Joseph Farah is clearly not going to let the birther stuff go -- no matter how many lies it takes to keep it alive. He writes in his Jan. 27 column about the circus that was the Georgia brither hearing:
For four long years, compelling evidence has been available that challenges the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.
In fact, I would say the evidence that he does not meet the simple requirements of the law is overwhelming.
But it was not until Thursday that the evidence – any of it – was heard in a single courtroom in America.
Not until very recently has any of it been examined by any official public proceeding or reviewed by any agency of government.
In fact, birther issues were heard in a courtroom before -- two years ago. In the case Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, Indiana state courts were asked to reject Obama's eligibility for the presidency because he is not a "natural born citizen" -- the same argument Farah and WND make. In upholding the lower court's ruling dismissing the complaint, the Indiana Court of Appeals extensively quoted from the Wong Kim Ark ruling before concluding:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States  natural-born citizens.”
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs' arguments fall under the category of "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions" that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
As we've detailed, WND has never reported on this ruling.
Farah went on to whine:
Meanwhile, for our trouble, we have been systematically vilified for providing the facts – a classic case of “killing the messenger.”
That's another lie. As we've also detailed, WND has refused to provide certain facts that conflict with its birther agenda, such as the existence of John Woodman's book debunking birther claims (even though WND's own Jerome Corsi has debated Woodman) and birther lawyer Phil Berg's discredit of the WND-promoted claim that Obama is using a fraudulent Social Secuity number.
Farah wraps up his whining this way:
I wonder what all those scoffers and mockers are going to say if and when Obama’s name does not appear on the ballot in Georgia and perhaps other states?
Will they report it? Will they label these actions “racist”? Will they continue to misrepresent the facts and the truth?
You mean like Farah and WND do with any information that doesn't fit in with their birther obsession?