Listen to internet radio with R C on Blog Talk Radio
If you're    ready for a zombie apocalypse, then you're ready for any emergency.    emergency.cdc.gov
Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan

« Dispatches from Birtherstan - 29 March 2011 | Main | Dispatches from Birtherstan - 31 March 2011 »

March 30, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e553b3b3a78833014e871e4c65970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dispatches from Birtherstan - 30 March 2011:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jeran

One thing that's going to kill Hollister is that employing someone as a contractor needs more than just sending them a 1099. They have to agree to be employed before the employer can use the SSVS to verify their SSN. Hollister doesn't get to "employ" someone without their consent simply by paying them. Which anyone with a brain would realize, which probably explains why he thought this idea would fly.

Lawyerwitharealdegree

Jeran,

Wherever did you get the idea that Hollister paid anything? He just said he filed a 1099, I'm guessing it lists the President's entire salary for 2010, on the "theory" that the President "works for me". And I'll bet he filed that 1099 the same day (give or take) that that Gazette questioned him about his other illegal activities. Messing with IRS filings was yet another brilliant move by this stain on the Air Force, otherwise known as Gregory Hollister.

Jeran

Because none of the other uses for a 1099 imply any employment relationship, which is the hook he's using to justify not having broken the law or lied to get access to the SSVS. One thing that's really clear on the 1099 instructions: the amount listed is the amount the filer paid the recipient, not what the recipient was paid. If Hollister ignored that bit, he'll be getting to talk to the IRS as well as the SSA.

KDLarsen

Could someone remind me, where did the "CT" SSN come from?

At the moment, I have it in my head that it was part of the batch of SSN's, that Orly (I think?) had a private detective obtain by running every possible variation of Obamas name through an online database (despite the database making it clear that the data was not reliable, and despite the fact that it was also illegal).

SueDB

"Hollister could face charges of identity theft and fraud."

Swear to God that Orly is a highly skilled Obot disinformation agent placed by Soros to make the Birthers look like bumbling fools

- like they need any help with that...

ellid

Why do I have this awful feeling that "Borderhawk" is Minuteman, birther, legal analyst, and Dessert Storm veteran Gerry "Borderraven" Nance?

ASK Esq

KDLarsen:

The CT SSN is, in fact, Obama's (Unless he requested a new one after Orly published it everywhere). The claim it was issued to someone born in 1890 is a result of database garbage. The fact it is a CT number and not a HI number is likely due to a data entry error. SSNs were assigned based on the return address of the requestor. Obama's ZIP code when he requested a SSN was one digit off from a CT ZIP code. Odds are a SSA clerk simply hit the wrong number.

Lawyerwitharealdegree

"One thing that's really clear on the 1099 instructions: the amount listed is the amount the filer paid the recipient, not what the recipient was paid."

Maybe my eyes are bleary from reading too much today, but I am having trouble figuring out the meaning of this sentence.

Jeran

Oh, side note about SSNs: they are *not* issued at birth, although nowadays it's close to that. At the time Obama's was issued, most people got them in high school when they got their first job that required filing tax paperwork. The SSN prefix would be for the state you were living in when you applied for an SSN, not the state you were born in.

The change to getting SSNs at birth only came about in 1986, when the IRS started requiring SSNs for any dependents over the age of 5 being claimed on a tax return.

CalperniaUSA

I wish I was creative. I see potential for a cartoon starring Donald Trump's hairpiece and Orly Taitz's eyelashes.

DixT

OK everybody, please settle down! First of all, the "data" on SS#'s came from SSVS---which CANNOT be entered by the general public (only for employers, lawyers, etc.). Also, NexusLexus provides the same info, to the same category of people. There really ARE "discrepancies" in Obama's records, as well as his Mother's records. The Social Security Administration released (in 2010) Stanley Ann Dunham's SS Application, and there are "irregularities" also on this Application. She signed and dated the App. in May of 1959----on a SS Form that was NOT EVEN IN EXISTENCE UNTIL JULY OF 1965 (see Revision Date at bottom of her SS Application!) Compared to other states in 1959 Social Security Applications, Stanley Ann Dunham's SS Application IS NOT the form used for others in 1959---only her's is "a different form". She received her SS# in Washington state when she was 17-years old. So, maybe we need to back-up a bit, and breathe deep! This CANNOT be a "clerical error", as the "Revision" statement on her Application IS NOT generated by a "clerk"---it is generated ELECTRONICALLY at the printer's office!

Patrick McKinnion

DixT - I think you'll have better luck peddling this with the gullible over at Canada Free Press, where I found you spammed the comments there too:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/obamas-ineligibility-our-lexington-and-concord-moment-is-coming/P40/#c64268

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bad Tips

Help my blog?

Tip Jar

Crazy Internet People

Barackryphal

Obama Conspiracy Theories

Oh, For Goodness Sake

Reality Check | Blog Talk Radio Feed

Reality Check Radio Blog

Rumproast

Thunderhaven

Turning the Scale