UPDATE (12.07.13) at bottom.


BO’s street creds as an intellectual are based in part on these facts: he graduated from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude; and he was the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. But as you will see, this doesn’t mean he is smart.

The Student Law Review

The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization, formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Its primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions and, together with a professional business staff of three, carry out day-to-day operations.


Here’s how editors are chosen for the Harvard Law Review. Fourteen editors (two from each 1L section) are selected based on a combination of their first-year grades and their competition scores. Twenty editors are selected based solely on their competition scores. The remaining editors are selected on a discretionary basis. Some of these discretionary slots may be used to implement the Review’s affirmative action policy.


According to the NYT, here’s how BO was chosen to head the Review.

Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review’s 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.

Until the 1970’s the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

That 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.

The first female editor of the Harvard Law Review was Susan Estrich, in 1977.


According to his campaign, after being elected its President, BO never published anything in the Harvard Law Review.


However, recently, Politico unearthed an unsigned and previously unattributed 1990 “case comment” in which BO affirms his support of abortion rights.


(For a good discussion of the difference between a case comment and an actual Review Article, see


Charles Hamilton Houston was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review in 1920, based on a record of grades that were “mostly A’s and a scattering of B’s.” http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/trialheroes/charleshoustonessayF.html

Magna Cum?

Just because he graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude doesn’t mean BO had a high GPA. It just means that after subtracting the students who graduated summa cum laude, of the remaining students, he graduated in the top 10% of his class. Theoretically, he could have had a C average. http://www.law.harvard.edu/ocs/employers/HLS_Grading_System.htm

And Harvard has a well-documented history of inflating grades.


So, If He Isn’t Smart, How Did He Get Into Harvard In The First Place?

Attorney Percy Sutton, who has represented such controversial figures as Malcolm X, explained he received a letter from Dr. Khalid al Mansour, of Texas, whom he describes as the “principal advisor to one of the world’s richest men,” asking him to use his Harvard connections to help out an applicant to Harvard Law named Barack Obama.   According to Attorney Sutton, per Dr. al Mansour’s request, he wrote to friends at Harvard, describing Obama, whom he had never met, as a “genius” they would want to help out any way they could.


Also see



In sum, given that BO was admitted into Harvard Law School based on the recommendation of a well-connected friend; that he became the president of the student law review based on all-night balloting that finally gave him the majority vote in the morning; that he failed to publish any scholarly articles in the review; and that he graduated with honors from this school famous for inflating grades; without seeing his academic transcripts from Harvard Law School, there is no basis to conclude he is intelligent considering only these associations with that institution.

UPDATE (12.07.13): This was the first article I wrote for my brand new blog in 2008. It has remained one of the most popular postings. Back then, I printed nearly all replies, usually without adding my personal comments. Over the years, I have decided for reality’s sake, not to alter the original presentation. However, I came across this article on grade inflation at Harvard, which I think can add to the readers’ knowledge on the subject. Can Harvard stop awarding so many As


Freedom costs.



  1. BA says:

    One does not judge a 46-year-old man or woman on his marks, but on his or her accomplishments since graduation. And there is a fair number of magna or summa cum laude graduates who are fools.

    BA: Absolutely right. That is why referencing the fact a man graduated with honors, from Harvard Law School, by itself, means nothing insofar as establishing he is smart. This was my point.

  2. CKA in Red State USA says:

    Ditto what BA said about judging a man of BHO’s age on his college grades. Besides, intellect and intelligence are two different things as, for instance, BHO demonstrates almost daily.

    BTW: Decades ago, while living in Cambridge, up Mass. Ave. from Harvard Square and HLS, I read in a local alternative newspaper, the Phoenix or Real Paper, that Harvard College had graduated about 80+ percent of that year’s graduates cum laude.

    That’s grade inflation at its unbelievable worst. It also always seemed statistically impossible.

  3. HLS Grad says:

    You’ve completely misunderstood the magna cum laude designation. Summa cum laude graduates of Harvard Law School are extremely rare. Many years, no one is awarded summa cum laude, out of a class size of over 500. (There have been only 2 total over the last 7 years.)

    The top 10% of the remaining class (which is pretty close to the top 10% overall) are awarded magna cum laude.

    This page has a list of the GPA cutoffs and the number of degrees awarded for the last few years:

    The grade inflation you referenced is for Harvard University undergraduates, not Harvard Law School, but even so, grade inflation is practically irrelevant since magna cum laude is awarded to a percentage of the class, and there are almost no Summa graduates.

  4. Anonymous says:

    You are an idiot my friend. You’ve completely misinterpreted everything you cited. HLS Grad explains the Magna Cum Laude/Summa distinction perfectly. You were wrong. Why try and belittle this man’s accomplishments because you don’t like him?

  5. Cnilla says:

    You are an idiot my friend. You’ve completely misinterpreted everything you cited. HLS Grad explains the Magna Cum Laude/Summa distinction perfectly. You were wrong. By the way, a guy name Justice Scalia also graduated from HLS Magna and was editor of the Harvard Law Review. By your logical reasoning, we should be questioning his intellectual prowess as well.

  6. IslandGyal says:

    You (deleted by jbjd) people are (deleted by jbjd) AND (deleted by jbjd), LMAO!

  7. Another HLS Grad says:

    Harvard Law School exams are anonymous.


    That was the same policy when I was in school and I graduated before Obama, so I’m pretty certain it was the same when he was there.

    Anyone who thinks Obama’s achievements in law school are somehow flawed or suspect has no evidence to support that notion.

    I’d be more worried on how Mr. McCain got to fly jets with his grades at the Naval Academy, which was pure nepotism.

  8. ugh_no says:

    According to this LA times article (http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/10/news/mn-46135) , before 1999, 80% of HLS graduates received honors. They tightened up those numbers so that only 40% receive honors. It was only after this tightening that magna meant top 10% as most people on this thread suggest. So it is nearly impossible that magna meant top 10% back in 1991.

  9. rolling_thunder says:

    We all know that nObama lies so much that everything he says is suspect. I didn’t go to Harvard but if I told you I graduated Magna Cum Laude you’d have no reason to disbelieve me. Anyone can say whatever they want. It doesn’t make it true.
    And….over 50% of Americans are concerned that nObama’s Birth Certificate issue is a valid concern and they are worried…Are obots worried much too?
    And it’s in vault with all other Birth Certificates from people who are foreign born. Rule in HI is to lock them away. Hi is entry place to USA citizenship for foreign born. There is a box checked on the BC if foreign born. That is what BHO does not want you to see. And HI got away with allowing foreign born to slip through the cracks to automatic citizenship so of course they are all sealed to protect the state of Hi. Some of the worst foreign born thugs got here through HI and became citizens…albeit not natural born citizens..this is serious. HI fooked up but this was back when it was a territory.

  10. show-watchr says:

    Inflated grades…. but could have had a C average? And magna cum laude… which means nothing. lol. You folks get funnier and funnier.

  11. Kiuku says:

    Pasted from my comments over at the New Agenda, where you are advertising your BLOG:


    I read over the complaint. Former military here. I’m not a lawyer. And I read through nearly half of it. And I’m pretty sure, while a good attempt, it has no legal standing. You have to prove that he is not a natural born citizen. I don’t think, in fact, that anyone must prove their suitability to be POTUS, but if you are going to take this to a court, you’re going to have to bring proof that he is not a natural born citizen, and I don’t see any proof in there, and it almost seems like the writer can’t decide if he is insinuating that Obama is a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia, which you would have to get straight and get proof, otherwise it is simply insinuative, speculative and defamatory. I see a lot of speculation and things which are suggestive that he is not but you can’t just bring someone to court to make them prove they are a natural born citizen…I don’t think.

    The other issue is standing. And..former military, I understand that it is messed up. And I don’t know what to believe as far as Obama’s credentials. But I think it runs into the same problem that Mr. Berg is having, called “standing”. The court said that Mr. Berg, as a U.S citizen, didn’t have any standing to contest Obama’s presidential bid, which is in my opinion as a citizen and as a veteran is simply wrong and I hope the Supreme Court over rules that judgment on the 9th. (Don’t have the update on that)

    There is also a larger problem here JBJD, and I hope you get around to reading this before you advertise elsewhere. I’ve seen this and versions like it floating the internet. I’m not saying you don’t have cause to be suspicious about Obama’s credentials or cause to render your own investigation.

    One thing I’m used to, being former military, is people trying to use the good name and honor of military service members to further political agendas. It is ok if the military person themselves wants to contest something in a court of law, but trying to get military personnel to back something political, and convince them based on their strong patriotism is wrong.

    Further you might put them at risk.

    I don’t know if you are military yourself. If you are military yourself, I will ask you to reconsider. I am not saying this from any political standpoint. Because I read through it, and it is defamatory at worst, and the speculative nature of the “contest” is insubstantial at best.

    Obama is going to be inaugurated on the 20th and then he will be our sitting President. You address this to all military members as a military contest, and, therefore, in an act of passionate patriotism, an unwitting young soldier could sign his name and identifying information, while on active duty, or as a veteran drawing benefits.

    Because it is insubstantial, meaning there is no proof, a General could turn around and charge every single one of them with Subversion.

    I would.

    Revolting is for civilians; not military. If you had proof it would be another issue and this written contest would be much shorter.

    Further if this progresses past his inauguration, and you are military, you could be charged with inciting disobedience. I don’t know the technical term, but I know the UCMJ good enough to know you would be on shaky ground posting that online.

    They may consider it insightful, though alleging to be a legal process, you are posting it up on a blog.

    2) Sedition. Sedition requires a concert of action in resistance to civil authority. This differs from mutiny by creating violence or disturbance. See subparagraph c(1)( a) above.


    Examples of people charged with Sedition:


    Kiuki: Clearly you have put a lot of time and effort into your analysis and then taken the time to write. Thank you so much. I understand that many people want this military Complaint to focus on whether BO is a NBC. However, there is no such legal cause of action called, ‘I suspect the man who would be President is Constitutionally ineligible for the job so kick him out of there.’ Some of the previously filed Complaints were based on a legal cause of action called Mandamus. That is, a citizen petitions the Court to order a government official to perform what can be identified as a ministerial function of the job, that is, a function that is spelled out in the law. But, as I have stated in this Complaint, no provision of any state or federal law specifically requires any government official to establish whether the candidate for POTUS is a NBC. So, these Mandamus cases have failed. Berg’s case in federal court was based on the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, that is, the petitioner can ask the federal court to Declare a particular interpretation of law or fact that serves as the underlying basis for a pending or imminent legal liability. Only, in Berg’s case, the court agreed there was no pending or imminent legal liability, in that, the only injury Berg alleged would occur is that, having an ineligible candidate for POTUS on the ballot, he could not vote for the Democratic candidate of his choice. This military case is also based on the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, which states simply that, if you are about to face liability for obeying what you consider are your legal obligations based on an interpretation of law or fact then, you may petition the court to clarify in advance some set of laws or facts that would expose you to such liability. The requirements of pleading under this law are spelled out in numerous government manuals and court cases, including guidelines for establishing the particularized harm that would accrue to Plaintiffs in the future, sufficient to establish their legal “standing” to bring this case now. I merely followed these leads, as well as the Opposition to Berg’s Complaint submitted by BO’s well-paid legal representatives. As for subjecting anyone to harm for carrying out their oath of service, avoiding this prospect is the reason I sought out Plaintiffs currently on inactive duty status and am seeking to get someone to file this before BO is sworn into office. Now, please go back and read the whole Complaint. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Kiuku says:

    I meant inciteful.

  13. Obama-IsAJoke says:

    Another HLS Grad,

    You’re assuming way too much my friend:

    1. Fact: Obama got a B- ave in high school.
    2. Fact: Obama won’t release grades from Occidental College.
    3. Fact: Obama won’t release grades from Columbia.
    4. Fact: Obama won’t release senior thesis from Columbia.
    5. Fact: Obama has never published any scholarly article, despite being Prez of HLR, ant teaching at UC for 12 years as a “professor”.
    6. Fact: Obama has never argued a single court case (outside perhaps one appellate case), despite being a “civil rights lawyer” for 8 years.
    7. Fact: Obama’s record at the Il. state senate is mediocre at best.
    8. Fact: Obama’s record as US Senator is also a joke at best, where his most staunch supporters, when asked by Chris Matthews, cannot name a single accomplishment he has done to merit running for POTUS.
    9. Fact: Harvard and other Ivies are notorious for grade inflation.
    10. Fact: Affirmative Action the law of the land. (And FYI, I am pro Af. Action, but certainly not for the position of POTUS. HELL NO!)

    Rhetorical question: Do you think it is even possible for Harvard Law to graduate it’s top dog, i.e Prez of HLR, with anything less than a Magna distinction?!?

    Imagine the Crimson headline in 1991: “The President of the Harvard Law Review is a B- student!”

    Obama-IsAJoke: I can ‘feel’ your passion about this issue but, I just want to point out, you make several allegations without accreditation. For example, saying we have not seen BO’s transcripts from various colleges he is alleged to have attended; is different frm saying, he was asked to produce these transcripts, (cite), and refused (cite). See what I mean? ADMINISTRATOR

  14. Obama-IsAJoke says:

    More Facts:

    11. Obama won’t release LSAT.
    12. Obama won’t release Havard records.
    13. Obama won’t release medical records. (Bill Clinton, GWB, Cheney, McCain, etc. have not fully release theirs either. Just being fair here.)
    14. Obama won’t release Il. State Senate records.
    15. Obama won’t release his US Senate records.
    16. Obama boasts endlessly about his exploits as a “community organizer”, but in his own memoirs, he said he accomplished little, which frustrated him.
    17. During the primaries, Obama boasted that “I want to bring change to Washington… I don’t take money from oil companies!” Talk about a loaded statement. No one does, since it’s been illegal for over a century to do so. What he was really saying is: “I Barack Obama, the righteous black man, the noble civil rights leader, don’t take money from oil companies, but all those ‘typical white’ politicians do.” And this is just one example out of the mountain of (generally racially) loaded crapola & crapanola which he feeds the “typical white” liberal and the “typical black person” who greedily eat all it up–and LOVE IT.
    18. Fact: Obama said in late 2007 IIRC, “Even though we’re behind, we will resort to clipping our opponents at the knees like Tonya Harding…” Tonya Harding and Hillary are both pale skinned, blonde, blue-eyed females, of similar height and bodily proportions. Now what Al Sharpton and company would have done if Hillary had invoked the names of OJ Simpson or Flavor Flav during the primaries?!? LOL, remember that NY Times’ Bob Herbert and that dick-laden diatribe about he Paris-Britney ad? Talk about incessant race-baiting. *sign*

    Given Obama’s penchant for resume padding, exaggerating, dirty tricks (disqualifying voter petition ballots of 4 fellow black candidates in 1996, etc.), loaded language, INCESSANT RACE-BAITING, sexism (pig on a lipstick, invoking Tonya Harding next to Hillary Clinton’s name), grotesque exaggerations, brazen flip-flopping (FISA, flag pin, Jeremiah Wright, etc., etc.,), I would believe anything he says without actual (legit) records verifying his self-glorifying versions of reality.

