|
November 14, 2008
Did Obama Register For Selective Service
Read this and let me know what you think. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 11.14.08 at 06:37 PM
Comments
Whether he did or not is a waste of good time and energy. I somehow you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did not, what next? There were several good reasons for the people who stayed home to come out and vote for McCain to keep Obama out of office--this was not among them. Larry Sheldon · November 14, 2008 08:43 PM Move on! what difference does it make? Anonymous · November 14, 2008 10:03 PM Get over losing the election.Nothing better to do? peterfrazier · November 14, 2008 10:08 PM I can unequivocally state that this does not change my opinion Barack Hussein Obama one bit. ;) Maybe Vince Foster altered these records right before, or after, he was murdered to cover up his torrid lesbian affair with Hillary. More seriously, Obama just got elected president. He is soon going to be inaugurated. He is soon going to serve in that office. He might be a success, which means this sort of crap is nitpicking. Or, more likely, he will do unspeakably horrible things in office and we won't need to mention penny-ante crap like this. Either way, this is irrelevant crap. Move on dot now. Rhodium Heart · November 14, 2008 10:52 PM R.H, Not registering is a crime and opens you up to penalties. In 1980, young men who knew they were required to register and did not do so could face up to five years in jail or a fine up to $50,000 if convicted. The potential fine was later increased to $250,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System In reality it is a character issue more than a legal one. And of course it is all part of my effort to accord him the respect that the Democrats gave Bush. M. Simon · November 15, 2008 12:04 AM M Simon: At the risk of sounding elitist, here's the point: We're better than they are. We don't stoop to their behavior simply because our side lost an election. Our love of country is not conditional, por ejemplo. You'll have plenty of live ammunition with which to attack after January 20. Patience, my friend. Patience. Rhodium Heart · November 15, 2008 12:44 AM RH, Of course we are better than they are. And in my efforts to undermine the bad policies of the Obama administration I promise not to use foul language to excess. But investigating the man is not off limits. And if documents were changed I think that bears scrutiny. I take no position on it at this point. Suspicions have been raised and ought to be investigated. And if in fact he violated the law I think a simple apology would suffice. However, if some one forged documents they should be prosecuted. M. Simon · November 15, 2008 01:02 AM The "document" is a digital image, and it could be anything, done by anyone, for reasons unknown. Without seeing the original, there's no way to know. Either you take Schlussel at her word or not that the following is true: 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.I'd like to see some independent confirmation before taking it seriously. Has anyone trustworthy examined the original? Words on a blog aren't enough to convince me, let alone a federal prosecutor. And even if you trust Schlussel, I think Reagan's rule of "trust but verify" applies. Eric Scheie · November 15, 2008 01:18 AM I agree with Eric. BTW I blog about what interests me. I find this interesting. I'm not convinced it is true. However, I'm not convinced it is false either. M. Simon · November 15, 2008 02:12 AM It certainly looks interesting. I'm always skeptical, but where it comes to documents, my natural skepticism is compounded by my legal training -- in this case establishing a foundation. Saying a document was posted by a blogger who says it came "from a friend" is not enough. Even if it were a paper document, Schlussel would have to show that it was an authentic government record, and provide names and titles of the people who prepared it. But here it isn't even paper. Without more, an image is the equivalent of art. There are too many unknowns, because even if we assume Schlussel is a reliable journalist, what do we know about her anyonymous source? Or the source's source? If someone created a digital image of a Kenyan birth certificate showing Barack Obama's birth there, then forwarded it (say, from an IP in Africa) to a reliable blogger who posted it on his website, lots of people would believe it, and it would be a big hit in terms of traffic, but that wouldn't make it authentic. You'd need an official piece of paper. Eric Scheie · November 15, 2008 10:51 AM I understand that there's an element of "it's not the crime, it's the cover up" to your intrigue, M Simon. The failure of a teenager in 1980 to register for the draft is not nearly as important as a presidential campaign creating phoney government as part of a cover-up. I just don't want any part of a grand mal conspiracy theory that claims Obama didn't register for the draft because he wasn't a U.S. citizen. 'cuz you know that's next. I just think that fighting over penny-ante stuff detracts from the fight on legitimate issues. And a Democratic Party that is hell-bent on subsidizing failure in Detroit, and protecting obscenely high compensation packages for the highest-paid industrial workers in the world, at the expense of people who tightened their belts when tough times hit, that's going to be significantly more important to fight about. (The willingness to subsidize obscene compensation packages for the idiots who destroyed AIG and the Wall Street investment banking houses appears to be disgustingly bipartisan.) Rhodium Heart · November 15, 2008 12:36 PM RH, My take (assuming it is not a citizenship issue which is probably a good assumption) is that he was philosophically opposed to the draft and didn't register. BTW forging documents is not a petty issue. It gets us a "memory hole" government where trust in government records is gone. Which is to say it is a corruption issue. M. Simon · November 15, 2008 02:01 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2008
October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Side Effects
A Government So Inept It Couldn't Make A Profit On A Whorehouse The most solemnist pledge I'll ever make Imbalanced fear What is a skeptic? Finally, a connection! What Is Wrong With Detroit? Buckypaper The Sordid History Of The Marriage License In America Oye Como Va
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Yes he registered- obviously somebody is playing with copies on a repro machine.