by Joseph DeMaio, ©2019


(Apr. 7, 2019) — In George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, the protagonist, Winston Smith, is employed at the Ministry of Truth in the Minitrue Records Department.  His job is to “rectify” historical records to bring them into line with the contemporary polices and narratives of Big Brother and The Party.  The primary mechanism to effectuate the “rectification” process is The Memory Hole, where inconvenient, albeit true, historical documents and writings which may be inconsistent with or at variance with The Party’s narrative are… destroyed.  Erased from existence, leaving no historical trace of fingerprints, footprints or memorialized evidence.  Think: “It never happened.”

There is actually a name for this process: historical negationism.  And yes, Virginia, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, it is alive and well and getting stronger by the minute, particularly here in the United States.  Historical negationism is generically defined as an illegitimate distortion of the historical record.  Indeed, the Wikipedia entry (yes, Virginia, we must always be cautious about “open source” websites like Wikipedia), quoting Cambridge Professor of Modern History Richard J. Evans, states that “[i]n attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine [imagine that], inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents, attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite, manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view, and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist’s).”

Interesting, no?

Moreover, where such historical negationism is performed in violation of law (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1001 relating to “Fraud and False Statements”), it will constitute a felony and, following conviction, subject the perpetrator to punishment of fine and imprisonment for not to exceed five years.

Historical negationism, the core principle underlying Orwell’s Memory Hole in 1984, was tangentially addressed, without identifying it as such, in a series of posts at The P&E including, for example, here, here and here.  In those posts, your humble servant pointed out that there seemed to be a conscious effort by the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”), and others in potential “collusion” or “conspiracy” with the CRS and its personnel, to craft and issue certain memoranda and formal “Reports” which alter the actual words of a U.S. Supreme Court decision – Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) – in an apparent attempt to facilitate the conclusion that Barack Hussein Obama II was constitutionally eligible to the presidency as a “natural born Citizen.”  P&E veteran readers will recall what those posts showed, but newer P&E Readers should first browse those posts to get the full flavor of what the balance of the present following post reveals.

The alteration of the words was pursued through an ellipsis omission – you know, those dot-dot-dot… punctuation marks indicating the deletion of certain words from a quote – of a date which allowed the CRS to assert, falsely, that the U.S Supreme Court had long ago held that a child born to alien – i.e., non-U.S. citizen – parents (or even one such parent) could if merely born here nonetheless still be deemed eligible to the presidency as a “natural born citizen.”  Art. 2, § 1, cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution exclusively restricts presidential eligibility to a “natural born Citizen.”

This original CRS conclusion was set out in an “Internal Memorandum” by a CRS attorney, one Jack Maskell, dated April 3, 2009 (SCRIBD.com image removed and no longer available on Internet) and repeated in a second CRS “Report” dated November 14, 2011 (CRS Report entitled “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship [sic] Eligibility Requirement,” also authored by Mr. Maskell.

“…the first sitting American president to come from Kenya” – https://www.thepostemail.com/2018/07/23/obama-says-he-is-from-kenya/

And this is where the “birther conspiracy theory” gets interesting (give me a moment to adjust my tinfoil hat in order to reestablish contact with the orbiting Mother Ship): in another CRS Report by the same author dated January 11, 2016, magically, the “Elg ellipsis” is reversed, erased and “undone.” See Jan. 11, 2016 CRS Report at 43.   Having twice successfully bamboozled the Congress (and, parenthetically, 99.9999% of the electorate) and in the process accomplished the objective of “proving” the constitutional eligibility of Monsieur Obama in 2009 and 2011 – thereby also crushing the “birther” movement and ensuring his re-election – there was no longer (a) any need to perpetuate the hoax and (b) good reason to erase any trace of it, because if discovered, investigated (fat chance now) and prosecuted (bigger fat chance), it could really mess up one’s day.  Or one’s presidency.

Or, for that matter, a former president’s “legacy” and executive pension, now pegged by federal law at around $210,000.00 annually, plus staff and office expenses, medical care, health insurance and lifetime Secret Service protection.  That CRS Report cited in the preceding sentence notes that for fiscal year 2016-2017, Barack Hussein Obama II requested – and received from Congress – an appropriation of $3,277,000.00 to meet his “transition needs.”  Sweet retirement ride, no?  As far as can be determined, there is no pension or post-Oval Office “expenses” table for usurpers.  Recall the astute observation of Sherlock Holmes: “The perfect crime is the one that is never discovered.”

