You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘birthers’ tag.

This is not the first time that Barack Obama’s Social Security Number has been brought into question. While it is not a problem that the number was not issued to him until he was a teenager, as was the practice at the time, it has always been deemed as suspicious that his number was issued from Connecticut as opposed to Hawaii.

Now an Ohio grandmother who is a private investigator is challenging Obama’s eligibility to on the Ohio ballot because of the alleged inconsistencies in his Social Security number:

If Barack Obama has an immediate eligibility problem, it is more likely to derive from the Social Security Number he has been using for the last 35 years than from his birth certificate.

Ohio private investigator Susan Daniels has seen to that.  On Monday, July 2, she filed suit in Geauga County (Ohio) Common Pleas Court demanding that Jon Husted, Ohio secretary of state, remove Obama’s name from the ballot until Obama can prove the validity of his Social Security Number.

Daniels, who has vetted thousands of Social Security Numbers for numerous other clients, has done her homework.  In her filing, she thoroughly documents her contention “that Barack Obama has repeatedly, consistently, and with intent misrepresented himself by using a fraudulently obtained Social Security Number.”

To acquire appropriate standing in court, Daniels has gone to the trouble of establishing herself as a valid write-in candidate for president.  Before she is through, this 70-something mother of seven, who has been a licensed Ohio PI since 1995, may cause Obama more trouble than the Romney campaign.

Daniels started her investigation in August 2009.  Given her profession, she has been able to access a variety of proprietary databases.  What she learned without much trouble is that Obama has been using a Social Security Number with the prefix “042″ since 1986.

As she discovered, the “042″ number is reserved for the exclusive use of individuals who register in Connecticut.  When she ran 10 sequential numbers before and after Obama’s, all returned with the documentation “issued 1977-1979 in CT.”

When Daniels ran the numbers immediately flanking Obama’s, she came to the firm conviction that Obama’s number was issued in March 1977 in Connecticut.

For full article: http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obamas-social-security-number-challenged/

Advertisements

Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and that it doesn’t matter.

According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit, “…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.” (emphasis added)

for full article: http://www.westernjournalism.com/dems-admit-obama-not-eligible-dont-care/

see ARTICLE at DRUDGE REPORT or http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The so-called birther movement was dealt another legal blow Thursday when a federal appeals court tossed out a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that none of the challengers had legal standing to file the lawsuit on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. The three-judge panel cited various reasons for disqualifying six sets of plaintiffs, who included Obama’s political rivals, taxpayers and military personnel.

The birther movement has filed multiple lawsuits over the issue, so far with no success. Its leaders have lost similar challenges before the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court.

The U.S. Constitution says only “a natural born citizen” may serve as president. The challengers allege that Obama, whose father was Kenyan, was born in that African country, rather than the U.S. state of Hawaii. They claim his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery.

The appeals court didn’t address the authenticity of the birth certificate, instead ruling that the challengers couldn’t show “concrete injury” from the allegations.

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-tosses-obama-birthplace-challenge-191256867.html

Obama campaign selling ‘birther’ T-shirts

By Jordan Fabian – 05/18/11 11:53 AM ET

President Obama’s campaign team is trying to capitalize on claims that he was not born in the United States.

His campaign is now selling T-shirts emblazoned with his face above the slogan “Made in the U.S.A.” On the back is an image of his birth certificate. The fundraising pitch says the shirt is a “limited-edition” item.

Obama released his long-form birth certificate last month to prove he was born in Hawaii after billionaire businessman Donald Trump cast doubt on the authenticity of the his birth certificate. 

for story and photo of shirt: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161899-obama-campaign-selling-birther-t-shirts

In an effort to answer some of the charges being vocalized by the likes of Donald Trump, the White House this morning has shown the White House Press Corps a document which from all appearances purports to be the long form version of a Hawaiian birth certificate.

The President is to speak on the birth certificate issue shortly, an issue he has addressed primarily in condescending joking fashion, and rarely at all. That task is usually left to his minions.

Will this document put the matter to rest, once and for all? What will the President say about the issue? Is this a wise move on the part of the White House?

Should be interesting.

UPDATE:  PDF file from Wall Street Journal with birth certificate:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/042711obamabirthwsj.pdf

UPDATE:  The POTUS says that we have no time for this silliness!!

Arizona may have the most advanced plan, but 10 of the United States – controlling 107 Electoral College votes – are now considering some type of legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution.

And they aren’t all the simple legislation such as that adopted in New Hampshire a year ago that requires an affidavit from a candidate stating that the qualifications – age, residency and being a “natural born citizen” – have been met.

In Georgia, for example, HB37 by Rep. Bobby Franklin not only demands original birth-certificate documentation, it provides a procedure for and declares that citizens have “standing” to challenge the documentation.

Franklin told WND the least that leaders of the United States, on a state or federal level, can do is to follow the requirements of the law of the land.

His plan, he said, is needed because he saw “requirements in the Constitution that you don’t have a code provision to ensure that it happens.”

“If we as an entity of civil government don’t follow the laws, then what makes us think that our citizens are going to obey anything we enact?” he said. “We need to lead by example.”

WND reported just one day ago that Arizona, which had a plan to require documentation of eligibility from presidential candidates passed by the state House a year ago, had proposed a new plan.

According to officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures, 10 states already have some sort of eligibility-proof requirement plan.

There is Arizona’s HB2544, Connecticut’s SB391, Georgia’s HB37, Indiana’s SB114, Maine’s LD34, Missouri’s HB283, Montana’s HB205, Nebraska’s LB654, Oklahoma’s SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529.

Led by Texas with 34, the states control 107 Electoral College votes.

The NCLS said New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is something similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.

Other plans were considered last year in Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota, Maine and Arizona, and Arizona’s probably got the closest to law, falling a “pocket veto” short in the state Senate, despite widespread support.

For summary of each state: http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212347226.shtml

For reasons clear to no one just yet, Hawaii’s new Democrat governor, Neil Abercrombie, has gone public with his desire to silence the so-called “birthers” with proof of Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth.

“Maybe I’m the only one in the country,” Abercrombie told the Los Angeles Times just before Christmas, “that could look you right in the eye right now and tell you, ‘I was here when that baby was born.'”

 

A few days later, Abercrombie clarified to Mark Niesse of the Associated Press that he didn’t exactly see Obama’s parents with their newborn son at the hospital, but that he “remembers seeing Obama as a child with his parents at social events.”

 

Although the major media have questioned why Abercrombie would raise an issue that, according to the Los Angeles Times, “most people see as resolved,” they take Abercrombie at his word as to what he knows about the young Obama family.

 

They shouldn’t.  Abercrombie’s boasts about his relationship with the president’s presumed parents, Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham, have got to unnerve the president and his close advisors.  They know something the media perversely choose not to know: Abercrombie is remembering a past that never happened.

 

A member of the House’s progressive caucus before his election as governor, Abercrombie has been talking excitedly about the relationship for years, playing John the Baptist to Obama’s Jesus.

 

“Little Barry, that’s what we called him,” Abercrombie told the Chicago Tribune while “recalling his days with Obama Sr. and his future wife, Ann Dunham, at the University of Hawaii.”  If Obama were born on August 4, 1961, however, there could not have been many such days. 

 

As is thoroughly documented, Ann and little Barry were in Seattle two weeks later, where she enrolled at the University of Washington.  By the time she returned to Hawaii in late summer or fall 1962, Barack Sr. had left for Harvard for good.

 

Citing Abercrombie as source, a 2007 Hawaii TV news report claimed that Ann “became estranged from her husband, Barack Obama[,] Sr., after his departure for Harvard.”  I don’t know about Hawaii, but in Missouri, if you flee your husband with baby in tow two weeks after his birth, that qualifies as “estrangement.”