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.

 

Obama's Social Security # goes to Court-Complaint in federal district seeks evidence of suspected f

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenerationXisMarching
shouldnt have, it explained nothing


Well if you think the fact that after 120 years no one has legitimately ever tried to invalidate Arthur's seat means nothing, then obviously explanations might be a tad much right now.


he wont be eligible in at least 5 states so far, the list is growing as well, so if he gets elected and you break a law that he signed in one of the states where he is ineligible, nothing will happen to you, and you can fight his eligibility legally (if he is elected, of course)


That reads quite a bit like something someone just pulled from their other end. I have yet to see anything invalidating Obama as a candidate for president in any state for 2012.

I would ask you to back that up but each time I do that, you just move on to something else. I am guessing that means you cannot.



[www.uniset.ca... theres where it say it black/white


Says what? Where does it say anything about the US recognizing any of that as it pertains to Obama?
Other countries can have all the laws they like. We do not go by other countries laws in the US.


oh he was born in hawaii, but that doesnt matter at all whether he was or not, it just appears that way (not a birther btw, just someone looking at this gaping hole in requirements for presidency and not liking it


Then what is your concern over this SSN if it is not to cover up for the fact that he is a fake citizen by fake birth? No matter what argument you go with about his dad being a british subject, Obama still would have gotten a SSN of his very own. The concern Orly has is that this number comes from a state other than Hawaii, proving he was not born in Hawaii. Are you confused?


since there is no specific law outside of the constitution, there is no requirement to prove you are natural-born to become president=your logic


What????????????????? When did I say that?


his political party...cmon now, keep up.... in a few states its required for the nominating party to see his eligibility, but requires nothing more than a statement that said credentials were viewed. soooo he can show it to his own party and we have to go based on their word. thats making it public to certain people in case you didnt make the connection


Certain people is not public. Why are you confusing the two? I have to show documents to employers. That does not mean that I have to make them PUBLIC. He had to be verified by certain people. That does not mean he has to be verified by the PUBLIC. Maybe you are unsure what the word "public" and the term "to make public" means?

Showing something to certain people is exactly that, showing things to CERTAIN PEOPLE. Making something public is making something PUBLIC. Let me know how to help you get the difference.


you should go back to sleep


You should back up at least one of your claims.

The thing that bothers me the most about birthers is that all you are crying about is how someone is not sufficiently proving something to you while none of you are willing to, nor care to prove ANYTHING you say.




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia



Well if you think the fact that after 120 years no one has legitimately ever tried to invalidate Arthur's seat means nothing, then obviously explanations might be a tad much right now.


he got away with it, so nobody will do a thing a hundred years later. im hoping maybe people will realize that for this time around


That reads quite a bit like something someone just pulled from their other end. I have yet to see anything invalidating Obama as a candidate for president in any state for 2012.


they arent passed yet, but well on the waywww.wnd.com...





I would ask you to back that up but each time I do that, you just move on to something else. I am guessing that means you cannot.

see above




[www.uniset.ca... theres where it say it black/white



Says what? Where does it say anything about the US recognizing any of that as it pertains to Obama?
Other countries can have all the laws they like. We do not go by other countries laws in the US.


oh but what a coincidence bc the constitution states that the potus cannot be a citizen anywhere but the united states, and other countries dont have the same categorization of what is a citizen as we do, so in this case we MUST follow other countries laws at least when dealing with eligibility to potus
(from lnk above)
"5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:"









Then what is your concern over this SSN if it is not to cover up for the fact that he is a fake citizen by fake birth? No matter what argument you go with about his dad being a british subject, Obama still would have gotten a SSN of his very own. The concern Orly has is that this number comes from a state other than Hawaii, proving he was not born in Hawaii. Are you confused?


i wasnt aware ss#s were given to other countries citizens. do YOU have any links to such a law? i at least gave you a link then spelled it out for you


What????????????????? When did I say that?

