During an interview with National Review’s Daniel Foster, the editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah, continued to sound skeptical regarding President Obama’s eligibility to be president:
“I just don’t accept handouts from government officials and assume they are what they say they are, given that he’s withheld this stuff for two and half years,” Farah said. “If the issue is natural-born citizenship, which is what we should all be focusing on, rather than was he born in Hawaii, then the questions still remain.”
…
“Natural born citizenship is clearly a higher standard than just ordinary citizenship,” he said, rehearsing a line long advanced by WND that since his father was a British subject and Kenyan citizen, Obama was born with “dual allegiances” and thus should not be considered “natural born” for constitutional purposes even if he was born in the United States to an American mother. That is not, needless to say, a view that is shared by the courts.
Farah’s continued stance, of course, does not mean mainstream conservatives are advocating this position (you may recall, in the past, conservatives like Andrew Breitbart have tangled with Farah over the “birther” issue) — but it might imply that anyone who doubted Obama’s citizenship before Wednesday are unlikely to have been persuaded.
Thursday morning, I co-hosted 630 WMAL’s “Morning Majority” radio show here in Washington, DC, with Bryan Nehman. I was alarmed and surprised by the number of talk radio callers who a. didn’t sound crazy, and b. believed the long form birth certificate was probably a forgery.
Is the birther issue going away? USA Today’s Susan Page probably answered it best when she Tweeted: “Has everyone agreed what happened in Roswell? On 9/11? Who shot JFK?”