Is Obama Stupid and Lazy?

Quote:By Steve Baldwin, a Western Journalism Exclusive

Is Obama Stupid and Lazy? Although that’s quite a provocative question, evidence is mounting that Obama may not be as intelligent as his supporters and cheerleaders in the media constantly assure us. The reality may be that 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 network of liberal professors, law firms, and others, gave him a pass on performance while he pursued his political agenda.

Educational Background

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.

Obama attended the prestigious Occidental College in California.  This is puzzling, however, because he has admitted in his book and elsewhere that he was engaged in heavy drug use while in high school. 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 Obama graduated with a major in political science but 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 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, which means that liberal college administrators at Occidental and Columbia admitted him based on his skin color and perhaps even his liberal political pedigree. With college faculty and administration completely 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.

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.

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. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of the Law Review.

No one will reveal what Obama wrote for his essay, but we can assume Obama wrote a feel-good liberal essay on some politically correct topic and, combined with the incentive to “make history,” the HLR staff voted him as president. But it’s clear his election was not due to his scholarship. It was all about race and politics. Obama even admits as such in 1990 HLR statement:

Since the merits of the Law Review’s selection policy has[sic] been the subject of commentary for the last three issues, I’d like to take the time to clarify exactly how our selection process works…

I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law
Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized either within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.

Note that in the very first sentence of this statement, Obama writes the noun “merits” as plural and the verb “had” as singular! And this from the editor of the HLR? Ironically, Obama’s statement confirming that the affirmative action mentality elected him also affirms how affirmative action lowers academic standards.

What is strange about Obama’s tenure with HLR is that he wrote hardly anything for the publication during his two year term with them. Only one article has been found, an unsigned six-page summary on the question of whether fetuses should be able to file suits against their mothers. According to Poltico:

The temperate legal language doesn’t display the rhetorical heights that run through his memoir, published a few years later….

Others have pointed out numerous logic and grammatical errors in the piece that any “brilliant” HLR editor would not have made. Indeed, as far as can be determined, Obama is the first HLR president in Harvard’s history to not have written anything for the Review under his own name. Was Obama not capable of writing well-researched legal briefs? What was he afraid of?

Harvard is notorious for its liberal faculty and one can see how a promising, liberal, half-Kenyan, black-activist would be passed for work that wouldn’t have been accepted from a white or Asian student.

Yes, Obama graduated in the top 10% of his class, but with the obsessive, affirmative-action mentality held by his professors, one can assume that he was favored on reasons other than intellectual merit. Obama’s politics were well known to them and as a result of being a history-making first president of the HLR, it’s a good bet that his professors treated him the same way the Harvard admission officers treated him – lowering the standards and inflating the grades.

Speaking Ability


Jon Favreau is the main speechwriter at The White House

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, he’s 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. Regardless, there was is an explanation for this plagiarism; David Axelrod was the campaign strategist for both Obama and Patrick.

Professional Career

Following his graduation from Columbia, 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 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 to 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 completing 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 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:

But it gets even 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] where 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. . . .

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 contributed to 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.’  And that was 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 one blow $150 million and not show 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 of my Father


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.

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 any of Obama’s legislative accomplishments, he was unable to name one. The exchange can be viewed here.

Following a number of meetings involving intense 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 he is not the only one who is sick of his 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 Policies Aren’t Just Liberal, They’re Stupid!

Outside of “identity politics” and sports, Obama has little understanding of the real world:

• His repeated 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, but it does reveal how incredibly naïve it is for Obama is to appoint so many people with NO private sector experience to oversee a collapsing economy.

The Cult of Personality

They all apparently believed he was destined for power and would be the one who transforms America. Not because of his intelligence; but because of the fabricated image he projected.


He’s all fluff and no content.

Bruce Tait Wrote:Bruce  
Administrator   Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 6,021  

My father was a bank president; I've actually held a $10,000 bill in my hands.  

Quote:

Obituary for Lindsay Tait

Lindsay L. Tait,78, of Long Hill Rd. Cheshire, passed away Thursday September 20, 2007 at his home.� He was the husband of Anne (Campbell) (Nesbit) Tait and the late Evelyn Tait. � Mr. Tait was born April 20, 1929 in Quincy, MA the son of the late Samuel and Annie (Logan) Tait.� He was a member of the First Congregational Church of Cheshire.� Mr. Tait was raised in Massachusetts and graduated Quincy High School in 1948.� He attended the National Association of Mutual Savings Banks, graduate school at Brown University and Associations Management Development Program at the University of Mass.� He served in the U.S. Army being stationed in Guam in 1948 serving on a Military Police detail. Mr. Tait later served in Vienna, Austria during the Korean War.� Mr. Tait was the Assistant Treasure at the Quincy Savings Bank and in 1970 became the President at Braintree Savings Bank and Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.� He was the Past President of the South Shore Chamber of Commerce where he was an active board member.� He served three years as a non-government member of the United Nations.� Under auspices of the State Department he traveled to China and Africa.� Mr. Tait was a member of the Republican Party, a life member of the Rural Lodge in Quincy, as well as the American Legion.� He was an avid Red Sox and Patriots fan.� He enjoyed scuba diving, skiing, hunting and reading.� Besides his wife, Mr. Tait is survived by two sons Ian F. Tait and his wife Deborah of Brownfield, ME; Bruce D. Tait and his wife Lynda of Weymouth, MA; a brother Douglas and his wife Pat of Chambersburg, PA; a sister-in-law Virginia Tait of Kissimmee, FL; three grandchildren Cameron, Elizabeth, and Danielle; his stepchildren Richard Nesbit and his wife Candace of Cheshire, Beth Barnes and her husband Robert of Prospect, John Nesbit of Wallingford, Nancy Atnes and her husband Brian of Manasquan, NJ; his step-grandchildren Taylor, George, Mathew and Justin; three nephews and a niece.� He is predeceased by his brothers Samuel, Thomas.� Arrangements A funeral will be held on Saturday September 22, 2007 at 11 a.m. at the First Congregational Church of Cheshire, 111 Church Dr.� Burial will follow in Cheshire Hillside Cemetery. The Slater Funeral Home, 242 S. Main St. Cheshire is in charge of arrangements. There are no calling hours. Memorial contributions may be made to the American Cancer Society, P.O. Box 1004, Meriden, CT 06450 or to VNA Hospice, 50 Brookside Dr., Waterbury, CT 06708.� These arrangements and online condolences are available at www.slaterfh.com.

They aren't kidding when they talk about the "gold standard."  The higher education cartel has plenty of gold.  But there's still some question about their standards.

Tonight's big game not just on football field

Quote:by George Will
Published: January 7, 2010

WASHINGTON - In 1957, Queen Elizabeth, attending a Maryland-North Carolina football game, asked Maryland's governor, "Where do you get all those enormous players?" He replied, "Your majesty, that's a very embarrassing question."

Tonight's championship game between Alabama and Texas, featuring head coaches paid $4 million and $5.1 million, respectively, will be an occasion for more hand-wringing about the "commercialization" of college football. That is a hardy perennial.

The 1920s, which worshiped stars like Red Grange and coaches like Knute Rockne, saw a boom in construction of capacious stadiums. SMU built its stadium 13 years before it built its library. The decade ended with a 1929 Carnegie Foundation report ineffectually deploring the "corruption" of grafting this lucrative entertainment industry onto academia.

From its founding in 1906, the NCAA opposed universities compensating students for athletic skills. Payments by boosters to players seemed less disreputable. The NCAA's so-called Sanity Code of 1948 said "no athlete shall be deprived of financial aids ... because of failure to participate in intercollegiate athletics."

In 1956, however, the NCAA dealt with the charge of "professionalism" - many brawny boys were being unofficially paid to play - by sort of legalizing that sin with athletic scholarships. In 1972 and 1973, the NCAA made freshmen eligible for varsity competition and relaxed requirements for high school academic achievement. And in 1973, the NCAA authorized one-year scholarships, renewable at the discretion of coaches.

This was partly to strengthen coaches in dealing with the new assertiveness of athletes, especially African-Americans. But it also amounted to a forthright embrace of the fact that "football has functioned as a kind of public theater since it was first discovered by the mass-circulation newspapers in New York in the 1880s."

