Obama’s Eligibility – Congress Internal Memo Revealed – Updated 3x

Posted by  Bridgette


By  Mario Apuzzo

Members of Congress  Internal Memo

What to tell your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions!


Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed!

Nov. 5, 2010

This was the spin that the Members of Congress were given to keep the American electorate at bay and confused in the debate about Obama’s eligibility issues.  All the while, Congress did nothing to investigate the matter in a congressional hearing like they did for similar concerns about John McCain.

We have obtained a copy of the talking points memorandum put out by a lawyer for the Congressional Research Service to the Members of Congress back in April 2009 as to what to tell their constituents when they write to the Members of Congress and ask questions about Obama’s eligibility.

Now we know why all the answers coming back to constituents sounded like they were written by the same person and were full of the same obfuscations and half truths and non-truths.

This copy was obtained via the diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of “Tom Deacon” who obtained it from a Senator’s office.    Now we know the talking points the DC insiders and politicians have been groomed with to feed to their constituents who have been asking questions about the eligibility issues.

Thank you Tom.

P.S. The Congressional Research Service is part of the Library of Congress. It theoretically works for the Congressional Committees which means It WORKS FOR THE PARTY THAT CONTROLS CONGRESS (in this case the Progressive controlled Democratic Party).   Every report they issue (on the request of COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN who want them), is slanted to the ideology of the committee in charge because lawyers are partisan.  Ninety percent ( 90% ) of them on this project are liberal.

They are the same lawyers the White House used to research their legal position in the fight to kill the Citizens United lawsuit when they fought McCain Feingold … L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney; Erika K. Lunder, Legislative Attorney; Kate M. Manuel, Legislative Attorney; Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney; Michael V. Seitzinger, Legislative Attorney

Mario Apuzzo



Here is a the  typed transcript of the first 1 1/2 pages of 14, and pertinent paragraphs from page 4, and page 11.   I did not include the footnotes  or their references.  It can be fully read on the link provided.

Congressional Research Service

April 3, 2009

Subject:  Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and  Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate.

From:     Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division

This memorandum was prepared to enable distribution to more than one
Congressional office.

This memorandum addresses inquiries from congressional offices regarding the constitutional qualifications for the office of President of the United States, and the issue of challenges concerning specifically the questioning of President Obama’s “natural born citizenship” status.   Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so called “long” version of a “birth certificate from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are “vetted” for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status.

Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States Government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation.   Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that “vets” candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to election.

The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are
administered under state law.   The quadrennial presidential election, although required since 1845 to be held on the same day in each state is, in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors.  States generally control, within the applicable constitutional  parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access.

State election officials under some state ballot laws might thus require candidate “statements” or “declarations” of candidacy attesting to and/or
certifying certain facts as a condition to be on the ballot; in other states,
representatives of the established political parties may certify names to the
Secretary of State, or the designated elections official may place viable or
“recognized” candidates on the presidential preference ballots.  In such cases opposing political candidates or political parties may have “standing ” to legally challenge the placement of a name of an opponent on the ballot, or state law may specifically provide for a procedure for timely protests to be filed concerning the qualifications of candidates.

Page Four (Emphasis is Mine)

Legal Analysis of Natural Born Citizenship Requirements

Because the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined within the Constitution, nor has the Supreme Court ever needed to rule specifically on the terms in this clause, there have been questions raised from time to time as to the precise meaning of the qualifications clause.

As explained by the Supreme Court of the United States over the course of a number of years, it is well settled from common law principles of jus soli (“law of the soil”)  extant in England and the Colonies at the time of Independence, as well as from subsequent constitutional provisions, as well as subsequent statutory law, that all persons born “in” the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States “at birth.”   As such, any person physically born “in” the United States, regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents (unless such parents are foreign diplomatic personnel not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), would appear to be a “natural born” citizen eligible to the President of the United States.

Page 11   President Obama

In addition to the lawsuits concerning Senator McCain’s eligibility, there had been several allegations and lawsuits brought challenging the status of President Obama as a “natural born” citizen, based on carious theories and assertions.

These cases have uniformly been summarily dismissed, either because of
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, because the plaintiff seeing a stay or an injunction against some future event was deemed “not likely to succeed on the merits,” or because of lack of legal standing of the plaintiff.

Despite the absence of any formal administrative or legal requirement or
oversight at the federal level, or specific state requirement to produce a birth certificate for ballot placement, it may be noted here briefly that the only “official” documentation or record that has been presented in the matter of President Obama’s eligibility has been an official, certified copy of the record of live birth released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008, as an apparent effort by then-candidate Obama to address rumors and innuendos concerning the place of his birth.  The copy of this certificate states on its face, as certified by Hawaii health and vital records personnel that President Obama was born in Hawaii,  in the city of Honolulu on the Island of Oahu, at 7:24 P.M. on August 4, 1961.  Under Hawaii law, an officially certified copy of such health record is to be considered “for all purposes the same as the original,” and is “prima facie” evidence of the facts asserted.  Since Hawaii became a state on August 21, 1959, all official documentation available at this time indicates that President Obama was born “in” the United States.

With respect to requests to “evaluate” evidence of a foreign birth, it may be noted briefly that there appear to be no official documentary records, or copies of such records, which might be subject to such evaluation.  No official documents or records have been produced or forwarded contradicting the prima facie indications of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii, as provided in the official certification (or certificate) of live birth released by the Obama campaign. No official record of birth from any other jurisdiction or country has been produced, no contradictory health record or hospital record has been forwarded, no official record of travel (such as a passport record or passenger manifest)  appears to exist placing President Obama’s mother in a foreign country at the time of the President’s birth.  Rather there have been several theories, allegations, and self-generated “questions” concerning the place and circumstances of President Obama’s birth which as noted in court decisions, have been posted on the Internet and “television news tabloid(s),” and upon which several of the lawsuits were based.


Here is the link to the Internal Memorandum:



Petition for Writ of Certiorari

A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a “petition for writ of certiorari” in the Supreme Court. A “petition” is printed in booklet format and 40 copies are filed with the Court. If the Court grants the petition, the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument.  A minimum of four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the “rule of four”. The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term.


What affiliation do these mentioned lawyers have with the Democrats or Republicans?  Who originally requested this research and who was it given to in Congress?  The research was completed in April, 2009,  so the research on this  issue was requested before that.  The footnotes cite different lawsuits  regarding Obama’s eligibility and answer points raised in those lawsuits.    The research also  covers John McCain’s eligibility.

What other internal memos might be found in an FOIA request to Congress?   It is about time for  all of this information to be exposed  and Obama’s eligibility investigated.    The question remains who are all of the people involved in this  conspiracy and who will be the first to break down?  Did those reading this memorandum believe they had done their duty and  were protected  because they relied upon the report?  Was this report sent to others outside of Congress?

Is this case being reviewed by the Solicitor General as Elena Kagan did with
many of the other eligibility cases?  Neal Katyal is the Acting Solicitor General of the United States.  The task of the Office of the Solicitor General is to supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court.   Virtually all such litigation is channeled through the Office of the Solicitor General and is actively conducted by the Office.

Do read the memo in full and see what points you find pertinent and important.


UPDATE :  November 6, 2010

Respondents Waive the Right to Respond to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Lawsuit. There is new activity on the U.S. Supreme Court Docket today with an effective date on the docket of 3 Nov 2010.


UPDATE: Nov. 8, 2010

Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed for Conference by the Justices on 23 Nov 2010.


UPDATE: Nov. 9, 2010

Attorney Jack Maskell confirmed to World Net Daily that the Memo is authentic!  It was never intended for the public.

“Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted
‘There is no specific federal agency’ to review candidates for federal office  World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi

A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day.

It’s because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or
elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a “natural born Citizen” under the
meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.

He explained he wrote it only for distribution to congressional offices, not for public distribution, and it was not posted on any of the CRS report sites where the public might have been able to find it. He suggested one of the congressional offices that got the report facilitated its release, and it ended up posted on the Internet.

Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were
getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond.  It would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.”  Snip


Whoever in Congress that received this memo knew that Obama wasn’t vetted and that there were NO records, NO documentation to prove his eligibility, or rather his INELIGIBILITY!

UPDATE:  June 1, 2011

MARCH 18 MEMO – The Second Memo Released
8 pages


[ITookTheRedPill] UPDATE:
I have downloaded both of the Congressional Research Service memos from scribd in PDF form, then run Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on them, and then uploaded them here.

April 3, 2009 Memo with Optical Character Recognition (OCR):
41131059-CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions (with OCR)

March 18, 2010 Memo with Optical Character Recognition (OCR):
56676154-Scan-0004 (with OCR)


Qualifications for President and the Natural Born Citizenship Eligibility Requirement.    November 14, 2011
Jack Maskell, attorney (the same one that put out the false information in the previous two memos). 53 pages


87 responses to “Obama’s Eligibility – Congress Internal Memo Revealed – Updated 3x

  1. Good find, Bridgette. Sure sounds like a Democrat lawyer, huh? I found another article that’s related:

    Click to access RL33079_20100812.pdf

    This one must have been put together for the Repubs. who want to limit citizenship for “anchor babies.”

    My head spins round and round on this issue. We’ve hashed it over so many times. We’ve read what that guy cites many times, too. Interesting how he reads it so differently.

    The only thing new, that I don’t recall reading before, was that decision where a judge said that even if a German guy took his US-born kid back to Germany, kept him there, made him a citizen of Germany, the kid still retains his US citizenship because he was born on US soil, even if neither parent was a US citizen. I don’t remember reading that before.

    Bottom line: That kid can come back and regain his US citizenship SO LONG AS HE DOESN’T DO ANYTHING AFTER THE AGE OF 21 INDICATING REJECTION OF HIS US CITIZENSHIP. My guess is that BARRY falls into the category: Did something that indicated rejection of US citizenship. Thus Brennan’s need to sanitize those passport files.

    What’s LAUGHABLE is how this lawyer cites Obama’s certified COLB, which his campaign “released”, but then he cites comments ridiculing Berg and other litigants for relying upon items FOUND ON THE INTERNET!!!!

    Uh, like Barry’s COLB?

    The guy also seems to say that NO certified documents from other countries have been brought forth to refute Barry’s status. Curiously, or not, he also mentions that there are no passport records documenting that SAD was elsewhere when Barry was born. Gee, I wonder why THAT is? Because somebody (contract workers for Brennan and/or the State Dept., perchance?) either destroyed or hid them? Does this lawyer know THAT, perhaps, which is why he can so assuredly claim as fact that there are no such records? Since this memo was written, however, FOIA requests have resulted in the release of what purports to be SADOS’s passport records. She did have a pre-1965 passport application which has mysteriously gone missing, except the State Dept. appears to want us to believe that the records were destroyed. butterdezillion’s blog (see sidebar for link) will show how erroneous that claim is.

    Consider the irony: The memo accepts Barry’s scan of his “certified” COLB, which this lawyer claims is prima facie evidence because it says it is, EVEN THOUGH it also says that it has no value if it’s BEEN ALTERED. It WAS altered–they blanked out the BC#. Besides which, it’s a freaking digital image on a blog! The IRONY is that the lawyer accepts that image/scan on the Internet, but none of the other images/scans of KENYAN birth certificates posted on the Internet that also appear to be certified and signed. In fact, one of the litigants had someone enter the Kenyan document into court records and also swear under penalty of perjury that it’s authentic. Therefore, the claim that no competing official documents have been found is FALSE. The only way this lawyer gets off the hook on that one is if he wrote the memo before that Kenyan BC was produced in court.

    • I searched the lawyers mentioned by Apuzzo in the Citizens United lawsuit plus Jack Maskell who wrote the Memo, and their names did not come up as belonging to the ACS. At one time all the members were listed, now they are not. Originally, I found Holder, Biden, and Hillary were members. Yet there are many mentions of the Acting Solicitor General, Neal Kumar Katyal. Wasn’t it Elena Kagan that was stopping the other eligibility lawsuits?

      • The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) is one of the nation’s leading progressive legal organizations. Founded in 2001, [BY SOROS} ACS is comprised of law students, lawyers, scholars, judges, policymakers, activists and other concerned individuals who are working to ensure that the fundamental principles of human dignity, individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, and access to justice are in their rightful, central place in American law.


        • ACS comprises asshats “who are working to ensure that the fundamental principles of human dignity, individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, and access to justice are in their rightful, central place in American law.”

          So their motto presupposes that human dignity, individual rights and liberties, GENUINE equality [what does that mean?], and access to justice” are NOT currently “in their rightful, central place in American law?”

          • These are the group that believe the Constitution is flawed, and it is a living, breathing document that they can change at will. They also are the ones that want to have our laws interpreted and dictated by international laws and an international body.

      • Bridge & Miri, all – the following two article’s are excellent read’s. Obama was never elected he was selected. He’s nothing more than a fabrication of the people that put him into the White House.

        Reading Between the Lines: Post, Tribune: Is Obama really African-American?


        Constitutional Relativity
        Captain’s Quarters ^ | March 26, 2007 | Ed Morrissey


        • Why did this lawyer choose “HEALTH RECORD” as part of his statement?

          Under Hawaii law, an officially certified copy of such health record is to be considered “for all purposes the same as the original,” and is “prima facie” evidence of the facts asserted.

    • Are you thinking of Orly’s case when you said “In fact, one of the litigants had someone enter the Kenyan document into court records and also swear under penalty of perjury that it’s authentic.”

      Also didn’t Berg enter the conversation of Grandma Sarah saying he was born in Kenya into evidence?

      Anyone have a list of court dates or lawsuits that were going through the courts prior to the April 2009 Memo? Berg, Leo, Orly?

      • I don’t know which case. I just remember that the guy who supposedly went to Kenya and got a copy of the BC with the doctor’s name and everything on it (the one who bribed the officials) did enter the document into evidence and signed an affidavit attesting to where it came from. Didn’t he? Or is my memory completely failing? Could be! 🙂

      • Update on that Kenyan BC: Lucas Daniel Smith presented an affidavit attesting to the authenticity of the Kenyan BC presented in the Barnett v. Obama case. This was 9/3/2009, so approx. 5 months after Maskell’s memo. Orly Taitz was the attorney.

    • I think you are referring to Page 11 [Update: this is not on page 11 but is on pages 13 -14]
      “One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled in Weisbaden where they continuously resided.” Note that it stated footnote 68…but there is no footnote that I can see. Also parts of the story are left out. I don’t see that Steinkauler Sr. was a naturalized citizen by the time the child was born a year later, so the child was not an NBC. It didn’t give the name of the attorney general who made that decision either.

      The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 25, 1891
      To the Editor of the Brooklyn Eagle:

      My parents are both Germans and have resided in Germany all their lives, with the exception of four months which they spent visiting some friends in this city, when and where I was born. On their return to Hamburg, two months later, of course they took me with them, and there I have since lived. On the 21st of last October I was just 21 years old, when I landed in New York, and intend to make this country my home. Now what I want to know is: Have I the full privilege of a natural born citizen, or should I have to take out any papers? Would I be eligible to be President should I ever be nominated and elected? Signed Sturger.

      Answer: This correspondent will have to obtain his naturalization papers just the same as any other natural born German. He was born of German parents while they were on a visit to this country. They were not emigrants and they were not settled here in any sense. The boy born here under these circumstances is a German subject, until he declares his intention to become a citizen of the United States.


  2. As usual, a careful reading of this memo shows that they conflate simple citizenship with NATURAL BORN citizenship. Two entirely different animals.

    It’s apparent that this is nothing more than a cleverly-worded memo intended to push Congresspersons into the pro-eligibility camp or at least make them think twice before siding with We the People.

    Let’s face it: These guys don’t even read 2000+ page legislation before signing it. Why would they carefully parse a statement like this, which comes from lawyers who are supposed to work for them and US, btw, (thus saving them the trouble to even read about, much less study carefully, important issues like whether or not the POTUS is freakin’ eligible in the first place)?

    Here we have the source of the claim that Obama produced his birth certificate already, as well as that Hawaii backed up its authenticity. NOT TRUE on both counts, except these lazy asshats can’t be bothered with discovering the TRUTH.

    If you think it’s not carefully worded–parsed to give a FALSE impression–notice how even this lawyer put “official” in quotes.

    This is lawyer-ese for “take this with a grain of salt. They’re calling it official; I’m not.” Carefully dancing around telling the absolute whole truth and nothing but the truth, as lawyers who work for Congress are SUPPOSED to do, and slying misleading, as too many lawyers do.

    The author goes on to tell us what the COLB states, not what HE himself states, as truth. He tells us what the unprovenanced digital image on the Web purports to claim. And also what truly official documents from the state of Hawaii represent. He doesn’t authenticate that COLB that the campaign “released”, however.

    After his paragraph about how no foreign documents, passport files, hospital records, etc., have been produced to refute the COLB, he cites this, in a footnote[emphasis added]:

    “In Liacakos v. Kennedy . . . the court found that ‘a record of birth contemporaneously made by governmental authority in official records would be ALMOST conclusive evidence of birth.’ However, with NO such official foreign (or domestic) contemporaneous documentation, a ‘delayed birth certificate’ produced by the plaintiff, even though issued by the State of West Virginia 46 YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED BIRTH THERE, would provide prima facie evidence of ‘natural born citizenship.’ That prima facie evidence, UN-REBUTTED by any official foreign documentation, along with COLLATERAL EVIDENCE OF ASSUMED CITIZENSHIP, would establish ‘natural born’ status by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence.”

    So riddle me this, jokers:
    Why does this lawyer cite a case concerning
    1.) a person with no contemporaneous records of his birth?
    2.) a person who apparently somehow got the state of WV to create for him a delayed birth certificate 46 years after he ALLEGEDLY was born there? (Here’s coincidence for you: when Barry’s COLB was created, it was just about 46 years after the fact.)
    3.) a person who has “assumed” citizenship (like someone who’s a Senator already)?
    4.) a person who might have some “collateral evidence” of assumed citizenship (such as fake birth announcements)?
    5.) a person about whom nobody has brought forth conflicting evidence, such as a foreign BC or foreign hospital records (although in Barry’s case, some have brought forth “evidence” that is just about as legitimate as Barry’s bogus COLB)?

    So, what did this lawyer KNOW and when did he know it? He knows there’s NO contemporaneous BC? There’s only a delayed BC? He knows this precedent-setting case and how important it is that NO foreign evidence to the contrary should come forward? He perhaps knows that no passport records WILL come forward to “rebut” Barry’s delayed COLB? Also no foreign BCs (because Kenyans scrubbed/locked them up)? Ditto for Indonesian records because that representative went over there to make sure of that?

    This is what’s called a TELL in poker, jokers. Why in 2009 did this guy cite THAT PARTICULAR CASE in that footnote in his memo to Congress?

    • Excellent points in your detailed reading Miri regarding the “In Liacakos v. Kennedy lawsuit.

      • Whats even more INSANE is this – Laurence H. Tribe is now in the Justice Department, all their plan’ going accordingly .

        Prominent Harvard law professor joins Justice Department

        By Carrie Johnson
        Washington Post Staff Writer
        Friday, February 26, 2010

        Prominent Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe will join the Justice Department next week to lead an effort focused on increasing legal access for the poor, two federal sources said Thursday.

        Tribe, 68, long viewed as a contender for a Supreme Court nomination in a Democratic administration, will serve as a senior counselor for access to justice.

        Tribe, who has taught at Harvard since 1968, referred messages Thursday to a Justice Department spokeswoman. He will take a leave of absence from the law school.

        The announcement comes a week after senior leaders at the department appeared at a Washington conference to draw attention to the large caseloads handled by public defenders and other challenges in providing legal services to low-income defendants. Some juvenile offenders, for example, are forced to go to court without seeing a lawyer, officials said.


  3. Which lawsuit was not likely to succeed based on its merits?

    I would like the definition of prima facie and how it applies to an online internet copy. Just because a purported copy of a COLB was put online..how is that considered real evidence? I would considered it hearsay..and there must be a legal term for this. Bunk, pure bunk is not a legal term is it?

    Prima facie

    Prima facie (pronounced /ˈpriːmə ˈfæsiːa/, from Latin prīmā faciē) is a
    Latin expression meaning on its first appearance, or at first sight. The literal translation would be “at first face”, prima first, facie face, both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in academic philosophy.

    Most legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then commence to test it, and create a ruling. This may be called facile princeps, first principles.

    In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires it to present prima facie evidence for all of the essential facts in its case. If they cannot, its claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties. A prima facie case might not stand or fall on its own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only be reconciled with a full trial. Sometimes the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally called making a case or building a case.

    For example, in a trial under criminal law the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the crime charged against the defendant. In a murder case, this would include evidence that the victim was in fact dead, that the defendant’s act caused the death, and evidence that the defendant acted with malice aforethought. If no party introduces new evidence the case stands or falls just by the prima facie evidence.

    Prima facie evidence need not be conclusive or irrefutable: at this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered, only whether any party’s case has enough merit to take it to a full trial.


    • This is another issue which we’ve debated for several years now. It seems to me that even the HDOH would not accept as prima facie evidence a three-dimensional COLB. That is, a REAL FREAKIN’ DOCUMENT, even if signed, sealed, and delivered by the HDOH! No, they required in some cases an original LONG-FORM birth certificate. It seems that I also remember reading that a delayed or amended birth certificate is not acceptable on its face; that is, without all the underlying documentation that went into creating it. Affidavits, aka “collateral evidence”, for one thing. Keep in mind that even HDOH policies REQUIRE that amended or delayed birth certificates MUST INDICATE on certified copies that they are delayed or amended. And the modifications must be noted. So, if Barry’s COLB is amended or delayed, that digital image is BOGUS because it does not cite the changes.

      However, in no way is a digital image on a blog prima facie evidence of SQUAT. It’s AS legitimate as the Kenyan BCs on the Internet. Not legit at all. Evidence of NOTHING.

      In fact, the Kenyan BC has more legitimacy because, as I said, I believe it’s been submitted to a court of law and someone testified as to its provenance and authenticity. That’s more than has EVER been done for Barrry’s COLB, which NO judge so far as we know has ever seen. It has NOT ever been submitted into evidence in any of the court cases. NOT sworn to. NOT legitimated. NEVER. IF it’s prima facie evidence, case closed, then WHY HASN’T IT BEEN PRESENTED TO THE JUDGES?

    • Would common knowledge be considered Prima facie evidence?

      Remember that footnote in Robert Bauer’s brief about the COLB being on the internet…someone wrote about why he included it in a footnote, rather than presenting an original of it as evidence. It might have been jbjd that discussed it.

    • “James says:
      Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 1:32 PM
      Guess What? The Kenyan National Assembly on March 25, 2010 has just leaked out that Obama was born in Kenya:

      Click to access RDRAFT25.03P.pdf

      Page 31: If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion.

      Mrs. Rondeau replies: That statement from page 31 is even more explicit than the one from the previous Kenyan Parliament minutes which called Obama something like son of this soil. This is outrageous!”


      • Hey. That’s a good point, Ali. Of course, when the lawyer wrote that memo, I don’t think the freakin’ Kenyan Parliament had made those comments yet. But they have now, so EXPLAIN PLEASE, MR. MASKELL.

  4. Hey guys! check this out!!!


    This is getting GOOOOOOD!!!! Hee Hee hee

    • We will see if this happens Greg!

      Meanwhile, a team of ex-CIA officers are traveling the globe assembling a dossier of documents on Obama’s past, including his education, passport, travel, and residency records. The team has scoured Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan, and other countries collecting documents that are not already mantained in the CIA’s own files on Obama’s past. There is a possibility, according to WMR’s sources, that any “smoking gun” documents may be released while Obama is in Asia in order to elicit a public and, perhaps, irrational enough response from the president to prompt the public to begin raising questions about Obama’s suitability for office.

      • Wouldn’t that be great, if true? My guess is that they have and have long held whatever there is to be had about Barry. I keep thinking about Barry’s recent meeting at the WH with Condi Rice. Now he might have been asking her advice about dealing with the Indians and Chinese. On the other hand . . .

        Condi knows. She was in on the investigation of the passport files breach.

  5. It was jbjd. She explained the significance of that issue on her blog (link in sidebar). She wrote about this in depth. Keep in mind that she’s a law school graduate so she knows of what she writes.

    With Barry, there’s no such thing as “common knowledge,” imho. There’s NOTHING common about his history, and we have very little “knowledge” of it. Nothing can be pinned down: his mother’s name, when she went to high school, where she was between when the semester ended at U of HI in late winter, 1960, until when she showed up at the U of WA in 9/61.

    jbjd pointed out that Bauer mentioned the COLB in a footnote to sneakily (putting words in her mouth, this is my take, my speculation) insert the COLB into the case, as if it’s “evidence”, while at the same time carefully avoiding entering it into evidence and/or making any statement about its legitimacy. No, he mentioned that FACTCHECK posted it, claiming it’s a real copy of a real document. But like Maskell, Bauer himself didn’t say it’s real. This is why Maskell put “official” in quotes. To exonerate himself from any claim of authenticity. He knows better; he could lose his license. Ditto for Bauer.

  6. Bridgette, that was my favorite paragragh of the whole article!!
    How much does anyone want to bet that other countries are secretly seeking those answers TOO!!! The democrats and the media really put America in bind by not reseaching Obama.
    Maybe they powers that be want Obama removed to create a situation for Marshall law to be declared?

    You all are GREAT!!!! Love Ya!!!

  7. Anybody a glutton for punishment? Want to read that 81-page Writ cited at the end of Bridgette’s post and give us a concise explanation of what it means? 🙂

    • Hey, I’ll be jumping right on it!

      Gosh, I sure would like to see an internal memo written for the Republicans to see how it differs from this one.

  8. I found it interesting in the footnotes, #67, that Leo’s work on Chester Arthur was mentioned. I guess they scoured the internet for information. Leo was working on Chester Arthur on his blog, and that was before December, 2009 when the information was published in a newspaper.

    Obama is the 2nd Unconstitutional President


  9. Here’s an interesting current case:

    This MO resident was recently arrested by ICE, handcuffed and held in jail without bail for 4 months. He was born in Canada to a woman who had been a permanent resident of the US for 10 years prior. She married a US citizen, but they divorced. She went to Canada where shortly afterward, she gave birth, not naming her ex-husband on the BC. Not long after that, her ex came to Canada and brought her and their son back to the US. The son lived here from that time, from 6 weeks of age until now, 33 years later. He went to school here, got a SS#, driver’s license, education, even was arrested and convicted of crimes, with no question ever about his citizenship status. He married and had children. The government learned about him when he applied for Medicaid after an injury. They told him he wasn’t a citizen, so he applied for citizenship. Three years later, under this administration, the OBAMA administration, ICE showed up and arrested him.

    “Proving Byron Jones is Scott Jones’ father — for the purpose of citizenship — isn’t as simple as a paternity test. [Why not? Not the “legal” father?] But Scott’s family convinced Jones, of Wichita, Kan., to take one in September. The results showed a 99.9 percent likelihood of paternity. Bolourtchi [the man’s lawyer] also uncovered a 1980 court order regarding Byron Jones’ child support payments for Scott Jones; proof, the attorney said, that Scott was legally Jones’ son. Still, the Department of Homeland Security is arguing for Jones’ deportation [to Canada, apparently]. According to court documents, the GOVERNMENT’S ATTORNEY CLAIMS JONES STILL NEEDS THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER FOR CHILD SUPPORT. Bolourtchi has been unable to locate it. He doesn’t know why.”

    So DHS needs “ORIGINAL” documents. And they don’t accept DNA evidence for proving citizenship of his father. Good news for the moment. They suddenly and unexpectedly released him, at least for now:

    “His release came two days after the Post-Dispatch sent ICE spokeswoman Gail Montenegro an inquiry about Jones’ [sic] case. She declined to answer questions about his release. Jones noted that he still faces deportation charges. He has a court date Dec. 6.”

    St. Nicholas Day. Maybe St. Nick will bring him an early Christmas gift. Forgive me for wondering whether ICE is deliberately targeting non-Hispanic “aliens”.

    • Interesting, Miri.

      A couple of weeks ago, I read in one of the indo publications a story re a physician who was stranded in Russia since the Soekarno/Soeharto coup. He was recently given the option of moving back to Indo and reclaiming his indo citizenship, but he declined because he has a wife, children, and grandchildren in Russia, in addition to his job there — ALSO Indo STILL does not “approve dual citizenship”.
      I must have read the article in a different publication — can’t remember which — but here is a version (though doesn’t mention the grandchildren, family, etc in Russia???).


      Anyway, my point is that we keep coming across articles which slap us in the face — we live in the twilight zone.

  10. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=307&page=325

    That’s the case they’re citing, Perkins v. Elg.

    “The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.”

    Her parents were from Sweden but her father was naturalized into US citizenship by the time she was born. I don’t remember whether or not, at that time, wives automatically became naturalized when their husbands did, but it appears so because it says her parentS resumed their Swedish citizenship. Her mother eventually took her back to Sweden; Dad followed later. Neither ever came back to the US, but the child did.

    The same case also speaks about the Prussian/German man. However, like the woman above, his father was a naturalized US citizen when he was born. I fail to see how the parents in either case were considered “aliens.” The fathers, probably the mothers, too, in both cases, were US citizens when the children were born. The question was whether, because the parents later renounced their US citizenship, that meant the child’s was automatically renounced, too. So the issue is whether or not the parents can give up their own citizenship and ALSO the child’s.

    However, these cases aren’t like Barry’s. His father was NEVER a US citizen, not even a permanent resident. He NEVER intended to emigrate to the US, naturalize in the US, or become anything but a Kenyan citizen. We don’t know what citizenship(s) the POTUS had, how many, NOR what actions he may have taken upon reaching the age of majority. Did he ever travel on a foreign passport? Did he receive scholarships as a foreign exchange student? Does he have a contemporaneous birth certificate proving not only his own US citizenship status but also the citizenship of both parents?

    If you’re a glutton for punishment, here’s a link to the infamous Wong Kim Ark decision:

    Enjoy! What you need to be careful of, when reading the obots’ take on this case, is where their quotes come from, the DECISION or the DISSENT. The dissent is not the ruling.

  11. (ABC) — There was an odd little moment with Spice Jet founder Bhupendra Kansagra when President Obama spoke to CEOs Saturday in Mumbai.

    MR. KANSAGRA: Thank you. Welcome, Mr. President, to India. As a fellow Kenyan, I’m very proud to see that you have made

    THE PRESIDENT: Made something of myself. (Laughter.)

    MR. KANSAGRA: India as the focus of your drive for exports out of the U.S.

    Obviously the president is not a Kenyan. One supposes Mr. Kansagra meant of Kenyan ancestry or something.


    • Ouch! Good one. Fellow Kenyan. Gotta love it. Tapper’s take is funny: he meant “‘of Kenyan ancestry’ or something.” That’s about it: OR SOMETHING. Notice how the guy’s ready to talk about India but Barry, as usual, makes it about HIMSELF. He’s the center of the universe. Yup. He’s made something of himself alright. What that is, I can’t say. Or shouldn’t say in polite company. btw, did anybody catch that photo of MO hotfooting it, barefooted, in India? Dancin’ up a storm. How first-ladylike. While I’m being catty, did you catch that dress she wore as she debarked from AF1? Looked like she fell in a cesspool. Sorry. That’s off topic, but I couldn’t resist.

      • I haven’t seen her dress from airforce 1, but I did catch her footloose fancy free hopscotch photo at Dr. Kate’s 🙂

        I’ll see whether newsbird has a photo of the airforce 1 outfit –

  12. Talk about the twilight zone: Obama is not Obama. When the real truth comes out, you’ll find out his biological father is not Obama of Kenya. He is a natural born citizen–both his biological parents were citizens and he was born in Hawaii–and he is more white than black. He is a Shiite Muslim underneath the Christian veneer and worked for the CIA in the covert war against the former Soviet Union. The information about him is classified by our government. Those are my suppositions, but figure it out. There’s enough information on the net to put two and two together.

  13. About the CRS, from their own website:

    “The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century. CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan. Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation’s best thinking.”


    “CRS employs about 450 policy analysts, attorneys and information professionals in a variety of disciplines working in one of five research divisions. The breadth and depth of this expertise – from law, economics and foreign affairs to defense and homeland security, public administration, education, health care, immigration, energy, environmental protection, science and technology – enables CRS to mobilize quickly, working together in flexible groups to provide integrated analyses of complex issues facing the Congress. In a fast-paced, ever-changing environment, CRS provides Congress with the vital, analytical support it needs to address the most complex public policy issues facing the nation. Its work incorporates program and legislative expertise, quantitative methodologies, and legal and economic analysis.”

    Now think about this: This group is funded by We the People. Their purpose is to do research for and provide unbiased information to the REPRESENTATIVES of We the People. Yet, their reports aren’t shared with We the People.

    Imagine how different things might be today had this memo been circulated to the general public. Why wasn’t it? There’s a group called OpenCRS who strive to report, a la Wikileaks, reports from the CRS whenever they can get their hands on them, in the interest of transparency.

    HAD We the People been able to read this memo before its “talking points” were repeated ad nauseum to consituents who asked their representatives to address Barry’s ineligibility, then Lawyers, Constitutional scholars, and WE THE PEOPLE could have REFUTED the memo, in depth, with accuracy. We also could have UPDATED our so-called “representatives” when evidence to REBUT the bogus COLB came to light.

    Here we had a so-called non-partisan research group assuring OUR REPRESENTATIVES, untruthfully, that Barry had produced his “official” (how many would have noticed the quotes?) short-form birth certificate and that it was authenticated by FactCheck.org (supposedly non-partisan) as well as by officials at the Hawaiian Dept. of Health.

    Against that, we had letters from constituents, laypersons for the most part, who had already been stigmatized, demonized, and derided as “birthers” by the lamestream media, the Obama administration, as well as some Republicans.

    Even though many of the so-called representatives of We the People are themselves lawyers, how many of THEM even saw, much less seriously analyzed, this memo?

    How many of them simply allowed staff to handle letters from their constituents, staff that relied upon that “factual” and “non-partisan” memo from the CRS?

    It is time for ALL such reports to Congress to be disseminated to We the People, unless there’s a clear and convincing issue of national security involved. Barry’s ineligibility isn’t it.

    It occurs to me that perhaps Barry is off to India and parts beyond because he knew GWB would be on TV a lot, promoting his new book. Need I say that Barry no doubt doesn’t want to see “his” media lapdogs calling GWB, “Mr. President” and treating him with at least a modicum of respect?

    Btw, I don’t believe those reports that Republicans and/or GWB have been trashing Sarah Palin in secret. I think this is Alinsky disinformation, designed to sow dissension amongst the Republicans and to make the Tea Partiers distrust them.

    But I do have something to say to Karl Rove, Boehner, Issa, and the rest of the Republicans,


    You are on notice. Do what you were elected to do, or you’ll have the door hitting you on the bum on your way out, too.

    And remember, above all, do NOT trash Sarah Palin. She’s our Mama Grizzly.

  14. Our Thanks to Citizen Wells who made our blog his headline on Nov. 7th! CW’ers are always welcome here. We speak the same language!

    Congressional Research Memo, Jack Maskell, April 2009, Constitutional qualifications for presidency, Congressional offices
    Posted on November 7, 2010 by citizenwells

    “From We the People of the United States November 7, 2010”.


  15. Eligibility Update: Rush on Marco; Official Congressional Memo
    Nov. 6

    Eligibility is officially everyone’s responsibility. This is now a truism.
    Rush sparked a bit of “controversy” (not controversy around here, but that’s another story) by bringing up Senator-elect Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) potential eligibility as President by saying the following:

    “I was told yesterday that I dashed the hopes of millions of people when I said that Marco Rubio was not born in America, and the reason I dashed the hopes of millions of people was because Marco Rubio, if not born in America, couldn’t run for president. I wasn’t aware that I said Marco Rubio was not born in America.”

    …”We know more about where Rubio was born than Obama…”
    Marco Rubio can run for president. It was his parents that were born in Cuba. His whole family is exiles but he was born in Miami.

    ”Liberal birthers may demand Marco Rubio’s birth certificate. If he did, he’ll produce it, I’m sure, but I’m not worried about it. If Obama’s taught us anything, it’s that the news media doesn’t care where our presidents are born. They don’t. Well, let’s see if it does. Let’s see if all of a sudden the media starts caring where Republicans are born. Up to now they haven’t cared where presidents are born. Let’s see if they now start caring.”


    Rush needs some educating!

    • Phil at TRSOL also gave his analysis of the Memo. He made 4 points. Snips

      1. We finally have something official from the government that touches on presidential eligibility.

      2. The memo completely substantiates the fact that there is no law that requires presidential eligibility to be determined, nor to what extent such determination would exist.

      3. The memo refers to the non-existence of evidence as evidence that Mr. Obama is qualified to be President.

      4. The memo is nothing more than a researched opinion that carries no specific weight in a Court of law, merely the court of public opinion.

      Further, this is a “legal analysis,” which is a formal way of saying that this is “some lawyers’ opinions as to what they think currently-existing law means with respect to presidential eligibility,” really meaning that it’s yet another opinion in the court of public opinion.

    • Interesting how “documents” pop up out of the blue. Looks like they are changing the meme to one which would make o a natural born citizen.
      Thank you Kathy

      • This does not jive with Polarik’s “born in egypt” claim.

      • hmmm dean m also popped up out of the blue a couple of days ago — one day before the wnd letter was released. Has this letter been circulating on the net before wnd came out with it?
        Also interesting – the kerchner petition for writ of certiorari has been distributed to scotus for conference nov. 23


        Dean M. | November 8, 2010 at 2:25 am | Reply Talk about the twilight zone: Obama is not Obama. When the real truth comes out, you’ll find out his biological father is not Obama of Kenya. He is a natural born citizen–both his biological parents were citizens and he was born in Hawaii

      • I just find it odd that dean m and polarik popped up out of the blue — no offense to you polarik as I do not know you, though I am familiar with your work on the birth certificate, and I am interested in all you wish to share with us. Could have just been coincidental…that is why I asked you how you found us here as I thought we were a small unknown blog.

        Lo and behold, I read one of the recent wnd articles after reading the one to which Kathy directed us…and what did I find lol, wnd linked/gave credit to wtpotus re leza’s Lia finding. Guess this blog is not under the radar after all — not good for me lol, I’ve said things I wouldn’t want advertised to the world. Perhaps its time to follow in the footsteps of our java clan — a name change is in order :)…

  16. Note to Rep. Darrell Issa: Please investigate Obama’s fraudulent use of Social Security Number 042-68-4425 reserved for Connecticut applicants.

    Nov. 7, 2010 9:38 PM

    On FOX News Sunday with Democrat Chris Wallace, Rep. Darrell Issa stated, “I’m going to be doing a lot of investigating,” and, “The most important thing my Committee can do is seek the truth.” Well then, Mr. Issa, how about one of the first investigations be Obama’s fraudulent use of social security number 042-68-4425 reserved for Connecticut applicants. Most of the investigative work was already conducted, which is posted below, and we already know that Obama never lived or worked in Connecticut.

    Please contact Rep. Issa and demand he investigate this serious issue. Here is his web contact form url, send him the link to this report with a brief message urging him to investigate; https://forms.house.gov/issa/webforms/contact.html His phone number is; DC Phone: 202-225-3906


  17. See UPDATE above!!

    We Told You So! Congressional Research CONFIRMS IT!

    Attorney Maskell confirms that the Memo is authentic! It was never intended for the public.

    The Senate refused to investigate Obama’s eligibility.

    We could find out that We have a foreign born usurper in the White House


    • This is a powerful video because the author makes one great point: Since April 2009, any claim by anyone in the lamestream media, Congress, or elsewhere, “including the courts,” that Obama’s eligibility was vetted must be “knowingly false,” because the memo affirms that nobody vetted Obama’s eligibility and says that no law demands it.

      One wonders if this memo was submitted in any of the eligibility cases? If any of the judges read it? Did the judge who said that Obama’s eligibility was tweeted and blogged read this memo?

      Don’t you love that Maskell sounds as if he’s complaining that it was never intended to be read by the public? I’ll bet it wasn’t!

      Perhaps it wasn’t disseminated to We the People at large, but I have no doubt that it was disseminated to selected obots who have been paid since April 2009 (by Soros?) to repeat its points ad nauseum throughout the blogosphere.

      One point I’ve read over and over again is that there is no law requiring anyone to vet the eligibility of the POTUS. I think this is crap. That’s my opinion.

      The LAW that requires such vetting is called the Constitution. It’s the SUPREME LAW of the land.

      Now we’ll see which members of Congress have guts. Which will ask Obama to prove his eligibility the next time around?

  18. I’m going to post this link to the fab fam post as well as here. Oil for immigration’s compilaton re eligibility


  19. Lets start Impeachment procedures now! Investigate and if fraud and lies have been make and file charges to that affect! Lets ROLL !.

  20. How Congress was prepped to dismiss ‘birthers’
    Research office memo includes FactCheck.org attack

    November 11, 2010 Snips

    The Congressional Research Service issued a memo to prepare members of Congress to rebut and defuse questions constituents were asking regarding Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility under the “natural born citizen” requirement of the Constitution.

    Attached to the memo was an attack piece published by FactCheck.org to dismiss claims that Obama’s short-form Certification of Live Birth, or COLB, originally published during the 2008 presidential campaign by DailyKos.com, was a forgery.

    The memo was addressed to Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., and sent to Jeffrey Post, a staff member in the congressman’s office.

    The CRS memo surfaced with a fax cover sheet sent by staffer Jeffrey Post from Bilbray’s Washington, D.C., office June 8, 2009, three days after Mansfield authored the memo and compiled the Internet attachments. In the CRS memo, Mansfield writes: “Per your request we are enclosing several articles that address concerns about the birth certificate of President Obama, his place of birth and how questions surrounding it were ultimately resolved.”

    In the second sentence, Mansfield suggests that questions raised about Obama’s eligibility have been conclusively dismissed as Internet falsehoods that are taking on mythical proportions: “Also included are a lengthy piece prepared by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
    [http://www.factcheck.org] and an article that points out that the Internet includes falsehoods and they can live forever.”

    Mansfield told WND that he had written the memo to provide responses Bilbray could give to constituents who were peppering his congressional office for a response to eligibility challenges.

    WND has reported that Bilbray is on the record saying there is no need for the president to have been born in the United States or to have two parents who are U.S. citizens to be a “natural born citizen” and be eligible for the Oval Office. Contituents who were peppering his congressional office for a response to eligibility challenges.

    WND has reported that Bilbray is on the record saying there is no need for the president to have been born in the United States or to have two parents who are U.S. citizens to be a “natural born citizen” and be eligible for the Oval Office.

    The controversy over Bilbray’s comments developed when a YouTube.com video was posted. In the video of a television interview on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” Bilbray said, “It’s just like people thinking that you gotta be born in the United States to be president. You don’t have to be. That’s a legend. We got to clarify that.”

    Mansfield said he “did not conduct any investigation.” “I merely responded to a request from a congressional office to answer a constituent,” he said.

    Asked why he did not balance his memo with published articles questioning Obama’s eligibility, Mansfield responded, “I reported what Hawaii Department of Health officials said because they were official statements made by government employees. There has been nothing official said by any official of government, so far as I know, supporting questions raised about Obama’s eligibility. So, there is no issue here.”

    When WND asked Mansfield if it was his job, in writing the memo, to draw a conclusion for Bilbray, he objected.”The attachments were articles in print,” he said. “I was simply trying to pass on what is in the press.” Mansfield was reluctant to talk to the press, and he ended the call abruptly saying, “I am getting contacted by irate people over this memo. It was meant as an advisory to a member of Congress. It was never meant to be released to the public.”

    The attachment from FactCheck.org was a posting on Aug. 21, 2008, entitled “The truth about Obama’s birth certificate.”

    The first paragraph makes clear the piece was aimed at refuting the claim that the COLB was “fake.” To refute the claim, FactCheck.org cited a statement by Hawaii Department of Health official Chiyome Fukino asserting she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, had verified that the health department holds “Obama’s original birth certificate.”

    Fukino issued a carefully worded statement on Hawaii DOH stationary Oct. 31, 2008, giving the impression that the agency possessed Obama’s “original birth certificate,” even though that is not precisely what she said.

    Here is the press release in question: See at URL

    Nor did Mansfield point out in his CRS memo to Bilbray that the Annenberg Public Policy Center that finances FactCheck.org also financed Barack Obama who served as the Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in 1995. At that time the CAC made a $482,662 grant to a workshop project headed by Mike Klonsky, a former top communist activist who is an associate of former Weather Underground terrorist leader William Ayers, as documented by WND reporter Aaron Klein.

    The three other Internet pieces Mansfield attached to his CRS memo to Bilbray were:

    * A story from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin Nov. 1, 2008, entitled “Officials verify birth certificate of Obama,” reporting on Fukino’s Oct. 31, 2008, press release;

    * An editorial published in the McClatchy-Tribune Business News Dec. 9, 2008, entitled “Obama birth certificate gets a pass from the Supreme Court,” in which the litigation brought by Leo Donofrio in the case Donofrio v. Wells was described by the newspaper as “wacky” and “specious”;

    * A story by Tim Jones published in the McClatchy-Tribune Business News Dec. 8, 2008, entitled “Internet drives Barack Obama birth-certificate battle: Web allows opinions to ‘live forever,’ expert says,” in which WND was characterized as “a popular, political right-leaning site” that has chronicled “the campaign challenging the legitimacy of Obama’s 1961 birth certificate or the legality of his taking office.

    Mansfield attached to his CRS memo to Bilbray no articles published on the Internet by WND or any other source examining critically the Obama eligibility issue.

    Among the statements from members of Congress that have appeared:

    * Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: “Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors.”

    See list or Congressmen and their statements

  21. BREAKING NEWS! We Told You So! The Congressional Research Service CONFIRMS IT!
    Nov. 9, 2010

  22. Bombshell: Second CRS Memo Covering for Obama’s Ineligibility Not Released to the Public…Until Now


    1. In order for a person to be born a “natural born Citizen” under Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 – the “eligibility clause” of the Constitution as it was understood by the Founders under The Law of Nations by E. de Vattel, a legal scholar during the years the Constitution was conceived, drafted and executed – both such person’s parents must be, at that time, United States citizens and no U.S. Supreme Court case has held otherwise;

    2. An April 3, 2009 Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) Memorandum authored by one Jack Maskell, a Legislative Attorney in the CRS American Law Division and entitled “Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate” and intended for distribution to members of Congress either (a) innocently, but substantively, misreads, misconstrues and/or misapplies federal appellate and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, or (b) intentionally, and thus improperly (and possibly illegally), alters the meaning of precedent through substantive editing by grammatical ellipsis omission of material words, and thus facts, in two federal documents, to arrive at its conclusion that Barack H. Obama is, purportedly, eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen;”

    3. A June 5, 2009 Congressional Research Service “Transmittal” message to a member of Congress from one Jerry Mansfield, an “Information Research Specialist” in the CRS “Knowledge Services Group,” misinforms the congressman by stating that questions about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate have been “ultimately resolved” in favor of his eligibility based on a series of biased and badly-skewed Internet postings;

    4. A second Congressional Research Service memorandum, dated March 18, 2010 and authored, again, by Mr. Jack Maskell, and entitled “Birth Certificates of Presidential Candidates and Standing to Challenge Eligibility,” but without mentioning or referencing the April 3, 2009 memo, commits the same conceptual errors of the prior April 3, 2009 memo and thus merely compounds and perpetuates the problem;


    • MARCH 18 MEMO – the Second Memo
      8 pages

  23. Presidential Eligibility, Part 2

    (May 31, 2011) — [Editor’s Note: The essay which follows is a continuation of our previous article, which disclosed the existence of a second Congressional Research Service memo produced with the apparent purpose of providing a rationale to members of Congress for their constituents regarding the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama under Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution to serve as president and commander-in-chief.

    Neither CRS memo was disseminated to the public. The first was obtained through citizen researchers assisting with the Kerchner v. Obama & Congress, et al lawsuit; the second was obtained through another citizen researcher who provided it directly to The Post & Email.]

    Unless otherwise stated, the term “CRS Memo” in this essay refers to the first CRS memo dated April 3, 2009.

    Perhaps the best way to explain the concern is to begin at the end of the CRS Memo, where it announces its conclusion, and work backward from there to expose the errors (or less innocuous shortcomings) contributing to the result. In the final paragraph, the CRS Memo states:

    “The constitutional history and relevant case law thus indicate that one born ‘in the United States,’ and subject to its jurisdiction, that is, when one’s parents are not official diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation in the U.S., would be considered a U.S. citizen ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,” and thus, a ‘natural born Citizen’ of the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of that individual’s parents.”


    • Read the conclusion..totally incorrect! What a sham!

    • This was a blast from the past, huh, Bridgette? You wrote this post about it and I made this comment about the same point: That Steinkauler’s father was naturalized when he was born. https://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/obamas-eligibility-congresss-memo-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-32711

      I even linked to the case law for the Elg decision. I wish we’d noticed that the memo left that phrase out about the Prussian’s father being a US citizen.

      That’s really damning for the supposedly unbiased CRS. DISBAND THEM NOW! Congressional investigation demanded.

      • I read through the entire thread as a refresher.. it is still amazing that this memo and its information was used by so many to dismiss the issue and confuse the public. The second memo is hard to read, and I may type it for others. There are additional paragraphs that are absolutely incorrect.

        • One thing that confuses me: Which memo is the author at Post & Email dissecting? I’m getting the two mixed up. All this legalese, as usual, makes my head spin. Darn! I was hoping that somewhere in your excellent post and our comments, we’d have noticed the omission of that phrase about Steinkauler’s dad being naturalized. I don’t see how they can weasel their way out of this. They deliberately omitted that point, to fool the Congress into believing that Barry is eligible and that the law is on his side, when IT’S NOT and THEY KNEW IT.

  24. Two points about this:
    I recently saw paperwork from the National Archives concerning when SADOS’s CANADIAN-born twin cousins died as infants. The paperwork concerned when their bodies were sent back to the US for burial. Whether or not the paperwork is legit, there was a notation that they were “native born” in Canada of US citizen parents, although another notation said “no evidence of citizenship” at the consular office. In other words, it sounds as if they didn’t get US BC’s for their children. I saw this at a library, so don’t have copies; but maybe somebody with a subscription to Ancestry could get copies. I thought it interesting that this paperwork showed up recently and also the use of the phrase “native born” for these children. Apparently they were born on a US Air Force base in Canada. Their parents were US citizens but they weren’t born in the USA. Would they have been eligible to the presidency? For me, this best sums up the issue with this memo (from the story Bridgette linked):

    “On the other hand, when clearly relevant or material words are deliberately deleted and omitted from a quote and the effect is to alter – sometimes radically – the meaning of the remaining quote not excised, the omission is anything but ‘no harm, no foul.’

    Here, the effect is to leave the reader – and perhaps 535 members of Congress, if each member received the CRS Memo – under the erroneous impression that the Supreme Court held in Elg that a ‘native born citizen’ is the same as a ‘natural born citizen’ for presidential eligibility purposes. The two are not the same, and the suggestion that the Supreme Court held otherwise in Elg is, at minimum, disingenuous. Word to the wise, especially when dealing with federal documents: whenever an ellipsis is spotted within a quote from elsewhere, be suspicious and examine the original.”

    My second point:
    I believe that they tried in this memo to conflate “native born” with “natural born”, as the writer said, “while all natural born citizens are native born, not all native born citizens are natural born” (or something like that, the point being the same). It’s AS NOTABLE that they also tried to make Steinkauler merely a “native born” citizen in order to equate him with Barry’s situation and then state that he could reassume his status as a natural born citizen upon returning to the US after living in Germany for most of his life. The infamous footnote 25: “25. See specifically Perkins v. Elg, supra at 329-330, where the Supreme Court explains that ‘a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States’ even if she or he is removed to a foreign country by a parent and made a citizen there. The Court favorably cites a decision of the Attorney General that such a person is “a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States … [even though] the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries.”

    This is another false parallel–Barry was raised in Indonesia. Steinkauler in Germany. But Steinkauler was a natural born citizen while Barry was, at best, only a native born citizen because his father WAS NOT A US CITIZEN. Lolo, his adoptive father, was also NOT A US CITIZEN. He WAS made a citizen of Indonesia.

  25. https://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/obamas-eligibility-congresss-memo-revealed/comment-page-1/#comment-32698

    Bridgette: Look at this comment you wrote. It appears that you and I did discuss the natural-born versus native-born status of Steinkauler. You stated that you don’t see where his father was naturalized and then you quote from the CRS memo (which of course has the omission). BUT look at how you said it was on page 11 and that footnote 68 is missing. If you look at the memo from the link you gave back then, it certainly appears as if either you were quite mistaken or ELSE the memo itself at Scribd has been changed. Isn’t this odd? It also appears as if you were answering me (or somebody) with regard to a contention that Steinkauler WAS a natural born citizen, but I don’t see any comment by anybody to that effect. I know that I cited the Elg case and probably read that detail there, at that time. Reading this entire thread again, we can see that there were multiple Barry-associated issues that they tried to smudge over in his favor. Native born, grew up elsewhere as a citizen of another country, dual citizenship, lack of passport records to affirm where he was and when, health records substituting for items like birth certificates. It’s obvious that the writer(s) of this bull KNEW Barry’s exact circumstances, perhaps even what those vital records in Hawaii consist of, and did their level best to mislead Congress. Gee, that almost sounds like a CRIME. Or unethical. Can somebody make a complaint to the bar?

    • I was responding to you. I read the Memo again and Steinkauler is mentioned on pages 13 -14. That is also where the footnote 68 is attached to the paragraph, but there is no footnote 68.

      I easily might have mistyped it and said 11 instead of 14. I need to compare that page 14 to what I wrote in the comment above to see if it is the same.

      I will see if I still have notes about this, as I typed the paragraphs from the Congressional Memo.

      • Bridgette: I looked at the CRS memo that you linked in the original post. Steinkauler isn’t mentioned on page 11, as you see, but the very last page does have a footnote 68 which is only to the Elg decision. If I remember correctly. Anyway, I can only think that I must have read the decision that does mention his father’s naturalization, but you read the memo and noticed that they didn’t mention it. It sounded so familiar to me, reading that article at Post & Email, because I remember that back then it made my head spin! So disingenuous, these so-called unbiased, ethical lawyers.

    • Miri, I did mistype the page number (corrected at comment). My notes from those pages 13 – 14.

      Page 13
      The Supreme Court in Perkins v Elg thus found that one born “in” the U.S., even of Alien parentage, is a U.S. citizen “at birth,” and in dicta in the case indicated that such person is eligible to be President of the United States. The Court explained that even if that person’s parents move back to their country of origin with their child, and obtain citizenship for that child in the foreign country such a U.S. citizen “at birth” who returns or intends to return to the United States by the age of majority remains a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Citing with approval an opinion of the Attorney General, the Supreme Court explained that such a citizen returning to the United States would qualify to be President:

      One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848..and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled in Weisbaden where they continuously resided…

      Page 14 ..reviewing the pertinent points in the case including the naturalization treaty of 1868 with North Germany, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion

      Young Steinkauler is a native born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..(even though) the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries. 68

      The constitutional history and relevant case law thus indicate that one born “in” the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, that is, when one’s parents are not official diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation in the U.S., would be considered a U.S. citizen “at birth” or “by birth,” and thus a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of that individual’s parents.

      68 – No footnote added..although it started with a reference of Perkins vs Elg

  26. Grand Finale: Presidential Eligibility

    Jun. 2, 2011

    Both “CRS Memos” discussed previously in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series attempt to define a “natural born Citizen” as one simply born on U.S. soil while obfuscating information which would have made the arguments presented therein moot due to Obama’s foreign father, and, later, his release of what he purported to be a certified copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate.

    In CRS Memo 1, Maskell contends that Obama’s short-form “Certification of Live Birth” is an acceptable form of proof of his alleged birth in Hawaii and therefore of eligibility; the second memo cites the case of a young Prussian man who, according to the opinion of the U.S. attorney general and Supreme Court at the time, could have become president even though he was taken away to Germany by his father. DeMaio points out that Maskell’s strategically-placed ellipsis appears to purposely omit the fact that Steinkauler’s father had become a naturalized U.S. citizen before his son’s birth on U.S. soil.


    • Snips
      On March 18, 2010, the Congressional Research Service issued another memorandum (hereinafter “CRS Memo 2”) further compounding the errors of the prior CRS Memo dated April 3, 2009.

      Second, the CRS Memo 2, having been issued March 18, 2010, predates by some 13 months the April 27, 2011 release by the White House and Mr. Obama of what is now by them claimed to be his “original long form birth certificate” and, again, solely by the posting to the Internet of an image and not through the release of the “best evidence” of that portrayed by the image, the original, hard copy of the certified document.

      Third, the CRS Memo 2 – inexplicably, given that the same author produced both memos – omits any reference whatsoever to the original April 3, 2009 CRS Memo, a most curious omission in light of the facts that the topics are the same, same attorney authored both memoranda, and they were issues a mere 11 months apart.

      Fourth – and equally inexplicably, given the identity of authorship – the CRS Memo 2 makes no mention whatsoever of the cornerstone Supreme Court decision cited in the original CRS Memo from 2009, Perkins v. Elg.

      Fifth, instead of addressing the issues within the same context as discussed in the original 2009 CRS Memo, relying on its “ellipsis adjusted” portrayal of the decision in Perkins v. Elg, CRS Memo 2 shifts its emphasis to a U.S. District Court decision, Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961). The decision is cited for the proposition that even a “delayed issued” official birth certificate can be “prima facie evidence” of “natural-born citizenship,” once again, one of the more spectacular non sequiturs characterizing CRS Memo 2.

  27. A bit off topic here, but not really. Something keeps running thru my head now and then, partly because of something I read in my book that that Miri thwarted me from quoting along time ago. In one of the many short scenerios in reference to Aliens and naturalization an example was use about a alien who had disrearded parking regulations on 23 different occasions , but was not denied naturalization , of course only after the court discussed the matter and considered they did feel this meant the alien was not in good order or of good moral character. I mention this because I always think of Barry and his 17 or more unpaid parking tickets, that went unpaid until, I think he ran for Senate or it may have been later in 2007.Mr Obama did not actually pay for these tickets. Someone associated with him or from his office paid them with a credit card. I think , what reason did he avoid paying them back then. What name(we don’t know)was his car registered in.Did he not want to have to show his license back then, or what. Did something not match up back then?

    • Alfy, Do you have any infromation on that car? make…model….year….tag?

      • heck no, but somewhere he does describe his car he had at college.From the way it sounds to me he left it parked all the time. I’ll see what I can find. In Illinois he drove a Honda drivers license #0150-0686-1221-0. thing is he may have gotten and dif. license issue to him in each state. I don’t bleieve the only think he had Harvard was a beat up rusted out car. Does that seem like Barry to you. Don’t know much else yet but I do know he didn’t acutally pay his parking tickets himself, someone else paid for them on his behalf.Right now I am going to bed an will resume looking tomorrow.

    • “That Miri” is linking to the exchange alfy refers to, in case anyone wonders. https://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/the-story-that-wont-go-away-obamas-ineligibility/comment-page-4/#comment-47082 You can read above and below the linked comment for the entire context. I never intended to “thwart” alfy from quoting from books. I was hoping FOR quotes. That is, evidence from research. Name and date of the book. Where and how it applied.

    • this is an area I will explore when I get time. I need to know a lot more….Like where and why he was always where he was, even blocking a bus stop. What street he was on and I found the actual timeline but now can’t find that exact site again that was nicely discriptive. I want to know how close to his classes it was and more.. I just don’t think a rusted out old car suits Barry too much , not after he was riding around in Californa going to posh neighborhoods with an elite cliche and of course being the Mr. Big Stuff that he was with the Harvard law Review. No, I think there is more to this car being parked where it was, and getting tickets that a guy waits over 15 years or more to pay. My son couldn’t even graduate till he paid anything relating to campus years and he was top of his class all four years, Suma Cum Laude’ . Don’t know how to get a license no. for this car or where to start looking , but I’ll try.Any suggestions are appreciated and I might just be wishing I’d find something with little hope .If anyone remembers the interview where Michelle and he are talking about some old car B. drove and the floor board was so rusty she could see the road………..and so on….. That would be a start cause they may give the discription of the car. Thanks.Ya’ll think it is even worth looking into?

  28. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity/


    It’s worthwhile to post this here, because it’s a HUGE development. Leo Donofrio finds a SCOTUS PRECEDENT that proves that Obama is not a natural born citizen and so is ineligible for the presidency. “Birthers” are correct and have been all along.

    MINOR VS HAPPERSETT That’s the case and a legal website has been shown by Donofrio to have deliberately altered references to that precedent before the election. This follows the pattern of the CRS memo which also deliberately omitted a specific and crucial phrase (see comments above).

  29. I’ve updated the post above to include the following at the bottom of the post:
    [ITookTheRedPill] UPDATE:
    I have downloaded both of the Congressional Research Service memos from scribd in PDF form, then run Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on them, and then uploaded them here.

    April 3, 2009: 41131059-CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions (with OCR)

    March 18, 2010: 56676154-Scan-0004 (with OCR)

    • My comment to Leo Donofrio: (currently awaiting his moderation, but I wanted to share it here, too)


      MEMORANDUM April 3, 2009
      Subject Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate
      From: Jack Maskell
      Legislative Attorney
      American Law Division
      This memorandum was prepared to enable distribution to more than one congressional office.

      I have downloaded that memo from scribd in PDF form, then run Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on them, and then uploaded it here:

      41131059-CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions (with OCR)

      I think it’s worth noting that the Congressional Research Service memo mentioned you [Leo] twice, Wong Kim Ark nine times, and Minor v Happersett ZERO TIMES.

      It would appear that one of the reasons why references to the precedent in Minor were scrubbed was so that the Congressional Research Service could publish the following lie to members of Congress:

      The court thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow “common law” (based on apparent British common law) and the later United States constitutional designation for 14th Amendment purposes, that is, one born “in” the United States (jus soli), but also the statutory designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).

  30. Pill,

    Did you compare this Second memo with the first in any way? Like was Minor mentioned in the First Memo? I know I read the second one, but it has been awhile.

    • Neither memo mentions Minor. That was by design. With Minor as SCOTUS precedent, Obama was clearly not qualified. So, they hid Minor as best they could, and the CRS memo pretended that Wong Kim Ark gave them the ability to infer that the SCOTUS in that decision had “implied” that someone in Obama’s situation could be considered a natural born citizen.

      Lies. Lies and the liars who tell them.

  31. Well said!

  32. His name is Maskell not McCaskill – and I know you know the difference. Both are Jack’s, but Maskell is the donkey’s a@@ and is the progressive lawyer that should be relieved of his position at the “unbiased” Congressional Research Service. I think we can make that happen come November.

    Your take on this report is much appreciated. As I read through it, I wanted to take a red pencil to all of the twisted statements. It did read like so many obot talking points that I’ve read before. It seemed to be a collection of information taken from the leftist blogs that concentrate on “birther” issues and compile information. They are run and subsidized by Soro and his ilk.

    The footnotes are telling.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s