(Judge for yourself).
Although that’s an extremely provocative question, evidence is mounting that Barack Obama (may not) be as “intelligent” as his supporters and cheerleaders in the media constantly assure us. The reality could be that Barack Obama is mostly a creation of the liberal media.
Indeed, the more we dig into his past, the more we find very little substance and discover how a web of liberal professors, law firms, and others, issued Barack a pass on performance while he pursued his political agenda.
We know very little about Obama’s academic performance. Sources state that he attended an elite K-12 school in Hawaii called Punahou School, but the school claims that his records are missing.
More likely his school transcripts from the Punahou School in Hawaii are locked away in the same fault that his school transcripts from Columbia and Harvard are locked away in.
It is touted Obama attended Occidental College in California. However, since he has admitted in his book and elsewhere that he was engaged in heavy drug use while in high school.
(Judge for yourself).
This seems to show that his studies were the last thing on his mind. How he got in remains a mystery and Obama’s attorneys have blocked access to those records.
Obama finished up his undergraduate years at Columbia College, but, again, Obama won’t release those records either. We have no information to suggest he was a good student. We do know, however, that he did not graduate with honors from Columbia. As the New York Sun writes:
“University Spokesman Brian Connolly confirmed that Barack Obama graduated with a major in political science, albeit without honors.”
Nevertheless, he was later admitted to Harvard Law School.
Being accepted by Harvard Law School without graduating with honors from Columbia suggests that Obama was admitted to Harvard based on race and perhaps, by that time, his growing reputation as a liberal political superstar?
Obama has also refused to release his Columbia thesis, which was about nuclear disarmament of the West. Perhaps Obama is fearful that his thesis, which likely advocates the disarming of the West at the peak of the Cold War, would be seen as incredibly stupid – which “of course” it would be.
Obama at Columbia University
Indeed, the only article anyone can find written by Obama during his undergraduate years is one published by the Sundial, a campus newspaper.
Titled; Breaking the War Mentality.
It’s an idiotic piece that reads like something out of the mind of a 14 year old. Moreover, it simply repeats the propaganda lines of various campus anti-war groups. He writes favorably of nuclear freeze groups, of whom, we now know – thanks to the opening of KGB archives – were being manipulated by the Soviets.
Indeed, the numerous efforts of Obama’s legal team to seal all his academic records brings suspicion that Obama wants to hide his lack of academic achievements, …
(or maybe the name under which he was enrolled),
..which could means that liberal college administrators at Occidental and Columbia admitted Obama (based on) his
skin color and perhaps even his liberal political pedigree?
With college faculty and administration dominated by liberals and with rage for affirmative action at its peak at that time, this is a highly possible scenario.
Not graduating with honors from Columbia College almost guarantees that Obama’s acceptance to the Harvard Law School was hinged on affirmative action. We also know that some prominent liberals were lobbying the school to gain Obama admittance. It’s no wonder Obama has refused to release any Harvard records as well;
Nor will he release his LSAT or SAT scores. Moreover, how Obama was elected to the presidency of the Harvard Law Review is also controversial.
From: “The Daily Caller” – Posted February 2, 2012
The shroud over President Barack Obama’s college records recently spotlighted by Donald Trump’s $5 million challenge is prompting Americans to share what they’ve got, and The Daily Caller is getting its share of leads, including one story that the president scored a GPA of only 2.6 at Columbia University.
The 2.6 grade (can’t be confirmed), is contradicted by some evidence, and it doesn’t say anything about the courses, professors and associations Obama was immersed in during his two-year stay in Columbia.
But the source is credible, and he’s contributing to the collective effort by Americans to find out more about their president, who is a champion of a greater role for himself and other government officials in Americans’ personal lives, social norms and career opportunities.
The source for the 2.6 number is a successful Silicon Valley entrepreneur and a Columbia alumnus who maintains good ties with the university.
In 2004, after Obama’s successful speech at that year’s Democratic convention, a Columbia University official told him Barack Obama’s GPA, he explained to “TheDC.”
“This person told me that he [Obama] was a pre-law, poli-sci major, had a lot of incompletes, and as best could be determined after sorting through the incompletes, had a GPA of 2.6,” said the businessman, a former Marine Corps combat veteran.
The source asked not to be named, but “TheDC” has verified at least one $2,500 contribution he made to Columbia.
The claim matches some of the other reports about Columbia’s arrivals in 1981, and some of Obama’s comments about his college career, including his 1981 transfer from Occidental College to Columbia.
Obama told author David Maraniss that he earned a B+ GPA in two years at Occidental.
But it also clashes with other evidence, including Obama’s observable smarts, and his claim to Maraniss that he earned a GPA of 3.7 at the Ivy League school.
Public and media interest in presidents’ college records isn’t new. The New Yorker published Bush’s transcripts a year before he was elected president, amid approval from many Washington, D.C. political reporters and partisan advocates.
On Oct. 24, real estate mogul Donald Trump highlighted the widespread interest in the president’s exotic and obscured past by offering to donate $5 million to a charity of Obama’s choice if he releases his academic transcripts and passport records.
Americans “will know something about their president [and] their president will become transparent, like other presidents,” Trump said, prompting derision from many in the media establishment.
Other groups and individuals are digging for the same materials, which they hope will help shape the public’s understanding of the president’s priorities.
On Sept. 19 a group of federalists used their website, The Trenches, to offer a $35,000 reward for Obama’s transcripts from Occidental College, Columbia or Harvard.
(Source, the daily caller.com).
Historically, those who become president of the HLR do so based off of outstanding grades, but not in Obama’s case.
Indeed, at the time of his election, there was a push to promote blacks to leadership positions on campus, regardless of merit.
The left felt that racial promotions, regardless of merit, was a way to pay back the white man’s “debt” to blacks for the slavery era.
A Question Please; If progressive liberals, and/or, (the left), truly believes that an individual’s ill-treatment during a particular period of history deserves reparations, then why are progressive liberals, and/or, (the left), not championing the Chinese who were essentially bonded into slavery to build the western half of America’s railroad system?
..and while were at it, why not throw in the Irish and the Italians?
A wild guest here, and/or an assumption; Could it be because the Chinese, the Irish and the Italians were people who understood the value of self-respect from supporting themselves?
Obama made headlines when he was elected the first black president of the HLR. But breaking the racial barrier was the goal of those who elected him in much the same way many Americans voted for him for president due to his skin color.
When affirmative action programs promote people due skin color and not merit, eventually someone pays a price. In Obama’s case, America is paying the price.
At the time, Obama even admitted that his HLR election was about race, telling the New York Times: …
“The fact that I’ve been elected shows a lot of progress”.
Indeed, according to the NYT, the head of the HLR used to be selected based on grades, but that’s no longer the case:
“The system came under attack in the 1970’s and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition.”
One reason why the media has declared Obama to be “brilliant” is because of his inspirational speeches. However, Obama doesn’t write his speeches,
His campaign speeches were written by Jon Favreau, who is now his main speechwriter at the White House. The soaring words and inspirational phrases were all written by Favreau.
Without Favreau, Obama’s speeches are mediocre.
Don’t believe me? Visit YouTube.com and search for “Obama with no teleprompter,” and you’ll find a slew of speeches in which he sounds like a fool, stuttering and stammering.
Without a speech prepared for him and without a teleprompter, Obama is a less than average speaker. Being unable to speak extemporaneously, like the media claims he can, is a sign of his lack of brilliance. What’s more, not only is his grammar and syntax off in his unprepared speeches, his thoughts are also confusing: …
Well, let me — let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.
It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under a McCain government — administration.
It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change.
Even Bush was a better “off-the-cuff” speaker than Obama is.
Moreover, it was discovered that many of Obama’s speeches contained the same phrases as those of Deval Patrick, the Governor of Massachusetts. These same boilerplate platitudes that many American voters found so appealing were, in fact, used by a left-wing Governor in Massachusetts.
(Judge for yourself).
Regardless, there was is an explanation for this plagiarism; David Axelrod was the campaign strategist for both Obama and Patrick.
Following his graduation from Columbia, Barack Obama claims he worked as a research assistant for a high powered consulting firm. This position he supposedly held has turned out to be misleading and nothing short of a joke.
A colleague has since reported, (and confirmed in the New York Times, of all places) what Obama really did: He actually worked for a small company that published a business forecasting newsletter.
Obama would take economic reports from other countries and collate them into a three ring binder to be sent out to subscribers. He didn’t do any legal work for them. In fact, he did work typical of an intern.
After Obama graduated from Harvard Law, he did not seek work as a clerk for a prominent liberal judge, as most of his Harvard colleagues did.
The work of a law clerk is demanding and it is doubtful that Obama was capable of handling such a challenge.
Instead, Obama was hired by a Chicago law firm. But he didn’t do any heavy lifting there either. Instead, he spent all his time writing notes for his first book. As Allison Davis, a founding partner of the firm wrote: …
“Some of my partners weren’t happy with that, Barrack sitting there with his key board on his lap and his feet up on the desk writing the book.”
No one can find any law briefs written by Obama at this time. It appears that he was just “parked” at the law firm, preparing himself for a political career.
Indeed, Obama will NOT release his billing records for this time period, so it is suspected that he is hiding the fact that he didn’t engage in any substantial work for this law firm.
Obama at the University of Chicago Law School…
After he accepted this position, Obama’s incompetence was exposed. Here is what one blogger, familiar with the exams Obama gave while “teaching” at the University of Chicago:
It gets worse when you try to read the Constitutional Law exams at Chicago; for instance, here’s an exam from 2003 [when Obama was 42 years old] ..the (preposition) doesn’t agree with the (verb): …
Law week, two men, Richard and Michael, walked into you office and asked for your help.
“You learn that they are a monogamous, gay couple who have been living together for the past ten years. Both men are successful architects, and after devoting the past decade on their respective careers, they have now decided that they want to marry and raise children together.”
Setting aside the “Law” and “you office” typos, a man doesn’t devote a decade (on) his career – he devotes a decade (to) his career.
But of course that’s the same pattern we saw back in 1990, and which persisted throughout the 1990s and into this decade – the nouns don’t agree with the verbs, and the verbs don’t agree with the prepositions – and that’s just sweating the little stuff.
The other night, a few of us got together and were trying to parse some of the gibberish in the old exam answer sheets, and after about fifteen minutes of reading stuff like this, we just threw our hands up in the air, and begged, “No mas!”
“A more interesting question arises if we assume that a court rejects Helen’s claim that a fundamental right is at stake, and instead chose to subject PFVA to rational basis review.
The recent Romer opinion may not overturn (in fact, it doesn’t even mention) Bowers, but it nevertheless indicates that even under rational, basis review, the Equal Protection Clause does not permit classifications based merely on a majority’s “distaste” of a particular group – at least not insofar as the classification is not merely directed at the group’s ability to engage in particular conduct that the majority finds disturbing, but rather, is “class legislation” that potentially disadvantages the group in a range of activities unrelated to any particular conduct.”
By our count, that’s approximately 10.75 different negations in one sentence. But then somebody noticed this little gem from the 1996 answer sheet: …
Which spin on Romer the Court might adopt is anybody’s guess. What is safe to say is that the views of particular justices on the desirability of rearing in children in homosexual households would play a big part in the decision.”
This paragraph doesn’t even make sense. Obama was not only incomprehensible in his writing, but he was obsessed with group identity and other bogus legal theories.
During the presidential campaign Obama claimed he was a “Constitutional law professor” at the University of Chicago Law School, but this is not true.
He was listed on the Chicago Law School website as a “Senior Lecturer in Law.” That is not the same as a law professor. As Lynn Sweet writes in the Chicago Sun-Times:
“The University of Chicago released a statement on Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) ‘served as a professor’ in the law school—but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, (never held), a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday. ‘He did not hold the title of professor of law,’ said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the school, on East 60th St. in Chicago. . . .
(Judge for yourself).
The university statement said, ‘From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School.’ The school probably did not mean to imply that Obama became a University of Chicago professor a year out of law school. But the word ‘served’ is key— Nagorsky said Obama carried out, or served, a function of a professor—teaching a core curriculum course while a senior lecturer—while at the same time not holding down that rank.. . . .
While Obama was also part of the law school community, his appointment was not part of an academic search process and he did not have any scholarly research obligations which professors often do.
It appears as if the University of Chicago babysat him as well. Not having to complete any research like real professors do, Obama was free to continue his hard left networking and community organizing in preparation for his political career.
(Obama worked for Acorn).
At this point in his life, Obama worked for a number of community organizing groups but finding anything written by him is almost impossible. His name did appear on a ACORN lawsuit against Citibank which forced them to approve home loans for people who were not qualified (yes, Obama and his ACORN friends were complicit in the “credit crisis” now destroying America), but he is one of nine attorneys listed and there is no evidence he wrote any of the briefs.
Indeed, it does not appear that he ever used his Harvard Law School degree to engage in any legitimate legal work. Perhaps he learned so little about the law at Harvard, he simply wasn’t prepared to engaged in any real legal work.
We do know that his community organizing work was generally considered incompetent. When he was hired by the Annenberg Foundation to carry out reforms focused on a few dozen public Chicago schools, he was a complete failure.
He and his best fiend, terrorist Bill Ayers, were given a $150 million grant to improve the performance of a few dozen schools, but internal Annenberg audits reveal there was zero improvement. In fact, in some areas, the school’s performance declined, as I explained in; …
“What is Obama’s Real Education Agenda?“
Indeed, a 2003 a report by the Chicago Annenberg Research Project, a group entrusted with analyzing the results of the Annenberg Challenge, found that ‘there were no statistically significant difference in student achievement between Annenberg Schools and demographically similar non-Annenberg schools. This indicates that there was no Annenberg effect on achievement in academics.
Even in the touchy-feely areas of ‘student’s sense of self-efficacy and social competence’ the report found ‘there were no statistically significant differences in these outcomes between Annenberg [funded] schools and non-Annenberg schools.’
It gets worse. The report revealed that in some areas such as ‘student peer support for academic learning, inclusive school leadership, and teacher commitment,’ these ‘failed to improve and some weakened.’
How can someone blow $150 million and not show any improvement?
Question: How can someone blow $150 million and not show any improvement?
Answer: Quite simple, the same way someone blows Six Trillion dollars without showing any improvement!
This is the extent of Obama’s executive experience and it reveals total incompetence. And yet the Obama team had the gall to attack Governor Palin for being inexperienced!
Dreams From My Father by Bill Ayers…
By the beginning of October 2008, my confidence that Dreams had been thoroughly doctored and that the doctor was none other than terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers passed the 95 percent level.
This stunning revelation was ignored by the establishment media until best-selling author Chris Anderson, in his new book, …
“Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage.”
..revealed that sources close to Obama confirm that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams of My Father. But for years, Obama claimed to have written it and also claimed to have not known Ayers well. Now we know both statements are lies.
As Cashill writes: …
“Only in America could an America-hating terrorist conspire with an unskilled writer of uncertain origins on an untruthful memoir and succeed in getting the man elected president. This plot is an absolutely rich, so thoroughly cinematic, that the literary gatekeepers refuse to believe it’s true.”
Sorry to disillusion you…
State Senate Career…
While in the Illinois State Senate, his accomplishments were meager. In fact, he didn’t show up much of the time. Records show he didn’t even bother to vote much of the time either.
He also voted “present” more than any other legislators – 130 times — which simply means you’re “neutral” on the issue being voted upon.
The few bills he introduced were handed to him by veteran legislators.
