O’Donnell Caught Embellishing Her Education Credentials (Again)
Christine O'Donnell's claim that she studied at Oxford is a tad misleading.
Greg Sargent notes that Christine O’Donell’s biography indicates that she took a class at the University of Oxford — which isn’t quite the case.
O’Donnell’s LinkedIn bio page lists “University of Oxford” as one of the schools she attended, claiming she studied “Post Modernism in the New Millennium.” But it turns out that was just a course conducted by an institution known as the Phoenix Institute, which merely rented space at Oxford.
What’s more, the woman who oversaw Phoenix Institute’s summer program at Oxford tells me O’Donnell’s claim about studying at Oxford is “misleading.”
As Sargent rightly notes, this little fudge is relevant because it fits into a pattern of O’Donnell’s resume padding:
By itself, O’Donnell’s Oxford claim might not matter too much. But the larger context is that O’Donnell has already been nabbed fudging her education record not once, but twice. She claimed for several years to have graduated from Fairleigh Dickinson Unversity, but she actually obtained her bachelor’s degree last summer. And in a lawsuit she suggested she was trying for a Master’s degree courses at Princeton — but subsequently acknowledged she hadn’t taken a single Princeton graduate course.
The lesson being, I suppose, that it’s a sin in the eyes of God to lie to Nazis about whether you’re hiding Jews, but totally cool to lie on your resume to further your career aspirations.
Because that’s how Jesus rolls.
Not that I’m defending it in any way at all…. but since when did “misleading” become “lying?” I guess that the upside of this is it’s good to see you admitting that Obama has been lying to
the American people all along about his background, education, political philosophy, and policies. Good thing your “assessment” is objective and you are now identifying Obama’s lies and deceit.
What does Jesus have to do with this? Did he lie on his resume?
What does Jesus have to do with this?
Matthew 19:18
The question wasn’t “what does Jesus have to say about this”, it was “what does Jesus have to do with this?”
The point being, I think, that anti-religious rhetoric has no place in the article, other than to satisfy the compulsive need on OTB to criticize anyone who professes to believe in Christianity. If Christians killed people who drew a cartoon of Jesus, now that would be different. Then everything they say could be winked at and defended….
@Juneau:
All I can say is, you are funny!
mantis, Alex writes ‘Because that’s how Jesus rolls’. I fail to see a connection with O’Donnell’s logic and how Jesus might see the situation.
I fail to see a connection with O’Donnell’s logic and how Jesus might see the situation.
You ought to pay more attention to your bible, then. O’Donnell, as Alex points out, has said she would not lie to a Nazi to save a Jew from death, because God says not to lie. However, she will lie on her resume. Apparently, she thinks God is a-ok with that.
Anyway, of course you fail to see the connection. IOKIYAR
Matthew 19:18 and that whole “Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness” thing would seem to answer the question of “how Jesus rolls”
I’ve got an actual, serious question here… are there any Tea Party candidates – not talking heads or activists, mind you, but actual running and/or elected TP candidates – who _haven’t_ turned out to be lying hypocrites just using the TP voters as tools to get a leg up? The guy who got Kennedy’s old seat has taken flak for not being conservative enough, Rand Paul made up his own certification, Vaughn Ward cribbed Obama’s (!) own speeches, Nikki Haley’s affair, etc., etc.
Are there any TP candidates that actually walk the walk?
@ mantis
“O’Donnell, as Alex points out, has said she would not lie to a Nazi to save a Jew from death, because God says not to lie.”
You sir, are the liar. You and Knapp are interpreting (rather than quoting) her statements, simply to suit your prejudice. She never stated that and, if you go to the link provided for reference, what she stated was “You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.”
This was her honest answer to one of the progressive liberal’s favorite tricks, pulling the “Lifeboat” scenario out in an attempt to trap Christians into an impossible situation. The concept is called “situational ethics” and liberals use it primarily as an excuse to claim that unethical or dishonest behavior is preferable under some circumstances (i.e. there are no absolute truths or virtues). Naturally, the choice of “when” it is preferable is completely subjective to a liberal and is usually based upon their need and greed rather than some high ideal or purpose.
Here is a suggestion. Get your Christian bashing, whiney, “I caught you not being perfect” attitude in line with reality. Then, you may find that your particular brand of bias at least gets more traction before it is dismissed as thinly-disguised bigotry.
Legion:
I do not know about the rest but did Nikki Haley have an affair?
Tea Party candidates problems, many of which are either lies, or blown out of proportion by the medias’ propensity to dribble all over Democrat media releases,
These problems are insignificant compared to the depradations of the Democrat Congress since 2007.
The most important thing for Christians to do is support Hitler.
There, is that where the thread was supposed to end up?
Juneau-
So, how would you describe that part of the Bible where God gives out the Commandments – including “thou shalt not kill” (or “murder”, if you’re Jewish) – and then, a little later, tells the Israelites to go down into Canaan and kill everyone in it?
I’m not trying (only) to “trap” you, I’m trying to point out the absurdity of extreme, literal interpretations of religious tenets. They pretty much always lead to contradictions and hypocrisies, and O’Donnell’s no exception.
Davod-
a) I don’t know for sure about Haley; the blogger claimed to have rather lurid proof he intended to release, but I never heard if he dropped the bomb or recanted.
b) regardless of what you think of the Dem congress (or the Republican congresses (congresii?) that preceded them), surely replacing them with an even less competent, thinly-veiled group of crooks and liars cannot possibly be an improvement?
Juneau,
If you are suggesting that pointing out the hypocrisy of the smugly self-righteous is evidence of being anti-Christian, I suggest that you re-read the Gospels.
The Jesus connection is also relevant because of this:
By “the right thing to do,” she obviously meant for other people, not herself.
@Juneau –
Indeed, going further, I think that suggesting that Christ promoted deontological, rather than situational, ethics is not on incorrect but is in fact a gross misreading of the entire point of Christ’s ministry, which was intended to overturn the false belief that a rule-based system of morality is most pleasing to God, when in fact what Christ preaches is that God calls us to love and serve one another — “The sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath.” O’Donnell is not only a hypocrite, but also preaching false doctrine when she worhips a rule “don’t lie” over protecting a human life. This is the exact thing that Christ lambasted the religious elite of his time for when they condemned Christ for healing the sick on the Sabbath, or eating with the “unclean” outcasts of society.
***So, how would you describe that part of the Bible where God gives out the Commandments – including “thou shalt not kill” (or “murder”, if you’re Jewish) – and then, a little later, tells the Israelites to go down into Canaan and kill everyone in it?***
Your lack of understanding on who God is and who you are is almost as amusing as your lack of understanding of what the Commandments mean and who they are for.
But then lets us sit back and enjoy as the liberals explain what God meant, and then judge Him upon their conclusions.
As suspected the snark directed toward religion was nothing more than mild bigotry.
First O’Donnell never she would give up Jews to the Nazis. It was a nonsensical question meant to trap her so she responded God would provide an answer. Alex takes that and twists it into something unrecognizable. Bad form to say the least.
So there is no lesson that it’s a sin to lie to Nazis but okay to lie on your resume. That’s not how “Jesus rolls” and it’s insulting to put it that way. There’s no excuse, no explaining away such tripe. Somebody needs to grow up and quit the word games no matter how much they may dislike certain candidates.
Reread the Gospels? There’s nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy but there’s a right way and a wrong way. This was the wrong way.
She never stated that and, if you go to the link provided for reference, what she stated was “You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.”
She very clearly states that she wouldn’t lie, because “you never have to practice deception,” though she says God would provide a way out. So she states quite clearly that she wouldn’t have lied to the Nazis to save Jews she was hiding (though one doubts she would hide Jews in the first place, as that would be practicing deception, and you never have to do that). You cannot convincingly claim otherwise, and don’t even really bother to try. You simply call me a liar for paraphrasing (not quoting) what she clearly stated.
This was her honest answer to one of the progressive liberal’s favorite tricks, pulling the “Lifeboat” scenario out in an attempt to trap Christians into an impossible situation.
Wrong. This was not some absurd hypothetical, nor is it an impossible situation. Christians in Europe hid Jews from the Nazis. Some of them had to lie to keep those Jews hidden. It actually happened. If they followed O’Donnell’s way of thinking, more Jews would not have survived than did. God didn’t provide a way out for all those who didn’t survive.
Anyway, it’s endlessly amusing how you attack me for promoting “situational ethics,” while defending someone who has been shown to lie repeatedly, and who publicly claims that she would never lie.
Steve –
(a) What “mild bigotry”? Citation needed, please.
(b) If you re-read the transcript of O’Donnell’s remarks, you will note that she said that lying was always wrong. Always. That included lying to Nazis. As others in the threat have noted, she is on the record for saying that lying is always wrong in other fora as well.
(c) And if you’re complaining about the use of snark to point out hypocrisy, I really suggest you re-read the Gospels.
@ Knapp
“O’Donnell is not only a hypocrite, but also preaching false doctrine when she worhips a rule “don’t lie” over protecting a human life.”
Again you have mis-characterized her statement. She never decided between the two options in response to the question of whether or not she would tell a lie. She deferred by stating that she believed God would negate the necessity of making that choice. You cannot in good conscience claim that your interpretation is supported by her statements.
Your claim that God supports sutuational ethics is completely unsupported by anything in the Bible, unless you snatch something out of context. You are confusing the idea that God understands our weaknesses, with the idea that God condones our weaknesses. The first idea is supported throughout all scripture, the latter not at all.
“I think that suggesting that Christ promoted deontological, rather than situational, ethics is not on incorrect but is in fact a gross misreading of the entire point of Christ’s ministry”
Please provide an example of Christ stating anything remotely close to being in favor of ‘situational ethics.” Where does he qualify the requirement of obedience to God? Where does He suggest the possibility that it is not appropriate or better to obey God’s commandments? Nowhere.
Mantis, I believe it’s clear that O’Donnell believes that G*d wouldn’t put her in that situation. Maher understand that, he is asking her to assume there is no G*d and she won’t do it.
You can say this is a dodge. I would agree.
You can question whether her belief that G*d wouldn’t put her in that position is supported by the Bible. If Maher knew much about religion, he should have asked her about Job. He would ask about Simon lying about knowing Jesus three times. I don’t think her essential view that good things happen to good people would be described as mainstream Christian thought.
Mantis, you and a good portion of the commenters here would prefer Coons. Knapp is actually the bearded Marxist Coons claims to be. Some of you went to college to learn how to think but that is not what happened to you. You, Knapp, Mataconis, Anjin, Herb, Sam, Legion, Ponce and wr were pumped full of socialist BS by men and women who used their positions as educator to instill political beliefs into gullible minds. Funny how you pick you fights. Richard Blumenthal, an Attorney General lied about his military service. I do not recall much of an article here concerning this want to be U.S Senator. Why is that Alex? O’Donnell is not a professional and exagerated her resume. So Fing what? I would be willing to bet most of the posters here have done the same thing. Coons had the husband of the woman who opposed him in his election to county administrator fired. He is, by all reports a very nasty individual. Small penis syndrome, no doubt. The choice in Delaware is between a woman, who though faulted, favors less spending, lower taxes, fewer regulations and smaller government and a man who has a record of abuse of his constituents, raising taxes, increased spending to the point of bankrupting the county, and that is the guy you want to be Senator. Someone who philosophically could replace Van Jones.
@ mantis
First, it is a hypothetical and therefore analogous to the “Lifeboat” scenario. Maher summed up your position succinctly :
MAHER: God is not there. Hitler’s there and you’re there.
Christine O’Donnell prefers to believe that God would, in fact, be there, and is simply expressing a refusal to make that choice. A refusal to “play God” in the hypothetical. Christine O’Donnell will never be asked by a Nazi whether or not she has Jews hiding in her house. Therefore.. a hypothetical, yes? You have no idea what choice O’Donnell would make in that situation; it is just your built-in prejudice that would condemn her for any answer she might have come up with.
What makes it even more pathetic is that you know very well if she had stated that she would lie to save a life, then you would just as quickly brand her a hypocrite for that statement as well. This is the impossible situation that I refer to. The question is designed simply to trap her, and you are using her refusal to make the choice against her, just as you would use any choice she had decided to make against her as well.
Second, I have not defended her statement about Oxford, and I certainly have not said that it was proper. My issue here is the gratuitous snark at her personal religious views in an article that is supposed to be political commentary.
Conservatives have let the trolls divert the topic from politics to God. This is nothing but Daily Kos without the intelligence.
“The question is designed simply to trap her…”
How?
Most normal people would lie to Nazis to save some Jews.
First, it is a hypothetical
I said it wasn’t an absurd hypothetical, but one based on actual events. I did not say it wasn’t a hypothetical. Do try to read more carefully.
You have no idea what choice O’Donnell would make in that situation
Well, I have her answer. She said she wouldn’t lie.
it is just your built-in prejudice that would condemn her for any answer she might have come up with.
Wrong. She should have said she would lie to save the Jews she was hiding. I would wholeheartedly agree with that answer.
What makes it even more pathetic is that you know very well if she had stated that she would lie to save a life, then you would just as quickly brand her a hypocrite for that statement as well.
Well, only if she was saying that there is never a reason to lie at the same time as saying she would lie in a certain situation. Actually, that wouldn’t be hypocritical. It would just be illogical and inconsistent.
This is the impossible situation that I refer to.
It’s not an impossible situation. She could just be honest and say that, as a Christian, she tries to never lie, as Jesus taught and the ten commandments state, but if lying meant the difference between life or death, she believes that God would forgive her. But she didn’t say that, because she’s a liar.
The question is designed simply to trap her, and you are using her refusal to make the choice against her, just as you would use any choice she had decided to make against her as well.
Oh, she made her choice. It’s quite clear.
Second, I have not defended her statement about Oxford, and I certainly have not said that it was proper. My issue here is the gratuitous snark at her personal religious views in an article that is supposed to be political commentary.
Ok, I look forward to bringing this back up the next time you comment on someone’s religious views in what “is supposed to be political commentary.” You do it quite often, I’ve noticed.
You, Knapp, Mataconis, Anjin, Herb, Sam, Legion, Ponce and wr were pumped full of socialist BS by men and women who used their positions as educator to instill political beliefs into gullible minds
Gee, Zels, you certainly know a lot about us. Tell me, where did I go to school? Who were those educators that brainwashed me? What’s my first name? Those ought to be easy for you, as you would have to know the answers to all of them in order to reach the conclusion you have.
ponce, why do some people pray for foregiveness from the animal they are about to eat? Sometimes it’s about ownership of responisility. Lying is a sin. Justifying lies as for the greater good is merely a means of abdicating morality.
You can question whether her belief that G*d wouldn’t put her in that position is supported by the Bible
Who needs to? People were put into that very situation. She was asked to imagine herself there, and say what she would do. Apparently she believes she’s so special that God wouldn’t put her in that situation, and the Christians who were put into that situation, well, I guess they aren’t as special as her.
Her egomania does not need a retort based on scripture. It’s absurd on its face.
@ ponce
“The question is designed simply to trap her…”
How?
Most normal people would lie to Nazis to save some Jews.
OK, I’m going to assume that you are asking a sincere question here, and not just making noise. The reason it is a trap is because Maher knows that she is advocating absolute obedience to God’s commandment not to bear false witness. He then proposes a scenario where she has a choice between obedience to her God and causing the death of another person. So, paraphrased, “Christine, would you rather offend the God you worship or be an accessory to murder?”
Maher is asking O’Donnell to either A) state on national television that she does not believe God’s commandments should always be obeyed , or B) state on national television that she would willingly turn someone over for torture and murder. This conflict poses a question that is obscene for a Christian to contemplate in the hypothetical, and Christine O’Donnell rightly refuses to make that choice just to please Maher’s ego.
Oh, by the way, Zels, regarding this:
Richard Blumenthal, an Attorney General lied about his military service. I do not recall much of an article here concerning this want to be U.S Senator. Why is that Alex?
Blumenthal, Frontrunner To Replace Dodd, Lied About Vietnam Service
Blumenthal Characterizes Vietnam Stories As “Misplaced Words”, CT Senate Race Now A Toss Up
Blumenthal Issues Apology For “Mistakes” Regarding Vietnam-Era Service
That’s not all of them, either. There’s a little box in the top right corner of the page that reads “Search OTB…” Maybe you should use it before posting something so demonstrably stupid.
This conflict poses a question that is obscene for a Christian to contemplate in the hypothetical
It’s obscene for Christians to even consider difficult questions. Got it.
@ mantis
Well, I have her answer. She said she wouldn’t lie.
No. She. Did. Not. You can call an aardvark an elephant as many times as you like. It doesn’t make it so. Just because she didn’t follow your script for a response doesn’t mean that she made a choice. Get over it.
@ mantis
t’s obscene for Christians to even consider difficult questions. Got it.
OK mantis. Then perhaps you can answer me; your 6 year old son and your 7 year old daughter are both dangling from a bridge and about to fall to their death. You can only save one. Which one will you save?
Zels — I was a liberal long before I went to college.
No. She. Did. Not.
Yes. She. Did. She did not refuse to answer the question. She answered it, clearly stating that “You never have to practice deception.” The only thing that could possibly mean is that she would not lie.
You can call an aardvark an elephant as many times as you like.
I’m not. I’m calling a clear answer to a question a clear answer to a question.
Just because she didn’t follow your script for a response doesn’t mean that she made a choice.
She made a choice regardless of my “script,” which doesn’t exist.
Get over it.
Translation: Stop arguing with me! I’m losing!
OK mantis. Then perhaps you can answer me; your 6 year old son and your 7 year old daughter are both dangling from a bridge and about to fall to their death. You can only save one. Which one will you save?
The one closest to me, as he/she would be the most likely to be saved. Of course, there’s no explanation as to why I can’t save both, but whatever.
In any case, this is not an equivalent hypothetical. The situation posed to O’Donnell gave her the choice between telling a lie and sending people to near certain death, not between saving the life of one child or another. One forces a choice between a life and another life, while the other forces a choice between a life and a lie. Apples. Oranges.
“Christine, would you rather offend the God you worship or be an accessory to murder?”
Only freaks think Jesus would prefer Jews getting slaughtered to the telling of a small lie.
***Reread the Gospels? There’s nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy but there’s a right way and a wrong way. This was the wrong way.***
There is a way to read the Gospels in the first place also, the only way, with the Holy Spirit as your guide.
I don’t think I would vote for O’Donnell, her Democratic opponent seems pretty reasonable to me.
But the notion that she effectively is a NAZI sympathizer is pretty low.
Forget the Nazi/Jew/lying hypothetical…the fact of the matter is that she is a hypocrite and not very faithful to what she professes to believe…her religious piety seems poor as she feels the need to lie on her biography…on another note, it is rather amusing that so much is being written about someone who is all but certain to lose her race…just like Sarah Palin…
But the notion that she effectively is a NAZI sympathizer is pretty low.
Did someone say she sympathizes with Nazis?
I mean, it’s unfortunate that the hypothetical presented to her involved the Nazis. Everybody thinks of them first, I guess. But the basic question, “Would you lie to save an innocent life?” is a totally sound challenge to the notion that it is never right, or even less wrong, to lie based on Christian teaching.
In any case, I don’t think anyone is accusing her of sympathizing with Nazis. You didn’t need to sympathize with the Nazis to be scared of what they would do if you crossed them.
This kind of resume padding would disqualify O’Donnell to work in much of corporate America. It’s interesting to note that the right does not think something that would keep her from getting a job as an admin should keep her from becoming a U.S. Senator.
On the other hand, we may have answered the question of why she has never really had a job…
> the progressive liberal’s favorite tricks, pulling the “Lifeboat” scenario out in an attempt to trap Christians into an impossible situation
Good God Juneau. If you sense of victimization were taken away, would you still exist?
o.k., mantis, you and Alex only think that she worships a G*d that is a-o.k. with the Holocaust. It’s just the other side of the Obama as secret muslim coin with it’s own fast track to Godwin’s Law.
o.k., mantis, you and Alex only think that she worships a G*d that is a-o.k. with the Holocaust. It’s just the other side of the Obama as secret muslim coin with it’s own fast track to Godwin’s Law.
What are you talking about?
@Juneau –
She said that God would not force her to act unrighteously – ie tell a lie. The clear implication of that argument is that lying in that situation is wrong. In other words, in her view, lying is always wrong, regardless of circumstance. This point of view is supported by her statements in other fora.
My point is that the purpose of Christ’s Ministry was to demonstrate to humans that what is most pleasing to God is to love and care for one another, regardless of what religious rules dictate.
For example:
There are other examples. Many, many others.
Zelsdorf –
<blockquote.Some of you went to college to learn how to think but that is not what happened to you. You, Knapp, Mataconis, Anjin, Herb, Sam, Legion, Ponce and wr were pumped full of socialist BS by men and women who used their positions as educator to instill political beliefs into gullible minds.
Heh, not really. I was a conservative libertarian in college. Then I joined the real world.
I didn’t cover Blumenthal because my colleagues did, as one of the other commenters noted.
Well, first of all, lying on your resume will get you fired from McDonald’s, for one. Secondly, someone who founded an organization predicated on the idea that lying is always a sin is someone who deserves to be roundly mocked for padding their resume.
PD Shaw –
Nobody is saying, or even implying, that O’Donnell is a Nazi sympathizer. The point is that (a) her opinion that lying to the Nazis is a sin is completely absurd and (b) it’s horribly ironic and worthy of mockery that, despite her commitment to honesty under such grave circumstances, she’s padded her resume.
Anjin, we cannot even get a look at Obama’s resume. If we get to scrutinize everything O”Donnell has done, you should spend a little time vetting our current President. I doubt seriously what is claimed here as misrepresenting her education is just BS from what is going to be a bunch of sore losers. How many days till we restore hope in this country? That will be the change. You can have your New Party Candidate. Obama is a f*cking communist. WR, look up what Churchill had to say about being liberal.
we cannot even get a look at Obama’s resume.
Well, not the long form résumé.
“Heh, not really. I was a conservative libertarian in college. Then I joined the real world.”
Ditto.
I campaigned for Reagan in college.
As someone who worked hard to get into Oxford, and worked fairly hard for three years to get a degree, I can’t help resenting it when a cheap, lying politician makes false claims.
But then, politicians are like that. And those who claim to be religious are the worst (see Iran).
Zels — We all know the quote. Believe it or not, it’s not sacred truth sent down from God, it’s just a pithy comment Churchill uttered to support his own political ideology.
Also, what you think conservative and what Churchill might have thought of it are certainly very different things. I don’t believe Churchill was in favor of morons who believe that all government spending should be stopped except that portion which is spent directly on them.
The Marxist must have some very dark secrets for so much effort to be expended on O’Donnell.