It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Investigators: Obama using Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number!!

page: 10
70
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Actually, it gets more interesting. SS#s were required for welfare & for claiming children as a dependent on tax returns. Obama's mother was on welfare.

There is a quote in his book about it, I'm just trying to find it. He went on and on about food stamps and welfare....but I can't find the excerpt now.

Unless Obama's grandmother never claimed him as a dependent, and also assuming his mother never did -- even when applying for welfare -- than he wouldn't have needed one. However, I think he talked about being on Food Stamps....

Here it is:


Today's Chicago Tribune (June 16th) has a huge picture of Obama telling us to have 'responsible- fathers. What about responsible mothers? Dropped into the Tribune story is this gem: '[Obama] noted that, without support from his father (who was in Kenya siring more children and drinking up good whiskey) he and his mother at times turned to food stamps to make ends meet.-

www.pr-inside.com...

In order for him to have gone on food stamps, he would have had to have a social security number then.

Note: Ignore the rest of the article. I was only looking for the food stamp confirmation and frankly the rest of it is not well written.




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Actually, it gets more interesting. SS#s were required for welfare & for claiming children as a dependent on tax returns. Obama's mother was on welfare.


But again the timeline is important. From the Social Security Number Policy Chronology:


Social Services Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-647) provided that:

* disclosure of an individual's SSN is a condition of eligibility for AFDC benefits; and
* Office of Child Support enforcement Parent Locator Service may require disclosure of limited information (including SSN and whereabouts) contained in SSA records.


and according to that site, this went into effect in 1975. So if they got food stamps/welfare before he was 14, he would not have had to have an SSN. It wasn't until 1986 that taxpayers had to report the SSN of all children over the age of 6 to count them as dependents on their taxes.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I am not going to post research, because honestly who cares...birthers don't.

Suffice to say...if You search for this lunatic Susan Daniels and include "-obama" in the search you get a view as to where she came up with the whole "Multiple SS#" thing for Orly Taitz.

Yes she was the same one that said she found 16 different SS numbers for Pres. Obama...

And she knows exactly how to do a search to find multiple SS# for anyone...as she stated all too honestly before she became a "Birther"


According to Susan Daniels, of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc. in Chardon Ohio, when searching through database aggregators such as IRB, it is common to find a subject referenced with two or three Social Security Numbers (SSN). Here are some of the reasons a person may show-up with multiple SSN’s:

•a wife’s or child’s SSN could end up with father’s name
•a parent’s SSN could show up with a child
•the subject bought something with someone else and the SSNs could end up with each other’s name
•the database producer is relating several SSN’s to one address
•an error by whoever entered the data
Susan Daniels of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc. (9754 Thwing Road Chardon, OH 44024, Tel.:440.286.4072) has been a Private Investigator for 15 years.

www.confidentialresource.com...

Then throw on top of it the name searches Orly has done for anyone with the last name "Obama"...there are more than you think..and the last name "Soetero"...or "Sotero"...ignore the first name, include those SS#'s...no joke..etc. etc.

And then all of sudden you have a wealth of BULLS&^% names and SS #'s to choose from to fool those that need to believe he isn't legit.

And then all they need to do is include the "paypal" button on the front page while writing indignant letters to judges about how they deserve to be taken seriously..

Folks will pay


It's all there, just scratch the surface a little before consuming feces.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


According to this, welfare was included in the original Social Security Act as it was originally designed to use numbers [SS#] to track individuals participating in social services from the government, which included welfare.


Provisions of the Act
The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620, now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. The act also gave money to states to provide assistance to aged individuals (Title I), for unemployment insurance (Title III), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Title IV), Maternal and Child Welfare (Title V), public health services (Title VI), and the blind (Title X).[10]


en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Creation:_The_Social_Security_Act



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I'll have to do one of these ping-pong thingies to speak to your many excellent points.


Originally posted by lpowell0627
I don't deny this as a possibility, nor am I a "Birther" or whatever. But don't you have to admit at some point that there are sure a whole lot of things that need explaining from his life?

No I don't have to admit anything because I am confident in my beliefs and the beliefs of the majority of voters who voted him in office. I am comfortable with my perception of the man. I have no doubts.

Reporters wrote things "wrong". Michelle "misspoke", Google has a "glitch", student loans can't be "found", a long-form birth certificate is not "necessary", college records "sealed", questionable SS# possibly due to a "glitch", etc.
These are all unproven assertions made by irrational thinkers to create doubt in perfectly normal happenstances. They are the fruit from the seeds of innuendo, supposition and hearsay.


Ask yourself this: How many things from your life, significant things, have gotten completely screwed up and/or fabricated? One, maybe two?
You are posing that to the wrong person as my life has been punctuated with severe swings of mediocrity and high status, extreme joy offset by bitter tragedy, near death experiences followed by recovery that some would consider "miracles" and the realization that no one or no thing is perfect. Every living creature has strengths and weaknesses, virtues and vulnerabilities. My life is a constant roller coaster. I don't do normal.

It's just odd, and that's my official position, that SO many oddities can happen to one person that just so happens to be the President of the United States and arguably one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, man in the world.
Then I suggest you've experienced a rather dull life. Ever hear "truth is stranger than fiction?"

Again, it's a continuing battle to have to chalk all of this up to an apparently large list of mistake makers that Obama has met. Not to mention that these same mistake makers have managed to follow him from Hawaii, to Indonesia, to Kenya, to Chicago, to Washington D.C., and now Connecticut.
A long list of unfounded and thus far unproven allegations perhaps, "mistakes" not so much. I'd call it life or experiences.

Can this all be nothing more than a whole bunch of innocent errors that have accumulated throughout his 50 years?
Yes, if you seek to find fault in things, you will discover flaws. As mentioned, nothing is without fault or failure and nothing mortal is perfect.

I suppose, but then I'm not sure I want a man quite this "mistake prone" being President either.
Those who seek perfection will always be disappointed. He is not perfect but is no klutz.

Whew, there. I hope I addressed your points to your satisfaction. I believe that the numerous allegations directed toward this man are unfounded. Steeped in supposition and unabashed bigotry. I am not a keenly "religious" person but consider myself to be deeply spiritual and I gain solace in knowing that although our President breaks many previous molds, he is the right man for the job here and now.

I will continue to unapologetically defend him until such time his intentional negative actions cause me to reconsider.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Quit your crying and just hit the alert button if are you are feeling so downtrodden and befouled. Meanwhile, take a blow on my hankie.


You seriously need to get over yourself. I was simply pointing out to the butcher there that if he had a complaint about going off topic because I defended myself then he should really take it up with the person who started with the off topic insult he used as a cowardly way to get out of any real discussion with someone else. I am hardly crying. I could care less what you think. I would love you to explain your logic but I see that is never going to happen so go ahead and insult me in posts to other people all you like. I will again defend them and if again butcherguy has a problem with my defense - I will again remind him that if the problem is going off topic then to take it up with the person using off topic attacks.

Let me know if I am going to fast for you.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


In short, you perceived my laundry list of inconsistencies as a search for perfection?

Sadly, you are mistaken.

The question is:

Why does Obama have a CT SS#?

To date, other than saying a bunch of people must have screwed up along the way, there is no logical reason. [i.e. he lived there, i.e. has family there, i.e. worked there]

None of which -- meaning a connection to CT -- has ever been reported, or written about in his books.

Rather, the man was living in Hawaii at the time.

This is ATS. This is a search for the truth. If we stopped at:

Well, it all must have been a conundrum of human error that caused all of this over the course of 50 years...

we would have no site..
If we don't question the official story, why are we even here?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by americandingbat
 


According to this, welfare was included in the original Social Security Act as it was originally designed to use numbers [SS#] to track individuals participating in social services from the government, which included welfare.


But I think that would have meant Obama's mother needed an SSN to get welfare, not him.

I'm also wondering if he was even considered part of her household -- perhaps the "dependent child" that made her eligible for AFDC was Maya, not Barack?

Frankly, I'm not sure there's too much point in going on like this ... it's all very hypothetical considering that we don't even know for sure that the Connecticut SSN claimed to be the one he's using even is his, and considering the apparent complexities of the laws regarding use of SSN's in the mid-1970's. Suffice it to say that I don't find it unbelievable that a boy from Hawaii in the 1970's would not have had an SSN assigned to him before he was 16 or 17, even if he had worked previous to that, and that I can come up with at least one explanation that seems plausible to me for why he would have applied for an SSN in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979. Without evidence that this actually is his SSN, though, I think I'm at the end of my interest in doing research into the possibility, not to mention I really don't have the time at the moment and am just using this thread as a way to procrastinate what I should be focusing on



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
The question is: Why does Obama have a CT SS#?


For the sake of clarity, could you please provide a link to ANY credible site OTHER than a right wing neocon smear blog the proves President Obama has a Connecticut SSN#?

Please remember that T&C prohibits posting private information, so I don't expect the number, just the proof.

You know something neutral, erudite and fact based. Doesn't seem like too much to ask since it exists and all and is a fact.

I am beginning to think this whole fiasco is another straw man argument.
(Do you still beat your wife?)

Thanks. I anxiously await the benefit of your reply.


[edit on 13-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


so he did the same thing illegal aliens are doing, working without a social security no. he probably didn't pay taxes on the income he earned at baskin robbins, so he's a tax evader too.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


There is more than sufficent evidence it is the number he is using.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Selective Service site is overloaded however.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Yes, but as soon as you compare SS# to prior known address, it takes the number down quite a bit.

What are the odds of a person living at the same exact address as another person with the exact same name moving into the same exact address?

That narrows it down even more. But without those filters, I agree completely with what you are saying.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Here...I'll give you a conspiracy. Someone found out that if you keeping hitting the selective service search for Obama...you will eventually get denied. So they claim that if you enter this SS# with his name and birthdate it comes back with his record...knowing no one will ever be able to verify it because the request for Obama's record will forever be overloaded.


I'm not going to keep trying on the selective service webpage...but feel free to do it yourself and then come post a screen shot of what you got.

Do you have that screen shot of the Social Security Death Index search that you claim Obama's name comes up on with that SS#??? I did the search...nothing ever came up...but you insist it does...so please prove that or admit you were wrong.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by lpowell0627
The question is: Why does Obama have a CT SS#?


For the sake of clarity, could you please provide a link to ANY credible site OTHER than a right wing neocon smear blog the proves President Obama has a Connecticut SSN#?



Why is it, after 10 pages of posts, when all else fails, does the source suddenly become an issue?

In all of your defending Obama, you never raised the question of the source until now.


I am beginning to think this whole fiasco is another straw man argument.
(Do you still beat your wife?)


Tread lightly friend. I respond to all posts on a pretty even level and I never participate in childish attacks. Beating one's wife or not beating one's wife has little to do with SS#s I would think.

Further, I respect your opinion and reply accordingly.
Please return the favor.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by americandingbat
 


There is more than sufficent evidence it is the number he is using.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Selective Service site is overloaded however.


Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any SSN on the image of the selective service application?

I guess it's hardly surprising the Selective Service site would be overloaded today, but it does make it hard to verify ...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
If I may recommend. If you wish to view the Selective Service issues, as presented by Debbie Schlussle go to this link that breaks down all the inconsistenices of that form and another.

www.debbieschlussel.com... registration-raises-serious-questions/

Get back to me then.

I can tell you that I firmly believe if anyone of us was running your own business and you needed to hire someone. After reviewing his documents and then listening to this excuses, NOT ONE of us would hire him. You can't sit there and tell you you would entrust Obama with anything of value to you/family. -would you?

So Mr. Obama. can you explain why our background check turned up several SS#'s for you. Can you explain how you had, say, 3 in California alone?


[edit on 5/13/2010 by anon72]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Yes, but as soon as you compare SS# to prior known address, it takes the number down quite a bit.

What are the odds of a person living at the same exact address as another person with the exact same name moving into the same exact address?

That narrows it down even more. But without those filters, I agree completely with what you are saying.


LOL...you are thinking too rationally for a birther.

Orly got around this problem by at the same time claiming Obama had "secret" properties all over the place..she didn't narrow it down to known addresses, but rather claimed he had properties all over the country under different first names. Problem solved and she can claim all the SS #'s are his.

Check her website...I can post it for you in the morning if you don't find it.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Tread lightly friend. I respond to all posts on a pretty even level and I never participate in childish attacks. Beating one's wife or not beating one's wife has little to do with SS#s I would think.


Dear sir, I appreciate your integrity. Please realize I meant no disrespect toward you and was not casting dispersions.

It was meant as a common example of a loaded question / informal fallacy.
It was meant as a metaphor to this argument since it is "supposition" inferring that it is actually Obama's SSN or that it is actually a CT #. We are assuming it is true due to efforts of a known disbeliever and less than credible source.


Loaded question is an informal fallacy.[1] It is committed when someone asks a question that:

presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved (a complex question) and

contains controversial assertions and/or loaded language.

An example of this is the question "Do you still beat your wife/husband?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he or she will admit to having a spouse, and having beaten them at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question....


Source

I have enough enemies and foes and not intending to add to the list. I assumed you were aware of the term and it's symbolism, I clearly assumed wrong.

Regardless, can you provide requested link?



[edit on 13-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by americandingbat
 


There is more than sufficent evidence it is the number he is using.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Selective Service site is overloaded however.


CAUTION. I was about to visit link to Orly lawyer lady provided in first link above and received the following warning: (Mac / Safari)


Just sayin.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Well I think that is it for the day.

May I recommend for everyone to end their day with this thread. Relax and enjoy. Peace
)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We'll see what negative/nasty things you can post after taking all of that thread in.



new topics




 
70
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join