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: 15
70
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Replicator EYD
Aha! What a fantastic find this is!

Perhaps the next time Obama ventures into the state of Arizona we can have him arrested and deported for having improper papers. After all, it appears he may not be a legal immigrant!


Perhaps you can provide another hoax or fraud Kenya BC and hope people buy into it

With the facts against you it appears you will not succeed




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
I am not a Birther.


Just curious but if you are not a birther then what is your theory on why he would need a fake or stolen SSN?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Without any evidence or any clue of the facts the birthers and sore losers who want Palin instead of Obama will lose everytime.

I am glad that Obama has made the birthers look silly because Obama has provided legal documents as we all know he did.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by lpowell0627
I am not a Birther.


Just curious but if you are not a birther then what is your theory on why he would need a fake or stolen SSN?


Obama does not have a fake SSN or birth certificate, it has been proven that Obama is legal and born in Hawaii, we all know that.

I do not know anyone in my state who thinks Obama is doing a bad job, I do not know what world you people live in but you will continue to be the butt of jokes if you don't stop being so silly and flakey.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 
You are right, Obama said they can stop you.
What he neglected to say was that they can stop you in any state when you go for ice cream. If you don't stop and show 'your papers' you get a warning, ticket or maybe go to jail.



Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm nope. Cannot stop me for going to get ice cream in New York. I need NO PAPERS to go get ice cream in New York. Like I said to the other poster, take it to the appropriate thread.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]
Why can't they pull you over?
Do you have a placard on your car that says they can't or something?

If you do, I want to know where and how you get it.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Why can't they pull you over?
Do you have a placard on your car that says they can't or something?

If you do, I want to know where and how you get it.


Why can they pull me over?

Why would they pull me over?

I said I can not be stopped FOR going to get ice cream. You are telling me it is legal to stop me for going to get ice cream?

I will tell you my secret when you answer that for me.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I am not so sure that you do. The whole point of proof is to do away with subjectivity. Proof is...well, proof. If it is subjective in any way, then it is not actually proof.

Let's consider a scenario where I am accusing you of punching me. I go to a judge and explain what happened. He says "where is your proof?"

I have a bruise on my face and you have a bruise on your hand, is this proof? What if people saw us arguing moments before? What if somebody heard you threaten me with physical assault? What if somebody has a video documenting the whole event which shows you punching me in he face?

Which pieces of proof above would be considered as acceptable to convict you of assaulting me? Do you think the video footage would be the only acceptable form of proof? What if this footage was destroyed by a friend of yours?

What if there is additional proof I am not aware exists?


Then do you still insist he did in fact change his name even though you lack any actual proof or have you decided the word proof means something else and a simple theory based on some loose "facts" is now sufficient?

Either you have PROOF he changed his name or you do not know it for a fact. It is that simple.

I have given links that suggest he was known by more than one source as having a different name. It has been shown that he officially used the alternative name while living in Indonesia at one time or another. It is very likely he was forced to change his surname to match that of his fathers to gain the right to live there as a citizen.

Think about what you are asking for. You are basically saying I need to provide you with an official document to validate my claim.


I understand and even agree with that. The pitfall there is when people then make declarative statements regarding said conspiracies. You are right, if Obama wants to pull something off I bet he can. If he wants forged documents and a scrubbed past, I think he can pull that off. Therefor proof of these conspiracies would be impossible to find. That would also make it impossible to state any of these things as facts. See the catch there?

You do make valid points there. Perhaps I was wrong to use the word "proof". I will be more mindful of using that term. (In my defence, many other posters use the word loosely in other threads and do not get scrutinised for the way they have used it.)


So that takes me back to...

Did he actually change his name or do you just kind of feel like he changed his name. If you say he did indeed change his name, we go back to asking for proof. If you claim you cannot find proof, I will again ask how you know then. I just thought I would get the first lap around this circle completely out of the way.

I have reason to believe he was legally recognised as having a different name whilst living in Indonesia. Those links I gave strongly suggest that he was known and referred to by others under that name.

[edit on 14/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
Obama does not have a fake SSN or birth certificate, it has been proven that Obama is legal and born in Hawaii, we all know that.


I know. I have said that. I am not sure you even read what you just replied to at all.


I do not know anyone in my state who thinks Obama is doing a bad job, I do not know what world you people live in but you will continue to be the butt of jokes if you don't stop being so silly and flakey.


Us people? What people would that be?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


Yes...and I don't have an answer for this...but I fail to see the importance of it. You can't have two legal names at the same time...and we know his name right now is Barack Obama....so I just don't know what all the uproar is about.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Let's consider a scenario where I am accusing you of punching me. I go to a judge and explain what happened. He says "where is your proof?"

I have a bruise on my face and you have a bruise on your hand, is this proof? What if people saw us arguing moments before? What if somebody heard you threaten me with physical assault? What if somebody has a video documenting the whole event which shows you punching me in he face?

Which pieces of proof above would be considered as acceptable to convict you of assaulting me? Do you think the video footage would be the only acceptable form of proof? What if this footage was destroyed by a friend of yours?


Well if the video was destroyed then I hardly think the court will even hear about it so lets get that out of the way right there.