  15. Obama-IsAJoke says:

    Correction on #18 above, I meant to say:

    18. Fact: Obama said in late 2007 IIRC, “Even though we’re behind, we will NOT resort to clipping our opponents at the knees like Tonya Harding…”

    The statement was missing a negation, i.e. “NOT”. Kinda changes the entire meaning of a sentence. LOL.

  16. Obama-IsAJoke says:

    Another HLS Grad,

    One more thing… The overall pattern, when one looks at The ONE, is that he’s at once both EXCEEDINGLY BOASTFUL and BRAZENLY SECRETIVE. And w.r.t. legal prowess, he’s exceptionally unaccomplished for a Harvard educated lawyer, much less a former president of the HLR, who never argued a single court case nor published a single scholarly article. He’s no Thurgood Marshall. But I’m sure you know that. LOL.

    Nothing adds up when it comes to Obama: One day, he’s for public financing of campaigns, then on another, he’s against it. One day, he says Iran is a imminent threat to the U.S., then literally the very next day he says it IS an imminent threat to America. One day he was against Bush’s FISA Bill, another day he votes for it. One day, he defends Wright, then literally the next day he trashes Wright saying Wright is a divisive race-baiter no less: “He’s exploiting the divisions of the past.” (If the context is race–and it certainly is, then Wright is a bona fide race-baiter.) One day, The ONE refuses to wear a flag pin, the next day he’s the biggest flag pin wearing fool. ETC. ETC. ETC.

    Each one of these flip-flops would have would have done in a White politician, say Bush Sr. (Read my lips…) or John Kerry (“I actually did vote for the $87 Billion dollars before I voted against it.”) Talk about “the biggotry of low expectations”. It appears if Obama, a “black guy”, can walk and chew gum, then he must be a genius. If Obama can make eloquent speeches where he brazenly steals other people’s lines, then he must be a genius.

    Just a few of Obama’s brazen thievery and even outright word-for-word plagiarism:

    1. “Yes, we can!” is stolen from Cesar Chavez.
    2. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!” was stolen from the Hopi Indians.
    3. “The Audacity of Hope” is borrowed from that great and patriotic prophet, Jeremiah Wright.
    4. “Just Words” was blatantly plagiarized verbatim from Deval Patrick, i.e. David Axel Rod.
    5. The theme of “Hope” was stolen from Bill Clinton (1992), and of course Jesse Jackson (1988).
    6. The theme of “Change” was stolen from Bill Clinton (1992) and John Edwards (2004).
    7. “The fierce urgency of now.” is borrowed from MLK. It is pretty much the only line he explicitly acknowledged was from someone else.
    8. ETC. (This list is actually much longer.)

    Heck, even Obama’s internet strategy was pioneered by Howard Dean in 2004.


    Administrator wrote: “I just want to point out, you make several allegations without accreditation. For example, saying we have not seen BO’s transcripts from various colleges he is alleged to have attended; is different frm saying, he was asked to produce these transcripts, (cite), and refused (cite). See what I mean?”

    With all due respect, this is a bit naive to say the least. Are you trying to tell me that Hillary Clinton’s, John Edward’s, John McCain, RNC’s opposition research didn’t ask? Are you trying to tell me the media has not asked? That legions of anti-Obama bloggers haven’t? That would-be Obama biographers, pro and anti, are not still asking now?!?


    BTW, I could have sworn that I’ve run across a mainstream article saying inquiries have been made into his various records. But I don’t have any links at the moment.

  17. slowleftarm says:

    The author of this article is a true (deleted name calling). It is extremely difficult to get into Harvard Law School. Everyone that gets in is extremely smart. He graduated in the top 10% (grades are anonymous conspiracy theorists) and was President of the Harvard Law Review. This is an incredible accomplishment.

    That doesn’t mean all his policies are good. Why not point out why they aren’t instead of trying to belittle tremendous academic acheievements. You sound like a (deleted name calling).

    slowleftarm: Let me begin by pointing out, I edited out the name calling from your comment; if you try to post here again, please, leave out the names. Now, as to the substantive part of your remarks, let me point out what I am certain you already know: saying something is true does not make it so. For example, if you work at HLS and have had access to BO’s grades and class standing, then telling us how smart he is and what was his class standing might be valid. Why are you conflating the fact he was elected President of the Law Review with your assertion, he was smart? Grades were not a consideration for that position. What you might have said is this: after all night voting among approximately 30 law students, he came out on top. If you equate political success with intelligence then beating out 29 opponents in such a vote, at a time on campus when the race of anyone trying to achieve office whether in the form of tenure in teaching positions or President of the student-run Law Review, was considered either a plus or minus; then, you can rightly claim, he was intelligent. Is that what you did? On what basis do you insist that getting in Harvard Law School proves he is intelligent? For example, have you seen his LSAT’s or his grades from Columbia, which school he claims to have attended? Or is your premise that admission into the school necessarily means one is smart? If so then, are you saying that no one who is admitted into HLS is the recipient of affirmative action in the form of intervention from well-heeled or well-connected alumni or acquaintances? Or that only he was admitted solely on his intellectual prowess? ADMINISTRATOR

  18. Laura says:

    You still misunderstand HLS admissions. Even if, for a moment, we give credence to the affirmative action claims, you have the brightest minority students from every college in America competing to earn those slots. The average minority LSAT at HLS is still well in the 170s, which would gain them non-affirmative action entrance to almost any other law school in the country. You may disagree with affirmative action, but the result is still this: you are not getting into HLS unless you are extremely, extremely intelligent.

