Obama's Social Security Number challenged.... again

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...idate-weve-seen-probably-since-richard-nixon/

Need I say more, it's those claiming innocence in their protection of a 100% made up character, that happens to be ruling the USA, that are the conspirators...

 

STILL WAITING for just one birther to tell me WHY someone would need to fake a "Connecticut" SSN. My "PA" SSN seems to be just as good, and I assume a Hawaiian one would, as well.

So why would Obama fake a CT one?

 

No flinging,,I answered this...

Quote Originally Posted by SFJEFF View Post
And here is the amusing difference.

Mitt Romney released his birth certificate- which is pretty much the same as Obama 2008 birth certificate- and nobody whines "it is not a real birth certificate"- Romney could have produced a BC written in crayon and Birthers would have accepted his BC.

 

He was questioned even before he was President, just like McCain....Was Romney's father born in Kenya?, did his Granny say so?

Like I said,,,RACISM ALL OVER,,,LOOK UNDER THE BED........

 

If I wanted to discuss other posters I would. However, I do not. I find it tacky.

Your post was nothing more than off topic nonsense that took a shot at liberals while avoiding, with considerable effort, the thread topic.

 

http://www.westernjournalism.com/ex...eports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/

Dan; Maybe it wasn't Obama, rather a long planned program from others. Without connecting any dots, from about the time Kenya gained it's independence, there was a very active "Student" program, I've always assumed was 100% above board or legal.

Working for the prestigious Brookhaven Country Club out of Dallas (around 1970), as a manager of their "Brookhaven Lodge" near Longview, Class AAA Motel/Restaurant/Lake Resort and in contact with a Black Recruitment group stationed in Longview, I hired many students from specifically Kenya, primarily for kitchen work. The Lodge also hosted a monthly meeting for the group, which was for about 50 people, it was NOT an insignificant organization or were their students anything but the cream of the crop, that could have come from anyplace, USA.

 

lol, birthers

 

It is well established on Political Forum that I'm a card carrying Libertarian and not a progressive-liberal and I have questioned the motivation of the "birthers" in their repeated and ongoing assault on President Obama. There can only be certain logical reasons.

Were their concerns based upon the Constitutional eligibility of Obama to be president? Apparently not because his birth in Hawaii in 1961 was established in 2008 with the release of his COLB that established he met the criteria of being born in the United States and Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof which is established by the 14th Amendment for being a natural born citizen. His natural born citizenship was confirmed by the Hawaii Dept of Health which was the government authority for establishing the citizenship of Hawaiians. If the argument was about the Constitutional criteria for being president then John McCain's eligibility would have been the primary concern because he was NOT born in the United States (he was born in Panama) and fails to meet one of the two criterian of natural born citizenship established by the 14th Amendment. Why would anyone question Obama's citizenship over John McCain's when McCain wasn't even born in the United States?

Was it simply politically motivated because people opposed Obama's political agenda? That doesn't appear to be the case because they do not address political agendas in their arguments claiming that they are not motivated by political agendas. They claim it's based upon the Constitution but, as noted above, it really isn't. I oppose muchs of Obama's political agenda and I correctly address the specifics of the agenda that I oppose. This has nothing to do with his meeting the Constitutional criteria for office which has been long established.

We look at each and every possibility motivation as to why the persistance in bringing forth unsupportable allegations by the "birthers" continue we find that they are not supported save one. This leaves us with the following quotation from the foremost fictional investigator of the truth, Sherlock Holmes:

The only motivation that we cannot dismiss is that the "birthers" are racists. There are no other possible motivations that can be supported by argument.

 

In part the US has evolved from the principle, folks have a right to voice political opinions. To infer, those in opposition TODAY are based on race is an excuse to otherwise explain the inconsistencies of this President over those of any other, is ludicrous. Some people, generally half, have opposed every person that has been a President or lost the numerous elections and many had/have been attacked long after they have left office, which will also be Obama's fate. I'll grant you those that might be racist can use the issue to further a point, but to label those that oppose policy or EVEN the heritage of a candidate/President, is by nature a false argument.


As for you being a Libertarian, I'll take your word for this as suspicious, most I've known are/were "Strict Constitutionalist" and there's plenty written by the founders worried about foreign influence in a Republic, of so many States.

 

It is not clear you know what "ludicrous means." It is certainly neither laughable nor ridiculous to attribute some significant component of racism to the Birther movement. Anyone who has spent any serious time on Birther blogs and forum will find explicit racism to be pandemic even as other Birthers whine incessantly that the label is unfair. There can be no doubt by any honest examiner that while individual Birthers may be free of the odious taint of racism, the movement itself is founded firmly on racist convictions.

The further pretense that Birthism has anything genuine to do with "the inconsistencies of this President" founders on the simple fact that almost none of the Birther complaints are even true. It is centered on deliberate fabrications, not on actual "inconsistencies." Anyone's history can be mined for anomalies... ask anyone who has ever done family history. But the Birther movement is based not on the anomalies, but on the lies:

Lies that his grandmother said he was born in Kenya. (She didn't.)

Lies that he has spent millions to keep his records hidden. (He hasn't.)

Lies like his birth certificate is forged. (It's not.)

It is impossible to reconcile the dependence of Birthers on blatant lies with any honorable motive. There is no alternative explanation to the completely despicable nature of Birthism than unrefined and atavistic racism.


Some people, generally half, have opposed every person that has been a President or lost the numerous elections and many had/have been attacked long after they have left office, which will also be Obama's fate. I'll grant you those that might be racist can use the issue to further a point, but to label those that oppose policy or EVEN the heritage of a candidate/President, is by nature a false argument.


As for you being a Libertarian, I'll take your word for this as suspicious, most I've known are/were "Strict Constitutionalist" and there's plenty written by the founders worried about foreign influence in a Republic, of so many States.[/QUOTE]

 

Too late to edit out those last two paragraphs which, obviously, belong to the post I was responding to.

 

It is to me Wong, ridiculous and laughable. Many of those NOW aware of the inconsistencies, even if just venting through the "birther issue", voted for and promoted Obama. GW Bush, was the cowboy from Texas to his opposition, Reagan, the actor from California, giving fair time, JFK to Catholic womanizer and Truman, the used tie salesman from Missouri and what ever fits for Obama will be said 100 years from now. The point is it's not his race, which might be what gets him onto Mount Rushmore, but for those that dislike his policy or in my mind, his methods. I've lived Chicago Politics and few people are even aware of the practice.

None of your examples of inconsistency or anomalies are important enough to even mention, in fact you could credit the Clinton's or Hillary supporters for them even have been mentioned, in the first place. I'd suggest the Reverend Wright angle was and remains an inconsistency, his AUTO-BIOGRAPHY and his historical associations. Just read the wiki-articles on Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder and look for a connection to Socialism, which to me is where his heritage lies.

 

What your post says to me is that some who oppose Obama politically are cynically using birtherism as atoll against Obama

Bulls point on why birthers promote such lies could be explained by such blatant cynicism

 

You haven't addressed my question.

What is the advantage of a CT SSN, vs a Hawaiian one?

Every conspiracy has a purpose and goal. Why would a goal be to get Obama a Social Security number that matches a CT zip code?

If there was a conspiracy to fake a Presidential candidate, a plainly ridiculous suggestion, that conspiracy would obtain for him a SSN that matches the rest of his faked background, obviously.

The fact that it doesn't "match", really, is conclusive proof there is no conspiracy, because any conspiracy so powerful and skilled would be aware of such details.

 

How do you know where Romney was born?

 

Once again I will simply point out that the criteria establshed by the 14th Amendment for natural born citizenship is born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The Supreme Court decision in the United States v Kim Wong Ark addresed this specific matter and it resolved the issue completely. Natural citizenship, under the US Constition is based exclusively upon Jus Soli (Latin: Right of Soil).

When we address the possible motivation for the "birthers" we can eliminate any rational Constitutional issue as being the foundation for their persistance. Barack Obama presented the only legal document required, his certified COLB from the Hawaii Dept of Health, for public inspection by unbiased sources in 2008 and the issue was resolved. The Hawaii Dept of Health expressly established that Obama was a natural born citizen of the State of Hawaii and, as such, was a natural born citizen of the United States. The "Constitutional" issues were resolved in 2008.