"Can you please provide some statute, law, provision, etc. that requires the president publicly disclose his or her SSN in order to take the position? "

no, there is none. none for birth certificate, none for anything
(except)
state laws that say your nominating party must see said documents and confirm you are a natural born citizen, and must make a sttemen asserting such. heres an example of a state that does this. hmmmm HAWAII
(that means its public to the people nominating him)




Certain people is not public. Why are you confusing the two? I have to show documents to employers. That does not mean that I have to make them PUBLIC. He had to be verified by certain people. That does not mean he has to be verified by the PUBLIC. Maybe you are unsure what the word "public" and the term "to make public" means?


sure as hell isnt considered private when disclosed to certain people elected from the public by the public


You should back up at least one of your claims.

i have , they should appear above, in this post


The thing that bothers me the most about birthers is that all you are crying about is how someone is not sufficiently proving something to you while none of you are willing to, nor care to prove ANYTHING you say.


prove it. again, not a birther, as i believe he was born in hawaii. what good is linking proof if you dont even care to read it?
edit on 9-2-2011 by GenerationXisMarching because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Be careful,of a number. Are you on medication? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 





OK, I did that. Thank you.
Now please. Follow my question.
Where in any of this law does it state you must release your SSN to anyone that asks for it?


You do not HAVE to release your SS# any more than you HAVE to piss in a bottle or you HAVE to get a job or you HAVE to file your taxes. As long as you are willing to pay the consequences.


BUT if you do not release your SS# you lose customers. If businesses do not get tax ID numbers because everyone refuses to release them, then businesses can not LEGALLY buy supplies costing more than $600 a year from any one business.

Remember you are looking at 25.5 million firms of which only 17,047 are considered large businesses. The small businesses provide 50% of the jobs in the USA. We already have a real unemployment rate of about 22% so this new twist in the tax law will have major consequences.

Here are the three biggest problems I see outside of the paperwork problem:

1. Businesses especially the larger businesses like Sam's Club/Walmart, Office Max, and Home depot refuse to give out their business tax number. This will shut down a lot of small businesses who rely on these big chains for supplies.

2. Scam artists will start up "small businesses" and use them to collect SS# with addresses and names and then sell or use them.

3. Small businesses, afraid to release their SS#, provide false SS#'s or someone makes a copying mistake. This means the IRS will demand you go into withholding for EVERYONE you use a 1099 for. Again been there done that. One false SS# will trigger an IRS demand for withholding on ALL SS# since the IRS will not give out who supplied the false SS#. You now have to file a lot more forms quarterly AND pay withholding.

This is where things get really really complicated. You already paid full price so how do you withhold the amount? The next year how do you convince your suppliers you have to discount what you pay them for goods and services because you have to withhold 28% of the full price. As a vendor 28% is NOT the amount of tax you pay since you deduct operating expenses. You now have to figure out how much tax was paid on your behalf AND you have to figure out if that tax was actually paid by comparing the 1099's you recieved vs your actual receipts and hope like crazy no one is lying as you not they are responsible for paying the tax.

As I stated it is one big FRACKEN mess and no one knows what the heck the ramifications are going to be on the US economy. But there WILL be ramifications. Couple this mess with the new regulations on farming thanks to the Food Safety Law just passed and if we do not see a major down turn in 2012 in an already rotten economy I will eat a goat! (Both laws hit in 2012)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


i think she woke up, or is actually doing research to back up HER clams for once. win/win



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GenerationXisMarching
 





i wasnt aware ss#s were given to other countries citizens. do YOU have any links to such a law? i at least gave you a link then spelled it out for you


I do not have a link but I do have Martin. He was born in the UK but came here as a baby. He served in Vietnam. When he told the Army he was a UK subject they "swore" him in as a US citizen. He has worked in the USA with a US SS# since he got out of the Army. When he applied for a US passport to go to his father's funeral in the UK he was told he was not a US citizen (now age 54) and the Army denied ever doing anything to make him a US citizen. We tried to help him untangle the blasted mess.

Another example is my Piano teacher's husband, who also served in the US Army in WWII and worked in the USA with a US SS#. Much later, when visiting France he was throw in jail as a draft dodger for NOT serving in the FRENCH Army!

