I have a feeling the question above will be on the lips of more and more Americans in the coming months.
Mere days ago, I took a chance.
To my surprise and delight, more than 1,000 people responded in the first 48 hours with donations exceeding $25,000 to support the campaign. Not only that, but a few precious businessmen even offered free signage or space at greatly discounted rates to help out.
I have every reason to expect this campaign will be long lasting and hugely successful – allowing us to post this billboard in all 50 states in the coming months, along every highway and byway in this once great country.
Why would people get behind a campaign to ask this question?
Simple. Despite the fact that no other news agency in America has investigated or covered the controversy of Barack Obama’s birth, millions and millions of my fellow citizens are deeply skeptical about his constitutional eligibility to serve in the White House.
Because Obama has steadfastly refused to show the public or any controlling legal authorities his birth certificate, he has cast this suspicion upon himself. No one else can be blamed for it. There are many other reasons to doubt Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve, but I like to focus on the simple. It all starts with the birth certificate.
People ask me: “Well, Farah, isn’t it enough that his mother was a citizen? Are you nitpicking?”
Actually, no, I’m not.
Birth certificate question being raised in Ball, La.
In fact, I don’t even know who Obama’s real parents are or were. Without a birth certificate, we’re simply taking Obama’s word for it. Not one person alive today has come forward to say they were present at Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961.
I could go on and on for my own motivation in pursuing this matter of eligibility. But the point is this – I am pursuing it, and lots of Americans seem very eager to go along with me despite the near blackout on any other media attention to this subject.
I am now persuaded the only way we can resolve this matter is to get millions of Americans screaming about it. Otherwise, we’re certain to have another question of eligibility confront us in November 2012, when Obama seeks re-election.
My goal is to have the whole country talking about it well before then.
How to do that?
It’s working. By 2012, if necessary, I’m certain we’ll be placing billboards in Times Square.
I call it my “truth and transparency” campaign. Obama promised the most open and transparent administration in history. What we got instead was a guy who hides his birth certificate, his student records, who fails to explain his foreign travels to countries prohibited to American citizens and how he regained his citizenship after living abroad with his stepfather. As usual, Obama is saying one thing and doing another.
But some people want to know why I chose this simple slogan to raise this issue. Why not include Obama’s name on the billboard?
There are several reasons I chose the message: “Where’s the birth certificate?” There is only one birth certificate controversy in this country today – despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests.
In addition, I like the simplicity of the message. I like the fact that the message will cause some people to ask themselves or others about the meaning of the message. It will stir curiosity. It will create a buzz. I’m assuming when these billboards are springing up all over the country, it might even make some in the news media curious.
Remember the old commercial slogan? “Where’s the beef?” Remember how that phrase was on the tip of everyone’s tongue?
And there’s one more factor that persuaded me this was the way to go. Come 2012, campaign laws will pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning the names of presidential candidates. This one clearly doesn’t. I would like to see the federal government make the case that this is somehow a political ad.
Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign? Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The Founding Fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant “Fourth Estate” was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it.
I wish such a campaign were not absolutely necessary. I wish there were checks and balances in our political and electoral systems to ensure that constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates was established before politicians could assume the highest office in the land. I wish my colleagues in the news media believed the Constitution really means what it says and pressed this issue as hard as we have pressed it at WND. I wish radio talk-show hosts were bold enough to ask this question. But wishing is not enough. It’s time to raise the visibility of this issue vital to the rule of law in America. I ask everyone to pitch in and help WND make a simple yet profound statement: The Constitution still matters.