Posted on November 7, 2010 by Bridgette| 60 Comments
Posted by Bridgette
UPDATED!!
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
MEMORANDUM
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
Background/Summary
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.
BB
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.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm
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
WHO WILL INVESTIGATE??
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!
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment