Showing posts with label Harvard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harvard. Show all posts

Thursday, October 11, 2012

For Any That Missed This: ABC News scrambles to downplay Obama’s attendance at VP debate moderator’s wedding… Ethical? Fair?

The Daily Caller:

President Barack Obama was a guest at the 1991 wedding of ABC senior foreign correspondent and vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, The Daily Caller has learned. Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review.

After TheDC made preliminary inquiries Monday to confirm Obama’s attendance at the wedding, ABC leaked a pre-emptive statement to news outlets including Politico and The Daily Beast Tuesday, revealing what may have been internal network pressure felt just days before Raddatz was scheduled to moderate the one and only vice-presidential debate Thursday night.

Both Politico and The Daily Beast jumped to ABC and Raddatz’s defense. The Huffington Post, a liberal news outlet, joined them shortly thereafter, while calling “unusual” ABC’s attempt to kill the story before it gained wide circulation.

Genachowski — called “Jay” at the time of his wedding, sources told TheDC — and Raddatz would go on to have a son together before their divorce in 1997. They have both since remarried to other people.

A source who attended the 1991 wedding told TheDC that Obama was also a guest there, and remembered that a man by the name of “Barry Obama” was among the guests dancing at the reception.

In August, The Daily Caller first connected Genachowski, an Obama appointee, to Raddatz following her selection as the vice presidential debate moderator by the left-leaning Commission on Presidential Debates. That debate, between Congressman Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden, will take place Thursday night at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky.

Carol Platt Liebau, a political commentator who was a Harvard Law Review colleague of Genachowski and Obama, wrote that “despite being a year below both men on the Review and not close personal friends with either of them,” she remembered Genachowski and Raddatz’s relationship as “quite public” during those days, and that “Raddatz visited Boston frequently.”

Genachowski’s friendship with Obama would continue through the campaign trail in 2008 and into the White House: He aggressively fundraised for Obama in 2008 as a campaign bundler, and served on the presidential transition team before winning his appointment to chair the FCC.

On Monday evening ABC spokesman David Ford grudgingly confirmed Obama’s attendance at the wedding, after shielding Raddatz in August by declining to comment when The Daily Caller first reported the story.

“This is absurd,” Ford said, in the same statement now circulated by ABC’s media allies on the left.

Obama, Ford wrote, “attended their wedding over two decades ago along with nearly the entire Law Review, many of whom went onto successful careers, including some in the Bush administration,” he said without providing a specific number of Harvard Law Review members to verify the statement.

When pressed further on Tuesday for a specific number of Harvard Law Review members in attendance at the wedding, Ford could offer none, despite circulating the same unverified approximation through sympathetic media outlets earlier that day in order to discredit The Daily Caller’s reporting.

Ford also could not provide The Daily Caller with a specific number of Harvard Law Review members who worked with Obama and Genachowski during that year. A photo taken of the Harvard Law Review during Obama and Genachowski’s final year of law school contains 70 people.

The ABC spokesman’s assertion that “nearly the entire Law Review” attended the wedding cast doubt on the significance of Obama’s attendance. But Ford’s unwillingness to document that claim now suggests that Obama was among a close circle of fewer Harvard classmates who were personal friends of Raddatz and Genachowski.

Instead, Ford maintained his ambiguity in subsequent statements to The Daily Caller, identifying only one other Harvard Law Review classmate of Obama and Genachowski who attended the wedding.

When TheDC asked Ford via email Tuesday night for further specifics on actual numbers, he did not respond with any.

The FCC, the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign also did not respond to The Daily Caller’s request for comment.

David Martosko contributed reporting.

UPDATE: Michael Steel, a spokesman for Paul Ryan, told Fox News’ Joy Lin that he has “no concerns” about Raddatz’s conflict of interest.

Related:

Marital, personal ties link Obama administration to Commission on Presidential Debates

The Media is the Real Enemy

“Going Rogue”: Gov. Palin on Debating Biden

This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations – Paul Ryan Edition Oct 10 2012

Will Biden-Ryan Debate be a Catholic Smackdown?

FIRST Presidential Debate in Photos

Watch Salaried Obama Campaign Workers Actively Encourage Voter Fraud

Friday, March 9, 2012

Who Is Derrick Bell? Why Did Team Obama Try to Hide Him?

The Racist Ravings of Derrick Bell

By now, you may already have seen the 1991 video footage of Barack Obama, who was then a 30-year-old student at Harvard Law School, speaking in glowing terms about Harvard professor Derrick Bell, whom Obama described as a man known for “speaking the truth” and for an “excellence of … scholarship” that had not only “opened up new vistas and new horizons,” but had “changed the standards [of what] legal writing is about.” “Open up your hearts and your minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell,” Obama urged the sizable crowd which had gathered to show their support for Professor Bell that day.

Since the release of the video, Obama’s backers have been quick to dismiss it as nothing more than a young scholar’s affectionate tribute to a liberal academic icon who not only made major intellectual contributions to his profession, but who also was a leading champion of racial “diversity” in higher education. For instance, CNN host Soledad O’Brien, when interviewing Breitbart.com’s editor-in-chief Joel Pollak yesterday about the significance of the video, described Bell benignly as “the first tenured African American professor of law at Harvard University,” and characterized the gathering merely as “a rally in support of racial equality among the faculty at Harvard Law School.” O’Brien then asked her guest, with apparent bewilderment, “What part of that was the bombshell? Because I missed it. I don’t get it. What was a bombshell?”

In a similar spirit of willful blindness, Media Matters describes Derrick Bell as “a respected academic” and “an influential figure in the Civil Rights movement.” This portrayal is reminiscent of Barack Obama’s pathetic characterization, a few years back, of Bill Ayers as “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” But just as the reality of Bill Ayers was far more interesting than Obama indicated at that time, the truth about Derrick Bell is likewise far more compelling than the pablum the left has provided in the wake of this latest video. For you see, by the time Barack Obama was delivering his glowing remarks about Derrick Bell in 1991, the professor had already established—and would continue to cultivate for another two decades—a reputation as someone who thoroughly, resolutely detested the United States and who viewed the nation’s institutions and its people as irremediably racist. In short, until his death last October at the age of 80, Bell was secular academia’s version of Jeremiah Wright—a raging, fulminating racist without the clergyman’s robe. And something about his philosophy resonated strongly with Barack Obama.

Derrick Bell is best known as the founding father of Critical Race Theory, an academic discipline which maintains that society is divided along racial lines into (white) oppressors and (black) victims, similar to the way Marxism frames the oppressor/victim dichotomy along class lines. Critical Race Theory contends that America is permanently racist to its core, and that consequently its legal structures are, by definition, racist and invalid. A logical derivative of this premise, according to Critical Race Theory, is that the members of “oppressed” racial groups are entitled—in fact obligated—to determine for themselves which laws and traditions have merit and are worth observing. Such a perspective’s implications for the ability of civil society to function at all, are nothing short of monumental.

Read more HERE on Derrick Bell: Barack Obama’s First Jeremiah Wright

Below Bell  is saying that our society may not be able to exist without racism and that white people feel entitled because they are white.  Obama got the academic version of Jeremiah Wright before he was fed the theological version.

Obama’s Derrick Bell Believes White People Have A Sense Of Entitlement (Video)

Video:  Thomas Sowell on Derrick Bell

Derrick A. Bell Visited the White House Twice in 2010

by: Lachlan Markay

Visitor logs show that Derrick A. Bell visited the White House twice since President Obama took office. The logs show two visits by an individual of that name on January 29 and 31, 2010.

Derrick Albert Bell, the late Harvard professor and controversial scholar in the field of Critical Race Theory has been thrust into national headlines after conservative bloggers at Breitbart.com posted video of Obama lauding his work at a 1991 rally at Harvard.

Read more at Heritage.org

White House: No Comment on Derrick A. Bell's 2010 Visits

by Dan Riehl – Breitbart.com

Via Lachlan Markay at Heritage, we learn a Derrick A. Bell visited the Obama White House twice in 2010. The White House did not return a request for comment. The visits were on 1/29/2010, a Friday and 1/31/2010, a Sunday. For now, a web search of news reports did not turn up why Bell may have been in Washington that particular weekend.

Heritage could not independently confirm that the Derrick A. Bell listed is the same individual who spoke at the rally. The White House did not return a request for comment.

In the video, Obama tells the crowd to “Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of professor Derrick Bell.” Those words tended to be quite controversial. Bell is widely credited with pioneering the field of Critical Race Theory, a radical school of legal thought that holds that the American legal and political systems are inherently racist.

OBAMA: “Open up your hearts and your minds” to racialist prof…

But remember the beer summit and another professor… Professor and Historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr.?

Gates says Obama’s racism and radicalism just might not be Professor Bell’s fault, but rather the fault of Obama’s anti-colonialist father Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. I would say that it is a combination… Obama’s radical progressive views, his internal rage as well as his racism come from a combination of his father, Obama Sr.; his grandparents, who attended the Little Red Church where they also took Obama’s mother, were Communists; his youthful mentor Frank Marshall Davis; his college professors including Professor Bell and his pastor of 20-years Jeremiah Wright… plus everyone they connected him to. Take that cast of characters and add the indoctrination of Saul Alinsky (the Alinsky Method) and Cloward and Piven plus the puppet-master George Soros and his The Shadow Party allies and you can ask yourself, “How could Obama not be The Manchurian President?”… chosen, programmed and placed into the most powerful office in the world for just this moment in time (when America had fallen asleep, the media was controlled so no longer connected the dots and the globalists, with their tentacles in groups like the CFR were ready to make their move), still surrounded by all the same radicals or their children which includes Timothy Geithner and the ever elusive Valerie Jarrett (both have parental and childhood ties to Obama and his family and people now in Obama’s inner circle in the White House). And then there are all the unknowns.

But hold unto your hats… just when you think it can’t become anymore incestuous…

Derrick Bell article edited by Elena Kagan in college says the U.S. Constitution is the “original sin”

elena-kagan-scotus_0So not only is Elena Kagan a conflict of interest in the ObamaCARE SCOTUS case, because she was Solicitor General for Obama while the bill was being past, but she also edited an article by Derrick Bell while at Harvard that makes clear that Critical Race Theory sees the U.S. Constitution as a form of “original sin.” So not only is Kagan a conflict of interest in maybe the most important case ever to hit the Supreme Court, she is also anti-constitution that she is supposed to uphold and defend as SCOTUS judge. Great. From Breitbart:

In November 1985, the Harvard Law Review published an article by Derrick Bell that was a “classic” in the development of Critical Race Theory. The article was edited by then-student Elena Kagan, and was cited by Prof. Charles Ogletree in support of her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in 2010. The article makes clear that Critical Race Theory sees the U.S. Constitution as a form of “original sin”–a view later embraced by Obama as a state legislator, and reflected in his actions and appointments. The following is an excerpt from the non-fiction portion of the article; much of what follows is a fictional story that Bell intended as a parable of racial “fantasy.” (99 Harv. L. Rev. 4)  -  fireandreamitchell ^

h/t to MJ and AJ

Friday, July 1, 2011

Conservatives are patriotic Americans, liberals are not…

This will not come as a shock to people in the Tea Party movement.  Conservatives are patriotic, liberals are not.  This is not just a saying we have in the conservative movement.  We now have proof!

What is the proof?

From Harvard University via US News and World Report.

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend's July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.

"Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation's political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party," said the report from Harvard. [See political cartoons about the 2012 GOP field.]

"The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans," write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.

Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them.

The full story is here. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/30/har...

This is something any conservative could have told Harvard.  Liberals are not patriots.  Liberals do not love this country.  Liberals think America is the focus of evil in the modern world, not the greatest nation on the face of the world. 

The good news in that study is if you take kids to Fourth of July parades, they are much more likely to grow up conservative, support conservative causes and vote for conservative candidates.

Posted by Judson Phillips on July 1, 2011 at 8:48am in Tea Party Nation Forum  -  Send Message View Discussions

Taking traditional celebrations that build common values and patriotism out of the schools is part of the liberal plan… has been for years!

Monday, January 11, 2010

Pastor James Manning accuses Columbia University of treason, Obama in Afghanistan

Pastor Manning also states that Columbia covered for Obama and gave him grades that would allow him to enter Harvard. The Citizen Wells blog is providing background info that will lend credence to Pastor Manning's claims.


Find more videos like this on Patriotic ResistanceNotice the Toilet Paper

Watch the full video here:

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Obama's Harvard Years: Questions Swirl

How exactly did Barack Obama pay for his Harvard Law School education?

The way the Obama campaign has answered the question was simply hard work and student loans.

But new questions have been raised about Obama’s student loans and Obama’s ties to a radical Muslim activist who reportedly was raising money for Obama’s Harvard studies during the years 1988 to 1991.

The allegations first surfaced in late March, when former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was “raising money” for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.

In the interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, a Black Muslim and Black Nationalist who was a “mentor” to the founders of the Black Panther party at the time the party was founded in the early 1960s.

Sutton described al-Mansour as advisor to “one of the world’s richest men,” Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Prince Alwaleed catapulted to fame in the United States after the September 11 attacks, when New York mayor Rudy Guiliani refused his $10 million check to help rebuild Manhattan, because the Saudi prince hinted publicly that America’s pro-Israel policies were to blame for the attacks.

Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business partners and served on several corporate boards together.

As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama’s education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law School.

“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. “The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas.”

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told Newsmax that Sutton’s account was “bogus” and a “fabrication that has been retracted” by a spokesman for the Sutton family.

He referred Newsmax to a pro-Obama blog published on Politico.com by reporter Ben Smith.

In a September 3 blog entry, Smith wrote that “a spokesman for Sutton’s family, Kevin Wardally” said that Sutton had been mistaken when he made those comments about Obama and Khalid Al-Mansour.

Smith suggested the retraction “put the [Obama/Al-Mansour] story to rest for good.”

Wardally told Smith that the “information Mr. Percy Sutton imported [sic] on March 25 in a NY1 News interview regarding his connection to Barack Obama is inaccurate. As best as our family and the Chairman’s closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.”

Asked which parts of Percy Sutton’s statements were a “fabrication,” LaBolt said “all of it. Al Mansour doesn’t know Obama. And Sutton’s spokesman retracted the story. The letter [to Harvard, which Percy Sutton says he wrote on behalf of Obama], the ‘payments for loans’ — all of it, not true,” he added.

Newsmax contacted the Sutton family and they categorically denied Wardally’s claims to Smith and the Politico.com. So there was no retraction of Sutton’s original interview, during which he revealed that Khalid Al-Mansour was “raising money” for Obama and had asked Sutton to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to help him get accepted at Harvard Law School.

Sutton’s personal assistant told Newsmax that neither Mr. Sutton or his family had ever heard of Kevin Wardally.

”Who is this person?” asked Sutton’s assistant, Karen Malone.

When told that he portrayed himself as a “spokesman” for the family, Malone told Newsmax, “Well, he’s not.”

According to a 2006 New York magazine profile, Wardally is part of a “New New Guard” in Harlem politics that has been challenging the “lions” of the old guard, Charles Rangel and Percy Sutton. That makes him an unlikely candidate to speak on behalf of Sutton.

Sutton maintains an office at the Manhattan headquarters of the firm he founded, Inner City Broadcasting Corporation. ICBC owns New York radio stations WBLS and WLIB.

Sutton’s son Pierre (“Pepe”) runs ICBC along with his daughter, Keisha Sutton-James. Malone told Newsmax that she had consulted with Sutton’s family members at the station and confirmed that no one knew Kevin Wardally or had authorized him to speak on behalf of the family.

For someone claiming to be a “spokesman” for the Sutton family, who was authorized to call Percy Sutton a liar, Wardally even got Percy Sutton’s age wrong.

Sutton is not 86, as Wardally said, but close to 88. He was born on Nov. 24, 1920.

Wardally responded to a several Newsmax phone messages and emails with a terse one-line comment, maintaining his statement that Percy Sutton “mis-spoke” in the television interview.

“I believe the statement speaks for itself and the Sutton Family and I have nothing further to say on the topic,” he wrote in an email.

Asked to explain why it was that no one at Inner City Broadcasting Corp. knew of him or accepted him as a family spokesman, Wardally responded later that he had been retained by a nephew of the elder Sutton, who “is in our office almost every week.”

Wardally works for Bill Lynch Associations, a Harlem political consulting firm. The nephew, Chuck Sutton, no longer works with the elder Sutton at Inner City Broadcasting, but for a high-tech start-up called Synematics.

“Percy Sutton doesn’t go out idly on television saying things he doesn’t mean,” a well-connected black entrepreneur who knows Sutton told Newsmax.

Ben LaBolt’s claim that “Al Mansour doesn’t know Obama” was contradicted by Al Mansour himself in an extended interview with Newsmax.

Comparing the revelation of his ties to Obama to the controversy surrounding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Al Mansour said that he was determined to keep a low profile to avoid embarrassing Obama.

“In respect to Mr. Obama, I have told him, because so many people are running after him… I was determined that I was never going to be in that situation,” he told Newsmax.

Al Mansour said he was deliberately avoiding any contact with the candidate. “I’m not involved in any way in celebrity sweepstakes,” he said. “I wish him well, anything I can do if he lets me know, I’ll let him know what I think I can do or can’t. But I don’t collect autographs. I wish him the best, and hope he can win the election.”

He repeatedly declined to comment on the Percy Sutton allegations, either to confirm or to deny them.

“Any statement that I make would only further the activity which is not in the interest of Barack, not in the interest of Percy, not in the interest of anyone,” Al Mansour said.

Unanswered Questions

Sen. Obama has refused to instruct Harvard Law School to release any information about his time there as a student, or about his student loans.

Newsmax contacted the Dean of Students, the Director of Student Financial Services, the Registrar, and the Bursar of Harvard Law School. None would provide any specific information on Barack Obama’s time at Harvard, except for his dates of attendance (1988-1991) or his year of graduation, 1991.

A spokesman for the law school, Michael Armini, said it was Harvard policy not to divulge information on alumni without their approval.

“There are lots of reporters nosing around the library,” he acknowledged. So far, none had turned up any new information.

Law professors Lawrence Tribe and Charles Ogletree have both said publicly that they were “impressed” by Obama when he was a student.

Sources close to the Sutton family told Newsmax that Percy Sutton wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama to Ogletree at Khalid Al-Mansour’s request, but Ogletree declined to answer Newsmax questions about this.

Harvard Law School spokesman Michael Armini said that Harvard was “very generous” with financial aid, but only on the basis on need.

The Obama campaign told Newsmax that Obama self-financed his three years at Harvard Law School with loans, and did not receive any scholarship from Harvard Law school.

LaBolt denied that Obama received any financial assistance from Harvard or from outside parties. “No - he paid his way through by taking out loans,” he said in an email to Newsmax.

At the time, Harvard cost around $25,000 a year, or $75,000 for the three years that Obama attended. And as president of the Harvard Law Review, he received no stipend from the school, Harvard spokesman Mike Armini said.

“That is considered a volunteer position,” Armini said. “There is no salary or grant associated with it.”

So if the figures cited by the Obama campaign for the Senator’s student loans are accurate, that means that Obama came up with more than $32,000 over three years from sources other than loans to pay for tuition, room and board.

Where did he find the money? Did it come from friends of Khalid Al Mansour? And why would a radical Muslim activist with ties to the Saudi royal family be raising money for Barack Obama?

That’s the question the Obama campaign still won’t answer.

Michelle Obama Speaks Out

Speaking at a campaign event in Haverford, Pa, in April of this year, Michelle Obama claimed that her husband had “just paid off his loan debt” for his Harvard Law School education.

In an appearance in Zanesville, Ohio, in February she bemoaned the fact that many American families were strapped with student loan payments for years after graduation.

“The only reason we’re not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books,” she said. The first of those best-sellers netted the couple $1.2 million in royalties in 2005.

In response to Newsmax questions about the Obama’s college loans, a campaign spokesman cited a report in The Chicago Sun claiming that Obama borrowed $42,753 to pay for Harvard Law School, and “tens of thousands” more to pay for undergraduate studies at Columbia.

The same report said that Michelle Obama borrowed $40,762 to pay for her years at Harvard Law School.

But a Newsmax review of Senator Obama’s financial disclosures found no trace of any outstanding college loans, going back to 2000.

As a United States Senate candidate, Barack Obama was required to file a financial disclosure form in 2004 detailing his assets, income, consulting contracts, and liabilities.

Obama listed “zero” under liabilities in 2004 and in all subsequent U.S. Senate financial disclosure forms.

Under the Senate ethics rules, he is required to disclose any loan, including credit card debt, of $10,000 or more. The only exception to the reporting requirement is mortgage debt on a principal residence.

The Senate reports also directly contradict Michelle Obama’s claim that the couple had “only just” paid off their student loans after receiving book royalties paid out in 2005 and 2006 – well after her husband had been ensconced in the Senate.

Apparently, Michelle Obama misspoke, according to the version provided by the Obama campaign.

Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt now tells Newsmax that the loans Sen. Obama took out to pay for Harvard Law School “were repaid in full while he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate [in 2004], and under the rules, the modest outstanding balance he repaid was not reportable as a liability on his personal financial disclosure reports.”

The Senator repaid the loans on “the expectation of a significant increase in family income” as a result of the paperback edition of his 1995 book, Dreams of My Father, LaBolt said.

Obama acknowledges that sales of the hard cover edition of the book were “underwhelming.” But in the spring of 2004,when Obama won the Democrat U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, Rachel Klayman, an editor at Crown Publishers in New York, read an article about Obama and became interested in his memoir, only to discover that Crown now owned the rights.

She asked Obama to write a new forward, and Crown then decided to re-issue Dreams as a paperback in July 2004, just as Obama made his historic speech to the Democrat National Convention.

The paperback eventually sold over one million copies, which under the standard industry royalty for trade paperbacks of 7.5%, earned him $1.2 million. However, Obama didn’t report income from the book until 2005, so it’s unclear how he was able to repay his student loans in 2004.

Responding to attacks from the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primaries, Obama released seven years of tax returns on March 25 of this year.

The returns, dating back to 2000, indicate that the couple paid no interest on their student loans. The interest from such loans would have been deductible on their joint income tax returns.

For 2000 through 2004, taxpayers declared student loan interest as a deduction on line 24 of federal form 1040. After 2004, the deduction can be taken on Line 33.

But the Obamas never declared a dime of interest in student loans on their return, most likely because they simply earned too much money to be able to take the deduction under the IRS rules.

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt had no answer as to why the Obamas’ failed to declare the loans, stating the obvious that “because interest on the loans was not deducted, it would not appear on the Obamas’ personal return.”

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Who will Obama's allegiance be to if elected President... The American People, The United States or to a Saudi Prince and the Muslin world?? Can we take the chance?? We have to ask ourselves... how can half of the few things we know about Obama be shrouded in mystery or deceit and yet we think he is U.S. Presidential material?

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Thought For The Day - 09.16.08

“Over the years I have learned that what is important in a dress is the woman who is wearing it.”   Yves Saint Laurent

This is a stunning election season that is ablaze with drama. Regardless of what happens in November, we will either have the First Black President or the First Woman Vice President. It is also a stunning season of contrasts.

On the one hand, we have a true American War Hero. John McCain was tortured, maimed, and kept in a virtual box by a ruthless enemy. He suffered for years, refusing special

 treatment that would place him ahead of fellow prisoners of war. He came out of this experience a physically broken man, but with an enormous gratitude and devotion to his country.

On the other hand, we have an educated, polished, talented orator. A man who has proven to be unaccountable as a state legislator, voting “present” rather than yes or no  on nearly a hundred controversial issues. As Newt Gingrich put it so eloquently, this is a  man who has really done nothing but talk and write.

If the differences in Presidential candidates were not enough, we have two potential first ladies that offer stunning contrasts as well. They hold no constitutional power, but there is no doubt that the “better half” dynamic has a significant influence on the man who stands at the Bully Pulpit.  

On the one hand, we have Cindy McCain. She is a lovely woman, educated with a Masters degree in Special Education from USC. She comes from a hard-earned family legacy that has left her with a good fortune; a resource she manages  with a servant’s heart, sharing large sums for the benefit of those who are in need.

Cindy McCain is deeply concerned for the plight of children, especially in parts of the world where circumstances are desperate, and where life hangs by a slender thread. She even brought two of them home, one to adopt as her own and the other by close friends. Cindy’s views on abortion are not perfect in my opinion, but at least she limits her tolerance to cases of rape and incest. I hope that she and others will see that rape and incest are not crimes that should condemn an innocent child to death.

On the other hand, we have Michelle Obama. She is also a lovely woman and a Harvard educated lawyer. She comes from a regular middle-class family. Although she has mothered two children, her affection for children ends apparently at the birth canal. Michelle campaigned hard to fight the ban on partial birth abortion procedures and is a fervent advocate for abortion rights.

Michelle Obama advises and is proud of her husband and the causes he champions. One such cause was his opposition to the passage in Illinois of the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act”. Babies who somehow managed to survive abortion procedures were simply left to die alone, cold, and unloved with no medical attention whatsoever. Mind you, these are not quivering blobs of tissue, but are human children who are essentially killed by intention after they have been born.

Thankfully, the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” was passed by the U.S. Senate in 2002, but I dare say that such may be at risk for reversal if Barack and Michelle have any say in the matter.

Michelle Obama seems to believe that parenthood is a “sacred” matter, having said this about Barack… “He’ll protect a woman’s freedom of choice, because government should have no say in whether or when a woman embraces the sacred responsibility of parenthood.”

Infanticide and the word sacred, gathered together in the same thought strikes me as bizarre and repulsive.

I am not certain why Barack Obama has such a callous view of infant death. Perhaps, it is a genetic holdover from the culture of his father’s Kenyan goat-herding legacy. I suppose defective baby goats were routinely cast onto the rocks and left to die. That way, only the best qualified would grow to become members of the goat-herd community.

We have seen such an attitude before in history, regarding who is deemed worthy to live. It seems to me that this election season is a moment in time that will define us beyond the norm. This election decision is all about life and death in so many ways. Please, listen to that little voice so often ignored, and choose wisely.

By:  Phil Harris, a software engineer, author of Cry for the Shadows and blogs at Citizen Phil

And Then There’s Biden… 

What is important is not whether we agree, but that we can and do have open discussions which promote awareness!!