Monday, August 27, 2012

OBAMA RECORDED AS BORN IN KENYA... British National Archives

British National Archives show a son was born to Obama Sr. in 1961 in Kenya


The [British] National Archives (BNA) is an executive agency of the government of the United Kingdom. Based in Kew in southwest London, the BNA is the UK government’s official archive, containing 1,000 years of history from Domesday Book to the present, with records from parchment and paper scrolls to digital files and archived websites, including Foreign Office and Colonial Office correspondence and files. The collections held by the BNA can be searched using their online catalogue. Entrance to the Archives is free.
On April 18, 2012, the BNA released the first batch of thousands of “lost” colonial-era files believed to have been destroyed, including files on Britain’s former colony of Kenya. Reporters at the UK’s The Guardian were among the first who looked at some of the newly released colonial files. They found that the name of Barack Obama (henceforth, Obama Sr.), the father of the POS in the White House, is on the top of a list of names revealed in a hitherto secret British colonial file of Kenyans studying in the United States.
But it’s not just UK journalists who can access the British National Archives; anyone can. In May 2012, someone conducted a search of the Archives using the search term “Obama” and found that an unnamed son of Obama Sr. was born in Kenya in 1961. Since the POS in the White House is the only known son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before 1963 when Kenya became officially independent from the UK, it is reasonable for us to conclude that the POS is that unnamed son of Obama Sr. born in Kenya in 1961. And in fact, the claimed birth date of the POS is August 4, 1961.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (l); Stanley Ann Dunham (r). For a couple who supposedly married and had a child together, it is odd to say the least that there is not a single photo of Obama and Dunham together.

Below are excerpts from Dan Crosby’s on-site report from Kew for The Daily Pen, “Obama’s Kenya Birth Records Discovered in British National Archives,” July 18, 2012:

Evidence discovered shows British Protectorate of East Africa recorded Obama’s birth records before 1963 and sent returns of those events to Britain’s Public Records Office and the Kew branch of British National Archives. [...]
It now appears the worst fears of the U.S. Constitution’s framers were well founded as investigators working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama have found yet another lead in a growing mountain of evidence within the public records section of the British National Archives indicating the occurrence of at least four vital events registered to the name of Barack Obama, taking place in the British Protectorate of East Africa (Kenya) between 1953 and 1963, including the birth of two sons before 1963.
Recall, investigative journalists working for Breitbart.com have already discovered biographical information published by Barack Obama’s literary agent in which he claimed he was born in Kenya.  Prior to Obama’s ensconcement to the White House, many international stories also stated that Obama was Kenyan-born as did members of Kenya’s legislative assembly.  Since then information on Obama’s ties has been curtailed by government officials as the Obama administration has coincidentally paid nearly $4 billion dollars for capital projects in Kenya.
Also, the presence of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, cannot be accounted for from February, 1961, the alleged month of her marriage to Obama, until three weeks after the birth of Obama II in August, 1961 when she allegedly applied for college courses at the University of Washington.  Theories about her whereabouts have included that she participated in the Air Lift America project as an exchange student and traveled to Nairobi as one of many recent high school graduates (see AASF Report 1959-1961).
The record of birth of a second son prior to Kenyan independence is significant because biographical information about Obama’s family indicates Obama Sr. fathered only one other son prior to Obama II’s birth.
The books containing hand written line records of vital events attributed to Obama [Sr.] are contained in Series RG36 of the Family Records section in the Kew branch of the BNA.  The hand written line records first discovered in 2009, indicate several events were registered to the name Barack Obama (appears to be handwritten and spelled “Burack” and “Biraq”) beginning in 1953 and include two births recorded in 1958 and 1960, a marriage license registration in 1954 and a birth in 1961.  Barack Obama [Sr.] is said to have died in 1982 and had married at least once more in Kenya and had at least one more child in 1968, but no record of these were found in the BNA because, according to the Archives’ desk reference, the events occurred after Kenya achieved independence from British colonial rule in 1963.
To date, Barack Obama II is the only known alleged son of Obama Sr. born after 1960 and before the independence of Kenya became official in 1963.
A request for information from the BNA on the specification of birth information contained in the series of thousands of logs indicates that only vital events registered in Kenya’s Ministry of Health offices were recorded in the registration returns and were placed in the National Archives care before they reached 30 years old (the law was amended to 20 years after creation in 2010).
The line records do not specify the identity or names of the children, only gender.  However, the line records are associated with index numbers of actual microfilm copies of certificates, licenses and registration applications filed in the archives.  According to researchers, Obama [Sr.]’s line records were discovered in Series RG36, reference books.  Not surprisingly, when researchers specifically requested access to the relevant microfilm for the Obama [Sr.] birth registrations, they were told that the records were currently held under an outdated “privileged access” status, meaning researchers were denied access under Chapter 52, Sections 3 and 5 of the British Public Records Act of 1958.
However, evidence shows these records were available for public access before August of 2009, the approximate date of arrival of Hillary Clinton in Great Britain during her trip to Africa that year.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/access-to-public-records.pdf
Several sources show that Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made a sudden visit to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British agency which oversees Public Records Archives from colonial protectorates, to speak with the Chief Executive of the Archives in early August of 2009.  African news agency expressed surprise at Clinton’s arrival since she did not announce her intentions of stopping in Great Britain before embarking on her two week trip to Africa.
For someone who wanted to remain in America, it’s difficult to imagine any reason why Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack the elder, would omit the birth of an “anchor baby” son on an application to extend his visa, just days after the birth occurred, unless…
The American people were told by Barack Obama, unequivocally, that his father was a former goat herder from Kenya. However, INS documents filed in the very same month after Obama’s birth suggest the goat herding elder Obama didn’t “get the memo” that he was a daddy.
On August 31st, 1961, just weeks after Obama’s birth was allegedly registered in a regional office of the Hawaiian Health Department, Obama the elder neglected to name his newborn son on an application for extension of his temporary visa to stay in the U.S.
Obama’s omission of the birth is astonishing and illogical given the fact that the acknowledgement of the birth would have fortified Obama’s application for an extension. The INS has long been more willing to extend the visa of a foreign parent of children born in the U.S., especially when the other parent is an American citizen.
Despite the recent release of a documentary film “Dreams From My Real Father” presenting evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is not the biological father of the younger Obama, the elder Obama is the man named as the father on the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” which was posted to the internet by the administration in April of 2011. The document image has since been forensically examined by law enforcement investigators and determined to be a digitally fabricated forgery using Adobe software.
[...], in 2011, it was reported by The Daily Pen after an investigation of the State of Hawaii’s birth statistics collection protocols and vital records history that birth certificates are often amended after the birth while the original paper document is sealed under strict confidentiality rules when the identity of the father is either determined after birth or when the father named on the new version of the certificate has adopted or assumed paternal responsibility for the child.
In the latter case, the original birth record may not contain the biological father’s name because the mother does not provide it, or it may list paternity as “unknown”, but this version is kept confidential under HRS 571. [...] Therefore, the paternity of the child at the actual time of the birth is not disclosed while the new amended certificate is upheld as the original version displaying the name of the newly identified or adoptive father as indistinguishable if different from the biological father. This law is meant to protect the child from stigmas resulting from illegitimacy, rape, incest or adultery. Under these circumstances it is not possible to know the paternal status of a child at birth unless the original birth record is made accessible by authorized persons under Hawaiian law.
[...] If Obama [Sr.] is not the biological father, or if paternal information is listed on the original certificate as “unknown”, the state of Hawaii keeps this information secret until a court orders the documents to be released for discovery purposes in determining Obama’s eligibility. Thus far, courts have lacked courage to uphold the Constitution thereby propagating the greatest political fraud in American history. Judges are simply washing their hands of the issue by refusing to even consider actual evidence against Obama, denying citizens of justice and their Constitutional right to a redress of grievances, because they simply do not have the courage to face the legal crisis such a revelation would cause.
[...] Despite evidence indicating that Obama was simultaneously married to a woman in Kenya, it is suspected that he claimed to be married to Dunham in order to use the marriage as leverage to remain in the U.S. There is no evidence or testimony that Obama [Sr.] ever loved Dunham or that the two had ever been engaged. The two did not live together before or after being married and there were no letters, no ring, no announcement or, most importantly, no legal marriage registration with the State of Hawaii.
Despite a complete void of documented proof of the marriage, it appears Dunham was granted a statutory divorce from Obama in 1964. However, images posted of the court documents from the decree contain no original documented proof of a marriage or legal documents showing that Obama was the father of Dunham’s child.  A review of the court documents shows that at least one document, perhaps an original birth certificate for baby Obama, was missing from the numbering sequence.
Being legitimately married to a U.S. citizen would be a benefit toward allowing a foreign spouse to remain the U.S. However, no marriage license application or public announcement has ever been found to indicate that Obama and Dunham were ever married or that Obama [Sr.] had even divorced his Kenyan wife prior to an alleged wedding with Dunham. This fact supports the contents of memos from college and INS officials who expressed doubts about the legitimacy of Obama’s relationship with Dunham, even questioning the motive of such a union between a teenage woman and a foreign student facing visa expiration just days after the birth of her child.
[...] Government officials in Hawaii, including Governor Neil Abercrombie, Lt. Governor Brian Schatz and former Hawaiian elections official, Tim Adams have all indicated that they could find no original record of Obama’s alleged birth in any hospital in Hawaii in the course of their duties to verify his eligibility. The absence of verifiable birth documentation was so apparent that Schatz, serving as the chairman of the Democrat Party of Hawaii in 2008, refused to certify that Obama was indeed constitutionally eligible to hold the office of presidentwhen he submitted the Official Certification of Nomination of Obama. Schatz deferred the responsibility to Nancy Pelosi and DNC, and then Chair of the Hawaiian Elections Commission, Kevin Cronin. Cronin resigned suddenly after controversy surrounding his decision began to strain his relationship with the commission.
[...] Liars and abettors in media and government, drudging on behalf of the Obama administration, have anchored their Alinsky-style ridicule of those questioning Obama’s eligibility in a delusion that he must be legitimate because his birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers.
[...] Hawaii has a long history of allocating foreign births to the mother’s claimed Hawaiian residence regardless of the actual location of the birth, which was in compliance with guidelines established by the National Center for Health Statistics in order to accurately attribute data from births with decadal Census figures. [...] The impact of population figures on the Hawaii’s economy and agency resources was very significant in 1961.  The accuracy of the Census takes precedence over the accuracy and veracity of vital statistics in the U.S. [...]

UPDATE (Aug. 25):

According to Dan Crosby, the specific sources of information pertaining to births of Kenyan nationals under British jurisdiction can be researched in the following BNA files (Courtesy: British National Archives):
General Register Office
SERIES RG36
Registers and Returns of Births, Marriages and Deaths in the Protectorates etc of Africa and Asia
Legal status:    Public Record(s)
Language:    English
Creator names:    General Register Office, 1836-1970
Covering Birth Registration dates:    1895-1965
Physical description:    15 volume(s)
Access conditions:    Available in microform only
Held by:    The National Archives, Kew
Scope and content:    Notifications forwarded by officials responsible for civil registration under administrative ordinances in Nyasaland, Kenya, Somaliland, Uganda, Sudan, Palestine, Sarawak, Malaya, including Johore and Selangor, and British North Borneo, commencing at varying dates.
Publication note:    Geoffrey Yeo ‘The British Overseas, A Guide to Records of Their Births, Baptisms, Marriages, Deaths and Burials Available in the United Kingdom’, London, 2nd edn, 1988.
Related material:    Some earlier returns from the East African territories in the period during which they were under Foreign Office control are in the consular registers retained in the custody of the registrar general.
Place:    Kenya, Africa (Territory Thereof): 1920 – 1963
Subjects:    Birth: registration
H/t Obama Release Your Records

Friday, August 24, 2012

Gen. Dempsey takes Obama's side in SEALs v. Obama battle over leaks

President Barack Obama's selection for the U.S. military's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff surprised former military officers and pro-military conservatives when he decided to take sides with OBAMA his meal Ticket in Retirement....in the heated political battle between the Obama administration and former members of the U.S. Navy SEALs, Delta Force and the Central Intelligence agency on board his flight returning from Iraq and Afghanistan on Wednesday night.


All officers of the seven Uniformed services of the United States take swear or affirm an oath of office upon commissioning. It differs slightly from that of the oath of enlistment that enlisted members recite when they enter the service. It is required by statute, the oath being prescribed by Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code.[1] It is traditional for officers to recite the oath upon promotion but as long as the officer's service is continuous this is not actually required.[2] One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.[3]

Text of the Oath

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]
"defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC"   Leakinmg the country's secrets  is a treasonable act... General !!!