So says Michael Oriard - former Notre Dame and NFL player, now professor of English at Oregon State - in "Bowled Over," his history of big-time college football since the 1960s. Universities hoped, he says, that the idea of athletic scholarships would immunize them - it has - against legal claims to workers' compensation for injuries.

Forty percent of Division I football programs lose money, but the rich are prospering, thanks to corporate branding of stadiums and bowl games, contracts with soft drink and athletic shoe companies, marketing of team logo merchandise, luxury suites, seat licenses for the privilege of buying seats and, most important, television.

There is now a 15-year, $3 billion television contract between the Southeastern Conference, which has six of the nation's 15 largest athletic budgets, and CBS and ESPN. This will give each of the 12 SEC athletic departments about $17 million a year, comparable to revenue from a major bowl game.

Most of the money that flows into big-time football programs from individuals and corporations is tax deductible for the spenders, and the universities' athletic programs are not taxed. Congress, however ravenous for revenues, will not dare to change this.

NCAA pressure on universities to improve athletes' graduation rates perversely encourages suspicious concentrations of athletes in particular majors. In a recent year, 41 percent of Texas football players were majoring in Youth and Community Services, compared to 0.2 percent of all students; 78.4 percent of Michigan's were in General Studies, compared to 1.6 percent of all students.

Evidence that football serves larger university interests (more and better student applications, alumni and government support) is elusive, but belief in football as an institution-building enterprise is not new: When the University of Chicago opened in 1892, it hired a former Yale All-American, Amos Alonzo Stagg, at a full professor's salary to coach the team.

Football is one reason Notre Dame, rather than a rival, became the premier Catholic university in the 1920s and '30s.

Football, says Oriard, is "the chief activity through which alumni remain attached to their university," which matters more as states' budgets contract. Furthermore, Oriard says football provides large universities "meaningful ritual" and a sense of community "whose social benefit is hard to measure but nonetheless is real and powerful."

If boosters stop donating to football, they will not start donating to classics departments. The late Bear Bryant, Alabama's coach, correctly said, "It's kind of hard to rally 'round a math class." So a droll University of Oklahoma president was not quite kidding when he said, "We're trying to build a university our football team can be proud of."

The wit who said football has about as much to do with education as bullfighting has to do with agriculture was more amusing than accurate.

GEORGE WILL writes for The Washington Post. georgewill@washpost.com.

http://www.asseeninwi.com/did-you-know-a...is-a-wisco

"waived residency requirements"

"external studies"

"took some exams"

"life experience credits"

"finished his degree in less then a year"

Hmm.

http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/Le%20scan...tiques.htm

Sensational reports jam-packed with frightening statistics about domestic violence on women, issued in Quebec by several public sources are another con-job to please special interest, activist groups.

Quote:En janvier 1980, le Conseil consultatif canadien de la situation de la femme publiait un rapport intitulé « La femme battue au Canada: un cercle vicieux ». Dans ce rapport, Linda MacLeod et Andrée Cadieux improvisent un calcul de la prévalence annuelle de la violence conjugale au moyen d'une série d'extrapolations dont la validité est plus que douteuse.



Voici la façon dont elles présentent leur soi-disant « méthode » :



« On ne peut donc pas porter de jugement définitif sur la fréquence des cas de femmes battues.

On peut toutefois l’établir de façon estimative, d’abord, en combinant les statistiques connues sur le nombre de femmes qui sont dans les maisons de transition parce qu’elles sont battues et le nombre de femmes qui déposent une demande en divorce en invoquant la cruauté physique. On peut ensuite ajuster ces chiffres pour qu’ils correspondent aux nombres totaux, car il n’existe pas de maisons de transition dans toutes les provinces ni dans toutes les régions. Enfin, le résultat peut être exprimé comme une proportion de la population féminine mariée. Cette estimation donnera une indication sommaire de la fréquence, mais une indication dont la crédibilité sera assurée à la fois par des études plus poussées sur la fréquence des cas de femmes battues dans diverses villes canadiennes, et par les récentes enquêtes américaines sur la fréquence et les caractéristiques des cas de femmes battues ».

Source : Linda MacLeod et Andrée Cadieux, La femme battue au Canada : un cercle vicieux, Conseil consultatif canadien de la situation de la femme,1980, p. 17.

