One of the birther myths that continues to persist centers around the allegation that Barack Obama has used multiple Social Security Numbers during his lifetime:
NEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.
In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.
WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.
The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.
The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.
“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains. “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”
The question is being raised amid speculation about the president’s history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.
That’s from WorldNetDaily, which has given prominent space to many birther stories and recently alleged that Google was conspiring to keep stories about Obama’s eligibility out of search results.
Now a reporter for the Orange County Weekly has looked into the allegations and, not surprisingly, found they don’t amount to much:
I just typed the president’s name into a public-records search field using LexisNexis, and got back more than 20 results, each supposedly representing a different person.The thing is, though, even databases as comprehensive as LexisNexis are plastered with warnings that the results have not been verified. They’re often generated from paperwork filled out from across the country; someone who jokingly submitted a credit-card application posing as the president’s might turn up in one of these things. Sure enough, there’s an entry that lists Obama as living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, also known as the White House. His supposed age? Twenty.
The inherent unreliability of the information, though hasn’t stopped Taitz and others from harping on the issue:
Taitz and her minions may have found one legitimate social security number for the president. At the beginning of this year, she posted an e-mail (warning: mal-ware at that link) from a supporter saying that if you type a certain number into the government’s Selective Service look-up tool, along with the last name “Obama” and his date of birth–August 4, 1961–you get confirmation that Barack Obama’s selective-service registration is active. When I tried it back in January, this indeed worked, suggesting that the number that had been posted was actually Obama’s. Try it now, though, and you get the message that “you have exceeded the daily limit for the verification of these credentials,” probably born of too many birthers trying to look up the same entry.
That number began with 042, which is a Social Security Administration’s geographic code for Connecticut. Part of the conspiracy theory is that the number’s fraudulent because Obama never lived in Connecticut. There’s a few non-conspiracy explanations for how this came about–it may have simply been that Obama applied for a social security number while living abroad and his application was processed in a Connecticut office–but it’s also helpful to keep in mind the disclaimer on the SSA’s website archives:
Note: One should not make too much of the “geographical code.” It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.
So we’ve got inherently unreliable sources of information, and “proof”, in the form of a supposed Connecticut-issued SSN, that doesn’t really prove anything at all.
In other words, there’s nothing there.