I’ve always thought that the “042-xx-xxxx” social-security number reported on the Internet for Barack Obama was probably his real SSN, but lacked confirmation. Now we have it.
OC Weekly reporter Spencer Kornhaber typed this number, along with the President’s name and date of birth, in to a Selective Service registration verification database and receive the confirmation. Transfer one item from the plausible to the factual column.
However, I’ve never seen anything remotely plausible that suggests that President Obama ever used any other social-security number.
I’ll have to do some searching but recently, someone wrote a column on this after it all came out as ‘big news’ again after two years of Orly complaining about it and the column asked why the private investigator didn’t find that Barack Obama’s father went to college up in Connecticut. The question was asked if it wasn’t possible that perhaps Obama went to visit his dad’s alma mater or maybe some of his dad’s friends and at that time he applied for his SSN. It’s a possibility. There are a lot of possibilities as to why Obama got a number that links him to Connecticut.
Here’s the article. Should have found it before I posted but I wasn’t sure if I felt like looking it up tonight.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2998472/obamas_social_security_number_likely.html?singlepage=true&cat=9
Obama’s father didn’t go to school in CT, he went to Harvard in Cambridge, MA, graduating in 1965. By the time the alleged SSN was generated, Obama Sr. had been back in Kenya for years and was on his downward spiral into drink and car accidents.
I like the “mistyping of the HI zip code as a CT zip code” theory.
Excuse me for being tired. However, Obama’s father DID move to Connecticut and if you read the article, the writer asks those questions. For instance, why didn’t the PI find a relationship between Obama and anyone in Connecticut when his father had moved there after divorcing Obama’s mother. You need to read the article. I didn’t write it, just provided it.
Let’s see his Form SS-5, Application for SSN. It will have his current mailing address at the time of filing, whether or not he identified himself as a US Citizen or a legal alien and what proof was used to verify his application.
We already know that President Obama was born a US citizen and that he could not have lost his citizenship by any imagination.
Foolish Walter White… [Sockpuppet of Sven?]
we saw his SS No on his Selective Service Registration (Register for Draft), strange thing that Selective Service Registration, only US Citizens could be drafted, Strange Huh.
The only good thing about BO(BS) has been that he has forced us to take a crash course in civics. Any male aged 18-26, regardless of citizenship status, permanently residing in the US is required to register for the selective service.
It would be Liberal Fantasyland for all US Citizen males to be sent off to war to fight and die so that non-citizen males can stay in America and enjoy freedom and democracy.
BO’s Selective Service registration, if its real, is more indicative of BO as a CIA asset than a US Citizen. I’m sure BO thought he could get past SS registration by playing the “I’m a Indonesian refugee” card and it was the CIA that set him straight on the law.
What happened to the zero tolerance for incivility?
Because we know the government would never falsify or create documents after the fact.
Yeah, right.
You may trust the government, but I certainly don’t.
I think that’s why we are seeing the anti-incumbent attitude across the nation – we are tired of being lied to.
Excuse me for being tired. However, Obama’s father DID move to Connecticut and if you read the article, the writer asks those questions. For instance, why didn’t the PI find a relationship between Obama and anyone in Connecticut when his father had moved there after divorcing Obama’s mother. You need to read the article. I didn’t write it, just provided it.
I’ll bet you do – since it would quite nicely explain away an issue that doesn’t quite make sense. Personally, I don’t care where he got his SS from, but CT is a bit odd to be sure. I would just like to know that is really is his and that he doesn’t have multiple SS #’s.
And no, putting info into a website search and having the expected info returned, doesn’t make it a FACT….The only FACT there is that someone can manipulate the database info. I’m not saying it’s not true, I’m just saying I don’t trust the democracy threatening Internet for FACTUAL info. I guess I’m a bit smarter than Obama thinks most Americans are.
So, in your opinion, does the same go for this British citizenship as well, since he was born a British citizen as well as a US citizen? But, in my opinion, was not a NBC of either.
Oh, yes, the old CIA story. If the CIA wanted to create a totally new identity for someone, they could do so very easily and it wouldn’t leave a trace. Perhaps George Bush Sr, who was after all, Director of the CIA, had that done for the people close to him. Perhaps even his own son.
