November 13, 2008http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions
Printer Friendly
By Debbie Schlussel
**** Copyright 2008, Must Cite Debbie Schlussel and link to DebbieSchlussel.com ****
*** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ***
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 that he registered for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.
November 13, 2008
EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration?
Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions
Printer Friendly
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
By Debbie Schlussel
**** Copyright 2008, Must Cite Debbie Schlussel and link to DebbieSchlussel.com ****
*** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ***
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 that he registered
for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.
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, but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look like it is from
1980, when it was actually created in 2008.
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 an 8 has
been added to make it look like it is from 1980 and give 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.
Sincerely,
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.
Posted by Debbie at November 13, 2008 01:56 AM
Comments
I think you are right about this. Besides the form being wrong, I don't believe he was really born in 1961. I say this because he continually claims he was 8 years old when his buddy Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon in 1968. Had he been born in '61 that would make him 6 or 7 depending on the half of year he is refering to and seeing that his objective by his claim is to say he was very young at the time, one would think he would get it right (as in the date he claims to be born on).
Posted by: BobOnStatenIsland at November 13, 2008 02:33 AM
Bob,
When Obama says he was 8, he's referring to 1969 when Ayers participated in his first bombing.
As for Obama's SSR, I'm gonna wait until someone in the know responds.
Posted by: Norman Blitzer at November 13, 2008 03:03 AM
Bob,
Scratch my last post to you. I'm probably wrong.
Posted by: Norman Blitzer at November 13, 2008 03:12 AM
The digits in the DLN are not transposed. The second DLN is the same as the first with an 8 added at the
beginning, 0897080632 vs 80897080632. So much for the sharp eyes and the keen insight of that anonymous
"retired federal agent". Could it be that the big blue A photoshopped on top of the form is covering up the first
digit of the DLN to turn the "808" at the start into "08" to make the case that it is a 2008 number? It should be
real easy to find out if the DLN on a real Selective Service form from the 1980 time frame is supposed to have
a 10 or an 11 digit DLN to see which one is correct.
Also, http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm says that anyone who doesn't register is not eligible for Federal
student loans. Obama got student loans, as should be easy to verify and is mentioned among other places
at http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/09/michelle-obama-baracks-book-sales-paid-off-our-student-loans/
[B: NICE TRY, BUT THE "A" IS NOT COVERING UP ANYTHING. THIS IS THE DOCUMENT EXACTLY
AS WE GOT IT, BUT FOR THE ADDITION OF THE COLORED LETTERS TO INDICATE THINGS AND
NOTE MY SITE.
APPARENTLY YOU DON'T READ VERY CLOSELY, EITHER. THE EXTRA "8", AS I NOTED, WAS INDEED,
ADDED ON THE PRINTOUT FORM--WHERE IT COULD EASILY BE DOCTORED--TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE
A 2008 FORM WAS ACTUALLY FROM 1980, WHEN IT WAS NOT. THE FRAUD ARTIST--EITHER OBAMA
OR ONE OF HIS FRIENDS AT THE CHICAGO-BASED SSS DATA MGT. CENTER OR BOTH--WERE ABLE
TO ADD THE EIGHT VERY EASILY ON A COMPUTER PRINTOUT, BUT EITHER COULDN'T OR FORGOT
TO DO SO ON THE BATES-STAMPED DATA LOCATOR NUMBER.
IN THOSE DAYS, THEY DIDN'T YET CRACK DOWN ON NON-COMPLIANCE ENOUGH AND THE LAW ON
FEDERAL LOANS WASN'T YET IN EXISTENCE. BUT YOU KEEP TRYING FOR EXCUSES. DS]
Posted by: bugstomper at November 13, 2008 09:43 AM
I checked my Selective Service card and mine has an 81 designator, which is appropriate with the year I
registered. Although I was in the Air Force Reserve at the time, I still was required to register (I enlisted at 17,
and turned 18 while in the Reserves). I thought it was stupid to register for the Draft while I was serving in a
reserve component, but I complied with the law. Now, oddly enough, when I separated from the active Air Force,
I had to RE-register (which I did do), and then I received a letter from the Selective Service folks informing me
that since I had done my military service (duh) I was no longer liable for conscription. My number didn't change,
though, as it still had an 81 designator on it.
In short, Obama's a fraud and civil serpents are covering for him. What's the penalty for fraudulent registration,
because some folks (Obama, especially) need to pay up!
Posted by: Sharps Rifle at November 13, 2008 09:45 AM
I'm wondering how I can get a copy of my Selective Service Registration. I was born in July 1961, my form
should surely represent what Obama's form looks like.
Posted by: Mark at November 13, 2008 10:09 AM
So this document is a fake...
What next? Have another election?
Presidents are supposed to try and cover up all kinds of things (and then get caught)... like oral sex from
chubby interns, like Iran-Contra, like getting drunk and shooting an old guy in the face (okay, technically a VP)
... like Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Other than giving right wingers something to harp on, what should be the end game of this forged document?
Overturn the decision of the American electorate in the 2008 Presidential Electorate?
Posted by: James Scearce at November 13, 2008 10:37 AM
To Mark: you can retrieve your selective service number at https://www.sss.gov/RegVer/wfVerification.aspx
I'm such an old coot that I would have to do it via a mail request. I probably still have my "draft card" around,
but I am too lazy to hunt it up.
Posted by: Shr_Nfr at November 13, 2008 10:49 AM
Nothing surprises me about Barack Hussein Obama anymore ... now how about we get ahold of his birth
certificate?!
Jimmy Lewis
SCS, Michigan
Blog: http://rougerevival.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jimmy Lewis at November 13, 2008 10:55 AM
Debbie, this is a fascinating story and I'm sure that every responsible journalist in America will be knocking
your door down any moment now to cover in detail. Say howdy to Olbermann and Matthews for me when
they interview you.
The mystery behind this man is astounding. It pains me to think he will have the title, Commander-in-Chief.
I wonder how the military will react to this story?
Posted by: SydB at November 13, 2008 11:07 AM
Any reason that you don't name your source for the FOIA material?
Posted by: KingSlav at November 13, 2008 11:20 AM
Don't forget to wear your tin foil hat, Debbie.
Posted by: sirkowski at November 13, 2008 11:26 AM
DS -- outstanding work. Thank you.
You don't think anything will come of this though do you?
As much as I hate to admit it, even if someone dug up a past murder conviction
(NOT SAYING THERE IS ONE...just using an extreme example), pretty certain all the lefties would
STILL look the other way and shrug the shoulders.
They got one of theirs in there and they will soon be in power. We're going to have to suck it up and
gut this out one year, one month, one week, at a time. Loyal and fervent opposition.
Posted by: soccerdad at November 13, 2008 11:32 AM
My mom didn't want me to register, she being a big anti-war type. I finally did so, however, realizing
that student loans would be a problem. This was in 1980, I believe. I don't recall if I had to submit proof
of registration with the student loan application, or not.
In any case, I imagine that his apparent failure to register may have been because of maternal pressure
or some such. I don't necessarily hold it against him, although if he was directly involved in the creation of a
fake, that's another story.
Posted by: sonomaca at November 13, 2008 11:40 AM
The Democrat Party hierarchy both inside and outside the government created this candidate, Barack Obama.
They altered, hid or destroyed any document that would expose the real Obama to public scrutiny. University
administrations were involved because no record of Obama's writings at ANY school could be found.
His official Hawaii birth certificate does not exist, because there never was one, only the "created" birth
certificate exists, just like this draft registration.
The election of 2008 will someday be exposed as the most corrupt election in the history of the United States.
2008 is the year we elected an African born marxist-muslim, to be the President of the United States of America.
The Democrat Party should be banned as a subversive organization bent on the OVERTHROW of the
United States Government, because folks, they have almost accomplished just that.
The military may have to save us from the marxists presently controlling our government!
Posted by: PatrickHenry at November 13, 2008 11:46 AM
To PatrickHenry,
I agree with you. And to James Scearce...it's obvious by your response that moral character, substance and
true leadership were not a prerequisite in your decision to support Obama. You ask,"...what should be the end
game of this forged document?" I believe the "end game" should be to expose Obama for what he truly is...
a liar and a radical revolutionary hell-bent in turning America into a socialized welfare state at the expense of
others. You, sir, are a mindless fool if you think the accusations, investigations, and ongoing search for the
real truth behind this man. There are so many questions about Obama left unanswered. Could you please
help me understand why we should support such an individual whose past is riddled with controversy?
Posted by: Kurier Radek at November 13, 2008 12:22 PM
It's probably usless but you ain't seen nuthin yet! The inmates now run the asylum and all we can do is hold
our noses and wait. We will give this administration as much leeway as they gave to Bush. Clinton and his
antics did not affect us and now no use to wonder why Obomer got elected. Hold your noses and go on.
Posted by: arejaymack at November 13, 2008 12:34 PM
Just curious why this didn't come out until AFTER the election? Why we still haven't seen a birth certificate?
I don't think it would have affected the outcome. ACORN was determined to vote the same way no matter
what came to light about The Commander in Thief.
What can we do about it? Pitchforks and torches. Let's march on Washington January 20 and storm the
bastille!!
Right. We're effed. As one of the other posters said, all we can do is go along for the ride at this point.
Half of Americans voted for this putz and still think he's the One.
Our only hope from a complete marxist/communist takeover is that the troops take their vow seriously --
"all enemies, foreign and domestic" and protect us from the evil triumvirate of Obama/Pelosi/Reid.
Posted by: ConnectTheDots2006 at November 13, 2008 12:44 PM
Just checked with the selective service link posted above. My number begins with my birth year and has
a total of TEN digits. Also posted is the date that I registered.
Posted by: laser--*52609 at November 13, 2008 01:44 PM
There is something you can do. Go to www.democratic-disaster.com and volunteer!
Posted by: stormyweather at November 13, 2008 01:48 PM
Google says the phone number belongs to M L Dunham (grandmother) with correct address.
Does anyone have access to Hawaiian records that show she ownwed this number in 1980?
Grandma could have had the same number for a long time (28 years) or this could be another
current info issue versus older records?
Posted by: tompur at November 13, 2008 01:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barack_Obama_signature.svg
Here is a copy of his signature - doesn't look anything like that!
You can find it in many locations and always the B looks like a bubble rather than the way it shows here. In general you can't read the letters after the B. I would say forged, but I'm no expert!
Posted by: jcsjcm at November 13, 2008 02:00 PM
Well researched, and exhaustive. I'm curious if you could identify the federal law that the alleged forgers
broke here and its maximum penalty.
Thanks!
Posted by: CTN at November 13, 2008 02:14 PM
Obama's signature on the SSS Registration Form form does not match his actual signature
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barack_Obama_signature.svg). Now, I know the signature on
the SSS Registration Form is supposedly from 1980, and people signatures change over time,
but they do not change as drastically as the 1980 version above and the 2008 version at the link
I provided. The contrast is so stark that indicates that they are most likely not the same person
did not sign both documents.
Posted by: waupee at November 13, 2008 02:23 PM
Interesting research,
kinda reminds me of the research into George Bush's National Guard records, you know the missing records,
the failure to actually complete his national guard service, etc.
Of course you probably think that was all bull right.
But then I guess all you conspiracy theorists really like the way the country has been run over the last eight
years.
Posted by: krsaz at November 13, 2008 02:35 PM
I'm not defending Obama, but your DLN document analysis is way off.
The first two digits are a location code, not year. Here is the link to the IRS training manual:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6hGBJBo7Jv0C&pg=PA1016&lpg=PA1016&dq=%22first+two+digits%22+of+Document+Locator+Number+(DLN)%3B&source=web&ots=aC658pgzru&sig=d3_81R5KgSDjC_k6jTX-9WgKt3U&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
The final digit is the year.
[TKC: WOW, YOU'RE REALLY GRASPING AT STRAWS. SINCE WHEN IS THE IRS THE SAME AS
THE SSS? THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PROCEDURES. HELLO . . .? THE IRS ONLY USES ONE DIGIT
FOR THE YEAR IN THE DOCUMENT LOCATOR NUMBER B/C IT IS ONLY REQUIRED TO KEEP
TAX RECORDS ON FILE FOR THE PREVIOUS SEVEN YEARS. BUT THE SSS IS REQUIRED TO
KEEP SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS UNTIL THE REGISTRANT'S 85TH BIRTHDAY,
SO IT USES TWO DIGITS FOR THE YEAR IN THE DOCUMENT LOCATOR NUMBER.
GET A CLUE AND QUIT USING RED HERRINGS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO
DEFEND THE FRAUD OBAMA. HE LIED ABOUT REGISTERING FOR THE DRAFT, AND THIS IS A
FAKE, SINCE HE NEVER REGISTERED.
YES THERE IS AN "ANALYSIS" HERE THAT IS WAY OFF: YOURS. IF YOU CAN CALL THAT
"ANALYSIS." DS]
Posted by: TheKansasCitian at November 13, 2008 02:43 PM
krsaz,
The real issue not about this one document, its that Obama's entire past is riddled with, at the very least,
very questionable activities and repeated failure to speak the truth. Hell, he won't even provide a copy of
his birth certificate or any of his college records. Everything about his past is shrouded in secrecy and
any document in his past that can speak anything about him has either been lost or has been sealed
by his legal team.
As for the GW National Guard reference, that whole story was proven to be a farce, and didn't
"Rathergate" eventually lead to the end Dan Rather's career at CBS?
Yeah, Bush is definately not the best president we've ever had. But McCain/Palin would not have
been four more years of the same. At least we know who they are and we can verify their records
and past accomplishments.
Posted by: waupee at November 13, 2008 02:58 PM
I looked up my SSS # on the provided link, mine shows Selective Service Number:
75-13XXXXX-X
The X's are numbers I replaced for privacy. I was born in 75 but registered in 94.
The first two digits have nothing to do with year. They, as stated in the IRS DLN
specifications are a location. On IRS forms only 1 digit is used to denote the year.
Not sure how that works, but that's what the manual says.
I would have loved nothing more for this to be a true forgery and catch Obama red handed, but its not.
The facts just don't support it.
Posted by: TheKansasCitian at November 13, 2008 03:05 PM
Good work Debbie.
Unfortunately I think you have just reserved a spot on the "Obama enemies list". Prepare to have a detailed audit of your income taxes every year along with any other way they can harass you.
Posted by: I_am_me at November 13, 2008 03:14 PM
Kansas Citian:
You may be correct, but I'm not sure why you would use IRS standards to interpret a Selective Service form, or why you would use 1994 standards to define a 1980 document.
Can you explain?
Posted by: CTN at November 13, 2008 03:27 PM
Outstanding reporting. I know the MSM and much of the 'conservative' media will ignore this,
but sooner or later, this information will seep through. When it does, it will open the door to all
your other exposes; it is just a question of time, and I have tremendous respect for your efforts
to bring the truth to a public that would rather believe lies than the truth.
Posted by: c f at November 13, 2008 03:38 PM
Debbie, same sentiments as I_am_me. We know you do diligent work and you are very intelligent so
if you put it out there I expect it to have legs to stand on.
But if anyone will take on COBRAMA it will be Patriots like Debbie.
I wouldn't doubt KING HUSSEIN COBRAMA would do something like this. He has lied about everything
in his past. The Nowhere Man.
Posted by: californiascreaming at November 13, 2008 03:41 PM
I wonder why "S.Beretania" looks to have been added after everything else has been filed out? note the
elevation of the print? why would he not know where he lived? It's as if he (or someone) was writing it in
pieces insted of flowing as it should have looked?
I don't trust a thing this liar has said or done.
RATM
Posted by: 25eight at November 13, 2008 03:41 PM
Good catch Debbie -- looks legitimate to me!
Posted by: ob3 at November 13, 2008 03:48 PM
Wow, Debbie--this is dyn-o-mite!
The problem is that the mainstream media will cover it up.
I still want to know why he went to Hawaii before the election. It wasn't because his grandmother was dying
as he had long since thrown her under the bus.
The government of Hawaii (a one party Democrat state, BTW) is covering for Barry. Let us see a valid (as in
not a fake or not a doctored) birth certificate. It's that simple. Only a moron would not produce the
Hawaii birth certificate. Unless it doesn't exist.
And for types like Blitzer, a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser is not a legal document.
Posted by: lexi at November 13, 2008 03:52 PM
Since no one has committed on it yet, am I the only one here wondering why the form asks if you are
male or female in block 2 when the selective service act expressly prohibited females?
I am sure somewhere there is a bureaucrat whose entire job consists of compiling statistics on the
number of males and females signing up for selective service. Current female count: 0
Posted by: rbb at November 13, 2008 03:58 PM
DS, If you would read your own writing closely, you would see that you did not say, and I'll copy and paste here,
"THE EXTRA "8", AS I NOTED, WAS INDEED, ADDED ON THE PRINTOUT FORM--WHERE
IT COULD EASILY BE DOCTORED"
All your post says about that is a quote from the "retired federal agent" who said (another copy and paste)
"The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except the 0 and 8 have changed positions"
and later where you say
"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" [sic]"
If you are going to prove something like this you should at least try to be precise. It is discrepancies like
this that could lead people to claim that your scan of the registration form is doctored because the A is
covering up a digit, a claim no more farfetched than the claim that what some might see as a data entry error
adding an extra digit in a manually entered and unchecked DLN field on the computer screen printout is part of an
attempt to cover up a forgery by entering a forged 11 digit number in a 10 digit field, an implausibly clumsy forgery.
Anyway, my point was to raise the easily answered question as to what is the correct format of the DLN,
10 or 11 digits, as the answer to that would indicate which of the two numbers to trust more. And we got the
answer from Kansas Citian's comment: The DLN on his form is ten digits and began with a number other than
the year that he registered. That would indicate that 1) The DLN on the document is the correct one of the two
(which is consistent with your theory but doesn't prove it), and 2) The first two digits do not necessarily
correspond to the year of registration (which blows that part of your proof out of the water).
CTN is correct that the IRS standards for a DLN don't necessarily apply to Selective Service documents.
But Kansas Citian cited his own Selective Service form DLN, so that part of his post is applicable.
Perhaps SS changed the format of the DLN between 1980 and 1994 to use birth year instead of registration year.
That argument is really reaching to make excuses and doesn't explain how they handled people
born in 1980 whose DLNs would look just like those of people born between 1960 and 1962 who registered in 1980.
The real bottom line is that the questions about the Selective Service form can easily be answered by the Selective Service department who can tell you the proper format of their DLNs and standards for postmarks and requirements for IDs and so forth more reliably than an anonymous retired federal agent who may or may not be familiar with SS DLNs (which are apparently different from IRS DLNs and who knows what other federal departments).
So take off the tinfoil hat, ask the questions of some civil servant at the
Selective Service department (you might even be able to find a Republican
there to be sure of your answer), and then let the chips fall where they may once
you find out the truth about the document. Maybe you'll get lucky and the DLN really
will prove that Obama never registered.
Posted by: bugstomper at November 13, 2008 04:26 PM
In 1980 wasn't Obama residing at Occidental College, which doesn't appear on his record.
Posted by: Mel at November 13, 2008 04:26 PM
Kansas Citian: The IRS has more than one standard for listing a citizen's social-security number on documents.
When I've looked up my IRS info, I've seen anywhere four to six digits x'd out, depending on the year
and document I'm trying to access. It seems like it's random and not really a standardized system.
Moreover I agree with the other post that said we can't apply IRS standards to
Selective Service Procedures in which standard conventions may have varied several times between now
and 1980.
Obama has a problem.....but maybe our wonderful GWB will toss him one of the pardons.
Also, isn't Selective Service registration mandatory for college scholarships and financial aid ?????
Posted by: Maxine Weiss at November 13, 2008 04:44 PM
And before someone else notices, I'll point out my own mistake: Kansas Citian apparently confused his SSS number,
which as you can see in Obama's printout begins with his birth year, with the DLN. So Kansas Citian's comment still
does not answer the question about the proper format of the DLN.
But as I said, that question is best answered directly from the Selective Service Department by asking them a) what
is the proper format, and b) if it is supposed to begin with the registration year what is their explanation for Obama's
form's DLN. Better to go to the source than engaging in endless speculation.
Posted by: bugstomper at November 13, 2008 04:49 PM
what's concerning is the date stamp. Can anyone find anything stamped with 'USPO' instead of 'USPS?' It appears
online to be a isolated incident.
Are there any stamp collectors out there that can quantify the value of an error like this on a US postal stamp?
Wouldn't this be a rare find? In more ways than one anyway.
Posted by: MissTickly at November 13, 2008 05:04 PM
I think the search is on to fond another registration out of the same office close to sept 1980 and compare the
postal stamps. Case solved if they do or don't match.
Posted by: MissTickly at November 13, 2008 05:08 PM
Re: Kansas Citian. You are confusing the DLN and Selective Service numbers. The first two digits on your
Selective Service number are "75", the same as your birth date. Likewise, Obama's SSN starts with "61",
same as his birth year. Mine starts with "61" too, as I was born in 1961 and actually had my card processed
on the same day as Obama- 09/04/1980.
As far as I can tell, Obama's Selective Service number is not found on either document. A previous poster claims
Obama's # is 61-1125539-1. I wonder if the middle series of numbers is sequential? If so, Obama would be
the 1,125,539th registrant. As noted previously, my card was processed the same day as his- 09/04/1980.
The middle numbers on my SSN are 1,07x,xxx-4. This would make me approx. the 1,070,000th applicant.
Those two numbers are fairly close- within 50,000 of each other. I wonder what the last number signifies?
Posted by: paigenalex at November 13, 2008 05:08 PM
paigenalex: what does your date stamp look like? Is is out of Chicago, too?
Posted by: MissTickly at November 13, 2008 05:10 PM
What I am Curious about is that if there is 2 different DLN's, who owns the one from 1980?
Also isn't all Microfiche dated when created?
I would assume that BHO's SS form would have been processed according to it's arrival at the Agency
that handled the Processing. So wouldn't that leave a paper trail?
Is there any proof that the original Microfiche that would have held this information has ever been tampered with?
Is there any other Documentation that BHO would have supplied to the Selective Service that proved that BHO
provided an Indonesian Passport to prove Citizenship in another Country?
This is Far fro Over in my Eyes!!!
Posted by: SirJaxx at November 13, 2008 05:11 PM
Profanity is still the crutch of a weak mind. Whenever I see any kind of profanity in a comment, I immediately
stamp it with my "WEAK MIND" stamp and pass right over it. Obamaism should be officially classified as a cult.
Its follower are all brainwashed by hopey changey. They can't handle the truth about their "messiah". That he is a
dope on a rope with no hope. He is going to go down in the flames of abject FAILURE. Oh, and did I fail to mention
that he has BIG EARS!
Posted by: Jayke Feltz at November 13, 2008 05:16 PM
One more thing, I believe Obama was still using the last name Soetoro until he transferred from Occidental to Columbia. Perhaps he was going by the book and using his birth name, but he used the name Soetoro for all his school records.
Posted by: paigenalex at November 13, 2008 05:17 PM
MissTickly, I don't have the card. I used the link earlier in the post to look up my number. I was struck by the fact our registrations were recorded the same day. All I remember about the card was it was postcard sized and aqua blue in color.
Posted by: paigenalex at November 13, 2008 05:22 PM
Good find Debbie...
LOL, here we go again. First, alleged forged birth certificates posted on Obama's and two other web sites, and now these apparently doctored documents. I checked the image headers with a hex editor, and just like Obama's alleged forged BC's, both have "Ducky" and "Adobe" embedded in each of these selective service images also.
Question is now, who do we get in OUR government to investigate this. They wouldn't touch his birth certificate,
so how in the hell, and whose arm needs to be twisted to get this looked at???
Posted by: Jackson Pearson at November 13, 2008 05:28 PM
Jackson: I can't verify the hex data, but assuming you are right, howcan this be, these came from the selective
service I thought and not Obama? Am I misunderstanding how the foia request works?
Posted by: MissTickly at November 13, 2008 05:34 PM
Verifying info on form... Reverse telephone shows up as grandmother:
ML Dunham (808) 949-2317 1617 S Beretania St, Honolulu, HI 96826 . Building was built (permitted) on 09/12/1964.
Is there anyway to verify if the telephone number was attached to Barry's grandmother back in 1980? I know it
happens, but 28 years is a LONG time to have the same telephone number... especially when your grandson is
running for President of the US...
Posted by: RobertR at November 13, 2008 05:38 PM
Are there old phone books or CD-ROM telephone directories that would verify if (808) 949-2317 even existed, and was assigned to ML Dunham in 1980?
Posted by: RobertR at November 13, 2008 05:44 PM
Ha! Haaa! Ha! Ha! Ha! Great work, Deb!
Between you and Pam Gellar's work on Osama/Obama's COLB; this thug may never see the White House again!
Now, I think I'll hit the hay...
Posted by: bhparkman at November 13, 2008 06:14 PM
Does anyone have a way to determine what year that particular ZIP code was put into service? Since 808 has
always been the sole area code for HI, the phone number is probably going to check out.
Also, has anyone already gone to a U.S. Post Office and gotten a *current* copy of the registration form for a
back and forth comparison of DLN and the form issue date?
As far as the page 001 of 002, that is coming of a screen print from a mainframe environment consistent with an
IBM architecture. Getting a printout of the other screen would have taken a couple more manual steps (pressing
the "PF8" key and then the "Print Screen"). That second screen probably had little useful information on it anyway,
otherwise the useful parts would have been put into the whitespace on the first screen.
Posted by: Ray Scheel at November 13, 2008 06:21 PM
The signature appears to be Obama's judging from other samples of his handwriting found across the web.
For instance, the unique "peace sign" within the O is found in this 2007 Oath of Presidential Transparency here: http://www.reason.org/oath/Barack%20Obama%20Oath%20of%20Presidential%20Transparency.JPG
One very interesting item in this Oath of Transparency is the number 7 shown in the date with a line drawn
through it. Normally, if a person writes this number in this way, he continues writing it in this way.
The "peace sign" is the letter b, the second letter of the name Obama, which he appears to continue to
enclose in the first letter, the letter O, of his surname.
Another sample here: http://www.netweed.com/prohiphop/graf/barackautograph.jpg
Posted by: tbontiq at November 13, 2008 06:26 PM
The Library of Congress keeps old telephone directories on microfiche.
From the LOC genealogy website:
"Anyone who is interested in U.S. telephone directories dating from 1976 through 1995 should make use of
Phonefiche, a University Microfilms microfiche product housed in the Microform Reading Room (LJ 139B).
This self-service collection consists of yellow and white pages telephone directories for most U.S. cities and
towns. For most years, there is a published guide to the collection titled Community Cross-Reference Index.
These guides, shelved on top of the cabinets housing the microfiche, identify the directory in which a specific
community's listing can be found."
http://www.loc.gov/rr/genealogy/bib_guid/telephonnoncurr.html#ustm
Posted by: Mitch Rapp at November 13, 2008 06:27 PM
Verifying info on form... Reverse telephone shows up as grandmother:
ML Dunham (808) 949-2317 1617 S Beretania St, Honolulu, HI 96826 . Building was built
(permitted) on 09/12/1964. Is there anyway to verify if the telephone number was attached to Barry's
grandmother back in 1980? I know it happens, but 28 years is a LONG time to have the same telephone number...
especially when your grandson is running for President of the US...
Posted by: RobertR
========================
This from Ancestry.com
public records
Name: Madelyn L Dunham
Birth Date: 1923
Street address: 1617 S Beretania St
City: Honolulu
County: Honolulu
State: Hawaii
Zip Code: 96826
Phone Number: 808-949-2317
Record Number: 27083735
Associated Persons: Name Est. Age Birth Year
S Beselinoff
Madelyn L Dunham 85 1923
Posted by: tbontiq at November 13, 2008 06:35 PM
I found this on a quick google search from Pajamas Media: The "proof" offered here does not jive with
the information that Ms Schlussel posts. The ellipses indicate brief edits from the original
Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
A Pajamas Media investigation puts to rest another rumor claiming Obama is ineligible for the presidency.
August 12, 2008 - by Bob Owens
...
And there is another rumor that has floated for months on Internet message boards and blogs, in a variation
of the technicality stories that would seek to end Obama’s candidacy over an alleged mistake, that Barack
Obama never registered for the Selective Service.
...
According to the Selective Service System, under the authority of the Military Selective Service Act
(Act of June 24, 1948, c. 625, 62 Stat. 604, as amended; 50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.):
A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the executive branch of the federal government and the U.S.
Postal Service. Proof of registration is required only for men born after December 31, 1959.
The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in
response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge against underestimating
the number of servicemen needed in a future crisis.
1-103. Persons born in calendar year 1961 shall present themselves for registration on any of the six days beginning
Monday, July 28, 1980. (Source).
The obligation of a man to register is imposed by the Military Selective Service Act. The Act establishes and
governs the operations of the Selective Service System.
Barack Obama, who states he was born in Aug. 1961, was required to register for the Selective Service in 1980.
Did he?
It is a rumor that the Obama campaign has chosen to ignore despite numerous requests, and it is a rumor that even
Snopes couldn’t seem to confirm or deny definitively.
After contacting the Selective Service System for an answer several times since late June, Pajamas Media
obtained official confirmation from the Selective Service System via email that Barack Obama did indeed register
for the Selective Service as required by law, and is eligible to run for the presidency.
Mr. Owens,
Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.
His registration number is 61-1125539-1.
Daniel Amon
Public Affairs Specialist
It is difficult to determine why no one had confirmed Obama’s Selective Service registration until now. The mainstream media may have had no interest in pursuing the story for a multitude of valid reasons. New media sources aligned with the Obama campaign may have had no interest in conducting an investigation that may serve to impede their selected candidate, and new media opponents may have simply found confirmation of his registration too difficult to obtain — some have suggested that they had contacted the Selective Service, only to be told they would have to file a request under the Freedom of Information Act, which rather notoriously may take months to complete. Perhaps others found it more useful to keep the rumor alive than put it to rest. But the conclusive answer is now known.
Barack Obama fulfilled his Selective Service obligation and has every legal right to run for the presidency of the
United States.
If opponents wish to see him defeated, they’ll have to see it done in the political arena.
Bob Owens blogs at Confederate Yankee.
______
Please note the discrepancy of the registration number and the date of filing.
Note also that the date on Schlussel's document for the filing (7/29) is the day after the first day men from 1961
could file for selective service( after a five year hiatus from "the draft"). How patriotic!
Posted by: laser--*52609 at November 13, 2008 06:37 PM
IIRC if a person has failed to register with the selective service, they cannot hold a federal job.
Am I wrong? Sounds like more lawsuits on the horizon.
Posted by: CuF at November 13, 2008 06:51 PM
Instead of searching for Obama's SSS, why not search for both the 08 and 80 numbers to see if either match
Obama's? Surely there is a computer list of names and numbers that can be searched with either key somewhere.
Even though most programs were written in COBOL or FORTRAN during that time (flat files), it is still possible to
search on a specific column or set of columns.
It seems all too coincidental that two forms now appear to be falsified in some way. His birth certificate was
supposedly an adaptation of a scan of his sister's birth certificate....
Posted by: Laura Schneider at November 13, 2008 06:58 PM
"University administrations were involved because no record of Obama's writings at ANY school could be found."
That really does not surprise me. I teach at a University and it was not until a few years ago we had the technology
to keep copies of students work. All work was returned to the student however the PHD tracts may have been
different. Now we require all students to turn work in via e-mail and we keep copies of everything.
Posted by: Azygos at November 13, 2008 07:00 PM
Please disregard my first "discrepancy": While scrolling back and forth I read the DLN as the SSS.
Interesting background info to the issue, though. Maybe Dan the Public Affairs Specialist could help explain? (Poor guy!)
Posted by: laser--*52609 at November 13, 2008 07:02 PM
Post a comment
You are not signed in. You need to be registered to comment on this site. Sign in
EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions
Printer Friendly
By Debbie Schlussel
**** Copyright 2008, Must Cite Debbie Schlussel and link to DebbieSchlussel.com ****
*** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ***
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 that he registered for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.
home - columns - bio - blog archvies - fan club - media - discussion - contact Copyright 2000 - 2007 www.debbieschlussel.com |
November 13, 2008
EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration?
Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions
Printer Friendly
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
By Debbie Schlussel
**** Copyright 2008, Must Cite Debbie Schlussel and link to DebbieSchlussel.com ****
*** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ***
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 that he registered
for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.
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, but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look like it is from
1980, when it was actually created in 2008.
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 an 8 has
been added to make it look like it is from 1980 and give 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.
Sincerely,
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.
Posted by Debbie at November 13, 2008 01:56 AM
Comments
I think you are right about this. Besides the form being wrong, I don't believe he was really born in 1961. I say this because he continually claims he was 8 years old when his buddy Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon in 1968. Had he been born in '61 that would make him 6 or 7 depending on the half of year he is refering to and seeing that his objective by his claim is to say he was very young at the time, one would think he would get it right (as in the date he claims to be born on).
Posted by: BobOnStatenIsland at November 13, 2008 02:33 AM
Bob,
When Obama says he was 8, he's referring to 1969 when Ayers participated in his first bombing.
As for Obama's SSR, I'm gonna wait until someone in the know responds.
Posted by: Norman Blitzer at November 13, 2008 03:03 AM
Bob,
Scratch my last post to you. I'm probably wrong.
Posted by: Norman Blitzer at November 13, 2008 03:12 AM
The digits in the DLN are not transposed. The second DLN is the same as the first with an 8 added at the
beginning, 0897080632 vs 80897080632. So much for the sharp eyes and the keen insight of that anonymous
"retired federal agent". Could it be that the big blue A photoshopped on top of the form is covering up the first
digit of the DLN to turn the "808" at the start into "08" to make the case that it is a 2008 number? It should be
real easy to find out if the DLN on a real Selective Service form from the 1980 time frame is supposed to have
a 10 or an 11 digit DLN to see which one is correct.
Also, http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm says that anyone who doesn't register is not eligible for Federal
student loans. Obama got student loans, as should be easy to verify and is mentioned among other places
at http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/09/michelle-obama-baracks-book-sales-paid-off-our-student-loans/
[B: NICE TRY, BUT THE "A" IS NOT COVERING UP ANYTHING. THIS IS THE DOCUMENT EXACTLY
AS WE GOT IT, BUT FOR THE ADDITION OF THE COLORED LETTERS TO INDICATE THINGS AND
NOTE MY SITE.
APPARENTLY YOU DON'T READ VERY CLOSELY, EITHER. THE EXTRA "8", AS I NOTED, WAS INDEED,
ADDED ON THE PRINTOUT FORM--WHERE IT COULD EASILY BE DOCTORED--TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE
A 2008 FORM WAS ACTUALLY FROM 1980, WHEN IT WAS NOT. THE FRAUD ARTIST--EITHER OBAMA
OR ONE OF HIS FRIENDS AT THE CHICAGO-BASED SSS DATA MGT. CENTER OR BOTH--WERE ABLE
TO ADD THE EIGHT VERY EASILY ON A COMPUTER PRINTOUT, BUT EITHER COULDN'T OR FORGOT
TO DO SO ON THE BATES-STAMPED DATA LOCATOR NUMBER.
IN THOSE DAYS, THEY DIDN'T YET CRACK DOWN ON NON-COMPLIANCE ENOUGH AND THE LAW ON
FEDERAL LOANS WASN'T YET IN EXISTENCE. BUT YOU KEEP TRYING FOR EXCUSES. DS]
Posted by: bugstomper at November 13, 2008 09:43 AM
I checked my Selective Service card and mine has an 81 designator, which is appropriate with the year I
registered. Although I was in the Air Force Reserve at the time, I still was required to register (I enlisted at 17,
and turned 18 while in the Reserves). I thought it was stupid to register for the Draft while I was serving in a
reserve component, but I complied with the law. Now, oddly enough, when I separated from the active Air Force,
I had to RE-register (which I did do), and then I received a letter from the Selective Service folks informing me
that since I had done my military service (duh) I was no longer liable for conscription. My number didn't change,
though, as it still had an 81 designator on it.
In short, Obama's a fraud and civil serpents are covering for him. What's the penalty for fraudulent registration,
because some folks (Obama, especially) need to pay up!
Posted by: Sharps Rifle at November 13, 2008 09:45 AM
I'm wondering how I can get a copy of my Selective Service Registration. I was born in July 1961, my form
should surely represent what Obama's form looks like.
Posted by: Mark at November 13, 2008 10:09 AM
So this document is a fake...
What next? Have another election?
Presidents are supposed to try and cover up all kinds of things (and then get caught)... like oral sex from
chubby interns, like Iran-Contra, like getting drunk and shooting an old guy in the face (okay, technically a VP)
... like Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Other than giving right wingers something to harp on, what should be the end game of this forged document?
Overturn the decision of the American electorate in the 2008 Presidential Electorate?
Posted by: James Scearce at November 13, 2008 10:37 AM
To Mark: you can retrieve your selective service number at https://www.sss.gov/RegVer/wfVerification.aspx
I'm such an old coot that I would have to do it via a mail request. I probably still have my "draft card" around,
but I am too lazy to hunt it up.
Posted by: Shr_Nfr at November 13, 2008 10:49 AM
Nothing surprises me about Barack Hussein Obama anymore ... now how about we get ahold of his birth
certificate?!
Jimmy Lewis
SCS, Michigan
Blog: http://rougerevival.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jimmy Lewis at November 13, 2008 10:55 AM
Debbie, this is a fascinating story and I'm sure that every responsible journalist in America will be knocking
your door down any moment now to cover in detail. Say howdy to Olbermann and Matthews for me when
they interview you.
The mystery behind this man is astounding. It pains me to think he will have the title, Commander-in-Chief.
I wonder how the military will react to this story?
Posted by: SydB at November 13, 2008 11:07 AM
Any reason that you don't name your source for the FOIA material?
Posted by: KingSlav at November 13, 2008 11:20 AM
Don't forget to wear your tin foil hat, Debbie.
Posted by: sirkowski at November 13, 2008 11:26 AM
DS -- outstanding work. Thank you.
You don't think anything will come of this though do you?
As much as I hate to admit it, even if someone dug up a past murder conviction
(NOT SAYING THERE IS ONE...just using an extreme example), pretty certain all the lefties would
STILL look the other way and shrug the shoulders.
They got one of theirs in there and they will soon be in power. We're going to have to suck it up and
gut this out one year, one month, one week, at a time. Loyal and fervent opposition.
Posted by: soccerdad at November 13, 2008 11:32 AM
My mom didn't want me to register, she being a big anti-war type. I finally did so, however, realizing
that student loans would be a problem. This was in 1980, I believe. I don't recall if I had to submit proof
of registration with the student loan application, or not.
In any case, I imagine that his apparent failure to register may have been because of maternal pressure
or some such. I don't necessarily hold it against him, although if he was directly involved in the creation of a
fake, that's another story.
Posted by: sonomaca at November 13, 2008 11:40 AM
The Democrat Party hierarchy both inside and outside the government created this candidate, Barack Obama.
They altered, hid or destroyed any document that would expose the real Obama to public scrutiny. University
administrations were involved because no record of Obama's writings at ANY school could be found.
His official Hawaii birth certificate does not exist, because there never was one, only the "created" birth
certificate exists, just like this draft registration.
The election of 2008 will someday be exposed as the most corrupt election in the history of the United States.
2008 is the year we elected an African born marxist-muslim, to be the President of the United States of America.
The Democrat Party should be banned as a subversive organization bent on the OVERTHROW of the
United States Government, because folks, they have almost accomplished just that.
The military may have to save us from the marxists presently controlling our government!
Posted by: PatrickHenry at November 13, 2008 11:46 AM
To PatrickHenry,
I agree with you. And to James Scearce...it's obvious by your response that moral character, substance and
true leadership were not a prerequisite in your decision to support Obama. You ask,"...what should be the end
game of this forged document?" I believe the "end game" should be to expose Obama for what he truly is...
a liar and a radical revolutionary hell-bent in turning America into a socialized welfare state at the expense of
others. You, sir, are a mindless fool if you think the accusations, investigations, and ongoing search for the
real truth behind this man. There are so many questions about Obama left unanswered. Could you please
help me understand why we should support such an individual whose past is riddled with controversy?
Posted by: Kurier Radek at November 13, 2008 12:22 PM
It's probably usless but you ain't seen nuthin yet! The inmates now run the asylum and all we can do is hold
our noses and wait. We will give this administration as much leeway as they gave to Bush. Clinton and his
antics did not affect us and now no use to wonder why Obomer got elected. Hold your noses and go on.
Posted by: arejaymack at November 13, 2008 12:34 PM
Just curious why this didn't come out until AFTER the election? Why we still haven't seen a birth certificate?
I don't think it would have affected the outcome. ACORN was determined to vote the same way no matter
what came to light about The Commander in Thief.
What can we do about it? Pitchforks and torches. Let's march on Washington January 20 and storm the
bastille!!
Right. We're effed. As one of the other posters said, all we can do is go along for the ride at this point.
Half of Americans voted for this putz and still think he's the One.
Our only hope from a complete marxist/communist takeover is that the troops take their vow seriously --
"all enemies, foreign and domestic" and protect us from the evil triumvirate of Obama/Pelosi/Reid.
Posted by: ConnectTheDots2006 at November 13, 2008 12:44 PM
Just checked with the selective service link posted above. My number begins with my birth year and has
a total of TEN digits. Also posted is the date that I registered.
Posted by: laser--*52609 at November 13, 2008 01:44 PM
There is something you can do. Go to www.democratic-disaster.com and volunteer!
Posted by: stormyweather at November 13, 2008 01:48 PM
Google says the phone number belongs to M L Dunham (grandmother) with correct address.
Does anyone have access to Hawaiian records that show she ownwed this number in 1980?
Grandma could have had the same number for a long time (28 years) or this could be another
current info issue versus older records?
Posted by: tompur at November 13, 2008 01:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barack_Obama_signature.svg
Here is a copy of his signature - doesn't look anything like that!
You can find it in many locations and always the B looks like a bubble rather than the way it shows here. In general you can't read the letters after the B. I would say forged, but I'm no expert!
Posted by: jcsjcm at November 13, 2008 02:00 PM
Well researched, and exhaustive. I'm curious if you could identify the federal law that the alleged forgers
broke here and its maximum penalty.
Thanks!
Posted by: CTN at November 13, 2008 02:14 PM
Obama's signature on the SSS Registration Form form does not match his actual signature
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barack_Obama_signature.svg). Now, I know the signature on
the SSS Registration Form is supposedly from 1980, and people signatures change over time,
but they do not change as drastically as the 1980 version above and the 2008 version at the link
I provided. The contrast is so stark that indicates that they are most likely not the same person
did not sign both documents.
Posted by: waupee at November 13, 2008 02:23 PM
Interesting research,
kinda reminds me of the research into George Bush's National Guard records, you know the missing records,
the failure to actually complete his national guard service, etc.
Of course you probably think that was all bull right.
But then I guess all you conspiracy theorists really like the way the country has been run over the last eight
years.
Posted by: krsaz at November 13, 2008 02:35 PM
I'm not defending Obama, but your DLN document analysis is way off.
The first two digits are a location code, not year. Here is the link to the IRS training manual:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6hGBJBo7Jv0C&pg=PA1016&lpg=PA1016&dq=%22first+two+digits%22+of+Document+Locator+Number+(DLN)%3B&source=web&ots=aC658pgzru&sig=d3_81R5KgSDjC_k6jTX-9WgKt3U&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
The final digit is the year.
[TKC: WOW, YOU'RE REALLY GRASPING AT STRAWS. SINCE WHEN IS THE IRS THE SAME AS
THE SSS? THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PROCEDURES. HELLO . . .? THE IRS ONLY USES ONE DIGIT
FOR THE YEAR IN THE DOCUMENT LOCATOR NUMBER B/C IT IS ONLY REQUIRED TO KEEP
TAX RECORDS ON FILE FOR THE PREVIOUS SEVEN YEARS. BUT THE SSS IS REQUIRED TO
KEEP SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS UNTIL THE REGISTRANT'S 85TH BIRTHDAY,
SO IT USES TWO DIGITS FOR THE YEAR IN THE DOCUMENT LOCATOR NUMBER.
GET A CLUE AND QUIT USING RED HERRINGS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO
DEFEND THE FRAUD OBAMA. HE LIED ABOUT REGISTERING FOR THE DRAFT, AND THIS IS A
FAKE, SINCE HE NEVER REGISTERED.
YES THERE IS AN "ANALYSIS" HERE THAT IS WAY OFF: YOURS. IF YOU CAN CALL THAT
"ANALYSIS." DS]
Posted by: TheKansasCitian at November 13, 2008 02:43 PM
krsaz,
The real issue not about this one document, its that Obama's entire past is riddled with, at the very least,
very questionable activities and repeated failure to speak the truth. Hell, he won't even provide a copy of
his birth certificate or any of his college records. Everything about his past is shrouded in secrecy and
any document in his past that can speak anything about him has either been lost or has been sealed
by his legal team.
As for the GW National Guard reference, that whole story was proven to be a farce, and didn't
"Rathergate" eventually lead to the end Dan Rather's career at CBS?
Yeah, Bush is definately not the best president we've ever had. But McCain/Palin would not have
been four more years of the same. At least we know who they are and we can verify their records
and past accomplishments.
Posted by: waupee at November 13, 2008 02:58 PM
I looked up my SSS # on the provided link, mine shows Selective Service Number:
75-13XXXXX-X
The X's are numbers I replaced for privacy. I was born in 75 but registered in 94.
The first two digits have nothing to do with year. They, as stated in the IRS DLN
specifications are a location. On IRS forms only 1 digit is used to denote the year.
Not sure how that works, but that's what the manual says.
I would have loved nothing more for this to be a true forgery and catch Obama red handed, but its not.
The facts just don't support it.
Posted by: TheKansasCitian at November 13, 2008 03:05 PM
Good work Debbie.
Unfortunately I think you have just reserved a spot on the "Obama enemies list". Prepare to have a detailed audit of your income taxes every year along with any other way they can harass you.
Posted by: I_am_me at November 13, 2008 03:14 PM
Kansas Citian:
You may be correct, but I'm not sure why you would use IRS standards to interpret a Selective Service form, or why you would use 1994 standards to define a 1980 document.
Can you explain?
Posted by: CTN at November 13, 2008 03:27 PM
Outstanding reporting. I know the MSM and much of the 'conservative' media will ignore this,
but sooner or later, this information will seep through. When it does, it will open the door to all
your other exposes; it is just a question of time, and I have tremendous respect for your efforts
to bring the truth to a public that would rather believe lies than the truth.
Posted by: c f at November 13, 2008 03:38 PM
Debbie, same sentiments as I_am_me. We know you do diligent work and you are very intelligent so
if you put it out there I expect it to have legs to stand on.
But if anyone will take on COBRAMA it will be Patriots like Debbie.
I wouldn't doubt KING HUSSEIN COBRAMA would do something like this. He has lied about everything
in his past. The Nowhere Man.
Posted by: californiascreaming at November 13, 2008 03:41 PM
I wonder why "S.Beretania" looks to have been added after everything else has been filed out? note the
elevation of the print? why would he not know where he lived? It's as if he (or someone) was writing it in
pieces insted of flowing as it should have looked?
I don't trust a thing this liar has said or done.
RATM
Posted by: 25eight at November 13, 2008 03:41 PM
Good catch Debbie -- looks legitimate to me!
Posted by: ob3 at November 13, 2008 03:48 PM
Wow, Debbie--this is dyn-o-mite!
The problem is that the mainstream media will cover it up.
I still want to know why he went to Hawaii before the election. It wasn't because his grandmother was dying
as he had long since thrown her under the bus.
The government of Hawaii (a one party Democrat state, BTW) is covering for Barry. Let us see a valid (as in
not a fake or not a doctored) birth certificate. It's that simple. Only a moron would not produce the
Hawaii birth certificate. Unless it doesn't exist.
And for types like Blitzer, a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser is not a legal document.
Posted by: lexi at November 13, 2008 03:52 PM
Since no one has committed on it yet, am I the only one here wondering why the form asks if you are
male or female in block 2 when the selective service act expressly prohibited females?
I am sure somewhere there is a bureaucrat whose entire job consists of compiling statistics on the
number of males and females signing up for selective service. Current female count: 0
Posted by: rbb at November 13, 2008 03:58 PM
DS, If you would read your own writing closely, you would see that you did not say, and I'll copy and paste here,
"THE EXTRA "8", AS I NOTED, WAS INDEED, ADDED ON THE PRINTOUT FORM--WHERE
IT COULD EASILY BE DOCTORED"
All your post says about that is a quote from the "retired federal agent" who said (another copy and paste)
"The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except the 0 and 8 have changed positions"
and later where you say
"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" [sic]"
If you are going to prove something like this you should at least try to be precise. It is discrepancies like
this that could lead people to claim that your scan of the registration form is doctored because the A is
covering up a digit, a claim no more farfetched than the claim that what some might see as a data entry error
adding an extra digit in a manually entered and unchecked DLN field on the computer screen printout is part of an
attempt to cover up a forgery by entering a forged 11 digit number in a 10 digit field, an implausibly clumsy forgery.
Anyway, my point was to raise the easily answered question as to what is the correct format of the DLN,
10 or 11 digits, as the answer to that would indicate which of the two numbers to trust more. And we got the
answer from Kansas Citian's comment: The DLN on his form is ten digits and began with a number other than
the year that he registered. That would indicate that 1) The DLN on the document is the correct one of the two
(which is consistent with your theory but doesn't prove it), and 2) The first two digits do not necessarily
correspond to the year of registration (which blows that part of your proof out of the water).
CTN is correct that the IRS standards for a DLN don't necessarily apply to Selective Service documents.
But Kansas Citian cited his own Selective Service form DLN, so that part of his post is applicable.
Perhaps SS changed the format of the DLN between 1980 and 1994 to use birth year instead of registration year.
That argument is really reaching to make excuses and doesn't explain how they handled people
born in 1980 whose DLNs would look just like those of people born between 1960 and 1962 who registered in 1980.
The real bottom line is that the questions about the Selective Service form can easily be answered by the Selective Service department who can tell you the proper format of their DLNs and standards for postmarks and requirements for IDs and so forth more reliably than an anonymous retired federal agent who may or may not be familiar with SS DLNs (which are apparently different from IRS DLNs and who knows what other federal departments).
So take off the tinfoil hat, ask the questions of some civil servant at the
Selective Service department (you might even be able to find a Republican
there to be sure of your answer), and then let the chips fall where they may once
you find out the truth about the document. Maybe you'll get lucky and the DLN really
will prove that Obama never registered.
Posted by: bugstomper at November 13, 2008 04:26 PM
In 1980 wasn't Obama residing at Occidental College, which doesn't appear on his record.
Posted by: Mel at November 13, 2008 04:26 PM
Kansas Citian: The IRS has more than one standard for listing a citizen's social-security number on documents.
When I've looked up my IRS info, I've seen anywhere four to six digits x'd out, depending on the year
and document I'm trying to access. It seems like it's random and not really a standardized system.
Moreover I agree with the other post that said we can't apply IRS standards to
Selective Service Procedures in which standard conventions may have varied several times between now
and 1980.
Obama has a problem.....but maybe our wonderful GWB will toss him one of the pardons.
Also, isn't Selective Service registration mandatory for college scholarships and financial aid ?????
Posted by: Maxine Weiss at November 13, 2008 04:44 PM
And before someone else notices, I'll point out my own mistake: Kansas Citian apparently confused his SSS number,
which as you can see in Obama's printout begins with his birth year, with the DLN. So Kansas Citian's comment still
does not answer the question about the proper format of the DLN.
But as I said, that question is best answered directly from the Selective Service Department by asking them a) what
is the proper format, and b) if it is supposed to begin with the registration year what is their explanation for Obama's
form's DLN. Better to go to the source than engaging in endless speculation.
Posted by: bugstomper at November 13, 2008 04:49 PM
what's concerning is the date stamp. Can anyone find anything stamped with 'USPO' instead of 'USPS?' It appears
online to be a isolated incident.
Are there any stamp collectors out there that can quantify the value of an error like this on a US postal stamp?
Wouldn't this be a rare find? In more ways than one anyway.
Posted by: MissTickly at November 13, 2008 05:04 PM
I think the search is on to fond another registration out of the same office close to sept 1980 and compare the
postal stamps. Case solved if they do or don't match.
Posted by: MissTickly at November 13, 2008 05:08 PM
Re: Kansas Citian. You are confusing the DLN and Selective Service numbers. The first two digits on your
Selective Service number are "75", the same as your birth date. Likewise, Obama's SSN starts with "61",
same as his birth year. Mine starts with "61" too, as I was born in 1961 and actually had my card processed
on the same day as Obama- 09/04/1980.
As far as I can tell, Obama's Selective Service number is not found on either document. A previous poster claims
Obama's # is 61-1125539-1. I wonder if the middle series of numbers is sequential? If so, Obama would be
the 1,125,539th registrant. As noted previously, my card was processed the same day as his- 09/04/1980.
The middle numbers on my SSN are 1,07x,xxx-4. This would make me approx. the 1,070,000th applicant.
Those two numbers are fairly close- within 50,000 of each other. I wonder what the last number signifies?
Posted by: paigenalex at November 13, 2008 05:08 PM
paigenalex: what does your date stamp look like? Is is out of Chicago, too?
Posted by: MissTickly at November 13, 2008 05:10 PM
What I am Curious about is that if there is 2 different DLN's, who owns the one from 1980?
Also isn't all Microfiche dated when created?
I would assume that BHO's SS form would have been processed according to it's arrival at the Agency
that handled the Processing. So wouldn't that leave a paper trail?
Is there any proof that the original Microfiche that would have held this information has ever been tampered with?
Is there any other Documentation that BHO would have supplied to the Selective Service that proved that BHO
provided an Indonesian Passport to prove Citizenship in another Country?
This is Far fro Over in my Eyes!!!
Posted by: SirJaxx at November 13, 2008 05:11 PM
Profanity is still the crutch of a weak mind. Whenever I see any kind of profanity in a comment, I immediately
stamp it with my "WEAK MIND" stamp and pass right over it. Obamaism should be officially classified as a cult.
Its follower are all brainwashed by hopey changey. They can't handle the truth about their "messiah". That he is a
dope on a rope with no hope. He is going to go down in the flames of abject FAILURE. Oh, and did I fail to mention
that he has BIG EARS!
Posted by: Jayke Feltz at November 13, 2008 05:16 PM
One more thing, I believe Obama was still using the last name Soetoro until he transferred from Occidental to Columbia. Perhaps he was going by the book and using his birth name, but he used the name Soetoro for all his school records.
Posted by: paigenalex at November 13, 2008 05:17 PM
MissTickly, I don't have the card. I used the link earlier in the post to look up my number. I was struck by the fact our registrations were recorded the same day. All I remember about the card was it was postcard sized and aqua blue in color.
Posted by: paigenalex at November 13, 2008 05:22 PM
Good find Debbie...
LOL, here we go again. First, alleged forged birth certificates posted on Obama's and two other web sites, and now these apparently doctored documents. I checked the image headers with a hex editor, and just like Obama's alleged forged BC's, both have "Ducky" and "Adobe" embedded in each of these selective service images also.
Question is now, who do we get in OUR government to investigate this. They wouldn't touch his birth certificate,
so how in the hell, and whose arm needs to be twisted to get this looked at???
Posted by: Jackson Pearson at November 13, 2008 05:28 PM
Jackson: I can't verify the hex data, but assuming you are right, howcan this be, these came from the selective
service I thought and not Obama? Am I misunderstanding how the foia request works?
Posted by: MissTickly at November 13, 2008 05:34 PM
Verifying info on form... Reverse telephone shows up as grandmother:
ML Dunham (808) 949-2317 1617 S Beretania St, Honolulu, HI 96826 . Building was built (permitted) on 09/12/1964.
Is there anyway to verify if the telephone number was attached to Barry's grandmother back in 1980? I know it
happens, but 28 years is a LONG time to have the same telephone number... especially when your grandson is
running for President of the US...
Posted by: RobertR at November 13, 2008 05:38 PM
Are there old phone books or CD-ROM telephone directories that would verify if (808) 949-2317 even existed, and was assigned to ML Dunham in 1980?
Posted by: RobertR at November 13, 2008 05:44 PM
Ha! Haaa! Ha! Ha! Ha! Great work, Deb!
Between you and Pam Gellar's work on Osama/Obama's COLB; this thug may never see the White House again!
Now, I think I'll hit the hay...
Posted by: bhparkman at November 13, 2008 06:14 PM
Does anyone have a way to determine what year that particular ZIP code was put into service? Since 808 has
always been the sole area code for HI, the phone number is probably going to check out.
Also, has anyone already gone to a U.S. Post Office and gotten a *current* copy of the registration form for a
back and forth comparison of DLN and the form issue date?
As far as the page 001 of 002, that is coming of a screen print from a mainframe environment consistent with an
IBM architecture. Getting a printout of the other screen would have taken a couple more manual steps (pressing
the "PF8" key and then the "Print Screen"). That second screen probably had little useful information on it anyway,
otherwise the useful parts would have been put into the whitespace on the first screen.
Posted by: Ray Scheel at November 13, 2008 06:21 PM
The signature appears to be Obama's judging from other samples of his handwriting found across the web.
For instance, the unique "peace sign" within the O is found in this 2007 Oath of Presidential Transparency here: http://www.reason.org/oath/Barack%20Obama%20Oath%20of%20Presidential%20Transparency.JPG
One very interesting item in this Oath of Transparency is the number 7 shown in the date with a line drawn
through it. Normally, if a person writes this number in this way, he continues writing it in this way.
The "peace sign" is the letter b, the second letter of the name Obama, which he appears to continue to
enclose in the first letter, the letter O, of his surname.
Another sample here: http://www.netweed.com/prohiphop/graf/barackautograph.jpg
Posted by: tbontiq at November 13, 2008 06:26 PM
The Library of Congress keeps old telephone directories on microfiche.
From the LOC genealogy website:
"Anyone who is interested in U.S. telephone directories dating from 1976 through 1995 should make use of
Phonefiche, a University Microfilms microfiche product housed in the Microform Reading Room (LJ 139B).
This self-service collection consists of yellow and white pages telephone directories for most U.S. cities and
towns. For most years, there is a published guide to the collection titled Community Cross-Reference Index.
These guides, shelved on top of the cabinets housing the microfiche, identify the directory in which a specific
community's listing can be found."
http://www.loc.gov/rr/genealogy/bib_guid/telephonnoncurr.html#ustm
Posted by: Mitch Rapp at November 13, 2008 06:27 PM
Verifying info on form... Reverse telephone shows up as grandmother:
ML Dunham (808) 949-2317 1617 S Beretania St, Honolulu, HI 96826 . Building was built
(permitted) on 09/12/1964. Is there anyway to verify if the telephone number was attached to Barry's
grandmother back in 1980? I know it happens, but 28 years is a LONG time to have the same telephone number...
especially when your grandson is running for President of the US...
Posted by: RobertR
========================
This from Ancestry.com
public records
Name: Madelyn L Dunham
Birth Date: 1923
Street address: 1617 S Beretania St
City: Honolulu
County: Honolulu
State: Hawaii
Zip Code: 96826
Phone Number: 808-949-2317
Record Number: 27083735
Associated Persons: Name Est. Age Birth Year
S Beselinoff
Madelyn L Dunham 85 1923
Posted by: tbontiq at November 13, 2008 06:35 PM
I found this on a quick google search from Pajamas Media: The "proof" offered here does not jive with
the information that Ms Schlussel posts. The ellipses indicate brief edits from the original
Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
A Pajamas Media investigation puts to rest another rumor claiming Obama is ineligible for the presidency.
August 12, 2008 - by Bob Owens
...
And there is another rumor that has floated for months on Internet message boards and blogs, in a variation
of the technicality stories that would seek to end Obama’s candidacy over an alleged mistake, that Barack
Obama never registered for the Selective Service.
...
According to the Selective Service System, under the authority of the Military Selective Service Act
(Act of June 24, 1948, c. 625, 62 Stat. 604, as amended; 50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.):
A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the executive branch of the federal government and the U.S.
Postal Service. Proof of registration is required only for men born after December 31, 1959.
The registration requirement was suspended in April 1975. It was resumed again in 1980 by President Carter in
response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Registration continues today as a hedge against underestimating
the number of servicemen needed in a future crisis.
1-103. Persons born in calendar year 1961 shall present themselves for registration on any of the six days beginning
Monday, July 28, 1980. (Source).
The obligation of a man to register is imposed by the Military Selective Service Act. The Act establishes and
governs the operations of the Selective Service System.
Barack Obama, who states he was born in Aug. 1961, was required to register for the Selective Service in 1980.
Did he?
It is a rumor that the Obama campaign has chosen to ignore despite numerous requests, and it is a rumor that even
Snopes couldn’t seem to confirm or deny definitively.
After contacting the Selective Service System for an answer several times since late June, Pajamas Media
obtained official confirmation from the Selective Service System via email that Barack Obama did indeed register
for the Selective Service as required by law, and is eligible to run for the presidency.
Mr. Owens,
Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.
His registration number is 61-1125539-1.
Daniel Amon
Public Affairs Specialist
It is difficult to determine why no one had confirmed Obama’s Selective Service registration until now. The mainstream media may have had no interest in pursuing the story for a multitude of valid reasons. New media sources aligned with the Obama campaign may have had no interest in conducting an investigation that may serve to impede their selected candidate, and new media opponents may have simply found confirmation of his registration too difficult to obtain — some have suggested that they had contacted the Selective Service, only to be told they would have to file a request under the Freedom of Information Act, which rather notoriously may take months to complete. Perhaps others found it more useful to keep the rumor alive than put it to rest. But the conclusive answer is now known.
Barack Obama fulfilled his Selective Service obligation and has every legal right to run for the presidency of the
United States.
If opponents wish to see him defeated, they’ll have to see it done in the political arena.
Bob Owens blogs at Confederate Yankee.
______
Please note the discrepancy of the registration number and the date of filing.
Note also that the date on Schlussel's document for the filing (7/29) is the day after the first day men from 1961
could file for selective service( after a five year hiatus from "the draft"). How patriotic!
Posted by: laser--*52609 at November 13, 2008 06:37 PM
IIRC if a person has failed to register with the selective service, they cannot hold a federal job.
Am I wrong? Sounds like more lawsuits on the horizon.
Posted by: CuF at November 13, 2008 06:51 PM
Instead of searching for Obama's SSS, why not search for both the 08 and 80 numbers to see if either match
Obama's? Surely there is a computer list of names and numbers that can be searched with either key somewhere.
Even though most programs were written in COBOL or FORTRAN during that time (flat files), it is still possible to
search on a specific column or set of columns.
It seems all too coincidental that two forms now appear to be falsified in some way. His birth certificate was
supposedly an adaptation of a scan of his sister's birth certificate....
Posted by: Laura Schneider at November 13, 2008 06:58 PM
"University administrations were involved because no record of Obama's writings at ANY school could be found."
That really does not surprise me. I teach at a University and it was not until a few years ago we had the technology
to keep copies of students work. All work was returned to the student however the PHD tracts may have been
different. Now we require all students to turn work in via e-mail and we keep copies of everything.
Posted by: Azygos at November 13, 2008 07:00 PM
Please disregard my first "discrepancy": While scrolling back and forth I read the DLN as the SSS.
Interesting background info to the issue, though. Maybe Dan the Public Affairs Specialist could help explain? (Poor guy!)
Posted by: laser--*52609 at November 13, 2008 07:02 PM
Post a comment
You are not signed in. You need to be registered to comment on this site. Sign in
Posts
