Obama's Social Security Number Challenged (http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obamas-social-security-number-challenged/)
QuoteDaniels started her investigation in August 2009. Given her profession, she has been able to access a variety of proprietary databases. What she learned without much trouble is that Obama has been using a Social Security Number with the prefix "042″ since 1986.
QuoteThe ample evidence Daniels gathered led her to believe that the 042 number Obama has been using "had previously been issued to another person," one who lived in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979 and who was born in 1890.
This assertion can be verified. By law, the Social Security Administration will have kept on microfilm a copy of the original SS-5 application attached to a particular Social Security Number. Daniels, however, does not have access to that microfilm.
It's all very interesting and I fall on the side that believes obummer to be a fraud and a cheat...but the media loves him and I'm sure nothing will be done.
So if the SSA comes back and says "Nope, it's Obama's SSN" would you believe it?
Quote from: Ali on July 05, 2012, 09:58:33 PM
So if the SSA comes back and says "Nope, it's Obama's SSN" would you believe it?
Given his position today, anything can be "made true". It's a gut feeling. I'm willing to ride out his time though.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on July 05, 2012, 09:40:52 PM
Obama's Social Security Number Challenged (http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obamas-social-security-number-challenged/)
QuoteDaniels started her investigation in August 2009. Given her profession, she has been able to access a variety of proprietary databases. What she learned without much trouble is that Obama has been using a Social Security Number with the prefix "042″ since 1986.
QuoteThe ample evidence Daniels gathered led her to believe that the 042 number Obama has been using "had previously been issued to another person," one who lived in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979 and who was born in 1890.
This assertion can be verified. By law, the Social Security Administration will have kept on microfilm a copy of the original SS-5 application attached to a particular Social Security Number. Daniels, however, does not have access to that microfilm.
It's all very interesting and I fall on the side that believes obummer to be a fraud and a cheat...but the media loves him and I'm sure nothing will be done.
The first three digits of a Social Security number indicate the state that issued it, as far as I know. President Obama and I are about the same age. At that time you did not get an SSN assigned to you at birth, you got it later on - I got mine when I was in high school, right before I got my driver's license.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on July 05, 2012, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 05, 2012, 09:58:33 PM
So if the SSA comes back and says "Nope, it's Obama's SSN" would you believe it?
Given his position today, anything can be "made true". It's a gut feeling. I'm willing to ride out his time though.
This is the part about birthers that makes me laugh a little (no offense.) It's like....you want to see "the proof" while fully admitting that no amount of proof would make you believe that he's a US citizen anyway because it could all be planted info given his position.
Quote from: Ali on July 05, 2012, 10:28:58 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on July 05, 2012, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 05, 2012, 09:58:33 PM
So if the SSA comes back and says "Nope, it's Obama's SSN" would you believe it?
Given his position today, anything can be "made true". It's a gut feeling. I'm willing to ride out his time though.
This is the part about birthers that makes me laugh a little (no offense.) It's like....you want to see "the proof" while fully admitting that no amount of proof would make you believe that he's a US citizen anyway because it could all be planted info given his position.
Yeah, that was kinda my first thought too. I dunno, if you don't like a guy, you don't like a guy. And you don't have to. I can't stand Canada's current Prime Minister, but I feel no desire to go digging around his past or invest too much in half-baked conspiracy theories about him.
Political opponents will grasp at anything. Some just get more attention than others. Martin Van Buren and Chester A. Arthur had their citizenship questioned. Several presidential candidates also had their citizenship questioned. Of note were Barry Goldwater in 1964 and John McCain twice. McCain was born in Panama, but he is considered naturally born because his father was stationed there with the Navy. That didn't stop fringe elements supporting his opponents from raising the issue repeatedly.
I did not realize you were a birther, AD. Like Ali, I have to admit I find it rather funny that birthers keep demanding proof while saying that no amount of proof would make them accept the fact that the President is a US citizen. My brain no longer allows that amount of cognitive dissonance.
