DID PRESIDENT ELECT HUSSEIN FALSIFY SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION?

Debbie Schlussel has exposed yet another document fraud by President elect Fraud. Back in August, I queried if Obama actually registered for Selective Service? He said he did.

Is it any surprise? Another forged document ...he's good at it.

Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions

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

Read it all (look at scans)

Comments

[Cousin Dave]

I'm not sure it would have been possible to register for the draft in 1979. As I recall, the Selective Service was mothballed by President Ford in '74, and not reactivated until Reagan took office. When I graduated from high school in '78, I checked into what my status re the draft was, just to make sure, and there wasn't even a draft board or Selective Service office operating in the town where I lived.

[Zero]

Obama was still of fighting age in 1979 so he should have registered. When I got out of the Marine Corps after five years, I was still required to register because I got out before my 26th birthday. Every male between 18 and 25 since 1979 has got to register. Obama is lame.

FountainheadZero
The Comfort of Fatalism

[Tulkinghorn]

Obama had seven years of higher education, paid for by federally guaranteed student loans that he would not have been eligible for without being registered for the draft. So For your theory to be right he must have registered falsely, gone to school under that false name, then switched his academic records to "Barack Hussein Obama", and then went in and got a false registration placed into the records to cover his tracks. Of course, having pulled all that off, the genius forger included errors for Debbie S. to pick up on?

Frankly, the birth certificate theory was more plausible, and that was always loopy.

[American4America]

Tulkinghorn,
How do you know his educaton was paid for by student loans? Unfotunately, there is no way to verify how his education was paid for, due to the fact he has had his school records made off-limits. He said this past year he finally finished paying of his $40K loan. Now, honestly, do you think a 4 year Harvard education costs a TOTAL of $40K? Really, seriously?

The simple fact his registration # has eleven digits, when EVERY other # has ten (my # included) makes it suspect.

[MonicaZ]

I've never read anything about Obama taking student loans for Columbia. If that was the case, he probably never could have afforded to take the $10K position as a "community organizer" a few years later in Chicago.

And, it's possible that the 40K in loans for Harvard (which was probably unlikely to cover one year of tuition) were private. Obama had connections in Chicago by that time, remember?

[Tulkinghorn]

Um. You guys have any familiarity with how financial aid works? You submit a FAFSA to determine what public loans you qualify for. The Department of Ed. calculates what basic level of loans you qualify for, and then the file is forwarded to your college or law school. Then the college or law school puts together a package of grants, scholarships, private and public loans, on a year by year basis.

If you don't register with selective service (and you're a fella) then the DOE kicks out the application and no FAFSA file will get sent to Harvard Law School. You get nothing, unless you can privately come up with funding or a rich relative covers it for you. I doubt very much these options were open for young Obama.

Also, there are a lot of loan deferment programs for taking public interest jobs. And such a strong student as Obama probably qualified for a lot scholarship funds, so a $40,000 school loan would not be surprising or much of a burden.

My loans for law school came to $43,000.00, and after consolidating them I pay just $245.00 per month. Not a big deal.

[CTN]

Tulkinghorn,

“Familiarity with how financial aid works” is irrelevant to the question at hand because you stated as an established matter of fact: “Obama had seven years of higher education, paid for by federally guaranteed student loans that he would not have been eligible for without being registered for the draft. . . .”

However, you never substantiated your premise which you expect us to affirm.

This is basic stuff. If I were you, I’d try to get my money back from law school.

[SlimGuy]

Sounds just like a 'concern troll' only meaning to misdirect.

With all the issues with documentation on Obama if it was discovered for others in another job I used to do years ago I would be looking for a 'legend being built' of false documents to insert a mole into a system.

Just this one is done poorly compared to some of the stuff I saw back then.

[TruthSquad]

Regarding the "oddities" on Schlussel's site:

The registration form DLN # has simply been photoshopped to remove the leading number 8 from the DLN on the original registration form. Just download the photo and do a few "sharpen" operations to bring out the background. I used Irfanview. It's clear the background has been whited out removing the leading number, before the blue "A" was added just above where the initial small number 8 once was. If the leading "8" had not been washed out there would be no disagreement between the registration form and the computer record. DLN numbers are 11 digits long - the registration form only has 10 digits. Without the DLN number discrepency, there would be no real issue. Looks like a case of a dirty trick by the red side to me.

This was a deliberate hoax or deception. Wonder who did it?

Here's what I am talking about:

http://imgcash5.imageshack.us/Himg99/scaled.php?server=99&filename=obamaselectiveservicerezu5.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480

and

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/4085/obamaselectiveservicerevc6.jpg

Note the removal, in rectangular blocks, of much of the open areas on this form. Why was this done? Because then there would be no contrast to reveal the removal of the number 8 from the DLN. A careful job of deception, but not professional enough to avoid detection. You can still wonder about the other small oddities like the stamp, but the main case, that this registration form copy was faked in 2008 is not true. It was produced in 1980, just like it says.

Don’t believe it? Check out the doctored photo published on Debbie Schlussel’s website - download it, use sharpen function a few times to brinig out the background and draw your own conclusions.

[SlimGuy]

Any document posted on a web page is not sufficient to work with in any way what so ever.

You need at a minimum a multi megabyte image scanned at 1200 dpi or better.

The originals are only for viewing purposes and any manipulation in software of any kind is a worthless exercise that means nothing.

Unless you have the original document in front of you or a total loss less scan of it you are dealing with something that already has artifacts from the original compression process.

Arguments of this type simply have no worth and derail the issue.

[JBean]

Tulkinghorn--

Obama had seven years of higher education, paid for by federally guaranteed student loans that he would not have been eligible for without being registered for the draft.

"Part of the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1983 denied federal financial aid to males between the ages of 18 and 26 who had failed to register for selective service." Source.

Obama graduated Columbia in 1983, and the law would not have been retroactive, so that leaves Harvard alone as possibly financed by student loans with a SS registration requirement. We have only Obama's word on that, and I would remind you that "Obama said" is not proof of anything except the fact that he said something -- ditto for any other politician, but most especially for one who has steadfastly refused to release any college records.

If you want to speculate on how he paid for Harvard, you might consider that he applied to various lawschools in 1987 -- the same year his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, died. If there was an inheritance, he certainly wouldn't be the first individual to use  the funds to further their education.

Most scholarships do not require SS registration either.

[TruthSquad]

"The originals are only for viewing purposes and any manipulation in software of any kind is a worthless exercise that means nothing"

Well, that is just what I said when some bloggers were trying to discredit Obama's birth certificate copy when it was uploaded by his staff. The low resolution scan could not really be analyzed to detect "underlying characters". Funny though I took a look at it tonight with enhanced sharpening, differential noise enhancement, to lift background from the noise, and could see the embossed seal outline right where it should be - something everyone claimed was missing.

If you look at my photos, or try it yourself you will see that the blanking out of white areas and replacing them with all digital white color cannot be an artifact. It is an obvious human manual removal of the background. No algorithm could cause that kind of artifact. It would have been smarter to just paste back in another white noisy background copied from the same form. That's how a smart forger would do it. But this "cleaning up" using white digital rectangular blocks (which have no texture or noise) and drawn with a mouse, is so crude and detectable it's funny. You don't need a high quality scan to see what was done.

You can ignore it - but what I am seeing has nothing to do with dpi resolution or encoding artifacts, and I know a a bit about modifying digital documents...

The only real mystery left is the round stamp. Where did the year "19" go and why is it so old? Maybe the employee it was assigned to (there was an ID for the postal employee on the stamp) just never got around to replacing it by 1980. This was Hawaii after all, they were not as anal as mainland postal employees in 1980. If the old stamp still worked, why bother getting a new one? If the "19" part of the rubber stamp wore out - so what? You didn't know which century you were in? Sounds like a typical Hawaiian attitude to me.

[CTN]

TruthSquad,

You captured my attention for about 30 more seconds than your predecessor Tulkinghorn, but not more.

First, evidence of Photoshop enhancement means nothing because no one can upload images to the web without making them web ready.

Second, web readiness is in the eye of the beholder. Some people run with butt-ugly prep while others agonize over every pixel. Whoever prepped this doc didn’t care as much about quality as they did with water-marking it and inserting markers.

Third, when you look at the whole doc as represented by this, your image:

http://imgcash5.imageshack.us/Himg99/scaled.php?server=99&filename=obamaselectiveservicerezu5.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480

as opposed to isolating one section as represented by this, your image:

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/4085/obamaselectiveservicerevc6.jpg

you’ll see my point.

The graphic artist took about 5 minutes, if that, to erase static and distortion from the image in order to increase white space and overall visibility on apparently blank sections of the form. The “rectangular blocks” only mean that they used Photoshop’s block eraser to clean up the form. Unfortunately, they did an extremely poor job and did not agonize over every pixel (see number 2). This is common among amateurs and folks in a hurry, and I suspect whoever did this job was both. Regardless, you cannot point to a “rectangular block” that is blocking out a number because, to his credit, the graphic artist was careful to keep his eraser from encroaching on critical portions of the image, such as those sections immediately adjacent to the numbers that you flagged.

Finally, if DS removed critical information from the image (i.e. falsified) in order to fabricate a story about fraud, then in the end she will have discredited herself completely and would be liable for libel damages because her actions would have been malicious, which is the vexing standard that must be satisfied in all defamation cases. And another independent FOIA request for a copy of the form would establish this fact with ease, which would not only discredit her and make her legally liable, it would make her incredibly stupid.

[SlimGuy]

Any one who had followed my positions on the COLB issue would see I argued validity of the data and how COLBs can be legally changed from the original base data under the laws of Hawaii.

Also I find it remarkably ironic that some one who attacks the digital examination of the COLB presents a digital examination refute of the SSS documents.

Situational positioning if ever there is one.

[JBean]

TruthSquad --

The only real mystery left is the round stamp. Where did the year "19" go and why is it so old? Maybe the employee it was assigned to (there was an ID for the postal employee on the stamp) just never got around to replacing it by 1980. This was Hawaii after all, they were not as anal as mainland postal employees in 1980. If the old stamp still worked, why bother getting a new one? If the "19" part of the rubber stamp wore out - so what? You didn't know which century you were in? Sounds like a typical Hawaiian attitude to me.

Well, if you read the post by 30-year postal service vet Vicki551at November 14, 2008 03:53 AM, at DS, there was a whole lot of "typical Hawaiian attitude" going on since the postal employee ID is also missing from the stamp. Typical? I hope not. Illegal? You bet!

There also seems to be some "typical Chicago attitude" going on, since back in early August of this year, Daniel Amon, Public Affairs Specialist with the Selective Service system emailed this blogger that Barack Obama registered in Hawaii on September 4, 1980. That's the "Transaction Date" on the RIMS HISTORY PRINTOUT SCREEN, but it's certainly not the date he registered, according to the document image. Disseminating erroneous information is some sort of violation of the public trust, I would think, under that old FOIA.

[Cousin Dave]

Zero, I'm a bit confused. When did you get out of the Marines? I did some re-checking on the dates to make sure I remembered things right. Draft registration was shut down by Ford's exec order in 1975. I misrembered about Reagan reinstituting it; it was actually Carter who did that, just prior to the 1980 election. Carter's exec order exempted all men born prior to 1960. That's why I never registered; I fall into a group that was born between 1956 and 1960 that was never required to register.

I still don't see how anyone could have registered in 1979, since there was no mechanism in place to accept any such registration. Selective Service only had a skeleton staff, for records maintenance, until Carter reactivated it in 1980.

[StephenCoffman]

The Selective Service registration requirement was re-established in 1980 (see Presidential Proclamation 4771).

Males born in 1961 were required to register during the last two weeks of July 1980.

The Defense Authorization Act of 1982/1983 established the Selective Service registration required for financial aid eligibility. Effective Spring Semester 1983.

Obama attended Columbia College from 1981 to 1983, after transferring in his junior year from Occidental College.

Obama would have already started his senior year when the Selective Service registration requirements for financial aid became effective, so he would not have been effected by the law.

Percy Sutton stated that Obama received financial aid from the Saudis for his Harvard education.

Selective Service registration is not required for any elected position.

The record retention for the Selective Service is until the registrant's 85th birthday. The Document Locator Number (DLN) requires the use of a two digit year at the front of the number. Otherwise over the "life" of the retained record there would be six or more duplicate DLNs.

The IRS's record retention period is less then 10 years so a single year digit is sufficient.

The DLN is an automated action. The input into the RIMS (database) is done manually. There is no known reason for the addition of the number 8 to the DLN.

These documents are available to anyone via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Go to the Selective Service website (www.sss.gov) and click on the FOIA link.

Look at them yourself and then come up with a reasonable explanation for the issues involved in the two documents.

[TruthSquad]

"Well, if you read the post by 30-year postal service vet Vicki551at November 14, 2008 03:53 AM, at DS, there was a whole lot of "typical Hawaiian attitude" going on since the postal employee ID is also missing from the stamp."

The employee ID is a 3 digit number. There is what looks like 3 digit ID number on the stamp - although it is not legible. I'm searching through my old records back to the 1960's looking for post office round date stamps. Modern round stamps (last 10 years) from the USPS have NO employee ID on them that I can find.

CTN, well at least you agree the photos were cleaned up as I was saying. Now Debbie on her site has revealed her source (retired govt immigration offical from Texas) for the FOIA copies. He said he just scanned them on his HP scanner and mailed Debbie the scans - no photocleanup done. Debbie denies doing anything but putting her watermark and blue letters on the photos. So someone is not telling the truth. I have tried to post on her site but she has blocked all of my posts once she found out I was looking at the background issue and of course deleted my original post within 5 minutes. Seems a bit suspicious to me. I suppose she has a lot to lose if it's found out there was some doctoring done to them and she is part of it.

I agree others should request from the FOIA the same SS documents and others around that date and location to compare with what has been posted. No one wants to discuss why the DLN is an 11 digit number, and only 10 digits are on the 1980 form.

Note the white erasing done within the date seal here too - raises questions - was the "19" whited out too, and why?

http://profile.imageshack.us/user/truthsquad73/images/detail/#221/obamaselectiveservicereaf3.jpg

[CTN]

TruthSquad,

You need to be careful to NOT overstate your claims. Obviously someone doctored the image, unless you believe the government inserted the watermarks. However, evidence of this kind of modification and other web-related modification does not automatically mean that someone erased critical information from the image, as you suggest.

Here are Mr. Coffman’s words, which do not correspond to your interpolation of his words:

“I scanned the two attachments from the Selective Service letter (the form and screen printout) using an HP printer/scanner (I am not at home so I don't have the model number).

“I then attached the images to an email (via yahoo.com) and sent it to Debbie Schlussel's email address.”

He did not say that he did not modify the document and for this reason it’s safer to conclude that we don’t have all the facts vis-à-vis the history of this image than to assert that someone is not telling the truth.

Re the “JUL 29 80” stamp, I see two things:

1. The number 8 in the “80” does not have a crown on its ascender and the missing crown is not the work of Photoshop — it’s the original cut of the font from the foundry.

2. Someone erased the space to the left of the 8 immediately beneath the 2, which could mean they tampered with the doc’s original integrity or it could mean they’re really bad with Photoshop.

And since Mr. Coffman is following this thread, I’ll ask him.

Mr. Coffman, can you tell us what you did to the image after you scanned it and before you emailed it to DS, that is, if you did anything at all?

Thanks!

[TruthSquad]

CTN,

I'm not overstating my claims - just trying to get to the bottom of this photoshopped document after it was scanned. I can't prove what if anything was erased, but there sure appears to be a digit missing from the stamped DLN form. The DLN is supposed to have 11 digits, just like on the computer printout. It has only 10. If it was a 2008 form, it would have 11 digits beginning with "08" as I understand it, not 10 digits. And Debbie continues to censor comments to prevent anyone mentioning either the background erasing, or the missing digit on the first form.

In fact many posters on her site keep confusing their SSS number on their draft card with the DLN number. Since the SSS # has 10 digits now, they think the 10 digits on the registration SSS Form 1 is normal. There is NO SSS number on the original form. That is assigned later by SSS data center. And any attempt just to clarify that point also gets banned from her site. What is she afraid of?

Still waiting for Mr. Coffman's explanation of what he did, as you asked him above.

[TruthSquad]

"The only real mystery left is the round stamp. Where did the year "19" go and why is it so old? Maybe the employee it was assigned to (there was an ID for the postal employee on the stamp) just never got around to replacing it by 1980. This was Hawaii after all, they were not as anal as mainland postal employees in 1980. If the old stamp still worked, why bother getting a new one? If the "19" part of the rubber stamp wore out - so what? You didn't know which century you were in? Sounds like a typical Hawaiian attitude to me."

"Well, if you read the post by 30-year postal service vet Vicki551at November 14, 2008 03:53 AM, at DS, there was a whole lot of "typical Hawaiian attitude" going on since the postal employee ID is also missing from the stamp. Typical? I hope not. Illegal? You bet!"

Just to follow up on the round stamp. I said I would search for old round stamps from the 1980's and I have found them, for 1980, 1985, 1987, and 1988. They are from my stamped certified return receipt slips when I mail in my tax returns with a CMRR, as I usually do.

First, there were MANY round date stamps with USPO used at least up to 1988. This is 17 years after the USPO became the USPS. Obviously the post office continued to use their old stamps for many years. Vickie551at was wrong. Also you will find NO personal ID marks on any of the date stamps. In one case the postal employee added his/her initials near the stamp, as in the Obama registration stamp. So Vickie551at was wrong here too. Makes me wonder if she ever worked for the post office at all.

So this shoots down one "theory" of DS. The USPO stamp was valid and common in 1980 and there is no ID number on the stamp.

Here are my scans of my certified mail stamps. Only one is USPS, from 1988, while there are USPO stamps still in 1988. In one case the same post office was using BOTH USPO and USPS stamps in 1988.

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/7600/datestamp1980st2.jpg

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/8343/datestamp1988rc3.jpg

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/9724/datestamp1985qu9.jpg

The SSS registration form used was also dated "SSS Form 1(Feb 80)" upon close inspection. And her argument about it being canceled is nonsense. Only an order for future forms that was ~requested~ in Feb 80 was canceled. If this order had been printed the forms might have been dated Apr 80 or May 80, however long it would take to print the forms. Shoot down another of her arguments. And so it goes. The truth will come out eventually - and DS probably won't like the truth.

[Botox]

Truthsquad, there are probably a thousand philatelists out there specializing in postal cancellations that could tell you more than you ever want to know about date stamps.

Check out, for example:

http://www.hawaiianstamps.com/townpostmarks.html
http://www.stampshows.com/hps.html