To the editor:
In answer to Gary Gill may I offer the following. A bit long but his accusations are rather widely insinuated.
It seems the letter taking a few of my comments to task on Sept. 20 is rather another of the protective sound bites given out by Obama supporters.
First of all the Occidental records are not disclosed so how would the respondent to my previous letter even know if Obama had a scholarship or not: "Like all institutions, the school's disclosures about students are tightly governed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Those who inquire of Occidental about the record of the president will learn that Barack Obama attended Occidental from the fall of 1979 to the spring of 1981 before transferring to Columbia, and did not declare a major. And that's about it."
I was informed it was a Fulbright Scholarship but since have learned that the confusion seems to be widespread because of the hidden aspects of his "scholarship" which was known to have been given to Occidental foreign students but Obama's status is kept under lock and key: "The Fulbright Program offers grants to study, teach and conduct research for U.S. citizens to go abroad and non-U.S. citizens to come to the United States." Perhaps his card carrying communist grandparents or his mentor Frank Marshall Davis, another card carrying communist, may well have paid for him to attend not only Occidental but Columbia and Harvard too, all very high tuition schools as well as the admission to even his grammar school in Indonesia at a cost of $5,000 a year; quite expensive back in that time when he attended both Catholic and Indonesian public schools where he was listed as being a citizen of Indonesia and a Muslim. He later attended the country's largest private high school, Punahou in Honolulu, Hawaii, a school for the wealthy and elite and again under a scholarship. Huh!
And let us be quite clear about his so-called birth certificate. It was not a birth certificate but a "Certificate of Live Birth" provided to anyone who requested it... proof of birth need not be validated to obtain a COB. To further add to the confusion even today in Hawaii many foreign born are still being awarded said certificate, itself a travesty. And if the first of those COBs was legitimate (which it wasn't) then why the need to submit a second one seemingly "corrected?" And if there was such a certificate why was the original not provided instead of a facsimile? For anyone to even apply for a passport the passport agency requires an original birth certificate with a clearly marked imprinted stamp (I had to do just that myself, no copy permitted). If Obama could not provide such a document how then did he get a U.S. passport when it is required of everyone else? He did go to Pakistan, did he not? Then what passport did he use and if a U.S. passport what proof of birth did he provide? Surely not a facsimile of a obscure certificate not accepted as legitimate except perhaps by Kool-Aid drinkers.
And the Social Security card fiasco has never been explained, as if it could be. His Social Security number is one issued in Connecticut, a state Obama never lived in nor does he have family residing there. And that card number had been registered to a man who died in Hawaii without ever making any claims for Social Security benefits himself. How convenient that all the connections go back to Hawaii.
Neil Sankey was hired to conduct research on Obama's prior addresses and Social Society numbers. Using Intelius, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and other public records, Sankey validated two Social Security numbers Obama gave while living at different addresses, one beginning with 042 and one starting 364. How many more might there be?
Then we have his Selective Service registration which was scrubbed to make it seem to have been issued in 1980 but actually issued in 1988.
Michelle's license to practice law was court ordered inactive as per IARDC. And Barack voluntarily surrendered his but the reasons are sealed as are most of his other records. Seems a lot of Dems "voluntarily" surrendered their law licenses. Bill Clinton as an example but in his case we know why - he committed perjury.
Insofar as Medicare goes let us look at the facts: More and more Americans are discovering that ObamaCare is to be partially funded by more than $700 billion taken from Medicare. How does that benefit those of us on Medicare? Romney-Ryan have promised to reverse those cuts. They will protect Medicare for all of those over 55 and keep it for them as it is and give choices to those under 55, even to keep Medicare or other voluntary options to be offered. But they will preserve Medicare, not destroy it by using the invalid argument that a $700 billion reduction will not hurt the recipients but the providers. That is poppycock for it will only lessen the services to those even in the current program. Personally I would rather have the Romney/Ryan goal than be thrown into a fully controlled ObamaCare where we are surely headed which will eventually become a "one payer program" and will be the requirement if no funds left for Medicare. That leaves only one choice before Americans this fall: Do we want a strengthened and reinvigorated Medicare, or do we want ObamaCare? We can't have both.
Mrs. Diane L. Logan