Main Menu

Taitz wants to kick centenarians off Social Security

In a rather bizarre post on her web site, birther activist Orly Taitz is trying to have all persons in the Social Security database over 100 years of age, not already marked as deceased, to be declared dead! She wrote:

I need help in research of any and all statutes to declare a person over 100 y.o, whose death was not reported to the SSA, deceased.

There were an estimated 53,364 centenarians in the US according to the 2010 Census.

Print Friendly

,

92 Responses to Taitz wants to kick centenarians off Social Security

  1. avatar
    Chris January 23, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

    I think you may have misunderstood her statement. From her statement: “…to declare a person over 100 y.o, whose death was not reported… ” Note the words “whose death was not reported”. Since we have a “death” there already, as noted in her own words of her statement, this would not include any LIVING individuals. It sounds as if she is looking for what legal means are available to RECORD a death that occurred which was never officially reported, record a death of someone who has d-i-e-d. If you understand her comment better now, you might want to consider removing this reference to her wanting LIVING, older people declared dead. Your work is usually very good, so please don’t assume I’m just trying to make an argument here for any viewpoint. I just happened to notice your tweet (I obviously follow you), grin, and noticed what I’m thinking was just some kind of misunderstanding. Cheers to you!

  2. avatar
    misha marinsky January 23, 2013 at 12:41 pm #

    Chris: I think you may have misunderstood her statement. From her statement: “…to declare a person over 100 y.o, whose death was not reported… ”

    I am Jewish, and a former kibbutznik.

    Orly Taitz is a fascist, in the literal meaning. People like her and Lieberman, are ruining Israel. Her 15 minutes were used up, more than 4 years ago.

  3. avatar
    RMinIL January 23, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    If that’s what she meant then she should have said “…to declare a deceased person who was over the age of 100 y.o. and whose death was not reported…” As stated she seems to want to declare any one (living or dead) over 100 as deceased because they haven’t been reported as dead. That’s one of the glaring Orly problems, she can’t effectively express herself.

    Chris:
    I think you may have misunderstood her statement.From her statement:“…to declare a person over 100 y.o, whose death was not reported… ”Note the words “whose death was not reported”.Since we have a “death” there already, as noted in her own words of her statement, this would not include any LIVING individuals.It sounds as if she is looking for what legal means are available to RECORD a death that occurred which was never officially reported, record a death of someone who has d-i-e-d.If you understand her comment better now, you might want to consider removing this reference to her wanting LIVING, older people declared dead.Your work is usually very good, so please don’t assume I’m just trying to make an argument here for any viewpoint.I just happened to notice your tweet (I obviously follow you), grin, and noticed what I’m thinking was just some kind of misunderstanding.Cheers to you!

  4. avatar
    Scientist January 23, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

    Maybe instead of running for office in the US, something whch didn’t really work out for her, Orly should run in Japan http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/top-japanese-official-urges-elderly-to-hurry-up-and-die/

  5. avatar
    Thinker January 23, 2013 at 1:04 pm #

    Not necessarily. It might be that a person’s death was not reported because that person is still alive. I’m not arguing that the person whose legacy Orly is currently besmirching is still alive. I’m sure he is not. But her statement is a general reference to people over 100 years old who death was not reported to SSA. For some of those people, there is no death report because they have not yet died.

    Chris:
    ”Note the words “whose death was not reported”.Since we have a “death” there already, as noted in her own words of her statement, this would not include any LIVING individuals.It sounds as if she is looking for what legal means are available to RECORD a death that occurred which was never officially reported, record a death of someone who has d-i-e-d.

  6. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 23, 2013 at 1:23 pm #

    Grammar can’t fix stupid.

    English is her second / third / fourth language, and I don’t think she ever mastered her first.

    Even granting that she meant “persons over 100 who death was not reported” it’s still nonsense. Language is merely a medium for communicating thought; grammar can’t fix stupid.

    What about people under 100 whose death was not reported? Isn’t the goal to have all deaths reported to SSA in order to have an accurate database?

    No, she is only concerned about her Harry Bounel obsession (?). Tilt that windmill!

    And what about first premise … on what grounds does she assume deaths aren’t being reported? Does she present even one case of such … that doesn’t involve a birfer meme?

    I am reminded of the time she presented a listed of dozens of people supposedly born in 1/1/1850 and still on CA voter rolls. ;)

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2013 at 1:29 pm #

    I see what you are saying, but in normal English usage it is perfectly correct to say “whose death has not been reported” about living persons.

    The main point is that a person being 100 years old is no presumption of death, and it appears that Taitz is trying to make that presumption based on age. If she was just trying to get dead people updated on the Social Security Death Index, then age would be irrelevant.

    Chris: I think you may have misunderstood her statement. From her statement: “…to declare a person over 100 y.o, whose death was not reported… ” Note the words “whose death was not reported”.

  8. avatar
    PaulG January 23, 2013 at 1:30 pm #

    If she meant to refer to people who are dead, but not reported in the SSDI, what has the “over 100 y.o.” criteria got to do with it? It seems obvious she wants to presume people over 100 to be dead unless they confirm otherwise. This in order to get the records of the imaginary 120 year old she thinks Mr. Obama stole his SS from.

    I feel like I’m watching the birth of a tiny new “fail”

    ETA: what Doc said.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2013 at 1:33 pm #

    And the whole thing is silly anyway because Bounel born in 1890 is over 120 years old and SSA does presume such persons dead. The problem is that the birthers are specifying Obama’s social-security number in their request, and Obama isn’t dead, nor born in 1890.

