MNow that Barack Obama has finally released his long-form birth certificate, the controversy is over. Right?

 

That's the news media's unanimous opinion.

 

Click here to learn more about the book that helped to reveal Obama's birth certificate.

 

Within minutes, perhaps seconds, of receiving the handout from the White House, our vigilant press watchdogs were busy attacking people like me and Donald Trump for even raising the issue of constitutional eligibility and proclaiming Obama meets all the requirements of the presidency.

 

Let me be the first to suggest the document Obama released demonstrates just the opposite – and raises far more questions than it answers.

 

For me, the release was not unexpected. For about two or three weeks, Jerome Corsi, author of the upcoming and already best-selling book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?," and I have been discussing our mutual expectation that Obama was going to be forced to act. Between the unprecedented success of the book in pre-sales, polls showing most Americans not believing Obama's birth narrative and Donald Trump's megaphone, he had no choice.

 

Obama recognized he was losing the battle for public opinion.

 

There's not a doubt in my mind that his central focus was to pull the rug out from under Corsi's book – which promises (and delivers, by the way) to prove Obama is ineligible for the presidency.

 

He was counting on the media to jump the shark as it did in the last 48 hours.

 

Now let me be the first to put everything in perspective and quickly dispatch the conventional wisdom about this new "proof" that Obama has released.

 

First, let's look at the document itself. I would like you to compare and contrast it with what I call the "control" long-form birth certificate from Hawaii circa August 1961 – the one belonging to the Nordyke twins, born just one day later than Obama's reputed Aug. 4 birthdate.

 

What do you see?

 

Do you see two documents that provide the same information? No. Do you see two identical documents? No.

 

Why not?

 

It's a simple question. Why would two long-form birth certificates from Hawaii, filled out at the same hospital within 24 hours of each other be so different? 

 

No explanation was provided by Team Obama, and, of course, none was requested by the media watchdogs who were in a hurry to show they didn't miss the biggest political fraud of the 21st century.

 

Sadly, if what is represented on this new "birth certificate" is an accurate representation of Obama's actual birth, it does not prove he is eligible to be president, but just the opposite.

 

One of the reasons I was so eager to see the long-form document is because I was relatively certain it would provide different information than we saw in the short form certification of live birth released in 2008. I was relatively certain Obama was hiding something, for instance, the real birth father. Because if Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was, in fact, his dad, then there is no way he is eligible to be president. He was a visiting student from Kenya, a subject of the United Kingdom. He conferred U.K. and Kenyan citizenship on his son at birth.

 

The men who wrote the Constitution and used the phrase "natural born citizen" as a requirement of office intended that future U.S. presidents would not have "divided loyalties" or even the appearance of "divided loyalties." In other words, the type of president they were trying to avoid with this language was the very type represented by Barack Obama.

But it gets worse for Obama.

 

His sister, Maya, recently confirmed that her brother was adopted at the age of 5 by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, who moved Obama there where he lived and attended school for several years. Though we do not have any citizenship records for Obama during this period, it is hard to understand how he could have been adopted by his Indonesian stepfather and moved to that country for years without a change in citizenship. But let's put that issue aside for a moment, because there's something about this adoption that is a game-changer with regard to the validity and accuracy of the "birth certificate" Obama just released.

 

Anyone who has ever been involved in an adoption knows a few things most others don't know.

 

When an adoption takes place in the U.S., the original birth certificate is either amended or replaced entirely with a new document that shows the adoptive parent or parents as the birth parents.

 

Question: Why is the adoption of Barack Obama not noted in the original long-form birth certificate released by the White House this week?

 

We can hypothesize, of course, since no member of the media has bothered to ask the question. Let's guess that the adoption took place in Indonesia and Hawaii authorities were never notified. Does that change the reality of the adoption itself? Of course not. But it does invalidate the document we all saw this week for the first time. It is not an accurate reflection of the most basic facts needed to determine Obama's eligibility for the presidency. That document should list Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro as his father – not Kenyan Obama.

 

So here we have a man sitting in the White House who has two fathers – neither of which is able to confer U.S. citizenship on their son.

 

And yet the Big Media look at this document and see no problems.

 

Meanwhile, I look at them and, for the first time, can report with confidence that there is no way on earth Obama is eligible to be sitting in the White House. He's not qualified. He doesn't meet the test. And he has provided all the proof we need to draw that conclusion.

 

But, I must tell you, there is much more to this story than I can briefly share here.

 

It's coming very soon in the book by Jerome Corsi that prompted Obama to release a document he hoped would quell this controversy.

 

With your help, we can ensure Obama's political calculation does not succeed.

 

Joseph Farah

Editor and Chief Executive Officer

WND.com

May 3, 2011

http://alerts@alerts.worldnetdaily.com