“OUR ON THE RECORD STATEMENT SHOULD SUFFICE”…BUT IT DOES NOT
by Sharon Rondeau
(Sep. 12, 2012) — The White House press office cannot confirm the time at which an alleged telephone call between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took place last evening.
After contacting the press office, The Post & Email received a communication from Caitlin Hayden almost immediately with the wording of a “readout” of the alleged conversation. When we asked if there were a photo of Obama on the phone and at what time the call took place, we received the following response:
We don’t have anything additional to provide beyond this statement. Thanks! -CH
The Post & Email reported that an immediate response was not provided. However, about 20 minutes later, we received the following:
Our on the record statement should suffice.
Why can the White House not issue the time of the phone call? Have a number of mainstream media outlets been bamboozled?
We then replied:
Do you have any information on the allegations made by a law enforcement entity that Obama’s long-form birth certificate is a forgery? Why does his social security number indicate that it was issued in the state of Connecticut?
to which Ms. Hayden responded:
This issue has been addressed in great detail, on the record, by the White House. I’d refer you to those previous statements on our website.
to which we said:
Thank you for your response, but the issue of the Connecticut social security number has never been addressed.
Twenty minutes later, there has been no response. However, later, the following response was received:
I can send this to my domestic press office colleagues to handle, but it’s not something we can address here from the National Security Council.
to which we responded:
OK, thank you; I would appreciate that. At least two lawsuits have been filed over the matter, and the prefix indicates that it was issued from the state of Connecticut. A private investigator has staked her reputation on her statement that the number has been “stolen” and has associated the number with an individual born in 1890.
There are also allegations of identity fraud: that “Barack Hussein Obama” is not his original name. I will get into more detail with your colleagues if they contact me.
Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email
www.thepostemail.com