Jueves, 23 de junio de 2011

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Snopes.com Provides Misleading and Incomplete Information About Obama?s Social Security Number and Incorrect Information About Whether He Is a ?Natural Born Citizen?

Snopes.com Provides Misleading and Incomplete Information About Obama?s Social Security Number and Incorrect Information About Whether He Is a ?Natural Born Citizen?

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? June 22, 2011

Snopes.com has recently published an article in which it says it has debunked the claim that putative President Barack Obama Social Security number of 042 xx-xxxx is false. The article also proclaims that Obama is a ?natural born Citizen.? The article may be read at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp. There are various problems with Snopes? analysis of the claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number and with its conclusion that Obama is an Article II ?natural born Citizen:?

I. Snopes only addresses the on-line created story of French immigrant, Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890 and died in Honolulu in 1981. Snopes tells us that Mr. Ludwig's number was 045-26-8722 which is different from Obama's 042-xx-xxxx. How nice for someone to feed false stories into the "news" and then have Snopes debunk them.

II. Snopes does not address the question of whose Social Security number is Obama using. That he is using someone else's Social Security number has been well analyzed by private investigators Neil Sanky and Susan Daniels. For a thorough explanation on Obama using a false Connecticut Social Security number, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZlaIS5o9Vs?in which Ms. Daniels explains that the Connecticut SS number belonged to a person born in 1890 whom she has not yet been able to identify. She also debunks the Jean Paul Ludwig theory. Ms. Daniels explains that the first three digits of the number were based on the location from where someone applied for the Social Security number. She clearly explains that it has nothing to do with one?s place of birth. She also explains that there is no evidence that Obama ever lived in Connecticut and that there is no other explanation that she has found showing why or how a 15-year-old Obama living in Hawaii would have applied for the Social Security number while using a Connecticut address on the application for that number. See also Ms. Daniels and Mr. Sanky?s response to this Snopes article at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/06/private-investigators-respond-to-snopes.html.

In her video presentation and response, Ms. Daniels explains that based on the record, Obama would have had to obtained that false number in March or April 1977, when he was 15 years old. She arrives at that conclusion because the Social Security number that precedes his by one number was issued on March 21, 1977. She states: ?Obama allegedly got his CT number of 042-68-4425 in March ?77, which can be proven since the person before him -4424 and after him -4429 both got theirs then.? But we should ask ourselves, what is a 15-year-old teenager going to high school in Hawaii in the Spring of 1977 doing obtaining a false Social Security number? Something just does not make sense.

Ms. Daniels explains how she found Obama?s Selective Service registration record which also contains the same Connecticut Social Security number. She believes that the Selective Service registration was fraudulently done in 2008. She explains how someone floated in the public domain a letter allegedly from the Selective Service office in which it acknowledges Obama?s having applied and obtained the registration number in 1980. The problem that she identifies is that the government form which is the acknowledgement itself shows in small print at the bottom that it was not printed until 2007. Hence, the Selective Service letter, along with the Social Security number and Selective Service registration, is fraudulent also.

What is also telling is that Ms. Daniels was not able to find any indication that Obama used his Connecticut Social Security number prior to the appearance of the number on his September 4, 1980 Selective Service registration. Other than this Selective Service registration, the first time Daniels could find Obama using the Connecticut ?042″ number was in 1986 in Chicago. This is very odd given that Obama has stated that he did have employment when he was young. It is reported by PolitiFact.com that Obama?s first job was at a Baskin Robbins in Honolulu and it also provides a complete list of all of Obama?s employments. Here is the entry: ?1975 or 1976 ? ice cream scooper, Baskin-Robbins ? Honolulu ? Obama claims to have lost his taste for ice cream during this, his first job, the duration of which is not publicly known.? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/15/joe-scarborough/heres-scoop-obama-has-worked-ice-cream-business-am/?;?http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2007/01/16/ten-things-you-didnt-know-about-barack-obama?(this January 16, 2007 article reports: ?He [Obama] says he hasn't liked ice cream since working at Baskin-Robbins as a teenager?); http://letustalk.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/obama-summer-jobs-used-to-work-at-baskin-robbins/?(this July 20, 2008 article states that Obama was in high school when he had his Baskin Robbins job). ?The workers and manager at the ice cream shop confirmed that Mr. Obama worked there. Unfortunately, no one remembers him because back then they weren't there.? http://www.bluemaumau.org/6621/presidentelect_barack_obamas_first_job?(this December 31, 2008 article implies that Obama first worked there in 1979). What is odd is that while there might be a record of him working there, no actual person has stepped forward to say that he or she actually remembers Obama working there.

On another note, since the Baskin and Robbins workers and managers were able to confirm that Obama worked there, the records that they looked at should also reveal what Social Security number Obama used back then. Snopes should investigate that matter and report back to all of us.

While Snopes is in the investigative mood, it should also find Obama?s first passport and tell us the date of issue and what Social Security number he used on his passport application. Snopes should also find some of Obama?s early school records and tell us which records first show a Social Security number for Obama and what that number is. If Snopes really wants to debunk the claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number, one would think that it, with its vast debunking resources, would take these steps and report back to all of us with its findings.

Ms. Daniels also tells us that Weather Underground member, Bill Ayers, in one of his books brags about how he could easily obtain false Social Security numbers. Jack Cashill writes in World Net Daily: ?Bill Ayers, terrorist and Obama close friend, of his years in the Weather Underground writes: ?We invented all kinds of ways to obtain false identity papers, and got busy building multiple sets of ID for each of us and for every contingency. . . . We soon figured out that the deepest and most foolproof ID had a government-issued Social Security card at its heart.?? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=275861.

We know of the relationship between Ayers and Obama. According to Jack Cashill, there is a strong probability that Ayers even wrote Dreams from My Father. http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/did_bill_ayers_write_1.htm; http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Decons. Ms. Daniels believes that we can probably look to Ayers as the person who helped Obama get his false Social Security number.

III. Snopes? explanation (relying on Wikipedia) regarding the use of 042 and the claim that the number is "reserved for Connecticut residents" which Obama never was, also does not solve anything. Snopes concedes that before 1973 the first three numbers given to a Social Security number designated the location of the Social Security Office which issued the original Social Security card. It also explains that since 1973 (when all cards began to be issued from one central location in Baltimore), that number "'has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card'" (quoting Wikipedia). It explains that a mailing address does not equate to someone's place of birth or even place of residence. But Snopes provides no explanation how Obama ended up with the Connecticut 042 number, regardless of whether he obtained his number either before or after 1973. Why does Snopes not produce evidence that Obama's original application shows that he provided a mailing address with a zip code that would generate the 042 assignment?

I do not see what the big mystery is. But then with Obama it is par for the course. Orly Taitz has asked the Social Security Administration through the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of Obama's Social Security application documents. The documents, assuming they are real, can easily debunk any claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number. But, Obama, in his Obamaesque style, has not voluntarily provided a copy of those documents. I submit to Snopes that it would better spend its time investigating that and pressing Obama for a copy of those documents so that it can really debunk the claim that Obama is using a false Social Security number.

IV. Finally, we come to Snopes' most incorrect statement. It says that since Obama is a "natural born Citizen," his grandmother would have no reason to appropriate someone else's Social Security number.

First, the veracity of the claim that Obama is using a fake Social Security number does not depend on proving that his grandmother appropriated it.

Second, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, provides: ?No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.? Under this eligibility clause, I have argued since December 2008 that one must show that he or she is not only a ?citizen? of the United States to be eligible to be President, but also a ?natural born Citizen? of the United States. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html. I also made this argument in the case of Kerchner v. Obama/Congress. The case was first hear in the New Jersey Federal District Court and reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F.Supp.2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009). Never reaching the merits of the questions of whether Obama conclusively proved that he was born in Hawaii or that he meets the constitutional definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen, the District Court dismissed the case because of standing and political question. I appealed the case to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decision is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010). The Third Circuit, also not reaching the merits of the case, affirmed the lower court, saying the plaintiffs did not have Article III standing. Probably the most important statement that any court made in all the Obama cases is that made by the Circuit Court in footnote 4 of its decision where it stated: ?We need not discuss Appellants? contention that ?the original common law definition of an Article II ?natural born Citizen? . . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father? . . . . That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office, which we cannot address unless Appellants first establish Article III standing.? I then filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari which the Court, again not reaching the merits, denied. The U.S. Supreme Court denial of the petition is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010). In short, no court ever decided the merits of the Kerchner case in which I argued that Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii and that even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" because when he was born he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father, hence not meeting the original common law definition of an Article II ?natural born Citizen? which is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father. In my briefs to the courts, I cited all the pertinent U.S. Supreme Court case law, Emer de Vattel, and many other historical sources which you will also find discussed by me in my many essays on "natural born Citizen" on this blog. No court has yet reached the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II ?natural born Citizen.? Obama must therefore make that showing and Congress and each individual State should compel him to do so.

The text of the Constitution, common law history, legislative history, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent show that an Article II ?natural born Citizen? is a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to citizen parents. Let us analyze how I come to this conclusion......



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:03
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar