The Revealing of Obama’s Selective Service Registration Fraud

By Linda Bentley | March 3, 2010

ARLINGTON, Va. – On Sept. 7, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama appeared on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” and stated, “I had to sign up for Selective Service (SS) when I graduated from high school … And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren’t engaged in active military conflict at that point. And so, it’s not an option that I ever decided to pursue.”

Some people did keep in mind that he graduated in 1979 and noted the registration requirement was suspended in April 1975 by President Gerald Ford and wasn’t reinstituted until 1980 by President Jimmy Carter in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The Military Selective Service Act required men born in the calendar year 1961 to register on any of the six days beginning Monday, July 28, 1980.

On Oct. 13, 2008, J. Stephen Coffman, a retired federal agent, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the SS for a copy of Obama’s SS registration form.

Debbie Schlussel broke this story on Nov. 13, 2008, questioning myriad peculiarities about Obama’s registration form. (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/)

Coffman’s FOIA request was processed on Oct. 29, 2008, two days after the SS claimed it was received.

Coffman received a copy of Obama’s registration form along with a copy of the computer inquiry screen, which showed an access date of Sept. 9, 2008, several weeks prior to Coffman’s request.

It was accompanied by a letter from Richard S. Flahavan, associate director for public affairs and intergovernmental affairs, who stated, “Also, the enclosed computer inquiry screen indicates that his registration number is 61-1125539-1, as previously provided to you.”

The computer printout shows a transaction date of Sept. 4, 1980 (the date Obama’s July 29, 1980 registration was entered into the system) with a last action date of Sept. 4, 1980, signifying nothing else had been received or entered since the original Sept. 4, 1980 registration form.

Coffman found it peculiar his request, according to the computer printout date, was processed on Sept. 9, 2008, several weeks prior to submitting his request.

On Feb. 9, 2009, Kenneth Allen submitted a FOIA request for the same records. He received a response, also from Flavahan, dated March 4, 2009.

Flavahan said a copy of Obama’s SS registration was enclosed along with “the resultant automated file screen,” adding, “Mr. Obama did indeed register with the Selective Service and was assigned Selective Service Number 61-1125539-1 on Sept. 4, 1980.”

The 10-digit Document Locator Number (DLN) 0897080632 is printed or stamped across the top right hand corner of the registration form.

The computer printout provided to Coffman displayed an 11-digit DLN of 8089 708 0632.
The computer printouts provided to both Allen and Coffman are both dated Sept. 9, 2008.
The copy of the registration form provided to Allen and Coffman are identical.

However, Allen’s computer printout is titled “Registrant File Inquiry Report” while Coffman’s is titled “RIMS History Inquiry Screen.”

And, the DLN on the computer printout received by Allen, also an 11-digit number, reads: 0897 080 6320.

So, while Coffman’s printout had an eight added to the beginning, Allen’s had a zero added to the end.

Once issued, DLNs do not change.

Even though the inquiry screen indicates Allen’s request was processed on Sept. 9, 2008, just like Coffman’s, it reflects a last action date of June 25, 1991, showing a Form 50 change letter had been received and entered then. Records provided to Coffman reflected no such action.

The post office round date stamp on Obama’s registration form also raised legitimacy concerns. The stamp displays “USPO Honolulu, HI Makiki Sta.” with “Jul 29 80” stamped in the center of the circle on three lines. However, the two-digit year is stamped off center as if it should have been a four-digit date.

Last week Sonoran News received a response to a FOIA request for 17 SS records for the purpose of making comparisons.

Every single one of them has a four-digit year stamp, including two registrations processed at the very same post office, one within days of Obama’s.

In fact, Bruce Henderson, now deceased, whose birthday was also in August 1961, registered on Aug. 2, 1980 at the Makiki station and his SS number is 61-1125522-7, just 27 numbers apart from Obama’s.

The 10-digit DLN on his registration form reads: 0897080613 and the 11-digit DLN on the computer printout reads: 0897 080 6130, indicating a zero had been added to the end.

Henderson’s registration was also entered in the same batch as Obama’s on Sept. 4, 1980.
Our FOIA request was initially made in October 2009, but after receiving neither a response nor an acknowledgement, a subsequent request was made in December 2009 via certified mail, the receipt of which was promptly acknowledged.

The request was fulfilled by Paula Sweeney from the office of public and intergovernmental affairs and the computer printouts are dated Jan. 15, 2010 and Jan. 20, 2010.

Every single one of the registrations processed in 1980 had a zero added to the end of the DLN on the computer printout, a practice that appears to have changed subsequent to that time.

In fact, a registration dated March 1, 1982 with a 10-digit DLN of 2120360884 stamped on the registration form, has an 11-digit DLN of 8212 036 0884 entered in the computer, which appears to be consistent with registrations added after 1980, and possibly not until 1982.

It became obvious records were created after the fact for Obama and were later changed. However, the computer access date is frozen on Sept. 9, 2008; two days after Obama appeared on Stephanopoulos’ show saying he registered with SS in 1979 when the requirement was nonexistent.

The mistakes made by adding to and changing the fraudulently created record after Coffman’s FOIA request was fulfilled but before the Allen’s was received, provides an audit trail of the fraud.

It would appear Flahavan, who processed both requests, should have caught the glaring incongruities. Instead, he got cocky in his letter to Allen by proclaiming, “Mr. Obama did indeed register with Selective Service …”

The SS website proclaims, “Registration is the law. A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.”

It goes on to say, “Even if not tried, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed,” including federal student loans or grant programs.

A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the executive branch of the federal government, which includes president of the United States.

Registration is also a condition for U.S. citizenship if the man first arrived in the United States before his 26th birthday.

If Obama arrived in Hawaii as a citizen of Indonesia, as his school records and mother’s divorce records indicate, and he didn’t register with SS, he could have been barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship and may not be one now.

However, those covering up Obama’s tracks have done a sloppy job, which means there really is a conspiracy to defraud the American people, not just a theory.

Copyright © 2010 Sonoran News

http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2010/100303/webonlyObama.html

 

Advertisements

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

10 Responses to The Revealing of Obama’s Selective Service Registration Fraud

  1. slcraignbc says:

    “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence … the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.” –George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Excellent and vital quote. Those words are essential to understand the framers exclusionary approach to presidential eligibility, -as the opposite of the 14th Amendment’s per Wong approach that was manifestly INclusionary. From: “NO PERSON…” to “All persons…”. And now, for the first time in American history, we see a shining example of their worst-case possibility in a President who sides with the hegemony of radical Islam against all Western and autocratic authorities and governments. A covert quasi-Muslim in the White House dictating national policy that is anti-democratic, and anti-liberty, and anti-individual rights.

  2. Hetuck says:

    Richard Flahavan also appears to have been involved in inventing or promulgating a cover story for the absence of Mitch McConnell’s military service records: http://www.hillbillyreport.org/diary/976/senator-mitch-mcconnells-military-service. The Inner Party must be protected….

  3. slcraignbc says:

    SCOTUS needs to answer the “Citizenship Question”

    Eligibility is a Constitutional question;

    Qualification is a Political question;

    (U.S.) natural born Citizen is a Citizenship question and therefore MUST be “construable” under the COTUS and ITS Laws..

    What needs to be taken into account and reconciled with the MULTITUDE of inconsistencies in the “0”s life narrative is the FACT that under status quo of the U.S. Federal Laws an “ambiguity” exists regarding the “definition” of a (U.S.) natural born Citizen.

    That “ambiguity” has been exploited and opened a wide “legal-loop-hole”, apparently large enough for ANY person that is supported by a Political Party to walk into the Office of POTUS without any verifiable supporting documents as to who they are.

    What IS encouraging in this instance is that NO new laws are required to CLOSE the loop of the legal-loop-hole.

    All that is required is a “supportable proposition of interpretation” of EXISTING Constitutional and Federal Laws that isolates the “definition” of requisite circumstances of actually being a U.S. natural born Citizen post the Ratification of the COTUS and then reconciled to current Laws post the 1790 Act.

    And THAT requires a thorough understanding of the “established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization”.

    To RESORT ELSEWHERE only perpetuates the “legal-loop-hole” that is the “ambiguity” under the U.S. Federal Laws.

  4. arnash says:

    That was all on-track until your exploded the legitimacy of what you were arguing for by spewing unAmerican garbage that chains the meaning of the common English words to some imaginary dependence on “EXISTING Constitutional and Federal Laws” which do not exist!

    The words have NO dependency on any law nor on the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution is dependent on the meaning of the words themselves in order for the anal-retentive legally-minded interpreter to understand that they DO NOT NEED INTERPRETING! They mean what they mean in plain English, and that was how they were written.