But, let’s pretend Barack Obama is also a CIA plantm just like the Bushes (perhaps all Presidents are). The supposed justification for excluding non-natural born citizens is “national security”. But if the supposed non-natural born citizen was a key CIA asset who was critical to defeating the Soviet Union, we don’t have much to worry about, do we? In fact such a person should be made an honorary natural born citizen if they weren’t one already. And if he somehow went rogue in the intervening years, Langley would have blown his cover.
By the way, I recently saw the Polanski movie, “The Ghost Writer”.
Spoiler alert if you haven’t seen it
It suggests that Cherie Blair was recruited by the CIA while a student and that her husband’s support for the Iraq war was at the behest of her handlers. Who knows?
Huh? First you tell us that every male has to register, then you tell us that the fact that he registered means he’s a CIA asset?
You have clearly left out some steps in your logic.
All males living in the US have to register. Obama is registered. Therefore Obama is a male who was living in the US.
Where’s the part about CIA assets?
What continues to amaze me is that regardless of real evidence, birthers still prefer to use speculation and consider that to be evidence.
Walter. How do you explain that Obama came back to the states when he was 10 years of age and his grandparents raised him and that he has lived here in the United States for the majority of his life? My guess is that he was fully indoctorinated by the age of 10 and set to the Manchurian candidate?
Walter is correct, citizenship not required, but that’s the only thing he is correct on..
.
CIA asset? You believe manning’s ridicules’ claims. Do you buy Goldline gold that Beck pushes?
.
Seriously, that much hate is not good for your well being.
“I guess I’m a bit smarter than Obama thinks most Americans are.”
.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That’s the problem with conspiracy theories – they require the complicity of so many different people and agencies that they become impossible to sustain. So now the conspiracy to make Obama an illegal president involves the State of Hawaii, the Bush Administration, John McCain, the CIA, the Social Security Administration, Selective Service, multiple Federal judges, and the Supreme Court. And of course Congress, as well as the governments of Kenya and Indonesia. .
Did I leave anyone out?
I don’t see much coming out of this ‘story’ regarding the SSN. There’s nothing to it and there are a lot of reasons why Obama ended up with a CT SSN. Numbers mistyped, he used a Connecticut address to register. Read the rules regarding registering for a SSN and you’ll find Obama wasn’t required to register while he lived in Hawai’i. In the end, it isn’t much of a plausable theory to believe that Obama has used 39 different SSN’s over the years unless he had actually stolen identities but that wouldn’t explain why he would continue to use his name. If indeed he’s used 39 different SSN’s. then he’s going to have a heck of a time collecting on his Social Security when he comes of age. And I can’t imagine that the SSA hasn’t stepped in to ask him why he’s using so many numbers.
As far as nbC writing that Obama couldn’t have lost his citizenship by any way imagined. He could have had he decided to renounce his US citizenship when he came of age. But it is apparent Obama didn’t and his US citizenship is intact.
Me.
Just an explanation of my “Goldline” comment, Goldline sells coins for over 40% of market value, it’s a scam and is currently being investigated as a scam. Goldline primarily advertises on right wing talk shows as it is easy to scam people full of hate for “libs” and “Obama”. Not all the birthers are right wingers but many are. Hate flows right! They are Patriots. SURE! those of us that actually served and defended our country are not Patriots to these haters..
One of the things that impressed me about Obama’s campaign, and continues to impress me whenever I hear him speak, or read his speeches, is how he never talks down to his audience. Even his iPad comments, when read in context, assume an intelligence in his audience that I didn’t see in W.
It’s simple and simplistic to say that technology is great and wonderful and has no downsides. But, it’s not true.
Dr. C.
I too checked the SSN against the Selective Service registration ( the very day when Orly first failed to effectively elide it from the documents that she posted.) However, this registration is itself suspect. I checked your writing on Debbie Schussle (sp?). Your debunking of it as a forgery is, well, not up to the standards that you have set. Can you revisit the issue (and provide links for the 08/80 discovery.)
And as long as we are revisiting old favorites. I’m remembering reports of SAD passport records indicating she entered the US in the early 1960’s through an eastern seaboard port of entry ( with one in tow). Could such an entry have followed her son well into his teens to explain the CT SSN?
I know that this one’s way out there, but I’m still coming down from Manning’s Grand Jury verdict where Obama is/was an operative, probably contacted early as a young man because of his mother and grandparent’s own ties to the Company notably later to the East West Center, the Ford Foundation and of course Banco.(But Manning didn’t go in to that: he probably couldn’t connect the dots.)
On a tangent but related to the SSN (as Orly continues to splatter it across all her legal filings)
Madame O has filed her latest shortened tome “Reply to the Opposition to the Motion for Reconsider”.
It includes as an exhibit the pay up $20,000 or else letter from “Holder Department of Justoce” or as it is more correctly named….”US Attorney, Middle District of Georgia”
So for those who, like myself have been wonderinh “Where da money”….here it is
It is (partially) on her site but due to the not inconsiderable risk to ones computer by visiting it, have linked to Scribd instead for those who enjoy a little light humour.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31601962/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-29-REPLY-to-opposition-dcd-04502981918-29-0
A bit odd? You are probably right. Kind of like someone claiming to have “the same exact COLB like President Obama and not being able to get a US Passport with it” might be considered odd. What the birthers neglect to mention is that Obama has been using the same SS# for years and the US government nor the SSA has had an issue with it. Since the SSA has already stated on their website that SS numbers are not always issed by region, this is a non-story.
As far as being “smarter than Obama thinks most Americans are” that is an opinion you are definately entitled to. However some earlier commentary made by you might lead peple to think otherwise. However the fact remains that Mr. Obama remains the President of the US after 2 years of this birther nonsense. You can disagree with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of what constitutes a NBC, but that doesn’t change the facts.
You also keep forgetting that he was not born a British citizen. He was born eligible for British citizenship. As it has been shown here before, he was not automatically a citizen of the UK. Of course the birthers neglect to mention that.
I really think a statement like that needs elaborating on. How exactly does the internet threaten democracy? Should we therefore not protest when China blocks access to certain sites, but rather cheer? By the way, Doc, do you know if China allows access to your site?
CIA assets are cultivated, not abandoned.
The Clintons.
Greg this reminds me of the daily show a week back when Lewis Black had his bit about Nazi Tourrettes that Glenn Beck has. In it he made a comment about it being 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon except that there’s one degree and Kevin Bacon is hitler. These are what we call magical connections.
A bit off topic but Mario has a unique interpretation of NBC vs. Natural Born Subject…Very humorous…But as we know with limited legal proof….
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.html
“The Framers did not use the definition of an English common law “natural born subject” to define a “natural born Citizen.” The text of the Constitution itself reveals that there is a difference between a “citizen” and a “subject.” The historical context in which the Framers wrote the Constitution would not have motivated them to rely on the English common law to define who would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation. The way the English common law defined a “natural born subject” and the Constitution itself reveal that for the Framers these two clauses did not have the same meaning. Additionally, there is direct evidence from the Founding period that shows that the Founders and Framers did not give the same meaning to the two clauses. ”
“Let us start with the text of the Constitution to see if it distinguishes between a “citizen” and a “subject” and if it does let us consider the meaning of the terms during the Founding era and what any contemporaneous court decisions said regarding the terms. “The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between “citizens” and “subjects.” For example, Article III, section 2 differentiates “citizens” of the several states from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states. In the framing era, these terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state. In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, [2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793) the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789: [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State . . . .”
“…The Framers understood that citizenship and allegiance went together. Vattel’s born-in-country-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents formula was the best way for them to assure that only a person with undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This test was not tied to the physical territory alone, which the Framers understood and which Lord Coke explained did not assure anyone’s natural allegiance when he said “liegance, and faith and truth, which are her members and parts, are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.” (p. 76). Calvin’s Case (1608) (7 Coke, 1, 6 James I.) Coke believed that liegance was a function of natural law which he maintained was part of the common law of England. Daniel J. Hulsebosch, “The Ancient Constitution and the Expanding Empire: Sir Edward Coke’s British Jurisprudence,” Law and History Review Fall 2003 (18 May 2010). The Founder learned from Vattel that under the law of nature, the condition of a child follows the condition of his parents and not the place of his birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Sections 212-215 (1758 French) (1759 first English translation). Hence, their test combined both the soil with the allegiance of the child’s parents into the child at the time of birth. For the Founders, this was the best way to assure sole and absolute allegiance in the new-born child. ..”
“The English common law did not distinguish between a “natural born subject” and a naturalized subject. “The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866).). Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject.” Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a “natural born subject.” Hence, giving the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning as a “natural born subject” would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the new Republic. But Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. The clause is written as “No person except . . . shall be eligible . . .” which means that one must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, with no exceptions. The way we have interpreted the “natural born Citizen” clause since the beginning of the Republic, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President.”
“I’m just saying I don’t trust the democracy threatening Internet for FACTUAL info”
Scott,
I am just curious then. Where did you hear about multiple Social security card numbers for President Obama? I suspect the internet.
Have you seen any evidence that there exists multiple social security card numbers for President Obama other than on the internet.
And if you say, you read about it in a paper, where was their source of information? Where is the proof that you- or I- should trust- that multiple social security numbers even exist?
Yes. I am positive that Obama’s grandparents were probably CIA and they continued with his indoctrination when he returned from Indonesia at the age of 10. Most certainly, Obama IS the Manchurian candidate. In fact, I’m sure that the CIA arranged for Barack’s father to go to school in Hawai’i so that he would meet Barack’s mother and they also arranged for the conception. Then, the CIA purposely helped Barack’s parents go to Kenya where he was born and immediately brought back to the states just so we would have a president that was not natural born but they had to plant those birth announcements in the papers and get some people in Hawai’i to back up the story that Barack was really born here.
And now, the walls have come tumbling down. The incompetence in the CIA was unable to prevent the highly intelligent citizens of this country from determing that the wool indeed had been pulled over their eyes and that they now had a Manchurian candidate here whose sole purpose in life is to change this country into a communist nation and alas, had this not be caught by the highly astute and educated minds in our population – such as yourself, they would have finally been able to form a one world government complete with FEMA camps for the people they were unable to control.
It all makes sense to me.
just every news agency interested in a pulitzer.
actually, that should say “every news agency not interested in a pulitzer.”
Black Lion: Mario is a bottom of the food chain lawyer. He’s like that guy wrecking Lakin. Jensen’s specialty is dog bites; he’s waaay over his head.
I will keep repeating this. I got my number when attending school far from my parents home. The post office was convenient. If I had been visiting a friend and that post office were more convenient I would have gone then. I knew I would be working part time and needed a number. The importance of where never entered my mind. LIke most 19 year-olds I was often traveling, visiting or just not home.
Misha, Agreed. I just find Mario hilarious. He is so full of himself and his so called legal analysis…
Uh, no; the so-called national anti-incumbent attitude is a media creation. By and large, the anti-incumbent thing is internally confined to the Republican party and is about ideological purity/circular firing squad more than anything else.
I’m reminded of the Underpants Gnomes from South Park. They steal underpants from little children in the town. Here’s the powerpoint presentation they give:
Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit
BL – that Apuzzo article convinces me that he still hasn’t actually read any of the works he cites. He claims, once again, that Calvin’s Case is in accord with his view of Vattel, which is as wrong as one can get. Calvin’s Case is crystal clear that the children of aliens are natural born subjects:
Personally, I have always believed that Apuzzo’s targeted audience is not the Court (as would normally be the case) but his clients (known or unknown to us) whom he must impress with grandiloquent legal theories in order to bilk more money out of them.
I agree that his legal theories cannot be for a court. No lawyer would play as fast and loose with his bar card as completely misrepresenting this number of authorities to a court.
Greg, I would have to agree with you. When Mario used to have the guts to post here, you and the others would point out the flaws in his so called legal reasoning. And he would just still argue the same discredited point. I think deep down Marion knows none of this will ever see the inside of a court of law. So he can continue to make up legal arguments that don’t make sense or are not in line with judical opinion because all he has to do is con the birthers like the delusional Kerchner. We all know as long as there are fools willing to part with their money,. Mario and Kerchner will continue to put up the illusion of the good fight….
Doesn’t the fact that he blogs about his cases indicate that even he doesn’t take them seriously. I mean, do those of you who are attorneys blog about your cases while they still at least theoretically before the courts?
I have seen lawyers blog about current cases, but they stick to factual matters, like “we just filed this motion,” and sometimes paraphrasing arguments already made in motions.
Greg, kudos!
Yyou are definitely not alone on this. I use that Underpants Gnome analogy a lot too! More and more often, I come across others who are also using it.
So perfectly fitting for these times we are in and some of the inanity of ideas / solutions out there.
Excellent point!
I too think that deep down, he’s actually banking on the fact that his actual arguments will never see the light of day in a courtroom. Just like Manning’s “show trial”, Apuzzo’s entire efforts and act are just for show.
Attention whoring & stringing folks along for money are probably his primary motivations. Although I suspect he’s also personally driven by the same dark biases & prejudices that are really at the heart of most birthers motives.
I can’t see how anyone would pursue this as he has for just show & money on such a factually unsound cause, if they didn’t also share such bigotry-driven views.
You should remember that when Mario commented here, I did my best to get his goat – and I did.
I don’t know if anyone remembers, but Mario called me “a jerk and a fool.” I replied “that’s redundant,” which got him angrier.
Take a bow.
Ah, so it’s not just websites like this that are harmful to democracy, but the internet itself!
I think that if you pull the right string, you can get just about anybody (me included) angry. Well maybe not the Dali Lama.
Seems to me that Mario is testing his ‘arguments’, just in case he may get to have an oral hearing.
To me the whole thing looks more like a debate event where Mario was given the short end of the bargain and he is doing his ‘best’ to present the ‘best’ arguments.
Given the legal facts, this is an unremarkably tough proposition.
You can rest easy. Let me clear up some misconceptions about identity theft.
Let’s say that I learn your SSN and decide to steal your identity. If I were to start using your SSN, the last thing I would do is use it in conjunction with my name. The whole idea of identify theft is for me to pass myself off as you, not to pretend that your SSN is my SSN. So, if Obama had used multiple SSNs, they would not be associated with his name. There is no point in me using your SSN with my name, because it would be useless. If I tried to obtain credit with your SSN under my name, I would be rejected out of hand because a simple credit search would raise a red flag due to the report showing that two different people are using the same SSN.
If I were to try to steal your identity, I would use your SSN and your name but an address of my choosing. That way any credit card I applied for under your name and SSN would be sent to my address, and I would able to use it until the lender or you got wise to the fact that identity theft had occurred.
As for the claim that Obama’s SSN was issued to someone who was born in 1890, that is ludicrous on its face. It is possible to appropriate someone else’s SSN and use it as your own, but that works only for a limited amount of time. Eventually it comes to the attention of the Social Security Administration and the IRS – for example, when FICA contributions and Federal withholding taxes are submitted for that SSN but the name does not match the government’s records. If Obama’s SSN had actually been issued to someone who born in 1890, it would have come to the attention of the authorities decades ago.
It’s important to remember that LexisNexis is an aggregator of information, not an original source of information. Garbage in, garbage out. Any prankster can fill out a credit card application with Obama’s name, a fake SSN and a fake address and submit it. Somewhere a minimum wage data entry operator will put that information into a computer and eventually it finds its way into the databases of companies such as LexisNexis. Serious, experienced investigators know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Incompetent attorneys such as Orly Taitz believe that such unverified data is admissible evidence.
OMFGZ the internets is full of democracy threats!!! That’s why great “democracies” like China are censoring sites like google. That 4chan is really downright evil!
So if you don’t trust the democracy threatening internet why do you partake in threatening democracy every time you use it?
More Manning comedy from the Sonoran News….
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2010/100519/ftpgObamaTrial.html
“Entering Obama’s last name, the Connecticut-issued SSN and birth date of Aug. 4, 1961, I pulled up Obama’s Selective Service Number: 61-1125539-1, which inexplicably links Obama to the Connecticut-issued Social Security Number, which two private investigators have attested to being issued sometime between 1976 and 1977 to another person in Connecticut that was born in 1890.
One cannot obtain a Social Security Number for any state of their choosing – one must reside in that state, provide proof of citizenship, legal residency or work authorization in order to obtain a Social Security Number. There is no documented evidence Obama has ever lived in Connecticut and certainly not while attending high school in Hawaii.”.
