College and university records often contain citizenship information (for example, whether he applied for aid as a foreign citizen).

This is not true; college transcripts do not ordinarily show citizenship info, nationality or place of birth.

Some public university records might show whether the student is a state resident for tuition records, but Obama attended private universities.

Records of financial aid are kept entirely separate from academic records, handled by a different office. Noncitizens are not eligible for any federally subsidized aid (subsidized loans, Pell grants) unless they are permanent residents — and most colleges that give need-based grant aid to their domestic students do not promise similar aid to internationals.

The whole thing about applying for aid “as a foreign citizen” is a fantasy made up by people who don’t have a clue about how college financial aid works. There are very few aid programs for foreign students unless subsidized by their own countries. (The only third-world country that I know of that pays to educate their students abroad is Cuba.- and I don’t think anyone claims that Obama is Cuban).

In fact, I think its an invention by people who must never have gone to college or seen what a college transcript looks like, or understand that a high school transcript has to be submitted during the admissions process.

These would be appropriate, not unrelated, as evidence to be released during the discovery phase of a case involving citizenship.

Again, you are admitting that you would not be satisfied with disclosure of the so-called long-form or vault copy birth certificate, but would want to see “discovery” beyond that. The whole “college record” thing is just an illustration of that point.

You did, referring to college & university records.

College and university records often contain citizenship information (for example, whether he applied for aid as a foreign citizen). These would be appropriate, not unrelated, as evidence to be released during the discovery phase of a case involving citizenship.

You did, referring to college & university records.

College and university records often contain citizenship information (for example, whether he applied for aid as a foreign citizen). These would be appropriate, not unrelated, as evidence to be released during the discovery phase of a case involving citizenship.

Who said anything about personal records that are totally unrelated to the circumstances of Obama’s birth?

You did, referring to college & university records.

There’s no evidence that I know of that Obama was attending college anywhere at the time of his birth.

That’s the point – the bottom line is that the release of the so-called “vault copy” of the birth certificate would just be used as a rationale to demand an ever-increasing amount of discovery into personal records that are totally unrelated to the circumstances of Obama’s birth.

Who said anything about personal records that are totally unrelated to the circumstances of Obama’s birth?

First, if this was introduced in court, the opposition would show that a foreign-born person could have the same document under Hawaiian law and request the full documentation which would show whether there was actually a documented, attended Hawaiian birth. This is precisely the kind of thing that would come out during the discovery phase – Obama would not be allowed to refuse to release his birth certificate, college records, university records, and any other records that might serve as evidence, which is why Obama is fighting to keep it from reaching discovery.

That’s the point – the bottom line is that the release of the so-called “vault copy” of the birth certificate would just be used as a rationale to demand an ever-increasing amount of discovery into personal records that are totally unrelated to the circumstances of Obama’s birth.

You answer the question, “why doesn’t he release the vault-copy” very well.

Blake,

“But the law says quite clearly that a parent can register their child after the fact in absence of an actual documented, attended Hawaiian birth. There is no denying this – it is written in plain english for anyone to read.”

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to prove that a person who was foreign born was issued a Hawaiian birth certificate from 1958 to present?

The law speaks for itself. A parent could walk in with a baby, claim it was born in Hawaii, and get documentation. If you don’t understand that this means a foreign-born person could hold the same document Obama is displaying, I don’t really know how to dumb it down any further.

Practical Kat:

So what? The registration still stands as legal proof

First, if this was introduced in court, the opposition would show that a foreign-born person could have the same document under Hawaiian law and request the full documentation which would show whether there was actually a documented, attended Hawaiian birth. This is precisely the kind of thing that would come out during the discovery phase – Obama would not be allowed to refuse to release his birth certificate, college records, university records, and any other records that might serve as evidence, which is why Obama is fighting to keep it from reaching discovery. Second, he didn’t provide this as legal proof – he provided it to prove to US, the voters, that he was born in Hawaii and was eligible… and since we know for a fact that a foreign-born person could hold the same document, it doesn’t prove anything of the sort unless you simply want to believe him.

Sue:

Silly me. I forgot. You buy into this “huge conspiracy theory.” Who all is in this “conspiracy” to date?

To say that he has not proven Hawaiian birth is not to say that all ten people/agencies on your list are operating in a conspiracy. I hope I don’t need to through them one by one.

Jacqlyn,

Silly me. I forgot. You buy into this “huge conspiracy theory.” Who all is in this “conspiracy” to date?

1. Governor of Hawaii
2. Hawaii Dept. of Health officials
3. Congress
4. SCOTUS and all who work at SCOTUS
5. Federal Judges
6. All Attorney Generals
7. FBI
8. Homeland Security
9. Selective Service
10. DOJ

And anybody else who doesn’t agree with you. And, Dr. Taitz immediately tries to discredit anyone who doesn’t agree with her or comply with her “demands.” Example: The National Director of the Selective Service William Chatfield by posting a two year old news article on her blog.

Have I left anybody out? Now, this is really an example of having “good common sense.”
***************************************************************************

Sue—-You left one important name off the list….That would be BARRY SOETORO….Imposter and biggest hoax on the USA in our American History…..I bet you believed Nixon was innocent too and that the people not buying into his cover-up didn’t have “common sense” either!! You wouldn’t know “common sense” even if it hit you on the head at least a dozen times!!! WAKE UP OBOT you have been programmed!!!!

Silly me. I forgot. You buy into this “huge conspiracy theory.” Who all is in this “conspiracy” to date?

1. Governor of Hawaii
2. Hawaii Dept. of Health officials
3. Congress
4. SCOTUS and all who work at SCOTUS
5. Federal Judges
6. All Attorney Generals
7. FBI
8. Homeland Security
9. Selective Service
10. DOJ

And anybody else who doesn’t agree with you. And, Dr. Taitz immediately tries to discredit anyone who doesn’t agree with her or comply with her “demands.” Example: The National Director of the Selective Service William Chatfield by posting a two year old news article on her blog.

Have I left anybody out? Now, this is really an example of having “good common sense.”

This “guy” that I quote happens to be the Associate Director, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. His email is rflahavan@sss.gov. His statement is posted below. You don’t have to believe me. His email is provided so you can verify the information for yourself. Why don’t you email him?

*********************************************************************************

Here Sue…..Better yet…..Why don’t you e-mail Mr. Coffman at retirediceagent@sbcglobal.net and see what he has to say on the matter??? Why would I believe your guy is any more an authority on the IMPOSTER’S Selective Service Registration than you are….I’m sure he is not only lacking in “common sense” like you but he also is trying to twist and turn the truth to fit the cover-up!!!
———————————————————————–

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 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 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://www.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 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: Here’s another irregularity that points to fraud, as spotted by reader Joyce:

My husband printed the information provided on your web site regarding Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration discrepancies. I noticed that the DLN number in upper right corner (labeled “A”) has only ten (10) digits with the first two being 08 , but the DLN number shown on the computer screen printout has eleven (11) digits with the first two being 80. It clearly indicates that the “8″ was added at the beginning of the DLN number, in order to appear that it was issued in 1980 and wasn’t simply a reversal of the first two digits as the retired federal agent noted. This in itself appears questionable. I would think there is a standard number of digits in all DLN numbers.

**** UPDATE #2, 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 at retirediceagent@sbcglobal.net.

UPDATE #3, 11/17/08: Some Obamapologists are claiming this is a fake and want to see evidence that retired agent Coffman actually got these documents from the Selective Service System Data Management Center. Below are scans of the letter and envelope that accompanied Barack Obama’s fraudulent registration for the draft (I’ve cropped the blank white space):

Jacqlyn,

“I guess your obtuse lack of “common sense” is why you continue to post these ridiculous statements over and over again.”

The ridiculous statements that I continue to post happen to be actual laws, so I guess you think the law is ridiculous. If you would try to understand them, rather than make fun of them, you might just realize why all these lawsuits have failed.

Why do you continue to post false information and statements over and over?

***************************************************************************

I could ask the same of you Sue…..I don’t believe the authorities you post and neither do a lot of other people here!!!

. But the law says quite clearly that a parent can register their child after the fact in absence of an actual documented, attended Hawaiian birth. There is no denying this – it is written in plain english for anyone to read.

So what? The registration still stands as legal proof of time and place of birth no matter who fills out the forms. Every state in the country has procedures in place allowing the registration of unassisted births.

“But the law says quite clearly that a parent can register their child after the fact in absence of an actual documented, attended Hawaiian birth. There is no denying this – it is written in plain english for anyone to read.”

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to prove that a person who was foreign born was issued a Hawaiian birth certificate from 1958 to present?

How so?”

Hawaii Department of Vital Statistics says so. I emailed them to ask if HRS-38.5 allowed people born in a foreign country to obtain a Hawaii birth certificate. Here is their response.

vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov
“A person must be born in Hawaii to obtain a certificate of birth from Hawaii. HRS-338-5 simply states that every birth in Hawaii must be registered with our department.

Of course they must ostensibly be born in Hawaii. But the law says quite clearly that a parent can register their child after the fact in absence of an actual documented, attended Hawaiian birth. There is no denying this – it is written in plain english for anyone to read.

“and this guy you quote has had these documents in hand and is suppose to be credible???? I seriously doubt him and anything else you say…”

This “guy” that I quote happens to be the Associate Director, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs. His email is rflahavan@sss.gov. His statement is posted below. You don’t have to believe me. His email is provided so you can verify the information for yourself. Why don’t you email him?

And, the Selective Service Registration–guess you haven’t seen this, have you.

“Dear Mr. Arduini:

Facts will never trump speculation by conspiracy theorists. But the reality is the following:

a. The 10-character Document Locator Number (DLN) was placed on Selective Service Registration Forms beginning prior to the establishment of our current Data Management Center on 31 August 1981.

b. Prior to 1981, the DLN configuration was different from what is used today.

c. At that time when Mr. Obama registered, the first three characters (089) indicated that the form was keyed in by one of the contract keying centers – in this case 089 equated to the Internal Revenue Service.

d. Later, an 11th digit was added to the DLN just prior to Y2K to differentiate another decade.

Thus, the first three characters of the DLN do NOT represent the year the form was keyed into the SSS registrant database, despite what some may hold dear.

Richard S. Flahavan
Associate Director, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
Selective Service System National Headquarters”

rflahavan@sss.gov