    There is no authority that any fool and turn to or point to that declares that those three words do NOT mean what they mean but instead mean something different, something artificial, as a term of legal artifice.
    WHO made such an authoritative commandment that all must bow to? Who was the authority that ascribed an artificial meaning to the framers’ words? I’d like to know his name.

    You, and the neo-nativists like you, are attempting to usurp the given and plainly understood meaning of simple words and pervert them to mean what your desired dogma supports. Instead of working to eliminate ambiguity by shining a spotlight on the truth, you seek to exploit the ambiguity in order to obtain your embraced doctrine of requiring birth within the bosom of mother America, -birth into membership in our blessed country by being a native-born son of sacred American soil.
    You, and all who think like that, are fools! -fools who reject their own God-given natural right to pass their national membership on to their own children, children who will replace them as citizens when they are gone.

    You foolishly embrace the “good fortune” that your mother happened to not be across the border when something happened a long time ago, which you cannot possibly remember, but which supposedly made you a full-blooded American, namely; you exited your mother’s womb somewhere, which you are told, was within U.S. borders.
    Thank God! you exclaim, -otherwise you would have been born as an untrustworthy foreigner! You are not alone in that delusion. We were all raised with it and it was all that we knew. But now some of us know better because we have traced the stream of our citizenship to its source, and it is not soil but blood.

    If you have been born over the border, and were thus not an American “by birth”, that would mean that you would be among the outsiders on the inside of U.S. citizenship because you would thus be prohibited from eligibility to be President. God forbid!

    So you thank your lucky stars that you are not among the outside-insiders but are a member of the inside-insiders. The others are not allowed into the club of which you are a member, and that’s just their tough luck, -even if one of them is your own twin brother who joined the world before your mother could get through border traffic and to an American hospital.
    You, and all who think like that, are fools!

    You ascribe foolish and deranged thinking to the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution. But they are not the ones who were fools, -as they showed in the 1790 Naturalization Act when they labeled all children born of Americans as natural born citizens, -by BLOOD! by DESCENT! by NATURAL INHERITANCE, by NATURAL RIGHT OF BIRTH.

    It you have so damn much confidence in your fantasy doctrine, then surely you can explain why they were so dumb, according to your superior understanding and insight, as to give up their natural right, -their right as Americans, -their right as humans, -the right as fathers, and their right as head of their own family. Please, explain away. Here, I’ll begin your explanation for you: “The founding fathers and framers of the U.S. Constitution were flat-out stupid because…” All you have to do is complete the sentence.

    Since your doctrine has all of the answers, it shouldn’t be a problem for you, or your kind. Ask Mario, maybe he can blow you off like your question didn’t even exist. Heaven knows, he’s done it a hundred times before, literally.

    • slcraignbc says:

      THERE IS NO “NATURAL RIGHT'” TO BE A U.S. CITIZEN…………..WHO ARE YOU……..FORRST GUMP….????

      You are so lost in the weeds with that “American” thing, that by the way, is NOT the same as being a “Citizen of the United States of America”……..

      But, obviously you are anti-Constitutional without even knowing what the Constitution provides for…………you say that it’s the State and the Land of the State or the State laws or some combination thereof that makes a person an “American”……..so fine……..BUT the Constitution and ITS Laws disagree …….. In order to be a Citizen of the United States of America you must be born within the parameters of the circumstances defined within ITS Laws, that is, at least one of your parents must be a U.S. Citizen or you are naturalized, at birth by the POLICY APPLICATION of the 14th or otherwise after birth concurrent with a naturalizing parent or of ones own initiative at the age of majority.

      Now, show me a case where those circumstances are incorrect and that a person is a U.S.of A. Citizen under some other circumstances.

      • arnash says:

        You have it correct, as far as the domestic situation is concerned. Where you go off track is in the foreign situation when American children enter the world somewhere outside of the borders of American territory. You think they are born as aliens in need of naturalization, but the U.S. government explanation of the law and policy of the nation states expressly that if one is born of American parents, then they are NOT naturalized at birth because they are automatically Americans naturally, -by blood.
        As for State citizenship being the foremost citizenship; that was how it was at and after the founding, -NOT as it has been for the last century and more. The more authority that the central government sucked out of the States, the less sovereign they became, but the States because step-children of Big Brother.

  5. slcraignbc says:

    You say………….
    ” … You ascribe foolish and deranged thinking to the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution. But they are not the ones who were fools, -as they showed in the 1790 Naturalization Act when they labeled all children born of Americans as natural born citizens, -by BLOOD! by DESCENT! by NATURAL INHERITANCE, by NATURAL RIGHT OF BIRTH. ….”

    So show me ANYWHERE in the Act that they made any such pronouncements….!!!???!!!!

    They did NOT………..EXCEPT by the EFFECTS of the WORDS they DID use and what those words then REQUIRED.

    SO, you offer up, as did Aristotle and Vattel, a NARRATIVE of the effects of Principles and I offer up STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS of what the FRAMERS wrote with BOTH rendering the SAME EFFECT with a very important distinction……….

    ………I FAILED with 5 different Petitions when writing in the narrative, but I am now confident that the case will NOT be dismissed when I prepare it based on the Statutory Interpretations of the Statutory Construction of what the Framers and Congress ACTUALLY wrote.

  6. arnash says:

    I employed deductive reasoning which I doubted you would recognize, and I see that you didn’t. The first Congress label foreign-born American children natural born citizens, -which meant they were the same as their domestically born siblings and peers and anyone born of citizens in America. So you are accurate to say that they did not openly state that all children born of Americans were natural born citizens, -but that was the inescapable meaning, since if those born abroad were the same as those native-born, well that covered all of them.

  7. slcraignbc says:

    You say in reply to a post above ;

    “… arnash says:
    August 26, 2014 at 3:51 AM

    You have it correct, as far as the domestic situation is concerned.

    Where you go off track is in the foreign situation when American children enter the world somewhere outside of the borders of American territory. You think they are born as aliens in need of naturalization, but the U.S. government explanation of the law and policy of the nation states expressly that if one is born of American parents, then they are NOT naturalized at birth because they are automatically Americans naturally, -by blood.

    The ancient doctrine of Jus Sanguinis is NOT a feature of U.S. Citizenship, nor Jus Soli for that matter, but rather CITIZENSHIP its-self is the wellspring from which Citizenship springs.

    The EFFECTS of the Established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization regarding the children of existing Citizens and of a naturalized aliens may be characterized as being;

    ” Once a person is a Citizen of the United States of America, then so TOO are their children, at birth or otherwise…”

    As for State citizenship being the foremost citizenship; that was how it was at and after the founding, -NOT as it has been for the last century and more. The more authority that the central government sucked out of the States, the less sovereign they became, but the States because step-children of Big Brother….”

    Again, as previously pointed out and RULED upon in ” U.S. vs Villato, Talbot vs Janson and Collet vs Collet, State Citizenship and naturalization laws were superseded, given that the subject authority was ceded to the U.S. Congress’s Enumerated Powers on the subject.

    • arnash says:

      You are an intellectual hack and a quack. You proclaim: “The ancient doctrine of Jus Sanguinis is NOT a feature of U.S. Citizenship,”, and that is basically true but for the wrong reason. It’s true that it’s not a “feature”, but it is in fact the very foundation bedrock on which citizenship is grounded. The 14th Amendment common law citizenship is like the constructed ground floor of the house of American law. Floors are constructed, bedrock is not constructed and cannot be changed, while floors, like amendments and laws, can be changed.

      You ivory-tower statement that “CITIZENSHIP its-self is the wellspring from which Citizenship springs” is a meaningless vapor in the real world because it does not spring from the citizenship of one’s parents. It only springs from the blood of one’s parents. That is exactly why foreign adopted children are not brought into this world with the citizenship of their future parents. The citizenship that they are allowed to acquire is not via the citizenship of their adopted parents but via U.S. naturalization law. Their citizenship is not jus sanguinis citizenship while that of the parents’ natural children is. It is, as the naturalization acts have always stated, their “right of descent” which springs from a blood relationship.
      That RIGHT of DESCENT is universal in America for all children of all Americans regardless of where they were born. They are all natural born citizens.

      “Once a person is a Citizen of the United States of America, then so TOO are their children, at birth or otherwise…”
      And why are they? Because the citizenship of the children is that of the parents per the effect of a jus sanguinis connection. Jus Sanguinis = “by Right of Blood”. It is the blood right of the children to be the same as their parents, of the same membership and same nationality. It is a fundamental right basic to all civilization, -and is not their gift. It is a fundamental natural human right which is primal in nature, and governments pay homage to it via language in their laws which acknowledge it. That is why they are citizens automatically when their parents naturalize. The family unity by blood is thus maintained via a meta-philosophical transformation of the parents.

      The children were once natural members of their parents’ foreign nation, and after naturalization they instantly and “magically” become new “natural” members of their parents’ new nation, new nationality via a new marriage to a new people, country, and government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: