Archive for the ‘academia’ category

Obama SAT Scores Lower than GW Bush’s?

22 May, 2012

Yup, Obama is a product of racially lowered expectations, err, I mean, “Affirmative Action.”

Really, how else can you explain his obvious lack of basic mathematical skills which has saddled us with a debt of $15 trillion and counting ?  The only other guy in the world whose grasp of basic mathematics might be worse than Obama’s is his fatuous suckupper and propaganda meister, Ezra Klein

So, it is of no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention that Obama isn’t as smart as his ego thinks he is.

Of course, I can see where the Breitbart team is going with this article; they want to expose all the Media sycophants who will inevitably come out of the woodwork to protect Obama’s “sacred” records from scrutiny.  If I were the Lame Stream Media, I would tread very carefully when playing stud poker with the folks at Brietbart.  No doubt, they have an ace sitting in the hole:

Exclusive: The Vetting – Did Obama Have Lower SAT Scores Than George W. Bush?

Breitbart – by Charles C. Johnson  <— No.  Not the traitorous Lizard King at LGF.

President Barack Obama is hailed by his supporters and the mainstream media as one of the most brilliant men ever to hold the office. However, his refusal to release his academic records, his admitted deficiencies as a student, and his frequent factual errors–even in his chosen field of constitutional law–have cast doubt upon his supposed genius. Now, Breitbart News has established that Obama’s grades and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores may have been even lower than those of his supposedly less capable predecessor, George W. Bush.

Breitbart News has learned that the transfer class that entered Columbia College in the fall of 1981 with Obama was one of the worst in recent memory, according to Columbia officials at the time.

A Nov. 18, 1981 article in the Columbia Spectator, “Tight Housing Discourages Transfer Applications to CC,” written by student Jeremy Feldman and quoting admissions officials, reported: “On paper at least, the quality of the students accepted [as transfers] has declined along with the number of applicants, the officials say.”

Feldman, quoting Robert Boatti, Assistant Dean of Admissions, as well as the late college Dean Arnold Collery, continued:

Boatti also attributed the drop in transfer application to the College’s policy of requiring transfer students to take courses in its core curriculum and to the limited availability of financial aid for them.

He added a “majority” of the transfers come here from college in the New York area. Many come from community colleges, rather than the nation’s top schools.

“Even the unhappiest people don’t transfer from Harvard,” Boatti said.

In grades and other indicators of academic performance, the crop of transfer applicants “doesn’t stand out the way they did before,” [Dean Arnold] Collery said.

Boatti confirmed Collery’s observations.

Among accepted transfer students, the average combined math and verbal score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test is a 1,100 and their grade-point average at their former schools is about 3.0, Boatti said.

The freshman class at the College had a combined SAT score more than 100 points higher.

Only 450 students applied to transfer to Columbia in 1981 and sixty-seven were admitted, according to the Columbia Spectator, compared to 650 applicants just four years before.

If Obama’s SAT scores were near the average of the transfer students entering Columbia in the fall of 1981, he would have scored significantly lower than George W. Bush, whose combined math and verbal scores were 1206 out of a possible 1600 points (as revealed by the New Yorker in 1999).

CLICK HERE to continue reading

Hilarious Commencement Speech for the Class of 2012

9 May, 2012

It’s funny because it’s soooo true!:

If Commencements Told The Truth
by Pat Archbold Wednesday, May 09, 2012 – National Catholic Register

Congratulations class of 2012.  It is my great pleasure and privilege to address you on this momentous occasion in your lives.

I know today is all about you, so I want to talk about me for a second.  This is also a momentous occasion in my life. Well, not so much momentous as depressing.  As I look out at all your fresh, young, and eager faces a few things come immediately to mind.  First, and this is the me part, I realize how old I am.  I seems like I was you just a moment ago. It is sobering to think that when you were born, the world had already traded in the awesome musical stylings of Mister Mister for Milli Vanilli.  This was a harbinger of things to come if ever there was one, but I can see from your faces you have no idea what I am talking about.

Anyway, this is your day.  Enough about me, I wish to speak about, well, more me.  Not me in particular, but my whole generation of “me’s.”  A moment ago, I said that when I look out at all your fresh, young, and eager faces a few things come immediately to mind.  One, I am old. Two, I owe you an apology.  Me and all the other “me’s” of my generation.  We were your last chance and we blew it.

