If obama was born outside of the US he became an illegal alien at birth and for 33 years until 1994 when he became a citizen

This information is hard to find on the web. The government only wants you to see the latest revisions of U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS.

What is imposrtant is the law that was in effect at the time of Barack Obama's birth to his parents. The law in 1961.

...........................................................................................

U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS

1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.


"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".


1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).


1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).


1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.


"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."


1878 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878. (Same general provisions as 1855 Act).


1907 Act of March 2, 1907, Section 6, 34 Stat. 1228, 1229.


"That all children born outside the limits of the United States who are citizens thereof in accordance with the provisions of section nineteen hundred and ninety-three of the Revised Statutes of the United States and who continue to reside outside the United States shall, in order to receive the protection of this Government, be required upon reaching the age of eighteen years to record at an American consulate their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States and shall be further required to take the oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining their majority."


1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.


"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."


1940 The Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137.


"Section 201. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


"(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years' residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.


(h) The foregoing provisions of subsection (g) concerning retention of citizenship shall apply to a child born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(If 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham was born Nov 29, 1942. Obama was born on Aug 4, 1961 as his undocumented "cerfication of live birth" shows. Obama was born 18 years 8 months after his mother was born.

Obama’s "American citizen parent", Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14. Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June, 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born.

Obama was an ILLEGAL ALIEN for 33 years until The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 was revised. On this date obama became a US citizen but not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

This makes obama a RETROACTIVE US citizen. This also makes obama a FRAUD because he said he was born in Hawaii at birth. The "certification of live birth" obama has presented to the world is issued to persons who are not born in hospitals and most likely were born outside of the US. This is why his "birth certification" does not list a hospital, doctor or registrar name. Story Reports

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).


"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.


(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.


(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended."


1956 Fee v. Dulles (236 F.2nd 855 (C.A. 7, 1956), (355 U.S. 61)). A child born abroad on or after May 24, 1934, who acquired U.S. citizenship through one citizen parent had to comply with certain conditions for establishing American residence in order to retain his American citizenship. In Fee v. Dulles, the lower courts upheld the original administrative position that a person who had not complied with the conditions prescribed by previous statutes had lost his citizenship and derived no benefit from the more generous retention provisions of the 1952 act. However, upon consideration of this issue when it reached the Supreme Court the Solicitor General confessed error, taking the position that a person who could comply with the terms of section 301 (b) and (c) would retain his American citizenship, even though he had not fulfilled similar provisions of the earlier statutes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, and thus adopted the view projected in the Solicitor General's confession of error.


1956 The Act of March 16, 1956, (70 Stat. 50), provided as follows:


"That section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall be considered to have been and to be applicable to a child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions after January 12, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has served in the Armed Forces of the United States after December 31, 1946, and before December 24, 1952, and whose case does not come within the provisions of section 201 (g) or (i) of the Nationality Act of 1940".


1957 Act of September 11, 1957 (71 Stat. 644), provides as follows:


"Section 16. In the administration of section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, absences from the United States of less than twelve months in the aggregate, during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required, shall not be considered to break the continuity of such physical presence."


1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruled that a child born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, to an American citizen mother did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.


See also: Wolf v Brownell (253 F.2nd 141 - (C.A. 9, 1958)-certiori denied (358 U.S. 859)). and D'Alessio v. Lehmann (289 F.2nd 371 - (C.A. 6, 1961)-certiori denied (368 U.S. 822)).


1964 Schneider v. Rusk (377 U.S. 163 (1964)). Mrs. Schneider, a German national by birth, acquired United States citizenship derivatively through her mother's naturalization in the United States. She came to the USA as a small child with her parents and remained there until she finished college. She then went abroad for graduate work, was engaged to a German national, married in Germany, and stayed in residence there. She declared that she had no intention of returning to the United States. In 1959, she was denied a passport by the State Department on the ground that she had lost her United States citizenship under the specific provisions of Paragraph 352 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Paragraph 1484 (a)(1), by continuous residence for three years in a foreign state of which she was formerly a national. The Court, by a five-to-three vote, held the statute violative of Fifth Amendment due process because there was no like restriction against foreign residence by native-born citizens. The dissent (Mr. Justice Clark, joined by Justices Harlan and White) based its position on what it regarded as the long acceptance of expatriating naturalized citizens who voluntarily return to residence in their native lands; possible international complications; past decisions approving the power of Congress to enact statutes of that type; and the Constitution's distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens.


1966 Act of November 6, 1966 (80 Stat. 1322), amended Section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to read as follows:


"Section 301 (a) (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided*, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date.


1967 Afroyim v. Rusk (387 U.S. 253 (1967)). Mr. Afroyim, a Polish national by birth, immigrated to the United States at age 19 and after 14 years in the USA acquired United States citizenship by naturalization. Twenty-four years later he went to Israel and voted in a political election there. In 1960, he was denied a passport by the State Department on the ground that he had lost his United States citizenship under the specific provisions of Section 349 (a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. Section 1481(a)(5), by his foreign voting. The Court, by a five-to-four vote, held that the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizenship was significant; that Congress has no "general" power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent," (387 U.S. at 257); that Congress' power is to provide a uniform rule of naturalization and, when once exercised with respect to the individual, is exhausted, citing Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's well-known but not uncontroversial dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States (9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824)); and that the "undeniable purpose" of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make the recently conferred "citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure" and "to put citizenship beyond the power of any government unit to destroy," (387 U.S. at 263). Perez v. Brownell (356 U.S. 44 (1958)), a five-to-four holding within the decade and precisely to the opposite effect, was overruled. In dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Clark, Stewart and White) took issue with the Court's claim of support in the legislative history, elucidated the Marshall dictum, and observed that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment did not deprive Congress of the power to expatriate on permissible grounds consistent with "other relevant commands" of the Constitution. (387 U.S. at 292).


1971 Rogers v. Bellei (401 U.S. 815 (1971)). Bellei challenged the constitutionality of Section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provided that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. A three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, held that Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in the country on Bellei, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States", and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary or unlawful. Justice Black filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Douglas and Marshall joined. Justice Brennan filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Douglas joined.


1972 Act of October 27, 1972 (87 Stat. 1289), amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 by changing section 301 (b) to the new text below; by repealing Section 16 of the Act of September 11, 1957; and by adding the new section 301 (d) below.


"Section 301 (b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States under paragraph (7) of subsection (a) shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless (1) he shall come to the United States and be continuously physically present therein for a period of not less than two years between the ages of fourteen years and twenty-eight years; or (2) the alien parent is naturalized while the child is under the age of eighteen years and the child begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years. In the administration of this subsection absences from the United States of less than sixty days in the aggregate during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required shall not break the continuity of such physical presence."


"Section 301 (d) Nothing contained in subsection (b) as amended, shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person who has come to the United States prior to the effective date of this subsection and who, whether before or after the effective date of this subsection, immediately following such coming complies or shall comply with the physical presence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsection (b) prior to its amendment and the repeal of section 16 of the Act of September 11, 1957."


1978 Act of October 10, 1978 (92 Stat. 1046) repealed subsections (b), (c) and (d) of section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, effective as of October 10, 1978. It also struck out "(a)" after "Section 301" and redesignated paragraphs (1) through (7) as subsections (a) through (g) respectively.


1980 Vance v. Terrazas: upheld the constitutionality of Section 349(c) of the INA. Under this provision, the party claiming that citizenship has been lost has the burden of proving such loss by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, a person who commits a statutory act of expatriation is presumed to have committed the act voluntarily, but the presumption may be overcome upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act was not performed voluntarily. The Court expressly rejected the contention that expatriation must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.


The Supreme Court reaffirmed and explained its holding in Afroyim v. Rusk that in order to find expatriation, "the trier of fact must...conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship". The court declared that it would not be consistent with Afroyim "to treat the expatriating acts specified in the statute as the equivalent of or as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen". As the Court explained: "In the last analysis expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct."


1986 Act of November 14, 1986 (PL 99-653) amended section 301(g) (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) by striking out "ten years, at least five" and inserting in lieu thereof "five years, at least two". This reduced the prior residence time in the United States necessary for a U.S. citizen married to an alien to be able to automatically transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad from the former period of ten years, five of which after the age of 14, to five years, two of which after the age of fourteen years.


This act also: (a) amended Sec 340(d) of the code reducing the period of time after naturalization before a naturalized citizen can reside abroad from five years to one year; (b) amended section 349 of the code so that a child who obtained a foreign nationality upon the application of the parent before the child reached age 21 years, no longer has to return to the United States to establish permanent residence in the United States prior to age 25; (c) amends section 349 so that a U.S: citizen who is a national of a foreign country and who performs an expatriating act under the provisions of section 349 is no longer presumed to have acted "voluntarily" if the individual has resided in this foreign country more than ten years. This reinforces the importance of the individual's intent in performing such an act as a deliberate intent to lose U.S. citizenship, rather than a mere automatic presumption that such intent existed.


1994 The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 amended several sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and took effect on March 1, 1995.


Amended Section 322 permits children born overseas of a U.S. citizen parent to be eligible for a certificate of citizenship if either their U.S. citizen parent or a U.S. citizen grandparent had been physically present in the United States for at least five years, two of which after the age of 14, prior to the child's birth abroad. This provision also applies to a child adopted abroad.


Amended Section 301 (h) gives back U.S. citizenship to a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.