    In my three years there I never met a single person unqualified for the intellectual rigor. Because of Harvard Law’s position in our society they do not have to admit anyone below their standards. They reject thousands of qualified people every year — all they would have to do is control which people end up in which pool.

    Laura: Hello. The language of your comments is conclusory but, you fail to identify any factual basis for your implicit conclusion that BO is smart because “you are not getting in HLS unless you are extremely, extremely intelligent.” Absent transcripts showing his grades, or test scores, or some other physical construct evidencing he is so smart, you fail to ‘prove it.’ Additionally, I never even intimated BO got into HLS as the result of AA; instead, I posited this was a primary reason he was voted by his fellow students to become president of the student run Law Review. No; as I wrote in this article, I think he got into HLS with assistance from Khalid al Mansour and Percy Sutton. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. Fritz says:

    I’m not being partisan when I say unequivocally you’re not very smart, and clearly you have no concept of the academic rigors of law school.

    I don’t have time to wade through all of your silly arguments, largely based on his not providing his transcripts. He doesn’t have to. His academic achievements speak for themselves. I just want to point out one statement.

    “Just because he graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude doesn’t mean BO had a high GPA. It just means that after subtracting the students who graduated summa cum laude, of the remaining students, he graduated in the top 10% of his class. Theoretically, he could have had a C average.” Then you provide a link to Harvard Law School for no apparent reason.

    The top 10% could have had a C average? So by logical deduction, the bottom 90% would have somehow graduated with C’s and D’s, and maybe F’s. Does that sound “theoretically possible.”

    Harvard and Yale Law School are the premier law schools in the country. Do you know what that means at all? Have you been to law school? Obviously not, or you’d understand the challenges of even obtaining passing grades in B tier law schools. You have no evidence affirmative action had any role in his getting in. Even so, it would have played a small role among a much larger group of factors, most importantly LSAT scores, again scored anonymously. The LSAT is a very difficult test; try taking it and see how your score compares to other test takers.

    On a pragmatic level, do you think he could have risen from complete obscurity to be president of the United States at age 47 by some type of affirmative action program? Did he achieve his success through nepotism like George W. Bush, a moron by all accounts (his mother died in in virtual poverty in 1991, his father in 1982 in Kenya, both not necessarily power brokers). Stop being so partisan and start using your incredible brain power (pfft) to help unite this country.

    Fritz: Usually I will not post comments that only contain opinions to oppose the facts I post, without counter evidence. This time, however, I made an exception. Of course, I attended law school; more importantly, I graduated. Hence, the “jd.” And I learned enough about the law to understand, BO not only has never exhibited a superior intellect but, he has also never established he is Constitutionally eligible for the job of POTUS. In fact, he specifically proclaims he is ineligible, calling himself a “native” citizen but not “Natural Born.” In other words, he’s smart enough to fool you. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. ANON. says:

    Why come background checks that go in depth like these weren’t performed on George Bush? It’s hardly impossible to find information on him talking about his grades in college, academic performance, etc. Clearly he has made more mistakes than ever, and he hasn’t been penalized nor patronized from his “counterparts”. What’s to say about the terrorists attacks, and recent war activity? I truly believe that the primary reason that people are bashing Barack Obama is due to his racial background. The world is truly inaccurate, and this is highly among Caucasians. Accept who we have and make peace. Stop trying to bring in unimportant issues that clearly shouldn’t be the main address. That is all.

    ANON.: More straw dogs. (“Why come background checks that go in depth like these weren’t performed on George Bush?”)

    Do you want documentary evidence that President Bush attended college and graduate school? Try these, for starters.


    How about John Kerry? (This link also leads you to his medical records.)

    Or Al Gore?

    Assuming everyone seeking to vet the POTUS for Constitutional eligibility is racist and, further, that this assumed racism obviates the need to vet the POTUS for Constitutional eligibility, the issue at the heart of this lack of academic record; evidences your contempt for the document that is the basis for our laws and our country. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. sprout says:

    BO may have muddled his way through law school(friends who have gone to school at havard had mentioned that the school does give inflated grades), everything he has done so far indicates he is not so smart. He has not done anything he said he would do if he is elected into the presidency, the only thing he has done so far is put this country into deeper debt, increased terror possibilities, try to push his agenda(socialism/communism)on the America public. He still talks like he is running for presidency, talk like his favorite pastor(I guess he

  22. sprout says:

    continue from the last posting
    did learn something from reverend Wright). My overall impression is Obama doesn’t like our country, he wants to change what this country stands for, I’m not sure even if he knows what. Well, he better listen to the people, we elected him to maintain or make this country better, not change to another country. He is full of idealism and not enough experience to lead this country. At this point I don’t see how Sara Palin can do worse; at least she loves this country.

    sprout: Your last line says it all, for many of us, R’s, D’s, I’s, and U’s (Unenrolled’s). ADMINISTRATOR

  23. KevinNYC says:

    Um, the writer of this post is incorrect and this last comment sprout is also way off. Obama is clearly intelligent didn’t “muddle” through. He excelled at Havard Law, his professors call him the most impressive student they had in decades. One wrote his name and the date from the day he met Obama. The reason Obama didn’t publish any Law Review articles was he was the final editor for everything that went in the law review which often meant 50 hour weeks editing the articles of others including law experts. Contemporaries said he was a great editor. If you make the staff of the Law Review, it is an honor, less than 10% students make it. To be president is also an honor. Barack was elected president of the Law Review because he acceptable to the liberal and the conservative factions.

