It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Today's Chicago Tribune (June 16th) has a huge picture of Obama telling us to have 'responsible- fathers. What about responsible mothers? Dropped into the Tribune story is this gem: '[Obama] noted that, without support from his father (who was in Kenya siring more children and drinking up good whiskey) he and his mother at times turned to food stamps to make ends meet.-
Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by americandingbat
Actually, it gets more interesting. SS#s were required for welfare & for claiming children as a dependent on tax returns. Obama's mother was on welfare.
Social Services Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-647) provided that:
* disclosure of an individual's SSN is a condition of eligibility for AFDC benefits; and
* Office of Child Support enforcement Parent Locator Service may require disclosure of limited information (including SSN and whereabouts) contained in SSA records.
According to Susan Daniels, of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc. in Chardon Ohio, when searching through database aggregators such as IRB, it is common to find a subject referenced with two or three Social Security Numbers (SSN). Here are some of the reasons a person may show-up with multiple SSN’s:
•a wife’s or child’s SSN could end up with father’s name
•a parent’s SSN could show up with a child
•the subject bought something with someone else and the SSNs could end up with each other’s name
•the database producer is relating several SSN’s to one address
•an error by whoever entered the data
Susan Daniels of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc. (9754 Thwing Road Chardon, OH 44024, Tel.:440.286.4072) has been a Private Investigator for 15 years.
Provisions of the Act
The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620, now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. The act also gave money to states to provide assistance to aged individuals (Title I), for unemployment insurance (Title III), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Title IV), Maternal and Child Welfare (Title V), public health services (Title VI), and the blind (Title X).[10]
Originally posted by lpowell0627
I don't deny this as a possibility, nor am I a "Birther" or whatever. But don't you have to admit at some point that there are sure a whole lot of things that need explaining from his life?
These are all unproven assertions made by irrational thinkers to create doubt in perfectly normal happenstances. They are the fruit from the seeds of innuendo, supposition and hearsay.
Reporters wrote things "wrong". Michelle "misspoke", Google has a "glitch", student loans can't be "found", a long-form birth certificate is not "necessary", college records "sealed", questionable SS# possibly due to a "glitch", etc.
You are posing that to the wrong person as my life has been punctuated with severe swings of mediocrity and high status, extreme joy offset by bitter tragedy, near death experiences followed by recovery that some would consider "miracles" and the realization that no one or no thing is perfect. Every living creature has strengths and weaknesses, virtues and vulnerabilities. My life is a constant roller coaster. I don't do normal.
Ask yourself this: How many things from your life, significant things, have gotten completely screwed up and/or fabricated? One, maybe two?
Then I suggest you've experienced a rather dull life. Ever hear "truth is stranger than fiction?"
It's just odd, and that's my official position, that SO many oddities can happen to one person that just so happens to be the President of the United States and arguably one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, man in the world.
A long list of unfounded and thus far unproven allegations perhaps, "mistakes" not so much. I'd call it life or experiences.
Again, it's a continuing battle to have to chalk all of this up to an apparently large list of mistake makers that Obama has met. Not to mention that these same mistake makers have managed to follow him from Hawaii, to Indonesia, to Kenya, to Chicago, to Washington D.C., and now Connecticut.
Yes, if you seek to find fault in things, you will discover flaws. As mentioned, nothing is without fault or failure and nothing mortal is perfect.
Can this all be nothing more than a whole bunch of innocent errors that have accumulated throughout his 50 years?
Those who seek perfection will always be disappointed. He is not perfect but is no klutz.
I suppose, but then I'm not sure I want a man quite this "mistake prone" being President either.
Originally posted by jibeho
Quit your crying and just hit the alert button if are you are feeling so downtrodden and befouled. Meanwhile, take a blow on my hankie.
Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by americandingbat
According to this, welfare was included in the original Social Security Act as it was originally designed to use numbers [SS#] to track individuals participating in social services from the government, which included welfare.
Originally posted by lpowell0627
The question is: Why does Obama have a CT SS#?
Originally posted by kinda kurious
Originally posted by lpowell0627
The question is: Why does Obama have a CT SS#?
For the sake of clarity, could you please provide a link to ANY credible site OTHER than a right wing neocon smear blog the proves President Obama has a Connecticut SSN#?
I am beginning to think this whole fiasco is another straw man argument.
(Do you still beat your wife?)
Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by americandingbat
There is more than sufficent evidence it is the number he is using.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The Selective Service site is overloaded however.
Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by maybereal11
Yes, but as soon as you compare SS# to prior known address, it takes the number down quite a bit.
What are the odds of a person living at the same exact address as another person with the exact same name moving into the same exact address?
That narrows it down even more. But without those filters, I agree completely with what you are saying.
Originally posted by lpowell0627
Tread lightly friend. I respond to all posts on a pretty even level and I never participate in childish attacks. Beating one's wife or not beating one's wife has little to do with SS#s I would think.
Loaded question is an informal fallacy.[1] It is committed when someone asks a question that:
presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved (a complex question) and
contains controversial assertions and/or loaded language.
An example of this is the question "Do you still beat your wife/husband?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he or she will admit to having a spouse, and having beaten them at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question....
Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by americandingbat
There is more than sufficent evidence it is the number he is using.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The Selective Service site is overloaded however.