Secret Service Special Agent: Why Is Obama Using Connecticut Social Security Number?
The birthers press on
Peter Lemiska @ Renew America
Since all of the countless lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility have been rebuffed by the courts, the birthers have set out on a new strategy. Arguing that Obama used fraudulent documents to establish his eligibility for the presidency in 2008, they are attempting to exclude his name from state election ballots for 2012.
Last Friday, Dr. Orly Taitz, a controversial attorney leading the charge in this effort, appeared before the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission to argue her case. The predictable decision came immediately. BLC Chairman, Brad Cook, proclaimed that "Our jurisdiction is to decide if a candidate on the ballot has properly filed and has been properly placed on the ballot." Case closed, Obama's name remains on the ballot. With all due respect to New Hampshire's BLC, we have to wonder if the state really needs an entire commission just to determine if a ballot was properly filed. Shouldn't it have the additional responsible of verifying the eligibility of a candidate, especially when serious questions are raised about possible fraud? At the very least, shouldn't the Attorney General or some law enforcement agency be tasked to investigate the charges?
And there certainly are legitimate questions that would be investigated if the accused were anyone but the President. Why, as Taitz and others have reported, has Barack H. Obama apparently used a Connecticut-issued Social Security number, if he has never had ties to that state? Why are there several other Social Security numbers associated with his name? Why has Obama fought so strenuously to conceal the original birth certificate, only to suddenly produce the document — a document of questionable veracity?
Critics of the birthers love to ridicule them as conspiracy nuts. While a few of them may be absolutely convinced that Barack Obama was born in a remote Kenyan village, many bright, honorable and reputable people do share with them serious questions about Obama's birth certificate, and his murky background.
At the other end of the spectrum are those who instinctively reject even the most compelling evidence of any scandal that might hurt Obama's presidency. To cling to their unshakable belief, they also have to reject some well-established facts. Document fraud and identity theft are real problems in this country. The Center for Immigration Studies suggests that as many as 75% of working age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment. Those fierce Obama loyalists dismiss even the suggestion that Obama's birth certificate may have been altered. When they cannot explain away any supporting evidence, they resort to ridicule. But it's not just a matter of defending their belief system. The whole issue of constitutional eligibility is simply inconsequential to them.
Yet for others, the questions remain.
Considering the availability of high-quality forged documents, is it at least possible that Obama's birth certificate could have been altered? In view of the absence of verification procedures by the various election committees, is it possible that candidate Obama was not properly vetted in 2008? And considering the power of the president, and his doting press, would it not be possible to conceal from the American people any skeletons that might be rattling in Obama's closet?
CONTINUED HERE: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/lemiska/111123
Peter Lemiska is a freelance writer and former Senior Special Agent of the U.S. Secret Service. He has a BA degree in psychology.
Having spent more than 28 years in government, including eight years in the Air Force, he is deeply concerned about various issues affecting our society, particularly ethics in government.
Previous articles by Peter Lemiska here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/lemiska
Private Investigators Respond to Snopes Article on Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number - DETAILS HERE
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.