Skip to comments.Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration?
Posted on 11/13/2008 6:49:03 AM PST by ml/nj
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?
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 the 0 and 8 have changed positions making 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?...
(Excerpt) Read more at debbieschlussel.com ...
I think Obama would have been pragmatic enough to register in order to get financial aide. Now of course, his grandma the banker could have arranged a student loan for him.
But I don't think there is any "here" here.
The "Date of Registration" in the SSS computer is not the date the registration card is filled out. It is the date the information is entered in the computer. My "Date of Registration" shows October 24th, 1984, over two months after my 18th birthday. The 24th was a Wednesday, and I was likely in college that weekday. Also, I was in ROTC, received a Pell Grant, and was working in the college work/study program (part of the Federal Student Aid program) so I assume I would have registered before starting college. I also seem to remember registering the day before my 18th birthday, which makes sense since my birthday was on a Saturday that year.
Suppose he was here on a student visa.
Could that also be why he won't release his college records?
Suppose he was here on a student visa.
Could that also be why he won't release his college records?
“something he could not have done if he were not registered.”
Do foreign students need to register for the draft?
Anyone who registered in Hawaii around the same time should be able to get their record and compare to this.
Anyone Freeper from the Aloha State up for it?
If we do find out he was born in Kenya it will NOT matter to Obamabots. They will call for the Constitution to be changed.
I'm starting to think this was all a conspiracy to pave the way for President Schwarzenegger.
Sorry ‘bout that post in triplicate. FR got funky and then crashed for me.
I agree, but I was actually replying to another’s comment that Obama must have had ‘registered’ for selective service because he recieved college loans. My point being that we don’t know for certain that Obama even got college loans. He has never released any of his college records either and there are credible rumors out there that a wealthy arab businessman paid for his college. I don’t believe anything that comes out of that man’s mouth.
If you go to the link and read the stuff, it looks like this selective service paper is a total fraud and was done in 2008!! Not back when he supposedly was in college.
Should that day come, I might very well move to Texas.
>I contacted the Selective Service via email, and the respondent from them claimed that the part which appears to be a serial number is just a random number. But that doesn’t make much sense - that would be inconsistent with most other government number issuing systems that I am aware of.
Indeed, it’s odd.
Did you mention WHY you e-mailed? Or phrase it as a general information request?
From Hughes, Janice Fri Aug 15 07:13:20 2008 Return-Path: Received: from 22.214.171.124 (EHLO trendssvr.sss.gov) (126.96.36.199) by XXXXXXX with SMTP; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:13:21 -0700 Received: from NHQXCHANGE2.sss.gov ([188.8.131.52]) by trendssvr.sss.gov with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:13:20 -0400 Subject: RE: Question about Selective Service Numbers Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:13:20 -0400 Thread-Topic: Question about Selective Service Numbers Priority: Urgent Importance: high From: "Hughes, Janice" Dear Sir: The latest Registration Numbers, such as you listed below, start with the mans year of birth (89-, 90-, etc.). However, the other number have no significance and are random. Sincerely, Janice L. Hughes Public & Intergovernmental Affairs Selective Service System From: XXXXX Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 3:09 PM To: Information Subject: Question about Selective Service Numbers Hi! Can you help me? I noticed that the Selective service numbers have changed coding. Back in the sixties and earlier it used to be as follows:XX-YYY-ZZ-NN..N XX code for state (or district/territory) issued YYY local board number ZZ year of birth NN..N -- the registration number, the chronological sequence number that the registration was accepted at the local board But the new codes I have seen look like this: ZZ-NNNNNNN-1 Where ZZ seems to be the year of birth. My questions are: When did the format change? Are the first two digits of the new numbers the year of birth? Is there any coding of board number or state or serial number in the new number? Is the seven digit middle part (or part of that middle part) a chronological sequence number? If there is a sequence number, what are the ranges by year for sequence numbers issued in that year? Thanks!
>If we do find out he was born in Kenya it will NOT matter to Obamabots. They will call for the Constitution to be changed.
And that’s where myself and my fellow Armed-forces people will be obliged to remove him from office. You know, upholding and defending the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic... and on that note, we might be able to have at it with the other politicos if they try something funny to cover his ass. (Amending the Constitution takes a LOT.)
> However, the other number have no significance and are random.
Interesting; and thank you.
As a CS major I can say that the middle numbers COULD be random and linked in through a relational database.
However given what I know of government coding/numbering schemes, they probably DO have some sequence and are not truly random.
Regarding the “oddities” on Schlussel’s site:
First of all the DLN# is NOT the Selective Service number. You have no idea what your DLN# is unless you request it with the FOIA. It is an internal data locating number only.
It is an 11 digit number starting with a 2 digit year of registration. It does not appear on any SS card or documents you may own.
The registration form DLN # on Debbie Schlussel’s site has simply been photoshopped to remove the leading number 8 from the DLN on the original registration form. Just download the photo and do a few “sharpen” operations to bring out the background. I used Irfanview. It’s pretty clear the background has been whited out removing the leading number, before the blue “A” was added just above where the initial small number 8 once was. If the leading “8” had not been washed out there would be no disagreement between the registration form and the computer record.
DLN numbers are 11 digits long - the registration form only has 10 digits. Without the DLN number discrepency, there would be no real issue. Looks like a case of a dirty tricks.
This was a deliberate hoax or deception. Wonder who did it?
Here’s what I am talking about:
Note the removal, in rectangular blocks, of much of the open areas on this form. Why was this done? Because then there would be no contrast to reveal the removal of the number 8 from the DLN. A careful job of deception, but not professional enough to avoid detection. You can still wonder about the other small oddities like the stamp, but the main case, that this registration form copy was faked in 2008 is not true. It was produced in 1980, just like it says.
Dont believe it? Check out the doctored photo published on Debbie Schlussels website - download it, use sharpen function a few times to bring out the background and draw your own conclusions.
My sons are twins, they each signed up for selective service on or near their birthday in November 2001. Their numbers are close to each other and near to Obama’s. It is a stretch of probability that the twin’s numbers would be so close without the selective service number being a sequence. Thus I logically infer that Obama’s number — if the one given out so far is accurate — was issued in or near November 2001.
As for the second matter of the incomplete or questionable 'postmark', I can speak with some authority on the subject as I was a postal employee for over 30 years from before 1970. This mark is created by a 'round dater' stamp. Each one was assigned to a specific employee and included an identifying number unique to the employee whose 'round dater' was used. That way, a 'postmark' could be traced back to its origin if a question of its authenticity ever came up. A 'postmark' was considered so reliable and sacrosanct that it could be used as evidence in court. This was an accountable item and was kept under lock and key at all times when it wasn't in the possession of the individual authorized to have and use it and it was never allowed outside of the Post Office. It is a federal offense to postmark an item with any date other than the date on which the item was actually stamped. (There was a famous case where there was a contest to guess the final score for some athletic contest, a Superbowl or World Series, and the letters with the guesses had to be 'postmarked' prior to the event taking place. A group of postal employees conspired together and used a 'round dater' to illegally postmark their entries after the game was completed so they knew the score. They were caught and convicted.) Once the old 'Post Office Department' was reorganized into the new 'USPS' / U. S. Postal Service in the 1970's, new 'round daters' would have been issued. Apparently someone in the Chicago machine has been able to find one of these obsolete stampers that was spirited out of the system from years ago and probably uses it when the need arises. The missing '19' from the year '1980' is probably because they don't have the full set of numbers to change out the entire date or they weren't familiar with the way the 'round dater' was used. Also, the employee's identifying number is missing that would show to whom this particular 'round dater' was assigned.
Posted by: Vicki551, November 14, 2008 03:53 AM
Mr. Owens,It is that part '1125539' which I suspect is a sequence number.
Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.
His registration number is 61-1125539-1.
Public Affairs Specialist
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.