But wait… what if someone captured screenshots of the original CRS documents where the Elg ellipsis originally occurred?  Would that not prove that the erasure and restoration attempts had actually happened?  And if they did happen, might those same strategies be used again when, for example, a person running for president claimed to be – but was not – a “natural born citizen?”  At the present time, such persons include (at minimum) Senator Ted Cruz; Senator Marco Rubio; Senator Kamala Harris; Ms. Nikki Haley; Bobby Jindal…, to name but a few, with others surely to follow.

Guess what, faithful P&E readers: it is actually happening again.  Note that the original April 3, 2009 “internal memorandum” where the Elg ellipsis first occurred was uploaded to a private, digital library and document archiving website, “Scribd.com.”  Since the document was an internal memo not intended for public dissemination (it had been obtained and uploaded to the website by a private attorney, Mario Apuzzo, an eligibility expert), it is not and never has been available on the official CRS website which portal is, to put it mildly, about as user-friendly as a wounded hyena.  However, as already noted earlier, the original April 3, 2009 memo has been “removed from Scribd.”  Go ahead, try it (http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions).  So, unless you have preserved, either by screenshot or print from Scribd.com prior to the removal of the document, of your own copy of the April 3, 2009 CRS “internal memorandum,” you are simply out of luck.

Ah, but what about other digital libraries and Internet archiving sites?  For example, take a look at www.archive.com, the proprietor of “The Wayback Machine.”  Try to find any of the CRS memos or reports discussed above there.  Not much luck (perhaps a P&E reader will have better luck than yours truly).

But wait… there’s more.  Another private, proprietary website – www.everycrsreport.com – declares that “We’re publishing reports by Congress’s think tank, the Congressional Research Service, which provides valuable insight and non-partisan analysis of issues of public debate. These reports are already available to the well-connected — we’re making them available to everyone for free.”  Curious?  Go to the site, but don’t try to access the April 3, 2009 memorandum because, since it was an “internal memorandum” and not a formal CRS “Report,” it is not archived there.

Source: Library of Congress

On the other hand, however, if one accesses the November 14, 2011 CRS Report on the website, one finds (at p. 45) that the “Elg ellipsis” is still there, but at p. 43 of the 2016 Report, the “Elg ellipsis” bell has been “un-rung” and the original quote from the Supreme Court’s decision restored.  An interesting aspect of the discrete subsite where both the 2011 and 2016 CRS Reports are found is a “Revision History” dialog box allowing one to view changes and “revisions” from the 2011 Report now found in the 2016 Report.

The dialog box indicates that the 2016 Report is “14% changed” from the 2011 Report, but how that calculation is made is not disclosed.  However, if one “clicks” on the “14% changed” link, one is taken to another subsite where this language is found: “Changes from November 14, 2011 to January 11, 2016  This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.”

Scrolling through the document, it would appear just from the volume of red and blue colors displayed that a lot more than 14% of the 2011 document was changed to arrive at the current, 2016 document.  Nonetheless, for purposes of the present discussion, the subsite clearly shows that a conscious and deliberate effort was made to erase the original “Elg ellipsis” which was present in the 2011 Report when making the “revisions” to arrive at the 2016 Report, which restores the original Supreme Court language. Stated otherwise, the 2016 Report – bearing the same CRS Report identifier, R42097 – is now the “last word,” or at minimum the “most recent” word on the topic, from the CRS.  Notably as well, the name of the author of the 2016 Report – Mr. Maskell – has been scrubbed from the Report, so unless one clicks on the “Nov. 14, 2011” link in the “Revision History” dialog box, not only will one be unaware of the Elg ellipsis (2011 Report) and its erasure (2016 Report), but one will also not know who authored the 2016 Report.

So what does all of this mean?  That presents a question yet to be answered, but at least we know that numerous “revisions” were made to the 2011 Report to arrive at the 2016 Report other than relating to the “Elg ellipsis.”  However, a line-by-line analysis of those changes – including other ellipsis omissions (or even bracketed additions) – is beyond the scope of this post.  The point, however, is simply this: the revision of a prior document to clarify it is one thing, but the revision of an official federal document to erase what appears to have been an improper and potentially illegal exercise in historical negationism is quite another, particularly when the topic is presidential eligibility under Art. 2, § 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution.

From all appearances, it remains your humble servant’s opinion that the CRS 2009 memorandum and 2011 Report had the effect of intentionally misleading Congress, as well as the general public (also known as “the electorate”) into believing that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939 had confirmed that, despite the principles articulated by Emmerich de Vattel in § 212 of his tome The Law of Nations – which treatise was of critical importance to the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 – a person who was merely a “citizen at birth” or a “citizen by birth” would qualify as a “natural born Citizen” and be eligible to the presidency.  The Supreme Court said no such thing – and in fact, has stated just the opposite in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-168 (1875) – and the erasure of the Elg ellipsis in the 2016 CRS Report merely serves to corroborate that conclusion.

Stated otherwise, it’s as if the Elg ellipsis never happened.  Faithful P&E readers know the truth: it did happen… and it could happen again.

Just sayin’…..


Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

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

  1. Thank you for your article about the process of historical negationism Mr. DeMaio. The definition of natural- born citizen that I was taught back in junior high and high school was a person born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. citizens at the time of one’s birth. Research of documents by the Founding Fathers makes clear what they meant by the definition and why, as Post & Email has provided in many past articles. When Obama came on the scene in 2007 and I researched the definition of NBC, because I knew he was not eligible, I found many discrepancies depending on the source. (More conservative leaning sites agreed with the definition I was taught). I wondered… how and why am I finding more than one or several different definitions of NBC? It was very frustrating at the time and now it’s “Like it Never Happened”. In fact I just looked up the definition on google on my iPhone and this is what it says: “The phrase “natural-born citizen” appears in the U.S. Constitution. In order to become the President or Vice President of the United States, a person must be a natural-born citizen…649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.” Unbelievable!!!

  2. Marlene, thanks for you remarks and insight of “Lyin Ted”. Your posting made several things
    clear to me. Also, the Republican’ts had a hand full of other NON NBC”S running for
    president and remained mute…about this scam.

    Bob68, thanks for all you postings and all the efforts you have done. In the Marines we had a
    saying, “Lead By Example”. As you and I have contacted V.I.P.’S ,Congress and taken lots of
    other efforts, I am asking others to do the same.

  3. The CRS was task with trying to make Obama’s claim of being eligible a fact……..though it was not.
    I received a copy of the first CRS report in October of 2010; the report is dated April 3, 2009. I then mailed a copy to Mario Apuzzo.

    After talking to a staff member at my Senator’s office several times, I asked him where he got the information he was giving me on Obama’s eligibility. Not long after that I got a copy of the April 3, 2009 CRS report in the mail…

    Yes, history is being changed in many ways every day. In the case of Obama there were many changes, especially in changing the many references of Obama being born in Kenya, (or Indonesia), and replacing the birthplace with Hawaii. Obama’s fraud was never hard to see, the problem is when he was sworn in back in 2009 many people became guilty of a crime which must be covered forever to keep them out of prison. That made Obama untouchable. The copy I received also has a cover-letter signed by the Senator. Here is part of what it said:

    “Thank you for following up with me regarding our correspondence on Presidency Obama’s citizenship.
    As I stated previously, I believe Barack Obama meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution to serve as President of the United States. I would welcome further explanation of your views on the definition of “natural born citizen” and “native born citizen” as well as any additional information you may wish to share on this issue.”

    The Senator says she hopes I read the CRS report that examines the eligibility for the position of the President of The United States.

    Congress, (Pelosi and Reid), asked the CRS to send a document to them to give to members of Congress saying Obama was eligible so they could use it to try to convince the many people who were calling them on this issue, and all use the same story. It was too late for the CRS response to do anything but describe a scenario which made Obama eligible. No way were they going tell Congress they screwed-up and should never have allowed Obama to be sworn-in or even have been a candidate for United States President.

    It was a nice letter, and I’m sure I called the office many more times, but I never actually spoke to the Senator. It soon became obvious to me that no one in Congress was going to do anything but claim Obama was eligible. No other response was permissible by Congressional leadership and anyone in Congress who appeared to by doubting Obama’s eligibility was quickly brought in line.

    Here is the last paragraph from the CRS Report:
    “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 citizen “at birth” or “by birth,” and thus a “natural born Citizen”, of the United States, regardless of the citizenship of that individual’s parents.”

    The CRS did what it had to do and were forced to issue several additional reports on this issue, but getting right was never going to happen. No matter what.

    Thanks for your article……..

  4. As I expected, and noticed, Lyin’ Ted has been keeping himself in the news since Trump’s election. He has a statement for every issue and an irresponsible media outlet to publish it. He’s trying to ‘win’ back the voters he lost when he was exposed for his lies and deceit. Why? Obviously, he intends to violate our Constitution, which he claims he knows so well, again to run for the Oval Office, again. But remember the video wherein he said “Neither I nor Obama are eligible for the Oval Office.” And remember when he promised he wouldn’t vote for Loretta Lynn but did vote for her in cloture then failed to show up for the final vote to vote no. And don’t forget his Senate Bill wherein he would force all Christians schools and homeschoolers under Common Core. Surely many have heard his speeches which during which he stated and promised just the opposite of what he actually did. It’s important to realize that cruz is a globalist RINO, not a patriot – nor a conservative, nor a Christian.