Replies

Obama exclusively went to expensive private colleges. He claimed he went to college through the use of financial aid. He would not have been able to get federal guaranteed student loans, federal grants, or likely state guaranteed student loans without registering.

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.

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:

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

and

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

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

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

This post on Schlussel's site refers to the postal stamp. The postal employee says the stamp is an obsolete 'USPO' style long out of use by the July 29 1980 date stamped. According to Wikipedia the postal organization and name changed from USPO to USPS as of July 1 1971:

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

Here is my second post to you all. I’m not the Ken Woods someone found posting elsewhere. I don’t use profanity in my posting. If you google my name you’ll find there are quit a few of us around.

This SSS conspiracy gets more curious every day. Now Debbie has revealed her source for the FOIA SSS cards for Obama, name and email. He has also posted and claims he just scanned the two copies from the FOIA in his HP printer and mailed the scans to Debbie. If that’s true, then maybe Debbie did the cleanup job on the SSS forms. Of maybe she is getting ‘DanRathered’, rather ironic that would be.

Some have been looking at the SS number, which is all most can find, to see if Obama’s fits into numbers issued in 1980. Here is a quote from Debbie site by someone (not me):

“My Selective Service number (I’m going out on a limb here because I don’t think there’s any personal data in the number) is 61-1076250-4. I looked it up on the Selective Service website and do not have a physical card to examine.

Clearly the first 2 numbers indicate year of birth “61”. I think the middle numbers are sequential, as in 1,076,250. Obama’s SSSN is 61-1125539-1. Again, 1st 2 numbers are year of birth. 2nd set probably means the 1,125,539th registrant. This is plausible.

Since this would be the beginning of re-registering for the draft, the data center would be handling very heavy volume. Our two numbers, processed on the same day (9-4-1980), would be 49,289 apart. That’s quite a few cards in one day. I’ve never worked in a data center such as Selective Service used/uses, so I really can’t speak to whether that type of one-day volume is do-able or not.”

There is also some digital funny business around the post office date seal. I’ve put these on my photosite:

http://profile.imageshack.us/user/truthsquad73/images/detail/#99/obamaselectiveservicerezu5.jpg

Was the “19” also white erased from the seal? Investigate yourself. I don’t expect anyone to take my word for anything.

Oh, I think my mug shot is on that site too :)