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 number goes to court? (suspected fraud)

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
How many times must this be said , I'll even use caps so that it can be understood,

OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII IN AUG 1961 MAKING HIM A LEGAL, UNITED STATES CITIZEN BY BIRTHRIGHT THUS ENABLING HIM TO BE THE 44TH POTUS.

IT IS TRUE THAT HE DID LIVE IN KENYA AND INDONESIA BUT AS CERTAIN RULES STATE HIS MOTHER (HIS LEGAL GUARDIAN AND PARENT) NEVER RELINQUISHED EITHER HIS OR HER LEGAL CITIZENSHIP STATUS AS YOU CAN LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE NATION FOR 25 YEARS BUT AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT FILE SOMETHING CALLED A "CITIZENSHIP RELINQUISHMENT" FORM VIA THE US STATE DEPT. YOU RETAIN YOUR LEGAL CITIZENSHIP.

TROLL ALERT, TROLL ALERT, TROLL ALERT. GO AWAY BIRTHER!

The Hawaii State Bureau of Health &Vital Statistics, The US Federal Bureau Of Investigation, The US Dept. Of Homeland Security and The US State Dept. has already confirmed that he is a legal US citizen by birth so to call me closed minded means you lose all credibility. Try again!




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Sorry, but All Caps doesn't make it necessarily true. FBI doesn't check these things out, it is the responsibility of the Congress, not the FBI. Hawaii vital statistics has not provided any proof of his actual birth inside their state, only the certificate that is available from a variety of ways that do not actually require birth within the state. His father was not a citizen at the time, and there are contradicting Supreme Court cases about what exactly that means. The hospitals in Hawaii have not produced, or even hinted at any existence of any hospital records regarding his birth in the hospital.

Basically your entire post is junk, and it is the core argument against the birthers, but it has no substance.

UNFORTUNATELY......

The argument for the birthers is not much better, there is no evidence to support that he was born outside of Hawaii, the time frames in question show that if he was born elsewhere, his mother would have had to travel almost immediately to Hawaii, and that is unlikely at the time. The stiff competition between Obama and Hillary should have produced some evidence if there was any to be found. McCain's eligibility came into question, so surely we can expect that the opposite was also true.

Both arguments are ridiculous, and his presidency is half over, so even if they chose to impeach, it would be election time before they could get it done.

My main complaint with a post like yours is the shear arrogance of it. I suppose you have some personal knowledge of the birth, our your use of all CAPS indicates you are some kind of expert on the subject and you know more than teams of lawyers and political experts that are working around the clock to verify this claim one way or another?
edit on 14-2-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Let me school you on one fact, before anyone is allowed to run for public office a mandatory FBI background cheque is performed due to the highly sensitive nature of what the person will become privy to and if you fail it guess what, no ballot! This weeds out the criminal elements and the radical elements before they are voted in.

If he wasn't born in Hawaii Hillary would've been all over it but the fact remains she was not means unequivocally that the Birther nonsense holds no water.
edit on 14-2-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
As much as I disagree with Obama's policies, I have to agree with one of the other posters here who said the FBI/CIA/NSA/Pentagon, SOMEBODY would have thoroughly checked out a POTUS candidate, you would think.

I can't see them letting a 'foreign national' have ultimate control over the US nuclear arsenal.

But I have been known to be wrong......



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Let me school you on one fact, before anyone is allowed to run for public office a mandatory FBI background cheque is performed due to the highly sensitive nature of what the person will become privy to and if you fail it guess what, no ballot! This weeds out the criminal elements and the radical elements before they are voted in.

If he wasn't born in Hawaii Hillary would've been all over it but the fact remains she was not means unequivocally that the Birther nonsense holds no water.
edit on 14-2-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


Re: the Hillary would've ate his lunch argument!
I've posted this in other threads: as long as "what if" is so popular on ATS:

The"Clinton political machine" hasproven itself powerful (implications of bodies etc) so I AGREE Hillary's team would have looked into it. HOWEVER;
Hillary was under no obligation to tell anybody if they actually found anything like this ( you think Hillary gives a ratz fuzzy butt about the dem party?) She was divisive and disliked by manyin the party but The O-man was presented as the"Golden child" the media soft balled his questions yada yada "hope! and change!"(?)

and what better leverage to have over your boss than a folder full of dirt which would not only get your boss fired but possibly jail time????????????????

So you crazy worshipperS can officially drop that response. Its tired and evasive.
edit on 14-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Let me school you on one fact, before anyone is allowed to run for public office a mandatory FBI background cheque



Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
is performed due to the highly sensitive nature of what the person will become privy to and if you fail it guess what, no ballot! This weeds out the criminal elements and the radical elements before they are voted in.

nuh-uh
Sorry: original response deleted:" Got suckedi n WAy hey heyy too much personal information flapping in the breeze!..

because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2011 by 46ACE because: added thought

edit on 14-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2011 by 46ACE because: too personal..



