The mysteryof Obama's birth

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=107358

BETWEEN THE LINES

The mysteryof Obama's birth

Exclusive: Joseph Farah pokes holes in president's peculiar 'nativity story'
Posted: August 20, 20091:00 am Eastern
By Joseph Farah

Winston Churchill described Russia as "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."
The birth of Barack Obama could be similarly characterized.
The more we learn, the less we know.

Those who want to accept, at face value, the president's assertion that he was born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961, to Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham say asking questions about the president's constitutional eligibility is crazy because "you don't have any evidence to challenge it."

Try going to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get a driver's license without any documents and tell the clerk he or she doesn't have any evidence that you're not qualified to drive.
That's not the way it works. The onus should be on the person claiming the highest office in the land to provide the evidence that he is eligible.

So far, Obama has not provided even a shred of evidence to suggest he is qualified.

Last I checked, the Annenberg Foundation's FactCheck.org is not the duly appointed, constitutionally approved agency designated to determine whether U.S. president's are eligible for office. Last I checked, no public health department bureaucrat in the state of Hawaii is responsible for determining who is constitutionally eligible to be president of the United States. Last I checked, it wasn't up to Keith Olbermann to make that determination either.

Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: "The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama's presidency constitutionally legitimate?"

Part of the problem, of course, lies with those who should take this matter seriously – the Congress of the United States, the Federal Elections Commission, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the secretaries of state that supervised elections.

It's clear now, nobody checked – not Obama, anyway.

The Senate of the United States, to its credit, did hold hearings on the eligibility of John McCain. But to its everlasting discredit, it failed to hold Obama to the same standard.
Where's the evidence?

Indeed, where's the evidence that any controlling legal authority in America verified Obama was constitutionally eligible? There is none. And that's the problem.

There is, however, increasing evidence that Obama's nativity story is not what it was cracked up to be in the candidate's autobiography.

WND has been investigating that story for 11 months – and it becomes more of a riddle, a mystery, an enigma as each layer is peeled away.

What do we know about his parentage? Not much. We've never seen a marriage certificate. We've never seen a legitimate birth certificate. All we've seen in a divorce decree.

Even if we take Obama at his word and accept his "certification of live birth," a document easily accessible through fraud, the information contained thereon would lead me to believe, based strictly on the applicable laws, that he is not eligible. His "father" was a foreigner. His mother was too young to bestow natural born citizenship on a son. On the face of it, even a domestic birth would not qualify him as constitutionally eligible.

Yet, there is no conclusive documentation even to support those assertions – and lots of reasons to doubt them.

Recently, WND documented that Stanley Ann Dunham was in Seattle two weeks after Obama's alleged birth date. How did she get there with a newborn son – when airlines until 1972 prohibited travel by children less than 6 weeks old?

WND also documented that Barack Obama Sr. and Dunham never lived together as man and wife. Was this some kind of marriage of convenience? Was it a marriage at all?

WND also documented that no hospital claims the birth – not even the one Obama has asserted as his birth hospital.

WND also documented that Hawaii changed its own regulations about the suitability of "certifications of live birth" as evidence of actual births in the state for certain programs after WND pointed out these inconsistencies.

I guess we could just overlook all this.

I guess we could just forget about it all and "move on."

I guess we could just say, "Hey, we don't want to create a constitutional crisis – let's stop digging, let's stop asking questions."

But that's not me. It's not my nature. I love the Constitution. And I love truth.

So, as for me, I will keep peeling the onion.