The Best and Most Complete Explanation of the Obama Citizenship Controversy

On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.


This fine article by Edwin Vieira, J.D., explains in great detail why the question of Barack Obama's citizenship is so important. I cannot overestimate the importance of this article. Of course the greatest injury to our country would only be in the event Obama is found out to be not, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States as the Constitution requires. Yet, I posit an injury has already occurred in that Obama is refusing to produce simple documents such as a vault birth certificate and his college records. Clearly, the Constitution requires any future or actual President to be a natural-born citizen. Proving this shouldn't be difficult, if said person is truly a natural-born citizen. Thus, by refusing to produce simple documents, Obama has created the appearance of guilt.

Whatever you do, be sure to read Mr. Vieira's outstanding and crucially important article. Then, why not pass it along to sympathetic friends, including members of the jurisprudence system in the U.S.?


http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm


************

A Statement: I categorically condemn any and all threats of violence against any candidate for President or Vice-President of the United States. While this goes without saying, no one should construe anything on this web log as wishing harm to any person. Such threats of violence have absolutely no place in our democracy and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. I hereby so condemn them. (Naturally, the Constitution protects free speech, including criticism and the right of peaceful assembly, including peaceful demonstrations. Threats of physical harm are an entirely different matter, however.)