“Although the natural born citizen clause has yet to be challenged in court, Obama sponsored a non-binding resolution declaring McCain a natural born citizen, and Judy believes not a single Republican objected to Obama’s candidacy because Obama sponsored a bill declaring McCain eligible. In other words, he said, the Republicans looked the other way because they “got their candidate.”
But it’s so “tubular”.
I saw their ad on Fox News Network yesterday.
Feel free to post some links to further information and I’ll work it into the article. My free time is limited.
Dr. C, as for Goldline, Here is link to Congressman Anthony D. Weiner’s report on Goldline
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_report.html
Goldline advertizes on Beck, Ingram, Savage, Limbaugh and Fox.
we should start selling bridges on these media spots, we could make a fortune.
I am no fan of Obama, but unfortunately I have an answer for how Obama would acquire a Conneticut SSN. If you are making first time application for a SSN and you reside overseas, you will get a SSN based on the Embassy mail drop zip code which is generally in your North Eastern states like NY, CT, and I think CA has some also. Of course it begs to ask why he never had one from Hawaii, this number was probably issued in conjunction with a passport to travel to the US when he left asia..
I had considered that possibility, but during the time period when the Social Security number was supposedly issued, Obama was not living overseas.
to heck with Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate. I want someone to find passport application record from when he left the USA and for his next child passport when he left indonesia.. did he have a birth certificate from Hawaii or a certificate of birth abroad as a supporting document?
yes, I know, that isn’t gonna happen.
I completely agree with you. I found a Kenya (Obama’s?) birth certificate that’s right here!
Good point!
“did he have a birth certificate from Hawaii or a certificate of birth abroad as a supporting document?”
“what passport was used to leave Indoenesia” answers that question, doen’t it.
Couldn’t get into Indonesia without a passport so why would he need to apply for one when he left?
I wouldn’t put too much stock into that number. I put in the first 5 digits of my social security number into a website: http://stevemorse.org/ssn/ssn.html, and it said that it was issued in 1988. I was born, and got it at the hospital in 1982, a full 6 years off.
Obama’s was alledgely issued in 1976-1977. If it’s the same amount of time off, that means that it could have been issued as soon as 1970, when Barack Obama was still in Indonesia.
Same story here. I tried entering mine — it was off by 5-6 years, on the early side. One of my kid’s SS # was off by a year on the late side.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam,
There would be no need for a 2nd passport application. A minor’s passport is good for 5 years, and Obama was in Indonesia for less than that time — so — applying common sense — he would have returned on the same passport that he used going out.
I’d note that once a person has a passport, there is no need to produce any sort of birth certificate — the previous passport suffices as proof.
That website has the correct year of issue for mine, as does this one.
http://www.ssnvalidator.com/
I don’t think it’s a very good idea to enter your full 9-digit social security number on an unsecured web site.
I read the article and the link, but it just says Obama Sr. went to school in CT. He didn’t. There’s no source listed nor any mention of Harvard. It looks like a reporting error. Obama Sr. attended Harvard in MA, graduated in 1965, and returned to Kenya. This article, puts Obama Sr. in Kenya from graduation to his decline and death. He did work for a US oil company in Kenya, then the Kenyan government, but he never lived in CT. In fact, after the assasination of Mboya in 1969, he was stripped of his passport.
However, Obama Jr’s mother did briefly live in New York . I can’t find dates for that, but many people who work in NY live in CT, as it’s a short commute by train.
Too bad, “Birthers”!!!
LOL!!!
Barack Obama is YOUR President!!!
Deal with it, you tea-bagging racists!!!
I don’t care if Barack isn’t a US citizen – He’s MY President!!!.and your’s!!!!
You need to support him!!!!!!!!!
“Conspiracism” – an ideological worldview that blames societal and individual problems on perceived conspiracies. Conspiracism takes the anger over unfairness and corruption in a society and shifts it away from actual systemic and institutional causes. Instead, conspiracism scapegoats the problems on alleged cabals of evil plotters. So citizens waste a lot of time chasing ghosts and shadows rather than organizing to fix what’s broken. –