Why I care about Obama eligibility issue

With the entire so-called "mainstream press" ridiculing those millions of Americans who still ask questions about Barack Obama's yet-unproven constitutional eligibility to serve as president, you might wonder why WorldNetDaily and Whistleblower persist, virtually alone in the major media, to cover this issue.

Personally, I'm interested in it for two simple reasons.

First: Barack Obama is hiding something. About that statement, there can be no dispute. Despite dozens of lawsuits, with plaintiffs including a former presidential candidate, a former deputy attorney general, many legislators, active-duty U.S. military and other serious people, Obama simply refuses to release his original, long-form birth certificate. That's the one that could actually prove he was born in Hawaii. What is posted on Obama's "Fight the Smears" website as well as FactCheck.org is the abbreviated short-form "certification of live birth" that could have been issued for a child born overseas, and thus does not prove he was born in Hawaii. What is so difficult about this to understand?

As I said, he's hiding something. I want to know what it is. And I want the world to know what it is.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born citizen" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 355,000 others and sign up now!

Ask yourself: Why would Obama have a team of high-priced lawyers fighting to stop his Occidental College records from being released? If I were elected president, don't you think my college records would be made public? Similarly, he has lawyers fighting all the eligibility lawsuits, many of which are simply demanding proof – which Obama could easily provide – of the specifics of his birth time and place, something the U.S. Constitution unequivocally and unapologetically demands of presidential candidates.

The lawsuits started well before Obama won the election. You'd think that after he won the November popular vote, after the Electoral College confirmed him in December, after he was inaugurated in January, the lawsuits would fade away. After all, he won – get over it. But the legal challenges attempting to compel Obama to prove his natural born citizenship are increasing, not decreasing, with each passing month. Perhaps the realization that he's damaging the country in unimaginable ways is imparting urgency to those who hope he can be removed from office if it's proven he obtained it by fraud.

All I know is, Obama is hiding something. After all, he has it totally within his power to make all these lawsuits and "birthers" look foolish with a simple, 30-second phone call to the Hawaii Department of Health, saying, "I authorize you to release to the public and press a certified copy of my complete, long-form birth certificate."

The rest of the press declines to cover this issue (except to mock it), not because there are no valid legal questions involved and not because it isn't newsworthy – what with dozens of lawsuits, some of them in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. No, they don't cover it because they're afraid of losing favor with the president they were largely responsible for installing, and they're also afraid of being marginalized and ridiculed by their colleagues in the press.

Ironically, the "mainstream media," as well as members of Congress questioned by constituents about the eligibility issue, and even the Obama administration itself, all cite as a primary "independent" expert source on the issue, FactCheck.org.

FactCheck.org is part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which critics point out is linked to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge organization where Obama worked for several years with former "Weather Underground" terrorist William Ayers.

But putting that association aside, let's look at what FactCheck.org actually says under the heading, "The truth about Obama's birth certificate." Explaining to website viewers what they're looking at – a short-form "certification of live birth" for Barack Obama – FactCheck.org says:

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

In other words, even the folks at FactCheck.org – cited reflexively and ad nauseam by everyone under the sun as the independent authority on Obama's birth certificate and proof that he's "natural born" – admit they haven't seen the real (long-form) birth certificate, can't get it from Hawaii, and can't even get an answer to their question about the long form.

Now, the other reason I care about this issue is because I still care about the Constitution.

It's a very dangerous thing in life to intentionally cross sacred boundaries, especially when you know you're doing it. It's hard – sometimes impossible – to get back on the right side again. For Americans, one of those great moral lines is violating the Constitution. For instance, once Congress starts spending taxpayer money on things not authorized by the Constitution, no matter how seemingly laudable or humanitarian, there is no stopping it. There is no other "line" to cross after the first one. So after you've justified crossing the sacred line and violating your oaths to God and man, the way seems clear. In front of you lies wide open territory as far as the eye can see – green pastures of plunder. Eventually we arrive at today's trillion-dollar spending bills and national and personal bankruptcy, the precursor to tyranny. All because we allowed our government to step over the sacred line of constitutional spending decades ago.

It's exactly the same with the Constitution's requirement that presidents be natural born.

And why is "natural born" important?

A great deal has been written about how critical it was to the founders that the nation's highest office and commander in chief be occupied only by people for whom utter loyalty to the USA, and not any other nation, was indisputable. John Jay, president of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779, and who later became the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote the following in a letter dated July 25, 1787, to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention and later first president of the United States. Note: The underlining of the word "born" was in the original:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Without debate, the "natural born" requirement for the presidency was introduced by the drafting committee and subsequently adopted by the Constitutional Convention, as Article II, Section 1: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

If we abandon the requirements for president specified by the Constitution – which millions of brave young Americans have fought, bled and died to protect – then we are no longer a constitutional republic of citizen sovereigns. We become just another rudderless, hell-bent nation ruled by selfish, ambitious, sinful – and sometimes sociopathic – men and women. Nothing special. Our former national blessing from God just a sad memory.

I don't think that's what we want America's fate to be. As I said, it's a lot better not to cross a sacred line – and this happens to be one.

That's why I still care about the eligibility issue.

Editor’s note: The April edition of Whistleblower magazine – titled "YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE?" – is WND’s definitive and comprehensive exposé of the Obama eligibility issue. For a limited time, get a $10 discount when you subscribe or renew.