An administrative law judge in Georgia could decide as early as this week whether voters in the state convinced him Barack Obama’s name should be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot because he is not qualified to hold the office.

But win, lose or draw, the fight isn’t going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation, with challenges being raised anew even in Obama’s own adopted political network in Illinois.

The Georgia hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi, and while none of the lawyers who appeared in the proceedings was willing to predict what the decision will be, several did confirm that Malihi had considered simply granting them a default victory, because Obama and his lawyers expressly stated they would not participate in a hearing to provide evidence that he is qualified to be on the ballot.

A default presumably would have meant a recommendation from the judge that Obama’s name be stricken from the ballot, a decision which would head for review immediately by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

He, however, was the one who warned Obama of the “peril” of not participating in the hearing when Obama and his attorney had asked that the event be canceled.

Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.

Obama isn’t even mentioned by name, but don’t think for a minute that the requested change wouldn’t include his candidacy.

The plaintiff is Sharon Meroni, who long has fought inside the system for a way to challenge the candidacies there. In her new case, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, she is petitioning for a judicial review of the state’s election procedures as they exist now.

Targeted are the state Board of Elections, members of the board, several county clerks and others, including candidates Dan Duffy and Amanda Howland.

Meroni, a registered voter in the 27th Legislative District in the state, said her concern is that “only candidates qualified for office under the Illinois and United States Constitutions appear on the ballot.”

The state’s primary is in March.

The case alleges the candidates did not provide sufficient proof that they are U.S. citizens as required to hold the office being sought “as is required by the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”

State officials refused to remove the names from the ballots, so Meroni has gone to court. Granting ballot access, she said in the complaint, “is contrary to law, against the manifest weight of the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and a denial of the rights of the petitioner.”

Kreep told WND the way the system is established in Illinois it essentially allows political parties to determine who runs for office, and unless voters find out about a filing and can assemble a formal objection within five days, their concerns are dismissed.

And the system has no procedure for verifying the eligibility of candidates, he said.

That particular issue has been in the headlines for the past four years, since before Obama’s 2008 election victory, because of the questions that remain over his eligibility. The U.S. Constitution demands a “natural born citizen” be president and the Founders probably thought that to be the offspring of two citizen parents when they wrote the term.

But Obama’s father never was a citizen. There also are those who contend he was not even born in the United States.

Kreep said the Illinois procedures make it virtually impossible for candidates to be challenged for their eligibility.

He said there likely will be raised in other states concerns similar to those in Illinois, where “barriers now in existence … bar voters from reasonable investigation of the citizenship of a candidate.”

That’s simply a deprivation of the constitutional right to due process, he said. The case seeks a declaration that the political maneuvers are unconstitutional.

There also have been assembled campaigns specifically to encourage voters to file eligibility complaints about candidates with states. One such effort is the Obama Ballot Challenge, which lists contacts for state elections offices across the country.

It is, of course, the states that actually run elections; a national election is just the compilation of the results from the 50 states.

“A candidate that is not legally qualified to be on the ballot, such as Barack Obama, steals votes from other candidates who are legally on the ballot,” the site advises.

WND previously reported that cases already have been begun in New Hampshire, where state officials rejected the claims; Alabama, Tennessee and Arizona.

The newest round of court actions do not try to have a judge determine Obama is not qualified for the Oval Office and remove him from it, they simply challenge his eligibility for the 2012 election.

Many of the cases cite Minor v. Happersett, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1875 that said a “natural born citizen” would be a person whose parents both were citizens.

“This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States,” said one of the filings.

It continued, “Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.

“Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.”

Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, also is working on several of the issues, and has brought the question in court in Arizona.

“We picked the Arizona court for several reasons, but the main one being that it is part of the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit has indicated in dicta that an FEC-registered presidential candidate would have standing for this type of suit,” he said. The organization is working with John Dummett, a Liberty Legal Foundation member who is a candidate for the office of president in the 2012 election.

Irion said the other lawsuit was filed in state court in Tennessee.

“The focus of the state-court suit is to prevent certification to the Tennessee Secretary of State. This suit puts greater emphasis on the negligent misrepresentation/fraud aspects of a certification from the DNC. It includes more facts regarding Obama’s Indonesian dual citizenship and fraudulent Social Security Number,” he said.

