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

AMERICAN Economic collapse is inevitable, here’s...Obama is just speeding it up at HYPERSPEED for his Socialist ends!! why…

America is quickly approaching a catastrophic economic collapse. Before you dismiss this as hype or paranoia, take a few minutes to review the facts outlined on this page. The numbers don’t lie. At this point, the dollar crash is unavoidable… far from an exaggeration this is a mathematical certainty. As repelling as that sounds, it’s in your own best interest to learn just how bad the situation is.

According to the talking heads of mainstream press the economy is slowly recovering and the financial crisis is all but behind us, but we need a reality check. It’s time to stop being naive and start being more discerning. Instead of more false hope, we need the truth as bitter as it might sound… and the truth is, from our local municipalities, to our states to our federal government, we are broke… the truth is we can’t payback our debt without getting into even more debt… the truth is the housing crash of 2008 was just a small preview of what’s to come.
America is drowning in debt. The government’s liabilities are now growing at an exponential rate. Our national debt is on a vicious downward spiral.
To our detriment our government continues to pretend that we can borrow our way out of debt and only handful of our politicians are willing to admit that our nation is now bankrupt.

Contrary to rhetoric coming out of Washington, no tax hike or budget cut will get us out of this mess. The kind of measures that would actually bring about meaningful change to curb the financial collapse are deemed too severe to be even considered.
Examine the evidence outlined below, connect the dots and think for yourself.

All truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

– Arthur Schopenhauer

What does the “national debt” even mean?

Let’s cover the basics first… When the government can not cover its spending using the collected revenue from corporate and income taxes and other fees it imposes, it goes into debt. The U.S. national debt is the sum of all outstanding debt owed by the federal government. It includes the money government borrowed, plus the interest it must pay on this debt.

Let’s also clear up the difference between debt and deficit. The deficit is the shortfall we have in any one year. If you take in $100 billion and spend $130 billion, you get a deficit of $30 billion. Now at the end of that year, you’ve got to do something with that $30 billion you owe, so you move it over to your long-term shortfall – which is the national debt.
Obviously, like any other debt, the national debt must be paid back to the holders. Of course, having a little debt is just fine as long as it’s manageable. On the other hand, if a country borrows too much it can drown in its debt, like Greece did.
So how bad is our situation? Numbers don’t lie, so let’s compare our debt and deficit to 1974 just to get a feel for our path and pace (later on we’ll look at national debt chart spanning 1940-2011).
In 1974 the deficit (annual shortfall) was $4 billion and the total debt was $484 billion. It had taken us 200 years from the start of the republic until 1974 to create that debt of $484 billion.
However, since 1974, our deficit went from $4 billion to a shocking $1.33 trillion… stop and think about that for a second… this means that our current annual budget shortfall is roughly triple the size of the total U.S. debt in 1974. Our national debt in 1974 was $484 billion… it is now approaching an unprecedented $16 trillion!
How is that possible? How do you go through World War I, World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam War – and have only $484 billion debt, then skyrocket to 16 trillion in such a short time?! The answer to this question has to do with a key event in 1971 that we’ll go over in a moment… for now, let’s stick with the national debt, so we can understand why it is no longer sustainable.

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1787
“All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arises,
not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor
or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.”
– John Adams, Founding Father

Sixteen trillion dollars, so what?

Sixteen trillion dollars is certainly a lot of money, but most people usually don’t deal with that many zeros in their life. It’s hard to really appreciate this almost unfathomable sum and the dire consequences it represents for us. But to understand how deep of a hole the government is in, we need to grasp the enormity of this dollar amount.
So, how big is one trillion? Here are a few helpful illustrations.
Imagine you decided to count to one million out loud. How long do you think it would take you at a pace of one number per second?. If you do it non stop, it would take about 12 DAYS. Now, how long would it take you to count to one trillion?… The answer?… 32,000 YEARS!!!
Here’s another illustration.
If you were alive when Christ was born and you spent one million dollars every single day since that point, you still would not have spent one trillion dollars by now.
Last one… If you had a trillion $10 bills and you taped them all end to end. Your money ribbon will become so long that you would actually be able to wrap it around planet Earth more than 380 times!!!… But, that amount of money would still not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.
Are you getting the picture yet?
On the right is an illustration of our federal debt that might help you get a better idea visually. You can click on that image to see a larger size.
Keep in mind that what you are looking at are pallets of $100 bills stacked on top of each other. To give you an idea of the size and height of these pallets, in the center is standing the Statue of Liberty in proper scale relative to the money towers. The cash surrounding and dwarfing the Stature of Liberty taken together constitute 16.394 trillion. This represents our current debt ceiling that we’re scheduled to hit in September of 2012.
It’s interesting to note that when we hit this debt ceiling this year, our government will once again move the ceiling up to allow for the debt to grow. Now ask yourself, what is the point of a movable ceiling? A movable ceiling is an oxymoron. If you can move your debt limit on demand, why bother pretending that you have a debt limit in the first place?

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me
and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations
have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power
of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices
of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic destroyed.”
– Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States

Statistics the government would rather you didn’t know

Now that you have somewhat of an idea of how big a trillion is, consider the chart on the right (U.S. national debt from 1940 to 2011 in trillions of dollars) and look at the mind-boggling statistics below:

• The U.S. government spent over 454 billion dollars just on interest on the national debt during fiscal 2011.
• In 2011, the government borrowed $41,000 every second.
• Currently, the government’s burden is growing by $10 million per each passing minute
• Just during the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.
• Currently the U.S. monetary base is sitting somewhere around 2.7 trillion dollars. So if you went out and gathered all of that paper money up it would only make a small dent in our national debt. But afterwards there would be no currency for anyone to use.
• The United States government is responsible for more than a third of all the government debt on the entire planet.
• Mandatory federal spending surpassed total federal revenue for the first time ever in fiscal 2011. That was not supposed to happen until 50 years from now.
• If the U.S. government was forced to use GAAP accounting principles (like all publicly-traded corporations must), the U.S. government budget deficit would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 trillion to $5 trillion each and every year.
• The U.S. national debt is now more than 5000 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913.

Hopefully at this point you’re starting to realize how big our debt is and how fast it’s growing. Shockingly, our government’s biggest liabilities are not even shown here, so this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Another 54 trillion excluded from the national debt figures

The short video below was broadcast by CNN in 2007 featuring the head government accountant David Walker.

Click Here to see the Video
http://youtu.be/25_APRkrXeY

According to David Walker who served as United States Comptroller General in the Government Accountability Office from 1998 to 2008,U.S. government’s real financial burden is close to 70 trillion dollars.
This is because the national debt of 16 trillion does not account for obligations like Social Security, Medicare, Public Employee Pensions and other liabilities which the government is already committed to.
These liabilities are ticking time bombs, primed to explode with each new wave of retiring baby boomers. On top of this, medical costs continue to rise across the board driving medicare expenses through the roof.
Keep in mind that at the time this video was broadcast our national debt was “only” around 9 trillion dollars and it is now close to 16 trillion. The catastrophic economic problems predicted by our government’s head accountant are playing themselves out right now.
What’s most disheartening is that David Walker was forced to accept that admonishing Washington of unsustainable debt was a waste of effort. His warnings of the impending financial collapse fell on deaf ears as both administrations simply ignored him. In desperation, Mr. Walker quit his job as the federal government’s chief auditor to travel around the country to find ways to deliver his message directly to the public.

Father of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights, James Madison is quoted saying:
“History records that the money changers have used every form
of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible
to maintain their control over governments
by controlling money and its issuance.”
– James Madison, Founding Father and 4th President of the United States

How did we get in so much debt?

To outline all the events that lead us to this mess would take a separate article, but here’s a quick summary.
In 1913 Congress passed the “Federal Reserve Act,” relinquishing the power to create and control money to the Federal Reserve Corporation, a private company owned and controlled by bankers. Over time, more and more legislation was passed to expand Federal Reserve’s functions. The Fed (short for Federal Reserve) was granted two extremely critical powers: the ability to purchase U.S. treasury securities and to manipulate the interest rates. Interest rate manipulation and quantitative easing (pumping money into the economy) by the Fed, are the two driving forces behind the boom/bust cycles and economic bubbles.

Click Here
http://youtu.be/YjwDrZeqM_g

The Fed was suppose to be the guardian of U.S. currency, in reality it turned out to be a debt and bubble machine, ran for profit by greedy bankers.
Our founding fathers understood the danger of putting the power to control the currency of a nation in the hands of a few individuals in the form of a monopolistic central bank and were vehemently opposed to such a system.
In 1944, as World War II was drawing closer to the end, representatives of 44 allied nations met in Brenton Woods, New Hampshire where the dollar (backed by gold at $35 per ounce) was accepted as the world reserve currency.
America was granted unprecedented benefits as the issuer of the dollar. However, the gold standard restricted Federal Reserve from printing money unless it had the gold to backup new currency. Even though this ensured the stability of the dollar and a strong economy, such restrictions would not be tolerated by the Fed for very long.
In 1971, under president Nixon, U.S. moved away from a gold-backed monetary system to a fiat paper debt-based monetary system which allowed Federal Reserve to print dollars out of thin air.

This opened the door for unrestricted spending and borrowing. Once we moved away from a “gold standard” to a “debt-currency system” it was only a matter of time before America transformed from the world’s biggest creditor to the world’s biggest debtor.
If you look at the national debt chart by scrolling up, you can see a direct parallel between the explosion of debt and U.S. switching to fiat currency in 1971. Once the Fed could create dollars out of nothing, it took only a few years for the government debt to gain an exponential climb rate.
Now on the surface, Federal Reserve’s ability to print money with no restrictions might sound great since you can just create new currency on demand… but it carries with it two very grave consequences. Consequences that we’re paying for now.
The first consequence is inflation. Each time the Fed issues new dollars, it increases the money supply, which in turn diminishes the value of the rest of the dollars already in circulation. Basically, that means the more dollars are printed, the less they are worth. As the inflation rises, so do the prices and cost of living. Inflation also encourages spending and debt, and discourages saving and capital formation. In the long run, currency inflation wipes out the wealth of the middle class and wrecks the economy. By the way, the dollar has lost 95% of its value since Federal Reserve took over in 1913.
The second consequence is that, we (the people) go into debt every time new money is created. When the government needs extra money, beyond what it collects in taxes, it issues U.S. treasury bonds, which are interest-bearing IOUs guaranteed by the government. These bonds are exchanged with the Federal Reserve for currency. This process is called “monetizing the debt”, hence “debt-currency” system. Federal Reserve collects the interest and the tax payers collect the debt. The bankers prosper and people get enslaved.
Besides debasing the dollar and binding America into debt, the Fed manipulates the interest rates overriding market self regulation. These manipulations create bubbles resulting in devastating consequences for the economy and the average American.

President Andrew Jackson refused to renew the charter (a grant of monopoly) of the Second Bank of the United States. In 1836 Jackson said to the bankers trying to persuade him to renew their charter (so they could continue their harmful monopoly):

“You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.”
-– Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States

How is the U.S. government going to finance 70 trillion in liabilities?

If you have been paying attention so far, you should be able to guess correctly… by borrowing. The U.S. government is planning to finance 70 trillion in obligations by selling treasury securities (interest bearing IOU’s) putting America into even more debt.
Since our national debt is exploding and our annual deficit keeps growing every year, we’re forced to admit an obvious fact: our government can not pay its debt without taking on more debt.
This is by definition, a Ponzi scheme. To keep the Ponzi scheme going you must have a constant and ever expanding flow of investors. If the flow stops or even slows down, the whole thing starts to collapse. This is why the government must continuously raise the official debt ceiling.
All Ponzi schemes eventually collapse and our debt-currency system has the same fatal flaw by design.
The video below was broadcast on CNBC, May 24, 2012:

Click on this link
http://youtu.be/9X6BUgLuaZs

Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, who not only famously predicted the 2008 housing bubble, but also predicted the specific banks that would go under, as well as the government’s exact response to the 2008 crisis, makes the following statements about U.S. treasuries (short for U.S. treasury securities… again these are interest bearing IOU’s the government must sell to pay for obligations):
“There’s no safety in U.S. treasuries. When interests rates go up, we’ve got to default on those treasuries. We can’t pay a market rate of interest, let alone retire the principal. Most of the treasuries that are being bought have very short maturities. We have 5 or 6 trillions coming due in the next year, we can’t pay that back. We’re counting on our creditors to loan us back the money to repay the debt. This is a Ponzi scheme.
It’s the same situation as I said Greece was in. They had no problem selling their bonds when the rates were low. But the minute people figured out that the Greeks couldn’t repay the debt, they didn’t want to buy them anymore. The same thing is going to happen. You have a false perception of safety in the Treasury market. It’s not safe at all. It’s a trap. And it’s being set by Central Banks, the Fed is the biggest buyer, they’re buying like 90% of long term treasuries… ”

How long can we keep borrowing?

Some economists like to imagine that we can just grow our debt endlessly, because we have the ability to print dollars out of thin air. These “experts” allege that the treasuries market is strong as ever and we can just keep borrowing endlessly. These are the same “experts” that insisted that the real estate prices will continue to rise perpetually, right up to the 2008 crash. They argue, just raise the debt ceiling and keep growing that debt evermore.
But even though we can raise our debt ceiling time after time, there is still a natural debt limit we can not cross. The notion that our government can keep growing our debt without end is preposterous.
First, it’s based on a foolish assumption that the rest of the world is willing to to lend us money that they know we can’t pay back. Second, it ignores a mathematical consequence: exponential growth due to interest alone.

We’ve been able to get away with borrowing so much up until now because the dollar is the world reserve currency, but this privilege has its limits. It’s also a privilege we’re going to lose because we have been shamelessly abusing it.
The Federal Reserve has been keeping the interest artificially low, to help the government keep borrowing. Of course this is no favor on Fed’s part, because the end result is debt enslavement. Since whatever the government owes is inherited by the people, it’s the people who get screwed at the end. If the interest was allowed to return to market rates, it would help prevent the government from borrowing beyond its means.
However, at this point our lenders are realizing that our debt has long passed a sustainable level. If you have ever applied for a loan, you should be familiar with this universal rule: when the borrower is in too much debt, the loan becomes high-risk and so the lender demands a higher interest to make the reward worthy of the risk. With every passing day U.S. plunges into a deeper debt pit and this makes lending to U.S. (by buying treasury securities) a more and more riskier investment.
To make things worse, the Fed is devaluing the dollar at an increasing pace by issuing bailouts, stimulus packages, quantitative easing, etc… and our lenders are realizing this too. This means that the dollars that our creditors are loaning to us now, are worth less when they get them back.
For these two reasons, the U.S. treasury securities (government IOU’s) are now high-risk, low-return investments. What was once considered the safest investment is now a Ponzi scheme at the point of collapse.

Who will bail out America when it runs out of lenders?

Our pool of willing lenders is starting to shrink as our creditors are waking up to the fact that treasuries are now a high-risk, low-return investment. To compensate for this the Fed is forced to buy up all the long term U.S. treasuries in an effort to artificially stimulate demand, to keep up the smokescreen. Of course this only inflates the U.S. bond bubble even more.
When the pool of willing lenders dries up, the scheme will reach its end and the final bubble will explode. Without lenders, the U.S. government has only two appalling choices: default on debt or hyper-inflate the dollar.

Option one is to default on all debt, essentially declaring bankruptcy to renegotiate all obligations. This would create a severe financial shock as the dollar collapses and loses its status as reserve currency. This would lead to a sharp increase in the cost of nearly everything, as more US dollars would be needed to pay for imports, resulting in a catastrophic economic impact for every American. The government will be forced to cut spending dramatically. A broad range of government payments would have to be stopped, including military salaries, Social Security and Medicare payments, unemployment benefits, tax refunds, etc. Companies would be crushed by a US consumer that would no longer have any buying power. In addition, credit would dry up virtually overnight, which would force untold numbers of companies to shut their doors. Unemployment in the country would spike to obscene levels. Interest rates would rise significantly forcing millions of families with adjustable mortgages to go into foreclosures.
Option two is to have the Federal Reserve create trillions upon trillions of dollars out of thin air. This creates an illusion that the debt is being paid back, but in reality the dollars issued to pay the debt would become increasingly worthless, turning rapid inflation into hyperinflation. This would actually create a much worse scenario then the first option as hyperinflation will be even more economically destructive for the average American. Prices would soar to unimaginable levels, unemployment would skyrocket. The average American would be forced to work overtime just to put food on the table, that is if he or she is lucky enough to still have a job.
It’s worth mentioning that it is highly unlikely that U.S. will choose default (option one). Even though hyper-inflation is by far more destructive for the American people in the long term, the government will most likely try to print its way out.
Either way the economy will collapse. Economically, the first option would feel like a heart attack and the second option like a terminal cancer.
The ripple effects of either scenario would be unprecedented. It would not be the end of the world, but you can expect massive social unrest, protests, riots, arson, etc. Supply disruptions on all levels. Basic utility failures and infrastructure decay. Rampant violent crime, specially in metropolitan areas. Eventually followed by a long and very painful readjustment period of living standards for most Americans.

What if we cut spending, raise taxes and balance the budget?

It’s amazing, that even now, you hear the same old catch phrases thrown around by politicians on all the major news shows, like “recovering economy”, “budget cuts” and “responsible spending”. But, anyone out there that insists that this crisis can be fixed under our current system is lying.

The spending cuts and tax increases that Congress is talking about are absolutely meaningless when compared to how rapidly our debt is exploding.
Calling those cuts and taxes “pocket change” would be an insult to pocket change.
No bailout, stimulus package or manipulation by Federal Reserve is going to avoid the massive financial pain that’s coming our way.
So what can our government do to fix the current financial crisis and avoid the dollar crash? What would it take?
It would take the kind of measures that are our government considers too extreme to even discuss and so there’s no chance of them being approved. For starters we would need to abolish the Federal Reserve, go back to the gold standard, shut down overseas military bases, completely reform the tax code, restructure entitlement programs, etc.
Unfortunately, proposing such changes is the fastest way to lose your political funding, become the laughing stock of Washington and be ignored or ridiculed by the mainstream media. Just ask Ron Paul.
Our Congress knows full well that fighting against the system is political suicide. And so no meaningful change that would help lessen the impact of the coming crash will be approved.
As far as the oval office and Congress is concerned, postponing the crash by issuing bailouts and stimulus packages is a more politically favorable approach, even though this ensures an even bigger catastrophe at the end.
The bottom line is this: we’re on a path to an inevitable dollar crash. The ones that run our monetary system and hold the keys to our economy are actually part of the problem instead of the solution. The ones in power that can make the desperately needed changes, dare not.
Rather then risk their careers, they will continue to shamelessly distribute our hard earned money among their friends on Wall Street. The hand full of our honest politicians that are actually brave enough to stand up for the people are shut out by the system.
At this point, we’re on a run away train without brakes, so you better brace yourself. The good news is, there is still time for you to prepare for what’s up ahead. Most people will be completely unprepared when the whole thing comes crashing down.

Whether you are broke or wealthy, whether you live in an apartment or a mansion, no matter what your current situation, there are specific things you can do to prepare for the impeding dollar crash.
The next article we publish will focus on step by step action plan that you can follow to minimize the impact of the financial meltdown on you and your family. It will include practical but critical actions you should take to protect your loved one from the ensuing chaos, along with financial advice to safeguard whatever savings you might have.
Lastly, please share this with your family and friends and coworkers. Warn the ones you care about by emailing them the link to this page. We need to wake our people up from their entertainment induced comas.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Valerie Jarrett...Obama's Handler.... and Jailkeeper. You see this unelected nebbish sitting in on all Obama's Meetings.

Obama has named his longtime friend and supporter Valerie Jarrett to be his White House senior adviser.

 

Longtime Friend And Supporter

Obama has named his longtime friend and supporter Valerie Jarrett to be his White House senior adviser. Jarrett, who hired Michelle Obama for a job in the Chicago mayor's office years ago, is one of the president-elect's closest friends and advisers.  Her name has been floated for several top administration jobs.  But Obama settled on the senior adviser role, said a person close to the president-elect and willing to speak only on background because the decision has not been officially announced. A White House senior adviser can handle a range of duties. President George W. Bush's top political aide Karl Rove held the title in the current administration. Jarrett has a background in real estate and politics in Chicago and is linked to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin "Tony" Rezko. According to the documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago housing projects operated by real estate developers and Obama financial backers Rezko and Allison Davis, Obama's former boss.  Jarrett was a member of the Board of Directors for the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corporation along with several Davis and Rezko associates, as well as the Fund for Community Redevelopment and Revitalization, an organization that worked with Rezko and Davis. As Chief Executive Officer of the Habitat Company Jarrett also managed a controversial housing project located in Obama's former state senate district called Grove Parc Plaza.  According to the Boston Globe the housing complex was considered "uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Obama signed an executive order in March 2009 that established a "White House Council on Women and Girls."  The Council will be chaired by Jarrett, and the day-to-day operations will be run Tina Tchen, who is currently director of the White House Office of Public Liaison and was a major fundraiser for Obama during the campaign. "The mission of the Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families," reads a memo describing the move and obtained by The Fix. As soon as I saw Valerie Jarrett's name, I knew this was going to be a big job -- every single policy, of every single government agency will have to fit the women’s rights agenda -- As interpreted by Obama and the Bride -- as executed by the trusted aid -- that's breathtaking!

Jarrett's Habitat Company

Earlier this year The Boston Globe reported on the stunning failures of Jarrett's companies. "Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this [past] winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems."

Jarrett's Staff

But in order to get the full impact of the presence of Jarrett on the Obama team, one must take a close look at her team. Click here to see Video>>>http://youtu.be/Pr4eNqUcOXw Jarrett has surrounded herself with some rather unsavory characters who appear to be more like 'enforcers' than 'advisers.' Meet Mike Strautmanis, Jarrett's Chief of Staff. Strautmanis is one of Barack and Michelle Obama's closest friends, going all the way back to the beginning in Chicago.  He has worked not only for the Obamas but for disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. But here is an interesting tidbit concerning Strautmanis, in Jarrett's own words: Obama describes him as a "utility man," and campaign advisor and Obama family friend Valerie Jarrett says he's the person you call when you need help with a delicate situation.  "He understands the importance of the personal touch and that e-mails and phone calls are not always appropriate," she said, talking about a specific example that she wouldn't describe in detail.  "There are times when a face-to-face is just the right thing to do. He dropped everything and hopped on a plane. And now meet an Obama mystery man that the campaign staff didn't even know existed. In fact, nobody knew what he looked like. His name is Michael Signator. Michael Signator, a 50-year-old police officer in suburban Chicago, is paid as one of Barack Obama's campaign staffers -- nearly $50,000 during Obama's Senate campaign in 2004; and $47,600 from March 2007 through August of this year -- yet no one knows what he looks like, and even Obama staffers didn't know he works for the campaign. So just who is Michael Signator? Although his job description is to provide "supplemental security support" and to coordinate the Obama family's personal and campaign schedules, Signator appears to be much more than an aide. The relationship between Obama and Signator is one of the most highly guarded secrets in Washington and Obama's home-base of Chicago.  In fact, at first Obama officials denied that Signator worked for Obama...until it became clear that he was Obama's driver and bodyguard during the campaign.  But the extent of Signator's activity on behalf of Obama is murky.

The Jarrett Connection -- Obama’s Hawaii And Chicago Communist Networks Were Linked

Romantic Poet blog has published some interesting artifacts that provide proof that Obama’s Hawaii and Chicago communist networks were linked? It is now well established that Barack Obama was linked to the Hawaiian Communist Party network through his boyhood/teenage mentor Frank Marshall Davis. It is also well known that after moving to Chicago, Obama linked up with the local communist networks. Manning Marable, a leader of the Communist Party offshoot Committees of Correspondence for Democracy & Socialism claims that Obama "understands what socialism is.  A lot of the people working with him are, indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or as independent Marxists.  There are a lot of people like that in Chicago who have worked with him for years…" This leads to two key questions. A. Were the Hawaii and Chicago networks connected? B . Did Obama’s connection to Frank Marshall Davis in any way influence his progress up the Chicago political ladder? If the answer is yes to both, there are significant implications. It means that that the Communist Party USA was watching Obama from an early age and was willing to help his political career. Frank Marshall Davis was active in the Chicago Communist Party until he moved to Hawaii in late 1948. I speculated in this post that Davis may have known left wing journalist Vernon Jarrett in post war Chicago.  A connection would be significant because the Jarrett family has played a very important role in Obama’s rise to power. Both Jarrett and Davis worked in the communist dominated South Side Community Art Center and on the communist influenced Chicago Defender newspaper, in late 1940s Chicago. I have since found conclusive evidence that Davis and Jarrett not only knew each other, but worked together in another Communist Party dominated organization -- The Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers. Continue reading here . . . there's some real stuff . . .

Obama Rules

According to Jarrett, the Obamamessiah is "ready to rule." (video) The co-chair of Barack Obama’s Transition Team, Valerie Jarrett, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend and used, shall we say, an interesting word to described what she thinks Barack Obama will be doing in January when he’s officially sworn into office.  She told Tom Brokaw that Obama will be ready to "rule" on day one.  It’s a word that reflects the worst fears that people have for Obama the "arrogant," the "messiah," that imagines he’s here to "rule" instead of govern. Jarret told Brokaw that "given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one." Someone needs to get to Jarrett and inform her that American politicians are not Kings and do not "rule" from office.  But if this is the attitude of Obama’s transition team, what does The One himself imagine he is about to unleash?  Could the fears that Obama thinks he is being anointed America’s King be far off with this sort of talk flying about?

Obama’s New Nuclear Advisor

Front Page Magazine says the last time that Obama’s senior advisor and assistant Valerie Jarrett was in the news, her favored political recruit, Anthony "Van" Jones, was resigning his post as White House presidential advisor amid revelations of a radical background that included communist sympathies and his support for 9/11 Truther conspiracy.  Now Jarrett, widely viewed as Obama’s radical alter ego, has reemerged -- this time as a foreign policy guru. As Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed a new nuclear arms treaty last week, Jarrett sat observing nearby.  That Jarrett has once again found herself in a position of influence is not surprising.  Jarrett proudly acknowledges her remarkable closeness to President Obama.  "We have kind of a mind meld" is the way she put it in a New York Times magazine interview last summer.  "When senior staff meetings in the Oval Office break up, Valerie Jarrett often stays behind" with Obama, the Times article reported.  In short, Jarrett is like a member of the Obama family, but one who has seized command of a variety of policies at the White House. Although neither elected, nor confirmed, nor even vetted, and without previous Washington experience, Jarrett has been installed as senior adviser and assistant to Obama for intergovernmental and public engagement.  She also was given the recently created Office of Urban Affairs, even though we have a cabinet member who is Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.  Now it appears she is involved in our nation’s foreign policy. Why else would she be in Prague for the preparations and signing of the arms treaty?  As Obama has said, "She is someone I trust completely.  She combines the closeness of a family member with the savvy and objectivity of a professional businesswoman and public-policy expert," the Times magazine article stated.  She is trusted "to speak for me particularly when we are dealing with delicate issues."  Such as nuclear arms matters?  If so, that should be cause for concern.  Jarrett’s only experience in foreign affairs is the insignificant fact that she was born in Iran, where her father was a doctor working for an American aid program.  She lived in London as a child before coming to the United States. Continue reading here . . . Trevor Loudon has documented the close working relationship between Jarrett's late father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, and a certain Frank Marshall Davis, in a Communist Party front in late 1940s Chicago. Frank Marshall Davis -- a covert Communist Party member -- then went to Hawaii and ended up mentoring the young Barack Obama, and when Obama moved to Chicago, Vernon Jarrett used his newspaper columns to promote Obama's political career. The Chicago Communist Party mucks in as well and writes Vernon a lovely eulogy when he dies a few years ago. Then, coincidentally, Valerie Jarrett hires Michelle Obama, becomes friends with Barack and ends up advising him in the White House.  Chicago -- it's such a small, small world.

And Speaking Of Communists

Trevor Loudon says senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett's late father-in-law and Chicago Sun-Times columnist Vernon Jarrett, was a key member of the South Chicago communist left of the late 1940s. After graduating from Knoxville College in Tennessee, Jarrett moved to Chicago in 1946 to work as a journalist.  On his first day on the job at the radical Chicago Defender, he was sent to cover a race riot.  The Defender was heavily influenced by the Communist Party USA and included on its roster well known Chicago Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis. Jarrett and Davis worked on the Defender around the same time.  They certainly knew each other through the Communist Party and its fronts. In June 1946, Vernon Jarrett was elected to the Illinois Council of the Communist Party's youth wing, then known as American Youth for Democracy.  This is according to Testimony of Walter S. Steele regarding Communist activities in the United States.  Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, first session, on H. R. 1884 and H. R. 2122, pages 75,76.  It is the first hard evidence tying Vernon Jarrett directly to the Communist Party.  Frank Marshall Davis, incidentally, was an official sponsor of American Youth for Democracy, along with confirmed communists Howard Fast, Langston Hughes, John Howard Lawson and Dirk Struik. In April 1948, Frank Marshall Davis and Vernon Jarrett were working together as members of the publicity committee of the communist controlled Citizens' Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers.           Besides Davis and Jarrett, communist officials of the strike committee included Oscar Brown (Treasurer), Louise Patterson (Assistant Treasurer) and Ishmael Flory (food & groceries committee). Later that year, Frank Marshall Davis left Chicago for Hawaii to work on the Honolulu Record, then edited and run by Communist Party member Koji Ariyoshi. Loudon is just getting warmed up.  He's got a ton of stuff here . . .

Valerie Jarrett Has A Secret Service Detail

Keith Koffler is reporting that Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett apparently has Secret Service protection.   This is highly unusual, and of course, costly. I’ve never really heard of someone who is merely a senior White House aide getting assigned Secret Service agents.   My understanding is that at the senior levels of the Bush White House, at least during the latter days, only the president and his family, the vice president, the chief of staff, the national security adviser, and the homeland security adviser were assigned Secret Service agents.    It’s possible that Jarrett has received enough specific and credible threats to justify Secret Service protection, or that the Secret Service has for some other reason calculated that she needs bodyguards. But it’s also possible this is a case of oddly overdoing it -- and overusing taxpayer resources.   Is she really such a public figure? I’m sure 90 percent of Americans have little to no idea who she is. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is far better known and spends his time warning terrorists and our foreign adversaries about bad behavior while trumpeting the killing of Osama Bin Laden. I’m sure he does not have protection. According to a local report, Jarrett was accompanied by at least two Secret Service agents during her pre-Martin Luther King Day appearance in Atlanta Sunday, where she bashed Republicans in church.       One source of mine, who is knowledgeable about what a Secret Service detail would look like, said he spotted Jarrett at Reagan National Airport with her protection as she departed Washington just before Christmas. After watching her blow past a long line at the security gate, he noticed she had one Secret Service agent in back and the other in front, with someone who was possibly a third agent to her side.   Valerie Jarrett NEEDS Secret Service agents assigned to her. Who else will carry her luggage? You don't expect her to carry her bags -- do you?

If you can't play rough and dirty..don't play in Obama's Sandbox... This is Chicago Gangster Thug with a flashy smile and a bullshit story!!

A bit of history: How Obama won his first election with a petition challenge. Saul Alinsky Politics from Day One !!!

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Obama won almost all of his electoral victories through technicalities, getting opponents thrown out or forced to withdraw for one reason or another.

Back in 1996, Barack Obama won his first election by knocking his opponents off the ballot with petitition challenges. He took not one, but four opponents off the ballot.  He ran unopposed in the Democratic primary.

The method he used was to allege that his opponents had an insufficient number of valid signatures, primarily because many of the people who signed his opponent’s petitions weren’t registered to vote. This is exactly the problem with Obama’s current petitions. There are large numbers of signatures from people who aren’t registered to vote.

The Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama began in with the 1997 swearing in of Obama to his first term in the Illinois Senate and ended with his 2004 election to the United States Senate. During this part of his career, Obama continued teaching constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School as he had done as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996–2008.^[1][2][3]

In 1994, Senator Alice Palmer announced her desire to run for the United States House of Representatives, leaving the Senate's 13th district seat open. When filing opened in 1995 for her seat, Obama entered the race. Eventually, his challengers were disqualified and he won the Democratic primary unopposed in 1996. He won re-election in 1998 and 2002. During his Senate tenure, Obama was involved with a wide range of legislation. While serving, he ran unsuccessfully for the United States House of Representatives in the 2000 elections. In the redistricting following 2000 Census, the Democrats gained control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became more active in his legislation, which included work in areas such as health care, labor, law enforcement, campaign finance reform, welfare, and community reinvestment.

First state Senate election, 1996

On November 21, 1994, Senator Alice Palmer, a Democrat of Chicago's South Shore neighborhood announced she was launching a campaign committee to raise funds to run in 1996 for the 2nd congressional district seat of indicted U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds, and suggested that 29-year-old Jesse Jackson, Jr. run for her 13th district Illinois Senate seat in 1996 instead of running against her for Congress.^[4][5]

On June 27, 1995, Palmer announced she was running for Congress and would be giving up her Senate seat instead of running for re-election in 1996.^[6] The following week, newspapers reported that Palmer-supporter Barack Obama of Hyde Park—who had been announced as chairman of the $49.2 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge on June 22 and whose memoir Dreams from My Father would be published on July 18—would announce he was running for Palmer's 13th district seat,^[7][8] which was then a T-shaped district that spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south through South Shore and from the lakefront west through Chicago Lawn.^[9]

On September 11, 1995, Governor Jim Edgar set November 28 as the date for a special primary election to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mel Reynolds following his August 1995 conviction.^[10] On September 19, Obama announced his Illinois Senate candidacy to an audience of 200 supporters at the Ramada Inn Lakeshore in Hyde Park-Kenwood.^[11] Palmer introduced and endorsed Obama as her successor to supporters that included 4th Ward Alderwoman Toni Preckwinkle of Hyde Park, newly elected 5th Ward Alderwoman Barbara Holt of Hyde Park, and state Representative Barbara Flynn Currie (D-25) of Hyde Park.^[11]

On November 7, 1995, Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, died of metastatic uterine cancer at the age of 52 in Honolulu.^[12] Obama arrived in Hawaii the following day, remained for his mother's memorial service and returned to Chicago soon after.^[12] On November 28, after finishing a distant third in the special congressional primary election won by Jesse Jackson, Jr., a disappointed Palmer announced she wouldn't seek re-election and was undecided about again challenging Jackson in the March 1996 primary.^[13][14]

On December 11, 1995—the first filing day for nominating petitions—Obama filed his nominating petitions with more than 3,000 signatures; perennial unsuccessful candidate Ulmer Lynch, Jr., also filed nominating petitions.^[15] On December 18—the last filing day for nominating petitions—Palmer held a press conference to announce she was running for re-election to the Senate, accepting a draft by more than 100 supporters.^[16] Palmer then drove to Springfield to file her nominating petitions; also filing nominating petitions on the last filing day were first-time candidates Gha-is Askia and Marc Ewell.^[16] On December 26, Obama campaign volunteer Ron Davis filed objections to the legitimacy of the nominating petitions of Senator Palmer, Askia, Ewell and Lynch.^[17][18]

On January 17, 1996, Palmer announced she was withdrawing her bid for re-election because she was around 200 signatures short of the 757 needed to earn a place on the ballot after almost two-thirds of the 1,580 signatures on her nominating petitions were found to be invalid.^[18][19] The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners had previously sustained an objection to the nominating petitions of Lynch because of insufficient valid signatures and subsequently also sustained objections to the nominating petitions of Askia and Ewell because of insufficient valid signatures.^[18][19]

Obama therefore won the Democratic nomination unopposed.^[20] On November 5, Obama was won the race for the 13th Senate district, with 82 percent of the vote; perennial unsuccessful Harold Washington Party candidate David Whitehead (13%) and first-time Republican Party candidate Rosette Caldwell Peyton (5%) also ran.^[21]

Second state Senate election, 1998

Obama was up for reelection in 1998; Illinois state senators serve one two-year term and two four-year terms each decade. In the March 17 primary, Obama won re-nomination unopposed, and first-time candidate Yesse Yehudah won the Republican nomination unopposed.^[22] At the November 3 general election, Obama was re-elected to a four-year term as state senator for the 13th district with 89% of the vote; Yehudah received 11% of the vote.^[23]

Third state Senate election, 2002

Obama won both the March 19 Democratic primary election^[24] and November 5, 2002 general election^[25] for the newly configured 13th district unopposed.