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeechQuestInfo
Besides here's a quote from your goofy article.

"Therefore the date of birth of 1890 originally connected to [Obama's Social Security number] was consistent with many other examples of elderly individuals, born between 1890-1915, applying for Social Security cards for the first time between 1976-1977."

So according to you goofballs own article, said person who's SSN was stolen by Obama, the mystery man in 1890 wouldn't have applied for his number when the social security act was instated. Rather. He would wait until he was 86 years old to get his number.

Oh what benifits that old man would have got. Clowns.



Actually yes it's entirely possible (you might not have been alive in the 1970's) as an elderly generation of people many of whom were self suficient farmers and never paid into social security or drew on it, then at the end of their life had to get a social security number to get medicare to pick up hospital bills.

A lot of rural farmers resisted social security numbers because they felt it had a biblical conotation. Self employed people and farmers don't have to pay into it, and in those days you didn't need a social security number for a bank account, electricity account, etc.

However around the middle to late seventies if you wanted any government service they started requiring you have a social security number to keep track of it.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


FBI doesn't check these things out,


Well this is your assumption.


It is the responsibility of the Congress, not the FBI.


and this is why the FBI and the CIA mind their own right?
I assume that our privacy is off limits to the CIA and FBI, so we can assume, just for convenience of this birther conspiracy, that they do not overstep that boundary.


Hawaii vital statistics has not provided any proof of his actual birth inside their state, only the certificate that is available from a variety of ways that do not actually require birth within the state.


This is a tired old claim from birthers that holds no solid ground. Orly attempted to make this claim in one of her lawsuits and it did not stand. If you talking about birth certificates issued to Children born at home, the same birth certificate law applied to most other states and required court appearances to a judge and testimony from physcians. It was not as simple as to just "get a birth certificate from a hospital". Now you can speculate as always that this is how Obama could have attained a birth certificate, but speculation does not go far.


His father was not a citizen at the time, and there are contradicting Supreme Court cases about what exactly that means.


Which was what? The Wong Kim Ark case was repeatedly referenced here where the supreme court judge clearly recognized the testimony of the opposition that Wong could become president merely being born in the United states, it was noted and Wong won the court case. No other court case has made the two parent rule in US history, there are no references.

Now I don't know what you hope to achieve repeating the same thing over and over again. While you spreading these baseless claims, Obama is still in the white house.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
This must be true.
they are trying very hard to de'rail this post.

but, it would be very stupid for them to make this mistake.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GeechQuestInfo
 


you really didn't read did you? they retroactively assigned numbers.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Let me school you on one fact, before anyone is allowed to run for public office a mandatory FBI background cheque is performed due to the highly sensitive nature of what the person will become privy to and if you fail it guess what, no ballot! This weeds out the criminal elements and the radical elements before they are voted in.

If he wasn't born in Hawaii Hillary would've been all over it but the fact remains she was not means unequivocally that the Birther nonsense holds no water.


Re: the Hillary would've ate his lunch argument!
I've posted this in other threads: as long as "what if" is so popular on ATS:

The"Clinton political machine" hasproven itself powerful (implications of bodies etc) so I AGREE Hillary's team would have looked into it. HOWEVER;
Hillary was under no obligation to tell anybody if they actually found anything like this ( you think Hillary gives a ratz fuzzy butt about the dem party?) She was divisive and disliked by manyin the party but The O-man was presented as the"Golden child" the media soft balled his questions yada yada "hope! and change!"(?)

and what better leverage to have over your boss than a folder full of dirt which would not only get your boss fired but possibly jail time????????????????

So you crazy worshipperS can officially drop that response. Its tired and evasive.
edit on 14-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


She would've used that card in a hot minute without hijacking the Democratic Primaries like she did.She had no dirt so she had to attempt to hijack the elections. She also would've gotten that to the media by late 2007.
edit on 15-2-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


I'm sorry but that is incorrect. To run for a public office you just have to petition the supervisor of elections in the areas where you want to be placed on the ballot. Either you have a satisfactory petition, or you have the proper amount of money to put you on the ballot. There is no FBI background check on candidates. When it comes to the President of the United States, it is only the Congress that has the authority to qualify him.

Florida Election Laws

Filing For Office is as Easy as 1-2-3

Who Is a Candidate?

Filed Candidate: Any person who has appointed a campaign
treasurer, designated a financial institution for the purpose of
depositing campaign contributions, and filed form DS-DE 9
(Appointment of Campaign Treasurer) with the Supervisor of
Elections. Campaign can now accept contributions and expend
funds. Within 10 days of filing candidate must also file a
Statement of Candidate (Form DS-DE 84). Treasurer's reports
are due on quarterly basis until Qualifying.

Qualified Candidate: Any person who files all of the required
forms with the Supervisor of Elections during the qualifying
period and either pays the qualifying fee or qualifies by petition.
Candidate's name is printed on the ballot.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



Now I don't know what you hope to achieve repeating the same thing over and over again. While you spreading these baseless claims, Obama is still in the white house.


As I said, the only thing I hope to achieve is to stunt the arrogance of those arguing on the pro-Obama side. I voted for Obama myself, and I entirely agree that it is worthless to try to remove him from office at this time, the elections will be here before an impeachment could be organized.

My only purpose for posting is to point out the flat out falsities and arrogance. Even in your own post, you ridicule the repeated arguments, but you have to admit there is no proof in either direction. It makes no sense to ridicule the lack of proof of the "birthers" when you yourself have insufficient proof for the other side.

The fact is, the burden of proof should have been on Obama's side pre-election, but somehow that got skipped. Now the burden of proof has fallen on the other side. The birther's cannot win this argument, because the lack of evidence is insurmountable, but had this argument happened pre-election, the Obamanites would be in the same predicament, because their lack of proof is also insurmountable!

The fact is, the certificate that he does have is not sufficient without some corroboration, they have not offered any witnesses or hospital documents to corroborate it, so it is insufficient, but it is also moot, because he got into office and he has enough support to stay there.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

edit on 15-2-2011 by Cloudsinthesky because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by belowcommonknowledge
So, when the Social Security act was enacted, you don't think that people born prior to its enactment were assigned social security numbers? Interesting, I'd assume that they were.


Oh dear...what was it Geechquestinfo? 'You fool' wasn't it?

lol.

There's more than one good reason not to call people names around here...you've just experienced the second reason...how do you feel?

This Obama being eligible saga is a bit like the 9/11 saga isn't it. People suspect something is dodgy, but on and on it goes, around and around.

Obama will have completed his term of office before anything is done to get him out forcefully...TPTB are more concerned with protecting the 'office' or job of president, rather than anything else. If it is found that Obama obtained his position by direct and out and out fraud, nothing will be done or exposed, as the fear will be that the office will lose all respect and will be a laughing stock if people knew the truth...same as 9/11.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
obama is an imortal alien?

And this "mistake" blew his cover?!



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Let me school you on one fact, before anyone is allowed to run for public office a mandatory FBI background cheque is performed due to the highly sensitive nature of what the person will become privy to and if you fail it guess what, no ballot! This weeds out the criminal elements and the radical elements before they are voted in.

If he wasn't born in Hawaii Hillary would've been all over it but the fact remains she was not means unequivocally that the Birther nonsense holds no water.
edit on 14-2-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


I agree and what you have said makes perfect sense..but, can you not imagine a very simple scenario down at the local lodge, or fraternity clubhouse that could circumvent this logic very easily?

I can, and if most people are honest with themselves, they could too.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelicdefender2012
 


This story was posted on ATS a week ago when it was written and the thread was closed.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I researched the issue at that time and my thought is that there's no credible evidence of foul play as regards this SS number.

I don't mean to be arrogant about it, but I don't say this because I am pro-Obama.
I say this because of the research I've done.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
the FBI/CIA/NSA/Pentagon, SOMEBODY would have thoroughly checked out a POTUS candidate, you would think.

You would think .. but apparently not.
Everyone says .. 'somebody checked him or he wouldn't have gotten this far'.
Sure .... So who exactly is that 'somebody'?

The elections board? Okay ... WHO on the elections board? Who reviewed the massive piles of circumstantial evidence of Obama's shady background?? Did they do it or did they just rubber stamp 'approved' on his paperwork because they assumed someone had already checked him out.

Everyone assumes someone checked him out.
But no one is stepping forward saying that they actually did.

I'm thinking this is a matter of everyone pointing fingers at everyone else saying 'you were supposed to check him out' .. and in fact no one did. They just assumed he was okay.

Anyone got names of federal officials who actually saw documentation .. and the names of those documents?



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


BH, I never view your posts as arrogant, they are always thought out and pertinent. It was Immaculate1
at the top of this page that drug me into the discussion. Posts like that sum up the feelings of the uninformed, uneducated, and unresearched mentality that is an Obamanite. I readily admit that there are plenty of birthers that are equally militant and uninformed and it saddens me. Since I am just a little on the birther side, I tend to respond to posts like his, but I am happy there are people like you to keep my side in check as well!



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join