Posted on 06/05/2013 8:35:15 AM PDT by rocco55
Letter submitted to Atty Sekulow via his Facebook site
Atty. Sekulow,
I have been a faithful ACLJ contributor for several years and, like many multiple thousands of God-fearing Americans, am extremely proud of the unprecedented progress you have achieved in exposing this formerly 'unquestionable, unapproachable and untouchable' organization !
I would like to suggest a matter for your consideration regarding your legal case against the IRS, namely our President's CT SS#. It is a FACT that Barack Obama has a CT SS#. It is also a fact that the role of the IRS is to review and oversee tax returns of ALL Americans and detect any noteworthy discrepancies in their individual and/or corporate filings.
Since the president has unequivocally claimed to have been born in the state of Hawaii, he would, by law, have a Hawaiian SS#. Additionally, because your lawsuit will focus on the competency of the IRS in fulfilling their major role of overseeing proper tax filing statuses and verifying the accuracy of submitted tax returns (which are "sworn" documents presented to the US government), it would appear to be a perfect opportunity to address this in a court of law. This case in point may serve to further support your cause in defending the rights of WE THE PEOPLE being targeted and mistreated while those in higher administrative positions are rewarded with executive clemency !
The IRS has intentionally utilized unprecedented bias and has gone to great lengths to illegally target conservative groups and has failed to address a most obvious and noteworthy question of our own leadership ! How could this be overlooked for OVER TEN YEARS by such a thorough organization ? Shouldn't the question of our president using a possible fraudulent SS# take precedence over the unlawful scrutiny of small conservative groups ?
Could there be a better example of " filtering out a gnat and GULPING down a camel." ?
GEAUX FOR IT, MR. JAY!
“Since the president has unequivocally claimed to have been born in the state of Hawaii, he would, by law, have a Hawaiian SS#. “
That actually not true. I was born in one State but have an SSN from another. Years back SSN were assigned before a person got their first job, so I got mine at 14.
If I remeber correctly, you didn’t have to get SSNs by a certain age back then though most got them around the time they started working for tax purposes. Now you can apply for one as soon as your baby is born. So it wasn’t “by law” that he had to get a SSN in the state of Hawaii back then. He could have gotten it in any state he lived in. I’m guessing someone with power and connections and access to the SSA got him the SSN while he was still overseas before he attended college where he would have definitely needed it. Something very strange about that though for sure.
^ on a side note, I know for a fact that the CIA creates false credit profiles for covers pretty often. Now didn’t 0’s Grandpa and Grandma have ties to the CIA?...: )
Same here. I was born in Illinois, but my Social Security Number was issued when I lived in Iowa where at the age of 14 I started working in 1976.
The problem with Obama's SSN though isn't just because it's from Connecticut. The problem is Obama never was in Connecticut growing up as a youth. His father also wasn't in CT at the time the SSN was issued.
That's the problem. How did Obama get a CT SSN in the first place?
According to the Obama nativity tale, his majesty’s first job was at a Baskin-Robbins in Honolulu. So, if that’s when he first became an Official US Taxpayer, his SSN would have been issued in Hawaii.
But, as you say, the law doesn’t say anything about when and where the SSN is acquired. It’s definitely not issued at birth, though that is recommended, as I recall.
BTW, I got my SSN when my parents opened a bank account in my name at the age of 10, or thereabouts.
” first job was at a Baskin-Robbins in Honolulu. So, if thats when he first became an Official US Taxpayer, his SSN would have been issued in Hawaii.”
He could have obtained one prior, but I think there are two issues that are of interest to me:
1. Someone once said that a naturalized citizen living in the northeast would receive their SSN through the SS office in Connecticut. That would lead me to believe he was naturalized.
OR
2. It seems his SSN is from a man that died in 1981. The SSS office does not re-issue the SSN that quickly to allow Zero to have it. Meaning; he found a dead guy and stole his SSN.
Yeah, either way, there’s a problem.
My SSN is a MO number not one from KS, the state of my birth.
Who is Harrison J. Bounel?
I hope Jay Sekulow keeps his eye on the ball and focuses on the IRS abuse of conservative groups. That issues needs to be rectified independently of Obama’s eligibility issues.
THe ACLJ doesn’t need any outside distractions.
I had to go to the SS office when I turned 16 and was going to work at that time....I don’t know when it was changed but now I think they are given at birth....
You are right. I was born in Arizona in 1957,but didn’t get my Social # till I was moved to New Jersey with some relatives. My aunt applied for my social in 1967. Issued from NJ.
“How did Obama get a CT SSN in the first place?”
If I may say so; I think it’s more to the point to ask how Obama got a CT SS# that is KNOWN to belong to ANOTHER PERSON!
You’re correct, I stand corrected! :-)
As best I know it changed sometime after 1976.
In order to take the "tax deduction" for children, they must have an SSN. I suspect the change was due to tax law, though I've tried some google searches and haven't found the specific date it changed...
I was born in Puerto Rico because my dad was in the Air Force there at the time of my birth. I have a West Virginia SSN, despite never living there, because I spent the summer with my grandma there and she took me and my bother to get a SSN at the local SS office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.