Investigators Ask Why Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number?

Comments Off on Investigators Ask Why Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number?

Well here’s just one more question among many about Obama. Here’s another great article by Jerome Corsi from Worldnet Daily, which Steve had on his radio program many times.

WND Exclusive


Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number

3 experts insist White House answer new questions about documentation

By Jerome R. Corsi

U.S. President Barack Obama waves as he leaves after dinner at  Komi restaurant in WashingtonNEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains. “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”

The question is being raised amid speculation about the president’s history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers. (In the past did Obama work for the CIA?)

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

“I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don’t live, but there’s usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state,” Siciliano told WND.

WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

“Yes,” he replied. “In the case of President Obama, I really don’t know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii.”

Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.

To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama’s were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “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.”

Daniels said she is “staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama’s use of this Social Security number is fraudulent.”(maybe because Obama’s orginal social security number was issued to Barry Soetoro born in Kenya and an Indonesian citizen?)

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.

Sampson’s affidavit 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., a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the number in question.

“It is a crime to use more than one Social Security number, and Barack Obama had to have a previous Social Security number to have worked at Baskin-Robbins,” she insisted. “Under current law, a person is not permitted to use more than one Social Security number in a lifetime.”

Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama’s birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama’s birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

Daniels disclosed to WND the name of the database she searched and produced a computer screen copy of the page that listed 1890 as a date associated with the 042 Social Security number.

Daniels said she can’t be sure if the 1890 figure has any significance. But she said it appears the number Obama is using was previously issued by the Social Security Administration.

After an extensive check of the proprietary databases she uses as a licensed private investigator, Daniels determined that the first occurrence of Obama’s association with the number was in 1986 in Chicago.

Daniels assumes, but cannot prove, that Obama took on a previously issued Social Security number that had gone dormant due to the death of the original holder.

Daniels has been a licensed private investigator in Ohio since 1995. Sampson formed his private investigations firm, CSI Consulting and Investigations, in 2008. He previously worked as a deportations law enforcement officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Daniels and Sampson affidavits were originally recorded by attorney Orly Taitz in an eligibility case against Obama last year.

Worldnet Daily


You think Sotomayer was dangerous?


This just in from CNS news: – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.

Kagan, the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama, expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”

In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important” factor.

In doing so, Kagan constructed a complex framework that can be used by the Court to determine whether or not Congress has restricted First Amendment freedoms with improper intent.

She defined improper intent as prohibiting or restricting speech merely because Congress or a public majority dislikes either the message or the messenger, or because the message or messenger may be harmful to elected officials or their political priorities.

The first part of this framework involves restrictions that appear neutral, such as campaign finance laws, but in practice amount to an unconstitutional restriction. Kagan wrote that the effect of such legislation can be taken as evidence of improper motive because such motives often play a part in bringing the legislation into being.

“The answer to this question involves viewing the Buckley principle [that government cannot balance between competing speakers] as an evidentiary tool designed to aid in the search for improper motive,” Kagan wrote. “The Buckley principle emerges not from the view that redistribution of speech opportunities is itself an illegitimate end, but from the view that governmental actions justified as redistributive devices often (though not always) stem partly from hostility or sympathy toward ideas or, even more commonly, from self-interest.”

Kagan notes, however, that such “redistribution of speech” is not “itself an illegitimate end,” but that government may not restrict it to protect incumbent politicians or because it dislikes a particular speaker or a particular message.

The U.S. Supreme Court (AP File Photo/Evan Vucci)
She argued that government can restrict speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm.

Laws that only incidentally affect speech are constitutional, Kagan said, because the government’s motive in enacting them is not the restriction of First Amendment freedom but the prohibition of some other – unprotected – activity.

She argues in the piece that a law banning fires in public places is not unconstitutional, even if it means that protesters cannot burn flags in public. A law outlawing flag burning protests, however, would be, because the motive is to stop a particular protest.

Kagan also argued that the Supreme Court should not be concerned with maintaining or protecting any marketplace of ideas because it is impossible for the court to determine what constitutes an ideal marketplace, contending that other types of laws, such as property laws, can also affect the structure of the marketplace of ideas and that a restriction on speech may “un-skew” the market, rather than tilt it unfavorably.

“If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action — which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate — then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse,” Kagan wrote.

Instead, the Supreme Court should focus on whether a speaker’s message is harming the public, argued Kagan in her article.

While Kagan does not offer an exhaustive definition of ‘harm,’ she does offer examples of speech that may be regulated, such as incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening or “fighting” words.

The government, she concludes, may not express its disfavor with an opinion or speaker by burdening them with restrictions or prohibitions, unless it can show that their speech is causing some type of public harm.

“The doctrine of impermissible motive, viewed in this light, holds that the government may not signify disrespect for certain ideas and respect for others through burdens on expression,” Kagan wrote. “This does not mean that the government may never subject particular ideas to disadvantage. The government indeed may do so, if acting upon neutral, harm-based reasons.”

Kagan says that government is also prohibited from treating two identically harmful speakers differently. To do so, she argues, would be to violate what she views as the principle of equality — making the unequal restriction unconstitutional.

“But the government may not treat differently two ideas causing identical harms on the ground that thereby conveying the view that one is less worthy, less valuable, less entitled to a hearing than the other,” she wrote. “To take such action — in effect, to violate a norm of ideological equality — would be to load the restriction of speech with a meaning that transcends the restriction’s material consequence.”

The Invasion Of Arizona

Comments Off on The Invasion Of Arizona

Here’s the latest article  from my friend Publius Huldah, a retired Constitutional Lawyer from Tennessee.

The Remedy When The Federal Government Refuses To Do Its Duty

The Invasion Of Arizona

By Publius Huldah  Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Article IV, §4, U.S. Constitution, requires The United States to protect each of the States against Invasion. It says:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion… [emphasis added]


In Federalist No. 43 (3rd para under 6.), James Madison says of this provision:

A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it…

Article I, §8, clause 15 grants to Congress the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to [among other things] “repel Invasions”.

But the federal government has persistently refused to call forth the Militia to protect the States on our Southern Border from Invasion!

So! What are States to do when their Lands are invaded, their citizens murdered and kidnapped, and our young corrupted by drug-trafficking invaders? And State budgets implode from unconstitutional federal mandates that we subsidize the invaders! Are the States to sit with folded hands and be destroyed because the federal government refuses to perform its constitutional duty? No! We are Americans! If the federal government refuses to perform its constitutional duty to call out the Militia to protect the States against Invasion, then the States must perform that Duty.

Article 1, §8, clause 16 grants to Congress the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States. This clause reserves to the States the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

What is the “Militia”? Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) tells us:

The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

So! One of the functions of the Militia – that body of weekend warriors trained by the States and whose officers are chosen by the States, is to defend the States against Invasions. As we have seen, Congress is authorized to provide for calling the Militia into service to repel invasions. But what if the federal government refuses to act?

Alexander Hamilton provides the answer in Federalist No. 29. Hamilton shows that one of the purposes of the Militia is to protect the citizens of the States from threats to their liberties posed by the federal government (7th & 12th paras); and that the States’ reservation of power to appoint the Officers secures to them an influence over the Militia greater than that of the federal government (9th para). On the use of the Militia to repel Invasions, Hamilton says (13th para):

…it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy…

True, it was contemplated that the “United States” would be the entity which protects the States against Invasion (Art. IV, §4). But when the federal government has demonstrated its determination that the States ARE TO BE OVERRUN BY INVADERS, then the States are within their Sovereign Rights to employ the Militia to defend The People from those into whose hands the federal government has demonstrated its determination to deliver them.

In Federalist No. 46 (7th & 8th paras), James Madison speaks of conflicts between the federal government and the States, caused by encroachments of the former. He does not counsel subservience by the States. He does not counsel submitting the issue to a federal judge! Instead, Madison describes various forms of non-violent Resistance properly employed by the States, alone or in unison with other States:

…and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

In Madison’s magnificent 9th para, he speaks of a federal government so consumed with madness that it sends its regular army against the States:

…Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate [State] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition [of the federal government], more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of… [italics added]

Madison would be disappointed that we permitted this current state of affairs to arise:

…Let us rather no longer insult them [the American People] with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

But we must start from where we are. We can restore our constitutional republic. We can rein in a lawless federal government which usurps powers even while refusing to perform its basic constitutional duty of protecting the States from Invasion.

The Federalist Papers were written to explain the proposed Constitution and to induce The People to ratify it. Madison is the “Father of The Constitution”. These are the highest authority on the meaning of our Constitution. Clearly, the States may use their Militia to defend their borders, and States may assist one another in this endeavor. And We the People must throw out of office the federal representatives and officials who refuse to perform their constitutionally mandated Duty to defend our borders. Madison writes in Federalist No. 44 (17th para) respecting remedies against a lawless federal government:

…and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers….

When the federal government refuses to obey the Constitution, the States must enforce it. And WE the People must throw the faithless ones out of office. THIS is how we restore our constitutional Republic.

Canada Free Press