Obama’s legal identity problem

Obama’s legal identity problem
 By Doug Hagmann  Friday, July 6, 2012
This week, Ohio private investigator Susan Daniels filed suit in the Geauga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas to petition the Ohio Secretary of State to remove Barack Hussein Obama’s name from the ballot based on alleged inconsistencies with his social security number. If the controversy surrounding Obama’s social security number (SSN) is new or perhaps confusing to you, the explanation regarding the issuance of social security numbers is quite simple, but critical to understanding the issue as it pertains to his identity. As I’ve been an investigator for the last 27 years, I have a lot of experience in dealing with SSNs, identifying anomalies and outright forgeries, and possess the same documents, proprietary database results and associated investigative documents as Ms. Daniels.

A brief overview of SSNs

Every citizen of the U.S., permanent residents and some temporary residents as defined by the Social Security Act since 1935, when the New Deal Social Security program began, have been assigned a nine digit social security number in the following format: 123-45-6789.  As you can see, the number has three “parts” separated by hyphens.  Each part of the number has a specific meaning.

The first three numbers reflect a general geographical area of issuance, the second two numbers are “group numbers” that are internally assigned and have meaning but will not be addressed in the scope of this article. The last four numbers could be considered serial numbers of sorts, reflecting a numerical sequence between 0001 and 9999 that have a peripheral relationship to the group number but again, is beyond the scope of this report.
To be factually correct and all inclusive, I should also note that, starting in 1963, U.S. railroad workers were exclusively issued numbers between 700 and 728 in place of the geographical code, although this procedure has since been discontinued. Also, there are no legitimate SSNs that use 000 or 666 for their geographical code.

The system was designed so that all social security numbers are unique to each person, never recycled or reused even after death of that person, and with very few exceptions, are rarely changed once they are issued. The age when a person was issued their SSNs has varied throughout the years. Some people born in the early part of the last century never applied for or assigned SSNs.  As time progressed, nearly all Americans applied for and received SSNs.

Until the Tax Reform Act of 1986, minors were not required to obtain a social security number at birth, for example, as the numbers were never intended for identification purposes, but for income tracking by the IRS and for claiming children as dependents on their income tax returns.  This process gradually changed over the years, and now the mother or parents of all babies born as U.S. citizens usually apply for the SSNs shortly after birth.

Changes under Obama

On June 25, 2011, the Social Security Administration initiated a new policy called the Social Security Number Randomization initiative, which essentially randomizes the issuance of SSNs. Perhaps the biggest impact is that a social security number will no longer reflect the geographical area of issuance. This initiative was implemented to ostensibly prevent the SSA from running out of numbers in any geographical area, and to allegedly make identity theft more difficult . Nonetheless, the timing of this initiative is interesting and not lost by this author.

The Obama SSN controversy

The initial and primary controversy over Barack Hussein Obama’s social security number involves the first three numbers relative to the geographical area of issuance, although is not confined to that fact alone. We’ll address this issue first, however.

The first three numbers of Obama’s alleged social number, or the number we know he is using today and has been using for some time, begins with 042, which denotes that this number was issued to an individual who had some level of attachment to the state of Connecticut at the time his SSN application was issued. Based on additional dissection of his SSN, it can be determined that this number was issued between 1977 and 1979.

It is imperative to note, however, that the Social Security Administration (SSA) has made slight administrative changes to the way they issued SSNs over the years, so we must be very careful when talking or writing in “absolutes” or “absolutely” associating a SSN with an individual without further identifying information of that person. Despite such changes, we are aware of other factors about Obama that would permit us to state, with an extremely high degree of certainty, that both the geographical area and the time span of issuance are correct.

These inconvenient facts present a very curious problem for Barack Hussein Obama. At the time that his social security number was issued, Obama was a teen, living in the state of Hawaii and had no connection whatsoever to the geographical area associated with his alleged SSN. Furthermore, the SSN application process at that time was different than today, making it all but impossible for a teen in Hawaii to obtain a social security number from Connecticut.

How, then, did Barack Hussein Obama come to be assigned his “current” social security number? What SSN did Obama use while working as a teen in the state of Hawaii? Considering all of the other contradictory identifying information pertaining to Obama, his unwillingness to disclose other vital records, questions pertaining to his passport, etc., this is an extremely serious issue that must be thoroughly addressed and answered.

Evolving truths

It is with great interest that I note that several “fact-checking” websites have made certain and almost non-perceptible changes in their definitions and explanations that appear to coincide with the Obama-SSN problem, to such an extent that someone without proper experience could easily accept the Obama-SSN controversy as myth, urban legend, or attempt to explain the Obama SSN in some other manner. One glaring example of misinformation, or perhaps outright disinformation, is an explanation of Obama’s problem by Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly. During The O’Reilly Factor on April 13, 2011, he was factually incorrect on a number of levels when he attempted to explain the Connecticut issuance to his audience in response to an e-mail he received.

Like the entirety of the Obama Constitutional eligibility issue, there has been so much misinformation and disinformation that people don’t know who or what to believe. To further complicate matters, certain self-proclaimed fact-checking websites and even some news sites have actively edited or even expunged their records regarding this issue over the last few years, thus creating more confusion for an inquiring public. As investigators know, guilty persons and accomplices embrace and perpetuate confusion to hide the truth behind such matters.

What it all means

As a professional investigator since 1985, I have performed countless background investigations of individuals being considered for board positions at Fortune 500 companies. Like investigator Susan Daniels, I, too, have access to multiple proprietary databases and performed the same searches as she has, beginning in late 2008. I agree with Ms. Daniels in nearly all of her conclusions, and commend her for filing suit in the state of Ohio. While we might not arrive at all of the same deductions based on the information known, such differences are minor and inconsequential to the bigger picture. We both agree, however, on the most important conclusion of all: it is extremely unlikely that the social security number used by Barack Hussein Obama was legitimately issued.

If I were to file a background report of investigation with a Fortune 500 or Fortune 100 client with the information developed about Barack Hussein Obama, I could only reach one conclusion with the highest degree of certainty: the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II would FAIL in all aspects relating to his true identity.

For a Fortune 100 company, that is problematic. For America, that is terrifying