Quote from: Velma on July 05, 2012, 10:11:04 PM
The first three digits of a Social Security number indicate the state that issued it, as far as I know. President Obama and I are about the same age. At that time you did not get an SSN assigned to you at birth, you got it later on - I got mine when I was in high school, right before I got my driver's license.
That's exactly what the article says, but that the 041 SSN had previously been issued ( believed to be ) to someone that had been born in 1890.
Quote from: Ali on July 05, 2012, 10:28:58 PM
This is the part about birthers that makes me laugh a little (no offense.) It's like....you want to see "the proof" while fully admitting that no amount of proof would make you believe that he's a US citizen anyway because it could all be planted info given his position.
He's president. I can't do anything about that ( boy I wish I could ). I have my gut feeling and it agrees with these findings. However it doesn't seem anything will come about before he becomes history like Clinton or Bush. I'll save my "I told you so." or my "I was wrong." for the appropriate time.
Quote from: Velma on July 05, 2012, 10:44:53 PM
I did not realize you were a birther, AD. Like Ali, I have to admit I find it rather funny that birthers keep demanding proof while saying that no amount of proof would make them accept the fact that the President is a US citizen. My brain no longer allows that amount of cognitive dissonance.
I'm not demanding proof. He's already president. It will just be a happy day when he's found to have duped "you" all. Or I'll just say I was wrong. :)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on July 05, 2012, 10:05:01 PM
It's a gut feeling.
Laxatives and/or food. They help with those.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on July 05, 2012, 10:48:19 PM
I'm not demanding proof. He's already president. It will just be a happy day when he's found to have duped "you" all. Or I'll just say I was wrong. :)
This is interesting. Why do you think Obama would want to "dupe 'you' all"?
Quote from: Velma on July 05, 2012, 10:11:04 PM
At that time you did not get an SSN assigned to you at birth, you got it later on - I got mine when I was in high school, right before I got my driver's license.
I'm younger than obama (by ~20 years) and I know my ssn wasn't issued at birth because my mom got mine and my sister's issued at the same time and my sister is two years younger.
Anyway, I think that with all the conservatives trying to prove Obama isn't a citizen that something tangible would have surfaced by now if there was any real truth to the claim. Plus, his mom was a us citizen so that defaults to her child, even if he had been born while she was out of country, from what I understand.
It looks like this issue isn't really new. Essentially the same thing was being bruited about more than a year ago; Snopes.com has a piece about it (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp).
As for President Obama being a fraud, I'm of the opinion that (like any other politician who's arrived at such a high office) he definitely is. But it's not in ridiculous and easily debunked matters such as his citizenship (he clearly is a "natural born" citizen of the United States) that he has defrauded the country. In my opinion, it's in matters of policy that he has proven untrustworthy: He campaigned on a platform of reversing dreadful and (in my opinion) unconstitutional policies instituted by the George W. Bush administration; power grabs by the executive branch and destruction of checks on government intrusion into the lives of its citizens, broad reading of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force," and so on. His administration has, instead of reversing such policies, defended them and built on them. The only reason I could be considered a supporter of President Obama is because I think that his opponent is a blatant stooge of the megacorporations (among other things) who would be even worse.
Quote from: Recusant on July 06, 2012, 12:50:52 AM
In my opinion, it's in matters of policy that he has proven untrustworthy: He campaigned on a platform of reversing dreadful and (in my opinion) unconstitutional policies instituted by the George W. Bush administration; power grabs by the executive branch and destruction of checks on government intrusion into the lives of its citizens, broad reading of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force," and so on. His administration has, rather than reversing such policies, defended them and built on them. The only reason I could be considered a supporter of President Obama is because I think that his opponent is a blatant stooge of the megacorporations (among other things) who would be even worse.
Yeah, this. Obama is far less of a liberal than I'd hoped for, but on the other hand he's still not a Republican which these days is a huge point in his favor.
