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.
Yesterday my cousin mentioned a blurb she happened to hear on TV about up and coming comments on the Obama “natural born citizen” SCOTUS ruling .. Keith Olbermann was mentioned. Since I have heard nothing on MSM (main stream media) about this issue I set my DVR to record his show.
The segment started like this:
The idea that Barack Obama is not actually a “natural born citizen” of this country is so ridiculous ….
(you can review the video for yourself below) Olbermann has set the tone so what followed was not much of a surprise.
The point that I found most interesting was a comment from David Horowitz … the comment directly below has comments that came to mind as I was listening (remember I talk to the TV).
Below that you will see the Horowitz comment intact.
“The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. ”
How about being aware that the “fringe group” is actually a “Loyal American Fringe” (and growing) concerned about the Constitution itself?
“What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil?”
WHAT DIFFERERENCE DOES IT MAKE? … that pretty much explains Horowitz’s thought process … loyalty lies not with the Constitution and the intent of our founding fathers.
What matters Mr. Horowitz is … if that person is actually a “natural born citizen” or simply a “citizen of the USA”. One qualifies as President one DOES NOT.
“Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others.”
At this point my jaw is dropping realizing Horowitz does not seem to comprehend how destructive HIS ATTITUDE toward this matter is to the Constitution.
“But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?”
How viable will the Constitution be if they DO NOT?
How viable it is without “SOMEONE” vetting the worthiness of our most high HEAD OF STATE?
” … It is not conservatism: it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent.”
It is neither. It is LOYAL AMERICA tired to the teeth of those like HOROWITZ, OLBERMANN, HUFFINGTON and a myriad of others foisting their agenda on a population who thinks they are getting nightly news rather than “self interest propaganda“.
“Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation.”
“Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election and get over it;”
NO LOYAL AMERICANS do not have to accept someone who is does not meet the specified requirements of the Constitution.
“and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and – by the ways– its Constitution.”
There is no more important business than making sure the Constitution REMAINS in tact and the highest office of our land not be usurped by someone “without credentials”
National Review Online
I am not sure if MSNBC has altered the content or context of this comment to fit their agenda since I was not able to find the original on the National Review Online site. Two things lead me to speculate on this one of them being the tone of Olbermann himself.
EDIT: It was not entact view the whole article HERE.
“The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. ….What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots? … It is not conservatism: it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country’s economy and defending its citizens, and — by the way — its Constitution.”
National Review Online
Arianna Huffington weighs in on the issue stating “I am not a national born citizen”.
Well that was a “no brainer” since both parents are Greek and she herself was born in Athens. So the question remains does Arianna REALLY know what “natural born citizen” means?
Arianna seemed stuck on the line “whether Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen” or not”. To her that was totally unacceptable “its like saying whether the earth is flat or not”.
I found that comment an interesting analogy since we know ONE is NOT and it appears the other is NOT also.
But then it is easy to laugh off the Huffington logic as no logic at all.
Below you will find the whole video clip from the Olbermann show:
Donofrio outlines his argument concisely on his blog in a letter to ABC News:
“The main argument of my law suit alleges that since Obama was a British citizen – at birth – a fact he admits is true, then he cannot be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” has meaning. It deals with the status of a presidential candidate “at birth”.
Obama had dual nationality at birth. The status of the candidate at the time of the election is not as relevant to the provisions of the Constitution as is his status “at birth.” If one is not “born” a natural born citizen, he can never be a natural born citizen.”
It needs to be understood that the Donofrio application to the Supreme Cournt was denied NOT REFUSED.
The Supreme Court had this issue before them since Nov. 19.
It is clear they are well aware of the issues … THEY CHOSE (for wahtever reason) TO DENY the application.
The mainstream media keeps saying the SCOTUS REFUSED to hear the case. That is being presented as fact by those who apparently are ignorant of what has occured. They DID HEAR THE ISSUE.
I leave it up to you to speculate on the why of it all.
Donofrio’s latest comment is “I am done”
Frankly I do not blame him.
Apparently Leo Donofrio has tracked down the naturalization papers of Chester Arthur’s father.
He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.
And it’s no precedent to follow.