He said if the cases succeed, the Democrats would not be able to list Obama as their candidate for 2012.

“Neither lawsuit discusses Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate. These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” Van Irion’s group said.

WND also has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into concerns Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012.

Other attorneys involved in the Georgia case are J. Mark Hatfield and Orly Taitz.

Hatfield has told WND that the goal is for a court determination on the definition of “natural born citizen,” which then could be applied directly to Obama’s candidacy.

View original post.

The now-famous picture of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer shaking her finger at President Barack Obama is both appropriate and deserved. In America, we don’t have rulers entitled to the deference and obsequiousness other countries show to their kings; our elected officials are ordinary citizens whom we are free to criticize.

Obama apparently took offense at the way Gov. Brewer described her meeting with the president in the Oval Office. She said he had been “condescending,” “patronizing” and just wanted to lecture her, instead of showing any willingness to hear Arizona’s concerns about border problems. He also didn’t answer the governor’s five letters.

Her description sounds authentic because that’s exactly how he treated her when they met on the tarmac as he was campaigning for re-election. The background of this meeting is the insulting way Obama is treating Arizona by suing that state for trying to enforce laws against illegal aliens, withdrawing National Guardsmen from the Mexican border, initiating a civil rights investigation of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and the scandal of the “Fast and Furious” gun-sale operation.

Fast and Furious was a secret Obama administration program to sell guns to Mexican gangs, so the Democrats could later make a political case for gun control. It backfired when some of those guns were found at the scene of the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the power of states to take steps to enforce laws against illegal immigration. The Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007, which requires Arizona employers to use the Internet-based, E-Verify system to confirm that a new employee is lawfully in the U.S. was upheld by the Supreme Court last year.

Obama is now having his Justice Department sue Arizona to try to get the court to strike down another Arizona law. It authorizes police to question people about their immigration status if the police have reason to believe the person is an illegal alien.

There are many other ways Obama is trying to frustrate state and citizen efforts to stop the tide of illegal aliens crossing our southern border. He shows no respect for the financial burden this puts on states from problems of crime, illegal drugs, public schools and hospital care.

Illegal aliens from Mexico are believed responsible for more than a third of deliberately ignited wildfires in Arizona over the last five years, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office. Illegal aliens are believed to have started 30 of 77 fires from 2006 through 2010 that were investigated, and that figure doesn’t include 2010, the worst fire year in Arizona history, when two fires destroyed more than 60 homes.

In December 2010, Obama Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano flew to Mexico City to sign a “trusted traveler” agreement. This allows pre-screened Mexican airline passengers to bypass lengthy airport security checkpoints, a plan for which Mexico’s interior ministry secretary said 84 million Mexicans are expected to qualify.

I’m curious. Why couldn’t Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., have been labeled a trusted traveler so he also could avoid airport hassle?

Word has leaked out which proves that, despite congressional law to the contrary, the Obama administration is granting amnesty to illegal aliens through backdoor procedures. The smoking gun is the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Memorandum called “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”

This memorandum asserts that because Congress has not passed comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of notices to appear, and adopting significant process improvements. These policies will enable thousands of aliens who entered the U.S. illegally to become lawful permanent residents.

For example, USCIS could allow employment authorization for H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders who are applicants for permanent residence. And where there is no authority for granting residency to an illegal alien, USCIS could grant it anyway by alleging “extreme hardship.”

The 72-page “National Drug Threat Assessment 2011″ issued by the U.S. Department of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center warns us that “The illicit trafficking and abuse of drugs present a challenging, dynamic threat to the United States. … Major Mexican-based TCOs (transnational criminal organizations) … control the movement of most of the foreign-produced drug supply across the U S. Southwest Border. … The Southwest Border remains the primary gateway for moving illicit drugs into the United States.”

Barack Obama wasn’t interested in accepting Gov. Brewer’s invitation to visit the border himself. He just wants to use executive-branch powers to stop Arizona from doing anything to defend itself.

Obama picked a fight with a female governor, and she didn’t roll over. Three cheers for Jan Brewer.

View source page.

As the implementation of Obamacare rolls into high gear, we’ve been given insight into how it will be implemented in general. On January 20, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would not exempt health plans provided by non-profit religious employers from the requirement to provide “contraceptive services.”

… Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services.

The cateory of “all FDA-approved forms of contraception” includes the abortifacients like the “morning after pill.” At the same time I couldn’t help but note that the group of health plans provided by “non-profit religious employers” who do not support contraception winnows the field down rather quickly to those provided by either the Catholic Church or one of its social service or medical subsidiaries.

The best is yet to come.

By way of full disclosure, I’m Roman Catholic. I’m a convert who became Catholic with eyes wide open rather than a “cradle Catholic” who was born into the religion. As such I’ve never ceased to be amazed at the antics of many of our Church leadership. I write it off to equal parts cognitive dissonance and a pathological desire to be popular.

The Democrat party has been anti-Catholic in its political positions since George McGovern ran for president yet the priesthood and heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in America tend to hail from Democrat constituencies. So on the one hand the Magesterium is teaching very traditional social values while on the other it is embracing without even a hint of credulity every lefty scheme that comes down the pike.

For instance, in 1983, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops declared nuclear weapons to be immoral and weren’t terribly fond of deterrence either. By 1988 they had decided SDI was destabliizing as was the US linking a Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan to future arms treaties. When communist terrorists were trying to create a people’s paradise in El Salvador, many of our bishops ignored what was happening to personal libery under the Sandinistas in Nicaragua as they stumbled over themselves to create the “sanctuary movment”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_movement

Without putting too fine a point on it but there was no daylight between the position of the Magesterium and that of the Kremlin on these issues.

Not that they are all commies or anything. But there were MOVEMENTS out there that had freakin Pete Seeger singing protest songs and James Earl Jones and Ed Asner at their rallies. How could you not be in favor of these things?

Similar stampedes took place on global warming and immigration.

This is where the cognitive dissonance comes in. When given the choice between seeming to endorse a religious conservative for office and seeming to endorse a heterodox leftist there is no limit to the contortions a large share of our bishops won’t put themselves through to help the lefty. To wit: by the black letter of the Catechism of the Catholic Church supporting abortion is forbidden. If a public figure does so this failure is compounded by “scandal”, that is, an action that could cause others to question their faith. The fact that there are very few bishops in the nation who have taken steps to discipline pro-abort advocates and politicians especially when they proclaim themselves to be devout.

The second strain is the want to be liked. For most of American history, Catholics were THE OTHER. It was a foreign religion practiced by all manner of foreigners who either couldn’t speak English (Italians, Poles, etc.) or who could barely speak it (the Irish, it goes without saying). What other religion still has amendments to state constitutions directly aimed at its religious schools?

Just when things were going well with JFK (another devout Catholic) in the White House, he gets killed and the whole counter culture begins. If there was anything less cool in the 1960s than being in ROTC it was being a Catholic who believed in monogamy and abstinence until marriage not to mention avowing any religion that did not use mind altering drugs. Being cool is still important and despite his views on abortion Obama, that epitome of coolness, was invited to give a commencement address at a Catholic university.

This mindset was most egregiously on display during the 2008 election. The Catholic heirarchy — and I have to digress here for a moment to emphasize that we have many traditional bishops in this country who have fought the good fight for decades — wanted to catch the Hope-and-Change wave and had a problem: Barrack Obama loves him some abortion. Not just plain vanilla abortion. He is in favor of partial birth aboriton. He is in favor of killing a kid who happens to survive the abortion procedure.

Demonstrating again a contortionist skill that would gain them employment at any county fair in the country the bishops issued a document called “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”

As first blush it looks like a strong statement in favor of life which would not have helped Obama, or any other elected Democrat for that matter, until one reads deeper.

34. Catholics often face dificult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

In other words if you feel like the opposition to the war in Iraq or midnight basketball or furthering the ends of labor unions or any other pet peeve are “morally grave reasons” you can vote for the pro-abort. And they got what they wanted: American Catholics gave a majority of their votes to Obama.

Then came Obamacare which gave the bishops a real taste of what happens when you create a moral equivalence between universal health care and abortion. You get them both.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops was heartbroken and gobsmacked, or gobsmacked and heartbroken, when they got the bad news about the elimination of an exemption for religious conscience in health plans.

President Obama telephoned Archbishop Dolan on Friday morning to tell him of the decision, said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The pair had discussed the issue during a November meeting, during which the archbishop “got the message that they could work together,” said the spokeswoman, Sister Mary Ann Walsh.

The issue was likely to form the “backdrop to future relations,” she said. “It’s too big to ignore… the elephant is tramping around in the sanctuary.”

An administration official on Tuesday confirmed the call was made on Friday and reiterated comments made by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that the administration is committed to its partnerships with faith-based groups.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.), a Catholic who supports abortion rights and access to contraception, said she thought the White House had handled the decision “very well” by being open to listening to religious leaders. “Contraception is about preventing unintended pregnancy,” she said. “I think that they did what they needed to do.”

So up until November Archbishop Dolan was being led to believe that he and the Obama Administration could work together and there would be a conscience exemption in the health care reform regulations and then he gets a call telling him that he’s been played for a chump.

It is really difficult to understate the cultural significance of this decision. If Congress doesn’t intervene and we end up with a pro-abort in the White House, which seems virtually certain regardless of how Obama fares in November, it is hard to see how this precedent will not be applied first to euthanasia, which seems to be the next big thing, and then to abortion. If left as it is, it really marks the end of independent churches in the United States.

The decision even managed to concern the Washington Post’s E. J. Dionne, another of the “smells and bells” Catholics on the left, or Catholycs as my friend Tom Crowe terms them, whose collective ass gets tired when confronted with the whole issue of morality.

One of Barack Obama’s great attractions as a presidential candidate was his sensitivity to the feelings and intellectual concerns of religious believers. That is why it is so remarkable that he utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health care law.

His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health care law.

Reading all of this I was reminded of one of my favorite jokes, involving a guy in a bar and leprechaun. I won’t retell it here because this is a family website but I will link to one of the many variations here.

And I’d like to ask Archbishop Dolan and a lot of other members of our heirarchy, “You’re how old? And you still believe in leprechauns?”

View original article.

I agree with the Obama administration’s decision to kill the American-born al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki. What I can’t fathom is why the administration agrees with me.

Here’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta responding to complaints from the ACLU over the “assassination” of an American citizen without due process: “This individual was clearly a terrorist. And yes, he was a citizen, but if you’re a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. And that means that we have the ability to go after those who would threaten to attack the United States and kill Americans.”

View original post.

I don’t know about you, but I think it’s a pretty big story when the man sitting in the White House flunks the government’s own test to determine whether someone can legallyworkin the U.S.

And, in case you missed it,that’s just what happened to Barack Obama when his Social Security Number was submitted to the Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system.

I can understand why most people missed it, since it was not reported on Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Associated Press or anywhere other than WND.

Even if the failure was due to some bureaucratic anomaly, it is an amazing story.

Either the E-Verify system is completely broken and unreliable, or Barack Obama is a suspect in Social Security fraud. Please tell me if I’m missing any other possibilities here.

It didn’t take the White House long to notice the report.

A day after the story broke on WND, the Obama campaign launched a new initiative to confront and intimidate citizens who demand answers to questions about his still unvetted, secretive background.It’s called Attack Watch.And it specifically goes after the author of the article about the Social Security Number, WND’s Jerome Corsi. It also specifically declares that Barack Obama “was born in the United States and is a U.S. citizen. Period.” I’m sure Americans will find that assertion reassuring after he flunked the E-Verify test.

“Facts” on Obama’s AttackWatch website.

Keep in mind what E-Verify is all about. This is the U.S. government’s tool for employers – private and public – to use to determine if prospective employees are qualified legally to hold jobs.

By flagging fraudulent documents, including faked Social Security Numbers, the E-Verify system is designed to do one thing – assist employers in determining that all prospective hires have authentic identification papers, including valid Social Security Numbers, issued to them and not to someone else.

In this case, the test was applied to Obama by a private citizen, Linda Jordan, who entered Obama’s Social Security Number into the “self check” section of the E-Verify website, only to find out that Obama’s Social Security Number was flagged by E-Verify as likely being fraudulent. WND has obtained her deposition and full cooperation.

Jordan became concerned when she realized that Congress was not willing to investigate issues concerning Obama’s identity, including whether or not he currently is using a fraudulent Social Security Number, and that federal law enforcement authorities also were doing nothing.

“Between October 2008 and May 2011, I submitted several requests to agencies and people with the legal responsibility and authority to investigate the use of forged documents and election fraud, concerning Obama’s birth records and Social Security Number,” she stated in her affidavit. “To date no one with the legal responsibility and authority has responded to any of these requests.”

Jordan told WND she finally decided to investigate Obama on her own initiative.

“I considered myself to be one of the employers of the president of the United States,” she said, “so I decided to sign up for E-Verify and see if I could determine whether or not I could find out something about his true identity.”

In May 2010, WND reported two private investigators working independently were asking why Obama was using a Social Security Number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in that state.

In addition, the records indicate the Social Security Number Obama is using was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at an ice cream shop in Hawaii.

With the Social Security system at the top of the news as an issue in the 2012 presidential election campaign, you might think this incredible, sensational development might warrant some curious coverage beyond WND.

You might think at least one or two courageous members of Congress would want to know more and begin an investigation.

You might think the possibility of Social Security fraud by the man in the White House would be of interest to his political opposition and the press and pundit class.

But you would be wrong – at least so far.

A private investigation reveals that the Social Security Number being used by Barack Obama does not pass a check with E-Verify,the electronic system the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has created to verify whether or not prospective employees have the required authorization to work legally in the United States.

Over the past few years, the E-Verify system has received national attention because of its ability to determine if prospective employees are illegal immigrants who have entered the United States without the legal authority to work.

By flagging fraudulent documents, including faked Social Security Numbers, the E-Verify system can assist an employer in the effort to make sure all prospective hires have authentic identification papers, including valid Social Security Numbers, issued to them and not to someone else.

Now WND has obtained a copy of an affidavit from Linda Jordan, a private citizen who entered Obama’s Social Security Numberinto the “Self Check” section of the E-Verify website, only to find out that Obama’s Social Security Number was flagged by E-Verify as likely being fraudulent.

The document:

Jordan told WND she is a wife, mother and homemaker. She described herself as “an average citizen with reasonable research skills.”

She said she became concerned when she realized that Congress was not willing to investigate issues concerning Obama’s identity, including whether or not he currently is using a fraudulent Social Security Number, and that federal law enforcement authorities also were doing nothing.

“Between October 2008 and May 2011, I submitted several requests to agencies and people with the legal responsibility and authority to investigate the use of forged documents and election fraud, concerning Obama’s birth records and Social Security Number,” she stated in her affidavit. “To date no one with the legal responsibility and authority has responded to any of these requests.”

Jordan told WND she finally decided to investigate Obama on her own initiative.

“I did my own research and I found allegations that Obama was using a fraudulent Social Security Number and that his birth certificate had been forged were more than credible,” she said. “Then I saw many brave people putting their reputations on the line to get the truth concerning Obama, including military officers like Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, and I decided I could no longer just sit back and watch.”

Jordan finally decided to take matters in her own hand.

“I considered myself to be one of the employers of the president of the United States,” she said, “so I decided to sign up for E-Verify and see if I could determine whether or not I could find out something about his true identity.”

In May 2010,WND reportedtwo private investigators working independently were asking why President Obama was using a Social Security Number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in that state.

In addition, the records indicate the Social Security Number Barack Obama is using was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at an ice cream shop in Hawaii.

E-Verify reports suspected fraud

As seen in Exhibit 1, after Jordan entered Obama’s Social Security Number into the E-Verify Self Check, the system indicated Obama’s Social Security Number produced a mismatch that warranted a visit to the Social Security Administration to investigate the discrepancy.

Exhibit 1, E-Verify notification of ‘mismatch’ in Obama Social Security Number self check

More detailed analysis of Exhibit 1 shows the checked reason for the mismatch notice was: “SSA record does not verify. Other reason. SSA found a discrepancy in the record.”

Exhibit 2 shows a Social Security Online pagethat indicates the response “SSA record does not verify, other reason”is to be interpreted as “Special indicator present,” with the reference to three E-Verify sections.

Exhibit 2, Social Security Online page explaining response “SSA record does not verify, other reason.”

Further research revealed that the SSA adds “Special Indicator codes” to identify Social Security Numbers that individuals obtained fraudulently.

