Draft registration card that Selective Service says is Obama's is a *bad* forgery

As I understand it one of the characteristics of narcissistic sociopaths is that they take it as beyond question not just that they're smarter than everyone else, but so much smarter that they can get away with even a sloppy forgery or excuse.  They're convinced of this because because they view other people as dumb and gullible, while they see themselves as brilliant and charmed.

Exhibit 38 in the trial of Barack Hussein Obama is a Selective Service registration card--the humble Form 1. 

Given the fact that before the 2008 election Obama refused to produce a "long-form" birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, inquiring minds started combing other public records to see if there were any other anomalies in Hussein's history.  One area of inquiry was, had he registered for the draft--which all male U.S. citizens were required to do.

At least two interested citizens submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the Selective Service--the Draft Board--asking for a copy of Obama's SS registration.  In response the SS released what it claims are copies of Obama's registration form.  The image below is one of those:

Keep in mind that this copy was furnished by the Selective Service.

After the release a couple of folks compared this image with some known-valid registration cards (of which there are millions floating around).  And would you believe, the one the Selective Service claims is Obama's has several oddities.

A month before the 2008 election--October of 2008--a retired federal agent (Stephen Coffman) made a FOIA request to the Selective Service for a copy of Obama’s SS registration card.  The SS sent him the document shown above, along with a printout of a "computer inquiry" screen.

Curiously, the latter showed an "access" date of Sept. 9, 2008, several weeks before Coffman made his FOIA request.  We'll get back to that later.

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

Five months later, on Feb. 9, 2009, a second citizen (Kenneth Allen) submitted the same FOIA request as Mr. Coffman.  On March 4 he received a response from the "associate director for public and intergovernmental affairs" for the SS--one Richard S. Flahavan--who wrote that a copy of Obama’s SS registration was enclosed along with "the resultant automated file screen."  Flahavan added, "Mr. Obama did indeed register with the Selective Service and was assigned Selective Service Number 61-1125539-1 on Sept. 4, 1980."

Both registration cards are identical, and have an identical 10-digit "document locator number" (DLN), 0897080632, printed or stamped across the top right hand corner of the card.  But the computer printout provided to Coffman shows an 11-digit DLN:  8089 708 0632.

The computer printouts provided to both Allen and Coffman are both dated Sept. 9, 2008, but despite having the same date they're not identical:  The most significant difference is that they have two different DLNs.  The one on the printout received by Allen is 0897 080 6320, which matches the DLN printed on "Obama's" SS registration form, but on the printout sent to Coffman the alleged DLN is 8089 708 0632.

The DLN on the first computer printout has an "8" added at the beginning, while the second has a zero added at the end.  And only one matches the number on the registration card.

Needless to say, if a real document is assigned a document locator number, that number shouldn't change.

On the other hand, if the document was a forgery--something created and inserted into the Selective Service's computer system in 2008--some 28 years after it was supposedly entered--it wouldn't be surprising to find anomalies like the two different document locator numbers.  For example, the forgers could have created their forgery based on a DLN numbering system in use now, only to belatedly discover that a different system was used back in 1980.

The point is that if Obozo had actually registered for the draft in 1980--which all male U.S. citizens were required by law to do--then not only should that card have just one DLN,  but all computer entries on that card should use the same DLN.  There is no convincing reason why any SS computer should have shown a second--and far different--number.

And note that while the two numbers contain the same 10-digit core, the differences between the two absolutely rule out typographical errors or mis-typed entries.

(As an aside: Before the internet, the chances of two different citizens being able to discover that the DLNs on two computer printouts each had received from the same government office didn't match would have been almost zero.)

But wait, there's more!

The second indication of forgery is even more damning:  it's the USPS date stamp in the lower right corner of the registration form.

The body of this type of stamp--called a Pica stamp--has 3 rectangular recesses in it where the month, day and year are inserted.  All three recesses are exactly the same width--as are the stamps--so the characters for month, day and year are always centered and locked upright.

Note that on the alleged Obama Selective Service form the month and day (JUL and 29) are perfectly centered.  But note two things about the year of the "Post Office" stamp shown on Obama's alleged registration:  First, it's offset far to the right--so much that it's obvious to the casual observer. 

And second, it's just two digits: "80"

As Dana Carvey's "church lady" character used to say, "Well isn't that special?"

And that would be because in all *real* USPS "Pica" stamps the year is...four digits.

You may need to read that again, more slowly:     Four. digits. for. the. year.
Like this:

And notice, please, how the month, day and year are all perfectly centered.

You're thinking "But...but...but if real Pica stamps use four digits for the year, how could a forger think a two-digit year would ever fool anybody?  Forgers would never be that stupid."

Ah, well, see, there's a real insight into the way they think:  Because they knew the forgery didn't have to be perfect, since they knew they could count on the Lying Media to do two things: both *not* ask any uncomfortable questions, and to deflect anyone who might start to question the obvious screwup--by using ridicule: "birthers!  Conspiracy-mongers!"  It's easy.

And in fact they did get away with that obvious forgery.  Because I'll bet you the drink of your choice that you never heard a single word about the "two-digit year" anomaly on Barack's purported Selective Service registration, compared with the four digits on an authentic USPS stamp until now. 

Am I right?

And you're like, "This cannot possibly be true--if only because it's such a terribly bad fake!"

And "If this is really a true copy of Obama's Selective Service card, surely our ("our"?) news media would have discovered it and told us, right?"  Well given that the entire media managed to ignore the fact that for 16 years Obama's book publisher published a biographical summary saying he was born in Kenya, and Obama never bothered to correct them, do ya think there might have been some deliberate covering going on.  And that exact same bio had been published every year for 16 years.

Still think the media would have exposed the draft registration forgery?  

And remember, this is the card authenticated and furnished by the Selective Service.

Eh, so it goes.

"But...but...but...go back!  If real Pica stamps really use four digits for the year, that would be pretty easy to prove.  In that case what in the world would make forgers use a two-digit year, since that would make the forgery so obvious?  That just doesn't make sense, so your theory must be wrong!"

Well ya see, Dorothy, once it started becoming apparent that Obozo was gonna beat Hilly for the nomination, his Democrat/liberal/"progressive" supporters started taking a closer look at his paper trail--and started tryin' ta patch a whole slew of screamin'-obvious holes in the guy's record before November of 2008.  The draft registration probably wasn't at the top of that list.

Now: 2008 was 28 years after the 1980 date they were trying to forge.  All stamps from that date would have long-since been thrown away.  And while anyone can buy current Pica date stamps in any big city, in 2008 it would have been virtually impossible to find a stamp kit with the year "1980."

So one of the bright, corrupt "progressives" who supported this guy came up with a fabulous, quick, easy fix:  Take an easily-obtained stamp for the then-current year (2008), cut off the "20," rotate the remaining digits 180 degrees and...voila!  "80" !

They must have busted a gut laughing at their own cleverness, and how this was gonna' fool the whole damn country--at least long enough that their boy would be crowned and impossible to remove.  Which of course is what it did.

Sure, using two digits for the year isn't how the USPS does it, but how many average voters know that--let alone would grasp the significance of a two-digit year on a purported USPS stamp?  After all, we've fooled em about his name changes and lack of a paper trail from college, and this isn't any harder.

Just one tiny problem:  After cutting the "2008" stamp in half, the remaining 2 digits were too narrow to fit the rectangular recess, so they wouldn't stay centered when the stamp was used.  Any decent engineer or tinkerer would have suggested cutting shims off another year stamp and putting one on each side, to center the "80."  But having bet that using just two digits would fool everyone, our forgers were probably even less concerned about whether the digits were centered, eh?  So they simply pushed the "80" over to the side of the recess to make it stay upright.

Oh, you say, "you can't be serious!  That's tinfoil-hat stuff!"

Okay, Dorothy, watch:

Note the matching width of recesses in the stamp body for the month, day and year parts of the stamp.  The year should be the same width--which would just handle four digits, eh? 

The black stamp is a copy of "Obama's" SS card, while the red stamp was made by cutting "2008" in half and rotating the last two digits.  Virtually identical.

"No!  I simply don't believe that!  My party--my president--our Dear Leader, the King!--would never try to deceive his people!  He's a Democrat, so one of the Good Guys!  Besides, a *lot* of people would have had to know, and everyone knows you can't keep a big conspiracy secret because...because...you just can't!"

Yeah, I hear ya.

Just keep in mind that no authentic "USPS" Pica stamp uses a two-digit year.  Not anywhere.  This isn't just a forgery, it's a bad forgery.  As in, not even close.

But with the help of the Lying Media, and Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, it worked.

In fact, with the help of a complicit Democrat-loving media, what should be an obvious forgery was good enough it not only got 'em through the 2008 election but also got 'em through the lying bastard's re-election four years later.

But wait, there's more!

The last indicator of forgery--for now, anyway--is the zip code shown on the "1980" registration: 96826.  That's a valid Hawaiian zip, and matches the street address today.  But according to a pair of researchers, the USPS changes zipcode boundaries a bit from time to time...and back in 1980 the street address shown on the SS card was in a different zip.

If that's true, not only must we believe Obama didn't know the zip code where he supposedly lived, but also by amazing coincidence the one he just happened to incorrectly guess--way back (haha) in "1980"--would turn out to be the real zip code a full decade or so later!  Wow, how lucky is that?

Okay, as the next president of the country famously said, "At this point, what difference could it possibly make" whether Obozo's draft registration card is a forgery?  After all, that wouldn't disqualify him from office since it's not a requirement listed in the Constitution to be president.  And we all know that the Supreme Court is reeeally big on honoring our wonderful Constitution, eh?

But if it's found to be a forgery--let alone such a bad one--it would sure anger 47 percent of the American electorate.  Because not only would it show how willing the Democrats were to use fraud to win the presidency, but it would also show that the media had to have been in on the fraud.

Interesting times, eh?