In the words of Mortimer Zuckerman, hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has proved a poor supper.

“The hope that fired up the election of Barack Obama has flickered out, leaving a national mood of despair and disappointment. Americans are dispirited over how wrong things are and uncertain they can be made right again. Hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has proved a poor supper.”

– Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief, US News & World Report, July 2, 2010

This from a man who on Fox News recently said he voted for Obama, his newspaper, the New York Daily News, endorsed Obama, and that he even helped one of his speeches!

The problem is an ancient one. How to remove from office a king or, in a republic, an elected leader who has broken the law and/or is perceived to be a threat to both the present and future of the nation? In earlier eras, the solution was usually bloody.

“Who will rid me of this meddling priest?” England’s King Henry II was reputed to have said of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1170, his complaint was obliged when Becket was murdered on a cold December evening.

I cite this famous quote only because the tide is rising among Americans who would be rid of Barack Obama. I would never suggest or condone the sword, but surely one would think we the People might have recourse to the courts or Congress.

The fear in both the courts and Congress is the torturous process involved and, of course, the outcome.

Twice in our history, impeachment has been tried and failed, first with Andrew Johnson whose Reconstruction policies following the Civil War were in much disfavor and, in more recent times, with Bill Clinton whose perjuries and other problems were not deemed to rise to a level worthy of removing him from office. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

The Constitution stipulates that, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The drawback of impeachment is the way it would inevitably cast Obama as the victim of predatory politicians. It is not a good choice.

Presumably, lying about one’s eligibility to hold the office of President and spending huge sums to ensure that one’s birth certificate and actual place of birth shall remain unknown would justify removal.

We all know by now that, constitutionally, only a “natural born” citizen may serve as President. Obama’s father was a British citizen and both parents must be American to qualify as natural born. We all know that considerable controversy exists as regards the birthplace and citizenship status of Obama. Was he a Kenyan? Was he an Indonesian citizen at one point?

The enduring question on the minds of many is why the court cases filed to get at the facts regarding his eligibility have encountered so much resistance. Surely this is a matter of major national concern. What nation would permit an imposter to serve in its highest office?

Alas, early cases were dismissed when those bringing them were deemed to have no “standing” before the court though one might think the lowliest citizen should have standing.

As wrenching as the process of removing Obama from office via the judicial process might be deemed, there is no legitimate reason not to proceed.

There appears to be no evidence his birth was registered with the American embassy or consulate in Kenya. I have seen a photo of a document said to be his Kenyan birth certificate. Having no way to authenticate it, I am reluctant to pass judgment.

The birth certificate from Hawaii, offered during the 2008 campaign, is said to be one issued upon request as opposed to the “long form” issued for those actually born there. There was some question raised at the time as to its authenticity with allegations that it was photoshopped. There is a question whether a long form certificate exists.

My personal view is that many in government fear the consequences of removing even an illegitimate President from office, given that it would require that all legislation signed into law and all executive orders issued by him would be rendered invalid. I suspect some fear that chaos more than waiting and hoping the electoral process will end his term in 2012.

My problem is that the nation must endure some 900 more days of the malevolence or sheer incompetence he will initiate; including a lame duck session of Congress following the midterm elections that would impose Cap-and-Trade, card check, and other legislative abominations.

A large majority of the electorate presently wants Obamacare repealed and will likely feel the same about the alleged financial “reforms.”

There are constitutional scholars who know far more about such things than me, but I confess to remaining baffled by the failure to attend to the critical question regarding the right of Barack Hussein Obama to be the President of the United States.

A Mexican-born candidate for U.S. Senate said he is considering a lawsuit against the Missouri secretary of state for discrimination because her office forced him to produce a birth certificate but “didn’t make Obama show proof of citizenship” to appear on the ballot.

Hector Maldonado, 38, a self-described “Lincolnian Republican conservative,” is seeking the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Missouri. He was born one of 10 children in Durango, Mexico. His father is a migrant field worker who owns a small hog ranch in Perris, Calif.

During the following July 5 interview with Karen Berka of Branson Radio Live posted on YouTube, Maldonado explains why he thinks his rights were violated when the secretary of state’s office asked for proof of U.S. citizenship when he filed to run for the Senate:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm6ig4uTWPI

Maldonado, a U.S. Army combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, explains on his website that he became a U.S. citizen in 1995. But he said Secretary of State Robin Carnahan sent him a letter in May asking him to produce documentation.

“It said, ‘Hey, you have to prove you’re a citizen.’ I ignored it,” he said. “You know, Obama ignored it, so I figured I could get away with it, too.”

The audience began laughing, applauding and cheering during his statement.

Maldonado continued, “But it’s not that simple. I didn’t get away with it. I got a certified letter from Ms. Robin Carnahan’s office saying that if I did not prove that I was a U.S. citizen, then I would be removed from the ballot.”

He claims Carnahan’s office gave him a deadline of May 12.

“I got all my documents together: my birth certificate, which is a Mexican birth certificate; my naturalization certificate; my orders sending me to Iraq and Afghanistan; my bronze-star citations and a couple of officer evaluations that say I’m a pretty good and effective leader,” he said. “So I brought all this documentation, and they were only interested in the naturalization certificate. They made a photocopy of it.”

Maldonado said he asked Carnahan’s office if his citizenship documentation would be public record and available to anyone who wants a copy.

“They said, oh yes, absolutely, anyone that wants proof, we have it,” he explained. “I said, OK, can you do me a favor then? I’m sure Ms. Carnahan requested the same of Barack Obama when he petitioned to get on the Missouri ballot to become president.”

He added, “They had no response. They had nothing.”

Maldonado said he thought about picketing during Obama’s visit to Missouri today to raise money for Carnahan’s U.S. Senate campaign.Obama arrived in Kansas City this morning to make appearances at two fundraising events for Carnahan. Missouri’s primary election will take place on Aug. 3.

“But I decided something different. I’m actually considering suing Ms. Robin Carnahan because she discriminated against me,” he said. “She has said that her job is to protect Missouri from fraud and corruption. But the fraud that she created if she did not make Mr. Obama show proof of citizenship when he petitioned to get on the Missouri ballot … all the votes that he got should be taken back.”

He said he hopes citizens of other states sue their own secretaries of state if they cannot show they requested proper documentation from Obama before allowing him to appear on the state ballot.

“Sooner or later, he’s going to have to prove – based on our demand – that he is in fact a U.S.-born citizen,” he said.

In an earlier interview on the subject, Maldonado said he spoke with other candidates running for the same office and asked if they had to show proof of citizenship or prove that they were citizens.

“They said no. I was the only one,” he said. “… I just don’t know, if I were running as a Democrat, would I have to prove the same thing? Or is there a more stringent process for the Republican candidates?”

The following is a YouTube posting with audio from that interview:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgf-ffCKZkc

As WND has reported, Obama himself has still not provided simple, incontrovertible proof of his exact birthplace. The information would be included on his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, which Obama has steadfastly refused to release amid a flurry of conflicting reports.

The White House has only proffered on the Internet a “Certification of Live Birth” to assert he was born in Hawaii. But that document was available for children not born in Hawaii at the time of Obama’s birth.

Many people remain unaware a child could be born somewhere else and still receive a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. State law specifically allows “an adult or the legal parents of a minor child” to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document.

“Anyone can get that (Certification of Live Birth),” Tim Adams, a former Hawaii elections official told WND in an earlier interview. “They are normally given if you give birth at home or while traveling overseas. We have a lot of Asian population (in Hawaii). It’s quite common for people to come back and get that.”

Besides his actual birth documentation, documentation that remains concealed for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, complete medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption records.

Three judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are beginning to review a case that alleges Barack Obama is not eligible to be president – in fact, he may not even be American.

The federal court case was brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of plaintiffs Charles Kerchner and others, and had been dismissed at the district court level.

Arguments earlier had been scheduled for June 29 in the dispute, but a court order recently cancelled the hearing and instead announced the case would be decided based on the merits of the legal briefs submitted by attorneys.

A document from court clerk Marcia Waldron said the case will be decided by Judge Dolores Sloviter, who was appointed by Jimmy Carter; Maryanne Trump Barry, who was appointed by Bill Clinton; and Thomas Hardiman, who was appointed by George W. Bush.

The filings were due on the day the hearing would have been held, but there’s no published timetable for a decision to be released.

The case argues Obama probably is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution of the chief executive officer,

On a blog dealing with the case, lead plaintiff Kerchner has delivered updates.

The case filed was against Obama, Congress and others, just before Obama was sworn into office.

The case has argued, “Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born.

“We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a ‘citizen of the United States’ under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii,” the arguments have claimed.

The claims from Apuzzo came in opposition to government demands that the case be dismissed for lack of “standing” on the part of the plaintiffs.

Apuzzo has argued that standing should be a simple decision.

“How can you deny he’s affecting me?” Apuzzo told WND during an interview. “He wants to have terror trials in New York. He published the CIA interrogation techniques. On and on. He goes around bowing and doing all these different things. His statements we’re not a Christian nation; we’re one of the largest Muslim nations. It’s all there.”

The case was brought by Apuzzo in January 2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.

Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”

The complaint also asserts “when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.” The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen,” excluded dual citizens.

Apuzzo’s latest filing argues Obama’s arguments “are nothing more than presentations of general statements on the law of standing which do not address the specific factual and legal content of plaintiffs’ claims. … The defendants in much of their brief basically tell the court that the Kerchner case should be dismissed because all other Obama cases have been dismissed.”

Apuzzo said it is “self-evident” under the Constitution that “anyone aspiring to be president has to conclusively prove that he or she is eligible to hold that office. Part of that burden is conclusively showing that one is a ‘natural born citizen.’ Hence, the citizenship status of Obama is critical to the question of whether plaintiffs having standing, for it is that very statute which is the basis of their injury in fact.”

He noted the case was filed before Obama became president.

“At this time he was still a private individual who had the burden of proving that he satisfied each and every element of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. That plaintiffs filed their action at this time is important for it not only sets the time by which we are to judge when their standing attached to their action against Obama, Congress and the other defendants … but also to show that Obama has the burden of proof to show that he is a ‘natural born citizen’ and satisfied the other requirements of Article II,” Apuzzo wrote.

“At no time in these proceedings or in any other of the many cases that have been filed against him throughout the country has Obama produced a 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate from the state of Hawaii showing that he was born there … We must conclude for purposes of defendants’ motion that since Obama is not a 14th Amendment ‘Citizen of the United States’ let alone an Article II ‘natural born citizen,’ he is not eligible to be president and commander in chief. Not being eligible to be president and commander in chief he is currently acting as such without constitutional authority. It is Obama’s exercising the singular and great powers of the president and commander in chief without constitutional authority which is causing plaintiffs’ injury in fact.”

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. And still others contend he holds Indonesian citizenship from his childhood living there.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Read More – Not even 4 in 10 believe Obama birth story:

Not even four in 10 people across America believe President Obama’s narrative about being born in Hawaii, according to a new poll.

A new 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll shows that only 39 percent of respondents believe Obama was born in Hawaii as he wrote in his book.

The magazine boasted, “A whopping 63 percent – very nearly two-thirds of us – went out on a limb and stated for the record that we believe in the United States. It’s enough to make you proud to be an American – or 63 percent proud, at any rate.” ….

Birth documents such as the “Certification of Live Birth” President Obama’s campaign posted online to rebut questions about his constitutional eligibility prove very little other than that a birth happened, according to a federal report uncovered by WND.

The review of birth-certification procedures and documentation said there are too many open doors through which fraud can enter the system to rely significantly on the document. And even an original birth certificate isn’t always sufficient, the report said, because much of the fraud committed at the time of the report was by imposters using genuine documentation.

The report predates by several years the controversy over Obama’s birth. The document, titled “Birth Certificate Fraud,” was done in 2000 by Inspector General June Gibbs Brown for the Department of Health and Human Services in response to questions about the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

However, officials with several federal agencies, including Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security, told WND it appeared to be the most recent assessment of birth-certificate records and procedures available.

“A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded,” the study reports. “For that purpose, it may be desirable that the public be allowed easy access to them.

“However, the agencies and organizations that use birth certificates as proof of identification for employment purposes, to obtain benefits or other documents (e.g., driver’s licenses, Social Security cards and passports) and to assist them in determining eligibility for public assistance and other benefits, may have concerns with how easily certified copies of birth certificates can be obtained.”

The report documents that there are more than 6,400 different jurisdictions now issuing more than 14,000 different versions of birth-certificate documents, and security features vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

“This large number of state, county, city, township and other entities that issue birth certificates increases opportunities for fraud, theft, bribery and other methods of illegally obtaining birth certificates,” the report said.

At the same time, “technological advances” in the Internet, scanners, color printers and copiers “make it easier to obtain genuine birth certificates and create counterfeit ones.”

Further, various agencies issue “113 different types of certified copies of birth records. … Fifty-one of the 53 primary vital-records offices issue certified photocopies of actual birth records, 27 issue certified copies of computerized abstracts of birth records, 17 issue wallet-sized birth certificates/cards and 8 issue commemorative birth certificates, each with their own unique security features and signatures.

“In addition, survey respondents report that, in 20 states, local entities issue full photocopies of actual birth records, 16 states’ local entities issue certified copies from computerized abstracts, 17 states’ local entities issue wallet-sized certificates, and 4 states’ local entities can issue commemorative birth certificates.

“Agencies who rely on birth certificates as a means of establishing identity must understand the limitations of accepting a birth certificate as proof of age, citizenship or identity,” the report warned.

“For example, genuine documents obtained with counterfeit birth certificates can be used to obtain genuine birth certificates. Thus, it is inherently illogical to require someone to prove their identity using potentially fraudulent identity documents spawned by false birth certificates in order to obtain a birth certificate.”

The report also suggested that in addition to birth certificates, agencies may want to fall back on other identifying procedures, such as fingerprints or the testimony of relatives to determine identity.

The inspector-general report, which also reviewed previous studies and discovered similar concerns, documented stories of the use of fraudulent birth certificates by criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers and illegal aliens.

The report said while birth certificates originally were only proof of a birth, they now are used to document age, place of birth and identity.

“They are also used extensively for employment purposes, to obtain benefits or other documents … to assist in determining eligibility for public assistance and other benefits, to enroll children in school and as proof of age eligibility for sports and other age-restricted activities.

“However, because they were never designed to provide sole proof of identity, and because a birth certificate cannot be positively linked with an individual, their use for that purpose is questionable,” the report said.

A separate report by WND in 2009 showed birth-certificate fraud is not an anomaly.

The report documented that in 2004, following a long investigation by the FBI and State Department, Jean Anderson, the former deputy registrar of the Hudson County, N.J., Office of Vital Statistics, pleaded guilty to taking money for falsifying county records.

According to a Department of Justice news release, Anderson was paid to insert phony birth records for illegal aliens into the files at her county office. The immigrants, in turn, approached county window clerks and requested copies of their birth certificates, after which the clerks looked to the files and, upon seeing the records Anderson had inserted, issued fraudulent birth certificates unknowingly.

The recipients of the phony birth certificates weren’t seeking to become president; they were merely seeking status as American citizens.

The New Jersey case, however, has been referenced in blogs as reason for Obama to release his full, long-form birth certificate, rather than insisting the nation trust only his Hawaii Certification of Live Birth, a document that merely refers to the presence of another, unreleased document in Hawaii’s files.

If Obama was born out of the country, some skeptics of the president’s eligibility contend, his parents might have wanted to ensure his American citizenship. A payoff in Obama’s birth year of 1961 could have generated fraudulent Certifications of Live Birth ever since.

“It is deadly serious in this day and age when we have people like Anderson and her co-conspirators making it possible for anyone to present themselves as lawful U.S. citizens when they are not,” said Chris Christie in 2004, then–U.S. attorney and current New Jersey governor. “The possibilities run from the benign to the horrific.”

Officials in the White House have laughed at suggestions that the online Certification of Live Birth may not be the definitive proof of Obama’s birthplace.

More than a year ago, Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, raised the question to press secretary Robert Gibbs.

“Just one question concerning what the president said in his speech on Thursday, and I quote, ‘I ran for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said. This is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.’ End of quote. Do you remember that statement?” Kinsolving said at the time.

Gibbs: “I can confirm that he said that.”

Kinsolving: “Good. In consideration of this very good promise of transparency, why can’t the president respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital … 400,000. …”

Gibbs: “Are you looking for the president’s birth certificate?”

Kinsolving: “Yes.”

Gibbs: “It’s on the Internet, Lester.”

Kinsolving: “No, no, no — the long form listing his hospital and physician.”

“Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president’s birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people … that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president’s birth there, but it’s on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we’ll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy,” Gibbs said.

He may not get his wish. Recent multiple polls show a growing number of people have questions about the president’s eligibility. A recent CBS–New York Times poll revealed that only 58 percent of Americans even “think” that Obama was born in this country.

And WND has reported how Hawaii law at the time of Obama’s birth would have allowed a Hawaii birth document to be issued on the application of a relative, irrespective of where Obama actually was born.

WND also has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

A key to the defenses presented by Obama supporters always has been the “Certification of Live Birth:”

The document contrasts with an actual Hawaii birth certificate from 1963 (the same era as Obama’s birth), which while redacted includes detailed information documenting a birth, including the name of the birth hospital and the attending physician.

To date, Obama has not revealed his original long-form, hospital-generated “Certificate of Live Birth” that includes details such as the name of the medical facility and the doctor who delivered him.

Obama’s birth certificate also is not the only document at issue. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

WND has reported no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution’s requirements to be president. The Constitution requires that the president be 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a “natural born citizen.”

There also have been multiple attempts at legislation that simply would require candidates to document their eligibility for the office they seek.

At the federal level is a plan by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

Posey’s H.R. 1503 states:

“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”

The bill also provides:

“Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.”

The sponsors’ goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

The White House apparently isn’t going to answer questions about a mystery uncovered by private investigators, who, working independently, found that President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut, while there is no record he ever had a mailing address there.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Aahw3NT6E

WND previously reported the investigators discovered  the number was issued between 1977 and 1979 – while Obama’s employment reportedly dates back to 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

The questions were raised by affidavits filed separately in a presidential-eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

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

Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, asked for an explanation from press secretary Robert Gibbs at today’s news briefing:

“WorldNetDaily’s correspondent Dr. Jerome Corsi reports … [a question has been raised] by investigators in Ohio and Colorado concerning the president’s Social Security number. Second sentence …” Kinsolving began.

“Birth certificates,” interrupted another reporter.

“He reports – no, I did not bring up the birth certificate – he reports that investigators Susan Daniels and John Sampson are asking why the president is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants. And my question, did you know …” Kinsolving continued.

“Hold on, that’s two sentences, Lester. That … I …” Gibbs said.

“That’s two sentences, and my question – do you know of any record that the president ever had a mailing address in Connecticut?” Kinsolving asked.

Gibbs never answered, instead choosing to turn the conversation – and questions – to others instead of the president.

“I know there are faithful readers of your publication that despite …” Gibbs said.

“Including you,” Kinsolving pointed out.

“Oh, well, I don’t know that I would necessarily mark myself down as an avid reader or a faithful reader. I continue to be amazed, Lester, that two years after putting the president’s birth certificate on the Internet …” Gibbs said.

“Without a hospital and without a doctor,” Kinsolving noted.

“Do you think the president was born here, Lester?” Kinsolving asked the correspondent.

“Beg pardon?” Kinsolving said.

“Do you think the president was born in the United States?” Gibbs asked.

“I don’t know. I’d love to get the real birth certificate, wouldn’t you?” Kinsolving asked.

“I’ve seen the real birth certificate. I put it on the Internet and I appreciate your …” Gibbs said.

Kinsolving cut to the chase of the exchange.

“But you’re not answering this question,” Kinsolving said.

“I appreciate your forthrightness on the birth answer,” Gibbs said, ending the briefing.

“I see Gibby didn’t answer the question did he?” wrote a participant on a Politico forum page. “Neither will Obama propagandist ‘Snopes’ … or FactfreeCheck … but the question is not going away.”

“But Gibbs evaded the question (surprise!) Why is Obummer using a SSN reserved for Connecticut residents? I guess the WND reporter won’t be called on again! Some day all of this will come out -- it always does,” added another.

“Remember what Reagan said, ‘Trust but verify.’ Obama won’t let us ‘verify’; ALL records are sealed. Why would anyone do that? Why was it allowed?” added a third.

“Well, where is the answer???” wrote a testy fourth participant.

According to the WND report, the Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in Obama’s ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WND reported Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.

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

“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.

Nor is there any suggestion in Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” that he ever had a Connecticut address.

Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high-school years.

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

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

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

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

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

The White House has maintained a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth is proof enough of Obama’s Hawaiian birth, even though it has no hospital or doctor’s name on it. Such documents differ from a Certificate of Live Birth which includes those details. In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of Obama’s short-form certification, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org.

The former Honolulu elections clerk who says President Obama was “definitely” not born in Hawaii and has no birth certificate from any hospital in the Aloha State says he’s willing to testify in court to those facts.

“The things I’ve said, I don’t mind testifying in court,” Tim Adams, the senior elections clerk for thecity and county of Honolulu in the 2008 campaign, told WND in an exclusive interview.

“I was working there, and this is what it was. I’m not a lawyer, just a civil servant. I know what I know. I know what I was told by the hospitals and by my supervisors.”

The hottest book in America is the one that exposes the real Obama and all his men (and women)! Get your autographed copy only from WND!

Adams, a Hillary Clinton supporter who now teaches English at Western Kentucky University while he works on his master’s degree, burst onto the scene last week in a WND story in which he asserted Obama was not born in Hawaii as the White House claims and that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist there.

“There is no birth certificate,” he said. “It’s like an open secret. There isn’t one. Everyone in the government there knows this.”

“I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver’s license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone’s identity,” Adams explained. “I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama].”

At the time, there were conflicting reports that Obama had been born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, as well as the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children across town. So Adams says his office checked with both facilities.

“They told us, ‘We don’t have a birth certificate for him,’” he said. “They told my supervisor, either by phone or by e-mail, neither one has a document that a doctor signed off on saying they were present at this man’s birth.”

To date, no Hawaiian hospital has provided documented confirmation Obama was born at its facility.

Adams, 45, stressed, “In my professional opinion, he definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there. If someone called and asked about it, I could not tell them that person was born in the state.”

WND confirmed with Hawaiian officials that Adams was indeed working in their election offices during the last presidential election.

“His title was senior elections clerk in 2008,” said Glen Takahashi, elections administrator for the city and county of Honolulu.

Adams oversaw a group of 50 to 60 employees and was responsible for verifying the identity of voters, especially absentee voters.

He now expects his former co-workers still working in the elections office to say little, if anything, about the non-existent birth certificate because they fear for their jobs.

“If you’re working in the civil service and you say this, you’re done,” Adams said. “Don’t expect to have a good career, especially since the governor is on the other side. Embarassing them is not good for your career.”

Last month, as WND reported, Hawaii’s Republican Gov. Linda Lingle reignited Obama’s origin on a New York radio show.

“It’s been an odd situation,” Lingle said. “This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.

“So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it’s again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this.”

Although the governor now claims she issued a news release stating Kapi’olani is Obama’s birthplace, the actual release said no such thing, making no reference to Kapi’olani nor any other specific location of Obama’s birth.

WND asked Adams about the governor’s assertions about viewing a hospital-generated birth certificate from Hawaii.

“Then where is it? And why all the smoke and mirrors?” he responded. “They could end the controversy by producing the document, and they never have. It doesn’t exist.”

“Why would they say they’ve seen it and not produce it? I don’t know,” he added. “If they said they’ve seen the document, then why not produce the document? There’s no need to put themselves out like that. I can’t even begin to think why they did that except for some kind of political expediency. I’m too far down the totem pole [to know].”

While Adams, who noted he spent nearly 10 years in the islands and has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Hawaii, says he’s certain Obama was not born there, he also does think the president is indeed a U.S. citizen, since his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was born an American.

He says he merely would like to see the truth come out and have the controversy over natural-born citizenship and presidential eligibility resolved once and for all.

“It’s come to the point where it’s a monster, and it’s time to kill it,” Adams said. “Solve the problem so that everyone can get back to cooperating to improve the country. People have lost sight that we’re trying to make the country a better place.”

WND’s original report about Adams’ claims has already been made into a YouTube video, getting thousands of hits.

To date, President Obama has still not provided simple, incontrovertible proof of his exact birthplace. That information would be included on his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate which Obama has steadfastly refused to release amid a flurry of conflicting reports.

The White House has only proffered on the Internet a “Certification of Live Birth” to assert he was born in Hawaii, but that document was available to children not born in Hawaii at the time of Obama’s birth.

Many people remain unaware a child could be born somewhere else and still receive a Hawaii COLB. State law specifically allows “an adult or the legal parents of a minor child” to apply to the health department and, upon unspecified proof, be given the birth document.

“Anyone can get that [Certification of Live Birth],” said Adams. “They are normally given if you give birth at home or while traveling overseas. We have a lot of Asian population [in Hawaii]. It’s quite common for people to come back and get that.”

As WND reported last July, the Kapi’olani Medical Center trumpeted – then later concealed – a letter allegedly written by President Obama in which he ostensibly declares his birth at the facility.

“As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi’olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your chorus of supporters,” Obama purportedly wrote.

But the authenticity of that letter remains in doubt. Since WND raised questions about the veracity of the letter itself and its content, the White House has refused to say if the message is real and if its text originated with the president.

Besides his actual birth documentation, documentation that remains concealed for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

An Army “investigating officer” has banished evidence about the controversy over President Obama’s eligibility – or lack thereof – to be commander-in-chief from a pending hearing for a career military doctor who announced he is refusing orders until Obama documents his constitutional status.

“In my view our constitutional jurisprudence allows Congress alone, and not a military judicial body, to put the president’s credentials on trial,” wrote Daniel J. Driscoll in a memorandum determining what evidence the defense for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin will be allowed to explore at next week’s hearing.

“It is my opinion the discovery items pertaining to the president’s credentials are not relevant to the proof of any element of the charges and specifications set forth in the charge sheet,” he continued. “Consequently I will not examine the documents or witnesses pertinent to the president or his credentials to hold office.”

The ruling came prior to a scheduled Article 32 hearing for Lakin, who posted a video inviting his own court hearing because of the status of the president and questions over whether his eligibility means orders given under his control would be invalid.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea9JVnck_-E

Lakin is not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook. But Lakin is the first active-duty officer to raise the question.

And in at least one of the earlier disputes, the Army simply canceled the orders rather than allow the argument to come to a head.

But now the Army has scheduled Lakin’s Article 32 hearing – a military version of a preliminary hearing – for June 11.

Word about the ruling from Driscoll came from the American Patriot Foundation, which operates the Safeguard Our Constitution website which is generating support for Lakin.

While Driscoll cited “Rule for Courts-Martial 405″ which allows “the production of witnesses ‘whose testimony would be relevant…’” he said questions about Obama’s eligibility – which could bear on the validity of military orders – will be ignored.

Driscoll then blamed the defense for not giving him what he wanted.

“I expressly instructed ‘[y]our submissions, if any, on the subject of lawfulness of orders, derivation of authority, political questions and the like should be sufficiently scholarly to allow me to make an informed determination of relevance of the requested items to the truth of the specifications and charges at issue,” Driscoll wrote.

“The defense submitted a memorandum outlining the concept of chain of command, showing that the president is at the top of the chain, showing that the Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen and stating that soldiers must disobey ‘illegal orders,’” Driscoll continued. “There is no scholarly discussion of what constitutes an illegal order or under what circumstances such an order can be disobeyed or must be disobeyed.”

Instead, he said, the “law of lawfulness of orders” should prevail.

The result is that he denied defense requests for Obama’s Punahou school records, Hawaii Health Department records, Occidental College records, Columbia records and Harvard records.

He also rejected a request that Obama be called to answer questions about his eligibility.

Driscoll said those who have custody of Obama’s records – several Hawaii and various school officials – also will not be allowed to testify.

Driscoll declined to respond to a WND request to comment on his ruling.

But Lakin said the result “makes it impossible for me to have a fair hearing.”

“I cannot even raise the issue of the president’s eligibility, on the grounds that my position has ‘no basis in law,’” he said.

Lakin, who previously has served in Afghanistan, refused orders this spring to go again, “because the president refuses – even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary – to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office.”

Lakin’s hearing is scheduled at 9 a.m. in Room 134 of Building T-2 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. It is open to the public.

It was Lakin’s stance that convinced CNN, which had ignored or ridiculed the issue for months, to give it a prime time focus recently.

Lakin’s advisers, however, told WND he will have an opportunity to raise the question again later during a court-martial process, once the Article 32 hearing is over.

Lakin and his attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, appeared on Anderson Cooper’s program and sparred with the commentator about the facts related to Obama’s eligibility for the presidency.

The Constitution requires a president to be a “natural born citizen,” and while the term is not defined in the Constitution, many legal analysts believe at the time it was written it meant a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. Critics say Obama clearly does not qualify under that definition, since he has admitted in his book his father never was a U.S. citizen. Some legal challenges have argued he wasn’t even born in Hawaii.

A recent Washington Post/ABC poll reveals that tens of millions of Americans doubt Obama’s eligibility.

The charges against Lakin allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 87 and 92.

Formally, Lakin is accused of “through design” missing “the movement of US Airways Flight Number 1123, departing from Baltimore/Washington International Airport arriving in Charlotte, North Carolina, in order to deploy for a Temporary Change of Station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 32nd Calvary (sic) Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky, with which he was required in the course of duty to move.”

The second charge accuses Lakin of failing to report “to the office of his Brigade Commander, Colonel Gordon R. Roberts, at 1345 hours, or words to that effect, an order which it was his duty to obey.”

The SafeguardOurConstitution website explained the first charge, “missing movement,” is a serious crime in the nature of a felony. The second is “disobeying a direct order” and includes four specifications.

“Any soldier convicted on all charges and specifications would expect to be sentenced to years at ‘hard labor’ in the penitentiary,” the site said.

Jensen, in an earlier interview on the G. Gordon Liddy radio program, suggested that he would pursue information through “subpoenas and depositions under the rules that are prescribed.”

“Every criminal defendant has to be allowed the benefit of doubt to discover information relevant or which may even lead to the discovery of relevant information that could support his case,” Jensen said.

“It would be shocking to me that a defendant … would not be permitted to discover information that would lend itself to proving his [case],” he said at the time.

The discovery issue previously was raised in court by attorney John Hemenway, who was threatened by a federal judge with sanctions for bringing a court challenge to Obama’s presidency.

Hemenway is serving in emeritus status with the Safeguard Our Constitution website. He brought the previous court challenge on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who questioned Obama’s eligibility.

The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson, who notably ruled during the 2008 election campaign that the federal legal dispute had been “twittered” and, therefore, resolved.

Robertson sarcastically wrote: “The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel’s satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

“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,” Robertson wrote.

Then the judge suggested sanctions against Hemenway for bringing the case. Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge’s statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly “vetted.”

Hemenway warned at the time, “If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.

“The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery,” Hemenway said.

The court ultimately backed off its threat of sanctions.

WND columnist Vox Day earlier wrote about this very scenario, calling it a “get out of war free” card.

The comments followed the case of a reservist who challenged the legality of his deployment orders under Obama. The orders later were canceled by the government.

“Rather than contesting the suit,” Day wrote, “the Army took the highly peculiar step of revoking the major’s deployment order, suggesting that the Pentagon generals are not entirely confident that they can demonstrate the legitimacy of their purported commander in chief.”

Obama’s actual response to those who question his eligibility to be president under the Constitution’s requirement that the U.S. president be a “natural born citizen” has been to dispatch both private and tax-funded attorneys to prevent anyone from gaining access to his documentation.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

WND has covered a multitude of challenges and lawsuits over the issue. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama’s father was a subject of the British crown at Obama’s birth – from being eligible for the office.

Lakin earlier released a copy of a letter he sent to Obama saying, “The burden of proof must rest with you.”

The letter, posted at the Safeguard Our Constitution website, describes how Lakin tried through his chain of command and his congressional office to get answers to questions about Obama’s eligibility.

Besides Obama’s actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 500,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

A new effort now asks those in authority regarding the nation’s elections to demand the full proof.

The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Read more: Poll shocker! Majority -- 55% -- wants Obama records

Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.

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

“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?

“Never,” Daniels said. “It’s against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security number issued.”

Daniels said she is “staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama’s use of this Social Security number is fraudulent.”

There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.

Nor is there any suggestion in Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” that he ever had a Connecticut address.

Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high school years.

Sampson’s affidavit specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, “it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence.”

Daniels told WND she believes Obama had a different Social Security number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.

“I doubt this is President Obama’s originally issued Social Security number,” she told WND. “Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security number in Hawaii.”

The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama’s inauguration.

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

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

Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama’s birth date of 08/04/1962. A third date listed is 04/08/1962, which appears to be a transposition of Obama’s birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CBS/New York Times Poll last week had some good news in it for Barack Obama.

You had to search deep down in the 40-some pages of responses to find it. It was nowhere to be found in the reporting on the poll.

This was a non-story for the New York Times and CBS and every other news organization that looked at the results.

After more than two years of virtual media blackout on any of the serious unanswered questions about Obama’s inability or unwillingness to prove his constitutional eligibility for office, a resounding 58 percent of Americans think he was born in the USA.

I repeat: They think he was born in the USA.

Of course, that 58 percent includes the combined staffs of the New York Times, CBS News, Fox News, CNN (since the departure of Lou Dobbs), MSNBC, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press and all those permitted to attend the White House Correspondents Association Dinner this year. Given the number of times Bill O’Reilly has refuted the possibility that anyone could have any legitimate concern about Obama’s eligibility, I’m guessing he voted five or six times in this poll.

After all of the unequivocal denouncements and ridicule of “birthers” and the absolute refusal even to entertain a serious discussion of this issue, only 58 percent of Americans polled by CBS and the New York Times think he was born in America. I wonder how many would have replied they are certain. I’m pretty sure O’Reilly and Glenn Beck would still be out on that limb along with Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. But the air of certainty is a lot thinner than thinking he was born in the U.S.

And certainty, of course, is what all Americans should have at this late date when it comes to the constitutional eligibility of their president. It shouldn’t be a matter of guessing. It shouldn’t be a matter of opinion. It should be a matter determined by absolute proof.

By the way, fully 20 percent of Americans polled said they believe Obama was born in another country. Now, I have to tell you, as one of those characterized as a leader of the “birther” movement, I would not have answered that way. I would have answered the way another 23 percent of Americans did – I don’t know.

This is the first time a major U.S. media poll has asked about the eligibility question. But look at the way it was done! It’s a shockingly biased question. Can you believe that shoddy question from the so-called “newspaper of record” and the network of Edward R. Murrow? Who cares what people think about where the president was born. The question is whether they are satisfied the president has proven he is constitutionally eligible. Ask the question that way and you will get a much closer poll – as WND learned when first asking this question in a scientific poll last June.

But, I would suggest to you, the goal of the CBS/New York Times Poll was not to get disagreement on this issue. The goal was to get unanimity – to prove that only a few fringe, wacko characters like me believed there were still unanswered questions.

There’s one other thing you should notice about this poll. There’s an obvious arithmetic problem when you add the totals up and get 101 percent, which leaves the distinct possibility only 57 percent of Americans polled actually think he’s born in America.

But there’s more to this poll than meets the eye.

It turns out, when you read the responses to the rest of the questions, this is a remarkably Obama-friendly sampling. Obama’s positives are much higher than other recent comparable polls. His negatives are much lower. This is a group that gives Obama a 50 percent approval rating. That’s not an approval rating he has seen in other polls in recent months.

I’ve been saying since last summer that half the country has grave doubts about Obama – not just about the birth certificate, but about who he truly is. They are wondering why he is hiding his birth certificate, why he is hiding his school records, why he is hiding his college records, why he is hiding his travel records, why he is hiding his medical records.

And, most of all, I suspect, they are getting very suspicious about why the so-called “watchdogs” in the press show curiosity and concern only about those who ask the president to stop stonewalling and start living up to his pledge to run the most open and transparent administration in history.

Editor’s Note: Shortly after this WND report was posted, NPR changed its web page to delete the reference to “Kenyan-born” Sen. Obama.

Those crazy “birthers” are citing National Public Radio.

Really? NPR?

Archives for the tax-supported organization reveal that a 2008 report described then-Sen. Barack Obama as “Kenyan-born”  and a “son of Africa.”

NPR’s promotion for the story included a brief description of West African correspondent Ofeibea Quist-Arcton, who “describes the stories that have been exciting, including the U.S. presidential race of Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama.”

After discussing various issues developing in Africa at the time – such as Kenya’s violent elections, the attacks in Zimbabwe and the presidency of South Africa – the conversation on the program “Tell Me More” turned to Obama.

At about 9:45 of the audio report, interviewer Michelle Martin said “a son of Africa. Barack Obama is poised to at least have the opportunity to become the next president of the United States.” She asked, “How does this campaign look overseas?”

Quist-Arcton responded by describing Obama as a member of the Kenyan Luo tribe and reporting how Africa viewed the race.

“You know [the campaign] has absolutely fired the imagination not only of American people but of people in Africa,” she said. “For a start Barack Obama’s father is from Kenya. People were very excited and because they had had a failed election in Kenya, and the opposition leader Raila Odinga comes from the same tribe as Barack Obama’s father, the Luo. The joke was going around Kenya that America is going to have a Luo president before Kenya does.”

She continued, “There’s huge interest. Not just in Kenya. All over the continent. … The fact that a black man and one with African blood has managed to get this far … you know, I think has made young people sit up and listen and watch and follow the campaign and made the older generations who lived through the colonization and independence say, ‘Well, well, well. So it can happen in American too.”

WND also reported this week when a video appeared in which Michelle Obama said her husband’s “home country” was Kenya.

The video, posted April 3 on YouTube and forwarded by a score of Internet e-mails, shows Michelle Obama saying, “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test.”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDHDfPNBME

The reference drew attention because of the claim made in numerous lawsuits and other challenges to Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office that he is not eligible to be president under the requirement of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution that the president be a “natural born citizen.”

But the NPR reference and Michelle Obama’s comment are far from the only ones of their kind.

At one point, there were reports that even Obama’s grandmother claimed being in attendance at his birth in Africa.

According to a compilation of images at a military forum, another reference was made in 2008 in the Nigerian Observer.

Under a byline from Solomon Asowata and a Washington dateline, the report says, “Americans will today go to the polls to elect their next president with Democratic Party candidate, Senator Barack Obama largely favoured to win. The Kenyan-born Senator will, however, face a stiff competition from his Republican counterpart…”

A commentary at The Post & Email website said, “It is no wonder that many doubt Obama’s claim of a Hawaiian birth.”

It cited another report from African Travel Magazine that said, “As Kenyan born U.S. Senator Barack Obama jets into Kenya today as part of his African tour, concerns have once again been raised on the security preparations for other visitors and residents. ….”

The Post & Email commentary also cited a report from Indonesia Matters that includes similar references.

WND documented earlier several other statements linking Obama and Kenya.

These included the apparently archived article from the Sunday Standard in Kenya.

The report begins, “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack (sic) Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.”

The article is credited to the wire service Associated Press at the bottom of the page. However, the article could not be found either in the AP archives available to the public online or the archive on the newspaper’s website. WND telephone calls and e-mails to the newspaper did not generate a response.

Last year, an African news site and an MSNBC broadcaster referred to President Obama’s birthplace as being outside of the United States.

Network correspondent Mara Schiavocampo was reporting on the celebratory atmosphere in Accra, Ghana, immediately prior to Obama’s visit to the west African nation.

Interviewing a person who appeared to be a shop operator, she stated, “Barack Obama is Kenyan … but Ghanaians are still proud of him.”

The video of the report is at this link.

Also, a report at Modern Ghana posted in advance of the president’s visit cited his birthplace on the continent of Africa.

“For Ghana, Obama’s visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth,” the report said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums exceeding $1.7 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

WND also reported previously when Michelle Obama contradicted Obama’s story that he lived with his mother and father for several years in Hawaii after he was born before his father left to pursue a graduate degree.

Michelle Obama said her husband’s mother, Ann Dunham, was “very young and very single” when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.

Her comments undermine the official story as told by Barack Obama – that Dunham was married to his father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of birth.

The remarks were made by Michelle Obama during a July 2008 round table at the University of Missouri. Obama was responding to criticism of her husband’s presidential campaign speeches about fatherhood and faith-based initiatives.