Before our liberal readers start saying, “Yeah, where’d you get that? Fox News?” we should point out that it comes from the Harvard Crimson.
We’re always told by our liberal friends that Barack Obama is brilliant and as as proof of that brilliance they pull out the fact that he was president of the Harvard Law Review.
Uh-oh. Now a new article calls that evidence into question.
Barack Obama became President o the Harvard Law Review thanks to affirmative action. He became an effeminate male model all on his own.
Before our liberal readers start saying, “Yeah, where’d you get that? Fox News?” we should point out that it comes from the Harvard Crimson. And we assume we can trust the liberal Harvard Crimson to report accurately on the liberal Harvard Law School.
Here’s how the Crimson describes the circumstances that may have lead to Barack Obama’s rise to prominence:
In 1981, all 80-some editors except one were white, and it would be another decade before the Review elected its first black president, Sen. Barack H. Obama, (D-Ill.) Fewer than a dozen of the editors on the Review were women, although Susan R. Estrich, the law professor and Democratic political operative, served as the Review’s president in 1977.
It was then that the saga of the Law Review’s affirmative action program began, when the editors adopted a race- and gender-conscious policy by a 45 to 39 vote, to the vehement opposition of some faculty members.
Several months of intense debate and negotiations ensued between the Review and the faculty, at the end of which the Review began for the first time considering factors other than merit in choosing its members.
Young Barack Obama seems to have majored in posing for photos
Prior to 1981, law students could join the Review either by being among the top five students in their first-year sections—each class used to be divided into four sections—or through a combination of their grades and their scores on an annual writing competition, a process designed to preserve absolute objectivity.
But the 1981 editors felt it necessary for their admission policy to take into account the underrepresentation of minorities and women.
Under their modified plan, the top four students in each first-year section would still be elected to the Review, but the fifth spot would be reserved for the top-scoring minority student among the top 25, and if no such minority student existed, the fifth spot would go to the woman with the highest grades.
Two days after the adoption of this policy, three editors—including one woman—resigned in protest.
In response, the Review’s leadership convened to reconsider their plan, opting for a non-quota system that would merely take race and gender into consideration. But despite the modification, the Review continued to encounter opposition from students, alumni, and most importantly, from the faculty.
The first Affirmative Action President. We’ll leave it up to you to figure out if we’re talking about the Harvard Law Review or the United States of America.
Read the whole article at the link immediately below.
Harvard had a $36.9 billion endowment, the largest in academia. The endowment has imploded, and the university faces the worst financial crisis in its 373-year history.
Hard times at Harvard: The endowment is going down
Unemployment is at record levels and growing. The tsunami of commercial loan foreclosures still hasn’t begun. The “stimulus” money is sitting unspent in bank vaults across America. The national debt is spiraling out of control. Yet there is a ray of sunshine.
“Only a year ago,” Vanity Fair says in its latest issue, “Harvard had a $36.9 billion endowment, the largest in academia. Now that endowment has imploded, and the university faces the worst financial crisis in its 373-year history. Could the same lethal mix of uncurbed expansion, colossal debt, arrogance, and mismanagement that ravaged Wall Street bring down America’s most famous university?
It’s no wonder Barack Obama thought the Cambridge police had profiled Professor Henry Louis Gates. He has had personal experience with the ugly brute force of their racism.
Oh, how we long for the moment when time expires on this administration
It’s no wonder Barack Obama thought the Cambridge police had profiled Professor Henry Louis Gates. He has had personal experience with the ugly brute force of their racism.
The fascist, racists in the Cambridge Police Department unfairly targeted the oppressed young black man who is now President of the United States with unwarranted parking ticket after unwarranted parking ticket while he was student at Harvard Law School between 1989-1991.
In a brave attempt to protest the police department’s blatantly racist policies, Obama left Cambridge without paying for 17 of those tickets.
OK, that’s how some leftwing blogs might report this story, but here’s the truth:
President Obama is a deadbeat. He skipped town without paying for 17 parking tickets. They sat unpaid for 20 years – until two weeks before he announced his bid for the presidency – when he finally ponied up the money he owed the city of Cambridge. The violations included parking in a bus stop and parking without a proper permit.
“In other words,” John LeBoutillier said at NewsMax.com, “as a practicing lawyer in Chicago, he allowed these tickets and penalties to remain unpaid; as an Illinois state senator he allowed these tickets and fines to remain unpaid; and as a United States senator he allowed these almost-two-decade-old signs of his disdain for the law to remain unpaid.”
During Watergate, the question was, “What did the President know and when did he know it” During GatesGate, the question is, “What didn’t the President know and when didn’t he know it?”
During Watergate, the question was, “What did the President know and when did he know it” During GatesGate, the question is, “What didn’t the President know and when didn’t he know it?”
Charges by Cambridge Police for resisting arrest against Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates have been dropped, but he still may need to have a giant, malignant chip on his shoulder removed.
The chip on Professor Henry Louis Gates' shoulder was booked separately
Charges for resisting arrest against Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates have been dropped, but he still may need to have a giant, malignant chip on his shoulder removed.
When Gates was asked for identification during an investigation of a possible break-in, he responded, “Why? Because I’m a black man in America?”
Which, of course, is the typical reaction from anyone who has had an encounter with the police. (For example, if stopped for a malfunctioning headlight on your car, simply respond to the officer’s request for your drivers license by saying, “Why? Because I’m a black man in America?” It’s guaranteed to work like a charm.)
Barack Obama, who received enough support from whites to be elected President of the United States, did take time to pronounce–without knowing the facts–that the Cambridge police, “acted stupidly.” You know, kind of like acting without first knowing the facts.
According to Obama, the only time police don’t act stupidly are when they are shot in the line of duty. In that case, police are brave and serve as a reminder why guns must be banned.
Obama added that the massive chip on Gates’ shoulder was a pre-existing condition. Under the terms of his government-subsidized health plan, an operation to remove the chip would be covered.
However, the wait for the operation would make the 350 years of oppression seem short.
Police unions in Cambridge, Massachusetts have come out in support of Sgt. James Crowley. They’re demanding an apology from President Obama for his statement that officers “acted stupidly” when they arrested black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Racist cops arresting Henry Louis Gates. Hey, wait. Isn't that a black officer in the foreground?
Police unions in Cambridge, Massachusetts have come out in support of Sgt. James Crowley. They’re demanding an apology from President Obama for his statement that officers “acted stupidly” when they arrested black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr.
This should be interesting. The President has been more than happy to jet around the world apologizing to anyone and everyone whether they deserve it or not.
Now let’s see how long it takes him to apologize to Americans for once.
Update 7/24/09: Henry Louis Gates Police Report Henry Louis Gates Police Report page 1Henry Louis Gates Police Report page 2Henry Louis Gates Police Report page 3
Barack Obama lied to the graduating class at the New Economic School in Moscow, when he told them he meet Michelle at Hardvard Law. They met at law firm Sidney & Austin.
Barack Obama lied to the graduating class at the New Economic School in Moscow yesterday when he said:
"Pssst, Michelle. If anyone asks, remember to say we met at Harvard."
“Congratulations to the entire class of 2009. Congratulations to you. I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure you’ll all going to have wonderful careers.”
What’s the lie?
He didn’t meet the future Mrs. Obama at Harvard Law School. In fact, they weren’t even at Harvard Law School at the same time. She graduated in 1988, but he didn’t graduated until 1991.
Where did they really meet?
A thousand miles from Harvard. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s best-selling memoir, he says, “I met Michelle in the summer of 1988, while we were both working at Sidley & Austin, a large corporate law firm based in Chicago. Although she is three years younger than me, Michelle was already a practicing lawyer, having attended Harvard Law straight out of college. I had just finished my first year at law school and had been hired as a summer associate.”
Why would the President lie about where they met?
Guilt by association. According to Wikipedia.com, “From 1984 to 1988, (unrepentant terrorist Bernadine) Dohrn was employed by the prestigious Chicago law firm Sidley Austin. She was hired by Howard Trienens, the head of the firm at that time, who knew Thomas G. Ayers, the father of Dohrn’s husband. “We often hire friends,” Trienens told a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. However, Dohrn had not been admitted to the New York or Illinois bar. She passed the New York bar exam but had not submitted an application to the New York Supreme Court’s Committee on Character and Fitness. She also passed the Illinois bar, but was turned down by the Illinois ethics committee because of her criminal record.”
Our theory: Obama never thought anyone would connect the dots between unrepentant terrorists Bill Ayers and his equally unrepentant wife Bernadine Dohrn. In fact, it’s likely that he never thought they’d become a campaign issue.
So even though Obama’s memoirs tell the truth about where he met his wife, he now sees a need to re-write history. His own history, that is.
“How much responsibility, if any, do you have for the financial crisis?” Simple question. But, not for Barney Frank. Let this be a warning: do not ask Rep. Frank (D-MA) questions that may make him uncomfortable.
Hating the media is our reason for living. And we think intentionally misleading news stories are almost as pornographic as pornography. Like the one ABC News ran the other night.
At IHateTheMedia.com, we admit right up front that what we do is commentary. On a good day, mildly amusing commentary. We would never call ourselves a news organization, and after this so-called news report, maybe ABC News shouldn’t either. “Porn in the USA: Conservatives Are Biggest Consumers,” ABC’s report, said “Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious.”
The background
According to a study (view PDF) conducted by Benjamin Edelman of the Harvard Business School, there’s very little difference between porn consumption in red states and blue states. In fact, Edelman concludes that “When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different…The differences here are not so stark.”
Unfortunately, ABC started its report by stating a starkly contrary conclusion, then went off on a circuitous safari in search of data to support it. In reality, there’s absolutely nothing in the study to support ABC’s flimsy conclusion that conservatives consume more porn than liberals, because there’s nothing in the study that asked the respondents if they were conservative or liberal. Nothing.
