Much information has been reported – and much more still is being sought – about Barack Obama’s original birth documentation and whether it reveals his eligibility to be president under the Constitution’s requirement those in the Oval Office be a “natural born Citizen.”
But under the radar of most news organizations a case has been moving forward in Washington, D.C., through which California attorney Orly Taitz is seeking the original application for Obama’s Social Security number, a document that could reveal a multitude of factors about the president’s early life.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce Lamberth this week rejected a defense concern over procedure in the dispute, and Taitz told WND today the case has moved into discovery and she can issue subpoenas to those holding the documentation she is seeking.
For those who never wondered about how Social Security Numbers are generated, the first three digits represent the state of the applicant’s mailing address. In other words, if you applied for a Social Security Number while living in Connecticut, for example, the first three digits of your SSN will correspond to the Connecticut code.
The first three digits of Obama’s SSN are 042. That code of 042 falls within the range of numbers for Connecticut, which according to the Social Security Administration has been 040 through 049.
The national news media has been virtually silent on this potentially criminal fact.
Indeed, when Fox News finally attempted to explain it, it broadcast false information and then scrubbed it from its website.
When WND asked the White House about it, then-Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dodged the question.
Taitz’ case is against Social Security commissioner Michael Astrue and explains that because of the multitude of questions surrounding Obama’s eligibility, his birth certificate and his other records, the Freedom of Information Act request was submitted.
The Social Security Administration rejected it, and that decision was affirmed by a district court ruling that found the administrative procedures still had a course to run. But that now has been completed and the case is before Lamberth again.
He ruled this week that FOIA actions “are exempt” from a local court “meet and confer” requirement and he gave Astrue 30 days to file “any dispositive motions.”
The federal government had argued that Taitz’ process to subpoena individuals with access to the long-sought documentation was out of order, but the court ruling means it is within procedures.
According to a report in the Post & Email online blog, Taitz reported, “We’re now in discovery, so I can issue subpoenas.”
That is a level that no other case challenging Obama’s eligibility or birth certificate ever has reached.
She said she already has contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which is custodian of Hawaiian records, about her requests, and she said another recipient very well could be the White House.
She noted that White House Counsel Robert Bauer resigned that post on June 2, and suggested Bauer might not have wanted to be deposed regarding questions about Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth,” a document presented to the nation as genuine when the White House released it on April 27 Taitz suggested that Bauer’s move back into private practice may have been speeded by worries over the eligibility dispute.
In fact, Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., and author of “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President,” said he’s convinced Bauer’s move is because he fears the “Certificate of Live Birth” document would not stand up to the scrutiny of any serious investigation.
Corsi believes Bauer “felt compelled” to resign because of the growing substance to worries that the eligibility issue will blow up into a full-scale investigation.
“Bauer sent Perkins and Coie attorneys to Honolulu to pick up from the Hawaii Department of Health what he believed would be two certified copies of Obama’s 1961 long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate,” Corsi said. “When the White House released to the public the birth certificate in the form of a PDF computer file obviously created on Adobe software and a Xerox copy, Bauer realized the Hawaii DOH had participated in the fraud.”
He said he had been tipped off early in February that a long-form birth document for Obama had been forged and that the document was to be released. As WND has reported, there long have been concerns about the Social Security number.
“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” says Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”
“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” says Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”
Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?
“Never,” Daniels told Corsi. “It’s against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security Number issued.”
Daniels said she is “staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama’s use of this Social Security Number is fraudulent.”
“A person who wants to hide their true identity often picks up the Social Security Number of a deceased person, thinking that nobody would ever look into it,” Daniels added. “I think it was sometime in the 1980s that Obama decided to hide who he really is.”
ALAN NOTE: assuming he even knows!
There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.
Nor is there any suggestion in Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” that he ever had a Connecticut address.
Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high-school years.
An affidavit filed by Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, “it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security Numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence.”
Daniels told WND she believes Obama had a different Social Security Number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.
“I doubt this is President Obama’s originally issued Social Security Number,” she told WND.
“Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security Number in Hawaii.”
The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama’s inauguration.
Just last month some 11 months after WND began publicizing Obama’s Connecticut-based SSN, Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel briefly addressed the issue while reading his viewer mail on the air.
Unfortunately for O’Reilly, the news anchor falsely asserted the president’s father lived in Connecticut.
In his viewer email segment April 13, O’Reilly was asked: “What about Obama having a Connecticut Social Security Number? He never lived there.”
“His father lived in Connecticut for several years,” O’Reilly claimed, adding that “babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents.”
In reality, there is no evidence Barack Obama Sr. ever lived in Connecticut. He left Hawaii in 1962 to study at Harvard in Massachusetts and then returned to his home country of Kenya.
When WND publicized O’Reilly’s major error, the information vanished from the Fox News Channel’s website, as well as BillOReilly.com
The BirtherReport.com website, responding to complaints by Fox podcast customers that O’Reilly’s Social Security claim, broadcast on Fox, had gone missing from the audio archive, trumpeted the headline:
“Busted: Fox News scrubbed Bill O’Reilly’s 4/13 mailbag segment on Obama’s Social Security Number reserved for Connecticut applicants.”
The site added, “Not only did Fox News scrub the podcast, they also left out the viewer email about Obama’s Social Security number at O’Reilly’s website. I report, you decide!”
No comments:
Post a Comment