U.S. Selective Service in Obama cover-up?

WOW! Great find. Thanks loads.

This is very curious and like everybody else, could you please Freepmail me the hair raising stuff. The Usurper has to be stopped legally. He and his minions are destroying America.

All this CIA and Obama stuff infuriates me. If it is true, that is why our intelligence agency is in trouble. Employing and idiot like the Usurper makes little sense. But then again, employing a backwoods gov. of Ark who later became president, makes no sense but that is why we are in such trouble now.

BTTT

No way. I wish they, meaning Foxnews, would be researching it but I doubt it. It so sad.

#14,,,,There’s a whole lotta treason going on out there!!!

Has anybody bothered to run the SSN and name through eVerify?

Thanks for posting that link to check the first 5 numbers.
Got mine as an infant/at birth - I had wondered about that...

You’re welcome.

Could you add me to the hair raising list please?

I do remember when the draft was suspended and went to a lottery system, birthdates. I was overseas when I got a letter from a HS buddy. He told me that my birthday came up #365 on the lottery, two years later. (Didn't know that SS registration was suspended though.)

The lottery started Dec. 1, '69, with the first folks drafted on that basis in '70. My number was 34 (although I had to look that up). Draft was suspended July 1 '73, 10 days after I went on active duty.

Dual citizenship is fine for everyone EXCEPT those who want to be President. Natural born citizenship prohibits such split allegiences.

You mean IF the person in question initiated the citizenship. Obviously Iran could have issued citizenship to George W. Bush while he was President. That would not have disqualified him.

And we have never 100% clearly determined if anyone can be of a non-American parent and be President. After all, our current President was KNOWN by everyone to have had a foreign father and no one ever said a thing, loudly or otherwise. NO ONE in the mainstream media, even on our side, said that he wasn't a natural born citizen because his father was foreign. Wouldn't Bobby Jindal also not be natural born? I think that could be a good definition, but it has not yet been clearly established.

I would like to be on your hair-raising list too.

Oh, boy!Did you jerk my chain.

Enjoy the following lessons about citizenship and the Presidential eligibility requirments found in Article 12 of the U.S. Constitution. It’s the result of two years of research. And no, Gov. Bobby Jindal is not a natural born citizen, as his parents were citizens of India when he was born here four months after they arrived.

There are only three types of citizenship and all have equal rights: native born citizenship; naturalized citizenship; and, citizenship-by-statute. Note: Natural Born Citizenship IS NOT a type of citizenship. It is only a circumstance of birth required for eligibility to be President of the United States and appears in Article 12 of the U.S. Constitution.

Native born citizenship (jus solis) was created by the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Wong Kim Ark was the son of two resident Chinese aliens, (unable to attain citizenship due to a treaty between the U.S.A. and the Emperor of China). Wong claimed U.S. Citizenship because of his birth on U.S. soil. He was vindicated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A. (jus solis), under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.) but it DID NOT extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” to those whose parents were not citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Naturalized citizenship is granted to those born in a foreign land who become U.S.citizens, such as Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger, for example.

Citizenship-by-statute is granted to those born overseas to U.S. citizens (jus sanquinas). There is a whole array of legal statutes covering this, but this type of citizenship has the same rights as the other two types.

Since there is NO RIGHT to be President, the eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegience for any President of the United States.

Split allegience is why no dual-citizenship citizens can be President.

The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. to citizen parents is a natural born citizen.

Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor:
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.

[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]

[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]

[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.

The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject”. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.

In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.

The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789: [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.

We know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, John Jay, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature: “The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”

Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstone’s theory by citing that the definition of ’subject’ per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of ‘citizen’ as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A ’subject’ is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central government’s power is derived from the people, the citizens.

Justice Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=1

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2040486/posts

links to very very very long thread and very very long thread

sorry I can’t be of any help, the SS story is one thing I didn’t follow in any detail.

RINOS like to lose. They are in to building a permanent minority.

Seeing as Obama ( according to his autobiography) did not step foot on the mainland for the first time until 1972, applying form the Conn office would have been impossible.

That number was issued between1977 and 1979, according to the PI who started this whole tempest in a teapot:

From the affidavit of Susan Daniels, licensed private investigator, Document No. 78-5, filed in Barnett, et al v. Obama, US District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana (Southern) Divison on 10/01/2009.

"I located a social security number for Barack Hussein Obama and found that it was issued between 1977-1979 in the State of Connecticut."

From the SSA link at comment 43:

Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.

I would also challenge any private detective to testify under oath that Obama never visited Connecticut betwen 1977 and 1979. How could they possibly prove it?

The fact that he had a verified SSN issued in CT is odd, nothing more.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2507228/posts?page=19#19

Here’s the best explanation to the Connecticut question I’ve heard to date.

See #26 same thread.

bump