*************************************************************
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey complained about former military personnel using "the uniform for partisan politics" and that such boldness may "erode the trust the American people have in their [own] military."
While Gen. Dempsey answered a reporter's question regarding a group of Navy SEALs, who created a political action committee to combat the alleged leaks allegedly emanating from the Obama administration, Dempsey did not indicate what steps he's personally taken to prevent future leaks that special operations officers and enlisted men claim are emanating from the upper-echelon of the Obama White House.
The chairman told reporters that he and his fellow commanders are "the stewards of the profession of arms, and must ensure service members don’t cross an important line."
“One of the things that marks us as a profession in a democracy is it’s most important we remain apolitical. That’s how we maintain our trust with the American people. The American people don’t want us to become another special interest group. In fact, I think that confuses them,” said the four-star general.
Dempsey said he believes partisan groups made up of former service members cloud the issue as well. “If someone uses the uniform for partisan politics, I’m disappointed in that,” he said. “I think it erodes that bond of trust we have with the American people.”
Sadly, none of the reporters asked Gen. Dempsey why he never spoke up during the Bush years when former generals and high-ranking officers were trotted out by the news media to condemn President George W. Bush's war policies and activities.
"This administration has even politicized the Pentagon, which is now more interested in projecting a politically-correct image -- such as allowing openly gay and lesbian military personnel, and adhering to the political-correct nonsense regarding radical Islamists," said political strategist Michael T. Baker.
"Has anyone seen a New York Times headline that says former generals slam Obama? But the Times did have generals blasting Bush," Baker said.
One of the PACs to which Dempsey refers -- Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, Inc. -- represents former U.S. intelligence, military and law enforcement special operatives is in the midst of a media blitz, including radio and television commercials, that blast President Barack Obama for his and his administration boasting and taking credit for the Navy SEAL mission that killed Osama bin Laden.
In addition, OPSEC is alleging that high-level leaks suspected of emanating from the Obama White House have placed the lives of soldiers, intelligence agents and law enforcement officers assigned overseas in jeopardy.
What many intelligence, military and law enforcement officials believe is an out-and-out scandal and one of the most important issues facing this nation -- the intentional leaking of classified intelligence for political purposes -- received short shrift by members of the news media.
For example, officials from the organization Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, Inc., who say they are nonpartisan and independent of any political party or candidate, said that their group is registered as a social group and not a political action committee nor are they affiliated with an political parties or groups.
"You, sir, are trying to take the credit for what the American People have achieved in killing Bin Laden. Your use of the SEALs accomplishment as a campaign slogan is nothing less than despicable. I, as a former Navy SEAL do not accept your taking credit for Osama Bin Laden's death. The American military accomplished that feat," said former U.S. Navy SEAL team member Benjamin Smith in an email.
Fred Rustmann, a former undercover officer with the Central Intelligence Agency reiterated that the focus on leaks was "not a partisan concern." He accuses the Obama administration of leaking secrets "to help this guy get re-elected, at the expense of peoples' lives.... We want to see that they don't do this again."
"The sheer amount of leaked classified information about the operations and methods used by the Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden is shocking and “abhorrent,” retired CIA officer Frederick Rustman told Newsmax.TV.
In addition, Ryan Zinke, a former commander of Navy SEAL Team Six, started a super PAC, Special Operations for America, which is dedicated to supporting Mitt Romney and hitting President Obama on leaks and on politicizing Bin Laden’s death. According to Mr. Zinke, these two super PACs are just the first salvo in what will be a sustained assault on the president by high-level ex-soldiers.
Zinke stated that the series of White House leaks and a campaign commercial showing the draft-dodger Bill Clinton questioning whether GOP candidate Mitt Romney would have given the order for SEAL Team Six to conduct a raid at Osama bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan was what made him decide to take action.

Liberals' New Plan to Ban Ammo... Time to ban Liberal EVERYTHINGS!!!


Anti-Gunners Trying To Take Away Our Ammunition

Shortly after attaching the Large Capacity Magazine Ban to the Cyber Security Act the Democrats have submitted another piece of gun control literature. On July 30 Senator Frank Lautenberg, who was also a sponsor of the Large Capacity Magazine Ban, and Representative Carolyn McCarthy announced the plans for the 'Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act' at a New York City news conference.

Select Here To Fax The U.S Senate Demanding They
DO NOT Pass Upcoming Gun Control Laws!

The outline of this new act consists of:

   
It requires anyone selling ammunition to be a licensed dealer.
It requires ammunition buyers who are not licensed dealers to present photo ID at the time of purchase, effectively banning the online or mail order purchase of ammo by regular civilians.
It requires licensed ammunition dealers to maintain records of the sale of ammunition.
It requires licensed ammunition dealers to report the sale of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to an unlicensed person within any five consecutive business days.

Since the tragedy in Aurora, CO gun control activists have been demanding change to our gun control laws. We have had two separate acts trying to hurt ammo regulations submitted since the shooting. One that would limit your clips and magazines to only ten rounds, another that will prevent you from buying ammo online or by mail. They are taking advantage of a terrible situation to demand gun control rather than try to prevent another tragedy from occurring. If they were serious about stopping mass shootings, they would introduce a bill to repeal the so-called Gun-Free School Zones Act. One thing that is shown to stop mass shootings is the presence of an armed potential victim. If they want to get serious about saving lives, they should stop trying to pass laws that will only affect law-abiding citizens.





There is some good news out of Colorado this week. The residents of Colorado have reflected on the situation in Aurora and took it upon themselves to stay safe. Gun sales are up 40% in Colorado since the horrific shooting. More and more people are starting to realize that gun control laws will not protect them or keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. Someone will be carrying a gun next time a lunatic goes off the deep end and he will not be sitting in court house like a zombie awaiting charges he will be six feet under thanks to our Second Amendment.

These gun grabbers are taking advantage of a horrible situation to try to get gun control passed. Twelve people are dead and over fifty are injured not because it is legal to buy a gun but because someone went crazy and no one had a gun to take him down. If you were a criminal, would you rather try to take out a classroom where it is known no weapons are allowed? Or would you rather go into a classroom where every student has a .44 mag on their hip? These gun control laws are preventing everyday citizens from protecting themselves. Criminals do not obey laws. Why would they follow gun control laws?

Thursday, August 23, 2012

FRIGHTENING CHOICES IN THE COMING ELECTION...

If anyone believes that the fate of the country is about one pet issue that either candidate supports they are delusional.


Right now its about about two competing ideologies.

The OBAMA BIG Government socialist leaning South American/Sub Saharan Model or the more Capitalist model of ROMNEY!

Simple as that! If you vote for Obama you will get ... and expanded version of what we have now...

If you like this... vote OBAMA and you WILL PROGRESSIVELY GET less and less.. of everything including FREEDOM. Our money will soon be devalued and you will a "LEARN TO LIVE WITH LESS"

With Romney we have a chance to claw our way back from the economic abyss!!

ROTTEN CHOICES BOTH... there is no SAVING ANGEL waiting in the wings this November...

We sat complacently... while our system of laws and economics was destroyed one small piece at a time... so it will take the same amount of time to get out of this...

OR MARCH DEEPER INTO THIS NEW SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMIC CONTROL AND LOWER LEVELS OF EXPECTANCY OF THE AMERICAN DREAM!!

The choice is ours... The larger group will win the day !!

Paul LePage.. The CONSERVATIVE New Governor of Maine

Meet  Maine 's New Governor --- In case you haven't heard about this guy before, his name will stick in your mind!


The new Maine Governor, Paul LePage is making  New Jersey 's Chris Christie look like an enabler. He isn't afraid to say what he thinks. Judging by the comments, every time he opens his mouth, his popularity goes up.
    He brought down the house at his inauguration when he shook his fist toward the media box and said, "You're on notice! I've inherited a financially troubled State to run. Observe...cover what we do...but don't whine if I don't waste time responding to your every whim just for your amusement."
    During his campaign for Governor, he was talking to commercial fishermen who are struggling because of federal fisheries rules. They complained that 0bama brought his family to  Bar Harbor   andAcadia   National Park for a long Labor Day holiday and found time to meet with union leaders, but wouldn't talk to the fishermen. LePage replied, "I'd tell him to go to hell and get out of my State." The Lame Stream Media crucified LePage, but he jumped 6 points in the pre-election poll.
    The Martin Luther King incident was a political sandbag, which brought him National exposure. The 'lame stream' media crucified him, but word on the street is very positive. The NAACP specifically asked LePage to spend MLK Day visiting black inmates at the Maine State Prison. He told them that he would meet with ALL inmates, regardless of race, if he were to visit the prison. The NAACP balked and then put out a news release claiming falsely that he refused to participate in any MLK events. He read it in the paper for the 1st time the next morning while being driven to an event and went ballistic because none of the reporters had called him for comment before running the NAACP release.
    He arrived at that event & said in front of a TV camera, "If they want to play the race card on me they can kiss my ass", and he reminded them that he has an adopted black son from Jamaica and that he attended the local MLK Breakfast every year that he was mayor of Waterville. (He started his morning there on MLK Day.)
    He then stated that there's a right way and a wrong way to meet with the Governor, and he put all special interests on notice that press releases, media leaks, and all demonstrations would prove to be the wrong way. He said any other group, which acted like the NAACP could expect to be at the bottom of the Governor's priority list!
    He then did the following, and judging from local radio talk show callers, his popularity increased even more: The State employees union complained because he waited until 3 P.M. before closing State offices and facilities and sending non-emergency personnel home during the last blizzard. The prior Governor would often close offices for the day with just a forecast before the first flakes. (Each time the State closes for snow, it costs the taxpayers about $1 million in wages for no work in return.)
    LePage was CEO of the Marden's chain of discount family bargain retail stores before election as governor. He noted that State employees getting off work early could still find lots of retail stores open to shop. So, he put the State employees on notice by announcing: "If Marden's is open, Maine is open!"
    He told State employees: "We live in Maine in the winter, for heaven's sake, and should know how to drive in it. Otherwise, apply for a State job in Florida !"
    Governor LePage symbolizes what America needs; Refreshing politicians who aren't self-serving and who exhibit common sense.
  
    THE LAW IS THE LAW So "if" the US government determines that it is against the law for the words "under God" to be on our money, then, so be it.
    And "if" that same government decides that the "Ten Commandments" are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.
    I say, "so be it," because I would like to be a law abiding US citizen.
    I say, "so be it," because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.
    I would like to think that those people have the American public's best interests at heart.
    BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don't believe Government (Federal, State and Local) and its employees should participate in Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.
    I'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.
    I'd like the" US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays." After all, it's just another day.
    I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the "Christmas Break." After all it's just another day.
    I'm thinking a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be "politically correct."

    In fact....I think our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshiping God....) because, after all, our government says that it should be just another day....
   What do you all think????  If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the "minority opinions" and begin, once again, to represent the "majority" of ALL of the American people.
SO BE IT...........Please Dear Lord, Give us the help needed to keep you in our country! 'Amen' and 'Amen' Touché!
    These are definitely things I never thought about but from now on, I will be sure to question those in government who support these changes.
    At the top, it says, "I hope this makes its way around the USA several times!!!!!" Let's see that it does.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vs the Phoenix Suns owner


The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver, came out strongly opposing AZ's new immigration laws.

 

 

Figures since he needs all those black players on his team... screw the Rule of Law and the Constitution of the UNITED STATES...Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:

"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying?
What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected.
Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink?
And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?"
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
 

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

These LEFTY IDIOTS ARE NOT "hosts" of the presidential debates they are not “moderators”? They’re left-erators or Obama CROTCH SNIFFERS!

 It’s time for the old media godfathers to end the pretense that they’re fair and neutral observers of the American political scene. Journo-Tools For Obama

 

 

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 22, 2012 08:23 AM

Journo-tools For Obama
by Michelle Malkin
Creators SyndicateCopyright 2012
Can we stop calling the hosts of the presidential debates “moderators”? They’re left-erators. It’s time for the old media godfathers to end the pretense that they’re fair and neutral observers of the American political scene. And it’s time for the GOP to stop perpetuating these rigged exercises in futility.
Last week, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced the names of 2012′s chosen referees: CNN’s Candy Crowley, PBS’s Jim Lehrer and CBS’s Bob Schieffer will preside over the three presidential debates; ABC’s Martha Raddatz will host the sole vice presidential debate. While the debate panel trumpeted the gender diversity of its picks, the chromosomal diversity is far outweighed by the political uniformity, class conformity and geographical homogeneity of the group.
Crowley has lived and worked in D.C. for liberal CNN for a quarter-century. Raddatz worked for liberal National Public Radio for five years before joining ABC News; she has been based in the D.C. bureau for the better part of a decade. Schieffer has been a fixture in the nation’s capital at CBS News, home of the faked Rathergate documents, for three decades. Lehrer, the liberal patriarch of PBS News, is nearly as aged a Beltway monument as the Washington Monument itself.
The presidential debates are the last bastion of “mainstream” media self-delusion in the 21st century. They are a ritual laughingstock for tens of millions of American viewers who have put up with leading, softball questions for Democratic candidates and combative, fili-blustery lectures for Republican candidates campaign cycle after cycle. Now, Democrats are lobbying the supposedly nonpartisan debate commission to disallow questions about President Obama’s phony dog-and-pony deficit panel.
Why does the Republican Party agree to play along with this ideologically stacked deck masquerading as an objective pantheon of disinterested journalism? The Romney campaign’s capitulation to the liberal debate racket and its narrative-warpers comes at a time when more and more members of the Fourth Estate itself are admitting that they have served or been treated as tools for the Obama administration:
–Just this week, ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper told conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham that he “thought the media helped tip the scales” for Obama. “I didn’t think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair to either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, (the) campaign narrative, that it wasn’t always the fairest coverage.” Duh.
–MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin acknowledged this weekend on the “Today” show that the Beltway press corps is helping Obama drive campaign issues that most voters don’t care about: “I think the press still likes this story a lot. The media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on (Mitt Romney’s tax returns). … Do voters care about it? I don’t think so. … I think it’s mostly something that the press and insiders care about.”
–Another MSNBC political reporter, Chuck Todd, disclosed that gaffetastic Vice President Joe Biden’s staff was trying to edit the press pool reports to cover for the second-in-command’s lack of rhetorical command. “This is an outrage that they do this,” Todd said.
–Independent political blogger Keith Koffler of whitehousedossier.com reported this week that Team Obama was dictating interview topics to local TV reporters in battleground states, just after holding a kabuki press conference on Monday to capitalize on the Missouri GOP Rep. Todd Akin “legitimate rape”/magical uterus debacle. “In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of ‘sequestration’ if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases,” Koffler reported.
“The reporters mostly made no effort to hide the arrangement. ‘The president invited me to talk about sequestration,’ NBC 7 San Diego’s reporter told her audience. In the interview, she set Obama up with a perfectly pitched softball the president couldn’t have been more eager to take a swing at: ‘What do you want individual San Diegans to know about sequestration?’ she asked.”
These willing lapdogs and stenographers follow in the footsteps of the hallowed Fishwrap of Record, which ‘fessed up last month to allowing Obama campaign officials to have “veto power” over statements. “We don’t like the practice,” said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at The New York Times. “We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder.”
If not the 2012 GOP presidential ticket, then who? If not now, then when?

No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

In 2012, our rallying cry should now be:  No Taxation by Misrepresentation!


(From 1763-1775, the rallying cry in the colonies was:  No Taxation without Representation! )




From 1763-1775, the rallying cry in the colonies was:  No Taxation without Representation!
In 2012, our rallying cry should now be:  No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

Not only did PPACA (Obamacare) pass Congress without any mention of the word “tax”, its defenders have emphatically denied that the law’s “mandates” represent taxation.  Had the funding for the bill been presented as a tax increase, it would almost certainly have failed.
Incredibly, Chief Justice Roberts accepted the Government’s argument that the “mandate” is after all just a tax (wink, wink), and consequently the Government has the Constitutional authorization it needs to fund PPACA through taxation.  Thus the SCOTUS majority effectively rewrote the bill, “deeming” it to say something that it does not, and then declaring as Constitutional a bill that does not even exist!  I would have never believed such a thing could happen in the Supreme Court.
As noted by John Eastman, a Constitutional scholar:
  • A Constitutional tax bill must originate in the House.  The reason is that the Framers wanted tax increases to be launched only by those who would most immediately be facing re-election.  But PPACA originated in the Senate.  Strike 1.
  • A Constitutional tax must be an income, excise, or direct tax, and there are rules that must be followed for each.  Clearly the PPACA tax is neither an income nor an excise tax, so it must be a direct tax.  But Constitutionally, a direct tax must be apportioned by population.  The PPACA tax is not apportioned by population.  Strike 2.
  • Even without these explicit violations of the Constitution, by the rule of reason and good faith, Congress can vote for taxation only via legislation that explicitly calls that taxation by its proper name — a tax — in full view of the voters. Congress and PPACA did not do that. Strike 3.
How could any Justice, let alone the Chief Justice, ignore all this?  By voting as Roberts and the majority did, our own Supreme Court has aided and abetted a massive fraud on the American people.   This should be the stuff of novels, not real life.
Normally, one can seek redress for fraud through the courts.  Where does one go when the highest court in the land aids, abets, and virtually commits the fraud?
For the minority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote:
… to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.
Right on. The entire law should have been rejected and offered back to Congress either for the trash bin or for editing and a re-vote by elected representatives in full view of We-the-People.  Has Roberts no shame at all?

Many Conservatives are so disappointed in Roberts that they are frantically concocting explanations and rationalizations for his astounding malfeasance.
One wretched contrivance argues that Roberts’ real motive was, somehow, to protect the integrity, balance, and honor of SCOTUS itself.  Really?  How does aiding and abetting a gargantuan national fraud do that?
Another rationalization argues that Roberts is cleverly giving Conservatives a “Remember-the-Alamo” loss that will so anger and energize Americans that they will throw Obama and his neo-Marxist, redistributionist entourage right out of Washington.  But if SCOTUS is politically gaming its rulings to that extent, how can we count on SCOTUS in the future?  If there is any government branch that should play it straight, surely it is SCOTUS.
The bottom line is that SCOTUS has ruled PPACA to be Constitutional by deeming the bill to be something that it is not.  The SCOTUS decision is an Orwellian absurdity and a stain on SCOTUS that will remain until long after we’re all gone.
Memo to Chief Justice Roberts: Et tu Brute?  With this betrayal and breach of the Framers’ final bulwark of protection for Constitutionally limited government, all we have have left is the ballot box.  In November, we must win a new President and Congress, and we must exercise eternal diligence thereafter.  The Left will never quit, and neither should we.
Pass the word:  No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/06/29/no-taxation-by-misrepresentation/


Monday, August 20, 2012

How do you spell Hawaii ?? HUWAII if you are bad speller and forger on OBAMA's BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Savannah Guthrie Further Proves She's Complicit: 
Hawaii Spelled Huwaii on Obama's Birth Certificate


A picture is worth a thousand words. Or in this case the usurpation of the highest office in the land.

Savannah Guthrie proves that Obama was born in Huwaii? 
Or did she mean Huwai, Indonesia?
By Mara Zebest

A YouTube user by the name of Bigone5555J made an observation that needs some attention. His video covers the discovery that Obama was born in Huwaii according to Savannah Guthrie. Savannah Guthrie is the reporter that was allowed to be the only member of the press to feel and photograph the real Certificate of Live Birth (according to her). Why she was appointed as the only individual allowed access is certainly curious, but even more suspect is the two low resolution photographs issued of Obama’s long form Certificate of Live Birth touted as the authentic paper document copy with seal and all (get out your magnifying glass if you expect to find it). My first question is if Savannah was confident that it was an official and authentic copy, then why the thumbnail low resolution images? Why not provide something in a higher resolution similar to the AP version in which we can all see the raised seal and details of this original paper version of the PDF file so proudly announced by Savannah. How curious that the images have no evidence of the qualities Savannah Guthrie gushes over.

The two images Savannah Guthrie provided are seen below, and even more curious is that the first image shown offers less information of the overall document then the second. But the information in the second view is the target of this discussion since the cropped version conveniently—and perhaps purposefully—centers oddly on information that not only leaves out the information for President Obama in boxes 1 through 5, but also crops away a view of box 7c information in question.



If the second image information is compared to the White House PDF or AP versions (seen in the image comparison below), there is a problem that Bigone5555J correctly identifies. A misspelling in box 7c for the Savannah Guthrie image that is not found in the AP and WH versions—Hawaii is the state listed in box 7c for the AP and WH files while the Guthrie image shows Obama was born in Huwaii—Freudian slip maybe? Was the creator of this third version sham of a certificate thinking of Huwai, Indonesia as Bigone5555J referenced in his discussion on the Peter Boyles Show? The Indonesia location of Huwai is spelled with one “i” instead of two, but if used to living in a country in which spelling the name of a location with a “u” instead of an “a” is the norm, it could be an easy mistake to make when forging yet another version of the document that no one has seen except for Savannah Guthrie. After all, who are you going to believe, Savannah Guthrie or your lying eyes?


Savannah Guthrie's original images of Obama's birth certificate published here and here.

FLASHBACK: NBC's Savannah Guthrie Unintentionally Proves Obama Birth Certificate Tampered With - DETAILS HERE.



WATCH THE COMPLETE SHERIFF JOE PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html 

SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Saturday, August 18, 2012

PROOF POSITIVE THAT Obama and/or someone in cahoots with him...FORGED Obama's Selective Service Draft Registration card.

Did Barrack Hussein OBAMA... Commander-in-Chief Falsify his Selective Service Registration?
Or Maybe just never Actually Register till 2008?
Obama’s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions that you as the reader can decide about!
Just look at the facts. JUST THE FACTS IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES !!

LOOK AT THIS CARD. WE WILL EXAMINE EACH PART OF IT... ONE AT A TIME...



By Debbie Schlussel 2008

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

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 “08″. 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 (F above)

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.
**** UPDATE #2, 11/14/08: Retired Federal Agent Source Reveals Himself:

The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there is no question as to the source of the information.

His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.

He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.

He can be reached via email at retirediceagent@sbcglobal.net.
UPDATE #3, 11/17/08: Some Obamapologists are claiming this is a fake and want to see evidence that retired agent Coffman actually got these documents from the Selective Service System Data Management Center. Below are scans of the letter and envelope that accompanied Barack Obama’s fraudulent registration for the draft (I’ve cropped the blank white space):




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 “08″. 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