Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On the surface, at least, Barack Obama’s single most impressive accomplishment has been his 1990 election to the presidency of the Harvard Law Review.
This position also provided Obama his only real executive experience as he supervised the law review's staff of 80 editors.
One has to wonder then why neither he nor wife Michelle emphasized this singular honor during the up-by-the-bootstraps biographical sections of their respective speeches at Denver.
In fact, neither of them so much as mentioned Obama’s time at Harvard, this despite his vulnerability on the executive experience charge.
Their silence likely derives from one verifiable fact: Obama’s record at Harvard was no more authentic than John Kerry’s record in Vietnam.
Kerry was justifiably swift-boated because he fraudulently positioned himself as a war hero. Obama seems to have learned from Kerry.
In the age of the Internet, the less said about a dubious credential the better, and Obama’s law presidency credential is dubious on any number of levels.
For starters, Obama did not do nearly well enough at his previous stop, Columbia University, to justify admission to Harvard Law.
According to the New York Sun, university spokesman Brian Connolly confirmed that Obama graduated in 1983 with a major in political science but without honors.
In the age of affirmative action and grade inflation, a minority in a relatively easy major like political science had to under-perform dramatically to avoid minimal honors. Obama apparently did just that.
The specifics we may never know. As the New York Times concedes, Obama “declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.”
Would that Bristol Palin could get off so easily!
There are any number of possible reasons for Obama’s reticence about Columbia: his grades, the courses he took, his writing samples, and, of course, his associations.
At that time, for instance, both Bill Ayers and Obama fell within the orbit of left wing Columbia superstar, Edward Said. Just recently out of hiding, Ayers was attending the Bank Street College of Education, which adjoins the Columbia campus.
Five years after leaving Columbia, Obama decided on law school. His lack of resources did not deter him from thinking big. Nor did his B-minus effort at his Hawaii prep school or his equally indifferent grades at Columbia.
As Obama relates in Dreams From My Father, he limited his choices to only three law schools--“Harvard, Yale, Stanford.” (It must be nice to be Obama.) He does not mention his connections.
Harvard law School is notoriously difficult to get into. Annually, some 7,000 applications apply for some 500 seats. Applicant LSAT scores generally chart in the 98 to 99 percentile range, and GPAs average between 3.80 and 3.95.
If Obama’s LSAT scores merited admission, we would know about them. We don’t. The Obama camp guards those scores, like his SAT scores, more tightly that Iran does its nuclear secrets.
We know enough about Obama’s Columbia grades to know how far they fall below the Harvard norm, likely even below the affirmative action-adjusted black norm at Harvard.
As far back as 1988, however, Obama had serious pull. He would need it. As previously reported, Khalid al-Mansour, principal adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, lobbied friends like Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama’s behalf.
An orthodox Muslim, al-Mansour has not met the crackpot anti-Semitic theory he could not embrace. As for bin Talal, in October 2001, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani sent his $10 million relief check back un-cashed after the Saudi billionaire blamed 9/11 on America.
1. fine, he should've said "our de facto national motto was" instead of "our motto is".
2. he didn't mention the source of inalienable rights. So what? If I want to tell you that I have a car, do I also have to tell you how I came by it?
3. he said we are "united in freedom under one flag". This is true. What does the Pledge of Allegiance have to do with anything?
I think that they were talking about the Declaration of Independence and the flag, not the Pledge of Allegiance.
I might offer up to you the fact that many people think he wants to kill anything to do with God in our government so not using the word often enough could make it disappear from the scene. You know, the more you do or do not say a thing the sooner it will leave. Kind of like telling a lie often enough it becomes true. In this case leaving God out three times was actually lying and those men think, on purpose.
2. He refers to our "national mottos" plural, which is correct because we have had more than one.
3. "E pluribus unum" was the first one, adopted by an act of Congress in 1782.
4. The letter is stupid, political, and absurd. It is meant solely for gleeful consideration in the ignorant right wing echo chamber.
5. Thanks for playing. try again.
No one is impinging the E pluribus unum "motto"..
You seem to totally miss the point of the letter. His omissions are what is focused upon here. You apologists for this guy are amazing. There seems to be no length from which you will turn to protect this Progressive folly he is furtively putting forth on behalf of his Progressive agenda disguised as Democratic ideology.
You seem to totally miss the point of the letter. His omissions are what is focused upon here. You apologists for this guy are amazing. There seems to be no length from which you will turn to protect this Progressive folly he is furtively putting forth on behalf of his Progressive agenda disguised as Democratic ideology.
People keep on referring to Obama as "Progressive" "socialist" and "liberal", when at most he is a "very moderate liberal".
I say this as a rather socialist liberal.
We haven't had a true progressive socialist liberal in the White House ever.
This is actually sadly hilarious. How could one President make so many serious and historical blunders?
John Adams rejected the idea of a holy Trinity as a crock. He would think a lot of people these days were loons. Including a few who signed that document. He understood, though, that religion can help people morally..... I think religion can also be used to control.
Such is Indonesia's spirit. Such is the message of Indonesia's inclusive philosophy, Pancasila. (Applause.) Across an archipelago that contains some of God's most beautiful creations, islands rising above an ocean named for peace, people choose to worship God as they please. Islam flourishes, but so do other faiths. Development is strengthened by an emerging democracy. Ancient traditions endure, even as a rising power is on the move.
From the same speech referenced in the letter. Obviously, Obama hates God and fails to mention him, ever. Or something. They did nail him on the national motto thing.
That was pretty funny.
Impinging? I'm not sure what you mean there, but I'm pretty sure that's not the right word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brien51
You seem to totally miss the point of the letter. His omissions are what is focused upon here.
Ah... I see. Your objection is that he didn't give the speech you wanted him to.
I'll alert the media.
Oh wait... it's still stupid, political, and absurd.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.