I am a "strict" Constitutionalist which is why I've pointed out that John McCain is not a natural born citizen because he was born in Panama. He is a "native born" citizen based upon naturalization laws passed by Congress. "Natural born citizenship" is established "by birth" under the Constitution. Native born citizenship" is established "at birth" (not by birth) based upon the statutory laws passed by Congress. John McCain's parents filed a petition for citizenship to the INS for John McCain to establish his US citizenship. Barack Obama didn't have to file anything with the INS because his citizenship was established by his birth in Honolulu Hawaii, a State, in 1961.

Seven presidents had foreign born parents and many presidents lived outside of the United States at some point in their lives. Barack Obama's entire adult life has been in the United States and he's as American as American gets. I don't agree with his political adenda but it is offensive when people question his patriotism.

I would point out that the individual who's cited as being the most important single individual related to the American Revolution was not George Washington. It was Thomas Paine and his pamphlet Common Sense and he'd been in the United States less than two years. Thomas Paine was the force behind the American Revolution and George Washington was responsible for winning that revolution.

And while the founders were concerned about foreign interference in the political affairs of America they were more concerned with the ideals of America being violated from within. Neither Democrats or Republicans support strict complaince with the US Constitution and, in fact, ignore it completely whenever it suits their political agendas.

 

If I can just tack on to Shiva's excellent points...

1) technically, another possible motivation for Birthers is stupidity, that is, they just aren't intelligent enough to understand what Shiva just explained about the President's eligibility.
2) what I find most troubling about Birthers is that they have been lumped in with libertarians somehow. Really, their antics have set the small government movement back years by giving big government fans something to latch on to in an argument.

 

Oh? Name for me five people who voted for Obama and are now spouting the Birther meme.

I'll wait.

I lived Chicago politic for more than 20 years. You are still making about as much sense as a nursery rhyme.

This is false. Birthism was invented on the right-wing conservative web forum FreeRepublic on March 1, 2008. This was months before the first PUMA ever latched onto the idiotic meme.

 

And no one has yet explained away that bastard's Connecticut social security number.

Just a bunch of inbreds calling anybody that questions the bastard "racist" like that word holds meaning anymore.

 

Actually, it was explained years ago. Folks simply did not like it when reality got in the way of their fantasy, so they perpetuate the ridiculous notion that the SS number means something.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp

 

And what was that explanation? Another in a long line of people screwing up obama's past for him?
A malfunctioning rubber stamp? No, that was his selective service card.
Someone saying that he was born in Kenya? No, that was a mistranslation.
Someone printing that he was born in Kenya? No, that was a fact checking error.
His birth certificate isn't in the numerical order of his birth? No..er...SHUT UP RACIST.
The page in the Hawaiian birth registery that cataloged his birth is the only page that doesn't have a date range at the top? No...er... SHUT UP RACIST.
Both birth certificates that he has produced have been proven to be fakes? No...er... SHUT UP RACIST.

So, what's the excuse for this one? I'll bet it concludes the word "racist" in there somewhere.

 

Wow. the president provided multiple birth certificates that were proven to be fakes?

 

Admittedly some "birthers" may just be stupid but we must also remember that clinical studies have linked low intelligence (i.e. stupidity) with prejudice that results in racism. Obviously not all "birthers" are racists but the only motivation for the presistent "birther" claims can only be racism because all other possible motivations can be dismissed.

I have no clue where the so-called connection between "birthers" and "libertarians" comes from. I know a lot of libertarians and not a single one is a "birther" nor have I heard of any libertarians supporting any of the "birther" claims. Libertarianism itself requires intelligence to even understand. I've never met a stupid libertarian because stupid people can't understand the very foundation of libertarian political philosophy.

 

Still waiting for one of you to answer the question I asked. Maybe you can.

What, exactly, is the reason why anyone would "conspire" to get, in particular, a "Connecticut" SSN?

In other words, why is a "CT" SSN better than a "Hawaiian" one?

 

well that, and retard