Skip to comments.U.S. Selective Service in Obama cover-up?
Posted on 05/23/2010 4:36:17 PM PDT by Retired Intelligence Officer
Is the U.S. Selective Service System now blocking access to President Barack Obama's online registration records?
Members of the public searching the federal database for the commander in chief's registration are suddenly finding new difficulty, possibly due to the startling revelation of Obama's alleged use of a Connecticut-based Social Security Number.
The Selective Service System, or SSS, collects names of Americans for use by the Department of Defense in the event of a national emergency. On its website, it says it provides the nation "with a structure and a system of guidelines which will provide the most prompt, efficient, and equitable draft possible, if the country should need it."
The problems using the SSS search engine come in the wake of WND's disclosure that two private investigators working independently are wondering why 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.
The stunning revelation apparently prompted Internet giant Google to clamp down specifically on WND's report and warn that some sites carrying information on the situation "may harm your computer."
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
More in Article
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
WOW! Great find. Thanks loads.
This is very curious and like everybody else, could you please Freepmail me the hair raising stuff. The Usurper has to be stopped legally. He and his minions are destroying America.
All this CIA and Obama stuff infuriates me. If it is true, that is why our intelligence agency is in trouble. Employing and idiot like the Usurper makes little sense. But then again, employing a backwoods gov. of Ark who later became president, makes no sense but that is why we are in such trouble now.
No way. I wish they, meaning Foxnews, would be researching it but I doubt it. It so sad.
#14,,,,There’s a whole lotta treason going on out there!!!
Has anybody bothered to run the SSN and name through eVerify?
Thanks for posting that link to check the first 5 numbers.
Got mine as an infant/at birth - I had wondered about that...
Could you add me to the hair raising list please?
The lottery started Dec. 1, '69, with the first folks drafted on that basis in '70. My number was 34 (although I had to look that up). Draft was suspended July 1 '73, 10 days after I went on active duty.
You mean IF the person in question initiated the citizenship. Obviously Iran could have issued citizenship to George W. Bush while he was President. That would not have disqualified him.
And we have never 100% clearly determined if anyone can be of a non-American parent and be President. After all, our current President was KNOWN by everyone to have had a foreign father and no one ever said a thing, loudly or otherwise. NO ONE in the mainstream media, even on our side, said that he wasn't a natural born citizen because his father was foreign. Wouldn't Bobby Jindal also not be natural born? I think that could be a good definition, but it has not yet been clearly established.
I would like to be on your hair-raising list too.
Oh, boy!Did you jerk my chain.
Enjoy the following lessons about citizenship and the Presidential eligibility requirments found in Article 12 of the U.S. Constitution. It’s the result of two years of research. And no, Gov. Bobby Jindal is not a natural born citizen, as his parents were citizens of India when he was born here four months after they arrived.
There are only three types of citizenship and all have equal rights: native born citizenship; naturalized citizenship; and, citizenship-by-statute. Note: Natural Born Citizenship IS NOT a type of citizenship. It is only a circumstance of birth required for eligibility to be President of the United States and appears in Article 12 of the U.S. Constitution.
Native born citizenship (jus solis) was created by the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Wong Kim Ark was the son of two resident Chinese aliens, (unable to attain citizenship due to a treaty between the U.S.A. and the Emperor of China). Wong claimed U.S. Citizenship because of his birth on U.S. soil. He was vindicated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment the majority opinion coined a new definition for native citizen, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A. (jus solis), under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.) but it DID NOT extend the meaning of the term natural born citizen to those whose parents were not citizens at the time of the childs birth.
Naturalized citizenship is granted to those born in a foreign land who become U.S.citizens, such as Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger, for example.
Citizenship-by-statute is granted to those born overseas to U.S. citizens (jus sanquinas). There is a whole array of legal statutes covering this, but this type of citizenship has the same rights as the other two types.
Since there is NO RIGHT to be President, the eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegience for any President of the United States.