    KevinNYC: Anecdotal evidence does not supplant facts. Generally, I do not post specious claims, which are any claims presented without attribution. However, I thought your comment that, “professors call him the most impressive student they had in decades,” merited a response. See, the focus of my article is that, nothing in the record evidences BO is so smart. And you cite the ‘fact,’ professors call him “impressive,” as evidence of his intellect. But it isn’t. For example, they could be referencing his managing to be acceptable to both “the liberal and conservative factions.” That is, being a blank slate, he has a remarkable ability to attract all kinds of people, who see in him those traits, either in character or in intellect, which they imbue. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. KevinNYC says:

    If you want to read what Obama’s contemporaries thought of him, see this 1990 article in the LA Times.

    18 years before he ran for president, his intellect and thoughtfulness were gaining attention.

    KevinNYC: Kevin, you silly goose! Next time, please, don't point me to an article penned in September 2008 to make your point that, 18 (eighteen) years earlier, BO's contemporaries notes his intelligence. Use your common sense. Assuming intelligence can be measured by academic performance; and assuming BO is intelligent; then why are his grades not a part of the public record? ADMINISTRATOR

  25. sprout says:

    Reference to Kevin’s comment: A person’s opinion is subjective (remainder of comment omitted by jbjd) As far as his public speaking abilities, I’ve not heard him speak without his teleprompter. I think he is a (remainder of comment omitted by jbjd). Impeachment?

    sprout: See, this explains why I seldom post anecdotal evidence or, personal opinion without documentation that could serve as the basis for such opinion. You and Kevin could go head to head with opinions; and neither one’s opinion is entitled to preference over that of the other. As far as your clinical analysis of BO, well, before I would print that, I would ask to see your professional credentials, for starters.

    As to your ‘question’ of “Impeachment,” under the Constitution, this is the only way to get him out of office. Hopefully, the results of our work with the citizen complaints of election fraud and, requests for documents from Boyd Richie, Chair of the TX Democratic Party, will leave Congress with no other choice but to introduce Articles of Impeachment and begin the formal inquiry into BO’s status as a NBC and his role in the election fraud that got his name printed on the state election ballots. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. Jay Daniel says:

    As a graduate of Harvard (not the law school), I can verify everyone I have personally met from Harvard is quite bright, certainly including Barack Obama. Definitely I can say that no Harvard graduate would have such poor logic skills as to try to bizarrely twist supposition on top of unsourced blog musings to accuse a President of Harvard Law Review who graduated Magna Cum Laude of being a poor student. I would say the author of such a beast (this website) was the poor student, not Obama. Top ten percent in HLS class means exactly that and ranks you easily in the smartest lawyers of that year’s crop, full stop. Long before Obama became the first black PRESIDENT of Harvard Law Review, not just an editor among many editors, the rules had changed in 1970. FYI, there were a total of 25 females, blacks and Asians among the editors the year Obama was elected President of Harvard Law Review, so the bogus argument he was named an editor to one of the THREE seats possibly influenced by affirmative action?…3/25: less than 12% probability. The more interesting fact might be how many rich white alumni children with poor grades received preferential admits to Harvard Law School? In any case Internet rumors spread by conspiracy theorists are beneath contempt…is anyone else wondering why this website is curiously devoid of any credentials for the author or notation of source of funding?

    Jay Daniel: (DISCLAIMER TO READERS: As many of you already know, generally, I will not post unattributed statements of purported fact; or statements laced with disparaging personal characterizations, again, absent factual foundation. However, I considered this comment to be prototypical of comments of this type, which I usually censor.)

    Jay Daniel, welcome to the blog. Given my introductory disclaimer, I am only willing to spend time responding to one question, whether you intended this to be rhetorical. You say, “…is anyone else wondering why this website is curiously devoid of any credentials for the author or notation of source of funding?” My legal and technical acumen has been established over time, not through traditional means which are easy to quantify, for example, a list of initials after my name; but on the basis of the work produced, which has been ‘peer reviewed’ by hundreds of thousands of people, both legal professionals and lay citizens, throughout the internet. As for who is funding me, ha, well, here’s what WH Press Secretary Gibbs said on the subject: “…for $15, you can get an internet address and say whatever you want.” https://jbjd.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/press-bill-press/ ADMINISTRATOR

  27. Jay Daniel says:

    Oh incidentally, I don’t believe for a second you attended law school…if you did, you could actually use some basic logic, not falling back on silly name-calling and insulting the President. Soooo… present your own credentials along with a name that could be verified as having a JD. Otherwise you sound like just another angry Tea Bag crazy. So don’t be such a coward…post both my comments, along with your credentials, whichever RNC scam funds your website, and your name…lack of an answer or failure to post? = another “birther” lunatic

    Jay Daniel: (DISCLAIMER TO READERS: Guess Mr. Daniel had more to say. Formulate your own responses.) ADMINISTRATOR

  28. Jay Daniel says:

    another tidbit I would bet you are too cowardly to post this link, which thoroughly debunks both your insinuation on other blogs and on your radio screeds about Obama’s citizenship: Factcheck . org has blwn that out of the water, with original pictures and interviews with offcials:
    (link removed by jbjd)

    Post it, I dare you, (name removed by jbjd)…even better, copy the photographs onto the site next to your insane petitions. Better yet, why not just grow up?