Most of you are graduating with mountains of debt with little or no prospect of paying it back anytime soon.  This may not seem like a big deal to you, but that is kinda our fault too.  Among the many things we have taught you is that it is perfectly fine to incur huge amounts of debt with no reasonable way to pay it back.  We taught you that you can borrow other people’s money and that when things get rough you can either just walk away or wait long enough for the government to bail you out.  We taught you that it is perfectly fine to live beyond your means only to hand your bills to somebody else.  It isn’t.  Eventually, somebody has to pay.  Guess what?  That somebody is you.  Now, that might not be so bad if there were lots and lots of you to pay for it, just a little for everyone.  But we kinda killed millions of little “yous” in the process, because we thought they might crimp our style.  Our parent’s religion told us not to behave this way, but we were so sure we knew better. I will be the first to admit that we didn’t think that all the way through.  Our bad.


Students at Carthage College Asked to Sign Petition Redistributing GPA’s

26 April, 2012

An excellent idea for motivating students to consider the  flaws inherent in the redistribution of wealth mantra.  However, I wish the audio quality was a little bit better on the video, but the lesson learned is golden:

Students Sign Petition To ‘Redistribute’ GPAs, But Some Are Too ‘Greedy’ To Lower Their Grades For Others
By Ron Meyer – CNSNews

Apparently, many students don’t like the idea of redistribution – but, only when it applies to their grades. Redistribution of their GPAs (grade point averages) to poorer students, they say, is unfair. But, those with lower grades don’t seem to mind benefiting from the hard work of their “greedy” high-achieving classmates.

Young America’s Foundation’s fourth annual GPA Redistribution Petition and Video Contest has produced yet another stellar student entry, this time from Carthage College. This year, the national public policy debate has focused on “fairness” through taxing the wealthy in an attempt to redistribute wealth. Many young people support this socialistic policy.

Yet, when students at Carthage where asked if they would be willing to sign a petition to redistribute GPA points from the top 10% to the rest of the college, most of them said NO. One student said, “No, because I worked hard for my grades!”

Another said, “At Carthage, each student has an equal opportunity to get the GPA they desire.” And another, “I don’t want my GPA being taken away from me if I had an ‘A’.”

When the petitioners told students that oftentimes outside factors leave students at an unfair disadvantage, a student said, “No. I’m low-income and a minority, and I have a fairly decent GPA, so…”

Fittingly, some of those who are not in the upper 10% welcomed the free points. “Why not? I’m down,” said one student with a low GPA  (eagerly signing the petition), but then the student’s friend standing next to him said, “It takes away from people working hard… and obviously it’s paid off with their higher GPA.” Later in the conversation, when the first student told his friend to sign the petition, the friend responded, “How about trying harder for a semester?”


Rump-Rider Sycophants Removing Chick-fil-a from College Campuses

13 March, 2012

Nothing like the hypocrisy inherent in the much touted “all-inclusive,” Liberal academic world excluding those who are of a different opinion:

Chick-fil-A’s Christian ties stir college opposition
by Anne Reiner/ – via Baptist Press

BOSTON (BP) — Last week, the student senate at Northeastern University, in Boston, voted to end negotiations to bring fast-food chain Chick-fil-A to campus after students protested over the company’s affiliation with several Christian organizations the students say have an “anti-gay” agenda.

The Atlanta-based company, dogged for months by accusations of homophobia, insists it is “not anti-anybody” but instead simply wants to “graciously serve great food and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”

But students from at least 10 campuses aren’t buying it. Incensed over the company’s Christian values, they opposed new franchises and lobbied for the removal of existing restaurants on campuses across the country. Although the furor has generated a lot of media attention, prompting the company’s president to publicly defend its philanthropic affiliations, it’s not likely to hurt Chick-fil-A’s bottom line. With about 1,540 restaurants in 38 states and annual sales figures topping $3 billion, the company still has plenty of fans.

At Northeastern, the student body eagerly embraced Chick-fil-A’s proposal to become a vendor in the student center, until a small group of students complained about the organizations to which the company contributes through its WinShape Foundation. Led by Senior Taylor Cotter, a member of the school’s’ student senate who spent almost a year opposing the company’s interest in coming to campus, the students circulated a petition and gathered 300 signatures — about 1.5 percent of the student body. Despite the relatively small opposition, the school’s student government quickly voted to end negotiations with the company.

