WorldNetDaily has de-emphasized its birther obsession since President Obama's re-election -- given that WND staked what little reputation it has on trying to destroy Obama with birtherism as its centerpiece only to fail miserably, that's not a bad idea -- but it hasn't given up the ghost completely.
It is well-known that Obama had for years refused to release his claimed Hawaiian birth certificate and other official documents that reflect on whether he was born in U.S. territory as he claims, or in Kenya where his father of the same name hailed. If born in Kenya or somewhere else outside of American territory, Obama would be ineligible to run for and serve as president. And, even if born in America, Obama does not qualify as a “natural born citizen” under our Constitution, since he was not, as also required under our law to be president, sired by two American citizen parents. Only his mother was an American at the time of his birth.
As even a casual birther observer knows, Obama has released two birth certificates, the state of Hawaii has certified that he was born there, and the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen" Klayman is lying when he says Obama does not qualify.
Meanwhile, a Dec. 16 WND article by Bob Unruh details Klayman's latest filing in his birther lawsuit on behalf of Michael Voeltz in Florida. Unruh uncritically repeats Klayman's discredited arguments and, as is official WND policy, refuses to tell the other side of the story. Which makes Unruh a propagandist, not a journalist.