    Jay Daniel: Now, I get it. You appear to be wasting our time. Try reading these articles, for example.



  29. Siegfried Horner says:

    Not having either attended Harvard, or an earned JD, but rather multiple degrees in science and history, I do feel competent to comment on the back and forth ad hominem silliness which populates many of this line’s contributions. After decrying “Administrator’s” illogic, writer “Jay Daniel” then launches a model of illogic employing juvenile gutter language (“Tea Bag”), and factless assumption, i.e., “RNC Scam” and “birther lunatic”; just one of many laughable rejoinders by “him” and others here. The persistent questions and comments here address POTUS Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the presidency, and the products and depth of his intellect. Were it simple enough to say that his known academic credentials and his having won the White House sufficiently answered both questions, then additional discussion would be superfluous. Given that Mr. O is intelligent, however, based upon his decisions, comments, and judgements made as POTUS, he is not brilliant, and to this point, certainly unexceptional,and perhaps even dangerous in his office. Unfortunately, the legacy of Obama’s WH tenure will affect most of the citizens he was elected to SERVE….for decades and beyond. This is at least as much the fault of a credulous electorate as it is the designs of a self-absorbed ideologue and his insulated, power-hungry, elitist coterie. Whatever our ideological bent, the future should worry us all.

    Siegried Horner: I posted your comment notwithstanding its judgmental nature, because it evidenced considerable time and effort in its manufacture. (Next time you excoriate your fellow citizens for the lack of intellectual acumen they display in comments they post on this blog, you would do well to double check your spelling. The word ‘judgments’ has no ‘e’ between the ‘g’ and the ‘m.’) ADMINISTRATOR

    • Siegfried Horner says:

      Although English is not my first language, and an accepted and verifiable alternative spelling for “judgment” IS “judgement” (the limits of some educations, evinced), a misplaced or absent letter is not logically or persuasively indicative of the inappropriately applied, “intellectual acumen”; my criticisms still apply.It also benefits one to reflect upon one’s own judgemental characteristics, however couched in feigned objectivity.

      • DC Florida says:


        In the UK and other Common Law countries, “judgment” has no “e” when used by lawyers and courts in a legal context, but “judgement” is often used in other fields.

        • Craig says:

          “Judgment” is an Americanized (bastardized) spelling made popular by Noah Webster. As far as the OED is concerned, the word “judgement” was always J-U-D-G-E-M-E-N-T.

          It has nothing to do with “courts” or “legal context.” That’s pure fantasy.

  30. charles says:

    I too am not thrilled about Obama as president…BUT if it wasn’t for the pathetic job performance of Bush and the Republican Party Obama would never have been elected. People wouldn’t care if he came from Mars as long as their lives improved and their children weren’t dying in foreign wars with no clear objectives that cost almost a billion dollars a day. So blame Bush for Obama being president. It would have never happened without him.

    charles: At the time I wrote this article, in August 2008, Mr. Obama was not yet the President. In fact, he had just stolen the D Presidential nomination. But while electing a D was arguably inevitable after President Bush; in fact, exit polls found that, had the D nomination gone to Hillary Clinton, who had received more votes and, more pledged delegates as the result of votes cast for her; she would have beaten John McCain by a larger percentage than Barack Obama. http://drdanny.newsvine.com/_news/2008/11/13/2107852-clinton-would-have-beaten-mccain-by-a-wider-margin-exit-polls-show

  31. Bruce says:

    It disgusts me that we are even having this conversation!! Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the author of this article is raising questions about the intelligence level of the first black president of the USA? Once again racism rears it’s ugly head!!!

    Bruce: You ask, “Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the author of this article is raising questions about the intelligence level of the first black president of the USA?” But then, you ascribe this questioning to “racism.” Rather, I would think the appropriate inquiry would be this. ‘Given that no documentary evidence made available by the first black President of the US can establish objectively, he is intelligent; on what basis would anyone maintaining he is, justify such a belief, absent race?’ ADMINISTRATOR

  32. Justin says:

    The bottom line for me is that Barack Hussein Obama II was smart enough to get himself elected as the 44th President of the United States and he accomplished that feat with the most popular votes for any candidate in the history of the republic. I remember George W. Bush joking at a speech at Yale that he proved that even a “C” student could become President of the United States. In our democratic-republic in the early 21st century, it takes the ability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars and the ability to influence the mass media enough to get serious name recognition in order to get elected. George W. Bush was able to accomplish that and Barack Obama was smart enough to accomplish raising more than $700 million and garnering nearly 70 million votes. His college and law school grades are irrelevant to most Americans.
    If enough potential voters care about those grades, I’m sure that he will release them (just like the long form birth certificate) if it looks like releasing them would seriously effect his chances for reelection. After all, we’re talking about a liberal Democrat politician here.

    Justin: I posted your comment notwithstanding you 1) cite no evidence of your claims; and 2) fail to link cause and effect. For example, in the D primary, Hillary Clinton received more popular votes than Barack Obama and, was awarded more pledged delegates as a result of votes cast directly for her than for him, although the DNC redistributed those votes and their resulting pledged delegates so as to give him the lead. https://jbjd.org/2009/08/28/never-less-than-a-treason-2-of-2/ Yet, Obama was made the D club nominee. But even polling outside of the voting booth confirmed, given the choice of Clinton or McCain, more voters would have chosen Clinton than voted for Obama. Id. In other words, the D would have won either way; and Clinton would have won by more votes.

    Also, you appear to equate receiving substantial and often undocumented financial contributions with intelligence. I do not; indeed, I equate this with illegal activity. And, it would appear, so does the FEC, currently investigating those questionable donations. http://www.rollcall.com/news/FEC-Launches-Obama-Campaign-Audie-205014-1.html

    My purpose in writing this article was not to establish whether Obama is smart but rather to point out, saying he is based only on these affiliations with Harvard; does not make it so. Now, I will add, saying he is smart for winning an election by less votes than evidence indicates his primary competitor would have amassed; or that he is smart because he might have unlawfully amassed more money than his predecessors, is equally ridiculous. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Justin says:

      Do you really need evidence that Obama received 69,456,897 popular votes? If so, you can go to the Federal Elections Commission website for verification. And if you need evidence that Obama raised more than $700 million for his campaign, please go to http://www.opensecrets.com for verification of that amount from federal campaign disclosure documents.
      Hillary Clinton is employed by President Obama, obviously they worked out their differences over primary election results. The operative word in your post is “would.” You are speculating on how many votes Mrs. Clinton might have received. I stated the fact of how many votes the President DID receive.
      One way that I judge a person’s intelligence is by who they are able to draw around them. In my life experience I have found that highly intelligent people resent working for less intelligent people.
      Here is but one of many examples, President Obama has just nominated General David Petraeus to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Aside from being a bona fide military hero, the fact that General Petraeus has agreed to leave behind a distinquished military career in order to work in the Obama administration is very telling to me.
      David Petraeus graduated from West Point. He earned the General George C. Marshall Award as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983 at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He subsequently earned an M.P.A. in 1985 and a Ph.D. in international relations in 1987 from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He then served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy from 1985 to 1987.
      I just don’t see either Hillary Clinton nor David Petraeus (or outgoing Secretary of Defense Bob Gates) working for an (name calling omitted by jbjd)!

      Justin: Requiring documentary evidence of the man’s intelligence in lieu of a mere allusion to a relationship to an educational enterprise, which is all that was offered; is not tantamount to calling him a name denoting a lack of intelligence, let alone the name you provided. And concluding that, having an intelligent ‘policy wonk’ arguably as patriotic as she is smart; become SoS and, therefore, technically, work for the President who stole the D club nomination, evidences his intelligence (as opposed to, say, her intellectual brilliance or patriotism) is too far-fetched for rational discourse. Ha, on the contrary, these choices might have been foisted on him because of his lack of intellectual acumen, and not because of it. ADMINISTRATOR

  33. Justin says:

    I forgot to add that there is an article (remainder of comment omitted for lack of link, by jbjd).

    Justin: If you want any more comments posted, please provide links to your claims of fact. ADMINISTRATOR

  34. Justin says:

    A link to the 2008 Presidential election result:

    Click to access 2008presgeresults.pdf

    A link to Hillary Clinton being Secretary of State in the Obama cabinet:
    A link to General David Petraeus’ bio:
    A link to Obama’s nomination of David Petraeus for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency:

    Justin: Thank you for providing the links to your earlier ‘facts,’ especially those links to facts not commonly in the public domain, for example, General Petraeus’ biography. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Justin says:

      It was my pleasure to provide the links and I’m glad that you found them useful.

      Justin: I am trying to set a ‘tone’ with this blog, that just saying something does not make it so; and, although I know readers often don’t check links, I at least want to try to set that tone. (Some falsehoods especially related to the issue of Constitutional eligibility; have been repeated so often throughout the blogosphere, people now spout the grossest lies, as gospel.) ADMINISTRATOR

  35. j_p_davidson@comcast.com says:

    Many of those who argue that President Obama isn’t particularly bright also seem to be totally convinced that a certain celebrity politician is.

    j_p_davidson: People have opinions all over the place and, I grant that, sometimes, those opinions appear to rest on inconsistent bases. This article is particularly addressed to those people who cite to specific information which they believe endorses their opinion, Barack Obama is smart; and I wrote this in an attempt to rebut that information.

    Of course, they might have other reasons for insisting he is smart. ADMINISTRATOR

  36. онлайн в хорошем качестве…


Leave a Reply to j_p_davidson@comcast.com Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: