[PA Engineer]

The only difference is that my theory actually fits the facts, whereas yours does not.

What theory? Fact. He had a Connecticut SS#. Worse. He had a dead man's social security number! You are holding onto a conclusion in search of pixie dust facts to support it. Deal with it rather than trying to explain away the obvious.

HE HAD A DEAD MAN'S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.

There was no agency screw up there. There is no reach up the butt theory of plausible deniability either. Move along.

[curiosity]

What theory?

The birther theory that his SSN is fradulant.

Fact. He had a Connecticut SS#.

Yes. That's a fact. So?

Worse. He had a dead man's social security number!

I doubt that very much. Prove it.

[Mr.Unique]

He had a dead man's social security number!

I missed that claim. Can you direct me to it?

[bgill]

HE HAD A DEAD MAN'S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.

I suspect if one could look through the Honolulu obits from that time that one would find a certain old single/widowed Connecticut man with few close relatives. I also suspect he had business with a certain Honolulu bank and it's vice president.

[danamco]

Check out her profile page and you will notice she has a Soetoro agenda. Aka FINO spammer. ‘Nuf said!!!

[MayflowerMadam]

“HE HAD A DEAD MAN’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.”

Yup. In every true crime story I’ve heard or read, the first thing a criminal does when he wants to change his identity is find records for a dead guy, and base the new identity on that data. Makes perfect sense Obama would do the same if wanting to hide his true history.

(Those dead folk do come in handy for democrats in so many ways, yeah?)