Wednesday, October 23, 2013
A Real Birth Certificate vs. An Obama Birth Certificate
I thought I had lost that one (turns out my ex-wife took it with her by mistake) so, more recently, I wrote to my home state for a replacement and received this.
The new version is a "sanitized" version of the old one but printed on new technology paper. Clearly the original has a lot more information than the current form, although the current one is much more handsome an official document (although mine is a little worn).
I still want to see the President's early 1960s copy technology, so called long form birth certificate and the information it contains which the current one does not have, if any. Don't bother calling me a nut or a racist. I just want to see it because it's there (hidden).
I also want to see the President's grades (as I've recently looked at Romney's in high school; and I also know McCain's awful class rank and I previously saw President Bush's and John Kerry's grades at Yale). Part of the reason for my curiosity is that I strongly suspect the President's grades were bad and thus Obama's ability to get into good schools becomes nearly inexplicable. Nearly.
Isn't more information always better than less?
Labels: Birther Curiosity
Mitt Romney's birth certificate used today's technology; it was not the original. And, in contrast to Mitt Romney, Obama's birth certificate has been confirmed repeatedly by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, and the fact that Obama was issued a birth certificate by Hawaii in 1961 was also confirmed by the public Index Data file and by the birth notices sent to the "Health Bureau Statistics" section of the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii.
And, by the way, there isn't even evidence that Obama's mother HAD A PASSPORT in 1961----and very very few 18-year-olds did have passports in 1961.
Why? You did not see Mitt Romney's grades, or Bill Clinton's or Bush41's or Reagan's or Carter's or Ford's or Nixon's. And yet, for some reason, you want to see Obama's grades. Why? You suspect that they were bad grades, but you do not suspect that Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton and Reagan had bad grades---why? And, here is the killer, you suspect that the president who graduated from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude (and we know that because Harvard Law School said so) had bad grades, and yet you do not suspect that Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton had bad grades---why?
And, as you can see, MOST presidents and presidential candidates do not show their grades (neither Bush nor Kerry showed their grades, they were leaked by sources at Yale), and yet you think that Obama should show his grades. Well, he won't, and he doesn't have to, and he won the presidential elections twice anyway.
By the way, we still do not know the grades of Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson. Harvard and Princeton regard them as private and will not release them (despite 100 years or so having passed), and this despite the fact that both Teddy and Woodrow were members of Phi Beta Kappa.
Two answers. First, he said "transparency in government." He did not say "transparency in my private life."
Second, sadly, he promised to be transparent in government, but he did not deliver on that promise. He broke that promise, like many presidents have broken promises in the past. Too bad, so sad, but he was re-elected anyway.
Re: "FWIW, if the requirement is that an office holder is a 'natural born citizen', then proof of such should be required to even get on the ballot."
Answer. But currently there is no law. So, if you would like one, then ask your congressman and senators to pass one, but currently there isn't one.
HOWEVER, the proof that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen is overwhelming. In fact, there is more proof that Obama was born in Hawaii and hence is a Natural Born Citizen due to being born on US soil than the proof that any other president was born on US soil.
It is simply nutty to think that Obama was born in a foreign country. As noted above, there isn't even evidence that Obama's mother HAD A PASSPORT in 1961----and very very few 18-year-olds did have passports in 1961. And, for Obama to have been born in a foreign country, not only would she have a passport, but she would have had to have traveled abroad late in pregnancy (which was extremely rare in 1961), and in addition to those two rare things happening, the birth certificate of Hawaii would have to have been forged, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii who have repeatedly confirmed that they sent the short form and the long form to Obama would have to be lying.
(And they would have had to have forged the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961, and the teacher who said wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth of a child to a woman named Stanley, would have to be lying too.)
I'm glad that you admit that Obama did not keep a promise about transparency but isn't it just easier to ask what promises he did keep? Thanks for the comments Jed and whomever. You're fighting a fight I gave up in the first sentence of the posting. Why so insistent about a shared belief?
So? Remember McCain's class rank at West Point?
Obama was not Phi Beta Kappa, but so what. Having had two US presidents who were in Phi Beta Kappa (Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) is sufficient. However, he was Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law School. Are you saying that you do not believe Harvard?
Re: "I believe he did do well (finally) in Law School."
And what makes that not enough (especially considering McCain's class rank and the fact that Mitt Romney also did not show his grades)? What makes doing well at law school not enough?
Re: "any Democrat media types (but I repeat myself) called him the smartest President ever."
The smartest president was probably Thomas Jefferson, but all that the American voters require is sufficient brains to do the job, and we decided that Obama had sufficient brains twice. As for some Democrats thinking that Obama is extremely smart, well, some people thought that Mitt Romney was very smart, and some even thought that George Bush was adequately smart.
Re: "Did he write anything for the Harvard Law Review when he was editor? "
One reason that he got that Magna Cum Laude was that he concentrated on his grades---anything wrong with that?
Re: "but isn't it just easier to ask what promises he did keep? "
He promised to deliver universal healthcare and delivered on that promise.
As for him not delivering on other promises, such as closing Guantanamo (which he has not done)---to bad, so sad, but we elected him anyway. That's the way elections work. We decide whether a guy is better than another one EVEN CONSIDERING THAT HE DID NOT DELIVER ON ALL THE THINGS THAT HE PROMISED (one reason being that we are well aware that the other guy, or gal, will not be able to deliver on all the things that she promised either).
In any case, (1) Obama was born in Hawaii, and the proof is overwhelming; (2) ever child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen; (3) Obama did not release his college or high school grades---but he does not have to and other presidents and presidential candidates did not do so either.
Is he doing his job?
Did he deliver universal healthcare? Tell that to the million and a half who don't have insurance any longer because of the law. I don't mind you having your own opinion on the magically wonderful intellect our President supposedly has, I mind you basing it on faith, rather than facts.
Answer: Yes, Magna Cum Laude is awarded on the basis of class ranking in terms of GRADES, and grades are given out by individual professors and instructors. Harvard Law School has the following criteria for awarding Magna Cum Laude:
As you can see, it is not the highest award (which is Summa Cum Laude), but to get a Magna you have to be in the top 10% of the class after the few people who get the Summa.
Re: "which is a position voted for by other editors where there are a few editor slots for "affirmative action" purposes)"
Answer: Possibly, but so what, we were discussing the Magna.
Re: "). On the other hand, if the MCL is for his great grades, why not show off and release them."
Answer: Turn the question around. Why show them off and release them? Why? Would it really make and impression and win Obama more votes than if he did not release his grades and simply relied on the statement of Harvard? And, wouldn't releasing his grades when McCain didn't look nasty and cruel?
Re: " Tell that to the million and a half who don't have insurance any longer because of the law."
Tell it to the 35 million who will get medical insurance that never had it before. The 1.5 million will lose their insurance temporarily and can get other insurance. The 35 million could not get it either because they could not afford it or because of pre-existing medical conditions.
John McCain had among the lowest grades in his West Point class. Mitt Romney would release only two years of his tax returns, and tried to take a federal tax deduction for his wife's PET dancing horse.
I see you're a Kool Aid Drinker about who and who were not getting insurance for pre existing conditions. 35 million is about a 1,000 times too high a figure for those few unfortunates. Best proof is the near complete lack of signers-up for the high risk pools to get insurance for just those people. They flocked to the programs by the dozens. 35 million with no insurance for any reason are certainly not signing up because of the ACA. I think it will be not even close that many more people lose health insurance they had than will gain health insurance they never had as a result of the train wreck of that idiot law's implementation. Time will tell.
You do know that Ann Romney has MS and gets a real health benefit from riding her horse (dancing?, I'm not so sure, probably capable of dressage). I wouldn't want you to sound like a heartless monster merely because of your ignorance.
Anyone who has gone to college knows that Cum Laudes, Magna Cum Laudes and Suma Cume Laudes are given only for good grades, and the link that I posted confirms this.
If you still desire confirmation, well, here is the TELEPHONE NUMBER of Harvard University, ask for the public relations department and then ask your question:
Re figures of uninsured:
The Kaiser Foundation figures that the number is considerably HIGHER than what I said, 47 million people:
This says 46 million:
In France, Britain, Germany and Canada (and a lot of other countries) EVERYBODY is entitled to free health care.
Re Ann Romney's horse. So maybe she gets health benefits from it. It is still a pet, and pets are not tax-deductible---would you like them to be tax-deductible?
Maybe Corvettes, Jaguars and Porsches should be tax-deductible. They give real medical benefits to some folks.
No thing, enforced by the government, that requires someone else's work or property is a right, it's a form of slavery.
Don't you ever get tried of being wrong both on the policy and the facts?
There are limits on medical deductions as you do or should know, but seeing eye dogs (and the latest trends of "companion" dogs) seem to be deductible just as a hand operated van is deductible for a paraplegic, for example. If Porche made a van and the paraplegic could afford it, I believe he or she could deduct it, and thus your sarcasm falls as flat as your supposed arguments.
Keep it up, man. This is fish in a barrel stuff.
So in that extremely RARE case there would have to be an achievement. There were other black students at Harvard Law School who did not get the Magna and did not get any academic honors, so at the very very least there would have had to have been an unusual achievement by Obama.
But you, because you hate him for some reason, think that Harvard Law School did not make the Magna award fairly, and that his grades may have been far lower than a Magna implies.
Well, you may have shown that it is REMOTELY POSSIBLE. But you did not show that it was done.
Re figures. I stand by them. You have not shown any other figures. The fact is, duh, that millions of people do not have health insurance because THEY CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE.
No disagreement. But that is only the start. It is not enough to get 40 million or so uninsured people to be insured.
Government action is required.
Re: "By the way, Obama was the first black editor of the law review there. That might deserve a cum laude award, right? "
First it was not cum laude, it was MAGNA cum laude. And your speculation is merely speculation. As to giving a MAGNA to the first black editor of the law review, they would hardly have done so unless his grades were ALSO good enough to be in Magna range.
And, BTW, it has occurred to me that all you showed was that SUMMA cum laude is occasionally (and that means RARELY) given for special honors other than grades. You have not shown that it ever occurred for MAGNA CUM LAUDE.
In 2016 there will be an election of a president again. A Republican candidate and a Democrat candidate will run again. Would you like it if I told the black voters in 2016 that SOME conservative Republican supporters back in 2013 seriously believed that Harvard Law School was lying about Obama willing a Magna Cum Laude, or, that Harvard Law School was misleading people by concealing the fact that Obama really did not get good grades but received a Magna Cum Laude because of being elected the president of the Law Review?
Well, that is the way that you are going. There is NO evidence whatever that Harvard is lying or misleading, and so there is no evidence whatever that Obama is not smart enough to get good grades. And, though there are bigots who refuse to believe it, there is plenty of evidence that black people are capable of earning Magnas and Summas and other academic awards.
Re Harvard tightening the cum laude award. So maybe the Magna was somewhat looser than it is today in those days too. So what? It was tight enough so that still only a small percentage of graduates got it. And, it was mainly for grades--and mainly means virtually always.
As for your stated desire to see the grades of other politicians. Good, but there is no law that requires it, and they did not show their grades either.
Obama has no more "hidden" his grades than McCain or Romney or Kerry (or Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson) did. It is not normal for politicians to show their grades. And yet you say that Obama is "hiding" his grades.
There is a motive behind you saying that Obama is "hiding" his grades, and the same motive is shown on many birther sites. Perhaps they might be able to fool a few gullible people into believing that it is normal for politicians to show their grades, and that therefore Obama must be "hiding" his grades.
But rational people who look at the claim that Obama is "hiding" his grades, when they know that other politicians have NOT shown their grades, recognize that there is a MOTIVE behind the claim.