Investigators: Obama using Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number!!, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 11:59 AM by OutKast Searcher

reply to post by greeneyedleo

Well yes it is. He is the President of the United States. He works for us. It is absolutely our business.

This issue...of having a valid SS card issued from Connecticut is none of our business. We have no right to demand him to tell us WHY he got it in Connecticut. Most likely it wasn't him who got it anyway...it was probably his mother so he may not even have an answer if he got it when he was a child.

There is no legal issue or moral issue here...it is just questioning every little bit of this man's history.

Is anyone questioning the validity of the SS card? Is there proof it is a fake card? Is there proof this is his actual SSN? Because getting a card issued from another state is not proof...it is legal and is allowed...may be odd...but it is legal.

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 12:00 PM by anon72

reply to post by greeneyedleo

Exacatly:

Personally, I think these people are off-probably due to what they preceive as Obama SS# etc. On the face and the way the article is presented, yes-they are on to something IF they are correct.

What is the beginning for them. What number(s) are they counting on? I would like to get my fingers on those two courts affidavits in Col and Ohio. Anyone live near the courthouse that could walk in and get them? I doubt they are availible or accessible via the net.

I don't know why people don't trust WND. They have been more detailed and investigative than any MSM outlet-including Fox. In the Obama arena. That has been my finding/belief. They haven't been sued yet for deflmation so... I guess that is good sign.

But getting back to what I started the OP. Conspiracy at its finest.

I bet one thing for sure. Somebody got a new client today:

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 12:01 PM by lee anoma

Originally posted by Carseller4
I wonder how much money Obama will spend trying to defend and hide this, like he did with his birth certificate?

Exactly how much money did he spend to do that, again?

The amount ("hundreds of thousands, if not millions") fluctuated a lot since Alan Keyes' lawyer Gary Kreep made the claim.

How does one even go about hiding ones birth certificate and records at all and who do you pay?

If the price matches the amount his critics have already proven he spent to cover up and/or provide evidence of his birth then I can answer your question myself.

$0.00 - $20.00

Which would be the cost of a single copy of a Hawaiian birth certificate.

- Lee

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 12:46 PM by lee anoma

reply to post by greeneyedleo

Why bother though?

If the evidence of his birth which was validated by the State of Hawaii, even verified by the director of the Hawaii Department of Health and Human Services who deals specifically with Hawaiian vital records, and accepted by the U.S. government, is simply dismissed as completely bogus because "he must have paid them all off", I don't see how anything he provides at this point (even the indulgence of any more information) would be acceptable to this particular group.

I personally don't need to see any more at this point, and this would be more than enough evidence for even the mildest skeptic to completely disregard this whole citizenship witch hunt.

Obama has other more relevant flaws to be criticized that actually do pertain to what is happening to the United States of America.

- Lee

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 12:53 PM by boondock-saint

There is a logical explanation as to why Obama
has multiple SS numbers from multiple states.

I bet if enough research is done you will find
those SS numbers have had multiple owners.
Some died for various reasons and the numbers
placed back into system for use by the CIA for
it's undercover ops. Multiple SS numbers can mean
several different CIA identities. That is how you can
have multiple SS numbers with no proof of residence.
The CIA got sloppy. I guess they never figured,
one of their own foreign national born agents
would ever be scrutinized as president.

The FBI do this all the time with people in the
witness protection program. New name and
a used former SS # of a deceased person.
And in those cases, a whole background story
is created for their new life, including a forged
birth certificate.

It would appear to me that Obama's entire past
has been created out of thin air for a purpose
and we're left to fill in the gaps missed.

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 12:58 PM by jibeho

Certainly an interesting case. I guess one would have to study the whereabouts of Obama's mother during the time frame in question.

According to her bio on Wiki, she returned to Indonesia in 1975 while Obama stayed in Hawaii to finish High School. Another account in the New York Times suggests that she returned to INdonesia in 1977. Obama's wiki bio supports his mother's 1977 return to Indonesia. Is it odd that his wiki bio does not match that of his mother's? I know its just wiki but one would think his handlers would ensure some accuracy. Most likely a typo.

Anyhoo, Obama graduated from high school in 1979 and then moved to California. I could find no further info regarding his mother's whereabouts after her 1977 move back to Indonesia other than her apparent return to Hawaii in 1984.

The mystery continues.

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 01:01 PM by argentus

reply to post by lpowell0627

Mine checks out. Same first three numbers as the state I was in when my parents acquired a SS# for me. Not the same as the state I was born in. I was a tad confused, so I called my Mom. She said, "No dear, you weren't issued a SSN on your birth....... we got that when we moved to ____________. "

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 01:01 PM by lee anoma

Originally posted by anon72
I don't know why people don't trust WND.

Aside from its hard-right leanings and lack of even the pretense of balance, the lawyers championing this case against Obama featured on that site have shady backgrounds, bizarre wacky legal tactics, and horrible track records.

The dentist turned lawyer (via online courses) Orly Taitz can't hold it together during a simple news interview without bringing up Nazi Germany and she habitually spouts ridiculous accusations against Judges that don't side with her loony cases.

Even her own former client, the Birther soldier Capt. Connie Rhodes, filed a complaint against her for filing the motion to stay her deployment without even asking her. Orly clearly just wants to be a star, as she has oddly compared herself to Don Quixote, Susan B. Anthony, and Ronald Reagan all in one legal document.

Thank God her online degree keeps her from practicing anywhere outside of California. Consequently the State Bar there is currently looking to disbar her for her dubious antics.

Philip J. Berg?