(Note : les passages en caractères gras ont été mis en évidence par nous)



En utilisant l’approche ainsi décrite, MacLeod et Cadieux se livrent ensuite à une série d’extrapolations basées sur des données sur les admissions enregistrées en 1978 qu’elles ont recueillies auprès de maisons d’hébergement (MacLeod et Cadieux, 1980, p. 9), également appelés « maisons de transition » (p. 17) et sur des statistiques sur les divorces (p. 19). Au terme de ces extrapolations, elles arrivent au constat suivant :



« Nous pouvons assurer, en combinant nos statistiques sur le divorce et celles des maisons de transition qu’au moins :

De 40,000 à 50,000 femmes au Canada ont subi, en 1978, assez de violences physiques et mentales pour chercher de l’aide à l’extérieur du foyer.

Il existe environ cinq millions de couples au Canada. Cela signifie qu’approximativement :

Une femme sur cent au Canada, qu’elle soit mariée ou vive en union de fait, a été battue et a déposé une requête en divorce invoquant comme motif la cruauté physique, ou a fait appel à une maison de transition pour obtenir de l’aide (considérant les extrapolations précédentes) ».

Source : Linda MacLeod et Andrée Cadieux, La femme battue au Canada : un cercle vicieux, Conseil consultatif canadien de la situation de la femme, 1980, p. 19.

(Note : les passages en caractère gras ont été mis en évidence par MacLeod et Cadieux)  



À la suite de ces premiers résultats (40 000 à 50 000 femmes battues), MacLeod et Cadieux se livrent à une dernière extrapolation qui fait passer le nombre de femmes battues à une évaluation se situant entre 400 000 et 500 000 environ à chaque année :



« Par exemple, une étude effectuée à l’université de Windsor, en 1976, estime que :

Il y a dix cas non dénoncés pour chaque appel placé par une femme battue auprès de la police.

Si nous acceptons cette évaluation approximative, à savoir qu’à chaque cas connu correspond (sic) dix cas non divulgués de femmes battues, et que l’on applique cette proportion à nos calculs précédents, soit qu’une femme sur cent fera appel à une maison de transition ou demandera le divorce parce qu’elle aura été battue, nous pouvons estimer que :

Chaque année, une Canadienne sur dix est battue, qu’elle soit mariée ou qu’elle vive en union de fait.

Des études américaines, sur la fréquence des cas de femmes battues, fondées sur des enquêtes menées auprès des ménages, laissent croire que cette évaluation est probablement très prudente. Par exemple, Strauss (sic), après avoir interviewé plus de 2,000 familles d’un bout à l’autre des États-Unis, estime que 16 couples américains sur cent ont vécu un incident violent ou plus ».

Source : Linda MacLeod et Andrée Cadieux,  La femme battue au Canada : un cercle vicieux, Conseil consultatif canadien de la situation de la femme, 1980, p. 23.

(Note : les passages en caractère gras ont été mis en évidence par MacLeod et Cadieux)  

Quote:eu de temps après la sortie de ce chiffre, on m’a offert un emploi pour développer une politique fédérale sur les victimes d’actes criminels, politique qui mettait l’emphase sur l’agression de la femme par son conjoint. Le résultat de ce travail fut que le gouvernement fédéral commença à financer des recherches et des projets-pilotes concernant les femmes agressées par leur conjoint. Le solliciteur général fédéral, Robert Caplan, en réponse à une recommandation émanant du rapport que j’avais rédigé pour le Conseil consultatif, envoya une lettre à tous les chefs de police du pays les exhortant d’adopter des politiques d’inculpation obligatoire ».

This could just as easily go in the Chip White category (and possibly a few others), but since we haven't tweaked admitted homosexual and adjudicated civil rights violator Anal Contreras lately we'll post it here.

Interesting how we see the Klempner Klone Kadre using these same tactics to try to destroy competitors of the wealthy, entrenched higher education cartel.

Just misguided attempts at "law enforcement"...or radical homosexual activists manipulating the media to destroy lives?

The Media's Gay Mafia "Queers" the News

Quote:Prof. Nicholas Stix - 5/28/2009

In their quest to "queer" America, radical homosexual activists in the media destroy lives, as they manipulate the principle of privacy, and make war on traditional masculinity, sports, and even the truth.

In late April 2003, Sen. Rick Santorum (R, Pa.) got a taste of what awaits anyone who opposes the gay agenda. After explaining to Associated Press reporter Lara Jakes Jordan (who is married to Sen. John Kerry's (D, Ma.) campaign manager, Jim Jordan) his opposition to any pro-gay laws or court rulings that might weaken the family, gay activists demanded that Santorum resign.

But the Santorum case was only the tip of the iceberg. For as Sandy Koufax, Mike Piazza, and countless others will attest, in recent years, gay activists have graduated from protesting against public figures to controlling news rooms. The activists do not care if their stories are even true, and suffer no consequences for lying.

In February, Hall of Fame pitcher Sandy Koufax ended his 48-year relationship with the Los Angeles Dodgers, due to a defamatory story a reporter planted in the New York Post, insinuating that Koufax was a homosexual. The Dodgers and the New York Post both belong to News Corp., the conglomerate owned by Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

The story, a "blind item" in Richard Johnson's Page Six gossip section, referred to "an unidentified ...Hall of Fame baseball hero" who was secretly gay. The December 19, 2002 item claimed that the baseball great "cooperated with a best-selling biography only because the author promised to keep it secret that he is gay. The author kept her word, but big mouths at the publishing house can't keep from flapping."

Since the bestselling biography, Sandy Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy by Jane Leavy, had appeared only three months earlier--published by News Corp. subsidiary HarperCollins--many observers concluded that the "blind item" referred to Koufax. On February 21, 2003 the New York Post's management confessed that the piece had indeed been about the 66-year-old pitcher. "A two-sentence blind item we ran here on Dec. 19, 2002 about a 'Hall of Fame baseball hero' has sparked a series of unfortunate consequences for which we are very sorry.... We apologize to both Koufax and Leavy for getting it wrong."

The New York Daily News reported on February 22, 2003 that "Daily News columnist Michael Gross tracked down the twice-married Koufax and his current girlfriend and made clear that the Dodger great is heterosexual."

The report went beyond even the radical homosexual "outing" of famous closeted gays, a practice which was pioneered in 1989 by editor-in-chief, Gabriel Rotello, and violent "reporter," Michelangelo Signorile, of the short-lived magazine Outweek. In 1990, Rotello sought to rationalize the practice, writing that, "social workers pointed out that gay teens grow up without support networks of parents, relatives or even 'out' gay and lesbian friends. Such kids, who are taught the lie that gays are pathetic, sad and hopeless, desperately need positive role models. Despite the fact that thousands of society's most famous, respected and successful people are gay, gay kids grow up without that knowledge." Rotello considered his tactic vindicated, when supermarket tabloids soon began imitating it.

The gay mafia's openly gay activists who pass as journalists seeks to "out" high-profile, professional athletes as homosexual, in order to mainstream a sexual orientation which most Americans consider perverted, and apparently as an assault on the last preserve of the traditional masculinity they have declared war on. And if no gay superstars are handy, activists will invent some.

Once the preserve of despised storm troopers like Rotello and Signorile, the practice of "outing" has since gone mainstream, as activists have taken over major media outlets. However, even bigger problems with the "queering" of the news involve the willful misreporting or outright silencing of important stories.

In June 2000, media watchdog Reed Irvine reported in NewsMax.com on the celebratory speech given at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association by New York Times national political correspondent, Richard Berke. "Now, there are times when you look at the [Times'] front-page meeting and ... literally three-quarters of the people deciding what's on the front page are not-so-closeted homosexuals."

In a whispering campaign last year, reporters portrayed New York Mets catcher Mike Piazza as homosexual. Piazza, widely considered a surefire future Hall of Famer, eventually felt the need to call a press conference, to announce that he is "not gay."

Gay media activists have also succeeded at perpetrating hoaxes, according to which heterosexuals are just as much at risk of contracting HIV as homosexuals, and that gays comprise 10% of the population, and are victimized by rampant anti-gay attacks.

In 1990, investigative journalist Michael Fumento's book, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, meticulously proved that AIDS was a gay disease. Fumento revealed that public health officials, in league with homosexual activists, routinely lied about the danger of AIDS to the heterosexual population, and thus misused scarce resources, costing many lives that could have been saved. Gay activists felt so threatened by Fumento, that they intimidated his publisher into killing the book's PR campaign, thus ensuring that it was a commercial failure, and succeeded at marginalizing one of America's finest journalists.

In seeking to mainstream homosexuality, the gay mafia has for years spread the fiction that "every tenth" person is homosexual. More sober calculations, such as those of SUNY Stony Brook sociologist John Gagnon, put the prevalence of homosexuality at 2%.

In 1991, New York Newsday columnist Jim Dwyer wrote of the near-lynching of a heterosexual man by a homosexual mob at the annual New York City Gay Pride parade. The man had muttered to his girlfriend about the aggressive attitude of the "fags" at the parade. A nearby spectator overheard him, and organized a lynch mob, which chased after the man. A police officer saved the man, by putting him in a taxicab that sped from the scene. No members of the mob were arrested.

Dwyer alone reported on the incident. Local media outlets all reported, however, on three thugs who were arrested at the parade, for attempting to attack homosexuals with baseball bats. And so, instead of showing that homosexuals were both attackers and victims that day, the media portrayed them exclusively as victims.

During the 1990s in New York State, thousands of babies and their mothers died horrible, preventable deaths due to AIDS, because the gay mafia, which controlled AIDS coverage, refused to report on a gruesome policy that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had adopted, under pressure from the gay lobby. All newborns were routinely tested for HIV infection, but contrary to established public health practice, CDC officials refused to inform their mothers of the results. While only 25% of the children of HIV+ mothers were born with HIV antibodies, thousands more were then infected via their mother's breast milk. As State Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn wrote in 1997, "Only in the world of AIDS has privacy and secrecy been given a higher priority than prevention and treatment." But then, gay activists do not have children.

Another dramatic case of the gay mafia's ability to skew the news came following the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, in Laramie, Wyoming. Posing as gays, Aaron J. McKinney and Russell Henderson lured Shepard away from a bar, robbed and pistol-whipped him, and tied him to a fence. Shepard was found alive, but died five days later. Henderson and McKinney are serving life sentences.

As William McGowan points out in Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism (which the New York Times refused to review), no less than 3,007 stories on the Shepard case were published in the first MONTH after the murder. Across America, pro-gay and gay reporters, and gay activists seized upon the case as typical of rampant "homophobia," exploiting it to win political privileges for homosexuals, including "hate crime" legislation giving gay crime victims special status.

In 1999, a young boy was heinously murdered, but since the crime was carried out by homosexual pedophiles, most Americans never heard about it. Don Carpenter and Joshua Macabe Brown lured 13-year-old neighbor Jesse Dirkhising into their apartment in Rogers, Arkansas, where they tied up, gagged, and drugged him. As Allyson Smith reported in World Net Daily, for five hours, Brown anally raped the boy with sausages and cucumbers, "three fingers, his penis, a frozen banana, and a urine enema laced with the sedative drug amitryptiline while Carpenter watched, masturbating ..."

Leaving their victim face down, the men took breaks to eat, shop for more rape implements, and nap, while he slowly succumbed. According to Medical Examiner Dr. Stephen Erickson, young Jesse died of "suffocation, positional asphyxiation and acute amitryptiline intoxication."

As William McGowan reports, in the month after Jesse Dirkhising's murder, only 46 stories were devoted to his fate. "The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC ignored the story altogether and continued to do so through the March 2001 trial of one of the murderers, which resulted in a conviction. (The other assailant later pled guilty.)" Dirkhising's murderers are now fighting their convictions.

Ultimately, the gay mafia does allow for one last preserve of "privacy": Keeping important but unflattering stories about homosexuals very, very private.

http://www.ecotidien.fr/2010/01/des-poup...lligentes/

While the economy goes down the drain, here is what the imbecile system is thinking about.
No, for once it is not a condemnation of Nazis or the appointment of a 'diverse' person to a key job.

The article says certain families detest the 'values' some toy dolls represent, namely the Bratz brand and their hedonistic superficiality.
So some invented an "intelligent toy", which is not to mean that the toy knows how to wear a dental dam for safe oral sex, or knows how to crank the handle of the divorce industry to a$$-rape its Ken doll in divorce court.

This intelligent doll is depicting as "humanist", "republican", "justice-minded" and bound to campaign in favor of women's right that are so often flaunted in this world. Jane Poetry (the name of the doll) wears bourgeois clothes and in its fictional world mobilizes female dolls to find a Chinese girl sent to work in a factory.

As defined on the website of US secular humanists, they are committed

Quote:To promote secular humanist principles to the public, media, and policy-makers

    To provide secular humanist activities and communities to serve the needs of nonreligious people and foster human enrichment

    To demonstrate the viability of the secular humanist eupraxophy as an alternative naturalistic life-stance

    To engage in research relating to the critical examination of religious and supernatural claims and the humanist outlook

    To conduct educational programs for all age levels

From www.degreediscussion.com:

Steve Foerster Wrote:

Jack Wrote:Once upon a time I stumbled upon an internet site where a guy was claiming a medical degree (MD) from a well known degree mill and I sent off an email to someone outing him. At the time I felt it was the right thing to do because it seemed clear that he was acting as a Physician without the proper training. I'm not now prepared to say that I was wrong. However, I do not surf the web looking for St Regis grads (for example) and sending letters to their employers. I may have a strong opinion but mostly I have a "live and let live" attitude in such matters.

I did something similar once. I noticed that a person listed as faculty for a school near me claimed a doctorate from a well known degree mill. I contacted the school and told them, and they responded saying they'd take swift action. Before long that person's name was gone from their faculty list. At first I congratulated myself for a job well done, having blown the whistle for truth, justice, and the American way. But in time I came to regret having involved myself in something that was none of my business. What if that person was actually an excellent instructor? What if there were some extenuating circumstance of which I was unaware? And I was going to get in someone else's business, why not contact the person and ask them about the situation rather than contact someone else about it?

Anyway, needless to say it's something I didn't and wouldn't repeat. Things may seem black and white, but without actually being in the situation, who knows what unknown factors there may be? Better to mind one's own business.

-=Steve=-

NJ is discussing a law to beat on jerks like Breyer State graduate James Wasser who buy degrees. Good idea, finally. Go Garden State!

Immediately under the DD thread entitled "St. Regis DuckMen-- an occasional report" posted by notorious stalker George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin), we see another thread by Bill Dayson aka Hungry Ghost posted a mere 59 minutes later entitled "Outing Degree Mill Customers."  

Coincidence?  I think not.  

Has Dayson grown a conscience?  Well, in his words, "kind of."  

Gollum-style stalking an invasion of privacy? "Not exactly."

Repeating the bogus "fake MDs, structural engineers" argument?  Well, nobody said he was capable of independent thought or able to fully grasp the obvious, such as why those trades are already heavily licensed and regulated.

But ever so magnanimously, Dayson is "inclined to be compassionate about other people's human failings if no damage is being done."

Gee, that's mighty generous of you, Dayson.  Willing to pass up a chance to publicly humiliate someone, destroy their career and ruin their life, just because no damage is being done?  Bear Blasphemy!!

Failing to seize an opportunity for self-aggrandizement at the expense of someone else?  Sainz Sacrilege!

Ignoring "harmless vanity degrees" because they are, well, harmless?   Dayson Desecration!!!

Keep that up Dayson and you might find yourself being drummed out of Klempner's Klone Kadre.  

Quote:I'm kind of troubled by posts that ridicule degree-mill customers.

I suppose that on one level, if somebody publicizes their degree-mill degree, then they've make that degree public and fair game for other people's comments. So it's not an invasion of privacy exactly.

And obviously, if somebody is using a degree-mill degree as qualification for a position in which they can do real harm (fake MDs, structural engineers and such), that's a matter for legitimate alarm. Fake degrees as teaching qualifications or service-provider credentials raise consumer protection red-flags. And using fake degrees to get additional pay from clueless or complicit employers is a corrupt and dishonest practice that might be worthy of mention.

But in many of these cases, the degrees look like harmless vanity degrees. They might be evidence of some sort of psychological weakness in the people that proudly pose with them, I suppose. But I'm inclined to be compassionate about other people's human failings if no damage is being done.