School administrators supported the decision, saying the company’s principles contradicted Northeastern’s respect for diversity and support for the gay community: “We are proud of the decision that affirms our university’s commitment to be an inclusive, diverse community that is respectful of all,” college spokeswoman Renata Nyul said in a prepared statement.

ROFLMAO!!!  The hypocrisy runs deep with this one!

Responding with their own written statement, company representatives said they were disappointed over the school’s “hasty” decision: “We are not anti-anybody and Chick-fil-A [has] no agenda, policy or position against anyone as some reports continue to represent.”

Company president Dan Cathy insists Chick-fil-A is not a Christian company, just one founded on biblical principles. But thanks in part to the company’s affiliation with pro-family groups, its frequent presence at large religious rallies and the praise music reverberating from speakers in its restaurants, both fans and detractors often refer to it as one of the country’s most overtly Christian businesses.

Through the WinShape Foundation, started by company founders Truett and Jeannette Cathy, Chick-fil-A donates to several Christian organizations, including The Marriage & Family Legacy Fund, The Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the National Christian Foundation. According to its statement, Chick-fil-A has given the groups $1,714,199. None of the organizations the company supports has an “anti-gay” agenda, although as Christian groups, they do uphold and support heterosexual marriage, Donald A. Perry, the company’s vice president of corporate public relations, said in his statement.

“I want to assure you that the historical intent of our Foundation and corporate giving have been toward compassion, principally by serving youth and families,” he said. The company gives millions of dollars every year toward education.


Australian Ethicists Argue in Favor of Infanticide in the “Journal of Medical Ethics”

28 February, 2012

When one plays God, incongruously divining right from wrong, the konzentrationslagern surely loom on the horizon:

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘ as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’

Liz Klimas – The Blaze

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.


Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.


Catholic University Being Pressured by Muzzie Students to Remove Crosses

27 October, 2011

Which begs the question, what the hell are Muzzies doing in a Catholic university???

Muslims say crosses at Catholic University Violate “Human Rights”
Radio Fox News

The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations that Catholic University violated the human rights of Muslim students by not allowing them to form a Muslim student group and by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers.

The investigation alleges that Muslim students “must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”

A spokesperson for the Office of Human Rights told Fox News they had received a 60-page complaint against the private university. The investigation, they said, could take as long a six months.

The complaint was filed by John Banzhaf, an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School. Banzhaf has been involved in previous litigation against the school involving the same-sex residence halls. He also alleged in his complaint involving Muslim students that women at the university were being discriminated against. You can read more on those allegations by clicking here.

Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.”

“It shouldn’t be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus,” he told Fox News.

A spokesman for Catholic University released a statement to Fox News indicating they had not seen any legal filings — but would respond once they do.

“Our faithfulness to our Catholic tradition has also made us a welcome home to students of other religions,” said  Victor Nakas, associate vice president for public affairs. “No students have registered complaints about the exercise of their religions on our campus.”

In a 2010 interview with National Public Radio, university president John Garvey acknowledged that they don’t set aside prayer rooms for Muslim students.

“We make classrooms available, or our chapels are places where they can pray,” he told NPR. “We don’t offer Halal meat, although there are always meals that conform to Halal regulations, that allow students to do what they want.”

Banzhaf said that it is technically not illegal for Catholic University to refuse to provide rooms devoid of religious icons.


Al Goracle Got ‘D’ in Natural Sciences at Harvard

24 May, 2011

But, an ‘A’ in BS 101, no doubt:

Transcript: Al Gore Got ‘D’ in ‘Natural Sciences’ at Harvard
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
By Michael W. Chapman

( – In his commencement speech at Hamilton College on Sunday, former Vice President Al Gore told the graduates that global warming is “the most serious challenge our civilization has ever faced.” But as an undergraduate at Harvard University in the late 1960s, Gore–one of the most prominent spokesmen on climate change today–earned a “D” in Natural Sciences.

Gore’s transcript documents that during his sophomore year at Harvard he earned a “D” in Natural Sciences 6 (Man’s Place in Nature). Also, as a senior at Harvard, he earned a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118.


Obviously Skewed “Study” Finds Gay and Teen Suicide Rates Higher in Conservative Environments than Liberal

19 April, 2011

Yeah, right.   I believe this study like a I believe the Moon is made of cheese.

Why?  Because, when it comes to Liberal “researchers” promoting the gay agenda, there is no such thing as an accuracy in the methodology.  

The author’s conclusion that a permissive school environment and liberal community would significantly reduce depression and suicide among gays is absolutely wrong.  How do I know that?  Because the Netherlands, which has one of the most tolerant and permissive societies on planet Earth, has conducted its own studies which have found that homosexuals are almost twice as likely to suffer from major depression than their heterosexual counterparts.  In other words, if permissiveness and tolerance were such major factors in leveling the mental health playing field between homosexuals and heterosexuals, then a study conducted in the ultra-libtarded Netherlands would have proven that out, now wouldn’t it? 

The bottom line is that this is just another example of Libtards wanting to push an agenda—like “safe schools”—and then getting one of their Liberal buddies in academia to release a “study” supporting said agenda.   Then, the Liberal talking heads and politicians use this agenda driven “study” to influence the masses into accepting all this BS as a “truth” (after all, it came from a “respected” university, right?   Who are you to question academia? ).  And, finally, laws are passed forcing the public into compliance, further moving the Overton Window.  I see this pattern repeated time and time again:

What leads gay, straight teens to attempt suicide?

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer

Suicide attempts by gay teens — and even straight kids — are more common in politically conservative areas where schools don’t have programs supporting gay rights, a study involving nearly 32,000 high school students found.

Those factors raised the odds and were a substantial influence on suicide attempts even when known risk contributors like depression and being bullied were considered, said study author Mark Hatzenbuehler, a Columbia University psychologist and researcher.

Gee, I wonder why the author of this article didn’t mention that Mark Hatzenbuehler works for the university’s  Center for the Study of Social Inequality and Health?  Could it be that such an admission would color the message and cause the reader to view it with a jaundiced eye?

His study found a higher rate of suicide attempts even among kids who weren’t bullied or depressed when they lived in counties less supportive of gays and with relatively few Democrats. A high proportion of Democrats was a measure used as a proxy for a more liberal environment.

Hmmm…  Even in liberal, agenda-driven BS, you can find hidden nuggets.  I’ll file that one away for future reference…

The research focused only on the state of Oregon and created a social index to assess which outside factors might contribute to suicidal tendencies. Other teen health experts called it a powerful, novel way to evaluate a tragic social problem.


Okay, I can’t take anymore of this Liberal leg-humping, circle-jerk cr@p.  If you want to read the rest of it, CLICK HERE.

Health & Ethics Professor at George Mason University Tells NPR Listeners that Obamacare Opponents Should Wear “Gold Stickers on Their Foreheads”

10 February, 2011

Gold stickers, you say?  Oh, you mean like those gold stars teachers use to motive their students, right?  Gee, who else was forced to wear yellowish-gold stars to identify themselves in public?  Hmmm… I wonder…

Obamacare Advocate: Make Refusniks Wear Gold Stickers

Method of persecuting people who refuse to buy mandatory health care invokes holocaust imagery

Paul Joseph Watson
A leading advocate of Obamacare told NPR yesterday that Americans who refuse to pay for health care should be forced to wear gold stickers on their foreheads and refused emergency hospital treatment, in a chilling throwback to how Jews were persecuted by being made to wear yellow stars by the Nazis during the occupation of Europe.

In an article carried on the NPR website entitled Alternatives To Mandating Insurance? Maybe, Dr. Len Nichols, Professor of Health Policy and Director of the Center for Health Policy Research and Ethics at George Mason University, and a staunch advocate of mandatory health care, came up with a novel idea “to make the consequences of not having insurance even more dramatic.”

For example, he says, perhaps if people don’t buy insurance when it is first available, “if you ever try to buy insurance again, you’ll have to pay three times the market price, and we will put a gold sticker on your forehead and say to all hospitals, ‘You do not have to treat this person; this person has forfeited their right to uncompensated care.’ ” (Click here for audio).

Given the brazen insensitivity of the comment, NPR presenter Julie Rovner immediately tries to downplay its vulgarity, insisting, “Nichols is only half serious about that gold star.”

LSU Professor Belittles Student Dissenters of Anthropogenic Global Warming

21 November, 2010

Yet another example of how Lefturd professors use ridicule and peer pressure to indoctrinate impressionable young adults.

BTW – Bring it on, professor.  I’m a physicist and I’m telling you that the supposed “science” behind anthropogenic global warming is about as scientific as Peter Pan:

%d bloggers like this: