Obama: Half Way Measure in Afghanistan

Obama has approved adding about 17,000 U.S. troops for the war in Afghanistan.

About 8,000 Marines are expected to go in first, followed by about 9,000 Army troops.

The additional forces only partly answer a standing request from the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, who has sought as many as 30,000 additional U.S. forces.

The United States has slightly more than 30,000 troops in Afghanistan now.

More importantly, Obama seemed to be unaware of recent developments in Pakistan now that the government there has conceded ground to the Taliban.

Indonesian Muslim Women Tell Hillary to Go Home

Graphic source: REUTERS/Stringer

Muslim women hold placards during a protest outside the U.S. embassy in Jakarta to protest against the upcoming visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I suppose this is the improved view of America under an Obama administration.

Obama Needs a Tele-Prompter Writer

Michael Hammer, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, confirmed to WND Obama did not authorize the migration of any Palestinians to the U.S. A State Department spokesman provided the same comment.

Perhaps the text of Obama's executive order left the matter open for interpretation.

The order stated the money was to be used for the "purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs."

Sounds like someone needs a Tele-Prompter writer who can write.

Obama Dissed by Afghans

Afghan President Hamid Karzai sparred with Obama, saying he hopes the president shows better judgment in his plans for Afghanistan once his administration has "put itself together."

In his first major interview since Obama assumed the presidency, Karzai was asked by CNN host Fareed Zakaria on his show "GPS" to respond to charges made by Obama that the Afghan president has demonstrated a "bunker mentality."

"I was surprised to see that statement," Karzai said. "Perhaps it's because the administration has not yet put itself together. Perhaps they have not been given the information yet. And I hope as they settle down, and as they learn more, we will see better judgment."

I guess this was the respect from the rest of the world that Obama has described will be characteristic of his administration.

Karzai added that Obama has a tough act to follow, calling former President George W. Bush "a great person."

Obama Against Democracy, Free Speech, Opposes Counter-Terrorism

Representatives of the United States will take part in discussions for the first time in years which is the strongest indication yet that the Obama administration could end up participating in the Durban Review Conference, also known as “Durban II.”

Doing so would undercut a campaign calling on democracies to boycott the event, undermine Western counter-terrorism initiatives, and endanger free speech.

Israel and Canada have formally announced they will not take part.

U.S. representatives attending the inter-governmental working group discussions will possess a draft agenda that equates references to racism impacting on counter-terrorism efforts, and calls for governments to act against “negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols.”

Arguing that “Islamophobia” is a “contemporary form of racism,” the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is using Durban II to further its campaign to have religious “defamation” outlawed-–a drive which critics say is designed to prevent criticism of Islam and practices associated with it.

The Bush administration walked out of the last U.N. racism conference, held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001.

The chief planners for Durban II are a 20-strong panel, chaired by Libya, and comprising a group that includes countries hostile to America, among them Iran, Pakistan, and Cuba.

Anne Bayefsky, editor of Eye on the U.N., a project of the Hudson Institute, said Obama’s decision to take part in the preparatory discussions “sends a terrible signal.”

“Durban II is a cover for an assault on free speech, the demonization of the Jewish state, and an effort to undermine anti-terrorism activities by labeling them all racist,” she said.

The United States will legitimize the undercutting of free speech and anti-Western policies.

Bayefsky noted “Now Obama has handed fascists pretending to be interested in human rights a victory without anything in return,” she said. “He’s legitimized a process designed to defeat democracy, a process which the U.S. has refused to legitimize since September 2001.”

Obama's `Welfare Spendathon'

Clinton's economic adviser, Robert Rector, a prominent welfare researcher who was one of the architects of Clinton's 1996 reform bill, warned last week that Obama’s stimulus plan was a “welfare spendathon” that would amount to the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American history.

Douglas Besharov, author of a big study on welfare reform, said the stimulus bill passed by Congress and the Senate in separate votes on Friday would “unravel” most of the 1996 reforms that led to a 65% reduction in welfare caseloads and prompted the British and several other governments to consider similar measures.

Obama is most adept at bread and circuses.

"Well, a little state control wouldn't hurt anybody."

Jerry Brown, California's Democrat attorney general, remarked in on air comments yesterday about the possible reinstatement of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." He stated about the Doctrine: "Well, a little state control wouldn't hurt anybody."

The Doctrine has been called for by numerous liberal politicians. Senator Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., expressed support about introducing legislation to bring "accountability" to the airwaves. Senator Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told Albuquerque radio station KKOB last year. "I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., told WYNC's Bryan Lehrer Show in 2007, "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back." In June of last year, John Gizzi reported in Human Events a conversation with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in which she personally supported revival of the "Fairness Doctrine." And as recently as December, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. – who serves on the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – told the Palo Alto Daily Post she still believes in the "Fairness Doctrine" and will work on bringing it back. The debate heated up again recently, however, when Obama singled out Rush Limbaugh, the king of talk radio, for criticism: "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

The "Fairness Doctrine" is an assault on First Amendment liberty.

The Fairness Doctrine, abolished in 1987, was a policy of the Federal Communications Commission that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the agency considered "balanced." Reagan vetoed the Doctrine and since then, right wing commentators, and free speech liberty flourished, something which apparently the left in this country is not comfortable with.

Congressman Burton on China, Carter, and Inflation

Representative Dan Burton describes the current situation in regards to China, the hyperinflation of Carter, and how the next generation will pay for the present mistakes.

The One for Children to Worship

Obama book display: Borders Bookstore in Dallas, Texas, in the Children's Reading section, displayed as "Religion."

Obama's Islamic Agenda Progresses

The 18 February 2009 edition of Geostrategy Direct is reporting:

DOSSIER: Ehud Barak
‘Change’ the mullahs can believe in: Obama to drop sanctions on Iran

But “Change” is taking place, Barak has intimated, originating not in the Mideast but in Washington, D.C. in the form of a U.S. reconciliation with Iran.

Such a process could result in U.S. acceptance of Teheran’s nuclear weapons program and the downplaying of its threats against Israel.

Obama entered office facing a massive economic crisis beyond the scope of his experience.

The United States has abandoned its policy of sanctioning companies that aid Iran’s nuclear and missile program, they said.

The officials said the new Obama administration of has decided to end sanctions against Iranian government agencies or companies that aid Teheran’s missile and nuclear program. The officials said Israel has been informed of the new U.S. policy.

“We were told that sanctions do not help the new U.S. policy of dialogue with Iran,” an official said.

Barak confirmed the new U.S. policy. In an address to the Herzliya Conference on Feb. 3, Barak said Washington did not say whether it would resume sanctions against Iran.

Obama decided to end sanctions against Iran after determining that the U.S. measures had failed to block Teheran’s missile or nuclear weapons program, officials said. Under the administration of former President George Bush, the United States accelerated sanctions on Iran in 2008.

In his address, the Israeli defense minister indicated that Obama had forged an entirely new approach toward Iran. He said the Israeli government has sought a briefing from the new U.S. administration.

A U.S. defense source said the White House would no longer enforce sanctions imposed by the Bush administration. The source said the decision has already been relayed to Iran.

“The administration has abandoned sanctions entirely,” the U.S. source said. “It is a completely new ballgame.”

Similarly, Obama has decided on a new U.S. ambassador to Syria and is expected to lift sanctions against a nation charged with aiding Al Qaida in Iraq and secretly building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance.

Diplomatic sources said Obama, in consultation with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has asked Frederic Hof to become the first U.S. ambassador to Damascus since 2005. The sources said Hof, a member of the National Advisory Committee of the Middle East Policy Council, agreed to take the post.

The sources said the Obama administration was expected to suspend U.S. sanctions on Syria’s military and energy programs.

They said Hof would be authorized to facilitate an expansion of U.S. relations with Syria, which deteriorated under President George Bush.

In 2005, the United States withdrew its ambassador to Damascus in wake of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Syria was blamed for the car bombing in Beirut in which Hariri and many of his bodyguards were killed.

The sources said Obama sent emissaries to Syria in September 2008 and pledged that if elected he would reconcile with the regime of President Bashar Assad. After his election victory, they said, Obama sent another message that promised to appoint an ambassador within the first weeks of his administration.

Obama's Islamic agenda continues.

Update on Kanjorski: Additional 9/11 Attack

Kanjorski states that there was a closed meeting of Congress on about the 15th of September. This would be a Monday. But he then lets it slip out that the financial meltdown occurred on a Thursday of the previous week. Thursday was September 11th. The markets were under attack on the anniversary of 9/11.

"The Federal Government Is Bankrupt"

As the Obama administration shoved down the unread $800 billion deficit-spending boondoggle, the true deficit of the federal government should be grasped. The $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.

The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy, even before new continuing social welfare obligation embedded in the massive spending plan are taken into account.

The real 2008 federal budget deficit was $5.1 trillion, not the $455 billion previously reported by the Congressional Budget Office, according to the "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" as released by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

The difference between the $455 billion "official" budget deficit numbers and the $5.1 trillion budget deficit cited by "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" is that the official budget deficit is calculated on a cash basis, where all tax receipts, including Social Security tax receipts, are used to pay government liabilities as they occur.

But the numbers in the 2008 report are calculated on a GAAP basis ("Generally Accepted Accounting Practices") that include year-for-year changes in the net present value of unfunded liabilities in social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Under cash accounting, the government makes no provision for future Social Security and Medicare benefits in the year in which those benefits accrue.

"As bad as 2008 was, the $455 billion budget deficit on a cash basis and the $5.1 trillion federal budget deficit on a GAAP accounting basis does not reflect any significant money [from] the financial bailout or Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was approved after the close of the fiscal year," economist John Williams, who publishes the Internet website Shadow Government Statistics.

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fiscal year 2009 budget deficit as being $1.2 trillion on a cash basis and that was before taking into consideration the full costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, before the cost of the Obama nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan, or the cost of the second $350 billion in TARP funds, as well as all current bailouts being contemplated by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve,"

stated Williams.

"The federal government's deficit is hemorrhaging at a pace which threatens the viability of the financial system," Williams added. "The popularly reported 2009 [deficit] will clearly exceed $2 trillion on a cash basis and that full amount has to be funded by Treasury borrowing."

"It's not likely this will happen without the Federal Reserve acting as lender of last resort for the Treasury by buying Treasury debt and monetizing the debt," he said.

"Monetizing the debt" is a term used to signify that the Federal Reserve will be required simply to print cash to meet the Treasury debt obligations, acting in this capacity only because the Treasury cannot sell the huge of amount debt elsewhere.

The Treasury has been largely dependent upon foreign buyers, principally China and Japan and other major holders of U.S. dollar foreign exchange reserves, including OPEC buyers purchasing U.S. debt through London.

"The appetite of foreign buyers to purchase continued trillions of U.S. debt has become more questionable as the world has witnessed the rapid deterioration of the U.S. fiscal condition in the current financial crisis,"

Williams noted.

"Truthfully," Williams pointed out, "there is no Social Security 'lock-box.' There are no funds held in reserve today for Social Security and Medicare obligations that are earned each year. It's only a matter of time until the public realizes that the government is truly bankrupt and no taxes are being held in reserve to pay in the future the Social Security and Medicare benefits taxpayers are earning today."

Calculations from the "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" also show that the GAAP negative net worth of the federal government has increased to $59.3 trillion while the total federal obligations under GAAP accounting now total $65.5 trillion.

The $65.5 trillion total federal obligations under GAAP accounting not only now exceed four times the U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, the $65.5 trillion deficit exceeds total world GDP.

"In the seven years of GAAP reporting, we have seen an annual average deficit in excess of $4 trillion, which could not be possibly covered by any form of taxation," Williams argued.

"Shy of the government severely slashing social welfare programs, federal deficits of this magnitude are beyond any hope of containment, government or otherwise," he said.

"Put simply, there is no way the government can possibly pay for the level of social welfare benefits the federal government has promised unless the government simply prints cash and debases the currency, which the government will increasingly be doing this year," Williams said, explaining in more detail why he feels the government is now in the process of monetizing the federal debt.

"Social Security and Medicare must be shown as liabilities on the federal balance sheet in the year they accrue according to GAAP accounting," Williams argues. "To do otherwise is irresponsible, nothing more than an attempt to hide the painful truth from the American public. The public has a right to know just how bad off the federal government budget deficit situation really is, especially since the situation is rapidly spinning out of control."

"The federal government is bankrupt," Williams stated. "In a post-Enron world, if the federal government were a corporation such as General Motors, the president and senior Treasury officers would be in federal penitentiary."

Maxmimus Porkulus Passes: Bipartisan, Or, American Taxpayers Optional

House Republican leader Congressman John Boehner noted: "Not one" member of the House has read the $787 Billion Stimulus Bill, yet, it passed, with 7 Democrats opposing the boondoggle. "They loaded every big government idea of the last 40 years into this bill," Rep. Jeb Hensaring, R-Texas stated.

Muslim TV Exec Beheads Wife

Graphic source: The Buffalo News

Muzzammil S. Hassan, President & CEO of Bridges TV, founded the first-ever American
Muslim television network in English. The show had a specific intent:

"Every day on television we are barraged by stories of a 'Muslim extremist, militant, terrorist, or insurgent.' But the stories that are missing are the countless stories of Muslim tolerance, progress, diversity, service and excellence that Bridges TV hopes to tell."

That was then; this is now. Hassan, founder of Bridges TV, is charged with murder in the beheading of his wife, Aasiya Hassan.

PA Declares Independence

From the DailyPaul.com, Pennsylvania State Rep. Samuel Rohrer is planning to introduce a resolution reasserting State’s rights:

In an attempt to proclaim and reassert Pennsylvania state government’s independence and sovereignty from the federal government, I plan to introduce a House resolution reminding federal authorities about the constitutional limitations on their powers and calling on them to cease and desist with all activities that infringe on the powers reserved to the state of Pennsylvania and its citizens.

This is an issue that is currently being addressed by more than 20 other states across our nation. Like our sister states, Pennsylvania must draw a line in the sand and reassert its sovereignty.

I am currently circulating the resolution among my peers in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Please encourage your family members, friends and acquaintances who live outside our legislative district to contact their House member and urge them to support this measure to protect Pennsylvania’s independence.

Rushdie Still Sentenced to Death By Islamic Fatwa

"It was twenty years ago today" and yet the West still fails to effectively respond to censorship. Twenty years ago Iran ordered the death of British author Salman Rushdie and his publishers for blaspheming Islam. The verdict still stands.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s fatwa (religious edict), issued on February 14, 1989, sent Rushdie into hiding under 24-hour police protection, and triggered attacks on bookstores and assassination attempts-–at least one successful-–against the publishers of his controversial novel, The Satanic Verses.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi said this week Khomeini’s death sentence stood. Unlike a political decree, he said, a fatwa remains valid unless nullified by the cleric who issued it.

Khomeini died four months after issuing the decree, but not before declaring in an official statement that “even if Salman Rushdie repents and becomes the most pious man of all time, it is incumbent on every Muslim to employ everything he has got, his life and wealth, to send him to hell.”

Over the years since then, various Iranian leaders have reiterated that the fatwa remains valid, and rewards worth millions of dollars have been offered for Rushdie’s murder.

No other fatwa had played as crucial a role in awakening the Islamic world, said one lawmaker, Heshmatollah Falahat-Pisheh.

“I call on all zealous Muslims to execute [Rushdie and his publishers] quickly, where they find them, so that no one will dare to insult the Islamic sanctity, “he said. “Whoever is killed on this path will be regarded as a martyr, Allah-willing.”

The Rushdie affair has generated considerable debate over the years about freedom of expression, intolerance, Islamic law (shari’a) and Islamic-inspired violence.

For some free speech advocates, the United Nations’ low-key response to the Rushdie death sentence paved the way for Islamic states and organizations to become increasingly forceful in their response to what they view as insults to Islam, and strengthened their continuing campaign for a global ban on religious “defamation.”

Historian and veteran U.N. observer David Littman noted later that it took four years for the world body’s then top human rights watchdog, the Commission for Human Rights, to include a reference to the case in a resolution.

“This attitude of indifference emboldened member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) sympathetic to the enhancement of the shari’a and they proceeded to try to introduce Khomeini-style restrictions on freedom of speech about certain political aspects of Islam to the United Nations itself,” he wrote in the Middle East Quarterly in 1999.

“Thus did the ‘Rushdie rules’ begin affecting U.N. bodies, and especially the Commission on Human Rights, eating away at international norms.”

A year after the fatwa was issued, OIC member states adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which says all human rights and freedoms must be subject to shari’a.

Over the ensuing years, the issues raised by the Rushdie fatwa emerged again in more recent controversies involving Islamic sensitivities, such as the furor over the publication in European newspapers of cartoons satirizing Mohammed, and Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders’ provocative documentary linking the Koran and terrorism.

Rushdie and other critics have accused non-Muslim governments, publishers and corporations of practicing self-censorship and appeasement in the face of Muslim threats.

This week alone, an Indian newspaper editor and publisher appeared in a Kolkata court accused of hurting Muslims’ religious feelings after reprinting an opinion piece from a London newspaper that argued for the right to criticize religion; and the British government barred Wilders from entering the country, charging that his beliefs “would threaten community harmony and therefore public security.”

In a recent interview with The Times of London, Rushdie said the West should have realized that the Iranian fatwa was the beginning of a new era.

“There was a tendency from everybody to believe that it was an isolated incident rather than an indicator or something wider, to believe that it was all my fault,” he said.

Where's the Proof Barry?

WorldNet Daily is reporting that attorneys representing Obama in his effort to conceal his birth certificate, college records, and passport documents threatened "monetary sanctions" against a lawyer whose clients have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn't qualify for the Oval Office.

The suggestion came in an exchange of e-mails and documents in a case brought by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others in California. Since Obama's inauguration, their case has been amended to seek a future requirement for a vetting process, in addition to the still-sought unveiling of his records.

In the case, handled largely by Gary Kreep of the U.S. Justice Foundation, records were subpoenaed documenting Obama's attendance at Occidental College.

The lawyer for the college, Stuart W. Rudnick of Musick, Peeler & Garrett, urgently contacted Fredric D. Woocher of Strumwasser & Woocher.

"In order to avoid the needless expense of our bringing and litigating a Motion to Quash the subpoena, I am writing to ask whether you would be willing to agree voluntarily to cancel or withdraw the subpoena."

Woocher warned, "Please be advised, in particular, that in the event we are forced to file a motion to quash and we prevail in that motion, we will seek the full measure of monetary sanctions provided for in the Code of Civil Procedures."

Kreep, out of town for a business trip, did not respond immediately, and the motion eventually was filed. It states that the records, which could reveal on what name Obama attended classes at Occidental and whether he attended on scholarship money intended for foreign students, "are of no relevance to this moot litigation."

The motion also claims the petitioners failed to serve the subpoena properly.

"The subpoena directed to Occidental College should therefore be quashed. Alternatively, this court should issue an order directing that the deposition of the custodian of records of Occidental College not take place," the firm working on Obama's behalf stated.

"The central issue in this lawsuit … is whether any Respondent had a legal duty to demand proof of natural born citizenship from Democratic Party's nominee," the motion said. "None of the documents sought by petitioners could possibly assist in answering this question."

The motion then cited a precedent from a case involving a "former law firm client who brought malpractice action against firm claiming unconscionable rates was not entitled to discovery regarding amount paid by law firm to contract staff attorney because such information is irrelevant to unconscionability claim."

Kanjorski Comment Suggests Manipulation

Why is no one explaining to us what happened? What has this got to do with the bailout, now, plural bailouts? Who is manipulating the stock market?

Representative Kanjorski (D-PA) stated:

“On Thursday Sept 15, 2008 at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $105 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts.

Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed."

Kanjorski also explains why Paulson spent the bailout money differently than he originally proposed.

Some other gems from the recording:

"It would have been the end of our economic and political system.

We would have had to spend 3 to 4 Trillion dollars to buy up all the toxic assets. But we didn’t have that much we only had 700 Billion.

Without a banking system you don’t have an economy.

We are no better off now than we were three months ago.

Someone threw us in the middle of the Atlantic ocean without a life raft. We are trying to determine which is the closest shore and whether there is any chance in the world to swim that far. We don’t know.”

Government Primer

A primer on government is brief but a helpful summary of various systems.

Obama's Selective Service Form Problems

SELECTIVE SERVICE FORM PROBLEMS (regarding Obama, were reported earlier in the year):

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (source: Debbie Schlussel):

Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?

It's either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama's official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.

But the release of Obama's draft registration and an accompanying document, posted below, raises more questions than it answers. And it shows many signs of fraud, not to mention putting the lie to Obama's claim that he registered for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.

The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama's Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it's proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.

But the Selective Service System registration ("SSS Form 1") and accompanying computer print-out ("SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:

* Document Location Number Indicates Obama Selective Service Form was Created in 2008

First, there is the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form. In the upper right hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-stamped DLN, in this case "0897080632," which I've labeled as "A" on both the SSS Form and the computer printout document. On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation, but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look like it is from 1980, when it was actually created in 2008.

As the retired federal agent notes:

Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008. The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except an 8 has been added to make it look like it is from 1980 and give it a 1980 DLN number. And 1980 is the year Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered. So, why does the machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which was manually input) reflect a "corrected" DLN year of 1980? Were all the DLNs issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?

It's quite a "coincidence" . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this case.

Far more likely is that someone made up a fake Selective Service registration to cover Obama's lack of having done so, and that the person stamping the form forgot (or was unable to) change the year to "80" instead of the current "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://ww w.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=198002-3240-001#), it's apparent that in February 1980, the Selective Service agency withdrew a "Request for a new OMB control number" for SSS Form 1 (see also, here)-- meaning the agency canceled its previous request for a new form, and one was never issued in "FEB 1980".

Since under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 a federal agency can not use a form not approved by OMB (Office of Management and Budget), it's nearly impossible for Senator/President-Elect Obama's SSS Form 1 to be dated "Feb 1980." And since that makes it almost certainly dated "Feb 1990," then how could Barack Obama sign it and the postal clerk stamp it almost ten (10) years before its issue?! Simply not possible.

The lower right hand corner reflects that the Obama SSS form 1 was approved by OMB with an approval number of 19??0002, labeled as "C". The double question marks (??) reflect digits that are not completely clear.

* Barack Obama's Signature is Dated After Postal Stamp Certifying His Signature

Barack H. Obama signed the SSS Form 1's "Today's date" as July 30, 1980, labeled "D". But the Postal Stamp reflects the PREVIOUS day's date of July 29, 1980, labeled "E". Yes, Obama could have mistakenly written the wrong date, but it is rare and much more unlikely for someone to put a future date than a past date. (Also note how Barry made such a "cute" peace sign with the "b" inside the "O" of his signature. Touching.)

* Postal Stamp is Incorrect, Discontinued in 1970

Then, there is the question as to whether the Postal Stamp is real. The "postmark" stamp--labeled "E"--is hard to read, but it is clear that at the bottom is "USPO" which stands typically for United States Post Office. However, current "postmark" validator, registry, or round dater stamps (item 570 per the Postal Operations Manual) shows "USPS" for United States Postal Service. The change from Post Office to Postal Service occurred on August 12, 1970, when President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic--Public Law 91-375. The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971.

Why was an old, obsolete postmark round dater stamp used almost ten (10) years after the fact to validate a legal document . . . that just happened to be Barack Obama's suspicious Selective Service registration form?

* Form Shows Barack Obama didn't have ID

The SSS Form 1 states "NO ID", labeled "F". Since that's the case, then how did the Hawaiian postal clerk know that the submitter was really Barack H. Obama, who may have been on summer break from attending Occidental College in California. How would they determine whether the registrant was truly registering and not a relative, friend, or other imposter?

* The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election.

The retired federal agent who FOIA'd Barack Obama's Selective Service Registration Form notes:

Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:

Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance with Federal law.

Sincerely,

Janice L. Hughes/SSS

Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008 (prior to my October 13, 2008 request), and stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Did they temporarily change the date on the computer database?

On the previous FOIA response, they stated that it was filed on September 4, 1980. In my second request I mentioned that Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.

* Other Questions: Missing Selective Service Number, FOIA Response Dated Prior to FOIA Request, Missing Printout Page

Where is Obama's Selective Service number (61-1125539-1) on the card?

And the retired federal agent notes that the Selective Service Data Management Center prepared its response to his FOIA request prior to the request having been made:

The last transaction date is 09/04/80 [DS: labeled "G"], but the date of the printout is 09/09/08 [DS: labeled "H"]. My FOIA was dated October 13 so why did they prepare the printout BEFORE I submitted my FOIA? I gave them no "heads up" that I was sending it. In fact it was not mailed until late October--around the 25th.

Also, notice the printout was page 1 of 2 [DS: labeled "I"].

Hmmm . . . where is the other page, and what's on it?

A lot of questions here. And a lot of huge hints that this government-released, official Barack Obama Selective Service registration was faked. Either he signed the fake backdated document, or someone else faked his signature and he never registered for the draft (and lied about it).

Which is it?

It's incredible that our impending Commander-in-Chief either didn't register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently.

The documents indicate it's one or the other.

UPDATE 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.