Amended Section 324 (d) (1) allows former U.S. citizens who lost their citizenship through failure to meet the former conditions of physical presence in the United States to retain their citizenship to regain their citizenship without having to file an application for naturalization.


The law also allows U.S. citizen parents to apply for U.S. citizenship from abroad for their foreign-born children under the age of 18, provided the child is physically present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission when the citizenship is granted.


1998 In Miller vs Albright (decided April 22, 1998), the Supreme Court in a 6:3 decision held that it was constitutional for Section 309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Section 1409) to give U.S. citizen mothers more rights to transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born out of wedlock abroad than to U.S. citizen fathers. There were three separate opinions on the majority side and two opinions on the dissenting side.


2000 PL 106-365, "The Child Citizenship Act of 2000" (or Delahunt Act) signed on 30 October 2000, and which takes effect on 27 February 2001 modifies the Immigration and Nationality Act by making it easier for minor children of US citizens (both foreign-born and adopted abroad) to become citizens of the US. The law has the following effects: (a) A child adopted abroad becomes a US citizen immediately upon entry into the US as a lawful permanent resident; and (b) A child born abroad to parents, one or both of whom are US citizens, but who is not recognized as a US citizen for various reasons, can also benefit from the new law, i.e. that child also becomes a US citizen immediately upon entry into the US as a lawful permanent resident. In the case of US parents residing permanently abroad with no immediate intention of returning to the USA with their children (either natural or adopted), it is also possible to file from abroad for immediate naturalization under a revised Section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (also modified by the new law). This procedure enables Americans abroad to obtain US citizenship for their children, not otherwise eligible to be citizens at birth abroad, through a special naturalization procedure, which does not require that they move back to live permanently in the United States. All the papers are filed from abroad, and the American parent and child/children then travel to the chosen District Office in the United States to finalize the process on the day of a previously arranged appointment.

Kenyan Birth Allegations


U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS

Barack obama the retroactive citizen

American Patriot Foundation's Legal Defense Fund will pay for all of LTC Lakin's attorneys fees and costs, and so we urgently need your tax deductible contribution. A noted civilian California trial lawyer has now been hired to be LTC Lakin's lead counsel. It is expected these fees and costs will exceed $500,000 and therefore it is essential that LTC Lakin's supporters come to his aid NOW.

MAKE A TAX DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION NOW TO TERRY'S DEFENSE FUND....CLICK HERE

Safeguard our Constitution

LTC Terry Lakin has tried in vain to get the same verification from our President that he has been asked to provide countless times in his career, for many jobs, and to obtain a security clearance for the trusted positions he has held within the U.S. Armed Forces.


He has put his life on the line all over the world and served with honor, and will be glad to do so again, but only under a Commander in Chief he knows is legally eligible to lead.

(Obama has put his mouth on the line and stumbled through a teleprompter speech. Obama has not served with honor but is a traitor. Obama is commander in chief in title only. He is but a figurehead acting as commander in chief.) Story Reports

LTC Lakin has questioned the President's "natural born" status, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 1. After months of seeking answers, he has not received a definitive response either from the Department of Defense or from his Congressional delegation that would assure him of the President's Constitutional eligibility.

LTC Lakin knows Americans want obama to prove he is a US citizen, a natural born citizen, and come out of the closet. LTC Lakin knows obama is a FRAUD and he is trying to force obama to prove he is not a FRAUD. A vigorous defense of this case presents the ONLY present hope that Americans will finally learn whether their president lawfully holds office. In facing court-martial, LTC Lakin is just the latest victim of the determined effort of the President not to provide simple proof of his eligibility under the constitution to hold office.

(Obama can't provide "simple" proof. This is what is really going on. Obama cannot verify nor prove he is eligibile for office, mandated by the Constitution. Its obama VS LTC Lakin. If obama was forced to verify or prove he is a US citizen or natural born citizen LTC would win the case and obama would be removed from office. Obama's orders are null and void as is any document he has signed while in office. Why? Simple, obama is not eligible to be president because he is NOT a natural born citizen. I also believe he was an illegal alien for 33 years until 1994 when he became a citizen because of US law. I said citizen. I did not say natural born citizen as the US Constitution requires.) Story Reports

Is obama eligible to be president? NO

Obama is Not a natural born citizen but a retroactive citizen.

Sufficient questions have been raised to justify a call for Barack Obama to release his original birth certificate. (There are no doctors, nurses, midwives or other witnesses to Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Obama in Hawaii. In fact, from mid-February 1961 through August 1962, there are no witnesses to or evidence that Ann Dunham was in Hawaii at all.) If the American people are not shown the original birth certificate, his birth in Kenya or elsewhere becomes a clear possibility. And if Obama continues to refuse to allow the state of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate, it begins to look like he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii (as his campaign has claimed) or at home with the assistance of a doctor or midwife.

My conclusion is obama was born outside of the US. The NATURAL BORN CITIZEN issue is back on the back burner. Its a side show as I had previously concluded. Obama has admitted he was born to a Kenyan father and American mother. This alone makes him a FRAUD because obama and the DNC both claim that he is a natural born citizen. This is an impossible fact. Not only is obama NOT a "natural born citizen" obama was an illegal alien at birth because his mother did not qualify him to be an American citizen. Obama was issued a "certification of live birth". A Certification of Live Birth simply says a woman who has a mailing address in Hawaii for at least a year, gave birth and the child is alive. It is not proof of where the child was born. His mother did not qualify him to be an American citizen because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

If obama was born in Kenya this would explain why he has spent millions hiding his original birth certificate, if one exists. If he was born in Kenya because of The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised obama would be a US citizen now but was an illegal alien for 33 years!

If obama was born in Kenya in 1961 he was not a US citizen because the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, applied to stanley ann dunham at the time of obama's birth. So obama was a man without a country for 33 years. This is what I believe obama is covering up. This is why obama does not want to provide an original birth certificate including hospital name and doctor name. I don't think this documment exists. Imagine if America would find out they elected a man in Nov 2, 2004 Senator and he only became a citizen in Oct 1994. A retroactive citizen. Not a natural born citizen but a "retroactive citizen:!

This is what obama fears. Obama fears his former "life" as an illegal alien being exposed. Obama was most certainly an illegal alien if he was born outside of the US to a parent who did not qualify for him to be a US citizen at the time of his birth. His mother did not qualify him to be a US citizen at the time of birth. This is what I believe obama fears will come out. Obama claims he was a US citizen from birth but if he was born in Kenya for example he was not born a US citizen because of his mother. If obama was born in Kenya in 1961 he was not a US citizen because the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, applied to stanley ann dunham at the time of obama's birth.

If obama was born in the US he has nothing to hide except the hospital and doctors name.

Obama has not produced evidence of either. There have been statements about his birth at a hospital in Hawaii but NO evidence whatsoever.

This is why I question obama's citizenship. This is why LTC Lakin is betting everything on the fact obama is a FRAUD and his "trial" to expose obama will shed some light on the dark side of obama's origins.

Is obama eligible to be president? NO

Water World star Kevin Costner, who has spent years and millions of dollars perfecting a device that cleans oil from seawater

 

Kevin Costner Has A Solution To The Oil Spill Clean Up

Kevin Costner is donating a $24 million centrifuge machine to help clean up oil-contaminated water.

After asking for ideas from anyone to solve the Deepwater Horizon oil leak, the petroleum giant has given the go-ahead to begin using a centrifuge machine bankrolled by Kevin Costner, the star of such Hollywood hits as Field of Dreams, Bull Durham and Water World.

According to a WWLTV report out of Louisiana, Costner invested $24 million in the project after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

The machines, manufactured by Ocean Therapy Solutions, act as a centrifuge, separating the oil from water. The centrifuge makers claim the device can separate 97 percent of the oil from water at a rate of 200 gallons per minute, and that 31 of the devices have already been built.


Could there be a happy Hollywood ending to the Gulf oil spill?

Enter "Waterworld" star Kevin Costner, who has spent years and millions of dollars perfecting a device that cleans oil from seawater.

British Petroleum - desperate for ideas - gave the okay to test six of Costner's gizmos this week, said BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles.

Costner's high-speed centrifuge machine has a Los Angeles-perfect name: "Ocean Therapy."

Placed on a barge, it sucks in large quantities of polluted water, separates out the oil and spits back 97% clean water.

"It's like a big vacuum cleaner," said Costner's business partner, Louisiana trial lawyer John Houghtaling.

"The machines are basically sophisticated centrifuge devices that can handle a huge volume of water," he said.

The "Field of Dreams" star first got a team together to create the device in the wake of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska.

His scientist brother, Dan Costner, helped develop the device, and together, the brothers formed Costner Industries Nevada Corp. to pursue various energy projects, including a non-chemical battery that could last 15 years.

The 55-year-old actor eventually sank $26 million into the Ocean Therapy oil separator project. He obtained a license for the device from the Department of Energy in 1993 and has been trying for years to promote it.

In 2007, he told London's Daily Mail that he had blown millions on "technologies I thought would help the world" and had nothing to show for it.

"I've lost $40 million-plus," he said. "But I knew that if I was right, it would change things in an incredibly positive way."

Last week, he was in Louisiana seeking redemption, demonstrating his Ocean Therapy contraption.

"I'm just really happy that the light of day has come to this," Costner said.

Though reporters largely greeted his ideas with snickers, BP apparently wasn't laughing.

At least 210,000 gallons of oil per day is gushing into the sea from the ocean floor where the BP rig exploded April 20. The oil company has tried several novel solutions, but none has worked so far to plug the leak.

The company is skimming the oil, spraying it with dispersant chemicals underwater and trying to burn it on the surface.

Nineteen percent of the Gulf's lucrative fisheries are closed, billions of beach tourist dollars are at stake and dozens of seagoing species are threatened.

Costner has 300 of his Ocean Therapy machines in various sizes. The largest, at 21/2 tons, is able to clean water at a rate of 200 gallons a minute - faster than the well is leaking, Houghtaling noted.

(Thats 288 thousand gallons of clean water a day. The oil leak is gushing 210,000 \gallons a day. This is just one of his machines. Costner has 300 of various size machines. BP and the government would be crazy not to use these machines if they only do 50% of what Costner claims. Obama is too stupid to use something like this. It will be up to BP I hope to give it a try.) Story Reports

Meanwhile, the 50 or so tar balls that washed up this week in the Florida Keys are not from the BP spill, the Coast Guard announced, temporarily calming tourism jitters.
"The source of the tar balls remains unknown at this time," the Coast Guard said.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said a tendril of oil from the slick entered the Loop Current that leads to the Gulf Stream yesterday, prompting fresh fears for Florida's tourist industry.

A counterclockwise eddy in the Loop Current that might keep the oil contained - at least for now - has been observed, NOAA said.

NOAA set up a "virtual Incident Command Center" in St. Petersburg, Fla., just in case.

If the job had Obama's apppoval, "that is a high crime and misdemeanor."

White House scandal called 'impeachable offense' if what Sestak is saying about obama job offer is true.

Drew Zahn

If a Democratic member of Congress is to be believed, there's someone in the Obama administration who has committed a crime – and if the president knew about it, analysts say it could be grounds for impeachment.

"This scandal could be enormous," said Dick Morris, a former White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, on the Fox News Sean Hannity show last night. "It's Valerie Plame only 10 times bigger, because it's illegal and Joe Sestak is either lying or the White House committed a crime.

"Obviously, the offer of a significant job in the White House could not be made unless it was by Rahm Emanuel or cleared with Rahm Emanuel," he said. If the job offer was high enough that it also had Obama's apppoval, "that is a high crime and misdemeanor."

"In other words, an impeachable offense?" Hannity asked.

"Absolutely," said Morris.

The controversy revolves around an oft-repeated statement by Rep. Sestak, D-Pa., that he had been offered a job by the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter.

Sestak said he refused the offer. He continued in the Senate primary and defeated Specter for the Democratic nomination.

But Karl Rove, longtime White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the charge is explosive because of federal law.

"This is a pretty extraordinary charge: 'They tried to bribe me out of the race by offering me a job,'" he said on Greta Van Susteran's "On the Record" program on the Fox News Channel. "Look, that's a violation of the federal code: 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.

(Wow, obama and Rahm Emanuel bribed Rep. Sestak, D-Pa and offered a job in exchange for dropping out of the senatorial primary against Obama supporter Sen. Arlen Specter. Obama should be impeached if this is true. Obama should be impeached anyway for incompetence and failure to accomplish anything but parrot the words off a teleprompter.) Story Reports

"Somebody violated the law. If Sestak is telling the truth, somebody violated the law," Rove said. "Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody. Well, arguably, providing a clear path to the nomination for a fellow Democrat is something of value.

He continued, citing a third law passage: "18 USC 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office. ... 'If you'll get out, we'll appoint you to a federal office,' – that's a violation of the law."

"I've said all I'm going to say on the matter. … Others need to explain whatever their role might be," Sestak said on CNN this week. "I have a personal accountability; I should have for my role in the matter, which I talked about. Beyond that, I'll let others talk about their role."

That's not fulfilling his responsibilities, Rove said. He said Sestak needs to be forthcoming with the full story so "the American people can figure out whether or not he's participating in a criminal cover-up along with federal officials."

The Obama White House has tried to minimize the issue.

(Obamagate has begun. Obama is trying to minimize the issue because obama could be impeached.) Story Reports

"Lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has stated.

Gibbs told the White House press corps, "Whatever conversations have been had are not problematic."

And on CBS' "Face the Nation" he said, "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were. People who looked into them assure me they weren't inappropriate in any way."

(Almost everything obama says or does is just the opposite of what he says or does. If gibbs says nothing inappropriate happed in conversations with Sestak and Sestak says he was bribed I think obama is lying. If gibbs, speaking for obama, says the conversations are not problematic, they are problematic. If gibbs says, speaking for obama, people looked into the conversations and assure me they are not inappropriate, they were inappropriate as congressman Sestak says they were. Sestak is accusing obama of offering him a job if he would drop out of a senate race. A bribe. Lets hope Sestak isn't found to have taken an asprin overdose or some other accident.) Story Reports

But the administration also is taking no chances on what might be discovered.

According to Politico, the Justice Department has rejected a request from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for a special counsel to investigate and reveal the truth of the controversy.

The report said Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich confirmed no special counsel would be needed. But the report said Weich also gave no indication that the Justice Department actually was looking into the claims by Sestak.

"We assure you that the Department of Justice takes very seriously allegations of criminal conduct by public officials. All such matters are reviewed carefully by career prosecutors and law enforcement agents, and appropriate action, if warranted, is taken," Weich wrote in the letter.

Issa had suggested that the alleged job offer may run afoul of federal bribery statutes.

He said in a statement to Politico, "The attorney general's refusal to take action in the face of such felonious allegations undermines any claim to transparency and integrity that this administration asserts."

"The bottom line is all fingers are being pointed back to the White House," he said in a statement released as ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

"This Chicago-style politicking is an assault on our democracy and is downright criminal. President Obama faces a critical choice – he can either live up to his rhetoric of transparency and accountability by disclosing who inside his White House tried to manipulate an election by bribing a U.S. Congressman or he can allow his administration to continue this stonewalling and relinquish the mantle of change and transparency he is so fond of speaking on."

Issa suggested, "Could the reason why Congressman Joe Sestak refuses to name names is because the very people who tried to bribe him are now his benefactors? For months, Sestak has repeatedly said without equivocation that the White House illegally offered him a federal job in exchange for dropping out of the race. Was Joe Sestak embellishing what really happened, or does he have first-hand knowledge of the White House breaking the law? If what he said is the truth, Joe Sestak has a moral imperative to come forward and expose who within the Obama Administration tried to bribe him."

Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee chairman, as well as Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, have joined the chorus suggesting the White House needs to answer some questions.

Former judge Andrew Napolitano, an analyst for Fox News, said the level of the offer simply isn't an issue.

"It wouldn't matter if it was a job as a janitor. Offering him anything of value to get him to leave a political race is a felony, punishable by five years in jail," he said.

The Section 600 statute states:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(I'll settle for impeachment of a fraud. I don't see anything happening on this issue unless Joe Sestak is made to name names and it turns into something obama can't control. Either Sestak is lying or gibbs, speaking for obama, is lying. Lets keep an eye on Sestak. He should be indicted. If a chicken sandwich can be indicted ,Sistak can. Then maybe he will start singing about obama.) Story Reports

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that the White House offered a job to Rep. Joe Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary.

The Republicans, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), ranking member of the panel, sent a letter to Holder on Wednesday, asking the Justice Department to investigate the Sestak claim and determine whether a crime was committed. House Republicans have made a similar request, and were rebuffed by Justice.

Sestak, a Democrat, defeated incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) last week for the party's Senate nomination. Since then, Sestak has continually deflected questions on who offered him what job in the Obama administration, although he has repeatedly confirmed that the incident did occur.

Seeking a chance to pick up the Pennsylvania Senate seat, Republicans have pressed both Sestak and the White House to provide more information on the incident, which took place sometime in mid-2009, according to Sestak.

The Justice Department has already rejected a call from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Sestak incident.

(If it was a democrate requesting a republican administration justice dept to appoint a special counsel all the state run media would be sceeming for blood. The fact obama is not smells like BO again. If BO has nothing to hide and he did not bribe Sestak why stonewall?) Story Reports

Yes it is a a federal crime.

The Section 600 statute states:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Live view of BP oil gusher in the gulf

Live video link from the ROV monitoring the damaged riser.

This oil gusher reminds me of the waste obama and the DNC gushes forth in the form of wasteful spending and lies.

Americans will "choke off" the socialist agenda of obama and the dnc in Nov.

Release date: 26 May 2010
BP today provided an update on developments in the response to the MC252 oil well incident in the Gulf of Mexico.

Subsea efforts continue to focus on progressing options to stop the flow of oil from the well through interventions via the blow out preventer (BOP), and to collect the flow of oil from the leak points. These efforts are being carried out in conjunction with industry experts and governmental authorities.

A series of diagnostic tests are currently underway on the Deepwater Horizon’s failed BOP to improve understanding of the status and configuration of the BOP and determine whether a ‘top kill’ procedure can be successfully executed. These tests involve pumping drilling fluids into the BOP to measure pressures and validate flow paths. When complete, a decision will be made on the execution of the top kill procedure itself.
This top kill procedure has not been carried out offshore at 5,000 feet water depth before, and its success cannot be assured. It is expected that the entire procedure could take up to two days, and it cannot be predicted how long it will take for the operation to prove successful or otherwise. Should it be necessary, plans and equipment are in place to combine the top kill process with the injection under pressure of bridging material into the BOP to prevent or limit upward flow through the BOP.

BP will continue to provide a live video feed from the seabed through the diagnostic testing and top kill, if undertaken. Throughout the diagnostic process and top kill procedure very significant changes in the appearance of the flows at the seabed will be expected. These will not provide a reliable indicator of the overall progress, or success or failure, of the top kill operation as a whole.

Should the top kill not succeed in fully stopping the flow of oil and gas from the well, BP would then intend to move forward to deployment of the LMRP cap containment system.
Deployment of this system will involve first removing the damaged riser from the top of the BOP to leave a cleanly-cut pipe at the top of the BOP’s lower marine riser package (LMRP). The LMRP cap, an engineered containment device with a sealing grommet, would then be connected to a riser from the Discoverer Enterprise drillship and then placed over the existing LMRP with the intention of capturing most of the oil and gas flowing from the well.

The LMRP cap is already on site and it is anticipated that this option will be available for deployment by the end of May.

Additional options also continue to be progressed, including the option of lowering a second blow-out preventer, or a valve, on top of the failed Deepwater Horizon BOP.

Work on the drilling of two relief wells, begun on May 2 and May 16, continues. Each of the wells is estimated to take some three months to complete from the commencement of drilling.

Selective Service Never Actually Registered The Fraud Obama

.........................................................................................
Debbie Schlussel
Selective Service Never Actually Registered The Fraud Obama
.........................................................................................

The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, obama committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it’s proof positive that obama never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.

But the Selective Service System registration (”SSS Form 1″) and accompanying computer print-out (”SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:

* Document Location Number Indicates Obama Selective Service Form was Created in 2008

First, there is the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form. In the upper right hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-stamped DLN, in this case “0897080632,” which I’ve labeled as “A” on both the SSS Form and the computer printout document. On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation, but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look like it is from 1980, when it was actually created in 2008.

As the retired federal agent notes:

Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008. The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except an 8 has been added to make it look like it is from 1980 and give it a 1980 DLN number. And 1980 is the year Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered. So, why does the machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which was manually input) reflect a “corrected” DLN year of 1980? Were all the DLNs issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?

It’s quite a “coincidence” . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this case.

When a young man reaches 18 he can go to any of the 35,000 post offices nationwide to register with Selective Service. There he completes a simple registration card and mails it to the Selective Service System. This begins a multi-step process which results in the man’s registration.

Each week approximately 6,000 completed registration cards are sent to the Selective Service System’s Data Management System (DMC) near Chicago, Ill. At the DMC these cards are grouped into manageable quantities. Each card is then microfilmed and stamped with a sequential document locator number. The processed microfilm is reviewed to account for all documents and to ensure that the film quality is within strict standards. After microfilming, the cards are keyed and then verified by a different data transcriber.

The Document Locator Number (DLN) is an automatic function (Selective Service record-keeping, specifically the DLN is described on pages 7-8 of this Federal Register document), with the first two digits comprising the year, and it was not changed to “08″ in error. So if the form was filed and processed in 1980, how did it get a 2008 DLN?!

* Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form is Apparently 1990 Form Altered to Appear Like 1980 Form

On the SSS Form 1, in the lower left hand corner is the form number (SSS Form 1) and the month and year version of the form, labeled as “B“. On this particular Form 1, it clearly shows the month as “FEB” (February), and the year is either “80″ or “90″. The retired federal agent investigated further:

Magnification of the form both physically (with a 10x glass) or with different image software does not reflect a clear cut result of either a “80″ or a “90″.

But, checking the history of SSS Form 1 (see http://www.reginfo.gov/public do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=198002-3240-001#), it’s apparent that in February 1980, the Selective Service agency withdrew a “Request for a new OMB control number” for SSS Form 1 meaning the agency canceled its previous request for a new form, and one was never issued in “FEB 1980″.

(A new selective serivce form was never issued for obama in Feb 1980.) Story Reports

Since under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 a federal agency can not use a form not approved by OMB (Office of Management and Budget), it’s nearly impossible for Senator/President-Elect Obama’s SSS Form 1 to be dated “Feb 1980.” And since that makes it almost certainly dated “Feb 1990,” then how could Barack Obama sign it and the postal clerk stamp it almost ten (10) years before its issue?! Simply not possible.

The lower right hand corner reflects that the Obama SSS form 1 was approved by OMB with an approval number of 19??0002, labeled as “C“. The double question marks (??) reflect digits that are not completely clear.

* Barack Obama’s Signature is Dated After Postal Stamp Certifying His Signature
Barack H. Obama signed the SSS Form 1’s “Today’s date” as July 30, 1980, labeled “D“. But the Postal Stamp reflects the PREVIOUS day’s date of July 29, 1980, labeled “E“. Yes, Obama could have mistakenly written the wrong date, but it is rare and much more unlikely for someone to put a future date than a past date. (Also note how Barry made such a “cute” peace sign with the “b” inside the “O” of his signature. Touching.)
* Postal Stamp is Incorrect, Discontinued in 1970

(This is additional real evidence obama's ss document is a fake) Story Reports

Then, there is the question as to whether the Postal Stamp is real. The “postmark” stamp–labeled “E“–is hard to read, but it is clear that at the bottom is “USPO” which stands typically for United States Post Office. However, current “postmark” validator, registry, or round dater stamps (item 570 per the Postal Operations Manual) shows “USPS” for United States Postal Service. The change from Post Office to Postal Service occurred on August 12, 1970, when President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic–Public Law 91-375. The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971.

Why was an old, obsolete postmark round dater stamp used almost ten (10) years after the fact to validate a legal document . . . that just happened to be Barack Obama’s suspicious Selective Service registration form?


(Its a fake that's why an obsolete postmark was used.) Story Reports

* Form Shows Barack Obama didn’t have ID The SSS Form 1 states “NO ID”, labeled “F“. Since that’s the case, then how did the Hawaiian postal clerk know that the submitter was really Barack H. Obama, who may have been on summer break from attending Occidental College in California. How would they determine whether the registrant was truly registering and not a relative, friend, or other imposter?
* The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election.
The retired federal agent who FOIA’d Barack Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form notes:

Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:

Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance with Federal law.
Sincerely,
Janice L. Hughes/SSS

Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008 (prior to my October 13, 2008 request), and stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Did they temporarily change the date on the computer database?

On the previous FOIA response, they stated that it was filed on September 4, 1980. In my second request I mentioned that Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.

* Other Questions: Missing Selective Service Number, FOIA Response Dated Prior to FOIA Request, Missing Printout Page Where is Obama’s Selective Service number (61-1125539-1) on the card? And the retired federal agent notes that the Selective Service Data Management Center prepared its response to his FOIA request prior to the request having been made:

The last transaction date is 09/04/80 [DS: labeled "G"], but the date of the printout is 09/09/08 [DS: labeled "H"]. My FOIA was dated October 13 so why did they prepare the printout BEFORE I submitted my FOIA? I gave them no “heads up” that I was sending it. In fact it was not mailed until late October–around the 25th.
Also, notice the printout was page 1 of 2 [DS: labeled "I"].

Hmmm . . . where is the other page, and what’s on it?
A lot of questions here. And a lot of huge hints that this government-released, official Barack Obama Selective Service registration was faked. Either he signed the fake backdated document, or someone else faked his signature and he never registered for the draft (and lied about it).
Which is it?
It’s incredible that our obama either didn’t register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently. The documents indicate it’s one or the other.

*** UPDATE: Here’s another irregularity that points to fraudas reported by Joice a reader:

My husband printed the information provided on your web site regarding Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration discrepancies. I noticed that the DLN number in upper right corner (labeled “A“) has only ten (10) digits with the first two being 08 , but the DLN number shown on the computer screen printout has eleven (11) digits with the first two being 80. It clearly indicates that the “8″ was added at the beginning of the DLN number, in order to appear that it was issued in 1980 and wasn’t simply a reversal of the first two digits as the retired federal agent noted. This in itself appears questionable. I would think there is a standard number of digits in all DLN numbers.
........................................................................................
The selective service database allows people to search for registrants as long as a correct name, Social Security Number and date of birth are entered.

On May 5, WND entered the criteria for President Obama, using his date of birth as Aug. 4, 1961, and his Social Security Number, which begins with the Connecticut-issued prefix of 042.

The Selective Service database instantly issued a "matched record" without a problem that day, indicating Obama's Selective Service Number is 61-1125539-1. It lists date of registration as Sept. 4, 1980.

However, when WND re-entered the same information on May 20, the database did not provide the matched record, but instead posted a message, stating, "Error. Sorry, your request cannot be processed at this time because you have exceeded the daily limit for the verification of these credentials."

(There appears to be NO "daily limit" on the number of requests for other selective records but there is on obama's "selective sevice records". An attempt to conceal the fraud obama record. Why? Because the public is cathing on to the FRAUD obama.) Story Reports
........................................................................................

The problems using the SSS search engine come in the wake of WND's disclosure that two private investigators working independently are wondering why Obama is using a Social Security Number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

The stunning revelation apparently prompted Internet giant Google to clamp down specifically on WND's report and warn that some sites carrying information on the situation "may harm your computer."

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

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.

(People need to concentrate on obama's known fake records. This seems to be a prime example. Sooner or later I believe obama can be "smoked out" as an imposter. Debbie Schlussel has shown the obama selective service registration to be very strange. Strange because it seems to have been faked. Its not strange to me because I have known all along obama was an imposter.) Story Reports

Obama seems to be also using a fake ss number