "correspondence courses," which would mean - in either event - THAT SHE DID NOT ATTEND CLASSES IN THE SEATTLE AREA IN THE FALL SEMESTER 1961.

In fact, the actual "proof" they have of Ms. Obama returning physically to the area is based on a time frame when the President was seven months old.

So, Ms. Obama took several correspondence classes while the Presidnet was an infant. What of it?

And yes, I am aware of the definitions of "libel" and "slander." In my opinion this stupid story did not rise to the level where one could even consider it a written document. This story is more like speculative gossip, a slanderous conversation.

But it serves as an example of the lengths people will go to in an attempt to smear the President and his family and the facts they will ignore and hope their readers ignore them as well...

Show me one media outlet that has never reported something outrageous ... just one.

This is not the only bullshit article this 'media outlet' has put out... Media outlet? Seriously? This is a website for all the whackos out there that couldn't get their shit published with any esteemed and real media outlets out there. What is exactly your point KK? Do you for some reason value WND?

So, it's another Wicrapedia just with a right tilt to it ... my point is that you have none.

All media lies, all media sensationalizes, no matter what medium they use, it's still a media outlet.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Geez, it seems I have to spell it out for some of y'all...

WND and their reporter on crack, uhm, "crack reporter" Jerome Corsi draw the conclusion that Stanley Ann D. Obama was present in the Seattle area because they "found" on her "official transcripts" that she was registered for and "took" two specific classes in the Fall semester of 1961.

In drawing their grand conclusion, the conclusion upon which they base their entire story, they neglect the fact that these were listed on her "official transcript" as being either "extension course" or "correspondence courses," which would mean - in either event - THAT SHE DID NOT ATTEND CLASSES IN THE SEATTLE AREA IN THE FALL SEMESTER 1961.

In fact, the actual "proof" they have of Ms. Obama returning physically to the area is based on a time frame when the President was seven months old.

So, Ms. Obama took several correspondence classes while the Presidnet was an infant. What of it?

And yes, I am aware of the definitions of "libel" and "slander." In my opinion this stupid story did not rise to the level where one could even consider it a written document. This story is more like speculative gossip, a slanderous conversation.

But it serves as an example of the lengths people will go to in an attempt to smear the President and his family and the facts they will ignore and hope their readers ignore them as well...

Can you prove the story is a malicious lie?

 

[Diuretic]

Corsi

 

[Avatar4321]

Can anyone trust any media? I dont think we can.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I don't trust them. They are still on the BC kick. From what I have seen, they like to make claims that are not substantiated by facts.

 

[KittenKoder]

Can anyone trust any media? I dont think we can.

It's nice to know a few of us understand that.

 

[Neser Boha]

Can anyone trust any media? I dont think we can.

It's nice to know a few of us understand that.

Oh, come the hell on... I'm sure you can tell a difference in reliability between information given by BBC and information given by a website such as WND... I understand you're trying to be all philosophical about it - oooh, disinformation is everywhere - and on a certain level I do agree with you, but ... don't be defending such junk such as WND because it doesn't deserve it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Can anyone trust any media? I dont think we can.

It's nice to know a few of us understand that.

Oh, come the hell on... I'm sure you can tell a difference in reliability between information given by BBC and information given by a website such as WND... I understand you're trying to be all philosophical about it - oooh, disinformation is everywhere - and on a certain level I do agree with you, but ... don't be defending such junk such as WND because it doesn't deserve it.

Wow ... I have seen some stories (no I can't recall specifics) from BBC that were just like those from WND, just from the opposite angle. As for the sites ... Wicrapedia ... that is all I have to say on them.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Can Anyone Trust WND?

No. Didn't even have to read the story to know that one. WND, Newsmax, ThinkProgress, DailyKoz, Huffington Post and Townhall are not news sites. They are simply editorial sites that belong in the propaganda bin.

Sure, they may raise an interesting point or two every now and then, but anyone who believes what they post without independently verifying the facts is an utter fool.