According to an audit reportauthored by the Office of the Inspector General,Social Security Administration, titled “Effectiveness of Special Indicator Codes on the Social Security Administrations Numident File,” dated August 2008, there were 9 special indicator codes as of November 2008:

1. False Identity
2. Noncitizen Not in Status
3. Multiple SSNs with Different Identities
4. Scrambled Earnings with New SSN Assigned
5. SSN Obtained Using Fraudulent Documentation
6. SSN Assignment Based on Harassment/Abuse/Life Endangerment
7. Fictitious Identity
8. Fraud – OIG Investigated
9. Fraud SSN Misuse

“Eight of the Special Indicators have to do with fraud of some kind,” Jordan said. “It looks to me like the SSN Obama is using has been flagged with a Special Indicator suggesting fraud.”

WND’s phone call to the media office of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security went unanswered.

Whose Social Security Number is Obama using?

As seen in Exhibit 3, U.S. Air Force Col. Gregory Hollister, retired,has obtained from the Social Security Administration verification that the Social Security Number currently being used by Barack Obama is a number that was never issued to Obama.

Exhibit 3, SSA verification that the Obama’s Social Security Number (redacted above) was not issued to Obama

Yet, WND has independently verified that Obama is using the Social Security Number in question.

As seen in Exhibit 4, WND has further confirmedthat Obama’s Social Security Number links to Obama in the online recordsmaintained by the Selective Service system; inserting Obama’s Social Security Number into the online Selective Service search engine produces a valid Selective Service number identified with Obama.

Exhibit 4, Selective Service online search engine links Obama’s Social Security Number to his Selective Service number

Researcher Felicito Papa has further confirmed, in an affidavit filed on lawyer Orly Taitz’s website,that Obama’s Social Security Number is clearly legible in a non-redacted layer of the electronic file when Obama’s 2009 federal tax return is viewed in Adobe Illustrator.

On Aug. 30, 2011, Judge Royce C. Lamberth, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, granted summary judgment dismissing a federal lawsuit brought by Taitz, asking for FOIA disclosure of Obama’s Social Security information.

Taitz had alleged Obama was engaged in Social Security identity fraud, using a Social Security Number that had not been issued to him; Lamberth ruled that privacy restrictions prevented the Social Security Administration from releasing the requested files, despite the fact Obama is a public figure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3WUL4gQFHQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY

Nearly 20 percent of all voters and 30 percent of Republicans do not believe President Barack Obama has proved he was born in the United States, even after he released his long-form birth certificate, a new IBOPE Zogby interactive survey finds.

IBOPE Zogby, based in Utica, N.Y., said 16 percent of all voters in the April 29-May 2 survey of 2,020 likely voters doubt that the president was born in the U.S.A. The survey was conducted after Obama released the birth certificate and addressed the news media on the topic.

Demographic groups besides Republicans expressing the highest levels of doubt about Obama’s birth in the U.S. are conservatives at 34 percent, and those without a college degree (21 percent) vs. those with a degree (11 percent).

The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percent, included a sampling of IBOPE Zogby International’s online panel, which is representative of theU.S. adult population. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender, and education to reflect the population more accurately.

It appears the controversy over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president will stay in the headlines as the nation moves toward the 2012 election whether those who have questions about the issue raise them or not.

That’s because Obama himself has been unable to leave the issue alone, most recently repeatedly raising the subject at the Gridiron Club Dinner in Washington.

It was Daniel Kurtzman at Political Humorwho noted that the Marine Band was playing “Hail to the Chief” as Obama moved toward the podium, but he waived off the song.

“Play that song we talked about,” he told them, and the band started “Born in the U.S.A.”

“Some things just bear repeating,” he joked.

According to Associated Press,Obama also “poked fun” at Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, considered a possible GOP contender in 2012.

“Tim Pawlenty’s not here, but he’s hit the campaign trail hard,” Obama said. “And to be honest, I think the American people are going to have some tough questions for Tim. Specifically, ‘Who are you and where do you come from?’ Which is OK. Two years into my presidency and I’m still getting those questions,” Obama said.

The annual social function mixes politicians and media personalities and it was Obama’s first appearance as president there.

Officials say the function does not allow video coverage.

But the subject is one that Obama repeatedly has turned toward.

At a recent Boston fundraiser, he pushed hard on the issue.

“There’s no weakness in us trying to reach out and seeing if we can find common ground,” he told attendees. “Now, there are going to be times where we can’t. I was born in Hawaii. What can I say? I mean, I just … I can’t change those facts.”

The “fact,” however, still has not been publicly documented, as he’s not only refused to release his original birth certificate – substituting instead a computer-generated birth record summary from the state – he’s also battled court requests for his school records, college records, records from his years in the Illinois legislature and other documents typically available for prominent leaders.

It was just about a year ago at the White House correspondents’ annual dinner when he couldn’t leave the subject alone, either:

Obama jokes about birth certificate by itnnews

“There are few things in life that are harder to find and more important to keep than love. Well, love and a birth certificate,” he said.

Media reports in Boston explained that under the U.S. Constitution, a president must be a “natural born” citizen, and they acknowledged that Obama’s mother was American and his father was Kenyan, making him a dual citizen.

The reports presumed that that qualifies Obama as a natural-born citizen under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.. But many arguments raised during the time the Constitution was written can be understood as barring dual citizens from being president.

Also, as his birth documentation remains a secret, questions remain about whether he was born in Hawaii, as he insists.

There have been multiple lawsuits over the issue, although judges have dismissed almost all of them.

At the annual Washington prayer breakfast in February 2010, Obama said, “Surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith. Or for that matter my citizenship.”

While WND has reported on the challenges and legal cases since before Obama’s election, only about half of Americans at that time were even aware of the dispute. Recent polls, however, reveal that more than half of Americans now doubt Obama’s proclaimed birth story.

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another “conference” on a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

It was in January that the court denied, without comment,a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “motion for recusal” but it changed it on official docketing pages to a “request.” And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing,pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of theU.S. Supreme Court.

He also argued that if court members continue to “avoid” the dispute they effectively will “destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system.”

“We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter,” Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. “A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.

“Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make ‘unthinkable’ the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to ‘be’ president the issue has not gone away,” Hemenway said.

“Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?” he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND’s request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans.

“The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution,” Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. “To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter.”

That the justices are “avoiding” the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.

Docketing information from Supreme Court

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”

“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”

“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”

“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”

The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA

Hemenway’s arguments came in the petition for rehearing that followed the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments. However,he pointed out in the petition for rehearingthat theU.S. Supreme Courtappears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.

That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.

Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with theConstitutional Rule of Law Fund and websiteand monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wantedKagan and Sotomayorto remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.

Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.

“Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court,” said the document, submitted to the court.

“Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, ‘as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought … and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.’ Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners’ petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion,” Hemenway wrote.

“Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure,” the brief explains.

“If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate,” the brief states.

The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered “the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president ‘be’ a ‘natural born citizen.’”

The argument continued, “Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners’ motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase ‘natural born citizen.’

“That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country,” the filing said.

In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.

“If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law],” stated the pleading.

“Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure,” it continued.

“Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question,” it continued.

Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.

Theorder on Jan. 18from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as “denied” with no explanation.

It appears from the court’s documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the “conference,” the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.

Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.

WND reportedwhen another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.

“Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side,” Taitz said.

At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.

Hollister’s case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama’s eligibility.

Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

The petition for rehearing explains that the “certification of live birth” posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since “Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader,” was granted “the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House ‘proves’ that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii.”

It cited as an example of Obama’s disconnect from the “rule of law” his administration’s “illegal ban on offshore drilling,” which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.

“They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all,” the petition argues.

Further is the recent judge’s ruling in Florida that Obama’s health-care law is unconstitutional.

“The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened,” the argument explains.

The Hollister case made headlinesat the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.

In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.”

Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.

The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a “biased” decision on “a completely extrajudicial factor”  — twittering — prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.

The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve “even the appearance of impartiality.”

“It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases,” the motion said.

The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.

“Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that … respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not ‘eligible to the office of president,…’ Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition,” the motion explained.

Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.

“It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton’s orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment,” the site explains.

While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been “twittered,” the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn’t allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.

Hollister’s concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama’s orders.

“If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders,” the pleading said.

The case doesn’t have the “standing” dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama’s eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson “found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing.”

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working withthe Foundation on Moral Law,has told WND a demand for verification of Obama’s eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that “he does not want the public to know.”

WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama’s eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a “natural born citizen” was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama’s father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.