Early Senate career

On January 8, 1997, Obama was sworn in as senator.^[26] Early in his first term, the just-retired U.S. Senator Paul Simon contacted longtime Obama mentor, judge and former congressman Abner Mikva suggesting that Mikva recommend Obama to Emil Jones, Jr., the powerful Democratic leader of the state Senate. "Say, our friend Barack Obama has a chance to push this campaign finance bill through," Simon said in a telephone conversation, as recounted by Mikva in a 2008 interview, "Why don’t you call your friend Emil Jones and tell him how good he is." With Jones' support, Obama helped shepherd through a sweeping law that banned most gifts from lobbyists and personal use of campaign funds by state legislators.^[27]

During his first years as a state senator, Obama was a co-sponsor of a bill that re-structured the Illinois welfare program into the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. He also helped get various pieces of legislation that established a $100 million Earned Income Tax Credit for working families, increased child care subsidies for low-income families, and required advance notice before mass layoffs and plant closings passed.^[28]

Campaign for Bobby Rush's congressional seat

Main article: Illinois's 1st congressional district election, 2000

In September 1999, Obama and fellow Senator Donne Trotter (neither faced re-election that year) both announced their candidacies for the March 2000 Democratic primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. Rush had been badly defeated in the February 1999 Chicago mayoral election by Richard M. Daley—who won 45 percent of the African-American vote and even won Rush's own ward—and was thought to be vulnerable.^[29] The support of some veteran Democratic fundraisers who saw Obama as a rising star, along with support of African-American entrepreneurs, helped him keep pace with Rush's fundraising in the district's most expensive race ever.^[30]

During the campaign, Rush charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns, and also benefitted from an outpouring of sympathy when his son was shot to death shortly before the election.^[29] Obama said Rush was a part of "a politics that is rooted in the past" and said he himself could build bridges with whites to get things done. But while Obama did well in his own Hyde Park base, he didn't get enough support from the surrounding black neighborhoods.^[27] Starting with just 10 percent name recognition, Obama went on to get only 31 percent of the votes, losing by a more than 2-to-1 margin despite winning among white voters.^{[31][32][33][34]}

Later Senate career

After losing the primary for U.S. Congress to Bobby Rush, Obama worked to repair relations with black politicians and clergy members, telling them he bore no grudges against the victor. He also became more responsive to requests for state funding, getting money for churches and community groups in his district. Senator Trotter, then the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in 2008 that he knew Obama was responding more to funding requests "because the community groups in his district stopped coming to me".^[27]

In September 2001, Democrats won a lottery to redraw legislative districts that had been drawn ten years earlier by Republicans and had helped ensure ten uninterrupted years of Republican control of the Illinois Senate.^[35] At the November 2002 election, the Democratic remap helped them win control of the Illinois Senate and expand their majority in the Illinois House to work with the first Democratic Illinois governor in 26 years.^[36][37] In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee, after six years on the committee and four years as its minority spokesman. The new Democratic majority allowed Obama to write and help pass more legislation than in previous years. He sponsored successful efforts to expand children's health care, create a plan to provide equal health care access for all Illinois residents, and create a "Hospital Report Card" system, and worker's rights laws that protected whistleblowers, domestic violence victims, equal pay for women, and overtime pay.^[28] His most public accomplishment was a bill requiring police to videotape interrogations and confessions in potential death penalty cases. Obama was willing to listen to Republicans and police organizations and negotiate compromises to get the law passed.^[38] That helped him develop a reputation as a pragmatist able to work with various sides of an issue.^[27] Obama also led the passage of a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.^[39][40]

THE STORY CONTINUES:

By David Jackson and Ray Long Tribune staff reporters

6:48 p.m. CDT, April 3, 2007

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," Obama recalled.

"I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn't meet the requirements," he said. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

Asked whether the district's primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: "I think they ended up with a very good state senator."

Obama behind challenges

America has been defined in part by civil rights and good government battles fought out in Chicago's 13th District, which in 1996 spanned Hyde Park mansions, South Shore bungalows and poverty-bitten precincts of Englewood.

It was in this part of the city that an eager reform Democrat by the name of Abner Mikva first entered elected office in the 1950s. And here a young, brash minister named Jesse Jackson ran Operation Breadbasket, leading marchers who sought to pressure grocery chains to hire minorities.

Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.

But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.

Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.

"I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant," Obama said. "It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."

His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.

"There was friction about the decision he made," said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer's behalf. "There were deep disagreements."

Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer's elimination marked the first of several fortuitous political moments in Obama's electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed.

Obama contended that in the case of the 1996 race, in which he routed token opposition in the general election, he was ready to compete in the primary if necessary.

"We actually ran a terrific campaign up until the point we knew that we weren't going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody," Obama said. "I mean, we had prepared for it. We had raised money. We had tons of volunteers. There was enormous enthusiasm."

And he defended his use of ballot maneuvers: "If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people's business."

At the time, though, Obama seemed less at ease with the decision, according to aides. They said the first-time candidate initially expressed reservations about using challenges to eliminate all his fellow Democrats.

"He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?" said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his "guru of petitions."

In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama's Democratic rivals at the candidate's behest.

While Obama didn't attend the hearings, "he wanted us to call him every night and let him know what we were doing," Davis said, noting that Palmer and the others seemed unprepared for the challenges.

But Obama didn't gloat over the victories. "I don't think he thought it was, you know, sporting," said Will Burns, a 1996 Obama campaign volunteer who assisted with the petition challenges. "He wasn't very proud of it."

Endorsement or informal nod?

By the summer of 1995, Obama, 34, had completed his globe-trotting education and settled deep into Chicago's South Side.

He had gone to Harvard Law School with private ambitions of someday following Harold Washington as mayor of Chicago. At Harvard, where Obama was celebrated as the first black president of the Law Review, classmate Gina Torielli remembers him "saying that governor of Illinois would be his dream job."

Back in Chicago after graduation, Obama won respect for running Project Vote, which registered tens of thousands of black Chicagoans. "It's a power thing," the volunteers' T-shirts said.

Community organizers packed his wedding to Michelle Robinson, a South Shore resident and fellow Harvard Law graduate. The newlyweds bought a Hyde Park condo.

His memoir, "Dreams from My Father," was published that summer to warm reviews. He was working at a small but influential legal firm, teaching constitutional law as a University of Chicago adjunct professor and sitting on the boards of charities.

At the same time, the South Side's political map was thrown up for grabs when then-U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds was convicted of sex crimes and a special election was called to fill his congressional seat.

Palmer joined the race and, according to multiple accounts, introduced Obama as the successor for her Illinois Senate seat.

"She said, 'I found this wonderful person, this fine young man, so we needn't worry that we'd have a good state senator,' " said former 5th Ward Democratic committeeman Alan Dobry, who volunteered to help both Palmer and Obama that year.

In recent interviews, Obama and Palmer agreed that he asked her whether she wanted to keep her options open and file to run for her state Senate seat as a fallback in case her congressional bid failed.

Obama says he told her: "We haven't started the campaign yet."

"I hadn't publicly announced," he said. "But what I said was that once I announce, and I have started to raise money, and gather supporters, hire staff and opened up an office, signed a lease, then it's going to be very difficult for me to step down. And she gave me repeated assurances that she was in [the congressional race] to stay."

Obama "did say that to me," Palmer says now. "And I certainly did say that I wasn't going to run. There's no question about that."

But beyond that, the private discussions they held in 1995 are shrouded today in disputed and hazy memories.

Obama said Palmer gave him her formal endorsement. "I'm absolutely certain she … publicly spoke and sort of designated me," he recalled.

Palmer disputes that. "I don't know that I like the word 'endorsement,' " she said. "An endorsement to me, having been in legislative politics … that's a very formal kind of thing. I don't think that describes this. An 'informal nod' is how to characterize it."

In July 1995, Obama announced he was planning to run for Palmer's seat. He filed papers creating his fundraising committee a month later and officially announced his candidacy in September.

He emerged that winter as a gifted campaigner who after finishing hectic workdays would layer on thermal underwear to knock on South Side doors.

In impromptu street-corner conversations and media interviews, he disparaged local pols for putting self-preservation ahead of public service. At the last house on a dark block, "he would start a discussion that should have taken five minutes and pretty soon someone was cooking him dinner," said paid campaign consultant Carol Anne Harwell.

Then Palmer's congressional bid collapsed. On Nov. 28, 1995, she placed a distant third behind political powerhouses Jesse Jackson Jr., who holds that congressional seat today, and current state Senate President Emil Jones Jr.

Palmer didn't fade quietly away. Citing an "outpouring" of support, she upended the political landscape by switching gears and deciding to run in the March 1996 primary for her state Senate seat.

But she had two big problems. To get on the ballot, Palmer needed to file nominating petitions signed by at least 757 district voters—and the Dec. 18 deadline was just days away.

And then there was Obama, the bright up-and-comer she had all but anointed.

Obama's aides said he seemed anguished over the prospect of defying Palmer. "I really saw turmoil in his face," Harwell said.

Obama sought advice from political veterans such as 4th Ward Ald. Toni Preckwinkle and then-15th Ward Ald. Virgil Jones, who say they urged him to hold his course.

"I thought the world of Alice Palmer," said state Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago), now the House majority leader. But "at that point she had pulled her own plug."

According to Palmer, it was without her knowledge that her supporters initiated discussions to persuade Obama to step aside. They invited him to the home of state Rep. Lovana "Lou" Jones, now deceased. Obama arrived alone.

"It was a brief meeting," said Black, a Palmer friend who had advised Obama when he was a young community organizer in the mid-1980s.

Obama didn't try to justify his decision to reject Palmer's plea, Black said.

"He did not put it in inflammatory terms, he just did not back away. It was not arguments, it was stubbornness," Black said. "Barack had by then gone ahead in putting together his own campaign, and he just didn't want to stop."

'If you can get 'em, get 'em'

Just in time for the Dec. 18, 1995, filing deadline, Palmer submitted 1,580 signatures—about twice the minimum required. That day, Obama lashed out at her, telling the Tribune she had pressured him to withdraw.

"I am disappointed that she's decided to go back on her word to me," he said.

Obama campaign aides also responded that day—but quietly, and out of the limelight.

Davis and Dobry marshaled volunteers and began poring through the nominating petitions of Palmer and the three lesser-known Democrats, according to interviews.

"We looked at those petitions and found that none of them met the requirements of the law," Dobry said. "Alice's people, they'd done it in a great hurry. Almost all her petitions were signed a day or so before the deadline."

According to Davis, Palmer "had kids gathering the names. I remember two of her circulators, Pookie and Squirt."

Davis and others urged Obama to file legal challenges.

Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago. Ballot challenges eliminated 67 of the 245 declared aldermanic candidates in Chicago before this past February's elections, an election board spokesman said.

Davis recalled telling Obama: "If you can get 'em, get 'em. Why give 'em a break?

"I said, 'Barack, I'm going to knock them all off.'

"He said, 'What do you need?'

"I said, 'I need an attorney.'

"He said, 'Who is the best?'

"I said, 'Tom Johnson.' "

Obama already knew civil rights attorney and fellow Harvard Law graduate Thomas Johnson, who had waged election cases for the late Mayor Washington and had offered Obama informal legal advice since the days of Project Vote.

With Johnson's legal help, Obama's team was confident. They piled binders of polling sheets in the election board office on the second floor of City Hall, and on Jan. 2, 1996, began the days-long hearings that would eliminate the other Democrats.

Little-known candidate Marc Ewell filed 1,286 names, but Obama's objections left him 86 short of the minimum, and election officials struck him from the ballot, records show. Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the board's decision, but Johnson intervened on Obama's behalf and prevailed when Ewell's case was dismissed days later.

Ewell could not be reached for comment, but the federal judge's decision showed how he was tripped up by complexities in the election procedures.

City authorities had just completed a massive, routine purge of unqualified names that eliminated 15,871 people from the 13th District rolls, court records show.

Ewell and other Obama rivals had relied on early 1995 polling sheets to verify the signatures of registered voters—but Obama's challenges were decided at least in part using the most recent, accurate list, records show.

Askia filed 1,899 signatures, but the Obama team sustained objections to 1,211, leaving him 69 short, records show.

Leafing through scrapbooks in his South Shore apartment, Askia, a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledges that he paid Democratic Party precinct workers $5 a sheet for some of the petitions, and now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers among themselves to forge the signatures. "They round-tabled me," Askia said.

Palmer to this day does not concede the flaws that Obama's team found in her signatures. She maintains that she could have overcome the Obama team's objections and stayed on the ballot if she had more time and resources.

It was wrenching to withdraw, she said. "But sit for a moment, catch your breath, get up and keep going. I'm a very practical person. Politics is not the only vehicle for accomplishing things." She became a special assistant to the president of the University of Illinois and is now retired.

Obama said he has not been in touch with Palmer since 1996. "No, not really, no," he said.

Though she hasn't determined whom to support in the presidential race, Palmer, 67, said her dispute with Obama doesn't affect her assessment of his fitness to hold office.

Saying that jobless high school dropouts "are sitting on the steps next to my house," Palmer added: "There is a savage economy going on out here, and we've got collateral damage. I am looking closely to see who has the courage, the smarts."

THIS IS HOW HE PLAYS!!!