I learn from The Washington Times today that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has opened a new front in his civil war with the Obama administration -- involving (gasp!) the card Barack Obama filled out in 1980 to register for a draft we never actually had:
Lead investigator Michael Zullo of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (ARIZ) "Cold Case Posse" dispatched an urgent letter on Wednesday to Selective Service System Director Lawrence Romo, demanding to know if the federal agency has custody of microfilm which presumably contains President Barack Obama’s draft registration form....
The letter follows Sunday's discovery by Communities @WashingtonTimes.com that the Selective Service System published new privacy rules, changing the status of microfilm copies of draft registration forms from "federal records" to "nonrecords".
Nonrecord microfilm copies are subject to disposal.
The new privacy rules were published September 20, 2011, four days after a report in World Net Daily that Sheriff Joe Arpaio was opening a "Cold Case Posse" investigation to explore allegations that a copy of President Obama's draft card released in 2008 is a forgery....
Yes -- back in mid-September 2011, Arpaio started this little publicity stunt/fishing expedition ... and then, a few days later, the feds announced new regulations to destroy old archived Selective Service records (PDF). Coincidence???
Um, maybe. Also in 2011, I see that rules were put in place that led to the destruction of millions of federal court records concerning cases that never went to trial. This was done (see the linked story) as a way to save money on storage. It's my understanding that people have jobs that involve deciding this stuff, and sometimes they decide that certain old records need to go. (This seems especially likely to have happened at federal agencies as a result of the post-2010 budget-cut mania.)
But Arpaio and The Washington Times don't believe that. Nor does (naturally) World Net Daily, which thinks the Obama registration form that was made public four years ago is fraudulent -- in part because the Post Office date stamp on the form shows the year as "80" rather than "1980." No, really:
The folks at WND actually attempted to figure out how you would make a Post Office date stamp that didn't include the "19," and decided to reverse-engineer such a weapon of truth destruction using an X-Acto knife:
It's never made entire clear why, if the people around Obama were creating a forgery, they would actually want to do this. It's also never pointed out that date stamps, um, aren't exactly built to last. They're made of thin metal and rubber. They wear out. Obama's post office was in Honolulu. You think perhaps metal and rubber lose their ability to deliver precision performance after a few years (or decades) of use in salty, humid air?
Some wingnuts have been on this beat for years. Debbie "Why Am I Not as Famous as Pam Geller?" Schussel began squinting at the Obama Selective Service card shortly after it was released. Here's just a taste of what she wrote abouit it shortly after the '08 election:
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.
Well, obviously! Who could argue with that?
The odd thing is that, whereas the wackos think we can't trust the Obama birth certificates (both versions) because we have computerized reproductions and not paper copies, in this case they have a paper copy and are demanding to see microfilm. And, of course, if they ever get microfilm and it doesn't reveal that they're right, they'll say that was forged. This really never has to end for these people.
So...Debbie Dumber is saying there couldn't have been a February 1980 form because it wouldn't have been allowed by a law that went into effect in December 1980? Do I have that right?
ReplyDeleteArpaio's forte is pursuing bogus lawsuits and using legal means of harassment against his "opponents" to dodge investigations. Is it a surprise this surfaces now when he is under investigation?
ReplyDeleteLook on the bright side, digging into these oddball conspiracy theories does keep them occupied, at least part of the time.
ReplyDeleteOk, folks, they've figured it out - that Obama is an alien Pesto-being from the planet Basil, in the Alpha-Delicioso galaxy.
ReplyDeleteNow, it's time to have him step down from the Presidency, and, to destroy the evidence, either take individual leaves off of him and use him in soups, salads, and sandwichs; or dry him, crumble him, store him, and use him later.
OY!
How do you prove to morons who don't want to use their brains, and instead depend on their beliefs, that that which has already been established, vouched for, and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, IS, IN FACT, FOR REAL!!!
If they think 4 + 4 = 5, there's not a damn thing you can do about it to prove that it isn't - including bringing out, and having them count, two pairs of cookies - too Communist!; two pairs of salami's - too Socialist'; two pairs of knockwurst - too Fascist!; or two pairs of watermelons - waaaaay too Kenyan!!!
If only these people had stayed in their relatives basements and attic's, like mentally-deficient people of yore...
AND THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BREED!!!
Conspiratorial delusionaries aside, there is an aspect of the whole Arpaio situation that may prove troublesome for O: Janet Napolitano's apparently cozy relationship with Sheriff Joe, which seems to have let him off the hook back in '97 when she was the Az US Atty and a prior federal civil rights suit was filed against him. She filed the suit, all right, but that was about it - a settlement was reached but then apparently never enforced by the Justice Dept. 5 years later, after Napolitano had been elected Az state AG, Sheriff Joe crossed party lines to do a TV ad supporting her candidacy for governor. If nothing else, it makes you wonder how well Holder & Napolitano get along these days.
ReplyDeleteOT to Victor: Don Douglas has been arguing with me on Twitter, and I have to say he's doing everything he can to prove you right. I still say it's Jim Hoft, but boy, Douglas is sure putting up a fight...
ReplyDelete