You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘President Elect Barack Obama’ tag.

Updated 5/7/12: Four years later, items like this are getting a bit more scrutiny:

Anyone who has a car knows that it has a 17 digit vehicle identification number, on the dashboard, the inside of the driver door, and then in numerous hidden places. This number tells everything you may want to know about the vehicle. For instance, the frst didgit or letter tells you where the car was manufactured ( 1= United States. 2= Canada, J= Japan, and so forth). The tenth digit will tell you what year it was maufactured (S= 1995, B= 1981, 1= 2001, 5= 2005, 9= 2009). Other places will say what color it is, or the engine type, etc.

Now, we all know that the important identification number to our “person” is our social security number. Just like the vehicle identification number, the social security number carries a wealth of information. Of primary importance here for discussion is the first five digits and what they represent. Basically, they indicate where and what time period the Social Security number was issued to the individual. For a basic review of the SSN: http://people.howstuffworks.com/social-security-number2.htm .

What do the numbers mean?

SSNs are not assigned consecutively; the first was not the lowest number, and the most recent is not the highest. They are assigned regionally and in batches.The nine-digit SSN, which has been issued in more than 400 million different sequences, is divided into three parts: area numbers, group numbers and serial numbers.


<!– Photo courtesy
–>The numbers on your Social Security card actually mean something!
  • Area numbers – The first three numbers originally represented the state in which a person first applied for a Social Security card. Numbers started in the northeast and moved westward. This meant that people on the east coast had the lowest numbers and those on the west coast had the highest. Since 1972, the SSA has assigned numbers and issued cards based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the original application form. Since the applicant’s mailing address doesn’t have to be the same as his residence, his area number doesn’t necessarily represent the state in which he resides. For many of us who received our SSNs as infants, the area number indicates the state we were born in. You can find out which area numbers go with each state at SSA.gov: Social Security Number Allocations.
  • Group numbers – These two middle digits, which range from 01 through 99, are simply used to break all the SSNs with the same area number into smaller blocks, which makes administration easier. (The SSA says that, for administrative reasons, group numbers issued first consist of the odd numbers from 01 through 09, and then even numbers from 10 through 98, within each area number assigned to a state. After all the numbers in group 98 of a specific area have been issued, the even groups 02 through 08 are used, followed by odd groups 11 through 99.)
  • Serial numbers – Within each group designation, serial numbers — the last four digits in an SSN — run consecutively from 0001 through 9999.

Although SSNs are issued in some order, there is no simple way to tell a person’s age based on his Social Security number.

**************************************************************
So, taking that into account, use thie following link to quickly decode part of your Social Security Number:
Did you try it? Is it accurate as to about where and when your SSN was issued? I did mine, the children, my mother’s , and my wife’s….. all are accurate as to where and when they were issued.
Do you want to try a little further? Stanley Ann Dunham’s SSN begins 535-40.  Here is her SSN application. http://webofdeception.com/obamamother’sssapplication.html   Did you get Washington State 1959-1960 as the result?
OK…….. let’s check out President Elect Barack H. Obama II. According to several sites, his SSN begins 042-68-xxxx.
If you tried it, is this the result you got:    042-68: Connecticut, 1976-1977    ??
Any thoughts? Haven’t seen Connecticut as a part of the Obama biography.
Here is the public record where Obama’s SSN was located:
Name – OBAMA, BARACK
Gender – Male
Street Address – 5046 S GREENWOOD AVE
City, State, Zip – CHICAGO IL 60615-2806
Probable Current Address – Yes
Telephone –
Telephone Accountholder –
Social Security – 042-68-xxxx
Age –
Date of Birth –
Deceased – No
Date Record Verified – Jun 05 – Nov 05

Advertisements

     This is a very simple thread, and it is based on the comments I have read in other places that “it doesn’t matter if Obama was born elsewhere, or is otherwise not eligible”. My question is: Does it matter if Obama is not eligible to be the President of the United States? Why or Why Not??

     In his farewell address to the United States, President George W. Bush acknowledged that he has faced many challenges in his Presidency, and has faced tough decisions. Whether we liked his decisions, we can take pride in the fact that he was willing to make the tough decisions.

     In a reflective tone, he recalled September 11th, 2001, and the way the American public showed its resilliency. He said that there were things he would do differently if he had the chance (but then wouldn’t we all).

    He closed with saying that the title that he will cherish most is that he is a Citizen of the United States.

    One thing that I took from tonight’s speech, and his interview with Greta Van Susteren after the commissioning of the USS George HW Bush, with both he and President Clinton being “youthful” former Presidents (both are 62) and looking at President Bush 41 and President Carter (both at 85), we can look forward to many years of continued service to our country. President Bush said that he has spoken at length with President Clinton, and both men are committed to many objectives that are not Republican or Democrat in nature, but American!

George and Laura Bush: True American Patriots

Related article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/executivebranch/2009/01/15/bushs-legacy/

     In its editorial pages today, the New York Times is showing that the Obama-media honeymoon and love affair may be shorter than had been expected. 

     Responding to the failure to pay self employment taxes for a four year period by Treasury Secretary designate Timothy Geithner, the New York Times wrote:

 January 15, 2009

Editorial

More Questions for Mr. Geithner

 

President-elect Barack Obama’s team reacted predictably to the disclosure that Timothy Geithner, the nominee for Treasury secretary, failed to pay a chunk of his federal taxes over several recent years. The script gets played out, with slight variations, whenever a presidential nominee gets in that kind of trouble.

On Tuesday, when Mr. Geithner’s failures were first reported by The Wall Street Journal, the Obama transition office issued a statement calling his underpayment of taxes “honest mistakes.” On Wednesday, Mr. Obama himself said it was “innocent.” Those themes have been echoed by several of the senators who will conduct Mr. Geithner’s confirmation hearing, which is now scheduled for next Wednesday.

As much as Mr. Obama and his team may wish it, however, the disclosures cannot be dismissed so easily, or papered over. The just-the-facts report of Mr. Geithner’s tax transgressions, compiled and released by the Senate Finance Committee, paints a picture of noncompliance that is considerably more disturbing than his supporters are acknowledging.

Mr. Geithner must be questioned forcefully about these matters at the hearing next week, and his explanations must be credible. Even in the best of economic times, it would be hard to accept a Treasury secretary — who, after all, is in charge of the Internal Revenue Service — with a cavalier attitude toward paying his taxes. Today, in a time of economic peril, the nation cannot afford a Treasury secretary with a tainted ability to command respect and instill confidence.

According to the report, when Mr. Geithner’s tax returns for 2003 and 2004 were audited by the I.R.S. in 2006, the auditors found that he had failed to pay self-employment tax in those years. To make good, he paid the back taxes, plus interest — $16,732.

Obama officials say Mr. Geithner, who worked for the International Monetary Fund, had made a common error among international employees in Washington. But as The Journal reported on Wednesday, failing to pay the self-employment tax is not necessarily common among sophisticated I.M.F employees. Rather, one of the reasons such noncompliance is widespread is that it includes household embassy workers and other lower- level contractors. And regardless, the Finance Committee found that Mr. Geithner had signed paperwork at the I.M.F. that acknowledged his self-employment tax obligation.

The story does not stop there. Mr. Geithner also failed to pay the self-employment tax in 2001 and 2002. Those returns, which the report says Mr. Geithner prepared himself, were not audited and so the I.R.S. did not order him to pay up — which raises the question of why he did not voluntarily amend those returns and pay the taxes and interest at the time of the 2006 audit. Instead, he waited until after vetting by the Obama team late last year revealed the shortfall — $19,176 in taxes and $6,794 in interest.

A similar lapse occurred on another tax issue. On returns for 2001, 2004 and 2005, Mr. Geithner wrongly claimed expenses for sleepaway camps in calculating his dependent care tax credit. The accountant who prepared his 2006 return informed him that payments to overnight camps were not allowable expenses, but again, he did not file amended returns for the previous years at that time. The report does not break out the taxes and interest on that item alone, but along with other adjustments, Mr. Geithner owed an additional tax of $4,334 and interest of $1,232.

Many people find taxes baffling, but before his job at the I.M.F, Mr. Geithner was a senior official in the Treasury Department under President Clinton, and for the past five years he has been the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. With that professional profile, tax transgressions are tough to excuse.

****************

     It is protocol in the days leading up to the Inauguration for the President Elect and the Vice-President Elect to call upon the Justices of the United States Supreme Court. But how many of our prior President-Elects had cases pending before the Court where the President Elect is a named Defendant.

     On January 14th, without the presence of media, the Chief Justice and the eight Associate Justices met behind closed doors with Barack Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) and Joseph Biden, both of whom are named Defendants in multiple lawsuits throughout the country, which are challenging the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama’s Presidency. In so meeting with a named Defendant, were legal professional responsibility rules violated.

     From the American bar Association’s Code of Judicial Conduct (2007):

 

 

CANON 1

A

 

JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTERGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY, AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY

 http://www.abanet.org/judicialethics/ABA_MCJC_approved.pdf

     While the meeting in and of itself may not have been improper, the appearance of impartiality and of avoidance of impropriety are tantamount. With the number of cases pending, the proper protocol would have been for the Supreme Court AND the President Elect to have acknowledged that this meeting would be improper and it should have been cancelled. There are, after all, conference discussion scheduled on Obama citizenship cases tomorrow (01/16) and on January 23rd.

     Just makes the cases all the more interesting and dynamic!

 

 

………………………..

     The positions stated by Dr. Keyes are hard to rebut:

     She has been the First Lady of the State of Arkansas, then she was the First Lady of our great country. In 2000, she made history by being elected to the New York Senate, a first for a First Lady.

    Today, former First Lady, turned NY Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made history again, being confirmed as the Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. The Co-Presidency has been established…… this truly is historic.

     From the moment that President Elect Barack Obama announced his appointment of Eric Holder to be Attorney General, there has been a flurry of dissent about the former Clinton appointee, and the controversies that have dogged him since the Clinton administration. As his confirmation hearings begin today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his confirmation may not be off track completely, but the Republicans, and some Democrats, are not going to give Holder an easy ride through the process.

     Holder’s involvement in key problems in the Attorney General’s office during the Clinton era include:

  • The controversial pardon of fugitive financier Mark Rich, and questionable contributions from Rich’s ex-wife.
  • The pardons of the FLNA and some of the Weather Underground (the same group that Bill Ayers was involved with)
  • the decision to seize 6-year old Cuban refugee Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint from his uncle’s Miami home to return him to his father in Cuba
  • ties to embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich

     Judicial Watch has actively campaigned against the confirmation of Eric Holder, contacting the Senators, and taking out a full page advertisement to urge the same.

     In his opening remarks, Eric Holder used the story of Governor George Wallace’s refusal to permit Holder’s late sister-in-law admittance to college in Alabama during the civil rights movement, and then her actual admission to the University of Alabama. (If we are to rejoice in the election of Obama as a biracial President, is it not time that we cease using past history that will continue to create racial division). As the statements and the questioning has started, Holder has acknowledged some of his Clinton actions as possible mistakes, and he has also defined waterboarding as torture. (The Obama administration needs to tread lightly in that area, because our national security can be undermined with the utterance of a few misguided words).

      Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the committee, criticized both Holder and Sen. Leahy in his opening remarks, and basically guaranteed that this process was not going to be an easy one. Quipped one member of the Obama transition team “Hope you brought your dinner!!”

Related stories:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011403112.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/jan/judicial-watch-urges-judiciary-committee-reject-holder-appointment

     The historians are already beginning to judge the full extent of the Presidency of George W. Bush, although the true test of his Presidency will be revealed as the future before us unfolds. On one point, though, most can already agree on what the longest lasting Bush legacy will be: the appointment of conservative leadership to the bench of our high court, the United States Supreme Court.

    The appointments of the strong conservatives Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts filled two positions on the Supreme Court with two jurists who are young, in comparison to some of the others on the bench, and whose years of service ahead on the bench will truly test their conservative values. Although the Court rules by majority, even if an Obama administration were to get the opportunity to fill several seats on the Court, the role of the Chief Justice will remain with John Roberts. All but two of the Justices, Justice Ginsberg and Justice Souter, were appointed under Republican administrations. Justice Stevens, at 88, will most likely be Barack Obama’s first opportunity to make an appointment to the Supreme Court.

Side Note: As of today, January 14, 2009, President George W. Bush, has kept Americans safe for 2689 days since the attack on our soil!

     The Office of the President Elect released a “historic” item today: the Official Portrait of Barack H. Obama II.

Officialportraitthumb_2

     What makes this portrait any more historic than George W. Bush’s portrait, or Lyndon Johnson’s? This is the first one taken with a digital camera. It will be interesting to keep this portrait handy to watch how quickly the President Elect starts a rapid aging. After all, it appears that he’s already graying a bit more quickly since the election!!

Advertisements