Split allegience is why no dual-citizenship citizens can be President.
The definition of the term, natural born citizen, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattels definition when he said: [I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. to citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor:
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]
[Solum: If the American conception of natural born citizen were equivalent to the English notion of a natural born subject, then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms citizen and subject. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers judicial power on the federal courts, citizens of the several states are differentiated from citizens or subjects of foreign statescorresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jays opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789: [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ]
As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of natural born subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.
We know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, John Jay, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature: The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.
Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstones theory by citing that the definition of subject per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of citizen as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A subject is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central governments power is derived from the people, the citizens.
Justice Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.
links to very very very long thread and very very long thread
sorry I can’t be of any help, the SS story is one thing I didn’t follow in any detail.
RINOS like to lose. They are in to building a permanent minority.
That number was issued between1977 and 1979, according to the PI who started this whole tempest in a teapot:
From the affidavit of Susan Daniels, licensed private investigator, Document No. 78-5, filed in Barnett, et al v. Obama, US District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana (Southern) Divison on 10/01/2009.
"I located a social security number for Barack Hussein Obama and found that it was issued between 1977-1979 in the State of Connecticut."
From the SSA link at comment 43:
Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.
I would also challenge any private detective to testify under oath that Obama never visited Connecticut betwen 1977 and 1979. How could they possibly prove it?
The fact that he had a verified SSN issued in CT is odd, nothing more.
Here’s the best explanation to the Connecticut question I’ve heard to date.
See #26 same thread.
at that SSN site it says
” Note: One should not make too much of the “geographical code.” It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.”
Having a CT assigned SSN by itself means nothing. We don’t know when he applied for a SSN. And if it was after 1972 he or a family member could have requested it while in CT. I find this odd and worth investigating by someone but by itself not conclusive evidence of a crime.
Yes , pretty odd. Someone travels from Hawaii to Conn and establishes a mailing address in Conn. Then when he applies for his SS number, he has it sent to that address instead of his home address in Hawaii. However, the number wasn't verified being issued to him. It was issued to someone else. It has been verified that he has used that number.
Double speak. Of course it is not designed for geographical information of where the person lived, but it was used to designate the region from which the number was issued . That is the point.
We need more of this, in larger font, in more places.
How much more information will it take on this fake person, to get this country mad as hell and not in the mood to take it any more?
how 'bout his use of an OHIO SS# when he was a Senator?
So after being in Indonesia and loosing the U.S. citizenship(?), or being a Kenyan citizen(?) for that matter, you have a pickle on your hand!!
It has been said that Granny "Toot" was able to fix that. Makes sense to me so that the family could "game" the system down the road!!!
Yeah I know, b is next to n on my keyboard! Sorry!
I could see sychophants doing it just because they Love Obama and “believe in the cause”, hence the Dem middle management bureaucrat types simply sit on the info. No means is too evil to further the cause! It could be too, that some of the ‘controllers’ fear societal chaos (if Obama is exposed) worse than if he is just simply tolerated until and then jettisoned after 2012!
You are banging on it as usual!This will gain momentum.
Obama- Communist connections throughout his life
President seems to have much closer connections with actual Communists than your typical liberal.
The First Time I Heard Of Barack
By Tom Fife 11-20-2008
During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.
V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause - a cause she obviously was not abandoning.
One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.’s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.
As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge - one her husband tried to quietly rein in.
The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:
“You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice- president and you didn’t do it.”
The general response went something along the lines that you don’t vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don’t vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.”Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”
The consensus we expressed was that we didn’t think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.
“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”
The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”
It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it.
One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”
“Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now.
You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call “Ivy League”. You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack.
His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa.
That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President.”
She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. “It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”
We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he’d be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.
She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.
She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. “Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet.”
At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn’t understand what the point was and don’t recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.
Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: “If I remember correctly, ‘Barack’ comes from the Arabic word for ‘Blessing.’ That seems to be an odd name for an American.”
She replied quickly, “Yes. It is ‘African’”, she insisted, “and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.”
She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way.
So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove?
Well, it’s definitely anecdotal. It doesn’t prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed.
Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.
I have heard this man speak —— he seems very honest and sincere and credible to me.
Remember: BHO was raised by a Communist, KGB guided Frank Marshall Davis from the age of 10 (!!!) to 18+. Davis was a Communist from Chicago with a 601 (!!!) page FBI file, for God’s sakes ....
what else do you think he could be.
And his first political job was with Alice Palmer, who visited Moscow and Cuba many many times, leaving good ol’ Barack in charge in her absence.
Both she and he were members of numerous Communist inspired or guided or controlled front organizations ....
When hasn’t he acted like he loves Moscow and hates America ???
Remember the photo where he refuses to put his hand over his heart???
Doesn’t that just tell you everything ???
The bottom line is... the media and Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are afraid to investigate obama because of his skin color.
Me too, please.
Not an actually statement from the Senator(?) himself???
I think you are exactly right. This is bigger than Obummer his gang of thugs and the seeds for this were planted a long time ago.
He went on a scholarship. I assumed it was an academic scholarship.
I'm ok for Thune staying in the Senate, but he has ZERO personal business experience & has never served in the military. He basically has spent most of his life in politics. His short term between Senate & Congress he worked as a lobbyist and although he didn't get corrupt like Daschle, it still says a lot about his view of what's wrong in DC. We need a tried & true constitutional conservative, not another mediocre one.
“The fact that he had a verified SSN issued in CT is odd, nothing more.”
How about that fact that his SS# was issued to someone else?
Does that seem more than odd?
Just how many times do the “authorities” have to tell you “move along now...there’s nothing to see here...MOVE ALONG”?
DId you try it 6 million times? As someone that creates these kind of online databases, I know how much traffic something like this can generate. I think a rational person would assume they’ve taken steps to protect their system rather than leaping to the conclusion that it is some sort of conspiracy.
The last link was a comment posted by Mr Coffman, a retired ICE officer who had top ranking security clearance. His job was to root out fraud docs & applications. He knows what he is talking about when he says that Obama’s selective service records he foia’d.
I wonder if Punahou had any Foreign Student Programs when Obama attended?
He went on a scholarship. I assumed it was an academic scholarship.
Anyone know the answer to this?
The article says the department told them 3 times for ANY number. They tried another number 10 times and there was no problem. Selective protection?
The so-called "proof" that someone else had the number is an internet database entry, with no name attached. It is very probably an error.
Here's Susan Daniels statement on that matter, from the same affidavit mentioned earlier:
"Further, the number assigned to Barack Obama may have been assigned previously, as it appears to also be associated with someone born in year 1890."
There's a good reason Daniels couched that in vague terms, if she wishes to keep her PI license. Here's the typical disclaimer for such database search results, from a document image of database search results for her primary opponent, also supplied by Susan Daniels, and posted on Orly Taitz' blog yesterday:
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified.
There's no "independent verification" of this person's existence, or the assignment of that number previously to another person.
It also shows that Russian Communists are better political consultants than anyone the US has managed to produce.
The degree of intelligence and profound insight into human nature required to assess and predict political trends, behavior, and outcome to pull off this plan are truly astonishing.
> I wonder if Punahou had any Foreign Student Programs when Obama attended?
> He went on a scholarship. I assumed it was an academic scholarship.
Background from his Honolulu City Council website:
Councilmember Charles K. Djou currently represents the 4th Council District (Waikiki to Hawaii Kai). In the City Council, Charles serves as the Chairman of the Executive Matters and Legal Affairs Committee and is a member of the Public Infrastructure, Budget, and Public Safety and Services Committes. Charles previously served as a Representative in the Hawaii State House, where he was the Minority Floor Leader.
No matter how many times something is explained, these things continue to spread. It's the nature of a conspiracy theory.
President crime hiding report bump!