If I have a bruise, you have a bruise and that is it. Then you have no proof. You have a case, an argument to make. If you had proof, then there would be no problem. An undoctored video would serve just fine as proof unless you can tell me why it might not be proof to anyone at all. A destroyed video tape would just not be involved no matter who destroyed it.


I have given links that suggest he was known by more than one source as having a different name. It has been shown that he officially used the alternative name while living in Indonesia at one time or another. It is very likely he was forced to change his surname to match that of his fathers to gain the right to live there as a citizen.


Likely he was forced? Based on........?

Look, I told you that thanks to my mom, there are documents showing me under a different name as well. Does that prove I CHANGED MY NAME ever?


Think about what you are asking for. You are basically saying I need to provide you with an official document to validate my claim.


Uh...yeah. What do you not really understand about that? If you do not have proof, do not make a claim. If you make a claim, be prepared to present proof. It seems pretty simple. Is there something I am missing?


You do make valid points there. Perhaps I was wrong to use the word proof. What I meant was I had reason to believe he did change his name.


Fair enough. You have to understand. How many of these Obama-birther threads have been started with "proof" that never end up PROVING anything? It gets tiresome. Aside from that, these threads are full of people repeating the claim he spent $2 Million hiding his records but ask any of them for PROOF and it gets real quiet. Proof is a tricky thing but "reason to believe" cuts you a lot of slack.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Ok...let's come full circle on this.

Let's say he did in fact use Barry Soetoro as his name when he was like 10 years old or whatever.

What does that prove?

What angle are you guys trying to work here?


No one disputes that he lived in Indonesia and went to school there...if he did go by a different name while he lived there...how does that make him inelgible???

I'm not seeing the connection you guys are trying to make.


So no one cares to address this???

What are we arguing about then???

What signifigance does him "using" a different name when he was a kid have to do with his elgibility to be President???


[edit on 14-5-2010 by OutKast Searcher]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Double Post


[edit on 14-5-2010 by OutKast Searcher]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
TRIPLE POST


It takes talent people.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by OutKast Searcher]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 



Why is that people can be hypocritical and that's acceptable? You demand proof, time and time again, and yet when it is asked of you, you state:


I'm giving my opinion of you...I'm not stating it as fact...I even said so in my reply.

If I were to provide proof for my "opinion"...it would no longer be my opinion would it??? It would be fact.

I have no problem people stating opinions...but when they claim something to be fact or they have "proof" of something...then I call them on it.

I make a clear distinction between opinion and fact. Do you not?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


The point is, he signed an affidavit swearing he had no aliases.

That is a criminal offense.

An affidavit is legal testimony.

An alias is an assumed name.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
The first three numbers of your Social Security Number corresponds with the state you are living when the number is issued.

I wonder how much money Obama will spend trying to defend and hide this, like he did with his birth certificate?


Surely just about as much as people spend on witness protection programs that keep records out of hands of people who have no need to know.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


^^^^^ REGARDING POST ^^^^^^^^^^

Word up peeps. Last night while at home I posted the warning below in this same thread regarding links provided by Liberty Gal to Orly Taitz website. (I was on a Mac with Safari browser.)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just now at work (with robust commercial firewall and peer based virus protection) I received the following alert from Norton while visiting that SAME site.



Not trying to be an alarmist, just forewarning you all. There is some funky malware on that site. FYI. Visit with caution.

ETA: Related (Dated but relevant) See comments.

Orly Taitz site listed as malicious



[edit on 14-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


See Libertygal, he is your error. You are tying to discuss reason and law with some people who could care less about it.

You all know if this was Bush, the MSM would be screaming to the high heavens-working people up into a frenzie.

The good thing is that mostly likely law and reason will win out.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
From Corsi's WND article:


"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."

[...]


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.








I believe I have found the connection: Ancestry of Barack Obama:



1. Barack Hussein OBAMA was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr. of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann DUNHAM of Wichita, Kansas. His parents met while both were attending the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was enrolled as a foreign student. When Barack Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father moved to Connecticut to continue his education before returning to Kenya.



(emphasis mine) Plus, President Obama and his father have the same name - so an SSN search for "Barack Hussein Obama" could/should come back with his father's info too. Perhaps Obama Sr. applied for a SSN after the divorce, or President Obama used his father's address when he applied,... or a dozen other possibilities.

Either way it is strange that these professional investigators couldn't find any Connecticut connection what-so-ever when it was very easy to find,... even for a regular schmuch such as myself.


Or worse, they did know about it but decided not to include it because it doesn't fit their narrative nor help them sell more birther swag.

Conspiracy?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Rren
 


BUt the SSN from Connecticut and the Selective Service the president Obama uses are a match.

ETA that is a very excellent find, btw, thank you for posting that.

ETA again, the fact still remains, his father returned to Kenya while Obama was a small child, a toddler. So he couldn't have visited him in his high school years. He wasn't there. He may even have been dead, not sure what year Sr. died.


[edit on 14-5-2010 by Libertygal]

ETA again :

Obama's parents separated when he was two years old, later divorcing. Obama, Sr. went on to Harvard to pursue Ph.D. studies, and then returned to Kenya in 1965.


www.biography.com...

The SSN was allegedly issued in 1976 is it?



[edit on 14-5-2010 by Libertygal]



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join