If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Joseph DeMaio

The Congressional Research Service is part of The Library of Congress, which contains information and photographs of important events in American history. On May 28 and 29, 1851, a convention dealing with the rights of women was held in Akron, OH.

(May 28, 2011) — In the first posting on the topic entitled “The Eligibility Zombie,” the role of an April 3, 2009 memorandum prepared by a lawyer at the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”), one Jack Maskell, was addressed.  The context related to its impact on the legal issue of presidential eligibility under the Constitution.  The memo, which can be accessed here, was noted as having been analyzed by author Dr. Jerome Corsi – a Harvard Ph.D. – in his new and increasingly popular book, Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President.  If you are interested in why this issue is important, go buy the book and read it.  Seriously.

Dr. Corsi’s book is an excellent, scholarly and well-documented presentation of why now, more than ever before, people should be questioning whether Mr. Obama is – or in fact has ever been – constitutionally eligible to serve as president.  Indeed, a close examination of Dr. Corsi’s book confirms that, if anything, it understates the problem.  Moreover, that problem exists wholly apart from the “release” by Mr. Obama of another Internet “picture” of what he claims is his “original” Hawaiian long-form birth certificate and independently of whether the Internet image (or, for that matter, the original…if one exists) is authentic or, as many now believe it to be, a forgery.

In his book, Dr. Corsi focuses on the fact that the CRS Memo confirms that no one in the “official” candidate or election food chain prior to November 2008 “vetted” Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility, because no state or federal law “required” anyone to do so.  Dr. Corsi also asserts (at p. 295) that “…the most important paragraph in the [CRS] document…” is the one where Mr. Maskell confirms that no official “vetting” occurred because no law required it, as if that were the end of the story.  With respect – it sometimes being risky to disagree with Harvard Ph.D.’s – there are other portions of the CRS memo which may ultimately be seen as far more important because they implicate far more ominous perils.  Specifically, there exist certain substantive and unexplained “anomalies” and “irregularities” in the memo which, if they remain unexplained, cast substantial doubt on the memo’s accuracy and thus, its ultimate authority and worth.

Unless sufficient clarifications and explanations of these anomalies and irregularities in the April 3, 2009 memo are adduced by those in a position to do so, one of the larger bamboozlings of the Congress since the founding may have occurred.  To be clear, those explanations would need to be specific and detailed and come from the responsible officials in charge at the CRS and the Library of Congress, the umbrella agency under which the CRS exists.  The characteristic species of comedic and deflective “responses” masquerading as “answers” which can again be expected from Mr. Obama’s sycophants in the mainstream media and in Saturday Night Live skits, which are getting really old, will not suffice.  No more plugging of the ears with index fingers and singing “la-la-la-la-laaaaaa-la.”  Not this time.

As will be detailed in subsequent posts, the CRS April 3, 2009 document – the so-called “Maskell Memorandum” – appears to have intentionally and improperly “fudged” its conclusion that Mr. Obama, purportedly having been born in Honolulu, is a “natural born Citizen” as that term was understood by the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution.  This, in turn, lays the foundation for the memo’s conclusion that, if Mr. Obama was born “in” the United States, that is all which is necessary to qualify him under the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution, and thus, renders him eligible to the presidency.  With due respect, no U.S. Supreme Court decision has so held, and the CRS memo, with its contentions to the contrary, is no substitute for such a decision.

If the “fudging” anomaly in the CRS memo has a rational explanation or if it can be demonstrated that, in fact, no “fudging” of the conclusion occurred, such an explanation or demonstration should be produced, again by the responsible parties in the CRS or the Library of Congress and not by Mr. Obama’s surrogates.  Indeed, if the de facto president himself has an explanation, that too would be welcomed.  And the answers to the anomalies and irregularities – again, not to be confused with the usual deflective, juvenile “responses” to which the nation has become so accustomed and numbed under this regime – must be produced sooner rather than later.  And, by the way, there exist at least two other CRS documents – one authored, again, by Mr. Maskell – casting additional substantial doubt upon the claimed mission of the CRS to provide Congress with “authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan” legal analysis.  Explanations for the irregularities in those other documents also would be welcomed.

Returning, therefore, to the original post, there were two comments submitted which are particularly noteworthy.  One came from “RacerJim,” who asserted that the CRS memorandum “…was a fraud in and of itself…”  Another comment from “kailuagirl” (perhaps from Hawaii?) criticized Glenn Beck for his avoidance of the eligibility issue, and then observed: “To omit is to defraud.”

Keep these two insightful reader observations in mind as you prepare to learn what your tax dollars allocated to the Congressional Research Service have purchased for you.  Then prepare as well, if you are uncomfortable with what seems to have taken place here, to demand – not “ask”… not “request”… not “beg”… – demand answers from your respective Senators and Representatives, because if you don’t, who will?  They do, after all, work for you, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

Finally, remember the words attributed to Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”  Let me add: good women should also participate.  Doing “nothing” is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. The CRS Memo by Maskell itself is a lie. It left out the roots of the founding fathers and what they did to be sure that “natural born citizen” was the requirement for a candidate.

    They foresaw that a drive-by Muslim would be coming.

    The question, IS further explanation required. Hell, Yes. Required of the House, Required of the Senate, Required of the POTUS.

    There is a huge conspiracy to sweep this nasty issue under the rug.

    That is not going to happen, The American WE THE PEOPLE have awakened and are mad.

    Obama, bottom line, is not eligible. He has committed crimes. Nancy Pelosi assisted Obama with her act as a Private Citizen speaking for the DNC, 2008, and committed a crime with her acts and signature.

    And there has been crime after crime to cover up. Not correct.

    Basically, we have no Washington DC worth a darn.

  2. …why now, more than ever before, people should be questioning whether Mr. Obama is – or in fact has ever been – constitutionally eligible to serve as president.

    Here is a letter I am sending to all of the candidates for President. It is taking some time to find all of the addresses or websites to do that. I do not take credit for the letter as it is triggered by JB Williams article. I just wrote it so anyone can replace my info with theirs in the first paragraph if they wish and send it as well. Hope you do.

    Dear ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬____________,

    I am a registered Independent a little bit libertarian in my views towards government and a former Marine. You have announced you are making a run for the office of President. The pundits say the Independents are mostly for Obama, don’t you believe them. I am reregistering in the Republican Party so I can vote for a candidate who will answer one simple question. I ask myself if you will not take on the most important question of my lifetime why would I support let alone vote for you to become the candidate I would choose to beat Obama? For many years now I have not had a voice in Congress because the people that keep getting elected do not support my belief in our Constitutional rights. I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and I suspect so are the rest of Americans.

    Every member of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court knows about the mountain of evidence that has been collected and has done nothing to answer the question, “Is the person elected in 2008 a Natural Born Citizen therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America and Commander in Chief of our armed forces?” The Constitution does not say Native Born or Naturalized Citizen. Now you are thinking I am a birther, are you not? I strongly object to the term as does everyone that needs the question of qualifications under the Article II of the Constitution answered.

    I said the question is simple but before you answer you have to have read and understood what the U.S. Constitution says. If Article II means nothing to you after we have seen the forged documents and all the questions concerning identity remain unanswered, what else in the Constitution DO you care about?

    My question is: Who is the fraud in the White House, how did he get there and what do YOU intend to do if elected to stop the utter destruction of the U.S. Constitution, our economic systems and our way of life under his criminally evil assault on all things American? More than has been done thus far after almost 2 ½ years?

    If you don’t answer my question correctly, I have no second question for you! I stand for the Constitution, including Article II. If you don’t, I’m not interested…

    Any unwillingness on your part to take on this most vital issue to the future of freedom, liberty, decency, transparency and constitutional self-governance, what else should voters count on you to do on our behalf? As you ponder your answer I give you the following:

    You and how many of your opponents even know the true definition of natural born citizen? If you don’t know it, how much do you really care about the Constitution?

    • natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
    • As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
    • The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;
    • in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    Should anyone who does not know this basic information be trusted to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States? Should people who do not care about Article II of the Constitution be trusted to care about any other part of the Constitution?

    Talking about the Constitution, talking about your oath and actually acting to uphold and defend the Constitution are two very different things. If you and the people elected in 2010 and 2012 won’t ACT to protect the Constitution, all of the flowery rhetoric about the Constitution is meaningless. And if they won’t uphold Article II, which parts of the Constitution should we expect them to uphold?

    America awaits your answer. Please remember, silence can be deafening.


    Lloyd Carter
    Westlake Village, CA

    Ps: I am sending a similar letter to all of your possible opponents. We will see if they are willing to answer the same question.

  3. The CRS memo was a cover. The constitution being the supreme law requires no other “mechanics” or state laws to enforce it, only the sworn oath taken by all in the congress, courts and officers of the military. Any citizen raising doubt in the mind of any official requires they begin to investigate the candidate and meaning of the law. It is no defense to assert due diligence has been served by not bringing an official investigation about but rather relying on a memo crafted by non sworn individuals of dubious allegiances.

    Simple deduction exposes the meaning of the several terms used to describe citizens at the time of the founding. It can also be determined by reading the Federalist papers and understanding the government being formed would place powers in the presidency that should they ever fall into the hands of a person inclined to violate the provisions of the law there would be a crisis as there would be no way to stop the ambitions. Federalist 28 describes the worst case scenario in p6. It is of note the records of those discussions were only for the purposes of entertaining what at that time was considered even probable. It was known from day one that the breaking of the chains that bind government would be the goal of not just individuals but factions willing to patiently out maneuver , out wit and deceive (wheedle as it was then expressed), in order to grasp the power a wealthy civil society would have to plunder.

    The “memo” gave cover to both the heavily invested and the unwilling to face the public and throw it the finger of contempt. Should they fail in their usurpation the intent is to hide behind that memo taking no responsibility for failing to discharge their oaths. That strategy will work if there is a court open that is sympathetic to treachery. I hope the is not and that applies to every last person involved in this charade.