Archive for 05/12/2010

WND explores White House lawsuit over press snub

Posted: 05/12/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

Complaint already cites correspondents for dissing online news site

Posted: May 11, 2010
9:00 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

U.S. President Barack Obama attends the White House  Correspondents' Dinner in Washington

The White House may be added to a complaint already pending against the White House Correspondents’ Association over alleged discrimination at its annual black-tie dinner in Washington, according to a lawyer working on the case.

“This is not for just WND. It’s for the press. This year it was WND. Next year it’s someone else,” Larry Klayman, who is pursuing the action on behalf of WND.

He said today the target could be “anyone who criticizes the White House, whether Democrat or Republican. The press has to be held accountable, to live by the same rules it wants everybody else to live by.”

Help WND take this lawsuit to the limit and defend against other First Amendment attacks!

The complaint followed the association’s rejection this year of WND’s request for three tables at the annual dinner, a news event as well as a social event in Washington. WND requested and submitted payment for three tables, but the association allocated only a couple of seats, cashing the check for one table.

However, the two seats were unusable because WND planned to invite personnel and guests to honor Les Kinsolving’s tenure as a distinguished White House correspondent and announce the publication of a book, “Gadfly,” about his career, written by his daughter, Kathleen Kinsolving Willmann.

WND explained the three tables were necessary to mark the occasion and “because WND has become over the years a major publication.”

The lawsuit explained the association was given checks for $6,750 for the tables, and the organization cashed one in the amount of $2,250.

Meanwhile, the association granted space to several relative newcomers to the world of news.

Klayman said today that the association rejected a settlement offer that involved promising access to the dinner in 2011, so now the depositions of the parties will begin.

He also suggested the White House could be added to the complaint because of its involvement in a political “hit” on Fox News that indicates what the complaint alleges: Mainstream reporters are doing the bidding of the Obama administration in an effort to belittle, exclude and irreparably harm the leading Internet news outlet.

“It’s as simple as this: the Huffington Post is to the left and WND is perceived to be on the right,” said Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA.

He noted the left-leaning Huffington Post, a much younger presence on the Internet at five years, was granted a full table by the association, even though WND, at 13 years old, was allowed only a couple of seats.

Meanwhile, a new website launched only months ago, Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller, was granted a presence at the dinner by the WHCA.

“No one who knows Washington media would ever think that Tucker Carlson is a real conservative. He is a country club Republican. So it’s easy to figure out why WND is being given the shaft with the urging of the Obama White House,” Klayman said when the case was filed.

The correspondents association did not respond to a WND request for comment today. But Ed Chen, the association’s president, earlier told Politico he believes the case is “futile.”

“The association has seen countless and creative efforts to improve one’s circumstances at the dinner; all of them have been futile. This latest ploy will end with the same result,” Chen told Politico.

But Simon Owens, who runs Bloggasm’s commentary on media issues, suggested there are some legitimate questions to be answered.

“Farah said he would have felt less insulted if he’d received no tables rather than two seats, and he called on the association to have some objectivity on how they dole out tables (I have to admit, I kind of agree with him on this one),” Owens wrote.

“‘What are the standards that you use? Does seniority have anything to do with it? Does longevity have anything to do with it? Does audience have anything to do with it? If you measure by any of those standards, you would assume WorldNetDaily passes the test, more than lots of other organizations that wouldn’t. What am I to conclude from that?'” he reported Farah questioned.

WND reported the complaint cites the Obama administration’s previous attempt to retaliate against a news organization.

“For instance, Fox News, which has also been critical of the Obama administration, and which the White House also fears and loathes, was subject to a boycott [from the White House],” the complaint said.

“Thus, what is apparently a political ‘hit’ on WND takes on great credibility in the world of Washington politics,” the complaint states.

A commentary by Kelly Boggs at Baptist Press outlined the Oct. 22 Fox incident.

“White House officials tried to bar Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett from a press pool event. The administration was making Executive Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews, and Fox was told that while other members of the pool would have access to Feinberg, it would not be allowed to participate,” he wrote.

In that case, the other four members of the pool, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN, “told the White House that if Fox was not allowed to participate then none of them would participate.”

The report confirmed “the White House relented and Fox News was allowed to participate.”

WND, launched in 1997, is one of the oldest Internet publications and reports on a wide variety of news events to a readership estimated at 8 million readers a month.

The lawsuit contends, “Most of the officers and directors of the WHCA are of a liberal bent and feel great kinship with the Obama administration and are thus prone to do its bidding.”

The complaint seeks “actual and compensatory damages in excess of $10 million USD for harm to its business and other relationships.”

“We’ve been through this kind of treatment by the Washington press corps in the past,” Farah noted. “We’ve grown to expect it, despite the fact that we are the oldest independent national online news source on the Net, despite the fact that our White House press correspondent is the third most veteran member of those covering the White House and despite the fact that we always play by the rules.”

Farah said the White House press corps and the correspondents association have shown nothing but antipathy for New Media enterprises like WND in general and even more disdain for those who subscribe to the traditional role of the American press as a vigorous watchdog on government.

Dating back to February 2002, WND was denied accreditation to the Senate Press Gallery for routine access to cover the Capitol. Ten days after WND threatened legal action against individual members of the Senate Press Gallery, WND was granted accreditation in September 2002.

“This is an illustration of what some call the ‘government-media complex’ or the ‘state-sponsored media,'” says Farah. “It’s one thing when you have to battle government secrecy and corruption, which we expect to do as part of our jobs as newsmen. It’s another thing when you have to battle your own colleagues who act like self-appointed press cops, blocking independent media from doing the job they refuse to do.”

The same day as the dinner, WND senior reporter Aaron Klein also launched a new book investigating Obama, “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists.”

Klein had planned to attend the dinner to discuss his book with administration officials.

Joseph Farah and Larry Klayman are both available for press interviews. Please e-mail WND with your request.


Investigators: Obama using Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number

Posted: 05/12/2010 by Lynn Dartez in WND

3 experts insist White House answer new questions about documentation

Posted: May 11, 2010
9:57 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

U.S. President Barack Obama waves as he leaves after dinner at  Komi restaurant in Washington

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

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

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

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

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama calls Britain's new Prime Minister David Cameron from the  White House in Washington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama’s inauguration., a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the number in question.

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

Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama’s birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama’s birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.