Then there is the little question of corruption going on in IL.
Who thinks what about President Elects participation in that scandal.
The arguments from the left are actually quite funny.
Like: the FBI said Obama ABSOLUTELY had nothing to do with any of this.
I guess now we need to define absolutely like we did “IT”.
Clearly he had some involvement in it we just do not know what yet.
Perhaps there was nothing sinister perhaps there was.
I guess anyone looking at this from a Clinical Thinking perspective would recognize that the closed lip tactics that is characteristic of Obama certainly does him no good.
The “Clinical Thinking” of the USA are beginning to wonder what is Obama hiding and why?
While researching a news story about the TARP executive compensation rules and restrictions, I wondered to this site and found the following humorous take on the “BAD BOY BLAGO” corruption scandal. Enjoy! and stay tuned for the latest on the word “AUCTION” as it relates to the SEO’s (senior executive officials) compensation for all the Wall Street Artful Dodgers written into the legislation for the TARP, which is directed by Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson.
Blagogate? Chiblago? Hairnet?
Slate readers name the Blagojevich scandal.
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2008, at 12:06 PM ET
Last week, we solicited nominations for a Rod Blagojevich scandal-naming contest. The results are in, and suggestions fall into a few distinct categories:
The ever-popular “-gate” suffix. Readers suggested “Blagogate,” “Blagojegate,” and, for those who suspect we don’t know the full extent of the bribery, “Blo-gate.” “BidderGate” is smart but risks confusion with the “guns and religion” fuss. Sadly, these and all other “-gates” were automatically eliminated. Per order of the National Political Scandal Nomenclature Task Force, the suffix has been retired.
Random word merging. “Chicagovich” is a little clunky. “Illiseat” is clever, but maybe too much so. “Chiblago” is oddly inspired but seems better suited to the Broadway musical about the scandal than the scandal itself.
Curse words. “Bleepgate” was a popular one and almost caused a reconsideration of the rule against -gates. Variations include “Motherbleepergate” and “(expletive deleted)gate“—a mouthful that would give us typists carpal tunnel.
Honorable mentions: “Blagerloo” captures the dramatic finality of it all. “Blaghorea” doubles as a commentary on the commentary. “Blago-smear” goes out to all the Blagojevich sympathizers in the house. And “Hairnet” immortalizes the only thing people will remember about the governor a decade from now: his pompadour.
Second runner-up: “Pay-Rod.” Good merge of form and function. Doesn’t require prior knowledge other than a passing familiarity with the New York Yankees.
First runner-up: “Coiffuror.” A tribute to the man who has nothing to hide except, as Jon Stewart noted, “whatever is written on his forehead.” (Context warning: Also sounds like a Frenchman’s response to an inaudible verbal request from Hitler.)
And the winner is … “Blagola.” Payola is synonymous with pay-to-play radio deals. Blagojevich is synonymous with pay-to-play Senate seat deals. Spread the word! (Submitted by William C. Spruiell)
Top Washington Freaks Make The Excrement List
We have had many freaks in and out of Washington DC throughout the centuries. In the past the press has covered up for them very well. We all know JFK was a sex and drug addict but during his administration none of this information about the ten prescription medications for war injuries or his multiple affairs was ever reported by the press. So there is limited information out there about past
scandals such as Eleanor Roosevelt and her alleged lesbian encounters. Sad, scandal is always entertaining and brings these elitist snobs down to the everyday mans level. We all chuckle and revel at the same time.
From the information we have what are the most freakish people too ever grace the hallowed halls of the United States Congress, US Senate and Presidency? Here is my take but by no means is this absolute.
10. Wilber Mills from Arkansas. This dates me but I was fascinated as a youth as to how the ever perfect congressman could get involved with some HOT stripper from Argentina. Annabelle Battistella, better known as Fanne Foxe was married for god’s sake! Every male 14 year old kid was totally enthralled at this scandal. Should we higgledy-piggledy old geezers and feminazi bra burners who take a dim view of such affairs of the heart. Mr. Hart got the big thumbs down at the convention even though he was leading in delagates. I hope the trade off was worth it.
9. Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings his slave at the time seemed to be doing the horizontal tango in secret for quite a few years. DNA test in 1998 proved Thomas (or one of his relatives) was fathering children with Sally. Who would have thought it? The master picking out the best looking slave for a little extracurricular activity. No you don’t say!
8. Grover Cleveland wins his election despite opponents making an issue of his illegitimate child with chants of “Ma, ma, where’s my pa? / Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha.” Must have been a big deal back in the day. Must not have been that big of a deal because he won two nonconsecutive terms at the height of the Victorian era. 1885-1889 and 1893 to 1897. Even in the most socially repressive eras where there is a will theres a way. Something to keep in mind as the messiah will soon be our president. Yes we can!
7. Wayne L. Hayes, from Ohio Chairman of the House Administration Committee, resigned after a scandal broke involving his giving a raise to his mistress, Secretary Elizabeth Ray. She later told reporters “I can’t type. I can’t file. I can’t even answer the phone.” Cool way to use the power of the government. Another reason I read Time Magazine in the 70’s. That babe was smoking HOT! We forgive you Wayne. You set the standard and the standard was high.
6. The Miami Herald reported on a jaunt20between Colorado senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart and a 29-year-old Miami model named Donna Rice on a yacht called Monkey Business in the Caribbean resort of Bimini. Of course this revelation came about as Mr. Hart was winning the presidential primaries and delegate count with eventual nominee Walter Mondale. Unfortunately for Mr. Hart democrats have super delegates. And super delegates tend to be higgledy-piggledy old geezers and feminazi bra burners who take a dim view of such affairs of the heart. Mr. Hart got the big thumbs down at the convention even though he was leading in delagates. I hope the trade off was worth it.
5. Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon apologizes after 10 women accuse him of sexual harassment and later resigns after the ethics committee found him guilty of sexual misconduct. Talk about a pattern! This guy is a textbook example of what a sexual predator is. Well besides Bill. Put his picture as the poster boy for sexual harassment. Old ugly white guy with power desperate to have sex with any female dumb enough to submit. Yea that’s Bob Packwood. I bet when he was a kid he coined the phrase “if it’s old enough to bleed it’s old enough to breed.”
4. Sexual emails and instant messages between Congressman Mark Foley from, I am ashamed to admit it, Florida, and congressional pages surface just before the November 2006 midterm election. Hey Mark you’re a old disgusting man. Do you think a 16 year old would be interested in sex with you? Really? Creep.
3. Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho pleads guilty to disorderly conduct in a men’s room and a police officer testifies he was soliciting sex. Wow Larry we really didn’t know you were gay. Really! But hey dude drag your state and party down with you. Why not? It’s all about the life style and a paycheck right? Nothing like getting a bj while the wife is at the house with the Mormon ladies right? Another creep.
2. News of President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky comes to light through a sexual-harassment suit against him by Paula Jones. Bill, dude, there are two things you should have done. First admit the affair. Second…, PLEASE dude you are (were) the President. The President for christ sakes! I was saddened not so much that you were having an affair but you choose Monica Lewinsky. Your better than that! Does the name Fanny Foxe ring a bell? Elizabeth Ray? Dude I saw you at Valencia Community College in 1996. You are so much better. To say I was disapointed in your choice of women would be the understatement of the decade. I was EXTREMELY disappointed when Monica’s picture was released to the press. Come on Bill! Do me a favor. Authorize a release of a scandal with one of your current babes. Make me proud. I know you have it in you. Show the world Monica was just a fluke. Redeem yourself Bill!
1. David Vitter of Louisiana is reported to be on the phone records of a Washington madam. Then the scum holds a press conference with his beautiful wife at his side and cries like a wimp. What a total scum. Tell your wife to stay home next time. You and Spitzer are tied for number one because of your despicable practice of having your wives next to you during your little Exposé to the world of your indiscretions. Ugh that was just GROSS! Disappear dude and reappear in the 22nd century. You should be publicly spit upon till you get completely covered in saliva. You getting my drift?
I feel bad for some of the ladies behind these men but not all. Vitter and New York Governor Eliot Spitzer both have beautiful wives and children involved in these torrid scandals. If I was married to either one of these women I would thank my lucky stars everyday I was with them. Frankly its gut wrenching to watch these news conferences with these creepy men and their beautiful wives at there side spilling their indiscretions to the media. I hope in the future these men (and women if the case arises) will have the decency to tell their wives (or husbands) to stay home for these horrid spectacles. I have no sympathy for these jerks. My sympathy is for the wives who suffer in silence at the betrayal and public humiliation they have suffered through no fault of their own.
As for Hillary there was a pattern. The time for tears was back in 1988. That time came and went. She made a choice agree or disagree. I hope it works out well for her. For all her faults she didn’t deserve to be treated like she was, either from Bill or her father. I hope the marriage last till death. She earns respect points but also needs to be reminded on a daily basis all men are not like Bill or her father.
As for Wilber Mills and Wayne Hayes I don’t know if I should thank them or condemn them. Certainly they peeked my interest in politics back in the day. Those scandals made reading Time Magazine so much more enjoyable and fascinating. It was a needed break from Emily Post and Watergate. A peek into the underside of humanity. All us teenagers at the time secretly cheered and wished we were in your place. Now that we are older, we cherish the brief moments we have with our families and children. We question your motivations and wonder how you could lose sight of what is really important in your declining years. We all get old and die. All that really matters is our children and family. You lost sight of that in your pursuit of self satisfaction and immortality. The glitter has faded and so has the memories of your exploits.
Barney Frank and others who had their positions of trust and power compromised were intentionally left out of the list. They are freaks but when some jerk cost you $150,000 on your 401K because of his desire for high quality sex with CEO’s it’s not that funny. Hopefully Frank will get his just rewards soon. CBS putting on a fluff peice on 60 minutes will not rehabiltate Frank.
Every day we wake up to some new junk being foisted our way about this President Elect.
Piece by Debbie Schlussel:
Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?
It’s either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama’s official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.
But the release of Obama’s draft registration and an accompanying document, posted below, raises more questions than it answers. And it shows many signs of fraud, not to mention putting the lie to Obama’s claim
The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it’s proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.
But the Selective Service System registration (”SSS Form 1“) and accompanying computer print-out (”SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:
* Document Location Number Indicates Obama Selective Service Form was Created in 2008
First, there is the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form. In the upper right hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-stamped DLN, in this case “0897080632,” which I’ve labeled as “A” on both the SSS Form and the computer printout document. On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation.
As the retired federal agent notes:
Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008. The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except the 0 and 8 have changed positions making it a 1980 DLN number. And 1980 is the year Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered. So, why does the machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which was manually input) reflect a “corrected” DLN year of 1980? Were all the DLNs issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?
It’s quite a “coincidence” . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this case.
Far more likely is that someone made up a fake Selective Service registration to cover Obama’s lack of having done so, and that the person stamping the form forgot (or was unable to) change the year to “80″ instead of the current “80″. They either forgot to fake the DLN number or couldn’t do so.
And guess where the Selective Service registrations are marked and recorded? Lucky for Obama, it’s his native Chicago. From an article entitled, “Post Office Registration Process”, on the Selective Service website:
When a young man reaches 18 he can go to any of the 35,000 post offices nationwide to register with Selective Service. There he completes a simple registration card and mails it to the Selective Service System. This begins a multi-step process which results in the man’s registration.
Each week approximately 6,000 completed registration cards are sent to the Selective Service System’s Data Management System (DMC) near Chicago, Ill. At the DMC these cards are grouped into manageable quantities. Each card is then microfilmed and stamped with a sequential document locator number. The processed microfilm is reviewed to account for all documents and to ensure that the film quality is within strict standards. After microfilming, the cards are keyed and then verified by a different data transcriber.
The Document Locator Number (DLN) is an automatic function (Selective Service record-keeping, specifically the DLN is described on pages 7-8 of this Federal Register document), with the first two digits comprising the year, and it was not changed to “08″ in error. So if the form was filed and processed in 1980, how did it get a 2008 DLN?!
* Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form is Apparently 1990 Form Altered to Appear Like 1980 Form
On the SSS Form 1, in the lower left hand corner is the form number (SSS Form 1) and the month and year version of the form, labeled as “B”. On this particular Form 1, it clearly shows the month as “FEB” (February), and the year is either “80″ or “90″. The retired federal agent investigated further:
Magnification of the form both physically (with a 10x glass) or with different image software does not reflect a clear cut result of either a “80″ or a “90″.
But, checking the history of SSS Form 1 (see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=198002-3240-001#), it’s apparent that in February 1980, the Selective Service agency withdrew a “Request for a new OMB control number” for SSS Form 1 (see also, here)–meaning the agency canceled its previous request for a new form, and one was never issued in “FEB 1980″.
Since under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 a federal agency can not use a form not approved by OMB (Office of Management and Budget), it’s nearly impossible for Senator/President-Elect Obama’s SSS Form 1 to be dated “Feb 1980.” And since that makes it almost certainly dated “Feb 1990,” then how could Barack Obama sign it and the postal clerk stamp it almost ten (10) years before its issue?! Simply not possible.
The lower right hand corner reflects that the Obama SSS form 1 was approved by OMB with an approval number of 19??0002, labeled as “C”. The double question marks (??) reflect digits that are not completely clear.
* Barack Obama’s Signature is Dated After Postal Stamp Certifying His Signature
Barack H. Obama signed the SSS Form 1’s “Today’s date” as July 30, 1980, labeled “D”. But the Postal Stamp reflects the PREVIOUS day’s date of July 29, 1980, labeled “E”. Yes, Obama could have mistakenly written the wrong date, but it is rare and much more unlikely for someone to put a future date than a past date. (Also note how Barry made such a “cute” peace sign with the “b” inside the “O” of his signature. Touching.)
* Postal Stamp is Incorrect, Discontinued in 1970
Then, there is the question as to whether the Postal Stamp is real. The “postmark” stamp–labeled “E”–is hard to read, but it is clear that at the bottom is “USPO” which stands typically for United States Post Office. However, current “postmark” validator, registry, or round dater stamps (item 570 per the Postal Operations Manual) shows “USPS” for United States Postal Service. The change from Post Office to Postal Service occurred on August 12, 1970, when President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic–Public Law 91-375. The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971.
Why was an old, obsolete postmark round dater stamp used almost ten (10) years after the fact to validate a legal document . . . that just happened to be Barack Obama’s suspicious Selective Service registration form?
* Form Shows Barack Obama didn’t have ID
The SSS Form 1 states “NO ID”, labeled “F”. Since that’s the case, then how did the Hawaiian postal clerk know that the submitter was really Barack H. Obama, who may have been on summer break from attending Occidental College in California. How would they determine whether the registrant was truly registering and not a relative, friend, or other imposter?
* The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election.
The retired federal agent who FOIA’d Barack Obama’s Selective Service Registration Form notes:
Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:
Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance with Federal law.
Janice L. Hughes/SSS
Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008 (prior to my October 13, 2008 request), and stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Did they temporarily change the date on the computer database?
On the previous FOIA response, they stated that it was filed on September 4, 1980. In my second request I mentioned that Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.
* Other Questions: Missing Selective Service Number, FOIA Response Dated Prior to FOIA Request, Missing Printout Page
Where is Obama’s Selective Service number (61-1125539-1) on the card?
And the retired federal agent notes that the Selective Service Data Management Center prepared its response to his FOIA request prior to the request having been made:
The last transaction date is 09/04/80 [DS: labeled “G”], but the date of the printout is 09/09/08 [DS: labeled “H”]. My FOIA was dated October 13 so why did they prepare the printout BEFORE I submitted my FOIA? I gave them no “heads up” that I was sending it. In fact it was not mailed until late October–around the 25th.
Also, notice the printout was page 1 of 2 [DS: labeled “I”].
Hmmm . . . where is the other page, and what’s on it?
A lot of questions here. And a lot of huge hints that this government-released, official Barack Obama Selective Service registration was faked. Either he signed the fake backdated document, or someone else faked his signature and he never registered for the draft (and lied about it).
Which is it?
It’s incredible that our impending Commander-in-Chief either didn’t register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently.
The documents indicate it’s one or the other.
*** UPDATE: Here’s another irregularity that points to fraud, as spotted by reader Joyce:
My husband printed the information provided on your web site regarding Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration discrepancies. I noticed that the DLN number in upper right corner (labeled “A”) has only ten (10) digits with the first two being 08 , but the DLN number shown on the computer screen printout has eleven (11) digits with the first two being 80. It clearly indicates that the “8″ was added at the beginning of the DLN number, in order to appear that it was issued in 1980 and wasn’t simply a reversal of the first two digits as the retired federal agent noted. This in itself appears questionable. I would think there is a standard number of digits in all DLN numbers.
**** UPDATE #2, 11/14/08: Retired Federal Agent Source Reveals Himself:
The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there is no question as to the source of the information.
His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.
He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.
He can be reached via email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
UPDATE #3, 11/17/08: Some Obamapologists are claiming this is a fake and want to see evidence that retired agent Coffman actually got these documents from the Selective Service System Data Management Center. Below are scans of the letter and envelope that accompanied Barack Obama’s fraudulent registration for the draft (I’ve cropped the blank white space):
Reprinted with Permission of Debbie Schlussel
For continued UPDATES:strong>
Fred Thompson action comittee.