The WHY initiative

This is the formal announcement of a new initiative to hold
Congress accountable. The Citizen Wells blog, in conjunction
with Dean Haskins of Restore the Constitutional Republic and
many other concerned citizens, has begun the process of
contacting members of Congress to ask them why they believed
Obama was eligible and why no one challenged him. The American
public deserves to know the truth. Why did Congress not do
it’s job?

Was there a conspiracy?

Were people afraid of personal attacks?

Was there fear of riots?

Did every member believe Obama was eligible?

If so, why?

The WHY initiative.

The comments after the article are great, too.

__________________________________________________________

This really is the quesiton isn't it? Why. Maybe even How?

If they keep trying to hold the BC that was posted out as the truth, then explain this PDF file of an affidavit of a former federal document examiner and law enforcement official's testimony on the BC in Hawaii Supreme Court, dated December 4th, 2008.

Digital internet images, at best, are highly questionable as to the varacity of their accuracy, and would have an extremely difficult time finding it's way into court as admissible evidence.

Based on the readiness and ability to obtain software that can create and alter documents and images, in and of itself, should be the first consideration in this documents' standing based on presentation alone. This could simply be challenged under the Hearsay Rule.

In a statement supposedly supported by Obama, The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."

and:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Factcheck has conveniently made this page unavaiable now by site search... he seems to be admitting guilt.

Note this says,"As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."

"It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN." More here at the Obamafile explaining the differences in Native Born, Natural Born, and Citizen.

Does this constitutional attorney not understand his own school of study, or was he hoping to pull the wool over peoples' eyes with the hope the ones that mattered would buy into it?

My vote is the latter.

There is enough discussion out there that furnishes the evidence by rule of law. There is not, however, the evidence from Obama, which could only be a hold-in-your-hand paper document, fit for presentation to a court of law. Anything else is less than prime, and of questionable origin, and should not be relied upon as verifiable evidence or proof.