Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Monday, November 17, 2008

Obama Selective Service Registration: Another Record, Another Question



Your Ad Here


Barack Obama, Selective Service Registration:
Questions, More Questions, Still More Questions




No Curiosity Excited in the Mainstream Media
About Obama's Selective Service Registration





Say what you will, Debbie Schlussel is interesting.

Last week, the motor behind debbieschlussel.com posted an interesting article about the Selective Service registration of Barack Obama. Multiple screenshots--complete with letters A-H highlighting areas that raised questions--make the provocative post must-reading for anyone who has wondered about the squeaky-clean, scrubbed Obama narrative.

In our opinion, Schlussel gets some things right, while other items are a bit less clear. One claim Schlussel makes that falls into the "dubious" category: Obama signed his name with a peace sign. Our view is that this is an overly-dramatic interpretation; interested readers can visit Schlussel's site, examine the BHO signature and make their own judgment.

DBKP attempted to contact Schlussel, but got no response.

From EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama's Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions:

Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?

It's either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama's official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.


Breitbart TV's B-Cast did an informative show on the subject, interviewing Schussel, who walked viewers through the document and the questions about its authenticity.

Though the video is 30 minutes, it's well worth watching for those who are interested in our next Commander-in-Chief's past. Many pieces of the Obama puzzle are, and have been, hidden from public view--including birth, medical, college and university records.

During the campaign, the Mainstream Media exhibited a singular lack of curiosity about their Fab Fave candidate and his past, preferring instead to quote from Obama's two memoirs or the campaign's canned answers.

Inquires about actual records--which would've helped shed light on Obama's background--was a subject that, like the John Edwards' Scandal--remained off-limits in the polite MSM conversations that passed for election news.




ALSO at DBKP: The Missing Records of Barack Obama

* Unreleased Obama Records: Did Obama Attend Columbia?
* Obama Records: Obama Medical, College, University, Other Records Still Hidden
* Obama College, Medical, Birth Records: Who is Barack Obama?
* Obama Medical Records: MSM’s Don’t Ask, Obama’s Don’t Tell Policy
* Obama Records: Obama Campaign Still Refuses to Release Medical, Other Records


Medical Records
Occidental College Records
Columbia University Records
Harvard University Records
Birth Records
University of Chicago Records
Khalidi Video







QUESTIONS:
Barack Obama's Selective Service Registration

The Video



Schlussel's document source--a retired federal employee--does enough detective work to excite interest in normally-inquisitive reporters. Normally-inquisitive reporters are in short supply in the MSM, however, when the subject turns to favored presidential candidates.

In a later update to Schlussel's original post, she provides some information on her source. Schlussel's source is no pajamas-clad basement dweller:

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.


About the image at Schlussel's site: it was noted that the date stamped on the form provided by Selective Service and the date on the signature line were different. The differing dates between when the SSR form was signed and the date stamped on the form?

It could be just an honest mistake.

Several other parts of the document are not so easily explained away, particularly the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form.

Obama supporters have claimed that the documents are fake--what else would they say?--but Schlussel has updated her post today with a copy of the letter that Coffman received from the Selective Service Administration, along with the document.






Another Honest Mistake?

Back in September 2007, Newsbusters' Tom Blumer made a quick fact check on another of Obama's Selective Service registration claims. From O-Busted: Selective Service Requirement Did Not Exist When Obama Says He Registered:

In his hilariously titled post ("Mighta Joined If He Coulda Capped Some Cong") on Barack Obama's interview in a barn this morning (not kidding) on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, fellow NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein reported on Obama's answer to a viewer's question about whether he ever considered military service. You can read Mark's post for his overall thoughts, but I want to focus on something the Illinois senator said that several commenters at the post took exception to:

You know, I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. .... But keep in mind: I graduated in 1979.

There are only two "little" problems:

  1. Selective Service Registration was not possible in 1979.
  2. Bob Owens at Pajamas Media noted that Obama registered with the Selective Service with an effective date of September 4, 1980.


Could be another example of another honest mistake.




At least Selective Service has provided some documentation. Previously--at least in February 2008--there was no Selective Service number for Barack Obama at the Selective Service website.

President Bush released his Selective Service Registration Number, why won't Senator Obama?

His campaign just sidesteps the issues as to whether he did register.

The Selective Service, while not releasing his number, claim that the reason you get "No Record Found" when you check for his registation on their website (www.sss.gov ) is because of a dataprocessing error. It seems out of the millions and millions of records, Senator Obama's is the only one that does not show up!


Perhaps, it was just another honest mistake.




One More Honest Mistake?

Bob Owens at Pajamas Media addressed Internet chatter about the Obama Selective Service issue in August 2008, "Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?". It should be noted that Owens wrote his piece without benefit of the document provided by Schlussel's source.

It is a rumor that the Obama campaign has chosen to ignore despite numerous requests, and it is a rumor that even Snopes couldn’t seem to confirm or deny definitively.

After contacting the Selective Service System for an answer several times since late June, Pajamas Media obtained official confirmation from the Selective Service System via email that Barack Obama did indeed register for the Selective Service as required by law, and is eligible to run for the presidency.

Mr. Owens,

Barack Hussein Obama registered at a post office in Hawaii. The effective registration date was September 4, 1980.

His registration number is 61-1125539-1.

Daniel Amon
Public Affairs Specialist



While we agree with most of what Owens usually writes, he seems to belong to a subset of bloggers who ascribe all questions concerning the murkiness surrounding Obama's documentation as "rumor-mongers" or "conspiracy theorists".



Prior to September 2008, we included ourselves in this subset. However, the increasing questions about most things in the past of Barack Obama have moved us into another group: the "Missouri-minded".

As in, "Show me".

It seems to us that one, two, possibly three questions concerning Obama records and documents might be given a pass.

But, everything?

When dealing with Obama's background, an incredible pattern of coincidences--which we don't believe--occurs. Whatever the document, whatever the question: the Obama campaign ignored it--until the issue became troublesome.

Then, they would release only enough of an answer to satisfy the very few in the MSM who'd had the brass to ask. Supporters and apologists would then rush in to condemn anyone who wanted a follow-up answer.

Obama's campaign started a website to combat rumors: fightthesmears.com. The only problem, it didn't. Picking and choosing mostly straw-men, the website was a brilliant concept: label inconvenient information that didn't fit the campaign/media narrative about the candidate as "smears".

The Obama campaign used its Internet site to discredit other Internet sites with which it disagreed. Any story that threatened to gain traction was branded a "smear" and relegated to fightthesmears.com, where Obama's thin resume/record was repackaged as Internet fact, wrapped with a bow of indignation.

Harkening back to the 1990s, it's remembered that "conspiracy theorist" was applied to those publications (notably American Spectator) which uncovered uncomfortable questions concerning Bill and Hillary Clinton's past.

When Hillary Clinton ran for the Democratic nomination for presidency, a now pro-Obama MSM--which derided those with questions over Hillary's cattle futures and other bits and pieces from Arkansas when they mattered--suddenly ran many of those stories 10-15 years after the fact.

Barack Obama and his apologists apparently remember that particular lesson very well: like the 1990s Clintons, persistent questions about the sanitized version of Obama only come from "conspiracy theorists".


by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file; wikimedia




Monday, November 10, 2008

Barack Obama's Election: Presidential Winners, 1900-2008



Your Ad Here


Barack Obama's Election:
Most Popular President-elects?




Not Really:
Obama Ranks in Bottom Half of Last 28 Election Winners
In Both Popular Vote Percentage, Electoral College




The CNN story "Belief that country heading in right direction is at all-time low", prompted a response by Amanda Terkel, who said that the "Least popular president meets one of the most popular president-elect."

Terkel refers to a Gallup poll taken after the November 4 election showing that Barack Obama has a 70% favorability rating.

Of course, the most reliable poll is the one voters participated in two days before the Gallup Poll--which was one of the most unreliable prior to Election Day--when they cast votes for their choice. By that most reliable of polls, Obama's favorability is nothing special, history-wise.

In the 28 U.S. elections held since 1900, Obama finishes in the bottom half in both popular vote percentage and electoral vote totals.

Obama's 65+ million votes is the most in terms of absolute votes cast. But, by that standard of popularity, George Washington is the least popular president ever. It's likely that the number of votes the winning candidate receives will continue to go up with each election, as the U.S. population increases.

Several presidential winners who ranked below Obama were involved in three-way races, which lowered their totals. Among the winners of these multi-candidate races were: Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996; Ronald Reagan in 1980; and Richard Nixon in 1968.





Popular Vote Percentage
U.S. Presidential Elections, 1900-2008



  1. 61.1% - Lyndon Johnson 1964
  2. 60.8% - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1936
  3. 60.7% - Richard M. Nixon 1972
  4. 58.8% - Ronald Reagan 1984
  5. 60.3% - Warren G. Harding 1920
  6. 58.2% - Herbert Hoover 1928
  7. 57.4% - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1956
  8. 57.4% - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1932
  9. 56.4% - Theodore Roosevelt 1904
  10. 55.2% - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1952
  11. 54.7% - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1940
  12. 54.0% - Calvin Coolidge 1924
  13. 53.4% - George H. Bush 1988
  14. 53.4% - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1944
  15. 52.6% - Barack Obama 2008
  16. 51.6% - William H. Taft 1908
  17. 51.6% - William B. McKinley 1900
  18. 50.7% - Ronald Reagan 1980
  19. 50.7% - George H.W. Bush 2004
  20. 50.1% - Jimmy Carter 1976
  21. 49.7% - John F. Kennedy 1960
  22. 49.6% - Harry Truman 1948
  23. 49.24%- Bill Clinton 1996
  24. 49.2% - Woodrow Wilson 1916
  25. 47.9% - George H.W. Bush 2000
  26. 43.4% - Richard M. Nixon 1968
  27. 43.0% - Bill Clinton 1992
  28. 41.8% - Woodrow Wilson 1912





Electoral Vote Total,
U.S. Presidential Elections 1900-2008



  1. 525 - Ronald Reagan 1984
  2. 523 - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1936
  3. 520 - Richard Nixon 1972
  4. 489 - Ronald Reagan 1980
  5. 486 - Lyndon Johnson 1964
  6. 472 - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1932
  7. 457 - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1956
  8. 449 - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1940
  9. 444 - Herbert Hoover 1928
  10. 442 - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1952
  11. 435 - Woodrow Wilson 1912
  12. 432 - Franklin D. Roosevelt 1944
  13. 426 - George H. Bush 1988
  14. 404 - Warren G. Harding 1920
  15. 382 - Calvin Coolidge 1924
  16. 379 - Bill Clinton 1992
  17. 370 - Bill Clinton 1992
  18. 364 - Barack Obama 2008
  19. 336 - Theodore Roosevelt 1904
  20. 321 - William H. Taft 1908
  21. 303 - Harry Truman 1948
  22. 303 - John F. Kennedy 1960
  23. 301 - Richard Nixon 1968
  24. 297 - Jimmy Carter 1976
  25. 292 - William McKinley 1900
  26. 286 - George H.W. Bush 2004
  27. 277 - Woodrow Wilson 1916
  28. 271 - George H.W. Bush 2000







There was one yardstick by which Barack Obama could be called "the most popular president-elect"--number of times he's appeared on the cover of TIME before he was elected. [Obama’s Constant Time Cover Status: TIME Hearts Obama] Obama appeared on 10 TIME covers in the 42 weeks before the 2008 election.

Obama still has quite a way to go to pass the man with the most TIME covers, Richard Nixon. Nixon appeared on TIME's cover 55 times over 4 decades.

Obama has passed the women featured on TIME's cover: Princess Diana and The Virgin Mary, each with eight.

We'll leave the Messiah jokes for the comments.

by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file
Sources:
* Presidential Elections, 1789–2008
* Wikipedia
* Guiness World Records




Saturday, September 27, 2008

McCain-Obama Debate: MSM Declares Obama Winner



Your Ad Here

Debate Winners Decided By Mainstream Media
But Only 19% Trust the MSM
A short history of the past several debates "winners"




Big Media Declare Victory for Its Candidate


Who won the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama?

Depends on who you ask.

Debate winners are in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder is a member of the Mainstream Media, you already knew the answer to the question before the debate was held.

THE USUAL SUSPECTS

* Washington Post - The Debate: An Edge for Obama
* CNN - Round 1 in Debate Goes to Obama, Poll Says
* Time - Grading the First Presidential Debate (Time's Mark Halperin--surprise!--gave the win to Obama.)
* CBS - CBS Poll: Obama Boosted Most by Debate


Rewind four years: back to the first Kerry-Bush debate. What judgment did our impartial media render then?

* ABC - Poll: Kerry Wins Debate, But No Change
* CNN - Polls: Kerry Won Debate
* CBS - Poll: Bush And Kerry Tied; Democratic Challenger Bounces Back After First Debate


Eight years ago, who won the first debate between Al Gore and George Bush?

The Daily Howler: "Gore won every instant poll that night, polls taken right after viewers watched his disgraceful conduct."


So, who won the first debate?

Readers can see that one of the favorite vehicles for MSM stories about debate "winners" is the poll. Another favorite: ask another MSM member who won.

CBS News issued their press release in the guise of another poll: predictably it claimed a win for--surprise!--Barack Obama.

Thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-four percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-seven percent saw it as a draw.


Who won last night's debate?

Depends on who you ask.

FAST FACTS:

Today is Barack Obama's 1342nd day in the U.S. Senate. He's spent 45%, or 602 of those days, campaigning for president. Obama has authored no major legislation. He's been in one presidential debate, that on the 601st day of his perpetual campaign.

Obama's voted "present" 129 times during his three years, eight months and 3 days in the Senate. Not "yes"; not "no": "present".

2007 Poll:
19.6% - trust the American Mainstream Media news organizations to deliver "news".
23.9% - believe little or nothing that comes out of the MSM;
55.3% - believe some of what Big Media spews.


by Mondo Frazier
image: no blood for hubris



Wednesday, September 10, 2008

NRA: Obama Would Be "Most Anti-Gun President in American History"

Readers Can Be the Judge:
"I'm Not Going to Take Away Your Guns"
vs.
"Bitter, Clinging to Religion and Guns"


[Click image to enlarge.]


The National Rifle Association has just stepped into the fray, sending out a mailing about Barack Obama and his history of support for anti-gun legislation, according to Politico's Jonathan Martin.

The NRA is sending out a mailer attacking Barack Obama on gun issues to four million members, according to spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.

The gun-rights group is also sending the piece out to gun stores, gun shows and wherever shooters and sportsmen gather.

According to Politico, the NRA is printing six million copies.

Obama says, "I'm not going to take away your guns."

But, as in so much Obamabilia: the record and actions say something else altogether.


by Mondoreb

image: NRA

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

John Edwards Affair: Exclusive Pix; Fox Helping Edwards' Timeline



Your Ad Here

NEW EXCLUSIVE DBKP Pix!
Fox News Asking Questions That DBKP Readers Knew the Answers to Weeks Ago
Revisionist Edwards History
An Appeal to DBKP Readers:
Put on your Investigative Thinking Caps



[ABOVE: Rielle Hunter still in the picture, shooting video of John Edwards, Edwards' parents, Wallace and Bobbie Edwards, at Chapel Hill NC on December 30, 2006. Hunter also took pictures of John and Elizabeth Edwards that day, as well as pictures of John and Elizabeth and their three children--DBKP Exclusive photo.]

Roger Friedman at Fox News.com, in his headline asks the question, "How much did Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards’ wife, know about his affair with Rielle Hunter and when did she know it?"

Friedman begins with a nifty bit of revisionist history:

Edwards has said that he told his wife about the affair “at the end of 2006” and that everything ended after that. Indeed, within days of the end of 2006, Web videos produced by Hunter about Edwards disappeared from his campaign Web site and from YouTube.


We realize that Friedman and Company have only lately come onto the John Edwards story--though sooner than the rest of the Mainstream Media--and might be excused for putting "end of 2006" in quotes.

[Background information: access over 100 DBKP stories on the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair, scandal and cover-up: John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library.]

In all fairness to Fox News: it was Fox who was the only broadcast outlet to report on the Edwards affair by confirming that John Edwards had been caught by reporters of the National Enquirer in the Beverly Hilton, after visiting mistress Rielle Hunter.

But to anyone who's followed the Edwards' story closely, Edwards has never said that the "end of 2006" was when his affair ended.



To make sure, we re-examined both Edwards August 8 statement and the transcripts of his ABC Nightline interview.

In his statement to the press, Edwards said, "With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then."

Nothing there about the "end of 2006". How about in his Nightline interview?

In 2006 2 years ago, I made a very serious mistake. A mistake that I am responsible for and no one else. In 2006 I told Elizabeth about the mistake, asked her for her forgiveness, asked God for his forgiveness. And we have kept this within our family since that time. All of my family knows about this and just to be absolutely clear, none of them are responsible for it. I am responsible for it. I alone am responsible for it. And it led to this most recent incident at the Beverly Hilton. I was at the Beverly Hilton. I was there for a very simple reason, because I was trying to keep this mistake that I had made from becoming public.


Nothing there, either.

That was all that Edwards said in his Nightline interview on the subject, displaying some fancy footwork in response to a later Bob Woodruff question, "How long did it last and when exactly did it end?"

Well, here's the way I feel about this Bob. I think that my family is entitled to every detail. They've been told every detail. Elizabeth knows absolutely everything. I think beyond the basics, the fact that I made this mistake and I'm responsible for it and no one else. I think that's where it stops in terms of the public because I think everything else is within my family and those privacy boundaries ought to be respected.


As that is the last time that Edwards has spoken on the record about the matter, we're wondering where Friedman got the "end of 2006" info from? Any readers care to help out here?

Did John Edwards ever say that his affair ended at the end of 2006? Or is Roger Friedman a DBKP reader who saw the photo below and is covering up for Edwards?




The DBKP pic is of Edwards, wife Elizabeth and Rielle Hunter at Chapel Hill NC on December 30, 2006. It is the only one that shows the three together that late in the year.

Friedman's piece was in the "Entertainment" section of Fox News--odd in itself--along with references to Mickey Rourke and the Golden Globes' Espresso Machine.

The story does relate that an unnamed source clues Friedman to the fact that Elizabeth Edwards had the videos of Hunter pulled down from the Internet and that they were replaced by "new videos made by a videographer who’d worked for Elizabeth Edwards’ brother, Jay Anania. Peter Cairns had worked for Anania on a project called Commedia and a video called “The Lost Hours.”"

Jay Anania, readers may recall, is the guy who helped Elizabeth Edwards pick out John Edwards' 'favorite' movie, Dr. Strangelove for a Turner Classic Movies' appearance in 2004--a movie John Edwards had never watched.

Friedman's source does reveal an interesting point: Elizabeth Edwards' 2007 addendum to the peperback edition of her memoir:


In a chapter added to the paperback edition of Edwards’ memoir, "Saving Graces," the former senator’s wife observes that in 2007: “My brother Jay had a wonderful young man, Peter Cairns, who worked for him, and Peter had begun videotaping the campaign, the events and behind the scenes. We had tried it before but the process of getting the film from the camera to the internet — where I and the public could watch John took much too long.”

(An e-mail and a phone call to Cairns on Monday were each unreturned.) Of course, that wasn’t the case. When Hunter shot her videos, sources tell me, a dedicated Internet technician was part of the deal, and managed to get all her videos up on Edwards’ campaign site immediately.


This is a valuable observation in a story where not only the principals have either lied and then clammed up--John Edwards, Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young--but have clammed up since.

It's to be noted that after our picture was published, the timeline on Edwards' affair with Hunter and Elizabeth's knowledge of it have shifted like the sand through an hourglass.

The Fox article also notes some interesting passages in the material Elizabeth Edwards added to the 2007 paperback edition of her memoirs.

Finally, Friedman notes that Elizabeth Edwards' paperback edition of "Saving Greaces" isn't dedicated to her husband, but to her four children.

“For Wade, Cate, Emma Claire, and Jack. This is a small offering, for no mother has ever been more blessed.” John Edwards -- aside from his mentions in the narrative of the book — gets nothing but an aside in the acknowledgments at the end — “my beloved John,” sandwiched in between Elizabeth’s parents and her daughter “precious Cate.”


DBKP has more pictures unpublished. We have been waiting for the Edwards to make further statements on the affair, scandal and cover-up.

But, just as John Edwards was asked no questions from November 29, 2007 until late July 2008 about his affair with Rielle Hunter, the Mainstream press has ditched all investigative interest in the story--outside of ABC News pursuing the Fred Baron Money Trail.

Don't expect them to spend much time on the story: the 11 days the MSM spent on the story from August 8-19 apparently wore out their investigative muscles--although the NY Times is supposedly hot on the trail of a Duke University student with whom Edwards allegedly had another affair.

Disposition of Edwards' campaign money, Fred Baron, hush money payments and further curiosities just don't interest the watchdogs in our adversarial press. But don't think for a moment that the MSM isn't an adversarial press.

Their coverage of John McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin, over the last 10 days puts the lie to that myth.

[NOTE: Did we make a mistake? Or did Roger Friedman? Is there any references to John Edwards stating that he ended his affair at the "end of 2006" that you can find? Leave a comment or send an email. A footnote to history may await you. Thanks!]


by Mondoreb
images: dbkp