Archive for March 12th, 2009

Amnesty Blames Israel for PalArab Abuse of Women

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

This is so convoluted I had to read the Amnesty International blurb twice to figure out what they were saying. The lengths this group will go to in order to disparage Israel is remarkable.

Amnesty International just came out with a report called Challenging Repression, on the state of human rights defenders in the Middle East and North Africa.

While the report does detail abuses of human rights activists in all the countries in the region, what it says about Israel shows once again that Amnesty has deep biases.

The most egregious example can be seen in this passage:
In the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the impact of occupation has been felt by women human rights defenders in a particularly acute way. Their long efforts to end gender-based discrimination have been thwarted by a sense that the primary need is to bring an end to Israeli occupation. The Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, stated after her visit to the OPT: “the deepening of the conflict in the OPT and the expansion of the tools of occupation has weakened the negotiating power of Palestinian women to challenge the patriarchal gender contract which has, in part, become a defence mechanism to keep the society intact”.

In a place where, as described by the Special Rapporteur, the “increased transgression of [Palestinian] land has left honour as the only viable ground for the preservation of societal identity – to the detriment of women”, women human rights defenders have found it increasingly hard to promote the principle of gender equality. Indeed, women human rights defenders who have advocated law reforms and supported victims of domestic violence have themselves been targeted by state agents and others. As a result, these activists have been gradually sidelined.

This is an amazing passage. Amnesty, without any evidence whatsoever, claims that Palestinian Arab men abuse women because they have no energy left for equal rights due to the oppressive “occupation.”

You see, the reason that Palestinian Arab women cannot be treated equally is because the “occupation” makes it difficult for misogynist Palestinian Arab men to listen to their side of the story. The men need to abuse women as a “defense mechanism” – they have become so emasculated by the “occupation” that they have no choice but to take it out on their wives and sisters!

The poor Palestinian men, according to Amnesty and the Special Rapporteur, are doing a noble thing by abusing women – it is how they keep their “societal identity.” If they would start treating women with respect, they would have nothing left – first they lose their land, and then they lose their very identities as misogynists!

The next logical step is honor killings.

Obviously this is all Israel’s fault. If only Israel would do the right thing and give them a state, then the Palestinian Arabs would treat women just as well as their brethren in Egypt and Saudi Arabia do.

And of course, Israel is darkly accused of “targeting” women’s rights advocates. No names given, no specifics offered, no idea what exactly is meant – but clearly Israel is no better than any of its neighbors in human rights in its “targeting.”

Furthermore, this is the only part of the section on women’s rights advocates that talks about abuse of women, something that is not in the scope of the report. There is nothing in the report about “honor killings” or anything similar; the rest of the section talks about human rights workers being abused, not women. Only when Israel is mentioned is the abuse of women mentioned.

It is a large report, and Amnesty is not sparing in its criticism of other countries. But this passage, and others in the report, show that Amnesty is hardly objective when it comes to Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

This post is brought to you by:




Christian Gifts from Israel – The Jerusalem Gift Shop

NYT Inadvertently Confirms IBD’s Logic in Denouncing Obama’s Embryonic Stem Cell Decision

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

In a scathing editorial Monday, the folks at IBDeditorials.com ripped President Barack Obama’s misguided, life-destroying, science-denying Executive Order that allows federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR).

Later, Nicholas Wade at the New York Times, in two paragraphs of his March 10 report (“Rethink Stem Cells? Science Already Has”), in essence confirmed the validity of IBD’s claim about ESCR’s relative uselessness in treating diseases and other human maladies — something adult stem cells, a blanket term describing any stem cells obtained from other human sources without destroying human life, are already doing.

IBD’s editorial shows that one doesn’t even have to be religious to recognize the fundamental disregard for science and ethics in Obama’s EO (bolds are mine):

Bailing Out Bad Science

….. With Obama lifting the restrictions on Monday, we will now be federally funding research that has yet to produce a single therapy or a single treatment of an actual human being, at least one that works. It has generated a lot of hope but very little change. It is he who is putting ideology over science.

What has handcuffed our scientists is the difficulty of controlling embryonic stem cells and what they develop into. They’re called pluripotent because they can develop into any type of human tissue, sometimes all at once.

Embryonic stem cells have a tendency to develop into one of the most primitive and terrifying forms of cancer, a tumor called a teratoma. Adult stem cells don’t have that problem.

….. It’s in the area of adult stem cell research that new discoveries are being made every day. Fact is, there are now hundreds of conditions and diseases actually being treated using adult stem cells drawn from umbilical cord blood and other nonembryonic sources.

….. Bush’s executive order banned federal funding only of new stem cell lines. Neither federal funding of existing lines nor private funding was banned. In fact, Bush was the first president to spend any money on ESCR at all. Clinton spent zero.

The (Los Angeles) Times notes, as we have, that in 2006 researchers led by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Japan’s Kyoto University were first able to “reprogram” human skin cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. But it claims the potential of these induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS) “is still unclear.”

No, it’s not. They can do everything stem cells from destroyed embryos can do, except without the moral baggage or the destroyed embryos.

I would replace “can do” in the last sentence with “someday dream of doing,” but that’s a relative quibble.

Wade’s report at the New York Times buttressed IBD’s claims, especially in these two paragraphs:

Members of Congress and advocates for fighting diseases have long spoken of human embryonic stem cell research as if it were a sure avenue to quick cures for intractable afflictions. Scientists have not publicly objected to such high-flown hopes, which have helped fuel new sources of grant money like the $3 billion initiative in California for stem cell research.

In private, however, many researchers have projected much more modest goals for embryonic stem cells. Their chief interest is to derive embryonic stem cell lines from patients with specific diseases, and by tracking the cells in the test tube to develop basic knowledge about how the disease develops.

Two points:

  • The second excerpted paragraph says nothing about using the results of ESCR for actual treatments or cures. This means, unlike with adult stem cells, that treatments or cures with ESCR aren’t even on the realistic scientific “chief interest” radar. Thus, Wade confirms that IBD is asserting the unvarnished truth.
  • Apparently “many researchers,” as noted in the first excerpted paragraph, are speaking “in private” because of fear of intimidation and retribution by ESCR supporters if they speak in public. It appears that we are seeing a situation analogous to how those who don’t buy into the Armageddon-like assertions of the global warming/climate change crowd are afraid of speaking out.

A further point from another source — an Ohio Right to Life e-mail reproduced at this Topix forum notes that the final paragraph of Obama’s Executive Order (specifically saying that “Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007, which supplements the August 9, 2001, statement on human embryonic stem cell research, is revoked”) removes the Bush-driven EO mandate that the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursue funding for adult stem cell research (ASCR).

Thus, not only has Obama dictated that ESCR be funded, he has removed any corresponding mandate for ASCR. He did not have to do this to satisfy ESCR supporters. This is of a piece with Obama’s radically anti-life legislative history, where as an Illinois Senator would not support a Born Alive Infant Protection Act because he feared it might open the tiniest door to recognition that an unborn child is deserving of the same protections as humans living outside the womb.

Even beyond the life-destruction issues, Obama’s EO not only opens the federal funding door wide open to what hasn’t worked, it takes away any incentive to assist what has. This is as profoundly an anti-real science decision as I believe I has ever seen out of any White House.

Original Link.

Newsweek’s Fineman Joins List of Obama Supporters Losing Faith

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

People are starting to see through the veneer of Obama’s charisma to the real man; the man who has no clue how to run this country.

Throughout last year’s presidential campaign, NewsBusters routinely reported that without the unprofessional and unconditional support of an adoring media, Barack Obama would never have gotten past the Iowa caucuses let alone John McCain.

One of his staunchest fans was Newsweek’s Howard Fineman who right after Election Day said: “Obama’s changing everything as he moves. His victory speech last night in Grant Park…was so memorable on so many levels.”

Well, like many so-called journalists who sycophantically gushed and fawned so much last year that they sent an inexperienced, unqualified junior senator who had never written one signficant piece of legislation straight to the most powerful office in the land, Fineman is now having second thoughts.

If the establishment still has power, it is a three-sided force, churning from inside the Beltway, from Manhattan-based media and from what remains of corporate America. Much of what they are saying is contradictory, but all of it is focused on the president:

  • The $787 billion stimulus, gargantuan as it was, was in fact too small and not aimed clearly enough at only immediate job-creation.
  • The $275 billion home-mortgage-refinancing plan, assembled by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is too complex and indirect.
  • The president gave up the moral high ground on spending not so much with the “stim” but with the $400 billion supplemental spending bill, larded as it was with 9,000 earmarks.
  • The administration is throwing good money after bad in at least two cases—the sinkhole that is Citigroup (there are many healthy banks) and General Motors (they deserve what they get). […]
  • A willingness to give too much leeway to Congress to handle crucial details, from the stim to the vague promise to “reform” medical care without stating what costs could be cut.
  • A 2010 budget that tries to do far too much, with way too rosy predictions on future revenues and growth of the economy. This led those who fear we are about to go over Niagara Falls to deride Obama as a paddler who’d rather redesign the canoe.
  • A treasury secretary who has been ridiculed on “Saturday Night Live” and compared to Doogie Howser, Barney Fife and Macaulay Culkin in “Home Alone”—and those are the nice ones.
  • A seeming paralysis in the face of the banking crisis: unwilling to nationalize banks, yet unable to figure out how to handle toxic assets in another way—by, say, setting up a “bad bank” catch basin. […]
  • Obama is no socialist, but critics argue that now is not the time for costly, upfront spending on social engineering in health care, energy or education.

Other than all that, in the eyes of the big shots, he is doing fine. The American people remain on his side, but he has to be careful that the gathering judgment of the Bigs doesn’t trickle down to the rest of us.

Well, Howard, maybe if you would have done your job last year rather than acted like a teenybopper in the presence of a rock star America would have found out just how unqualified this man was BEFORE they voted.

Original Link.

Secret Message Found In Lincoln Pocket Watch

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

Well this is cool.

WASHINGTON — For nearly 150 years, a story has circulated about a hidden Civil War message engraved inside Abraham Lincoln’s pocket watch. On Tuesday, museum curators confirmed it was true. A watchmaker used tiny tools to carefully pry open the antique watch at the National Museum of American History, and a descendant of the engraver read aloud the message from a metal plate underneath the watch face.

“Jonathan Dillon April 13 – 1861,” part of the inscription reads, “Fort Sumpter (sic) was attacked by the rebels on the above date.” Another part reads, “Thank God we have a government.”

The words were etched in tiny cursive handwriting and filled the the space between tiny screws and gears that jutted through the metal plate. A magnifying glass was required to read them.

Jonathan Dillon, then a watchmaker on Pennsylvania Avenue, had Lincoln’s watch in his hands when he heard the first shots of the Civil War had been fired in South Carolina. The Irish immigrant later recalled being the only Union sympathizer working at the shop in a divided Washington.

Dillon’s story was passed down among his family and friends, eventually reaching a New York Times reporter. In a 1906 article in the paper, an 84-year-old Dillon said no one, including Lincoln, ever saw the inscription as far as he knew.

Dillon had a fuzzy recollection of what he had engraved. He told the newspaper he had written: “The first gun is fired. Slavery is dead. Thank God we have a president who at least will try.”

For years the story went unconfirmed.

The watchmaker’s great-great grandson, Doug Stiles, first heard the tale of the engraving from his great uncle decades ago. He said the story had reached extended family as far away as Ireland.

A few months ago, he used Google to find the New York Times story, and last month he passed the information along to Smithsonian curators, who knew nothing about the engraving.

On Tuesday, watchmaker George Thomas, who volunteers at the museum, spent several minutes carefully opening the watch as an audience of reporters and museum workers watched on a video monitor.

“The moment of truth has come. Is there or is there not an inscription?” Thomas said, teasing the audience, which gasped when he confirmed it was there. He called Stiles up to read his ancestor’s words, drawing smiles and a few sighs of relief.

“Like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, this was the reaction he had (to the Civil War,)” Stiles said of the inscription.

Later, Stiles said he felt closer to the 16th president.

“My gosh, that was Lincoln’s watch,” he said, “and my ancestor put graffiti on it!”

Original Link.

“Who Needs God?” by Michael G. Mickey

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

By now we’ve probably all heard a thousand explanations why things are bad and looking worse for the immediate future here in the United States and, according to many, the world as well. Of all the explanations I’ve heard concerning why America is stumbling – and I’ve heard plenty – I can think of none that makes more sense to me than three articles I read yesterday, all of which echo the same information essentially.

The articles are:

Is the above a clear picture of a nation in trouble or what? The following is an excerpt from the USA Today story listed at the top:

When it comes to religion, the USA is now land of the freelancers.

The percentage of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation.

Freelancers indeed! This is what a generation of Americans taught from their youth to believe they’re little more than evolved chimpanzees looks like in its maturity – a godless bunch of moral relativists!

In Luke 18:8, Jesus asked, “…when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” As long as I’m still around, He will find at least some which I know is true of many of my readers, but what measures of it will He find overall? Fewer and fewer with every passing year it seems. This, readers, is a sign of the lateness of the hour we’re presently living in!

Luke 18:1: And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

While there are many Christians today who are faithfully serving the Lord to their full extent, many have come to faith in Christ and, subsequently, because of the weaknesses of flesh we all are subject to, fallen prey to the ways of the world. These brothers and sisters have bought into everything they’ve been told concerning the offensive nature of what Christ told us we were to be doing here until the time of His return for us and essentially ceased in their efforts to reach out to the lost and lead them to Christ. That’s why the number of Christians in America is dwindling and secularist mentalities are beginning to prevail in greater and greater numbers.

A lot of Christians today have ceased to pray with passion and fainted. These Christians have not died I would point out, but fainted. When we become faint we are naturally going to stumble a bit, but we can recover from a faint, can’t we? Yes and we desperately need to.

If the world has ever struck you with a heavy blow – and I have had my share – you’ve been dropped to a knee, which I’ve found to be a good place to begin working on your prayer life, asking the Lord to help you better utilize whatever spiritual gifts you’ve been given that you might help turn things around a bit wherever you are, one soul at a time.

While Christianity is suffering according to the second article linked above, there is one arena where Christianity is actually faring well. Where? In the “mega-churches” of course! Get a load of this:

In 1990, there were approximately 200,000 “mega-church Christians” but now?

By 2008, the number of mega-church Christians was over 8,000,000.

We should be glad about that, right? Wrong, because what is being taught in most of those churches is what I like to refer to as the “feel good gospel.” Going to church in one of these places is more like going to a self-help seminar than going to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ! That’s why these churches are doing well. They’re Gospel Lite, not Gospel Right! One never has to worry about having a toe stepped on at one of these churches. Having Jesus Christ as your Savior is more like accessorizing a nice dress with a matching purse than being key to your eternal destination. And that’s if they go to the trouble of inviting one to come to faith in Christ at all!

The final story linked above notes, in part, “that the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.”

Did you get that? Not even one state in our Union has a Christian population that can boast of doing a better job of reaching the lost for Christ than in years past. Take that thought away with you if you don’t anything else as it’s profoundly telling of how a large number of factors have led our nation into the gutter and left us so devoid of spirituality that we don’t even want to crawl back out of it! God help us!

Never in America’s history have we needed God’s hand of protection more than we do right now as anyone who is reading the news of our world today has to realize unless they’re living in a fairy tale world of their own creation. In spite of this, it seems most Americans are content to go it alone, both on a personal level and beyond.

Who needs God, right?

Original Link.

“Queen Nancy: Fly as I Say, Not as I Fly” by Michelle Malkin

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

Remember, they consider themselves to be the ruling class we are just here to serve them.. Their message to us: “Remember your place, Serf”.

Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is the Jennifer Lopez of congressional travel — fickle, demanding and notoriously insensitive to the time, costs and energy needed to accommodate her endless demands. On Tuesday, the indispensable government watchdog Judicial Watch released a trove of public records through the Freedom of Information Act on Pelosi’s travel arrangements with the U.S. military.

As speaker of the House, Pelosi is entitled to a reasonable level of military protection and transport. But it’s the size of the planes, the frequency of requests and last-minute cancellations, and the political nature of many of her trips that scream out for accountability.

And, of course, it’s the double-barreled hypocrisy. There’s the eco-hypocrisy of the Democratic leader who wags her finger at the rest of us for our too-big carbon footprints, and crusades for massive taxes and regulation to reduce global warming. Then there’s the Bay Area hypocrisy of the woman who represents one of the most anti-military areas of the country soaking up military resources to shuttle her (and her many family members) across the country almost every weekend.

Remember: Pelosi’s San Francisco is notorious for banning the Marines’ Silent Drill Platoon from filming a recruitment commercial on its streets; killing the JROTC program in the public schools; blocking the retired battleship U.S.S. Iowa from docking in its waters; and attacking the Navy’s Blue Angels — which left-wing activists have tried to banish from northern California skies for the past two years.

Apparently, those anti-war protesters have no problem with evil military jets currying Pelosi and her massive entourages to the funerals of the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Charlie Norwood; foreign junkets to Rome; and politicized stops to Iowa flood sites to bash the Bush administration. One exasperated Department of Defense official, besieged with itinerary changes and shuttle requests back and forth between San Francisco International Airport and Andrews Air Force Base for Pelosi, her daughter, son-in-law and grandchild, wrote in an e-mail:

“They have a history of canceling many of their past requests. Any chance of politely querying (Pelosi’s team) if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend? … (T)here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case.'”

Original Link.

Arguments of President’s Defenders Never Addressed Eligibility

Thursday, March 12th, 2009

In the last few months, dozens of U.S. courts have dismissed legal challenges to Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, and even the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hold a hearing on the evidence – but what have the courts actually cited as reasons for dismissing the concerns of millions of Americans?

Mootness, lack of jurisdiction, lack of responsibility, lack of standing, a series of “no comments” and even the fact the issue has been “twittered.”

The one subject that has been avoided to date has been whether or not the president is, in fact, eligible.

So far, there have been two definitive statements on the issue that have been made public, including one from an Obama campaign spokeswoman talking about the challenges who told WND, “All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage.”

The other is from Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, who issued a statement, “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

As with the court opinions, what is not said is significant. While the certificate on file is “in accordance with state policies and procedures,” there’s no affirmation that the document
reflects a Hawaiian birth.

Nor is there any explanation for the image of the Hawaii state “certification of live birth” that has been posted by Obama on the Internet, purporting to document his Hawaiian birth, even though Hawaiian procedures at the time allowed that document to be issued to parents of children not born in the state.

For example, why would an individual with a verified birth certificate also have a “certification of live birth?”

The questions raised over Obama’s eligibility are all very simple: The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “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.”

But getting the issue discussed has been a huge obstacle, and what courts have done several times, including once in a California case, is to schedule hearings on the issue on a date far beyond any reasonable expectation of having applicability, lawyers have said. For example, a challenge to the Electoral College vote for Obama, raised early in November, still hasn’t had a court hearing.

The ramifications

The impact of an ineligible president isn’t complicated either. If ineligible, critics argue that the constitutional provision acknowledging that possibility, and assigning the vice president to fill in until the president is eligible, applies.

In Amendment 20, Section 3, the Constitution says Congress must fully qualify the candidate “elected” by the Electoral College Electors, and that “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”

“Here’s the bottom line,” writes WND columnist Janet Porter of Faith2Action. “Either the Constitution matters or it doesn’t. And if we’re willing to ignore the constitutional requirements for the highest office in the land, what else are we willing to forgo? That part about free speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion? If we are willing to shred one part of the Constitution, brace yourself to lose the rest.”

According to a lawsuit filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of presidential candidate Ambassador Alan Keyes, an ineligible Obama would mean “then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in Courts of the United States of America, and in International Courts.”

The result? No legally binding stimulus bill, presidential appointments in doubt, federal budgets in limbo and the closure of Gitmo? Probably have to reopen it.

The birth location arguments

Obama reported in his autobiography that he was born in Honolulu, and the online “Certification of Live Birth” states that.

But when WND Senior Staff Reporter Dr. Jerome Corsi went there, he was told any Obama records were sealed, and although they would be released if the person made the request, Obama simply has refused to do that.

Corsi also was told records pertaining to Obama in Kenya likewise were sealed.

There also have been no confirmed hospital records uncovered that would document his birth, and an investigator even cast doubt on whether the Obama family lived at the address listed in the newspaper announcements.

A woman who reportedly “remembered” Obama’s birth and was quoted widely in support of his Hawaiian birth later explained to WND she had been told of the birth of a baby boy by an acquaintance who was a doctor who noted the mother’s unusual name of Stanley, but she had no knowledge of the details.

Citizenship from parents?

According to much legal research, at the time of Obama’s birth he could be a natural born citizen by being born in the United States, by being born to two U.S. citizen parents (not possible because of his father), or, if only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.

The problem is, Obama’s mother was only 18 when she gave birth, so his only apparent route to “natural born” citizenship status would have been to be born in Hawaii.

But there are other questions, too. Even if Obama was born in the state, would he have inherited citizenship from his Kenyan father or his American mother, a juvenile?

If he was born overseas as some critics contend, is there any way he would have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth? After all, statements from members of his extended family in Kenya, including some from his paternal grandmother, seem to indicate his birth location was in Kenya, not Hawaii.

The Indonesian question

At the time Obama moved to Indonesia as a child, only citizens of that country were allowed to attend school there. He was registered there as Barry Soetoro, his citizenship was listed as Indonesian and his religion as Islam. Porter reports there was no dual citizenship with Indonesia at the time.

The obvious question is what happened to Obama-Soetoro’s citizenship during that time, did he retain an American citizenship, or not?

“If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he would have forfeited any U.S. citizenship he may have had, just as when a child is adopted in America, he or she becomes an American,” Porter wrote.

Pakistan

Also, Porter reports it is likely that Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on a passport other than a U.S. document, raising the question of the status of his citizenship at that point. Could one obtain another nation’s passport while being an American citizen?

The ‘Certification of Live Birth’

The Obama campaign posted the COLB image online, reportedly to dispel rumors that his middle name was Mohammad. But several bloggers who analyzed the image said it appeared to have been modified from the official state version, raising questions at to its authenticity.

Staff members at FactCheck claim to have examined the original “birth certificate,” and found it to be genuine. But that doesn’t include an explanation for the “Certification of Live Birth,” a different document, nor an explanation for whether they really were looking at the “birth certificate,” which the state of Hawaii maintains hasn’t been released.

FactCheck.org also is part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and linked to the Annenberg organization with whom Obama worked.

One of the lawsuits challenging Obama notes that when Republican Sen. John McCain’s eligibility was questioned because of his birth to two U.S. citizens while his father was on active military duty in the Panama Canal Zone, he produced the documentation of his birth for examination.

Congress even held hearings and adopted a resolution referencing and resolving the questions. However, with Obama, there has been no documentation released and no hearings.

The biggest question

Mario Apuzzo, the attorney handling one of the cases challenging Obama’s eligibility, told WND the biggest question is why Obama hasn’t simply ordered a copy of the original birth certificate to be made available and dispel all the rumors.

Kreep noted that in Obama’s book, he wrote of finding his birth certificate in a book, so he wouldn’t even have to authorize the state to release it; just provide the original for inspection.

Several of the lawyers involved in the cases said they believe the information eventually will come out, because interest is growing. Kreep said he googled his own name with Obama’s, and came up with 944,000 references. Linking Obama’s to Keyes’ name came up with nine million..

Until then, the challenges will continue.

“When Obama starts signing executive orders and legislation,” said Kreep, “I’ll be filing lawsuits unless and until he proves he’s an American citizen.”

Several state lawmakers also are working on new requirements for candidates to provide documentation before they would be on the ballots.

California lawyer Orly Taitz, whose work is on her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation website, said there are just too many unanswered questions.

:”The Certification of Live Birth does not name a hospital, name a doctor, have any signatures or a seal of the Hawaiian Health Department on the front of the document. This document is usually given to parties that don’t have a proper hospital birth certificate and it is given based on a statement of one relative only. Even the state of Hawaii doesn’t give full credit to these documents,” she said.

Among the claims being raised in the various lawsuits: That Congress didn’t properly determine whether Obama is qualified, that active and retired members of the military have a need to know his qualifications to be commander-in-chief, that state officials failed to properly qualify Obama as a candidate (California previously had removed ineligible candidates from the ballot), and his college records should be released to reveal whether he attended school as a U.S. citizen.

Original Link.