He was handed 26 bills by a fellow senator his first years as a state senator, bills all written by others. He was known as a “Bill Jacker,” which is someone who steals other people’s legislative ideas and then claims credit for them.
Even the so called “ethics” legislation he often mentioned on the campaign trail was a fraud. This was an already crafted bill created by Senator Emil Jones. Jones allowed Obama to take a lead on it to help his career. This is not a sign of genius.
U.S. Senate Career…
In the U.S. Senate Obama once again repeated his “bill jacking” actions. He often claimed credit for bills he was merely a co-sponsor of but had no involvement in creating.
When Texas State Senator Kirk Watson was questioned by Chris Matthews to list Obama’s legislative accomplishments, he was unable to name one.
Following a number of meetings involving negotiations on the 2006 immigration “reform” bill (the amnesty bill), there was a press conference. Obama showed up and actually spoke as if he was part of the negotiations when in fact he had nothing to do with the crafting of the bill.
McCain accused Obama of “partisan postering” since the few meetings they had never produced any legislation.
Maybe McCain isn’t the only one who is sick of Obama’s lies and stupidity.
Obama even took credit for a banking bill which disinvested money from Iran: …
“Just this past – this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran as a way of racheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.”
The problem is, Obama was not a member of the Banking Committee and had nothing to do with the bill.
Having very little legislative accomplishments and stealing other people’s ideas is not a sign of brilliance. It’s a sign of laziness and arrogance.
Many of his Polices Aren’t Just Liberal, They’re Stupid!
Outside of “identity politics” and sports, Obama has little understanding of the real world:
His repeatedly bows to foreign leaders, which suggests he doesn’t understand basic protocol.
His efforts to try terrorists in civilian court reveal a severe misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution.
His idea that massive government spending will generate private sector jobs is a bizarre view not held by any credible free market economist and has no historical precedent.
His belief that additional burdens placed upon the private sector will not have any impact on job creation defies all logic.
His belief that government must take over all health care in order to make it more efficient completely ignores the history of socialized medicine all over the world.
He appears to have no basic understanding of free-market economics.
His view that apologizing to America’s enemies will earn us goodwill is naïve and incredibly stupid.
Nor does Obama Understand even Basic History:
He claimed the Americans liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka. They did not.
He said the whole world came together to save Berlin during the airlift. No they didn’t; it was mostly an American and British effort.
He portrays his father as a freedom fighter, when in fact he was part of an extremely violent, corrupt movement in Kenya.
He believes his Kenyan family was involved with the African freedom movement. No, they weren’t. Obama’s relatives have attempted to impose Sharia law in Kenya.
He even thinks the origins of his name is Swahili. No, its not. It’s Arabic. Swahili has nothing to do with his name.
He claims that as a result of the Selma march, he was born. Not true. Obama was born four years before the Selma march.
Obama’s Stupidity is Reflected by the Most Naive Cabinet Ever.
Obama’s lack of knowledge about how the free enterprise system works is not just limited to him, but also reflected in who he has chosen to lead his administration.
J.P Morgan tracks the percentage of cabinet officials, 432 in all, who have private sector experience. They’ve been doing this since 1900.
The vast majority of Presidential cabinets have selected around 50% of its people from private sector backgrounds.
Except Obama’s cabinet. Only 8% of his cabinet officials hail from the private sector. This does not mean they’re stupid, however it does reveal how naïve Obama is for appointing people with NO private sector experience in a collapsing economy.
They all apparently believed he was destined for power and would be the one who transforms America. Not because of his intelligence; but rather because of the “fabricated” image he projected. (Source, westernjournalism.com).
Using the misfortune of others to provide for yourself is despicable.
Question: Where are the photos of America’s Black Messiah in his formative, and/or, college years. Where are the photos of Barack Obama where he “doesn’t” appear to be a (self absorbed) lout?
According to Webster: “lout,” (in context) 1. An individual regarded as awkward and stupid; an oaf.
“Lout,” 2 (in context) To bow or curtsy.
Truth forges understanding, I’ll be back tomorrow