Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Video: Bill O'Reilly Busted: Caught Red-handed Lying About Obama's Social Security Number Reserved For Connecticut Applicants. P.I. Susan Daniels Debunks Bill O'Reilly's Big Fat Lie... Commander Kerchner Also Weighs In... The Segment Aired On 4/13/2011...



Via Commander Kerchner: Bill O'Reilly told a big fat whopper and piece of disinformation on the ending email comments segment of his TV show tonight | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Bill O'Reilly told a big fat whopper and piece of disinformation on the ending email comments segment of his TV show tonight when he said in answer to an email comment about Obama having a SSN from CT, O'Reilly then said that Obama's father lived for several years in CT and probably got it for his son. When that CT number was issues circa Mar 1977 Obama's father was back in Kenya for many years and Obama was age 15 living in Hawaii in the legal custody of his maternal grandparents. There is no way Obama Sr. in Kenya could have requested a SSN for Obama Jr. living in Hawaii and got issued a CT SSN. It also should be pointed out that Harvard which is the New England college Obama Sr. attended for a few years in the early 1960s before returning to Kenya is in Massachusetts, not Connecticut. So O'Reilly is either completely stupid or he is purposely putting out false information to protect Obama. Is O'Reilly dancing to the tune or Obama's Homeland Security Department warnings and disinformation to keep Obama's usurpation a national security secret with fear of violence threats if Obama's fraud is exposed or is O'Reilly simply a closet progressive and Obama's lapdog?

Listen to this audio interview of Susan Daniels, Licensed Private Investigator, of the great state of Ohio at about 18 minutes and 25 seconds in where she destroys the above false story that O'Reilly repeated tonight. Listen to the entire audio if you have time. It's 34 minutes full of good, solid information on the Obama fraudulent use of a CT SSN.
http://www.t-room.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/SDInterview.mp3

Obama should be charged with criminal felony identity theft for using since at least 1986 someone else's CT SSN and criminal felony Selective Service Registration fraud for filing a back dated SSS registration via his contacts in the Chicago IL regional selective service registration office circa 2007/2008 when he decided to run for President. The truth must be allowed to come out. It will come out eventually. The longer the grifter and usurper in chief is in the Oval Office and is the commander of our military, the more damage he will do to our nation, republic, and constitution. When will the cowardly Congress and courts act. The Central American country of Honduras had more backbone in dealing with an unconstitutional President than our Congress and Courts do. Obama is making American the laughing stock of the world and is a grave threat to our liberty. He must be removed by Congress as a usurper.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org



Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here. 

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. -Details here. 

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here. 

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here. 

Previous reports on Obama's SS# can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Whose SSN is President Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Using? 11 Apr 2011 issue Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5

29 comments:

  1. My local postmaster actually changed my formal address because HE felt that I did not live at the address he had on official PO forms! Told him where I lived was of no concern to him, and outright none of his business.

    I even had a face to face with him, and told him to deliver the gotdaaumed mail as it was addressed!

    He would never look at me during our conversation and he still sent formal changes of addresses to all but legal entities. All of my personal tax matters STILL go to my formal address! So that I probably can't address them in a timely basis. (ex BIL used to be a carrier under the same feller).

    Makes ya sorta go Hmmmmm....

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Dallas Blog has just received an e-mail from a reliable source in Texas, who said he received an interesting e-mail from a former U.S. Naval officer, who obtained a fascinating letter from an I.R.S. examiner who contends that Mr. Obama’s real name is Barry Soetoro, according to alleged Top-Secret tax records.

    My reliable Texas source explained that he’s not certain if it’s true, but the letter also provides a link to Obama or Soetoro’s selective service registration information, which looks highly-suspicious. Well, let the fun start and see if these allegations are true. Here’s a copy-and-paste of the letter from the IRS examiner:

    letter at link http://www.dallasblog.com/201104131007970/dallas-blog/is-barack-obama-aka-barry-soetoro.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Via email:

    Breaking News: American Conservative Union to Launch National Campaign to Expose the Constitutional Ineligibility of the Usurper in Chief -- Barry Soetoro Obama | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

    I just received a fund raising drive telephone call from an "Ashley" of the American Conservative Union asking for donations to launch a national advertising campaign to expose the unconstitutional and ineligibility for the office of the presidency of Barry Soetoro Obama. I told them to place the ads and the money will pour in to help expose the true legal identity of Barry Soetoro Obama. Obama is certainly not a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. I told the fund raising caller I will believe it when I see it and let's see the American Conservative Union walk the walk. I told them to launch their campaign and they will have the 100% support of individuals such as I, lead plaintiff in the Kerchner v Obama lawsuit, and millions and millions of other American concerned about the fraud in the White House. Let's see what they do in the next 10 days.

    A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii | by Atty Mario Apuzzo:
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html



    CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
    Lehigh Valley PA USA
    http://www.protectourliberty.org


    ####

    ReplyDelete
  4. The same article that is here:

    http://www.dallasblog.com/201104131007970/dallas-blog/is-barack-obama-aka-barry-soetoro.html

    Was was posted here on 3-31-2011 by Atom Ant:

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/atom-ant/trump-is-right-barry-soetoro-aka-obama-is-hiding-what-appears-to-be-a-criminal-p/10150141940532496

    ReplyDelete
  5. What the hell is going on with Fox News and Bill O'Reilly?

    Why do they keep running interference for Obama on the birther and SSN issues?

    Something stinks in Denmark, and it stinks to high heavens!

    ReplyDelete
  6. You must be new to the situation, Fox has been guilty from the get-go. Boycott Fox.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Anonymous
    The Dallas Blog requires signing in to read the post and the Facebook posting is no longer available. Since I'm not going to register with Dallas Blog, I guess I'm SOL.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Susan Daniels took the words right out of my mouth when she said Obama is a good actor playing the President....And i wish Trump would speak face to face with Susan Daniels

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  9. Quote:

    "The Dallas Blog requires signing in to read the post and the Facebook posting is no longer available. Since I'm not going to register with Dallas Blog, I guess I'm SOL."

    Just called it up here and it worked fine:

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/atom-ant/trump-is-right-barry-soetoro-aka-obama-is-hiding-what-appears-to-be-a-criminal-p/10150141940532496

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Anonymous
    I tried the Facebook link again and again this message was returned:

    This content is currently unavailable
    The page you requested cannot be displayed right now. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Revealed: Obama's CT Social Security # Traced To John Paul Ludwig (Lived CT-Died HI)

    This is what we know so far. We get more info on Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890, had CT SSN obtained in 1976 and died in HI around 1981. There are 2 SS numbers for him and records show him dying in 2 different states: CA and HI around 1981.

    The reason this is important, is because there is a similar fact pattern to Obama. Barack Obama is residing today in the White House, using CT SS number 042-68-4425, issued in CT in and around March 1977 to an elderly individual named John Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890, who is presumed dead and whose death was either never reported to the SS administration or reported and deleted from the database by someone.

    Obama's maternal grandmother Madelyn Dunham, worked as a part-timer or volunteer in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse. Thus she would have access to the estate files of anyone who died there. Thus if the elderly man originally from CT died intestate in Hawaii with no known relatives, Grandma Dunham would have known this person is a prime candidate to steal the SSN of since there would be no known surviving family worrying about the death benefit from SSN and that the benefit was not likely applied for and thus SSA did not know he died. Thus the SSN remained active for the deceased person and Obama could "adopt" it as his own. This is a clear case of identity theft at the federal level.

    This is what we know about Ludwig:

    In 1924, Jean Paul Ludwig worked for Senator Reed of PA, in Washington DC.

    On the ship manifest of ‘Leviathan’, he listed Senator Reed in Washington, DC as his empl., in answer to where he intended to live in the US.

    Jean Paul Ludwig had been in the US for 3 yrs in 1924, but he was listed on the “Immigration” manifest and refered to as an alien in the column headings.

    Listed under “States Immigration Officer at Port of Arrival”, New York, Aug 12, 1924:

    Jean Paul Ludwig, Date of Arrival: Aug 12, 1924, Port of Departure:
    Cherbourg, France, Line#: 0008

    Line #8: By Whom was Passage Paid: Emp. Mr. Reed; Whether in possession of $50: Yes; Whether ever before in US: Yes; If Yes-Period of Years: 3; Where: PA

    Whether going to join relative or friend: Empl. Senator Reed, Washingto, DC

    Length of time alien intends to remain in the US: Always

    Height 5′5″, Complexion Dk., Hair Br., Eyes Br., Marks of ID: None

    Place of Birth: France, Ammersville.

    http://www.ellisisland.org/sign/inde...T=LL&section=3


    First Name: Jean P.
    Last Name: Ludwig
    Ethnicity: France
    Last Place of Residence: Washington, D.C.
    Date of Arrival: Aug 12, 1924
    Age at Arrival: 34 Gender: M Marital Status: S
    Ship of Travel: Leviathan
    Port of Departure: Cherbourg, France
    Manifest Line Number: 0008

    U.S. Social Security Death Index
    Name: Jean Ludwig
    Birth Date: 17 February 1890
    Zip Code of Last Residence: 96816 (Honolulu,HI)
    Death Date: June 1981
    Estimated Age at Death: 91


    http://www.politicalforum.com/other-miscellaneous/176759-revealed-obamas-ct-social-security-traced-john-paul-ludwig-lived-ct-died-hi.html

    Born: 1890

    ReplyDelete
  12. Re: Facebook Link. The link I posted was not Facebook. I think it was edited to Facebook after I posted it. But if you Google "Is Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro?" you will find the results in Google groups and on Google Web.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here you go, Gary at GUL posted it in full the other day.

    Is Barack Obama AKA Barry Soetoro? - by Tom McGregor - April 14, 2011 -


    http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2011/04/duhyes-he-isand-yes-he-is-lifetime.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wonder where the info "John Paul Ludwig (Lived CT-Died HI)" came from?

    ReplyDelete
  15. To be the President of the USA, the Constitution of the USA indicates that he must be "a natural born citizen". To be a natural born citizen, he MUST meet 2 conditions:
    1) he must be born in the USA. Obama NEVER showed a LONG FORM birth certificate!
    2) he must be born of two American parents! Obama's father was NEVER an American!
    BOTH conditions are required!
    Hence, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen and is NOT eligible to be President of the USA!


    -Apuzzo site at puzo1 blogspot com
    -wnd com

    ReplyDelete
  16. 2 SITES TO CHECK:
    1) Attorney Mario Apuzzo's site at puzo1 blogspot com. Click on the link at the right entitled "NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP REQUIRES BOTH PARENTS TO BE U.S. CITIZENS" at puzo1.blogspot.com 2009 09 natural-born-citizen-clause-requires html

    2) Several articles on WorldNetDaily at wnd com under “Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve?”

    Use Google com to get the full web addresses.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You guys are idiots. Only one parent needs to be a citizen. If both parents needed to be, don't you think someone would have pointed this out from day 1? Hillary spent millions vetting Candidate Obama, as did McCain. If it was so simple as you suggest, why did neither of his opponents make this an issue?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey dumbass, people did point it. In fact Hillary, Obama and the rest co-signed Sen. Res. 511 that declared McCain a "natural born Citizen" due to being born on a military base(US Soil) and to U.S. Citizen ParentS.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Please read title 8 of the U.S. code. It clearly states that only one parent needs to be a citizen in order for the child to be as well. You tard.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

    Get over it. The crazy birthers have lost. Now you're going to have to find something else to blog about from your parent's basement.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hey tard, the issue is whether Obama is a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN", not a "citizen"...

    The 14th Amendment did not amend Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution, nor did it change the meaning of a "natural born Citizen"...

    Nor does the 14th even have or mention "natural born Citizen" in it, it is regarding "Citizen" status. And if you want the truth about the 14th, it was only meant to grant "citizen" status to the children of slaves. It was never meant for what it is being used today, thanks to your liberal leaders...

    Get educated, TARD!

    ReplyDelete
  21. So wait...let me make sure I understand. From one side of your mouth, you're using the 14th amendment to make your point. And from the other side of your mouth, you say it was never meant for what it is being used today. I wonder what brilliant things would come out of your ass, if only it could talk.

    If I must, allow me to say one more time. Title 8 gives the stipulations with regard to who is a citizen AT BIRTH. AT BIRTH is synonymous with "natural born".

    If I am wrong and you are right, why has not ONE of the DOZENS of lawsuits challenging President Obama's eligiblity been successful? Why didn't Hillary or McCain himself bring a lawsuit? You know the answer but you're unable to admit it, because admitting it would expose you as the mongoloid that you are.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And allow me to give you one more nugget for your feeble mind to process, although I'm sure you will choose not to. The Supreme Court clearly ruled in US v. Wong Kim Ark, that as long as a child is born in the U.S. NEITHER parent needed to be a citizen in order for the child to be considered a natural born citizen of the U.S. AND...it specifically addresses the question of whether such a child should be eligible to serve as President! How convenient. The quote:

    "And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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," &c . The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."

    Looking forward to your response...you mental midget.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @craniac24 the Obot deceiver

    You are full of crap. Title 8 Section 1401 which deals with the Congress creating Citizens at Birth, under the Congress' powers to create naturalized citizens, does not even mention the words "natural born" in that law. Natural born Citizens are created at birth by nature and not by man-made laws, statutes, or constitutional amendments. As to lawsuits many were brought against Obama and McCain on the natural born Citizenship eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The courts ducked all those suits and the Congress ducked the issue too. Read this essay explaining the difference in the legal term of art for statutory "Citizen at Birth" and the legal term of art for "natural born Citizen at Birth". Those two adjectives mean something very special and that is why they are in Article II, Section 1, and not in the 14th Amendment or in Title 8 Section 1401.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/of-trees-and-plants-and-basic-logic_05.html

    CDR Kerchner (Ret)
    http://www.protectourliberty.org

    ReplyDelete
  24. Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

    In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

    The intent and purpose of the amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”

    The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

    Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”

    As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States.

    The issue of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote “natural born Citizen” into Article II is surely ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to determine. The issue is one of first impression and the Supreme Court needs to decide it. The national security and survival of the United States as conceived by the Founders are at stake. Because of the utter failure of our political and media institutions to give proper and honest attention to this issue, only the highest court in the land can now come to the aid of the Kerchner plaintiffs and We the People.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898) (a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is a child born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” but an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, citing and quoting Minor v. Happersett for that definition. The question that Minor did not answer was answered by Wong Kim Ark, wherein the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents, in no way disturbed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” for it was asked to decide only if Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also allowed Wong to be a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” because it found that his parents, while not U.S. citizens, were, among other things, domiciliaries, residents of the United States, and not working in some foreign diplomatic capacity and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So Wong decided only the “citizen” part of Wong’s status. It never decided whether he also had the “natural born” part. The Court cautioned in its opinion in the beginning and at its end that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment and also informed us under what limited conditions (born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not employed in some foreign diplomatic capacity) it ruled that he was so); and...

    .... http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/donald-trump-is-natural-born-citizen.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. An investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose Social Security number (SSN) has been illegally used by Obama: Jean Paul Ludwig , who was born in France in 1890, emigrated to the United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 in or about March, 1977. Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut. His SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among those reserved for Connecticut residents. Obama never lived or worked in that state, so there is no reason for his SSN to start with the digits 042.

    Now comes the best part. Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii , where he died. Conveniently, Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham , worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals. The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig's death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no benefits to stop and no questions were raised. The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. citizen-either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro - merely scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and "selected" that SSN for Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @craniac24 I guess you have not read the constitution. It clearly says Both parents must be USA citizens. Question. Why would you stand behind someone that is trying to take away your freedom?

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.