How Smart are They?

I have been thinking a lot lately about differing impressions of smart.

We have been told for a very, very long time how smart, brilliant even, Hillary Clinton is. Smartest woman in the world, some say.

I have never seen even a hint of any smarts greater than those required to get into and out of Yale Law School. It is a very impressive achievement and one that requires some serious smarts. But that is all. It has been done 10's of thousands of times.

She has been followed by scandal her entire public life. From impossibly successful novice cattle futures trading to her email scandal with a dozen or so assorted scandals in between. It occurs to me that some of you are so young that you might be unfamiliar with this astonishing list so here are links some major old ones and a couple that will get much louder soon. They make for very interesting reading, in my opinion.

Travel Office.  Rose Law Firm Billing Records.  White Water.  The Uranium One and Clinton Foundation scandals have yet to be thoroughly investigated. You probably remember Benghazi. Quite an impressive list.

She lost the 2016 election by being the opposite of brilliant or even smart. She was down right stupid. The "deplorables" comment was the defining moment of her campaign and sunk her for good. She is so "smart" that she still does not recognize her folly and reiterated her opinion of us during her recent trip to India.

Really smart people do not repeat their errors.

Another luminary of the left to whom great intellectual gifts are attributed is Barak Hussein Obama, otherwise known as Barry O. I have never seen any hint of great smarts in him either. As Clarence Thomas has complained about the effects on perception of affirmative action, I can't even credit him with the brains to actually get into and out of Harvard Law.

Actually, I do know he could not possibly have gotten into and out of Harvard Law without affirmative action because he proved it.

""I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said."

Mr. President, Mr Harvard Law graduate and Harvard Law Review editor (who never wrote more than a page in that journal) the Supreme Court of the United States is in the business of upholding or overturning laws passed by the "democratically elected Congress" regardless of the strength of the vote that passed them into law. It is the primary reason the Court exists.

Does this nitwit really think that a law abridging the 1st or 2nd amendments passed by 100% of the Congress would be immune from Judicial scrutiny. Yes, apparently. He must have missed a course or two at Harvard Law.

He was speaking of ObamaCare of course. That "strong majority" was 100% Democrat in the House and all Democrat and 2 Independents in the Senate. Not a single Republican in either chamber voted for it. If one or two had, I suppose Barry could have asserted with even more certainty that SCOTUS could not have overturned it because not only was it a "strong majority" but a bipartisan one too! That would invoke his theory of proper judicial scrutiny even more strongly. Brilliance and academic achievement on proud display.