    If they just asked for Bounel and 1890 WITHOUT the social-security number they could get something. There is one problem with the SSA online form for the birthers: it requires a full date of birth, not just a year. It may be that they could get around that with a printed form.

    aesthetocyst: No, she is only concerned about her Harry Bounel obsession (?). Tilt that windmill!

  10. avatar
    US Citizen January 23, 2013 at 1:37 pm #

    I’m curious if Orly or any of the birthers ever asked “couldn’t there have been two people named Obama in over a hundred years? How do we know this 1890 Obama is THE Obama?”

  11. avatar
    Bob January 23, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

    I don’t think it’s safe to assume that Orly meant to convey a plausible/sane/normal idea just because she cannot communicate very well in English. Remember, she’s a Birther.

  12. avatar
    Northland10 January 23, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

    Her problem is she wants results that show Bounel having the same SSN as Obama. Doing a search that comes up with another number does not help her.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If they just asked for Bounel and 1890 WITHOUT the social-security number they could get something. There is one problem with the SSA online form for the birthers: it requires a full date of birth, not just a year. It may be that they could get around that with a printed form.

  13. avatar
    bovril January 23, 2013 at 2:28 pm #

    IIRC the 1890 number is exactly that a 4 digit number on the Birfoon ‘researchers’ search form and was NOT a birth Date

    There was no day, no month, no reason other than Birfer asinine idiocy to believe it was a DOB.

  14. avatar
    Dionisio Lopez January 23, 2013 at 2:29 pm #

    Come’on – You know what Taitz meant. You’re really bending over backwards to smear.

    Reading the comments, I see a bunch of name-calling. The same juveniles call her stupid, etc.

    Why don’t you focus on the facts, and abandon the personal attacks?

    Let the facts speak for themselves – no need for attacks.

    If she’s really that nutty, then let her actions speak – there’s no need to spin it.

    Yes, English is my second language too. I would expect this kind of nonsense in Venezuela, I can’t believe we’re doing it here too, now.

  15. avatar
    Greenfinches January 23, 2013 at 2:32 pm #

    Bob: I don’t think it’s safe to assume that Orly meant to convey a plausible/sane/normal idea just because she cannot communicate very well in English. Remember, she’s a Birther.

    Does she ever have a plausible/sane/normal idea??? I don’t recall one; anyone?

    She is blinded by her obsession with the Kenyan/socialist/usurper etc etc that she imagines in the President, and can see nothing else.

    Get a life, woman, get a life!

  16. avatar
    Bob January 23, 2013 at 2:35 pm #

    Wanting to declare anyone dead just because they’ve reach a certain age is downright cruel.

    Not only does she want these people declared dead she also wants aging criminalized. She finishes by saying: “We haver to keep pressure on the criminals”

  17. avatar
    BrianH January 23, 2013 at 2:36 pm #

    PaulG: It seems obvious she wants to presume people over 100 to be dead unless they confirm otherwise.

    I can’t resist this one. With apologies and due respect to the M.P. Troupe:

    SSA Administrator: Bring out yer dead.

    Taitz: Here’s one.

    SSA: That’ll be ninepence.

    Mr. Bounel: That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not dead.

    SSA: What?

    Taitz: Nothing. There’s your ninepence.

    Mr Bounel: That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not dead.

    SSA: ‘Ere, he says he’s not dead.

    Taitz: Yes he is. And his Social Security # has been stolen.

    Bounel: That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not. It hasn’t.

    SSA: He isn’t. And all numbers have been properly issued.

    Taitz: Well, he will be soon, he’s very ill. And I need him dead to prove the fraud.

    Bounel: That Claims It Isn’t: I’m getting better.

    SSA: Well, I can’t take him like that. It’s against regulations.

    Taitz: (Gasp!!) You’re part of the Conspiracy!!!!!

    SSA: What? Move along now!!!

    Taitz: Let me feeenissshhhhh!!

  18. avatar
    Thinker January 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

    In her screed on birtherreport.com against Orly prematurely (in her opinion) going public with this information, a birfer named Leslie says this: “[N]one of [Orly's] information can be proved until a death certificate for Harry Bounel is found. I have personally submitted FOIAs to the SS admin and have gone back and forth with them for three months now trying to get information. They are asking for proof of death.” Is she wrong about this? It’s pretty obvious this person born in 1890 is not alive. Requiring a death certificate to prove that he is not alive seems absurd, but Leslie says that’s what is holding up her FOIA. Of course, she might just be another birfer talking out of her butt.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    And the whole thing is silly anyway because Bounel born in 1890 is over 120 years old and SSA does presume such persons dead.

  19. avatar
    Scientist January 23, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

    Dionisio Lopez: Let the facts speak for themselves – no need for attacks.

    OK, what are the facts? Fact- There is absolutely no evidence that the SSN the President is using is not his. Nor is it Ms Taitz’s business what his SSN is. She is free, as anyone is to file a report with the SSA on line or at their 800 #. After that, it is up to them. Same as if you believe your neighbor is cheating on his taxes. You can call the IRS and report it, but you cannot sue or harass him.

    I don’t know about how it works in Venezuela, but that is how it works here.

  20. avatar
    Dionisio Lopez January 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm #

    In Venezuela, we demonize and make *inhuman* anyone that questions the President.

    Latest from Taitz:

    “We easily received the SS-5 applications to SSN for deceased individuals. We got one for Thomas Woods, whose SSN is one before Obama’s (Thomas Wood 042-68-4424). Harry Bounel was born in 1890, he would be deceased now, this SS-5 was not released due to the concern of privacy, which shows that his death was never reported or was deleted from the reords by someone, possibly by the chief actuary Harry C. Ballantyne, and this number was assumed by Obama”

    Tread lightly when advocating abridging judicial access for your countrymen – what’s good for the goose…

  21. avatar
    BrianH January 23, 2013 at 3:11 pm #

    Someone needs to get a copy of Bounel’s death certificate, scan it, and put it online. That will put an end to the speculation and controversy. Right?

    Thinker:
    In her screed on birtherreport.com against Orly prematurely (in her opinion) going public with this information, a birfer named Leslie says this: “[N]one of [Orly's] information can be proved until a death certificate for Harry Bounel is found.

  22. avatar
    Dionisio Lopez January 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm #

    BrianH: Someone needs to get a copy of Bounel’s death certificate, scan it, and put it online. That will put an end to the speculation and controversy. Right?

    I think the SS-5 would put an end to it.

  23. avatar
    Dionisio Lopez January 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm #

    BrianH:
    Someone needs to get a copy of Bounel’s death certificate, scan it, and put it online.That will put an end to the speculation and controversy. Right?

    I think the SS-5 would put an end to it.

  24. avatar
    Andrew Morris January 23, 2013 at 3:20 pm #

    She’s also asking for 3 CT voters to file a complaint for election fraud, so that a judge will issue a warrant for the President’s arrest. She cites a provision of Connecticut law, but such is the quality of Orly’s legal education and attention to detail that she clearly didn’t read it, or the rest of the statute, which governs fraudulent voting. It doesn’t apply to candidates. And then of course is the interesting and not entirely resolved question fo whether a sitting President can actually be arrested. I made these points on her site but doubt she’ll post them. And her response would likely be that this is yet another example of how Obots use process to frustrate the will of WE THE PEOPLE, though it’s increasingly clear that what we’re dealing with is really no more than ME THE PERSON.

  25. avatar
    Dionisio Lopez January 23, 2013 at 3:23 pm #

    I seriously doubt a sitting President would be arrested.

    From my research, this is not prohibited or sanctioned in the Constitution or US Code, however precedent and practical impact would tell us it’s not going to happen.

  26. avatar
    Scientist January 23, 2013 at 3:28 pm #

    Dionisio Lopez: I think the SS-5 would put an end to it.

    His SS-5 cannot be released unless his death can be established. One possibility is that Bounel died outside the US. Anyway in birthistan, nothing is ever at an end. They would just come up wiith somebody else and claim Obama stole his number instead.

    Perhaps in Venezuela there is not a viable opposition party. Here there is. One doesn’t need to delve into the Social Security records to oppose the President’s policies.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm #

    Did President Obama’s long-form birth certificate put an end to anything?

    Dionisio Lopez: I think the SS-5 would put an end to it.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2013 at 3:46 pm #

    That is the opinion of the US Government:

    http://www.justice.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm

    Dionisio Lopez: I seriously doubt a sitting President would be arrested.

  29. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

    The SS-5 is clearly a forgery….

    How many layers was Bounel buried under? ;) Poor guy.

  30. avatar
    Rickey January 23, 2013 at 3:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    And the whole thing is silly anyway because Bounel born in 1890 is over 120 years old and SSA does presume such persons dead. The problem is that the birthers are specifying Obama’s social-security number in their request, and Obama isn’t dead, nor born in 1890.

    If they just asked for Bounel and 1890 WITHOUT the social-security number they could get something. There is one problem with the SSA online form for the birthers: it requires a full date of birth, not just a year. It may be that they could get around that with a printed form.

    The other problem is that there is no guarantee that Bounel (or Bonnel) even had a Social Security Number. He could have died before Social Security was enacted, or he may have been self-employed and wasn’t required to have a Social Security Number.

    My father was self-employed. He got his SSN at the age of 49.

    Finding death records can be a challenge, particularly if the person isn’t listed in the Social Security Death Index. Even if the person is in the Death Index, it can be a problem because the index doesn’t tell you where the person died. It usually lists the person’s last residence city and state, but that isn’t necessarily where the person died.

    To get a copy of someone’s SS-5, you have to submit proof that the person is dead. If the person’s name and SSN are listed in the Death Index, the SSA accepts that fact as evidence that the person is dead. But if the person is not listed in the Death Index, you probably need to produce a Death Certificate. In the case of Harry, we don’t know his date of birth and we don’t know when or where he died. We don’t know for certain the correct spelling of his last name, and as noted we don’t know if he ever applied for a Social Security Number.

  31. avatar
    Rickey January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm #

    Dionisio Lopez: I think the SS-5 would put an end to it.

    There is no assurance that Bounel (or Bonnel) ever applied for a Social Security Number.

    If he was born in 1890, he was 44 or 45 when Social Security was enacted (assuming that he was still alive in 1935). In those days not everyone needed a Social Security Number. Self-employed people, for example, were not eligible for Social Security and therefore did not need a Social Security Number. It is quite possible that our elusive Mr. Bounel went through life without one.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm #

    When a person is reported to Social Security as deceased, they release this to a public database that anyone can access. So we know that no Harry Bounel born in 1890 has been reported deceased. However, many older records are not in the Social Security Death Index.

    Social Security records for ANYONE born in 1890 are available because the SSA presumes anyone over 120 years old is dead. Apparently the birthers could not get any records because they included Obama’s social-security number with the application, and he is not 120 years old.

    Dionisio Lopez: Harry Bounel was born in 1890, he would be deceased now, this SS-5 was not released due to the concern of privacy, which shows that his death was never reported or was deleted from the reords by someone,

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2013 at 4:01 pm #

    Some Harry Bounel or Bormel, Bonnel (depending on how you read the script) was alive in New York in 1940 and was 50 years old. He was a full-time employee. So I think he should have had a social-security number. However, he might have been evading the requirement. Hard to say.

    Rickey: If he was born in 1890, he was 44 or 45 when Social Security was enacted (assuming that he was still alive in 1935). In those days not everyone needed a Social Security Number. Self-employed people, for example, were not eligible for Social Security and therefore did not need a Social Security Number. It is quite possible that our elusive Mr. Bounel went through life without one.

  34. avatar
    richCares January 23, 2013 at 4:06 pm #

    ths is all related to Orly’s interest in SSN, curious why did a 17 year old kid get a fake SSN when it was so easy to obtain one legally. What is the basis for Orly’s quest on this, why wpuld Obama need to fake one, WHY?

  35. avatar
    Bob January 23, 2013 at 4:20 pm #

    Even today there’s no requirement that everyone has to have a Social Security number, is there? Maybe you’re wealthy, will never work, and don’t care about benefits anyway. I’m sure there are people that go through life never bother getting one.

  36. avatar
    Dionisio Lopez January 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm #

    aesthetocyst: Response

    No, you completely misunderstood the story.
    Are you intentionally a fool as well as a troll? or are both accidental?
    Oops make that liar as well, as you have allowed politics to color your assessments.

    And the smears resume. In my experience, people demonize and call names when they can’t argue.

    So I’m a “fool” and a “troll”?. The irony of that comment escapes you.

    What was the point in the article I “missed”?

    Call me out on the “lie”. What did I state that was not true?

  37. avatar
    Scientist January 23, 2013 at 4:27 pm #

    Bob: Even today there’s no requirement that everyone has to have a Social Security number, is there? Maybe you’re wealthy, will never work, and don’t care about benefits anyway. I’m sure there are people that go through life never bother getting one.

    I doubt that today. You need one to open a bank account, get utility service or do just about any transaction. However, someone born in 1890 could easily have gone through life without one.

  38. avatar
    richCares January 23, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

    “Even today there’s no requirement”
    you would have to be self employed as all employers require SSN before they hire you

  39. avatar
    J.D. Sue January 23, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

    Andrew Morris: arrest

    She is now asking for volunteers to move to Ct. and register to vote, so they can petition for an arrest warrant….

  40. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 23, 2013 at 5:12 pm #

    Gosh, it seems it isn’t 2008 anymore.

    For serious discussion, the site’s search tools, and Google, are your friend.

    As for this year, S’n’G’s are all that’s left LOL

  41. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 23, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

    J.D. Sue: She is now asking for volunteers to move to Ct. and register to vote, so they can petition for an arrest warrant….

    She already gave up on finding puppets—er, “volunteers” from CT?

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2013 at 5:40 pm #

    Comments were briefly turned off to deal with the thread hijack. Now restored.

  43. avatar
    J.D. Sue January 23, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

    aesthetocyst: She already gave up on finding puppets—er, “volunteers” from CT?

    —–

    She posted: “I have someone in Stafford Springs CT . Can someone move there and register as a voter there?”

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

    Actually I don’t know what Taitz meant and I cannot think of any logical and rational thing she COULD have meant consistent with what she said. I think that she didn’t think through what she was suggesting, and I finished that by showing the absurd direction in which she was headed.

    I think that you are the one who didn’t understand the sometimes hyperbolic and wisecracking style on some of the articles here. You took it all too literally.

    Dionisio Lopez: Come’on – You know what Taitz meant. You’re really bending over backwards to smear.

  45. avatar
    Northland10 January 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm #

    If I recall recall correctly, the 1890 date came from an entry in the Susan Daniels list which showed a DOB for Obama as 1890. This was when he was in Cambridge. The next year, a similar entry had a DOB of 1990.

    The Bounel entry is from 2009, in Henderschott’s unnamed database. I do not remember that even showing a DOB.

    SSA does not usually keep death records of people who don’t exist.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm #

    Reminds me of that guy who sued as a Democrat and THEN changed party from Republican to Democratic. I think that was one of the NJ ballot challenges.

    J.D. Sue: She posted: “I have someone in Stafford Springs CT . Can someone move there and register as a voter there?”

  47. avatar
    Sean January 23, 2013 at 5:55 pm #

    You’re new here aren’t you?

    Dionisio Lopez:
    BrianH: Someone needs to get a copy of Bounel’s death certificate, scan it, and put it online. That will put an end to the speculation and controversy. Right?

    I think the SS-5 would put an end to it.

  48. avatar
    Bob January 23, 2013 at 5:55 pm #

    I’d still like to know why Orly Taitz wants to have some senior citizens declared dead. Did someone put her in charge of the Death Panels?

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2013 at 6:00 pm #

    It had three dates associated with the social-security number 8/4/1961 (month and day reversed), 4/8/1961 (correct) and 1890. Of course 1890 isn’t a date, but a year. I’ve always figured that it was a typo or a database conversion bug.

    Northland10: If I recall recall correctly, the 1890 date came from an entry in the Susan Daniels list which showed a DOB for Obama as 1890. This was when he was in Cambridge. The next year, a similar entry had a DOB of 1990.

  50. avatar
    The Magic M January 23, 2013 at 6:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Reminds me of that guy who sued as a Democrat and THEN changed party from Republican to Democratic. I think that was one of the NJ ballot challenges.

    I had the same in mind. As a lawyer, she should know that you can’t create standing in bad faith. She seems to be begging for sanctions again, would enforce her martyr complex.

    We’re not far away from open calls for perjury and false testimony. “Can we find someone willing to attest he had gay sex with Obama while snorting cocaine after performing an abortion on a welfare mom?”

  51. avatar
    Northland10 January 23, 2013 at 6:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It had three dates associated with the social-security number 8/4/1961 (month and day reversed), 4/8/1961 (correct) and 1890. Of course 1890 isn’t a date, but a year. I’ve always figured that it was a typo or a database conversion bug.

    Interestingly, the wrong date, the 1890, and the 1990 dates are from his Somerville, MA address. Still, the Bounel entry is from a different search and has no birthdate. Orly is trying to connect a possible person with a likely conversion bug.

  52. avatar
    gorefan January 23, 2013 at 6:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It had three dates associated with the social-security number 8/4/1961 (month and day reversed), 4/8/1961 (correct) and 1890.

    There is also a date (year) of 1990 in Susan Daniels affidavit in Barnett v. Obama. She conveniently never mentions it.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/31235646/Private-Investigator-Susan-Daniels-Court-Affidavit-Regarding-Obama-s-Social-Security-Number-s

    Scroll down to page 13 of the affidavit. On the list on that page for the fifth entry – 365 Broadway B1, Somerville, MA 02145 is the DOB 1990. Then scroll down to the eleventh entry for the same MA addres is the DOB of 1890

    The 1990 date was first reported to the database between 08/01/1988 and 09/01/88. The 1890 date does not have a first reported date.

    In Susan Daniels’ documents linked to on TOH website the 1890 date is first entered into the database in 10/1994, so the 1990 date preceeded the 1890 dates in the databases.

  53. avatar
    Rickey January 23, 2013 at 6:40 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —–

    She posted: “I have someone in Stafford Springs CT . Can someone move there and register as a voter there?”

    That “someone” is Sharon Rondeau. If Orly can lasso in Sharon, she might also be able to get Sharon’s husband. That would leave her one voter short, although I’m not certain that even Sharon is stupid enough to get involved in this hopeless scheme.

  54. avatar
    Rickey January 23, 2013 at 6:42 pm #

    Northland10: Interestingly, the wrong date, the 1890, and the 1990 dates are from his Somerville, MA address.

    And of course Obama was attending Harvard Law School in 1990.

  55. avatar
    Northland10 January 23, 2013 at 6:45 pm #

    Rickey: That “someone” is Sharon Rondeau. If Orly can lasso in Sharon, she might also be able to get Sharon’s husband. That would leave her one voter short, although I’m not certain that even Sharon is stupid enough to get involved in this hopeless scheme.

    She great at cheer leading for those who want try to arrest government officials. Maybe Walt is ready for a new court to play with.

  56. avatar
    Crustacean January 23, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It had three dates associated with the social-security number 8/4/1961 (month and day reversed), 4/8/1961 (correct) and 1890. Of course 1890 isn’t a date, but a year. I’ve always figured that it was a typo or a database conversion bug.

    TYPO?? Oh, silly Dr. Conspiracy! You’re clearly drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. True American Patriots aren’t buying the administration’s “typo” smokescreen. They all know that “1890″ is actually the codename for Obama created by his Soviet puppetmasters, and it’s well known that the “Harrison Bounel” born in 1890 was in fact an Okhrana agent trained by the Soviets to infiltrate the land of Uncle Sam so his Social Security Number could be used by their future “Manchurian Candidate.”

    And don’t even try to point out that the Okrana were actually anti-left and predated the Soviet Union, which didn’t exist in 1890. Because that would just prove you’re in on it, too!

    …OK, I tried to make that sound even crazier than the stuff Orly writes, but I think I came up a little short. Sorry.

  57. avatar
    BrianH January 23, 2013 at 8:04 pm #

    I’ll echo what Reality Check said on this forum not long ago: it’s not possible to satirize Birthers (insofar as doing a slightly exaggerated parody) as they invariably prove to be already ahead of you on the pretzel-curve.

    J.D. Sue: —She is now asking for volunteers to move to Ct. and register to vote, so they can petition for an arrest warrant….

  58. avatar
    BrianH January 23, 2013 at 8:12 pm #

    I recall seeing some Birther remark they couldn’t find “Harrison Bounel” on the SS death index. My surmise is that Orly perceives Bounel’s not being “officially dead” as imposing some obstacle to getting out of SSA the information needed to show that Pres. Obama pilfered his SS#.

    But I think in rational terms. Far be it from me to really purport to understand how she sees it.

    Bob: I’d still like to know why Orly Taitz wants to have some senior citizens declared dead. Did someone put her in charge of the Death Panels?

  59. avatar
    Reality Check January 23, 2013 at 8:17 pm #

    Damn, did I say that? I was pretty well spot on with that one. :lol:

    BrianH:
    I’ll echo what Reality Check said on this forum not long ago:it’s not possible to satirize Birthers (insofar as doing a slightly exaggerated parody) as they invariably prove to be already ahead of you on the pretzel-curve.

  60. avatar
    Reality Check January 23, 2013 at 8:20 pm #

    In case it has not been pointed out Sharon Rondeau and husband live in Stafford Springs, CT. They apparently are looking for a third.

    J.D. Sue: —–

    She posted: “I have someone in Stafford Springs CT . Can someone move there and register as a voter there?”

  61. avatar
    Butterfly Bilderberg January 23, 2013 at 8:45 pm #

    richCares:
    “Even today there’s no requirement”
    you would have to be self employed as all employers require SSN before they hire you

    Today, even self-employed individuals are required to have a SSN, as they must pay the self-employment tax of 15.3% on net earnings — effectively the equivalent of both the employer’s and the employee’s portions of FICA. They are credited so that they, too, can receive Social Security benefits and Medicare.

  62. avatar
    Mind in the Gutter January 23, 2013 at 8:45 pm #

    Reality Check: They apparently are looking for a third.

    No need to drag their personal lives into it, RC, keep it clean ;)

  63. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 23, 2013 at 8:53 pm #

    Butterfly Bilderberg: Today, even self-employed individuals are required to have a SSN, as they must pay the self-employment tax of 15.3% on net earnings — effectively the equivalent of both the employer’s and the employee’s portions of FICA [and Medicare]. They are credited so that they, too, can receive Social Security benefits and Medicare.

    Yep, and this brand new requirement catches many by surprise, as it has been on the books a mere 62 years.

    http://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Self-Employment-Tax-Rate.aspx

    The current rate has been in effect since 1990. Who can keep up?

    Neither birfers, nor tax dodgers, nor tax dodgin’ birfers it seems. This ignorance can’t possibly stem from their living life as minimum wage wage slaves. No, they are all good little ruggedly-independent winger entrepreneurs.

    Oh, right, the sov-cit thing. Taxes? Birfers don’t pay no taxes!

  64. avatar
    Keith January 23, 2013 at 9:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Some Harry Bounel or Bormel, Bonnel (depending on how you read the script) was alive in New York in 1940 and was 50 years old. He was a full-time employee. So I think he should have had a social-security number. However, he might have been evading the requirement. Hard to say.

    A full time employee in what industry with what employer? In 1950 not everyone was required to pay into Social Security.

  65. avatar
    Northland10 January 23, 2013 at 9:20 pm #

    BrianH: But I think in rational terms. Far be it from me to really purport to understand how she sees it.

    This might help make it clearer:

    Orly suffereth long, and is kind; Orly envieth not; Orly vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

    Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; The truth that Obama has committed fraud and treason due to his use of forged IDs and a stolen/fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number xxx-xx-xxxx, which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS

    Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, such as the Obots hacking her computer and messing with her fuel imput hose because of her work to bring the greatest constitutional issue of history due to Obama’s use of forged IDs and a stolen/fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number xxx-xx-xxxx, which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS

    Orly never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

    For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. And we know Obama committed fraud and treason due to his use of forged IDs and a stolen/fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number xxx-xx-xxxx, which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS

    But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. And Obama/Sobarkah/Soetero will be arrested due to his use of forged IDs and a stolen/fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number xxx-xx-xxxx, which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS

    When I was an obot, I spake as a obot, I understood as a obot, I thought as a obot: but when I became a birther, I put away obotish things.

    For now we see through a glass, darkly, due to his use of forged IDs and a stolen/fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number xxx-xx-xxxx, which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known as a political decedent and a civil rights attorney who has brought the most damaging revalations of Obama’s usurptation due to his use of forged IDs and a stolen/fraudulently obtained CT Social Security number xxx-xx-xxxx, which was never assigned to him according to E-Verify and SSNVS

    And now abideth faith, hope, Orly, these three; but the greatest of these is Orly.

  66. avatar
    Keith January 23, 2013 at 9:27 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —–

    She posted: “I have someone in Stafford Springs CT . Can someone move there and register as a voter there?”

    Sure thing Orly. Let me just pack up my house here in Aussieland, sell off the electronic stuff and tools, sell the house, ship everything that’s left back to the States, find a house in Stafford Springs, get moved in, find a cable company, a ISP, lots of replacement electronic gear, hang my art collection on the walls, dig a wine cellar. I ought to be ready to register to vote in, oh, about 18 months? Just in time for the midterm elections.

    What do you need my vote for again?

  67. avatar
    BrianH January 23, 2013 at 9:34 pm #

    Oh, very good! It makes a nice “New Epistle” addition to SqueekyFromm’s “Birther Bible.”

    Northland10: This might help make it clearer:

  68. avatar
    Rickey January 23, 2013 at 9:37 pm #

    Northland10: She great at cheer leading for those who want try to arrest government officials.Maybe Walt is ready for a new court to play with.

    Agreed. She’s all for insurrection as long as someone else is willing to do the dirty work.

  69. avatar
    Craig January 24, 2013 at 12:33 am #

    So Sharon and Hubby can’t find a third. Does this mean they’ve driven the rest of the wingnuts out of the area? Maybe we could hire them to move to Shurf Joe’s neighbourhood and watch the chaos unwind…

  70. avatar
    Daniel January 24, 2013 at 1:46 am #

    Dionisio Lopez:
    In Venezuela, we demonize and make *inhuman* anyone that questions the President.

    In America we ridicule the ridiculous, hence our comments about Orly.

    We’ve done the facts for years. Laughing at her is just our way of dealing with the boredom until she comes up with some new stupidity.

  71. avatar
    Shame on Liberals Shame January 24, 2013 at 3:37 am #

    Why Dr. Ignorance you’re nothing butt …

    [Mr. Shame was banned for insulting my father, and he will never post on this blog again. Actions have consequences. Doc.]

  72. avatar
    The Magic M January 24, 2013 at 5:09 am #

    Keith: What do you need my vote for again?

    She doesn’t need your vote, she wants to create artificial standing for three CT residents/voters which is the number needed to file Yet Another Election Challenge there (I think the law says “electors”, not “voters”, but I’m not sure I fully understood the difference).

    But since, apart from the other obvious deficiencies of such a challenge, courts aren’t dumb and such “engineered standing” will obviously be found out, such a case is, again, DOOOOOOOOOOMED.

  73. avatar
    Jim F January 24, 2013 at 5:41 am #

    I know what she is trying to say (I think). If she had worded it like this it might make some sence.

    …..to declare a person over 100 y.o. deceased unless confirmation of life is obtained.

    Oh God, why am i doing this? I must be as mad as she is.

  74. avatar
    Scientist January 24, 2013 at 6:34 am #

    Reality Check: In case it has not been pointed out Sharon Rondeau and husband live in Stafford Springs, CT. They apparently are looking for a third.

    There is a entire section on Craigslist dedicated to exactly that….

  75. avatar
    brygenon January 24, 2013 at 10:13 am #

    Butterfly Bilderberg: Today, even self-employed individuals are required to have a SSN, as they must pay the self-employment tax of 15.3% on net earnings — effectively the equivalent of both the employer’s and the employee’s portions of FICA. They are credited so that they, too, can receive Social Security benefits and Medicare.

    Not for everyone. The the larger part of FICA, the 12.4% for Social Security, is regressive. In 2012 it maxed out at 12.4% of $106,800 = $13243.20. Those earning at least $106,800 pay the max, then income above that is free of SS tax.

    The 2.9% for Medicare applies to all income. The basic federal income tax is progressive except on the uber-rich who make their fortunes in capital gains (and don’t even have to pay on that until they sell, allowing them to reap gains on money they would otherwise have paid in taxes). Still, a fascinating anomaly of the U.S. tax code is that at the mark of income crossing $106,800 a year, one’s incremental rate goes *down*.

    Oops, sorry, thread-jack. Well it was about Social Security. Sort of.

  76. avatar
    Lupin January 24, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

    Daniel: In America we ridicule the ridiculous, hence our comments about Orly.

    We’ve done the facts for years. Laughing at her is just our way of dealing with the boredom until she comes up with some new stupidity.

    I’m dating myself here (again), but she (Orly) is like a character out of L’il Abner. I swear, she is living Al Capp caricature.

  77. avatar
    BillTheCat January 24, 2013 at 3:30 pm #

    Good riddance to the drive-by cut-n-paster with the potty mouth.

    Shame on Liberals Shame:
    Why Dr. Ignorance you’re nothing butt …

    [Mr. Shame was banned for insulting my father, and he will never post on this blog again. Actions have consequences. Doc.]

  78. avatar
    Horus January 24, 2013 at 4:16 pm #

    Bob:
    Even today there’s no requirement that everyone has to have a Social Security number, is there?Maybe you’re wealthy, will never work, and don’t care about benefits anyway.I’m sure there are people that go through life never bother getting one.

    If you want to claim your children as dependents when you file your tax returns you need to enter their SS#. Most people obtain SS#s for their children at birth now.

  79. avatar
    donna January 24, 2013 at 4:44 pm #

    an interesting SS# case:

    SSNs invalidated by use in advertising

    SSNs used in advertising have rendered those numbers invalid. One famous instance of this occurred in 1938 when the E. H. Ferree Company in Lockport, New York, decided to promote its product by showing how a Social Security card would fit into its wallets. A sample card, used for display purposes, was placed in each wallet, which was sold by Woolworth and other department stores across the country. The wallet manufacturer’s vice president and treasurer Douglas Patterson thought it would be clever to use the actual SSN of his secretary, Hilda Schrader Whitcher.

    Even though the card was printed in red (the real card is printed in blue) and had “Specimen” printed across the front, many people used the SSN. The Social Security Administration’s account of the incident also claims that the fake card was half the size of a real card, despite a miniature card’s being useless for its purpose and despite Whitcher’s holding two cards of apparently identical size in the accompanying photograph.

    Over time, the number that appeared (078-05-1120) has been claimed by a total of over 40,000 people as their own. The SSA initiated an advertising campaign stating that it was incorrect to use the number. (Hilda Whitcher was issued a new SSN.)

    However, the number was found to be in use by 12 individuals as late as 1977.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number#Use_required_for_federal_tax_purposes

  80. avatar
    Keith January 24, 2013 at 7:02 pm #

    brygenon: Not for everyone. The the larger part of FICA, the 12.4% for Social Security, is regressive. In 2012 it maxed out at 12.4% of $106,800 = $13243.20. Those earning at least $106,800 pay the max, then income above that is free of SS tax.

    The 2.9% for Medicare applies to all income. The basic federal income tax is progressive except on the uber-rich who make their fortunes in capital gains (and don’t even have to pay on that until they sell, allowing them to reap gains on money they would otherwise have paid in taxes). Still, a fascinating anomaly of the U.S. tax code is that at the mark of income crossing $106,800 a year, one’s incremental rate goes *down*.

    Oops, sorry, thread-jack. Well it was about Social Security. Sort of.

    This discussion doesn’t swing on people who are required to have an SSN now. In 1950, not everyone needed an SSN. I believe Government employees were exempt at that time. There may have been other classes of wage earners that were likewise exempt.

  81. avatar
    Keith January 24, 2013 at 7:03 pm #

    Lupin: I’m dating myself here (again), but she (Orly) is like a character out of L’il Abner. I swear, she is living Al Capp caricature.

    I’m thinking Pogo, but L’il Abner works too.

  82. avatar
    Keith January 24, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

    Shame on Liberals Shame:
    Why Dr. Ignorance you’re nothing butt …

    [Mr. Shame was banned for insulting my father, and he will never post on this blog again. Actions have consequences. Doc.]

    I wish we could ban Tony Abbot (Leader of the opposition) down here in Australia. He insulted the Prime Minister’s father the day of his funeral trying to score a drive-by sound grab point against the PM.

  83. avatar
    misha marinsky January 24, 2013 at 8:25 pm #

    Keith: I’m thinking Pogo, but L’il Abner works too.

    “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

  84. avatar
    RoadScholar January 24, 2013 at 9:24 pm #

    Lupin: I’m dating myself here (again), but she (Orly) is like a character out of L’il Abner. I swear, she is living Al Capp caricature.

    I always saw Orly as a character on “Green Acres.” As a foil to Zha Zha’s character’s patrician daffiness, her Moldavian cousin Svetlana shows up, and she’s flako gonzo maximo. She’s so obnoxious they make her sleep with Arnold Ziffel.

  85. avatar
    donna January 24, 2013 at 9:28 pm #

    Lupin: I’m dating myself here (again), but she (Orly) is like a character out of L’il Abner. I swear, she is living Al Capp caricature.

    jon stewart referred to taitz as the lost gabor sister

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/a-clockwork-orange/stewart-daily-show-taitz-birth/

  86. avatar
    Rickey January 24, 2013 at 10:32 pm #

    Keith: This discussion doesn’t swing on people who are required to have an SSN now. In 1950, not everyone needed an SSN. I believe Government employees were exempt at that time. There may have been other classes of wage earners that were likewise exempt.

    I’m not sure about other government employees, but members of Congress did not join Social Security until 1984. As I mentioned elsewhere, JFK likely never had a Social Security Number because he never had a private sector job (his name does not appear in the Social Security Death Index).

  87. avatar
    Lupin January 25, 2013 at 3:10 am #

    Keith: Lupin: I’m dating myself here (again), but she (Orly) is like a character out of L’il Abner. I swear, she is living Al Capp caricature.

    I’m thinking Pogo, but L’il Abner works too.

    Walt Kelly was never as mean as Al Capp in his caricatures. Even his Joe McCarthy/Simple J Malarkey character — perhaps the most evil character ever depicted in POGO — paled compared to some of Capp’s most savage renditions. (Often misguided in Capp’s later years, but that another conversation.)

    I see Capp’s Orly as a “lemme finiiish” Lena the Hyena-type harridan. If I could draw, I could almost draw her. Kelly would have simply turned her into a jackanape or something cute.

  88. avatar
    Lupin January 25, 2013 at 3:11 am #

    donna: jon stewart referred to taitz as the lost gabor sister

    That’s much too kind and mostly focuses on her physical appearance, not the disturbed mind behind it. IMHO of course.

  89. avatar
    The Magic M January 25, 2013 at 4:25 am #

    Lupin: not the disturbed mind behind it

    I’m not sure how disturbed Zsa-Zsa’s mind is, but she’s 90+ and under guardianship (by the not exactly mentally stable Prince Frederik von Sachsen-Anhalt, who, among other things, peed into another celebrity’s prepared bathtub on German national TV in a version of “Celebrity Big Brother”).

  90. avatar
    Lupin January 25, 2013 at 4:36 am #

    The Magic M: I’m not sure how disturbed Zsa-Zsa’s mind is, but she’s 90+ and under guardianship (by the not exactly mentally stable Prince Frederik von Sachsen-Anhalt, who, among other things, peed into another celebrity’s prepared bathtub on German national TV in a version of “Celebrity Big Brother”).

    Oh god now I need more brain bleach.

  91. avatar
    The Magic M January 25, 2013 at 5:47 am #

    And here’s the fallout from that event:
    http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1021416/Pro_7_Die_Burg_Der_Prinz_Vs_Kader_Loth

    Prince Frederik is the guy at 0:05. Note that all involved people are German celebrities (but not the “A” or “B” class, of course).

    Sorry for the OT, I’m done now.

  92. avatar
    donna January 25, 2013 at 9:27 am #

    “Meanwhile, as California hopes “Dr. Taitz” doesn’t flood them with reams of crazy, that isn’t stopping her from trying to raise money off of her birther cult so that she can have President Obama arrested for using a “stolen” Social Security number. (Not linking to her site because she is being sued for putting invasive spyware on visitors’ computers.)”

    “It wasn’t so long ago that Orly was meeting with staffers for Republicans like Representatives Steve King and Allen West, and Senators Jim Inhofe and Marco Rubio or that birther Donald Trump was happily endorsing and meeting with Mitt Romney on the campaign trail.”

    “All “Dr.” Taitz needs is for the easily fooled to shell out a few of their Social Security dollars for her mission, and their dreams will come true! If only Orly isn’t arrested in California first. Tick tock, birthers.”

    http://www.politicususa.com/stern-judge-orders-birther-orly-taitz-prove-lie-court.html