Questioning Obama’s eligibility

That birth certificate is phony

Joseph Farah, WND

The central debate over eligibility remains. The key question has never been where he was born. The key question has always been whether he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president.

I don’t know about you, but I’m persuaded the birth certificate released by Barack Obama’s White House is fake, phony, a fraudulent forgery.

Jerome Corsi, who has personally investigated Obama’s constitutional eligibility more seriously than anyone else, agrees.

Why?

Why release only a digital image of a document this controversial – one that cannot, according to forensics experts, be tested for authenticity?

Why would Kapiolani Medical Center still be so sensitive about Obama’s birthplace as to refuse all inquiries about Stanley Ann Dunham’s hospital stay – even threatening this week to call the police when the non-threatening 64-year-old Ph.D. and best-selling author Corsi merely had some questions to ask?

Now that Obama has claimed the hospital as his birthplace, why would Kapiolani still maintain an air of secrecy about it rather than celebrate and mark the historic birth of the first black president and the first from the state of Hawaii?

Why the anomalies associated with the document – including the so-called “layering” as seen by amateur and professional sleuths who have examined it?

Why the extraneous pencil markings found on both the White House release and the obvious earlier forgery showing a Kenyan birth?

What about the claims of the private detective in Honolulu who says the Hawaii health department prepared multiple birth certificates containing different data on Obama’s birth – including different doctors’ names, different birth hospitals and other details?

Why did former Hawaii health department director Chiyome Fukino state that she had seen the document and that it was partially typewritten and partially handwritten, when, in fact, the document released by the White House is all typewritten except for signatures?

Why were other doctors’ names associated with Obama’s birth? Why were other hospitals associated with it?

Why would Obama allow Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin to go to prison to protect his precious birth certificate – and then release it publicly two months later?

Why would Obama guard that document with expensive legal challenges for two years before releasing it just prior to the debut of Corsi’s book?

Why wasn’t the birth certificate amended or replaced when Obama was adopted by Indonesian stepfather Lolo Soetoro?

How could Barack Obama Sr. or Lolo Soetoro, both foreign nationals, possibly confer natural born citizenship on their son?

I could go on with questions like these that make me more suspicious today than ever before that Obama is still hiding the truth about his birth.

But the biggest mystery of all, perhaps, is why the media collectively have shown so little curiosity about the document – accepting it at face value immediately after its release without testing or serious questioning.

The only trouble is the news media are fearful about questioning Obama – holding him accountable to the same standards as previous presidents and previous presidential candidates.

Well, not this news agency.

WND has endured every imaginable form of abuse – as well as some unimaginable forms.

We’re not giving up.

Obama’s alleged birth certificate doesn’t answer the key questions we have been asking about constitutional eligibility. In fact, it raises even more.

Even if Obama were indeed born on Hawaiian soil, as the unverified document alleges, wasn’t he born with dual allegiances of the kind the founders attempted to rule out?

Even if Obama were indeed born on Hawaiian soil, as the unverified document alleges, wouldn’t his later adoption completely overrule the certificate, as adoptions do every day in this country?

The central debate over eligibility remains. The key question has never been where he was born. The key question has always been whether he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president.