Replies

Newsmax article - Obama and conflicting Harvard student loan info

_______________________

Excerpt:

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.”

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_harvard_/2008/09/23/133199.html

Attorney Mario Apuzzo post, yesterday - June 20, 2009

###

June 20, 2009 4:55 PM
Blogger Puzo1 said...

Let us assume that Hawaii DOH has a signed affidavit by Stanley Ann Dunham or her mother saying that Obama was born in Hawaii. We would examine the affidavit to see what underlying facts it provides to substantiate and corroborate its statement that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Not referring to a found and unknown baby, when a baby is born, there are corroborating facts that support the birth location.

A baby is not born in a vaccum. Somebody (doctor, nurse, midwife, friend, etc.) has to be around to support the contention as to where the baby was born. If the affidavit says he was born in a hospital, then the hospital would be able to confirm that information through its medical records.

Also, if Obama was born in a hospital, there probably would not be any need for the mother or grandmother to swear out any affidavits.

The problem with Obama is that no one including any member of Congress, the mainstream media, and his supporters have been able to provide one piece of evidence (other than the computer digital image of a COLB, some unclear and inconclusive statements by the Hawaii Health officials, and the worthless newspaper announcements) that he was born in Hawaii.

Not even any hospital has confirmed his birth there or that Stanley Ann Dunham was even a patient there. Not one person has come forward to say that he or she can corroborate Obama’s allegation that he was born in Hawaii. This is amazing since Obama was only born in August 1961 and is therefore only 47 years old.

While his sister said he was born in Queens Hospital, his Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya and that she was present as his birth, and the Kenyan Ambassador also said he was born in Kenya, Obama has publicly stated he was born in Kapi’olani Hospital.

Why cannot the hospital simply confirm for the benefit of the American people that he was indeed born in that hospital?

Is seems absurd and an affront to intelligence for the hospital to say it cannot so confirm because of privacy laws, given that Obama already proclaimed that information to the world and Representative Abercrombie (who is running for Governor) read a January 24, 2009 letter allegedly written by Obama (which I suspect to be a forgery) during the Kapi’olani Medical Center Centennial Celebration in January 2009 in which Obama states that he was born in that hospital.

Additionally, the hospital could surely tell us if Stanley Ann Dunham was a patient there in August 1961, for what privacy could she have in such old and innocuous information and in being dead. Are we asking Obama for too much for him to simply give the hospital permission to confirm that information?

I do not see any invasion of his privacy in such a simple gesture, given that he wants to be the President of the United States and his already having released to the public that information.

Obama has some audacity to put the American people in this predicament. How can he expect to have the respect of those who truly care about America and are not just blind followers of mindless party politics?

Also, it does not matter what Hawaii has allowed. What matters is what a Court decides is conclusive competent evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 20, 2009 5:15 PM