Have you heard?
Have you heard is a section where interesting news will appear just in case you missed it or were to busy to look.
Bingo! … I have asked this same question over and over. Who investigates what for news facts? Apparently no one.
We not only have lazy government officials (who barely show up for the job they are handsomely paid to perform) … we now have the press that sit on their duff in some cushy office spouting WHAT THEY THINK is news rather than going out to get THE FACTS themselves.
In one of the more incisive indictments of the MSM, certainly by one of its own, Joe Scarborough tore into the media this morning for its failure to have investigated Barack Obama’s political roots. In particular, the Morning Joe host ripped the MSM for not testing the truth of Ryan Lizza’s reporting, above, of Rahm Emanuel’s claim that he and Obama were central figures in Blago’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Scarborough pointed out that already this summer, when the Lizza article appeared, it was known that Blago was under a deep ethical cloud. Yet the MSM charged off to Wasilla to investigate Sarah Palin’s librarian, utterly uninterested in the report of Obama’s intimate link with America’s most corrupt governor. John Harwood of NYT/CNBC and Mike Barnicle played the perfect foils for Scarborough’s impassioned tirade, Barnicle going so far as to claim that no investigation was necessary: his “instinct” told him that Emanuel had overstated Obama’s involvement with Blago’s campaign.
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>
Update from the AP on today’s ongoing outcry for “ousting” the Bad Boy Governor of Illinois.
CHICAGO – Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich kissed his wife, rode in his state SUV to the office and sat down at his desk Thursday in front of a bust of Lincoln and an American flag to portray “a return to normalcy.” It was anything but. An extraordinary drama built through the day in Chicago as the political establishment of Illinois and the nation lined up against him.
Blagojevich’s approval rating dropped to an all-time low of 8 percent, and friends and foes alike feared if they don’t act swiftly to get rid of him, he might commit some kind of political mischief.
“The governor is in office, and he needs to be removed from office,” Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. “It is an urgent matter. Illinois is in crisis.”
The governor showed no signs of buckling to growing demands that he quit or be removed after his arrest Tuesday on corruption charges alleging that he tried to sell President-elect Barack Obama‘s Senate seat to the highest bidder.
While the governor was working — his spokesman would not say on exactly what — President-elect Obama told a news conference just a couple of blocks away that Blagojevich should go.
At the same time, Illinois lawmakers were organizing impeachment efforts, and the state attorney general said that if the governor were not impeached, she would seek a court order finding him unfit to serve.
Obama, speaking directly for the first time on the scandal that has distracted from his otherwise smooth transition, said he was “appalled” by the allegations.
“What I’m absolutely certain about is that our office had no involvement in any dealmaking around my Senate seat. That I’m absolutely certain of,” he said. “That would be a violation of everything that this campaign has been about. And that’s not how we do business.”
The governor spent the day at his wooden desk, reviewing budget issues and talking to his closest aides.
Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero described the governor’s mood as “upbeat” and “positive” and said “there’s a sense of trying to return to normalcy.” He said he knew of no decision about Blagojevich’s political future or what the governor might do with the Obama seat.
Blagojevich’s next move was the subject of great speculation in Illinois and around the country. Some observers wondered whether he might be seeking a deal with prosecutors to use the governor’s office as a bargaining chip, possibly agreeing to step down in exchange for leniency.
But there was also worry that the governor might still pick a senator.
His refusal to step down has struck some as odd given the fact that wiretaps portrayed him as bored with his job, saying he was “struggling financially” and did “not want to be governor for the next two years.”
But staying in office provides a financial benefit amid the turmoil: He continues to draw a $177,000-a-year salary.
Also Thursday, the criminal complaint that outlined the charges against Blagojevich yielded new details. The Associated Press learned that Senate Candidate 4 in the complaint is Illinois Deputy Gov. Louanner Peters. The source was not authorized to speak publicly about the complaint and spoke on condition of anonymity.
In the complaint, Blagojevich said he would put the deputy governor in the Senate before he gives the seat to another candidate and “don’t get anything.”
The decision to launch impeachment proceedings largely rests with House Speaker Michael Madigan, who, according to several House Democrats, faces a strong desire among his members for quick action. They said voters are demanding it, and lawmakers are transmitting that message to Madigan.
A poll taken since Blagojevich’s arrest shows 73 percent of those surveyed support impeachment, and 70 percent think he should resign.
Chicago-based Glengariff Group surveyed 600 Illinois residents by phone Tuesday and Wednesday, and the results showed Blagojevich’s approval rating at 8 percent. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percent.
Four House Democrats sent a letter to their colleagues Thursday seeking support for a motion to impeach Blagojevich. The letter asks members to indicate whether they oppose the idea or support it, or even whether they want to co-sponsor the motion.
Democratic Rep. Jack Franks, one of the governor’s fiercest critics, said he hopes Madigan will soon make clear that the House will launch impeachment proceedings unless Blagojevich resigns.
“It would be music to the ear of everyone in this state,” Franks said.
Franks said he has gotten “a deluge” of calls from lawmakers wanting to be part of any impeachment committee.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, the daughter of the House speaker, threatened again Thursday to file a lawsuit asking the state Supreme Court to have Blagojevich declared unfit to hold office if he doesn’t resign soon or get impeached.
“Obviously right now, in the best of all possible worlds, the governor would do what’s right for the people of the state of Illinois. He would resign,” said Madigan, a longtime Blagojevich foe considering a run for governor in 2010.
But “at this point he appears to be staying put,” and Madigan wants a signal from lawmakers about whether they will move quickly on impeachment proceedings.
Legislative leaders planned a special session Monday to strip Blagojevich of his power to pick a new U.S. senator, putting the decision in the hands of Illinois voters instead.
The White House on Thursday said President George Bush finds Blagojevich’s alleged behavior “astounding.”
Quinn said the impeachment process should begin when the Legislature convenes. If lawmakers don’t take action, he would support Madigan going to the Supreme Court.
Quinn strongly criticized the possibility of a special election to fill Obama’s seat, saying it would take too long, leaving Illinois with just one senator in Washington for months. Quinn said he has not spoken to potential Senate appointees and doesn’t have a short list of candidates.
If he becomes governor, Quinn said his “first order of business” will be appointing a senator. He did not flatly rule out choosing a Republican, saying he would pick the most qualified candidate.
Associated Press Writers Adam Goldman in Chicago and Christopher Wills in Springfield, Ill., contributed to this report.
Today is the day that the Supreme Court will decide to review or not cases involving Barack Obama’s “natural born citizen” state.
This situation is a hot potato for the Court.
My guess is they will do their best to figure out some way to simply dismiss all of the cases with a majority of Justices simply in hopes all of this goes away. If just one Justice dismisses the case the whole scenario starts over with the next Justice willing to listen.
There is a peaceful vigil taking place in front of the SC Dec 5th. It is to display solidarity in wanting the cases reviewed and to let the world know there are concerned citizens interested in the outcome.
Will the media report any of this? If they don’t that will be nothing new of course.
Here is another piece of information I got off the Donofrio site and thought I would share. This issue of “natural born citizen” seems to mystify everyone. Here is an explanation (again by Melissa)
December 4, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Fact: We know that the Framers recognized a difference between US citizens and natural born citizens.
We don’t need to look FOR the definition of natural born citizen.
We need to be looking AT the definition of a US citizen (which would be what is required to serve as Senator or Representative but isn’t quite enough to let one serve as President).
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This gives the SAME type of citizenship to those who are either:
1. BORN in the United States
2. NATURALIZED in the United States
A child BORN on US soil receives the same type of citizenship as someone that is naturalized.
Either could serve in the Senate or House but NEITHER can serve as President because they are only citizens. Not natural born citizens. They receive the same type of citizenship in different ways.
A child BORN on US soil to two foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.
A child BORN on US soil to one foreign parent and one US citizen is a citizen of the United States.
A person naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States.
All Citizens of the United States can serve as Senators and Representatives. They cannot serve as President.
So, now that we’ve figured out who CAN’T be President, who is left that CAN?
A person with two US citizens as parents.
As I was surfin the net today I stumbled onto this comment on the Donofrio site.
December 3, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Ironic comments from Obama about Justice John Roberts:
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during
this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to
provide critical documents as part of the record that could have
provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to
This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us.