So yes the Dual citizenship crap and other bureaucratic messes can become REAL interesting. There are a heck of a lot of people not born in the USA with SS#

OH, I forgot "Uncle" Sal Rose (deceased) that is not his real name because he swapped identities with the real Sal Rose so he could serve in the Army in WWII. He was actually a Russian Jew smuggled into this country. He drove taxi cabs in New York City.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by GenerationXisMarching
 





i wasnt aware ss#s were given to other countries citizens. do YOU have any links to such a law? i at least gave you a link then spelled it out for you


So yes the Dual citizenship crap and other bureaucratic messes can become REAL interesting. There are a heck of a lot of people not born in the USA with SS#



i do agree, but those were individuals serving in the armed forces, something obama hasnt.
its possible, but not for obama unless he was really in the cia



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by StlSteve
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Be careful,of a number. Are you on medication? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?


Have you posted anything on any thread that didn't call someone stupid? If so, please enlighten me and post up a link, because I have only seen one line insults in all of your history thus far.

Contrary to your post, my post had a couple of examples supporting the reason to be careful of that number. Maybe you are not gainfully employed, but I am, and I have access to at least 4 systems that I could run that number through and subsequently get fired or worse.

Many people subscribe to background check software, try running that number through that software.

I'll tell you what, since I am so stupid, how about you ignore my friendly advice and start searching that number through everything you can think of. That would save everyone a lot of time, because maybe you would wind up arrested before you wind up banned.

Edit to add an example:
Your only thread
You post 7 times for a total of 11 lines including the OP. What do you add? Where is the substance? Dazzle me, enlighten me, show me something more than a low vocabulary and childlike insults.
edit on 9-2-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenerationXisMarching
he got away with it, so nobody will do a thing a hundred years later. im hoping maybe people will realize that for this time around


You are not even taking yourself seriously anymore, why should I? You know exactly what I am saying. No, no one did anything 100 years later. No one did anything 50 years later. No one did anything 25 years later. No one did anything 15 years later. See where I am going? No one EVER did anything about it. They spread rumors trying to cast him as ineligible and yet...NOTHING EVER HAPPENED ABOUT IT. He was alive for a year and a half after leaving office and no one was doing anything then either. No one EVER did anything about it. Please do not make me break this thought down ANY FARTHER.



they arent passed yet, but well on the waywww.wnd.com...


So your claim that he is ALREADY INELIGIBLE in 5 states was a complete lie or a mistake? You pick which one, I can at least cut you that much slack on purposely saying something that is not true without apologizing for not being able to back it up and even admitting to having been wrong. That is just fine.




oh but what a coincidence bc the constitution states that the potus cannot be a citizen anywhere but the united states, and other countries dont have the same categorization of what is a citizen as we do, so in this case we MUST follow other countries laws at least when dealing with eligibility to potus
(from lnk above)


That is the most twisted leap in logic based on what seems to be a missunderstanding of the constitution I think I have yet seen in any of these threads.


"5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:"


Blah blah blah. It does not matter what England says. Do you honestly believe that if Ireland just decided to declare you a citizen, the US would have to recognize that? Seriously?


i wasnt aware ss#s were given to other countries citizens. do YOU have any links to such a law? i at least gave you a link then spelled it out for you


Are you asking me to explain the premise of this thread as offered by Orly Taitz to you? It is not that he got his SSN from another country, it is that he got a FAKE one because he is from another country. Do you even know what thread you are in?



What????????????????? When did I say that?

"Can you please provide some statute, law, provision, etc. that requires the president publicly disclose his or her SSN in order to take the position? "

no, there is none. none for birth certificate, none for anything


I think you really got yourself confused here. That question I asked is not nearly the same as the claim you keep saying that I made. Do I need to ask you a third time when I said whatever it is you said about "my logic meaning no one can ever be whatever blah blah" crazy thing you said I said?????


(except)
state laws that say your nominating party must see said documents and confirm you are a natural born citizen, and must make a sttemen asserting such. heres an example of a state that does this. hmmmm HAWAII
(that means its public to the people nominating him)


Nothing that says he needs to go around the state showing anything to every citizen that asks though, right? This is what I am asking for. Show me one thing that states he must make PUBLIC anything. Why do you not see the difference between having to show your driver's license to the bartender and having to show it to everyone else at the bar?


sure as hell isnt considered private when disclosed to certain people elected from the public by the public




You are kind of funny. No, sharing something with someone else I guess is not private. Fortunately the world is not so black and white. Sharing something with select people may not be private but it is no more public either. You get to vote for who THEY SAY is eligible. If you do not like the way it works, better work to change it.

I know, like I have said before. It has nothing to do with race. Nothing is actually different about how Obama was elected other than that he is black but I am sure that has nothing to do with why we should completely alter the verification process from now on.

Better get off your keyboard and get down to city hall and start doing something about it. Unless you don't really care?


i have , they should appear above, in this post


Yes. Yes they should.


prove it. again, not a birther, as i believe he was born in hawaii. what good is linking proof if you dont even care to read it?
edit on 9-2-2011 by GenerationXisMarching because: (no reason given)


I read it. You can post all the British laws you like. Obama is not president of Britain so I do not really care. You need to show me the US LAW that backs up your claim. Got one?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
You do not HAVE to release your SS# any more than you HAVE to piss in a bottle or you HAVE to get a job or you HAVE to file your taxes. As long as you are willing to pay the consequences.


How have you all not tired of trying to make this leap yet? The last time I had to take a piss test, I did not have to piss in a cup for everyone in the office. Do you think you have some of my urine? Think maybe I only really had to qualify with CERTAIN PEOPLE? Think maybe you are comparing things not remotely comparable?

Have you ever had to take a piss test for a job?

As for the rest of that all, you can go on and on and on about what you believe you think you may have figured out from what you read but you are still not answering a very simple question. Show me something that says we will need to make our SSN available to anyone that walks up and asks for it as was the claim.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenerationXisMarching
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


i think she woke up, or is actually doing research to back up HER clams for once. win/win


I think I was doing things unrelated to sitting in front of a computer as ATS is something that I do for fun and not a job I am required to fullfill. I may not respond right away. I might not respond for a week. Jumping to conclusions as to why based on practically nothing says a great deal to me. No need to research a thing. I have been all over this issue from every direction. I have yet to be stumped, convinced, or forced to resort to provarication as is so popular in these threads.

I have asked just a couple of simple questions about backup here and I am still waiting after so many posts.

Please show me US law that says Obama would be recognized as a British subject and thus not eligible for President of the United States.

US LAW.

Do you understand why I am asking you for US law?


If you are going to say that I need to be any more awake than I am now, you better show up with some enlightenment instead of empty derision.
edit on 9-2-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenerationXisMarching
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


i think she woke up, or is actually doing research to back up HER clams for once. win/win


Hey!!!!!!!!!!!

What is the holdup here? What is taking you so long? Are you waking up?



Anywho....

Which "claims" exactly do I need to back up for you? I would hate to think I made even one unfounded claim so let me do whatever I can do disabuse you of that little notion right now. You seem to be all about quick responses so NOW means NOW!!!!!




posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   


So either our president is a common criminal and a fraud, who uses other people's SSNs (for some unknown reason).
- OR -
some old dude faked his death in a complex SSN plot involving the POTUS
-OR-
someone made a typo.

Gosh, that's a hard one...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You have got to be kidding me! Do you realize how stupid you sound? You just don't seem to get it do you? Don't tell me how you are not bias (as you have said in the past).

If there was any question what so ever, it should be investigated to the fullest, at least! People today cannot get at job at wall-mart without completely accurate information on the application. You should have seen the application I had to fill out to be a police officer! They wanted to know everything about me even as a juvenile. Work history from the time I was 18 till now! Every family member and brother/sister in-laws, where they lived where they worked, home and cell #, and I have 13 of them, Credit history on and on. This is not a joke and I am sick of people ASSUMING every thing is on the up and up just because!

If you, at this point, with all the unanswered questions, over all the issues,(and you know what they are) don't think that an investigation is warranted, then you need some serious HELP! I would also have to say your just as culpable.

edit on 2/9/11 by xyankee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Thread locked pending staff review.




top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join