Are you a “BIRTHER” or a “MARK”.
In the old neighborhood we would get a empty Sony TV box, glue cement blocks or bricks in it, reseal it and sell it on the street for $100.00 with the story that it was a $600.00 Sony TV that fell off a FedEx truck. Anyone that bought it without opening it was labeled a “Mark” A Bernie Madoff client, a Schmuck.
The ones that wanted to see what’s in the box before they bought it, today would be labeled a “Birther”
Are you a “BIRTHER” or a “MARK”. Do you believe Obama was born in Kapi’olani hospital? If you do I have a bridge I would like to sell you. It goes from Brooklyn to Manhattan, ready for a toll booth to be installed.
A “Mark” BELIEVED BILL CLINTON WHEN HE SAID: “I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN” Then they found the stained dress. He lied and they became a “Birther”.
A “Mark” BELIEVED JOHN EDWARDS WHEN HE SAID: “THAT’S NOT MY BABY” Then the Enquirer exposed him. He lied and they became a “Birther”.
A “Mark” BELIEVED WILLIAM “FREEZER” JEFFERSON WHEN HE SAID: “I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT CASH GOT IN MY FREEZER” Then they threw him in the slammer and they knew he lied and they became a “Birther”.
A “Mark” BELIEVED LINDA LINGEL WHEN SHE SAID: "So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this."
Then they learned she lied, Fukino's statement never identified Kapiolani as Obama's birthplace and they became a “Birther”.
Fukino said, "[I have]...personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record...,"
Beyond the lie, if Lingle disclosed Obama's birth hospital without his permission, she has committed a misdemeanor. If Obama gave permission for this public disclosure, then Hawaii no longer has a basis for maintaining the privacy of Obama's birth records.
Welcome to the new members of the growing army of “BIRTHERS”
Chris Mathews, Rush Limbaugh, Hawaii Governor Abercrombie Senator Will Espero and Hawaii Legislators; Rida Cabanilla, Jerry Chang, Joey Manahan, John Mizuno and Calvin Say to name a few.
Proud to be a “Birther”
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Barack Hussein Obama social security numbers
It has been reported that Barack Hussein Obama has used various social security numbers. These have been derived from national databases. Most of the ones reported are most likely erroneous information. However, there is one that stands out. It is the number 042-68-4425 that was issued out of the state of Connecticut. It is this number that he has fraudulently used ( and possibly still using ) and is thus guilty of multiple felonies.
The following pictures show the result of a Freedom of Information request of Barack Hussein Obama's Selective Service registration.The main thing to notice from this is the Selective Service number he was issued : 61-1125539-1.
Now, by going on the Selective Service page and doing a search on :
Last Name: Obama
Social Security number: 042-68-4425,
Birth Date August 4, 1961,
you get this resulting record.
The record corresponds to the Selective Service registration number 61-1125539-1 , the one issued to Barack Obama as shown per the FOIA request. This is 100 % verifiable proof that an official government record exists in the name of Barack Obama, using the social security number 042-68-4425 . You can do the search yourself ( you may get the message that the record has been accessed too many times, but through persistence you will get the record - go on at different times during the day ( if you try between 12 AM and 3AM EST you may get it just as they reset the count. They don't indicate how many times the record can be viewed, so it may take some time to get it. It took me about a week of trying).
As you may well know, social security numbers are issued to a person corresponding to the state where said person was residing when the number was applied for. Also, the first 3 digits of the number indicate which state that is. The 042 number, the one Barack Obama used in his Selective Service application, indicates the number was issued from Connecticut.
This begs the question. How can someone who has never resided in the state of Connecticut ( especially before the age of 18 ) get a social security number issued from that state ? The answer is - he couldn't. Thus, this is an illegal use of a social security number - a felony. Also by use of this number in applying for selective service, he has committed another felony punishable by $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison. Another question is also posed by this. Why use a fraudulent number when it would be very easy to get a legitimate one issued ? Who is this man ?
******************* NOTE *******************
On Social Security's website , they have this statement :
Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.
But if you read this closely, it is nothing but double-speak. Of course it is not designed for geographical information, but it was used to designate the region it came from.
From the paragraph preceding that statement on their site : The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.
Broken down says this :
Prior to 1972, the area number represented the state in which the card was issued. The applicant did not have to live there. However, the applicant had to apply at that local office in the state where the card was issued. If you needed a social security number to apply for a passport back in 1967 ( when he moved to Indonesia ), then this is the only way he could have had one issued.
After 1972, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. Thus he would have had to have a legal mailing address in Conn.
So, in order to get a number issued from Conn., he either had to have been in Conn. prior to 1972, or had a legal mailing address in Conn after 1972 ( but before he was 18 since that is when he used the number ). If he applied after 1972, the only way he could get a number issued out of Conn was to use a mailing address in Conn. But why do that when you live in Hawaii ? Why not just have the card sent to your residence ?
As a side note, in his "autobiography " he mentions the first time he visited the mainland was in 1972 ( but he also says he remembers watching the Watergate hearings on TV in his hotel in Chicago- those didn't occur until Spring 1973 ). He mentions every place they visited. Not once was Conn. mentioned. The next time he set foot on the mainland was when he attended college in California.
It seems the number was issued sometime between 1976 and 1977. Therefore, the only way he could have that number issued was if he had a mailing address in Conn. Now a little common sense has to be used here. Say you are a 16 year old looking to get his first job. Do you
(a) Go to the nearest Social Security office and fill out the form in order to get the card as fast as possible so you can get that summer job as fast as possible; or
(b) (1) Have someone on the mainland fill out the card for you
(2) Once filled out, they have to mail it back to you for your signature
(3) You then send it back to them with your birth certificate (that is needed in applying for a social security number )
(4) He then files the form, but instead of putting your address on it as the mailing address so that the card is sent directly to you, a Conn. mailing address is put on the application
(5) The card is sent to the mailing address in Conn and is then sent on to you in Hawaii.
I ask you, if this number were obtained through legitimate means, which is the more likely scenario a 16 year old boy would use - (a) or (b). Obviously it would have been (a). This would have resulted in a number issued from Hawaii - not Conn. Thus by plain common sense, it shows this number was not obtained legitimately.