I've voted for Republicans before, and I hope some day I'll be able to do it again, but right now being bat-shit crazy seems a requirement for a Repub running for office and I'm sorry, but no way. They actually make me happy to put up with a disappointing Democrat.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 06, 2012, 04:07:33 AM
Quote from: Recusant on July 06, 2012, 12:50:52 AM
In my opinion, it's in matters of policy that he has proven untrustworthy: He campaigned on a platform of reversing dreadful and (in my opinion) unconstitutional policies instituted by the George W. Bush administration; power grabs by the executive branch and destruction of checks on government intrusion into the lives of its citizens, broad reading of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force," and so on. His administration has, rather than reversing such policies, defended them and built on them. The only reason I could be considered a supporter of President Obama is because I think that his opponent is a blatant stooge of the megacorporations (among other things) who would be even worse.
Yeah, this. Obama is far less of a liberal than I'd hoped for, but on the other hand he's still not a Republican which these days is a huge point in his favor.
I've voted for Republicans before, and I hope some day I'll be able to do it again, but right now being bat-shit crazy seems a requirement for a Repub running for office and I'm sorry, but no way. They actually make me happy to put up with a disappointing Democrat.
I'm on the same page with respect to Republicans. There may be hope, however, as this year's Young Guns, a title given to young, up and coming Republicans, aren't all agreeing to sign Grover Norquist's pledge. Perhaps there is a generation of Republicans brewing ready to actually think for themselves and be ready to do what is right for the country rather than sign pledges that handcuff them.
Quote from: fester30 on July 06, 2012, 04:13:47 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 06, 2012, 04:07:33 AM
Quote from: Recusant on July 06, 2012, 12:50:52 AM
In my opinion, it's in matters of policy that he has proven untrustworthy: He campaigned on a platform of reversing dreadful and (in my opinion) unconstitutional policies instituted by the George W. Bush administration; power grabs by the executive branch and destruction of checks on government intrusion into the lives of its citizens, broad reading of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force," and so on. His administration has, rather than reversing such policies, defended them and built on them. The only reason I could be considered a supporter of President Obama is because I think that his opponent is a blatant stooge of the megacorporations (among other things) who would be even worse.
Yeah, this. Obama is far less of a liberal than I'd hoped for, but on the other hand he's still not a Republican which these days is a huge point in his favor.
I've voted for Republicans before, and I hope some day I'll be able to do it again, but right now being bat-shit crazy seems a requirement for a Repub running for office and I'm sorry, but no way. They actually make me happy to put up with a disappointing Democrat.
I'm on the same page with respect to Republicans. There may be hope, however, as this year's Young Guns, a title given to young, up and coming Republicans, aren't all agreeing to sign Grover Norquist's pledge. Perhaps there is a generation of Republicans brewing ready to actually think for themselves and be ready to do what is right for the country rather than sign pledges that handcuff them.
I rather like Megan McCain (from what I know about her.) If being a Repub went back to just being fiscally conservative, I probably still wouldn't agree with them (I have different ideas about social responsibility than they do, usually) but I wouldn't consider them crazy and evil. I'm willing to believe that people can be kind, smart, empathetic human beings, and still disagree with me about fiscal policy. But this current crop of Tea Party/Conservative Christians/Corporate Toadies are like the predictable trite 1D bad guys in a siutation comedy.
Do you know why the States has such a bad image with the rest of the world? Its not the people, its not the democrats, its not the bible belt, or capitalism, it is the Republicans.
I still want to know why people don't like Obama so much, is it because he speaks so slowly?
It is time for a logic check. The person who is supposed to hold the same number as Obama was born in 1890 and the card was issued between 1977 and 1979. This would make the recipient about 87 to 89 years old at the time of the cards issue. As the Social Security Act was signed into law in 1935 and the first taxes were collected in 1937 this person should have applied for a number 50 years prior to the issue of the number in question. This alone is enough to make me skeptical. Even assuming that there is a double issue of this number there is a much more likely scenario to explain this than fraud. The explanation is that it was an administrative error. This explanation is both simpler and more logical.
Do they recycle the numbers if whoever is holding them dies?
Quote from: Asmodean on July 06, 2012, 10:58:08 PM
Do they recycle the numbers if whoever is holding them dies?
QuoteQ20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?
A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.
Source: SSA Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html)
Quote from: Crow on July 06, 2012, 09:16:07 PM
Do you know why the States has such a bad image with the rest of the world? Its not the people, its not the democrats, its not the bible belt, or capitalism, it is the Republicans.
I still want to know why people don't like Obama so much, is it because he speaks so slowly?
I'm not entirely sure why people don't like Obama either. ???
It's like they just pick on him to pick on him. He is attempting to clean up the bullshit George Bush left behind for 8years. That's a huge shovel.
Since cable news became a big deal, the political spectrum seems to me to have become more polarized. They hate Obama because he's not their guy. Because he's not their guy, they play up every angle they can to make him look bad so their guy can win. They play up racial stereotypes to anger the bigots to get them to the voting booth. They give a voice to the birthers so that we hear them say he's not American. They play up his Senate voting record to say he's the most socialist politician in America. They play up any bad news in the economy or gas prices as Obama's fault, and any good news as happening despite Obama.
They do these things because they want their guy to get elected. By "they," I mean the Limbaughs, the O'Reillys,and the Hannitys of the country. I don't think his approval rating would be as low as it is if Americans had actual facts to judge him by. The disinformation being put out there by the loudest voices on cable and radio is actually having an effect. I don't blame the average person for believing this stuff. It's not the average American's fault we're becoming more stupid as a country.
Quote from: fester30 on July 07, 2012, 07:31:00 AM
It's not the average American's fault we're becoming more stupid as a country.
Isn't it though? For not doing anything about it?
Our UK politics is a nauseating swamp of filth but in the US it's much, much nastier. :D
Quote from: Asmodean on July 07, 2012, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: fester30 on July 07, 2012, 07:31:00 AM
It's not the average American's fault we're becoming more stupid as a country.
Isn't it though? For not doing anything about it?
There are many websites and efforts to debunk and fact check those on the fringe elements of politics that try to dupe the rest of us with their warped statistics and outright lies. We each have the power of our vote. However, when it comes to the education of the common American in the issues, TV is more powerful than the individual. Fox News' strategy of finding viewers with certain religious and conservative values, and roping them in by highlighting supposed injustices against the religious and conservative, and then feeding them neo-conservative, Tea Party rhetoric under the guise of Fair and Balanced and We Report, You Decide, is extremely effective. They make their viewers believe that Fox News is presenting all sides fairly, and that it's the viewer that is smart enough to make up their own minds, while the whole time everything is from a shade of the ultra conservative in both presentation and in which stories to report. Then, when we have entities such as the Supreme Court allowing companies and individuals spend whatever they want on campaign financing, the voice of the rich conservatives far outweigh the voice of the common independent or even the rich liberals. Common people just don't have enough time in the day to research things on their own, so they trust that magic box in front of them.
Quote from: fester30 on July 07, 2012, 02:43:25 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on July 07, 2012, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: fester30 on July 07, 2012, 07:31:00 AM
It's not the average American's fault we're becoming more stupid as a country.
Isn't it though? For not doing anything about it?
There are many websites and efforts to debunk and fact check those on the fringe elements of politics that try to dupe the rest of us with their warped statistics and outright lies. We each have the power of our vote. However, when it comes to the education of the common American in the issues, TV is more powerful than the individual. Fox News' strategy of finding viewers with certain religious and conservative values, and roping them in by highlighting supposed injustices against the religious and conservative, and then feeding them neo-conservative, Tea Party rhetoric under the guise of Fair and Balanced and We Report, You Decide, is extremely effective. They make their viewers believe that Fox News is presenting all sides fairly, and that it's the viewer that is smart enough to make up their own minds, while the whole time everything is from a shade of the ultra conservative in both presentation and in which stories to report. Then, when we have entities such as the Supreme Court allowing companies and individuals spend whatever they want on campaign financing, the voice of the rich conservatives far outweigh the voice of the common independent or even the rich liberals. Common people just don't have enough time in the day to research things on their own, so they trust that magic box in front of them.
