EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration?

Debbieschlussel.com ^ | 11/13/08 | Debbie Schlussel

[thile44]

If you look at it closely you can see that the numerals are cut off and not complete.

[Flathead Catfisherman]

It could be the postmark stamps with the year 19XX were trashed at the end of 1999 and replaced with the
20xx postmark stamp. Then when it came time to falsify this document they couldn’t find an old 19XX stamp so they had to cover up the 20 part on the new stamp.

[jackofhearts]

I don’t know how much more of this I can take: no birth certificate, no passport, no academic records, now no Selective Service registration.

Wake me up in four years, please.

[freeplancer]

At what point does a newbie like you decide that you should be the thread police?

[jcsjcm]

http://www.hawaiianstamps.com/ishawaii.html
http://www.hawaii-post.com/postmarks.html

Here are 2 links to Hawaiian postmarks. I’ve found a few on google that are posted after 2000 and they all seem to state Hawaii in one form or another.

I wish I could find one that actually had USPO on it. But, I agree this does not look right.

[jcsjcm]

http://www.hawaiianstamps.com/ishawaii.html
http://www.hawaii-post.com/postmarks.html

Here are 2 links to Hawaiian postmarks. I’ve found a few on google that are posted after 2000 and they all seem to state Hawaii in one form or another.

I wish I could find one that actually had USPO on it. But, I agree this does not look right.

[toomuchcoffee]

Even if he did, and even if he isn’t a naturally born American, it doesn’t matter. Nothing is going to stop the Obamatrain. Nothing!

[erkyl]

If you haven't had the chance to read all the comments on the source site about the postal round stamp used on the document, you should before you comment any more about the postmarks on past envelopes, mail, etc. They aren't the same thing.

One of the posters on the site was quoted as follows:

For those questioning the Poastmark. I am a USPS clerk who has worked the "window" where customers do there business with the USPS.

The in the round daters that we use have complete year, example if the round dater was ordered in 2007, you would have complete rubber pieces for 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012.

Since i have only been an employee since the late 90's i cannot inform you on the USPO round daters, but i would imagine that the year would have been one whole piece as well. I say that because as mentioned earlier, it would explain why the year is not centered under the day. Why the full year is not there is a good question.

The 8 in the year does hold dcharacteristics of it being 80 not 08. The eights used on our round daters have a narrower top loop than the bottom loop.

As far as a cancellation stamp, it is different than a round dater. Stamp cancellation usually consists of some type of text with wavy lines after it that actually roll over a stamp. Any markings or ink on a stamp cancels it, either before or after you use it. The round dater is an official stamp to record a date and validate any thing requiring a date. It can be used to cancel a stamp since is is ink based.

Another postal employee commented:

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... 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.

I think this is the greatest proof it's a fake; the USPS stopped using the acronym USPO in the 70's; the round dater doesn't have an employee id # on it. The post office definitely has specific requirements on how mail/dated documents are handled, and the stamp on this document raises the specter of fraud.

For those of you who don't think this is any big deal, consider this: If you are eligible to register with Selective Service and fail to do so on time, you may receive a fine of up to $250,000 and/or five years in jail. Registering with Selective Service is Federal law. At least it is for US Citizens and dual citizens. The only young men not required to register? Noncitizens who are not required to register with Selective Service include men who are in the U.S. on student or visitor visas, and men who are part of a diplomatic or trade mission and their families.

So, does this mean Obama didn't need to register in 1980 because he was a noncitizen? And if you study the information at the link, you'll learn that it is likely that the registration actually took place this year, in 2008, to cover up his failing to register in 1980, when it was required for him to do so by Federal law. So this is criminal on two counts: failure to register and falsifying a federal document.

[erkyl]

Here are the images, for those not willing to go to the site and see them for themselves, although there's a lot of excellent commentary there. All the numeric references refer to the challenges with the document, most of which are very compelling and all of which are very thoroughly researched. Debbie has done a great job.

[BILL_C]

The NEW YORKER will find out how appropriate this cover is but FREEPERs won’t be surprised at all.

[real_patriotic_american]

.... and this document “forgery” is in the present Statue of Limitations:
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244