[piasa]

First of all, sourcing is important, particularly when someone is making a classic "appeal to authority," such as claiming a ex-CIA agent was a source to make people think the research is "above question," but taking care to leave off the actual identity so that alleged "fact" cannot be checked. The NYTimes, Dan Rather, etc use the appeal to authority to make anonymous sources sound more authoritative as well. Should we not be cautious?

Now if this guy's such a good source and has a good reputation his name would be right there. But if not, I can see why the name would be left off- that same shortage of info is after all why Obama is suspicious, aside from the obvious reasons such as the fact he's pushing bad legislation, he's a full-blown communist, he surrounds himself with terrorists, loves dictators, and no communist can honestly take the oath of office anyway.

If you don't know who the author is and don't care to inquire, what possible difference does it make to you if I ask the question?

[mkjessup]

OK, point taken, and good points they are.

My view of this can be summed up easily:

The article we’re talking about raises questions that are not refutable, i.e., the analysis of how Article II Section 1 applies, and how legislation even retroactively CANNOT make 0bama eligible to hold the Office of President.

I don’t care if the janitor in my local high school wrote that article, the facts are the facts.

I have yet to see anyone seriously debunk that article. I’ve seen people attack Joe Farah and WND, I’ve seen people suggest all sorts of things but the one thing I have NOT seen is a point-by-point refutation of the article itself, and that says more to me than whoever’s name does or does not appear on or in the article.

The NYT and the likes of Rather deal with lies as standard operating procedure, they wouldn’t know the truth if it ran up to them and chewed their ‘nads off. THIS article deals with a subject which is readily understood and is based not on lies, but on facts. If someone could disprove what was written regarding the various birth certificates that have been in use by the State of Hawaii, they would already have done so. If someone could disprove that Article II Section 1 of the Constitution means exactly what it says, they would have already done it.

If someone stands out in an open field, points to the sky and screams “THE SKY IS BLUE!”, I will look up and confirm if that sky is blue or not, I’m not going to say “excuse me, but who are you, what is your name?”

See what I mean?