President Obama came into office a mystery. Similar to the mythical Bagger Vance, he appeared out of the mist. No one knows where he came from (or was born) or much of his past. Even places he claims to have been, there are few if any who remember him. For one so blessed with charisma, that is very strange.
The media seems completely disinterested about Obama’s past and why he has gone to such great lengths to hide whatever of it he could.
Slowly, however, things leak out. Nothing is very definitive. There is no real birth certificate, college records, explanation of a social security number issued from a state where Obama never resided, etc. etc. There almost appears to be a fear among the press and political opponents to question these issues.
Jack Cashill is an exception. He has furrowed out information that others don’t want to find. Even when he uncovers something, the mainstream media has no interest in reporting or pursuing it. Perhaps they have too much credibility wrapped up in their support of this man. Perhaps they are afraid to report what they know. Whatever it is, it is not natural or normal. It is downright eerie and likely dangerous.
Cashill’s latest article on American Thinker deals with one of the pieces of evidence that escaped being buried in the hidden memory hole. It is a letter written in 1990 to the Harvard Law Review advocating affirmative action. It is especially revealing in the sense that it is perhaps the only authentic piece of Obama’s writing (I discount his “authored” books). Cashill describes the letter:
The response is classic Obama: patronizing, dishonest, syntactically muddled, and grammatically challenged. In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.
Perhaps I was fortunate (or unfortunate) to have had demands made upon me during my early schooling. My English teachers from eighth grade forward would not have tolerated the grammar in the letter. Perhaps Obama was also fortunate or unfortunate enough not to have had such demanding teachers. Yet he went past high school into the upper tiers of academia. Supposedly he went to Columbia. Then he went on to Harvard Law School. How could this be? Have these colleges deteriorated so much that someone with such obvious flaws could graduate? Was he just passed because he was a minority necessary for affirmative action quotas and diversity?
To even ask the last question is to tread on sacred ground as Mr. Cashill points out:
… who would challenge Obama’s obvious talent — or that of any affirmative action beneficiary — but those blinded by what Obama calls “deep-rooted ignorance and bias”?
Well, I would. It is not politics or race that motivates such a question. It is disappointment in the media, the voters and the institutions of this country. Is it possible that we have so dumbed-down everyone and everything that the highest office in the land can be occupied by a man who did not learn enough English to pass prior years public high school standards?
Dancing With The Stars, American Idol and Jersey Shore pass for culture in today’s world. Obama passes for educated. There is a parallel here.
Obama is little more than an opportunist, a political grifter. He is an unpolished ideologue, brainwashed in socialist beliefs. His capabilities appear to be extended filling out his brackets for the NCAA basketball tourney or planning his next vacation. He is no leader; he is a fraud. When he writes his next autobiography (it will be claimed to be his third), it should be entitled “The Sting.”
As big a problem as he is, our society elected this fraud. We can correct the first mistake in 2012, but I don’t know how we remedy what has become of society.