I don't know if I believe that the common people just don't have time to know better. I think it's more likely that news channels like Fox play into their already existing beliefs and biases, and that's why they like it.
Quote from: fester30 on July 07, 2012, 02:43:25 PM
Common people just don't have enough time in the day to research things on their own, so they trust that magic box in front of them.
I don't think you need to do any research to be able to see that Fox, or programs like it, are a load of bunk. And that's not just because it doesn't align with my political views. If you have any amount of critical thinking skills at all, the kind of loaded rhetoric they use should raise some red flags. I think people watch Fox because they don't WANT to have to think critically. It's like PETA. You're not going to go to the PETA webpage for a "fair and balanced" view on omnivore nutrition, you're going to go there because you've already made up your mind and you want an organization to vehemently validate your black and white views.
What I meant was that with the amount of bad information floating out there disguised as legitimate facts, it is every average Joe's responsibility to choose his news sources with more care than "whatever's on the tube when I press the button"
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 07, 2012, 02:55:09 PM
It's like PETA. You're not going to go to the PETA webpage for a "fair and balanced" view on omnivore nutrition, you're going to go there because you've already made up your mind and you want an organization to vehemently validate your black and white views.
And thus, a perfect example of confirmatory bias is born :D
As for how all this applies to Obama's citizenship challenges, I do think his opponents would have been more successful this whole time dealing more with the facts on record with respect to his presidency than to waste time highlighting the birther movement. Every time Fox News gave a voice to the birther movement I have a feeling all they were doing is playing to voters who were already on that side of the fence. To win over the important independents, you've got to try to distance yourself from fringe elements, IMO.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 07, 2012, 02:58:40 PM
What I meant was that with the amount of bad information floating out there disguised as legitimate facts, it is every average Joe's responsibility to choose his news sources with more care than "whatever's on the tube when I press the button"
I agree.
More people HAVE the ability to learn more. They just don't want to make the effort.
"It's such hard work after all, and American idol is on next." ::)
Most people stay ignorant because they want to in the U.S.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on July 05, 2012, 10:48:19 PM
Quote from: Velma on July 05, 2012, 10:44:53 PM
I did not realize you were a birther, AD. Like Ali, I have to admit I find it rather funny that birthers keep demanding proof while saying that no amount of proof would make them accept the fact that the President is a US citizen. My brain no longer allows that amount of cognitive dissonance.
I'm not demanding proof. He's already president. It will just be a happy day when he's found to have duped "you" all. Or I'll just say I was wrong. :)
Have to say I'm rather disappointed in you AD. I may have disagreed with you before, but you seemed a reasonable guy up until now. Dislike Obama all you want, but what say you about him producing his long-form birth certificate? Another fake? Seems that should be enough evidence for you to admit you're wrong.
Quote from: Firebird on July 08, 2012, 12:27:38 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on July 05, 2012, 10:48:19 PM
Quote from: Velma on July 05, 2012, 10:44:53 PM
I did not realize you were a birther, AD. Like Ali, I have to admit I find it rather funny that birthers keep demanding proof while saying that no amount of proof would make them accept the fact that the President is a US citizen. My brain no longer allows that amount of cognitive dissonance.
I'm not demanding proof. He's already president. It will just be a happy day when he's found to have duped "you" all. Or I'll just say I was wrong. :)
Have to say I'm rather disappointed in you AD. I may have disagreed with you before, but you seemed a reasonable guy up until now. Dislike Obama all you want, but what say you about him producing his long-form birth certificate? Another fake? Seems that should be enough evidence for you to admit you're wrong.
Sorry to disappoint you. I'll do my best to do better by you.