The trouble we are in for might be even worse than we ever thought! OBAMAS HARVARD YEARS.
Posted 5 weeks 4 days ago byObama’s Harvard Years: Questions Swirl.Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:11 PM.By: Kenneth R. Timmerman.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Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told Newsmax that Sutton’s account was “bogus” and a “fabrication that has been retracted” by a spokesman for the Sutton family.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 “misspoke” 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.”














Thoughts
Skye
Submitted on October 11th, 2008 by TreeTopFlyerThat is why I picked you out for this. I know you like to debate for the sake of exploring and education rather than to just regurgitate the party line.
I asked this for a very simple reason. In this election, people are willing to go on record as being die hard Obama supporters because knowing nothing about him has to be better than what they know about McCain. This is absolutley true. Even members of the Obama campaign revert back to "the Obama is just better than McCain" argument.
So, I wanted to turn it around. I know you don't like Palin and I know I am in the position that I know more about her (much more than I do about Obama) only because I live in Alaska.
I framed my argument this way becasue, what I can't figure out is how the same people that are telling us to vote for Obama, even though we know nothing about him, simply becaue he is not McCain, are the same ones yelling at the top of their lungs that no one could possibly vote for Palin becaue she is an unknown.
That is hipocracy in its highest form...but what should we expect from the Obamabots.
Better the evil we know
Submitted on October 10th, 2008 by DCook36Sometimes better the evil you know is better than the evil you don’t know; however in this case the evil known is Obama. What we don’t know about Palin is just that unknown, Palin might well be as evil as Obama or more we just haven’t found her bone yard yet.
The Obama camp has tried to find her bone yard but so far have not come up with too much. Palin may be just as she has appeared to be so far, out of her league with no experience. So maybe she really doesn’t have a bone yard yet after all she hasn’t been around all that long.
Stacking her character up next to Obama’s the choice is clear unless the character of the next POTUS doesn’t matter.
Besides Palin only might be POTUS Obama is going to be, so the real issue is McCain or Obama as the new POTUS.
McCain is certainly a better known evil and has a lot less issues related to his character then Obama has, and McCain has lot more experience then Obama so again the choice has to be McCain, no prize for sure but at least 10% better than Bush and if all we are looking for is a 10% better than Bush President we might as well have someone who at least has some experience and doesn’t have as many shady character issues as Obama clearly has.
TREE
Submitted on October 10th, 2008 by Skye RiversI hear you and respect your opinion. From what we know, Obama is scum of the earth, parading around as THE ONE, including Michelle whose interview on Larry King was worth vomiting over. Nothing phased her just like him. I don't know if it's just an act, and they are now playing it to the cuff to win, which is my guess or what... but also this ACORN deal is really something else. I only said Obama because he is even............. does that mean then he should be the one I would vote for .. well, you questioned the questioned and now I am answering the answer again... this time... I don't know... the fact we don't know Palin or much about her doesn't mean the bones in her closet are stacked higher than Obama's... sometimes what you don't know is worse than what you already know... she is the unknown... and the is not a good thing when running for Office.. So, does that mean you vote in the dick who is dirty like a pig in a mud pile because he is the known... and known to play as dirty as he can to get into Office as if he was the bunny in the race with Tortioise McCain...??? I don't know Tree...
What are your feelings on this since you and I seem to be debating the debate LOL......................... and I dig it!
Skye
Submitted on October 10th, 2008 by TreeTopFlyerYou are being honest and that is why I will defend you most of the time.
I disagree with your assessment however. I would much prefer someone that appeared to be exactly what they were over someone that "does not play dirty in public LOL.......... he waits till we all are sleeping LOL........." I don't see anything that is lower than being two faced...even all the stuff you say about Palin comes above this in my mind.
Next, and I am trying to take the benefit of your doubt, even if all your concrete concerns about Palin are founded, I think there are enough questions about Obama's character, associates, past dealings and politically expedient positions (let's face it, he hasn't stuck to a position on any issue in this election, even his bread and butter getting us out of Iraq) that I don't trust him at all. I don't trust that he has the best interests of our country at heart and I feel that he would be manipulated by whoever is pulling his strings - and whoever that is isn't likely to be a friend of this nation just based on his history of mentors and associates.
It has been said that McCain is the known and that Obama is the unknown that just must be different. And, basically, I believe that is the mountain that McCain just can't get over...he is from the party in power and Obama is not. Obama wins on this fact alone despite everything we know about him is not good or just like McCain. I strayed into McCain for a second for a reason. Let's turn the tide back to our Obama vs. Palin discussion.
We (and this goes for the country as a whole, not us from Alaska) know arguably less about Palin than Obama. But everything we know about Obama is bad. His policies (at least the few we can nail down) are horrible and his person is suspect at best. So, let's just say Palin is 10% better than Obama...doesn't that mean we are ahead?
Just playing devil's advocate for you.
Obama's White non Blood related grandmother
Submitted on October 10th, 2008 by PabloStated back in September of 2007 that she help Obama in his first year in Harvard. She gave him $45,000 to move, get new clothes and to get all the things he was claiming to need in school.
Obama also only took out $43,000 in loans. He did not work anywhere so where did he get the money?
Harvard costs on average $30,000 a year for 2.5 years. Obama lived off Campus and not exactly in the poorest neighborhood either. Add Another $36,000 for housing in that area just for the Apartment. Food and Bills add another $50,000. He bought a new car at school no loan. Add another $38,000
Total cost of his Harvard years other than school costs $154,000. Tuition on average costs between $70,000 to $85,000 in state. Out of state is between $115,000 to $130,000.
Obama had a bill from Harvard in the Amount of roughly, $274,000.
He had no job... He borrowed from granny $45,000 which basically bankrupted them and he has not paid them back.
He took out $43,000 in loans. Someone with lots of money was and still is funding Obama. Look at his current financial Donors. Unless they were the Middle Eastern money men that he was already caught red handed in taking money from. The one who paid him off is still there.
Obama is dirty. The question is how far back does the dirt go?
Where was the PRESS ?
Submitted on October 10th, 2008 by janmbAfter Obama is elected which is sure he will be----all this "stuff" about his past will surface.
Its just like the all the BUSH family connections surfaced and all the information we should have had BEFORE getting into IRAQ came too late.
The word conspiracy is laughed at but if we dared to investigate, it could explain why this country had so much trouble from DAY ONE after Clinton left the White House. And some were deeply concerned and obsessed with Clinton's sexcapes ? That seems rather trivial at this point.
umm Palin vs. Obama
Submitted on October 9th, 2008 by DCook36You guys are going to think I am crazy but I would go with Palin for a couple of reasons, one should be as obvious as the nose on our faces and that is Obama’s character, he has way to many questionable dealings in his back ground that he is unwilling to give straight forward answer to. He just does not come across as trustworthy at least not to me.
If it is true that he received money from Khalid Al Mansour to pay for his education at Harvard it seems to me that at some point he or his group is going to want some pay back.
Palin’s demeanor may not come across as vary Presidential from a professional point of view, also she comes across as a little or lot if you want uneducated, however you get what you see,there is nothing hiding in the bushes with her.
I think her intelligence is greatly under estimated granted she is no H. Clinton or M. Thatcher yet, but I would be willing to take a chance that she would come up to speed vary quickly and be able to handle the job just as well as H. Clinton, Obama and Bush.
I believe that the leaders around the world would also at first underestimate her but would soon find that she can and will hold her own and ultimately gain a great deal of respect from them as well.
Someone wrote once here on RBA, I think it was Treetop or GOS I could be wrong on that so forgive me, whomever it was said that they felt that if Obama could do at least 10% better than Bush they would be happy with that, well I think Palin can do the job at least 10% better as well.
The lack of experience of both of them notwithstanding, I would take that 10% with Palin as POTUS.
There is one more underlying reason I would be willing to take a chance on Palin over Obama which has nothing at all to do with if she is capable of doing the job or not but at least in my mine goes to character, is that she stands behind her conviction’s and her believe that abortion is wrong, yeah I like the fact that she is pro life and she is not afraid to say so regardless of what other more progressive thinkers may think.
So there is my two bucks worth.
OK
Submitted on October 9th, 2008 by Skye RiversFirst of all, I posted what I did as I wanted feedback from the RBA community. Since posting, I have gotten nothing but flack. This is not to say I agree or disagree, but I just thought it would be fascinating to experiment with the last few posts..
IF it was Obama vs Palin. I would vote Obama. I am going to tell you why as honestly and simply as I can. Even though they both have no EXPERIENCE, Obama is a bit more even and sensible then Palin is. I feel with what is going on in the world today, if it were between the two of them, other world leaders would take better to him than her. She does not sound intelligent, she has a chip on her shoulders and whether Obama does or not, he does not play dirty in public LOL.......... he waits till we all are sleeping LOL......... she on the other hand, regardless of parties now, is not someone I would want to see as President. Surprisingly enough, this morning I had that very thought.
What if she does not win and then decides to try again alone as President in 2012 against Hillary. My guess is that Hillary would win, because it would be the same ole with Palin. I feel it's too late. It would be absurd.
I am really trying here Tree. I am not ignorant, nor did I feel the posts were either. Nor am I saying you are considering me ignorant. Bell Ringer.. remember.
Maybe I should just pull the last three posts. I thought it would be interesting, but it is not turning out well at all.
Awaiting your thoughts.
Skye
Correlation
Submitted on October 9th, 2008 by TreeTopFlyerSkye, I know you are searching in this election as am I but I also know you have been a vocal critic of Gov Palin. I admire the fact that you haven't drank the cool-aid for either side and are actually still doing research rather than just ignoring everything.
Here is a hypothetical question. Say it was Obama vs. Palin in the election and those were the only choices. You don't live in Chicago or Alaska so you don't know anything about either of them other than what you have seen in this election so far. Who would you vote for and why? Trying to look at this objectively, where Palin has blanks, Obama has significant issues. That is how I see it. What say you?