Posted on 05/16/2011 1:21:38 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
Susan Daniels is a licensed private investigator who has researched the use of the social security number currently being used by Barack Hussein Obama which she has determined was issued in the state of Connecticut, where Obama has neither lived nor worked. Daniels has stated that the number had originally been assigned to a man from Connecticut born in 1890.
Daniels is president of Daniels and Associates Investigations Inc., which is located in Ohio and was incorporated in 1995. Prior to opening her own company, Daniels worked as a private investigator for Friedrick Investigations in Lakewood, OH, including in the areas of medical malpractice, background investigations, and litigation support. She was also employed as a journalist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer for 17 years, covering Board of Health meetings, trials, local county commissioners’ meetings, and performing public records research.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
It’s also not unusual for employers to get the kid’s SSN on the pretense of taking out SS benefits but never sending them in. Extra profit in the employers’ pocket and the kid isn’t likely to verify with SS, certainly not in those days. It happened to me along about the same time period. The only reason I found out was because another employee just happened to apply for retirement benefits. It’s not likely many employees from the Baskin Robbins in Hawaii was ready for retirement so it would have been a foolproof scam. This could be a reason the number doesn’t show it was used during his high school years.
Were it not for my belief in the sovereignty of God, and His eternal purposes, I could not bear that picture.
You keep playing at “yes, but” with everyone who’s been working on this for years, so how about you tell us how it happened.
"Generally, you are eligible for Medicare if you or your spouse worked for at least 10 years in Medicare-covered employment and you are 65 years or older and a citizen or permanent resident of the United States."
Where is the reference that shows that everyone is covered?
There is no doubt he would be covered by Medicaid.
“The card was applied for and issued around March 1977 to an individual born in 1890. Obama later stole the number from this individual...dead men/women tell no tales???”
Ok, this explains the timing better. Probably the reason I’m confused is that some of the wild theories being tossed about here appear to have Madelyn applying for Barry when he’s 15—i.e., using Madelyn to explain how he’s applying as a 15-year old for an SSN issued in CT.
As I say, there’s still a fundamental inconsistency between the MO used to acquire this card and the “standard MO” used by Ayers to secure cards based on dead babies. Likewise, a theory involving Madelyn has inherently less probability to me than one involving known ID forger Bill Ayers—especially if the theory requires her to be providing this assistance to him as a young adult rather than as a teen under her charge etc.
Were it not for my belief in the sovereignty of God, and His eternal purposes, I could not bear that picture.
These are the type of people who have risen to power in our once great nation.
"Generally, you are eligible for Medicare if you or your spouse worked for at least 10 years in Medicare-covered employment and you are 65 years or older and a citizen or permanent resident of the United States."
Where is the reference that shows that everyone is covered?
There is no doubt he would be covered by Medicaid.
“so how about you tell us how it happened.”
I honestly don’t know and the burden of proof is on those who claim to know, not me. It’s like a birth in Kenya. I’ve raised many objections to that theory that are based in common sense and easily available empirical evidence. So your question is the equivalent of a Kenyan birther responding to my skepticism by saying, “OK, you’re so smart: you tell us how his birth in Kenya happened.”
Fact: no one can explain how BHO would have legitimately gotten a CT-based SSN.
Fact: he has and continues to use exactly such an SSN.
Fact: he’s apparently spent considerable resources to successfully suppress many documents, including official government documents (e.g., the stonewalling of efforts to get Ann Dunham’s passport history/records seems to be one of the more blatant efforts). Yet somehow he HASN’T managed to keep a lid on this SSN.
I don’t pretend to be an expert, but it’s hard to see an innocent explanation in the above. But that is a far cry from claiming I know what the explanation is. I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse. I’m trying to be honest in reporting the aspects of these various theories that don’t ring true to me.
If these theories have holes from the perspective of someone like me who isn’t at this juncture inclined to give BHO the benefit of the doubt, imagine how much harder it is to persuade others more neutral than perhaps I am that these theories should be taken seriously.
Most of the addresses have a date of 2007-2008. Could these addresses be for political campaign offices? As Obama did not take federal campaign election money, maybe the reporting requirements were different?
College records, social security records and passport records of the late 70s and early 80s are the gateway to the truth.
1961-1964 has enough skeletons to keep looking forever. But equally if not more damaging events are in the timeframe from 1979 to 1984.
“Thus, a theory that “sort of fits” at first glance seems to fall apart upon more serious inspection.”
I disagree. The claim of an 87-year-old being “associated with” that SS# seems to me to be more likely to fall apart.
First, there is no death record for this SS#, which there would be for a person born pre-1900, while there would be no death record for a 1961 CT baby who happened to die and whose identity was stolen by Ayers and given to Obama. It would be extremely risky to go with pre-1900 SS# as the basis for a SS identity which would extend post-2000!
Corrupting the SS Admin. database to enable Obama to get a new identity in 1986 would seem to require a "conspiracy theory" involving SS Admin employees during the Reagan Admin., which is not needed if Ayers used a dead 1961 (or subsequent year) CT baby for Obama who happened to have received an SS. Ayers could have applied for the SS# in 1977 himself and kept the identity alive and ready for future use, as it may have turned out... by Obama.
The “associate with an 87-year-old” speculation is based on a stray entry in a data field and is not corroborated anywhere else that I have seen with a birth date, name, location or anything.
I used to work for the Social Security Administration as a Benefit Authorizer and I can assure you that there is a lot of erroneous data in the records.
“Where is the reference that shows that everyone is covered? “
I didn’t say everyone was covered. I said that anyone 65 or older is eligible to receive Medicare; this is from the page I cited:
“Note: You will be eligible for Medicare when you turn 65 even if you are not eligible for Social Security retirement benefits.”
As I indicated, if you don’t qualify for SS, then you will have to pay premiums for Part A, whereas the more limited eligibility groups you cite are automatically eligible for Part A without needing to pay such premiums. So to say you’re eligible should not be misconstrued to mean you get free benefits etc.
The source of this ridiculous claim is one SSN database result that showed the number 1890. If this number were actually assigned to someone who was born in 1890, there would be a name and exact birth date on record and it would show up on more than just one search.
A far more likely explanation is that it's just garbage data that shows up on these imperfect databases, sort of like how one shows one of Obama's addresses as "123 Happy Street."
I provided you the quote above that, i.e.,
"Generally, you are eligible for Medicare if you or your spouse worked for at least 10 years in Medicare-covered employment and you are 65 years or older and a citizen or permanent resident of the United States."
This clearly indicates that not everyone over 65 is automatically covered by Medicare. There are conditions. And in 1965, there were plenty of people not in Medicare covered employment.
We all establish land trusts when we buy a house, don't we?
ML/NJ
“We all establish land trusts when we buy a house, don’t we?”
I’m not trying to read into why they established a land trust to purchase property. It appears that they are actual owners of the property although why they need 2-3 other people as co-owners is beyond me. I wouldn’t Trust (forgive the pun) Barry Soetoro as far as I could throw him.
That being said there are legal tax perks to purchasing property in the name of a corporation or trust. Our best friends have done it and we are getting ready to do it and there is nothing nefarious about it. But then we are not Barry and Moochelle either. And we are not adding our attorney and a judge on as co-owners. LOL!
Most people do not purchase in the name of a trust or corporation so it is not the normal transaction.
It seems to me that there is reasonable evidence that he was Obama, not Soetoro, in high school. I base this upon this blog from Nov 6, 2008, where someone in the UK is chirping that she knew him when, and posts a picture she says is from her high school yearbook. It's a bit much to think the woman in question is part of some world-wide conspiracy.
ML/NJ
“This clearly indicates that not everyone over 65 is automatically covered by Medicare. There are conditions. And in 1965, there were plenty of people not in Medicare covered employment.”
I think you’ve missed the point. I never claimed everyone over 65 is “automatically covered.” Just because someone is ELIGIBLE doesn’t mean they’ll be covered. For example, every Medicare Part A beneficiary is eligible to get Part B, but only 90-95% actually do so, because to get this benefit, you have to be willing to pay premiums.
What I was reiterating (from the site I pointed to) is that “anyone 65 or older is eligible to receive Medicare” meaning that even if they don’t qualify for SS, they still can qualify for Medicare IF they are willing to pay premiums for Part A (and Part B if they want it). In contrast, those with a wage history long enough to qualify for SS AUTOMATICALLY qualify for Medicare Part A without having to pay any premiums.
So yes, there are people over age 65 without Medicare, but it’s because they CHOOSE not to pay the premiums required, not because they are ineligible to receive benefits. In contrast, I would guess only a handful of people who automatically qualify for free Medicare benefits would turn them down. I hope this makes things clearer. If not, I’ll leave it to someone else to explain, since I’ve explained it as clearly as I can.
We are talking past one another. This is the statement from your link. In order to be eligible for Medcare, you must meet the stated conditions, i.e., 10 yerars in Medicare-covered employment and be 65 years are older. It doesn't say that anyone can buy into Medicare as long as they are 65 or older. I notice that you can be covered in you need dialysis.
So you are saying that anyone can buy into Medicare as long as they agree to pay the premium for part A? This means that someone could enroll at any time over the age of 65 regardless of any preexisting condition. It could include the aged parents of an immigrant once they got their green cards. Is that correct?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.