He loses his cases by refusing to provide evidence of any of his claims or, like with the malpractice case against him by his former clients, just fails to show up.

There's more: "Lawyer Slapped With $10K in Sanctions for 'Laundry List of Unethical Actions'"

These jokers are the legal representatives behind the Birther movement?
They don't even seem to respect the legal system of this country!

I can't take this hokum seriously.

I just don't see how anyone could unless they are just bored and simply can't stand Obama because there has been no concrete or even coherent evidence presented as of yet.

Now it's time for his social security card?
They aren't even done with the birth certificate!

- Lee

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 01:02 PM by jibeho

reply to post by boondock-saint

The reverend Manning's trial of Obama starts in a couple of days. His revelations should be rather interesting. Obama could have been easily recruited while at Occidental. It certainly makes for good reading.

atlah.org...

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 01:08 PM by Snarf

reply to post by jibeho

Woot. Lets rely on WIKI to not produce the results we need to prove there isn't a conspiracy.

Now excuse me while I lmao

[edit on 12-5-2010 by Snarf]

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 01:15 PM by butcherguy

reply to post by Snarf

Your wife's first three digits don't necessarily have to match yours, the state that you are in when you apply for the number has a series of digits, let's say 190-199. If your number is included in that series, ie. 194, then it signifies that you applied for the number in the corresponding state.

It is explained further up the thread. There is a site you can go to to find the series of numbers that match your state.

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 01:16 PM by Snarf

So let me get this straight:

The "investigators" conclude that Obama is using a Connecticut SS# because the one issued before, and the one issued after, are both linked to CT?

But they havne't gone as far to show that Obama's was indeed registered there, they are just ASSUMING.

And in order to slide this one off on the moronic masses, they have omited the fact that prior to 1973, SS#'s were not issued in accordance with state on the first 3 digits.

Amazing.

Nice investigation.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by Snarf]

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 01:19 PM by butcherguy

Originally posted by Snarf
So let me get this straight:

The "investigators" conclude that Obama is using a Connecticut SS# because the one issued before, and the one issued after, are both linked to CT?

But they havne't gone as far to show that Obama's was indeed registered there, they are just ASSUMING.

Nice investigation.

They are going by the first three digits in his number.
His number begins with a three digit segment that is only used for numbers issued to persons applying in that state.

Obama's was issued in 1977, so 1973 is not relevant.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by butcherguy]

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 01:52 PM by lpowell0627

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

There is a difference between something that is possible and something that is plausible.

Is it possible that Obama randomly chose to mail his social security number request to Connecticut out of the other 49 states available?

Yes.

Is it plausible?

Hardly.

Unless someone can come up with why he would be staying in Connecticut at this time, and would go to request a social security number from there, it makes no logical sense of why he would choose to mail it to that particular state when he was living in another one that had the same agencies available and could have issued it from there.

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 01:53 PM by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Snarf
And in order to slide this one off on the moronic masses, they have omited the fact that prior to 1973, SS#'s were not issued in accordance with state on the first 3 digits.

I was born in 63
applied for SS in 69 when starting school
(prior to 73) and my SS # prefix matches
my states prefix code. It's a match for me.

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 01:59 PM by OutKast Searcher

reply to post by butcherguy

Obama's was issued in 1977, so 1973 is not relevant.

Do you have a source for that?

I wasn't aware that it was a known fact when his SS card was issued. I didn't see that in the article anywhere...but may have missed it.

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 02:00 PM by lpowell0627

Please go to this site and see if the first three numbers of your social security match the range of numbers provided:

www.ssa.gov...

There seems to be some confusion that these numbers are simply random or have no significance. This is not the case.

It will also explain the pre - and post- 1973 questions that keep popping up.

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 02:05 PM by lpowell0627

reply to post by argentus

Exactly.
I can guarantee that the majority of people were either:

Born in OR Lived in

the state that issued their social security number.

My spouse for example, was born in NJ in '56, however, his parents requested it many years later from their home in NY....therefore the range fits into NY's numbers.

It still fits the pattern as they were using ZIP codes at that time to determine the first three numbers.

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 02:08 PM by OutKast Searcher

reply to post by lpowell0627

I could come up with many possible and plausible scenarios...but they would all be hypothetical and prove nothing...just like the "he is a CIA agent" or "He was born in Kenya, and from birth his grandparents and parents made it look like he was born in Hawaii because one day they wanted him to be president, and they have tricked Hawaii officials, Illinois officials, and Federal officials about him being a United States citizen" are hypothetical scenarios with no proof.

The difference is that YOU will not believe ANYTHING except what you want to believe. I'M believing in the simpliest and most likely explanation...he was born in Hawaii...for some reason (if this story is even true and they have the right SSN) got his SS card in Connecticut...which is legal to do. You have decided to believe in the outrageous, and although possible, VERY IMPLAUSIBLE. And you are going to lecture ME about the differences of possible and plausible.

The truth is, and you know this whether you admit it or not, is that Obama himself could come on TV today...produce his long form birth certificate and give a completely plausible explanation for why he got his SS card in Connecticut....and YOU STILL WOULD NOT BELIEVE HIM.

So the whole conversation is pointless with you and others like you...you have abandoned facts and logic and have decided to go with internet rumors and speculation.

reply posted on 12-5-2010 @ 02:10 PM by butcherguy

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by butcherguy

Obama's was issued in 1977, so 1973 is not relevant.

Do you have a source for that?

I wasn't aware that it was a known fact when his SS card was issued. I didn't see that in the article anywhere...but may have missed it.

I was just going by what was in the OP.

From the OP:

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.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^