Friday, November 5, 2010

Members of Congress Internal Memo--What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions - Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed

Click to Learn What Congress is Hiding
and the Truth About Natural Born Citizenship
Members of Congress Internal Memorandum -- What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Questions - Their Talking Points Internal Memo Revealed. 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 the 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, omitted facts from history, and half truths & non-truths.

This internal memorandum to Members of Congress is the smoking gun that absolutely proves that every Member of Congress knew that Obama was never vetted by anyone or any institution as to his constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the military ... and yet Congress did NOTHING about it. This lack of vetting by anyone was detailed starting on page 19 of the Kerchner et al v Obama et al Complaint filed in Jan 2009.

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. Here is the link to the internal memorandum:

Link to read or get your copy of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) internal Congressional Memorandum about the Obama eligibility questions issue:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/Members-of-Congress-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-in-Answer-to-Obama-Eligibility-Questions

The Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt Obama was Born in Hawaii:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html

Obama May be a "Citizen of the United States" but He is NOT a "natural born Citizen of the United States":
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

To read the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court filed on 30 Sep 2010 which is now scheduled on the court docket for discussion by the Supreme Court Justices in conference by them on 23 Nov 2010 see this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

Update: YouTube video about this CRS memo find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIHhhgulww&feature=player_embedded

Mario Apuzzo
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

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. 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
####

We need your help to fight this battle to get the truth out. If you can help the cause of truth and our battle to protect our liberty, please visit this link and make a donation. Thank you.
http://www.protectourliberty.org
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
####

19 comments:

Mick said...

Interesting that the Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, is not a Natural Born citizen (like Jindal, he was born in the US of Indian immigrant parents). He also studied under Akhil Amar, the Yale professor who has publically argued that native born equals natural born.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Katyal

Mick said...

Here is Neal Katyal's mentor , Amar's testimony about natural born Citizen from the 2004 hearings.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3883

jayjay said...

This "official" memo seems taken from the DOJ CliffsNotes which we have repeatedly seen in the progress of Kerchner et al.

It leans heavily on the concept of English Common Law (as do many of the Flying Monkeys) and cites - among other things - the 1790 law which seems to broaden nbC (which of course is why they cite it) and does not mention - else I missed it - the 1795 law which corrected that very error from 1790 (both of which were signed by George Washington so he must have believed the 1795 law the better one otherwise he'd have vetoed it.

Vattel also seems to be of no merit in the eyes of CRS attorneys drafting this "position paper". Not a great effort compared to Mario Apuzzo's definitive compediums on the matter.

Georgetown said...

Instead of a Birth Certificate or Certificate of Live Birth we get an explanation of why it is not necessary to present one. Though anyone born here would proudly show their Certificate.

Notice the phrase page 14,"when one's parents are not official diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation in the U.S., would be considered a US citizen "at birth" or "by birth" and thus a "natural born Citizen" of the U.S regardless......"

Bo has never said he was Natural Born. His website says "Native born". And Fact Check says at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

Notice the choice words "by virtue" not the constitutional terms "by birth" or "at birth". People who are born here are not "virtual births". And their fathers are not "virtual citizens". (Incidentally Sr. was a British subject without citizenship.) They Proudly show their Birth certificates and Family name,not hide them, and hide behind a mass of words and legal theory as to why it is not required to present it.

cfkerchner said...

Posted on behalf of BAFAuthor:

-------------------
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), it slanted to the ideology of the committee in charge because lawyers are partisan. 90% of them on this project are liberal. The are the 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
______________________

FollowTheConstitution said...

I see three complete seperate issues here that they try to spin into being as one and the same to give their opinion some form of valid reasoning.

First, a US Citizen is NOT the same as a "Natural Born Citizen". Their meanings are as different as night and day and no law passed by government can change the meaning of something.

Also, they put all their weight based on the phony certificate of live birth that to my knowledge the State of HI has REFUSED to validate that document by confirming they did in fact issue that certificate. To my knowledge they merely stated that it APPEARS to be one they could have issued, but refused to confirm and certify they did in fact issue that document.

What's really amazing to me is how they try to sweep this thing under the rug by stating there are no laws requiring anyone to produce any documented proof of citizenship even though it is a constitutional requirement. Then they toss it onto the individual States as being their problem and only at the DISCRETION of the Secretary of State???

Well then perhaps it is time to file suit against all the State officials for CONTEMPT OF CONSTITUTION since they all have clearly violated their oath to uphold and defend the constitution!!! They have all been provided with an over whelming amount of doubt that they all had a fudiciary duty to demand verified undisputed proof that he is in fact elegible and they all ignored it thereby violating their oath to uphold and defend the constitution!

So rather than continue fighting a losing battle the courts keep tossing out over BS standing, perhaps going after the public officials for their "contempt of constitution" would be the proper route to take?

Doublee said...

Back in 2008, I wrote the Secretary of State of Arizona (now Governor Jan Brewer) and asked if the SOS had any responsibility to determine the eligibility of the presidential candidates. Here is her answer.

"Any issues with regard to candidate qualifications in Arizona had to be raised during the candidate challenge period that ended in June. Moreover, questions regarding the qualifications of the person elected President of the United States will have to be resolved at the federal level. Consequently, we will not disregard votes cast for the presidential electors pledged to support Senator Obama at the Electoral College vote on December 15, 2008."

SOS Brewer says the qualifications have to be resolved at the federal level. Attorney Jack Maskel in the internal memo seems to say that states do have a responsibility.

Since Mr. Maskel admits that there is no federal law requiring proof of eligibility, and the AZ SOS leaves it up to the voter to challenge the eligibility, what really should be the formal way to challenge a candidate's eligibility?

Leaving it up to Congress in January is way too late. And that assumes that there might be a Senator and Congressman willing to challenge the president's eligibility.

Doublee said...

FolowTheConstitution said:
[P]erhaps going after the public officials for their "contempt of constitution" would be the proper route to take?

I agree in principle that something should be done. With no formal processes in place to challenge the eligibility of candidates other than a voter's willingness to challenge the placement of a candidate on the ballot, what is the proper route to take?

If memory serves, did not Leo Donofrio's suit in New Jersy and Alan Keyes' suit in California, in effect, challenge the Secretaries of State for failure to perform their ministerial duties under the U.S. Constitution?

One thing I do see happening is that citizens in many states will challenge Obama's placement on the ballot in 2012. (This does reflect my pessimism that no court case will succeed. I hope I'm wrong!)

I seriously want to be one of those citizens, but I am reluctant to do so without legal assistance.

Without the ability to afford a knowledgeable Constitutional attorney, I really don't know what I will do.

Justin said...

The definition given in that memo continues to beg the question, "Why even use the word, "natural", if anyone born a citizen under any circumstances is eligible?". They refuse to explain why the article doesn't just say "born a citizen" to be eligible.

cfkerchner said...

Hi Justin,

They also conveniently forget the fact that the status of being "born a Citizen" as first proposed by Alexander Hamilton in a constitutional draft was rejected for the citizenship eligibility status of the President and Commander of the Armies. See my essay on that:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-being-born-citizen-of-united-states.html

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org

FollowTheConstitution said...

"""With no formal processes in place to challenge the eligibility of candidates other than a voter's willingness to challenge the placement of a candidate on the ballot, what is the proper route to take?"""

I disagree! The formal process IS in place! It is right in the constitution that clearly states you must be a natural born citizen.

The formal process is not up the American people to resolve this,it is up to every single elected public official that took an oath to office and to defend and uphold the constitution!

All public officials are TRUSTEES! They ALL have a FUDICIARY DUTY as a TRUSTEE and the only process on our part that would be required is to merely raise the issue! Once the issue has been raised and brought to the attention of any public official which IS A TRUSTEE WITH A FUDICUARY RESPONSIBILITY to uphold and defend the constitution THAT alone is where the lawful process begins where THEY are required to VERIFY the person is in fact elegible to hold the office they are running for!

They can NOT simply sweep it under the rug by claiming it isn't their responsibility or that there is no specific federal statue outlining some procedure and/or who is responsible to carry out that responsibility! IT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

No person can be POTUS that is not a Natural Born Citizen....PERIOD! END OF STORY!

That right there IS the requirement and every single public official and every single government employee that has ever taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution has a fudicuary duty to verify any candidate is elegible, once the issue has been raised and brought to their attention by any complaint raised by any of the PEOPLE!

They are public officials! They took an oath! They are all TRUSTEES with a FUDCIUARY DUTY to act on behalf of the people. WE THE PEOPLE are all the BENEFICUARIES and as the beneficuary all one needs to do is instruct any public official as a TRUSTEE to perform their FUDICUARY DUTY to verify the person in question is in fact a natural born citizen which is required by the very constitution they took an oath to defend and uphold!

There does NOT need to be any special law or statue that outlines any particular office, agency or official in charge of verifying this! The constitution already requires it which they took an oath to uphold and defend!

We have been making the wrong arguments and suing over the wrong thing. It doesn't matter whether it is a State or Federal public official! They are ALL equally liable if they took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution! Therefore any one of them or all of them individually or collectivly can be personally sued in their personally capacity for breach and contempt of their fudiciary duty to properly perform as the trustee as required by any of the beneficuaries (any one of the people). They are not only violating their oath, they are violating international trust law as well!

Do you realize they are all bonded and you can merely arrest all their bonds over this? Do you know what happens when their bonds are arrested? It's the end of them!

FollowTheConstitution said...

"""With no formal processes in place to challenge the eligibility of candidates other than a voter's willingness to challenge the placement of a candidate on the ballot, what is the proper route to take?"""

I disagree! The formal process IS in place! It is right in the constitution that clearly states you must be a natural born citizen.

The formal process is not up the American people to resolve this,it is up to every single elected public official that took an oath to office and to defend and uphold the constitution!

All public officials are TRUSTEES! They ALL have a FUDICIARY DUTY as a TRUSTEE and the only process on our part that would be required is to merely raise the issue! Once the issue has been raised and brought to the attention of any public official which IS A TRUSTEE WITH A FUDICUARY RESPONSIBILITY to uphold and defend the constitution THAT alone is where the lawful process begins where THEY are required to VERIFY the person is in fact elegible to hold the office they are running for!

They can NOT simply sweep it under the rug by claiming it isn't their responsibility or that there is no specific federal statue outlining some procedure and/or who is responsible to carry out that responsibility! IT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

No person can be POTUS that is not a Natural Born Citizen....PERIOD! END OF STORY!

That right there IS the requirement and every single public official and every single government employee that has ever taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution has a fudicuary duty to verify any candidate is elegible, once the issue has been raised and brought to their attention by any complaint raised by any of the PEOPLE!

They are public officials! They took an oath! They are all TRUSTEES with a FUDCIUARY DUTY to act on behalf of the people. WE THE PEOPLE are all the BENEFICUARIES and as the beneficuary all one needs to do is instruct any public official as a TRUSTEE to perform their FUDICUARY DUTY to verify the person in question is in fact a natural born citizen which is required by the very constitution they took an oath to defend and uphold!

There does NOT need to be any special law or statue that outlines any particular office, agency or official in charge of verifying this! The constitution already requires it which they took an oath to uphold and defend!

We have been making the wrong arguments and suing over the wrong thing. It doesn't matter whether it is a State or Federal public official! They are ALL equally liable if they took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution! Therefore any one of them or all of them individually or collectivly can be personally sued in their personally capacity for breach and contempt of their fudiciary duty to properly perform as the trustee as required by any of the beneficuaries (any one of the people). They are not only violating their oath, they are violating international trust law as well!

Do you realize they are all bonded and you can merely arrest all their bonds over this? Do you know what happens when their bonds are arrested? It's the end of them!

dancingczars said...

What will it take to get this rat bastard impeached? Thanks for your work. www.achargingelephant.com

dancingczars said...

What will it take to get this rat bastard impeached? Thanks for your work. www.achargingelephant.com

Chris Strunk said...

Fr. Jack Maskell SJ hard at work in Congress spreading disinformation http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/

Chris Strunk said...

Fr. Jack Maskell SJ hard at work in Congress spreading disinformation http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/

Chris Strunk said...

Fr. Jack Maskell SJ hard at work in Congress spreading disinformation http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/

Chris Strunk said...

Fr. Jack Maskell SJ hard at work in Congress spreading disinformation http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/

cfkerchner said...

An initial reply to this latest CRS Memo disinformation piece of Jack Maskell's. From Don Frederick, author of The Obama Timeline book:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/11/congressional-research-service-releases.html

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com