New Media Alliance - Nancy Salvato

By Nancy Salvato

The United States of America has in one fell swoop rejected the status quo and elected the first black president. Now that the minorities in this country have seen one of their own elected to the highest office in the land, hopefully we can finally put the race issue to bed and discontinue the Balkanizing of America. Although we have our differences, these differences should not be what identify us. There should not be a hyphen in front of or behind the word American. Profiling should be left to those who investigate crime.

Although I chose to support McCain-Palin, I feel none of the angst that my Democratic brethren expressed at President Bush’s election. I am willing to accept America’s choice in the next leader of this free country. To be perfectly honest, I am relieved that the sky did not fall, Chicago did not succumb to rioting, and there is a relative sense of calm in the air.

Although I wonder who this man is who is going to lead our country for the next four years, I am choosing to take President-elect Obama at his word that he will be president of all the people that make up these United States. I am a realist and I accept that the change he promised his supporters will occur because we have a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic Executive but I am also trusting that the Constitution will function as it was intended and that any substantive change will reflect moderated positions and not extreme special interests. I fervently hope that this new president respects the rule of law and comes to understand that it is not the governmental structure that needs change; it is those who have abused the power of their office that need to be changed.

To be sure, I have fundamental differences with the party in power. I absolutely do not want the government to be given more authority over decisions that I am fully capable of making on my own. I want to be given the opportunity to choose my own affordable healthcare and take it with me no matter where I work. I don’t want to pay any more taxes. If I’m going to spend money, I want to choose how it is spent. I don’t agree with entitlement and I don’t want to contribute to those who do not share my work ethic.

It is no secret that those who are successful succeed because they set a goal and work against all odds to achieve it, sometimes making large sacrifices. These are people who derive satisfaction from the challenge and a job well done. This secret to success is something that needs to be learned in our schools and in our homes.

The most important government mandated change that could take place is in our institutions of learning. To begin, kids should not be rewarded just for showing up to school. Public tax dollars should not be doled out for grades. There are much better ways to provide incentives. Banking tuition credit at a college would be a much better way to motivate parents to sit down with their children and encourage them to do well and work hard in school from day one. Tutors and after-school programs should be made available to students who need them. Kids need to be shown the incremental progress they make, to incentivize them to work harder at school, which is their job.

Being good at math, science, social studies, or writing should be recognized as just important an accomplishment as being good at sports. We must stop inflating grades and socially promoting students. Sometimes an 8 year old should be working at a 12th grade level in math and a 1st grade level in reading. This should be accommodated but not the way it’s currently done. Instead of pushing kids through each grade based on their age, they should be expected to meet benchmarks in subject areas in order to move to the next level in that subject. This can happen at varying rates. This would better serve kids than forcing one teacher to manage all different learning levels and needs in one class.

If we are to equalize opportunity to realize the American Dream, all children must be provided the very best educational opportunities to achieve it. Throwing money at a broken school system won’t create the kind of change we need. Revamping the way students are passed through each grade level and changing the way our schools are managed is what needs to happen. Ridding schools of outdated textbooks and using modular curriculum and technology will bring us to the next level. Special interest agendas need to be taken out of the classrooms. Adults need affordable lifelong opportunities to continue their education, as well.

I want to see change, too, President-elect Obama. I would gladly support you if you can help to implement this kind of change.

There are two things I ask of this new administration. I ask that they respect the government that was put into place 220 years ago because it allows us the most freedom to pursue the most happiness without trampling on others’ freedom and pursuit of happiness. I ask that the change that can and should help more people realize their dreams not occur at someone else’s expense. Let’s begin the new era of change by teaching those who cannot fish, how to fish. Someone else’s hard earned catch should not be used to feed another person’s drive and ambition. This has to come from within.

We are presently witnessing an historic event during this 2008 presidential election. On the one hand, we could see the first female vice president resulting from the vote. On the other hand, we may find that we have elected our first black president. Either way, a glass ceiling will have been broken, heralding in a new era in our history. Many challenges had to be met before a moment like this could take place, beginning with the creation of a written constitution which reflected an entirely new understanding about government. I’m not talking about federalism or the idea that democracy could be scalable. What I’m referring to is the idea that there can be “conflict in consensus.”

Our Constitution was ratified on September 13, 1788 but only after a series of compromises were made, first by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and then during the ratification process when it was promised that a Bill of Rights would be added to the document in order to convince some state representatives to vote affirmatively. The careful notes that James Madison took during that long summer when the delegates hammered out the changes to his Virginia Plan –which later became the US Constitution, inform us that it wasn’t an easy process and that no one was entirely satisfied with the finished product. However, the Framers accepted that the Constitution they molded would not create a utopia. They were striving to achieve “national cohesion, political stability, economic growth, and individual liberty” -all out of reach under the Articles of Confederation. They understood that they were creating a more perfect union and that this process would be ongoing.

In order to create a more perfect union, they designed a government that would, “impede change until enough people supported it. To force people to the middle. To encourage compromise. To spread power around so that, in Alexander Hamilton’s succinct vision, the few could not oppress the many, and the many could not oppress the few. A lot could get done if people worked together in this system. But if they refused to compromise, it could all grind to a halt.” Our nation grew a “constitutional conscience” out of this acceptance of “conflict within consensus, compromise, representation, checks and balances, tolerance of debate. The American people were “bound to one another by our shared belief in our Constitution and its principles.”

It would take many years before equal rights were to be a serious consideration. The issue of slavery nearly tore our country apart. This is because “the Constitution’s design to force compromise and impede change until enough people supported it ultimately did not work on an issue that at root revolved around a moral choice with no compromise: Either slave owners had a property right to be protected, or slaves had a human right to be Americans. Both, ultimately, could not be true.” Lincoln tried to compromise and strived toward peaceful emancipation. However, even after the civil war amendments were passed, it took almost 100 more years before the promise of equal rights…what the war tried to force- actually came to fruition.

Women would eventually achieve the right to vote and it followed that those who were old enough to go to war were deemed old enough to vote.

“The United States is now the oldest enduring republic in world history, with a set of political institutions and traditions that have stood the test of time.” Yet, our democracy is fragile. It depends not only on educated and informed Americans participating in the nation’s political processes but acquiescing to the results of the processes. It is our civic responsibility to understand our heritage and our history so that we the people can continue to form a more perfect union as one people bound by a shared belief in the US Constitution and motivated by a uniquely American constitutional conscience. Now more than ever we need to” work out our differences and find compromises, consensus.”

Barack Obama calls our Constitution a fundamentally flawed document. The Constitution is not perfect but this is not because the document is flawed. It is because we the people have flaws. The Constitution makes a virtue out of our vice, the drive motivated by our self-interests. It forces us to meet in the middle. If we are unwilling to do so, the only option is to secede. Abraham Lincoln didn’t allow for that option. The next president must understand that the Framers built a document that rewards compromise. John McCain is the embodiment of that sentiment. The choice is between a candidate who believes the document is flawed and one who understands the importance of meeting in the middle and it is my hope that the electorate chooses the candidate who understands the meaning of creating a more perfect union.

Source:
All quotes are from The Genius of America: How the Constitution Saved our Country and Why it can Again by Eric Lane and Michael Oreskes

Voting early in the presidential election? Seems like a great idea to many Americans.

For folks who have done their homework and believe themselves absolutely certain that their mind is made up about who they want to win an election, there is probably nothing to lose. For the person who reads all the information available regarding each of the candidates, even an October surprise will likely not come as a surprise. Rather, it will probably validate his or her existing beliefs about who should be our next president.

“More than 100,000 people cast their ballots in the first week of early voting in Chicago and suburban Cook County that began Oct. 13.” [1]

It is guaranteed there will be countless more numbers of folks heading to the polls when it’s most convenient for them.

This is because there are “31 states (plus the District of Columbia) that allow voters to cast ballots in person ahead of time without providing election officials with a reason they can’t be there on Election Day.” [2]

This “means that as both presidential campaigns shift from registering voters to getting out the vote, the election has actually already started. As much as 30 percent of the votes cast this fall will probably come in before Nov. 4, according to the National Association of Secretaries of State.”

Why shouldn’t a person take advantage of the opportunity to cast his or her ballot a few weeks before the election instead of on Election Day? What could the early exercise of one’s civic responsibility possibly hurt?

“It takes more money and more organization to deal with a longer voting period.” [3] Clearly, the Obama campaign has much more money to spend on their candidate’s election than the McCain camp. So this works to their advantage.

Early voters, “may miss out on the candidates’ performance in debates or be unable to factor in other late-developing election events.”

“Voters who send in ballots by mail give up the privacy of the voting booth. Elderly or otherwise vulnerable voters can be subject to pressure or coercion from family members or political operatives.”

“Absentee ballots have long been the biggest source of attempts to manipulate elections.” The expression, “vote early, vote often” is not without more than a grain of truth.

For the demographic that receives news in 30 second sound bites, gleans information from partisan media sources, or is undecided, the next two weeks may prove crucial to feeling confident about whether to vote for a particular candidate. For these demographics alone, critical information that has been kept out of the mainstream media or has been painted as irrelevant to the candidacies must be allowed to surface and influence their decision making process. Those invested in setting the record straight and exposing political spin need these next two weeks to persuade would be voters as to why they should listen to contrary opinions about what is at stake in the election. An October surprise could definitely seal the deal for an undecided voter.

Guaranteed, unless a person is a political animal, he or she won’t have been following the race in the same way sports aficionados follow the stats of the teams in a given sport. Rather, people will be tuning into the election these next two weeks the same way large numbers of folks tune into the World Series or the Super Bowl. Because they haven’t been following the teams in any great detail, they’ll be learning about the players and their records during the finale.

“James Carville, political consultant and aphorist, says: Nothing validates a candidate to voters as much as other voters.” [4]

If people go to the polls during a swing in public opinion for one of the candidates, they may vote emotionally instead of rationally. These days, much of the information released about the candidates must be dissected and discussed before it can be considered reliable. It’s hard to distinguish what is fact from fiction because the news is slanted by the opinion of the reporters. Unless a voter is a hard core news junkie, it’s hard to know who to trust. Complicating matters, the education system in this country is not providing voters a well rounded education that teaches them to think for themselves. Much of what students learn these days is colored by a politically correct agenda or by the instructors charged with them. For some people, it will take longer to separate the wheat from the chaff to come to a decision.

Deciding how to cast a vote in an election is much like going to the grocery store. The buyer must understand that political operatives are working behind the scenes to display their candidate in the most flattering manner. This is no different than producers paying extra money to have their products prominently displayed at eye level and the end caps to capture a shopper’s interest. This doesn’t mean their products offer the most value or even provide what the buyer needs. A person can experience huge buyer’s remorse when the “product” that is bought turns out to be less than what it appeared. To prevent this from happening, a good shopper looks at all the products and weighs cost against value.

While it’s not for everyone, this is one voter who plans to exercise civic responsibility when it’s most convenient. But I’ve looked at the blue books and read the Consumer Reports. I understand what I’m buying.

(1) Early Voting Getting Robust Turnout in Crucial States, Begins Today in Texas and Florida
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/
movingamerica08/earlyvoting1020
(2) Banking on early votes for Barack
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2008/
10/17/early_vote/index.html
(3) Early vote growing in size and importance
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/
nation/president/2004-09-28-early-voting_x.htm
(4) Unorthodox Campaign Strategies
http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/
2007/11/15/unorthodox_campaign_strategies

By Nancy Salvato

“The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” James Madison

My mother used to say that it’s better to go from being poor to being rich than from having been rich and become poor because you don’t yearn for what you’ve lost. However, my experience has been that if you’ve always been free from want, you might not ever gain an appreciation for what was taken for granted. In any event, it wasn’t until I reached middle age that I began to understand what for me truly constitutes being rich and it wasn’t until 9/11 that I really gave much thought to how quickly it could be taken away.

During World War II, when peace and stability were shattered by acts of physical aggression initiated by the axis powers, Franklin Roosevelt gave a speech on what he referred to as the four freedoms.

“In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression…The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own…The third is freedom from want, which…means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants…The fourth is freedom from fear, which…means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor.” (1)

Today, there are millions of Americans who may live their entire lives taking for granted the freedoms secured by the founders and framers during the genesis of our country. When going through the motions of stepping into a hot shower, drinking an ice cold beer, or flipping through the channels of a big screen TV while reclining on the sofa in a temperature modulated home, many folks don’t dwell on what they have, but instead tend to focus on what they believe they need to make their lives more complete. It might be a Whopper, a hybrid car, or carpeting from Empire. It might be an all inclusive tropical vacation or an iphone. True, there were a few years when 9/11 knocked us out of our self-centered yet peaceable existence, but as each day passes without any notable incidents of terror on our soil, it is easy to become complacent and place our primary focus back on our immediate concerns. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to do this because whether we care to acknowledge it or not, we are at war.

On August 23, l996, Osama Bin Laden declared Jihad, when addressing the United States and its allies. He said,

“Terrorizing you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanded duty.”

On February 23, 1998, Osama Bin Laden issued a fatwa to all Muslims.

“The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.”

The indisputable fact is that our country is waging war on many different fronts and our enemies are already on our soil. There are terrorist cells biding their time and waiting for their orders to attack. Of equal concern is the ideological battle being waged within the western world. Sadly, all of western civilization is losing ground.

The European Centre for Law & Justice (“ECLJ”), an international law firm dedicated to protecting human rights and religious freedom, believes that the “defamation of religion” resolutions introduced at the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly violate international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression. This is because these resolutions focus on the protection of ideas and religions generally, rather than on protecting an individual’s right to practice their religion. (2)

Instead of using an objective measure, such as whether or not speech incites hatred or violence against religious believers, these resolutions use a subjective criterion, whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the speech. Granted, there is a right to freedom of religion, but there is no right not to be offended. Freedom of religion allows a person to act in accordance with a religion but does not protect religion from adverse comment. ibid

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the model for international religious freedom law, states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. ibid

Article 19 of the UDHR provides the model language for the right to freedom of expression and opinion. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. ibid

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) countries developed the philosophy behind “defamation or religion.” The first of these resolutions was introduced by the OIC at the UN Commission of Human Rights in 1999 under the title “Defamation of Islam”, and new resolutions have been introduced at Human Rights Council since its inception in 2006, and in the General Assembly every year since 2005. ibid

Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a United Nations Treaty adopted by the General Assembly, states that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. ibid

The problem with this language is that there are no clear guidelines with regard to laws that would set the least restrictive limitations to freedom of speech that would help to respect and protect the religious beliefs of individuals. According to Liaquat Ali Khan, an American Muslim scholar, defamation traditionally applies to reputational injury to individuals. Group defamation is problematic because it can stifle free speech and furnish undeserved protection to decadent customs and practices. The defamation of religions falls even beyond the concept of group defamation, since it may even prohibit the defamation of religious ideas and doctrines. ibid

“Thanks to its constitution, and especially the first amendment, the United States gives greater protection to freedom of expression than any other country. Free expression generally trumps libel, prejudicial comment about pending court cases, and so-called “hate speech”.” (3)

According to the New England Law Library’s Research Guide on the First Amendment, US Courts tend to punish symbolic or expressive action and acknowledge freedom of belief. (4) The evidence is as follows:

▪ Dawson v. Delaware, 503 US 159 (1992), the State introduced evidence at a capital sentencing hearing that the defendant was a member of a white supremacist prison gang, but because the evidence proved nothing more than abstract beliefs, the Supreme Court held that its admission violated the defendant’s First Amendment rights. The Dawson Court stated that “the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the admission of evidence concerning one’s beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because those beliefs and associations are protected by the First Amendment. ibid

▪ Barclay v. Florida, 463 US 939 (1983), the Court found that the evidence showed that a defendant’s membership in the Black Liberation Army and desire to provoke a “race war” were related to the murder of a white man. Because the racial hatred of the defendant was relevant to several aggravating factors, the Court held that it could be taken into account in sentencing the defendant to death. ibid

▪ Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 US 476 (1993) synthesized these two opinions by clearly distinguishing between actions and beliefs. The Mitchell case held that a Wisconsin statute calling for greater maximum penalties where the defendant chooses his or her victim on account of race does not violate the defendant’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech since it is not punishing the beliefs but the actions. ibid

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was adopted in 1950 to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention (international agreement) and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity. The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights. Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. The decisions of the Court are not automatically legally binding, but the Court has the power to award damages. (Click Here 5) and (Click Here 6)

“Under the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of expression is subject to a wide range of possible restrictions, including national laws banning speech likely to incite or “stir up” hatred against people on the basis of race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation. Iceland criminalizes speech that simply ridicules or insults someone on those grounds. Brazil, Singapore, Serbia, New Zealand and the Australian state of Victoria have similar race-hate laws.” (7)

In 2001, Britain proposed, “a ban on the “reckless” use of “threatening, insulting or abusive” language against anyone on the ground of his faith,” in response to, “verbal and physical attacks on Muslims.” ibid It was noted that unless there was an element of intent, the Bible or the Koran could be considered unlawful. Therefore, the country passed the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which makes it, “a crime for someone to use threatening words or behaviour only “if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred”.” ibid

Canada’s Supreme Court “ruled that the government may limit free speech in the name of goals such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. It also has ruled that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the country’s bill of rights incorporated in the country’s constitution.” (8)

I imagine there are more than a few US citizens who are unaware that, “Americans are subject to foreign, not United States, laws overseas,” and that, “few countries provide a trial by jury; pretrial detention is often in solitary confinement and may involve months of incarceration in prison conditions that lack even minimal comforts - bed, toilet, and wash basin; officials may not speak English and trials are conducted in the language of the foreign country; prison diets are often inadequate and require supplements from relatives and friends; and physical abuse or inhumane treatment is possible.” (9)

Remember what it was like for Charlton Heston to find that his spaceship has crashed on Earth but that it was now ruled by Apes and that he had no rights? While that was a work of science fiction, it must be a never ending nightmare to be subjected to the laws of nations that exhibit limited respect for the freedoms we take for granted in our own society. But this could happen.

“A Jordanian court is prosecuting 12 Europeans in an extraterritorial attempt to silence the debate on radical Islam. (10)

They have been charged with, “blasphemy, demeaning Islam and Muslim feelings, and slandering and insulting the prophet Muhammad in violation of the Jordanian Penal Code.” Relying on a 2006 amendment to the Jordanian Justice Act, “the law allows the prosecution of individuals whose actions affect the Jordanian people by “electronic means,” such as the Internet.” ibid

Although Denmark and the Netherlands will not allow it to happen, Amman actually requested that Interpol apprehend Mr. Wilders and the Danes and bring them before its court “for an act that is not a crime in their home countries.” ibid Those charged will have to be very careful when travelling abroad. This is because the freedoms we take for granted are slowly eroding as basic human rights. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, said, “it is “unavoidable” that Britain will ultimately have to incorporate some elements of Sharia into its law in the spirit of “constructive accommodation."” (11)

Click Here to read about why Sharia is bad for all societies. (12)

Author Mark Steyn is currently under trial by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission in Vancouver, for insulting Islam in his book America Alone. The accuser, Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, complains that Steyn’s book, “tars entire Muslim communities as complicit in violent jihad.” (13)

There is a glimmer of hope that this can turn around. In response to Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York-based author being, “sued for libel by an individual discussed in the author’s book about terrorism funding,” New York recently passed legislation which, “bars New York courts from enforcing a foreign libel judgment unless the country where it was decided grants the same or better protection as US standards for freedom of speech. Second, it expands an individual’s ability to have a court declare a foreign libel judgment invalid in New York. Without this statute, an author could be forced to live indefinitely under the pall of a libel judgment, deterring publishers from disseminating that author’s work.” (14) Yet it is not enough. Authors who do not reside in New York are vulnerable to foreign libel judgments. Our Congress and our President need to, “work together and enact federal legislation that will protect authors throughout the country against the threat of foreign libel judgments.” ibid

What does a Jihad or Fatwa really mean for the United States? It’s pretty simple, really. If we are not willing to fight back because we don’t understand or value our freedoms enough to wage war against those who have declared us their enemies, we will lose. “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone. You pave paradise, put up a parking lot.” (15)

Sources:
(1) What Are the Four Freedoms and Why Did Norman Rockwell Paint Them?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/73038/what_are_the_four
_freedoms_and_why.html?cat=2

(2) Combating Defamation of Religions
http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/ECLJ_submission_to_OHCHR_on_Combating
_Defamation_of_Religions_June2008.pdf

(3) (7) Civil Liberties: Freedom of Speech (The Tongue Twisters)
http://www.economist.com/world/international/PrinterFriendly.
cfm?story_id=9958346

(4) Research Guide: First Amendment
http://www.nesl.edu/research/RSGUIDES/FIRSTAM.HTM

(5) Council of Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

(6) European Convention on Human Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

(8) Canada Restricts Freedom of Speech
http://volokh.com/posts/1197260709.shtml

(9) Traveling And Foreign Laws
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int23.htm

(10) Criminalizing Criticism of Islam
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122099204692716155.html

(11) Canada’s thought police
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/
la-oe-goldberg17-2008jun17,0,6999887.column

(12) Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

(13) Free speech, eh? Why is Canada prosecuting Mark Steyn?
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

(14) Governor Paterson Signs Legislation Protecting New Yorkers Against Infringement Of First Amendment Rights By Foreign Libel Judgments. Calls upon Federal Government to Protect Writers’ First Amendment Rights
http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/press_0501082.html

(15) Big Yellow Taxi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueVpCfPAog4

By Nancy Salvato

Michelle Obama: “His family was so much like mine.”

Fact: Barack Obama’s father, a Harvard trained economist, fathered eight children by four different women.

Michelle Obama: “He was raised by grandparents who were working-class folks just like my parents, and by a single mother who struggled to pay the bills just like we did.”

Fact: One of the first two female vice presidents at Bank of Hawaii, Madelyn Dunham, his grandmother, raised Barry Obama. She paid the tuition to the prestigious Punahou School in Hawaii. Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham Obama Sutoro, described as a fellow traveler, spent Barack’s formative years studying anthropology in Indonesia and helping thousands of poor women. She is credited with creating a microfinance program there.

Michelle Obama: “And like my family, they scrimped and saved so that he could have opportunities that they never had for themselves.”

Fact: Michelle’s family was middle class and Obama’s father advocated an “active” program to achieve a classless society by removing the economic disparities between black Africans and Asian and Europeans.
Michelle Obama: “And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values, like you work hard for what you want in life.

Fact: After Obama was sworn in as U.S. Senator, Michelle’s salary went from $121,910 to $316,962 at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Obama used his influence to request a $1 million earmark for the hospital where Michelle works.

Obama’s half brother Malik Obango Roy Obama, a terrorist in Kenya supported by the PLO and Hamas in his bid to make Kenya an Islamic State, believes Barack to be a good Muslim. And this, coming from a man who conducted genocide against people who don’t support his cause and who openly attacks Christians. It was Malik who shared video of Barack Obama declaring his faith to Islam and Muhammad.

Michelle: “That your word is your bond; that you do what you say you’re going to do.”

Fact: Obama served as director of the Woods Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a founding member of the Weathermen terrorist group which declared war against and sought to overthrow the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.

Michelle: “That you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them and even if you don’t agree with them.”

Fact: Obama’s half brother George Hussein Onyango lives on the outskirts of Nairobi in a hut surviving on less than a dollar a month.”
Michelle: Barack…talked about the world as it is and the world as it should be. And he said that all too often we accept the distance between the two, and we settle for the world as it is, even when it doesn’t reflect our values and aspirations.

Fact: Michelle believes the United States is a mean country guided by fear and made up of cynics, sloths, and complacents. It’s hard to empathize with her assessment knowing that Barack’s half brother Raila Odinga who is married to the niece of Mohammad Taha, the Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip and who is the head of the militant branch of Hamas, Al Aqsa Mosque red Brigade, orders the firing of rockets into Israel.
Michelle: “See, that’s why Barack’s running: to end the war in Iraq responsibly.”

Fact: Mark Ndesandjo, Obama’s half brother who received a degree from Brown University, a masters in physics from Stanford and an MBA from Emory and has 3 wives (two Chinese and one African) is charged by the UK with supporting terrorism and using his business, Worldnexus, to funnel money to terrorists -including Osama Bin Laden.

Michelle: “[Barack will] build an economy that lifts every family, to make sure health care is available for every American and to make sure that every child in this nation has a world-class education all the way from preschool to college.”

Fact: Obama’s two decades of public service work translates into going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing. Michelle backed the Urban Health Initiative which was designed to steer primarily black, poor, uninsured patients, to other health care facilities instead of University of Chicago Medical Center.

Michelle: He’ll achieve these goals the same way he always has: by bringing us together and reminding us how much we share and how alike we really are. You see, Barack doesn’t care where you’re from or what your background is or what party, if any, you belong to.

Fact: Michelle wrote in her Princeton thesis, “As a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost.”

Michelle: He knows that thread that connects us – our belief in America’s promise, our commitment to our children’s future – he knows that that thread is strong enough to hold us together as one nation even when we disagree.

Fact: The Woods Fund Board provided $75,000 in grant money to the Arab American Action Network, headquartered in Chicago’s Palestinian immigrant community, which works to empower Chicago-area Arabs. AAAN’s co-founder Rashid Khalidi called Israel an “apartheid system and a racist” state, labeling suicide bombings a response to Israeli aggression.

In her speech at the Democratic Convention, Michelle Obama attempted to paint a picture of her husband as a man who defied the odds, who despite being raised by a single mother and his grandparents, worked through adversity to achieve his success and who uses his accomplishments to better his community and our world. She explains that they have similar values and experiences and assures the American people that when he becomes president they will change this country for the better, to reflect their utopian vision for our society.

There’s just one sticky point. Anyone with more than a superficial understanding of what they represent understands that Barack’s Mother and father, and Michelle’s bitter feelings about the racial divide in America have succeeded in distorting this man’s worldview into one that is diametrically opposed to that which fosters pride in our country and its accomplishments, respect for tradition, and an understanding that a person’s character is built from self reliance and independence. With such a distorted view of themselves and their past, it would be a tragedy if the voters buy the Obama’s vision for the future as their own.

Sources:

Barack Obama hid his Father’s Socialist and Anti-Western Convictions from his Readers
http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html
Barack Obama: Mother not just a girl from Kansas
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-0703270151mar27,0,14968,full.story
Michelle Obama Suicide Watch
http://michelleobamasuicidewatch.blogspot.com/

Obama worked with terrorist
Senator helped fund organization that rejects ‘racist’ Israel’s existence
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57231

The Obama File
http://www.theobamafile.com/index.htm
U. of C. shunning poor patients?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1122691,CST-NWS-hosp23.article