Categories
Archives
Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

Posts Tagged ‘False Prophet’

Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume

by Anthony Martin

In what is being called ‘the biggest hustle in human history,’ a special investigation has discovered numerous bogus claims on Barack Obama’s resume, including the outright lie that he was a ‘Constitutional scholar and professor.’
As investigators delve further into the background of Barack Obama, a disturbing picture is emerging of a man who is not who he claims to be.  The information the public has been told concerning Obama is turning out to be false–fabrications and inventions of a man and an unseen force behind him that had clear ulterior motives for seeking the highest office in the land.
According to a special report issued by ‘the Blogging Professor,’ the Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama.  The report states that Obama was unqualified, that he was never a ‘constitutional professor and scholar,’ and that he never served as editor of the Harvard Law Review while a student at the school.
The real truth is that Barack Obama was merely an ‘instructor’ at Chicago Law School, not a professor.  Commonly, instructors are non-tenure-track teachers hired by colleges and universities to teach certain courses for a salary that is well below that of Associate Professors or full Professors.
In the hierarchy of higher education, the status of instructors is below that of associate professors and professors because they lack the credentials.
In fact, it can be safely concluded that the claims of Barack Obama concerning his educational credentials and work history in higher education are a complete sham.  The President of the United States is a complete fraud.
According to Doug Ross:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
Thus,  the question arises, was the claim that Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review a ‘put-up job’ as well, allowing the student to claim he held this prestigious position without having the qualifications or meeting the requirements of holding that position?  And why?
Further,
Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he “fibbed” on his bar application.
2. Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the President and First Lady – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “Obama did NOT ‘hold the title’ of a University of Chicago law school professor”. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
These are highly disturbing facts, verified facts from the people who know at the Chicago Law School.
There is more from Ross, however:
6. “He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
8. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.”
9. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
10. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony it’s hard to keep facts straight.
Obama has made sure that all of his records are sealed tight.  And apart from the courageous souls at the various educational institutions who dared to speak the truth, the schools Obama claimed to attend unanimously refuse to release transcripts, records, or other bits of evidence concerning Obama’s presence in their institutions.
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT–just as these disturbing facts come to light about Barack Obama, the White House is busy making deals with numerous ‘journalists,’ promising unprecedented access to the President in exchange for refraining from reporting certain information ‘they may discover.’

Continue reading on Examiner.com Investigation reveals numerous bogus claims on Obama resume – National Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/investigation-reveals-numerous-bogus-claims-on-obama-resume#ixzz1rBwxLHmt

Obama did NOT “hold the title” of a University of Chicago law school professor.

By Lynn Sweet on March 28, 2008 6:25 PM | 61 Comments
WASHINGTON—The University of Chicago released a statement on Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school—but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday.

“He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the school, on East 60th St. in Chicago

The U of C statement was posted on the school’s website two days after the Clinton campaign issued a memo headlined “Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements.” The memo was generated by the Clinton campaign as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was put on the defensive for claiming incorrectly that she dodged sniper fire while First Lady when her plane landed in Bosnia.

Another university spokesman, Josh Schonwald, said the Obama campaign did not request that the statement be generated and that it was posted because reporters were calling the school with questions about Obama’s status. However, the Obama campaign was interested in making sure reporters saw the U of C statement.

The university statement said, “From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School.” The school probably did not mean to imply that Obama became a University of Chicago professor a year out of law school. But the word “served” is key—Nagorsky said Obama carried out, or served, a function of a professor—teaching a core curriculum course while a senior lecturer—while at the same time not holding down that rank.

At issue in the Clinton memo was Obama’s claims—mostly specifically on several direct mail pieces produced for his 2004 U.S. Senate race– that said he was a law professor at the university.

Obama graduated Harvard Law School in 1991. He was a lecturer at the U. of Chicago law school between 1992 and 1996. During this time he was an attorney at the law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. In his first years of teaching, he had only one course.

He was promoted to Senior Lecturer in 1996 and his teaching load eventually increased to three courses a year, less than the load of a professor. Obama won a state Senate seat in 1996. Obama maintained his senior lecturer post from 1996 to 2004, when he took a leave to run for the U.S. Senate.

Nagorsky said there is a major distinction between a lecturer and senior lecturer, though both are not full-time positions. She said the status of a senior lecturer is “similar” to the status of a professor and Obama did teach core courses usually handled only by professors. While Obama was also part of the law school community, his appointment was not part of an academic search process and he did not have any scholarly research obligations which professors often do.

In August of 2004, I wrote a column about Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign literature saying he was a law professor at the U of C when he was a senior lecturer on leave at the school. Neither the school nor anyone in the Obama campaign complained at the time.

The University of Chicago did Obama no favor by saying he was a law professor when he wasn’t. This parsing is not necessary. There is nothing degrading about being a senior lecturer and bringing to students the experience of a professional in the field.

GEORGE SOROS (THE SPOOKY MAN) TELLS OBAMA WHAT TO DO ABOUT EGYPT AND THE MIDDLE EAST

By George Soros
Thursday, February 3, 2011
READ CAREFULLY TO GET HIS DISQUISED INTENT. HE HATES ISRAEL AND WANTS TO SPREAD HIS ONE WORLD COMMUNISTIC ORDER. HE IS FINANCING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD. HIS MESSAGE ON THE OUTSIDE HAS A DO GOODY SOUND, BUT READ THE INSIDE. HE DEFINES AMERICA AS US. (MEANING HIM) SOROS HAS AN OPEN SOCIETY OFFICE IN EGYPT PULLING THE STRINGS.
Revolutions usually start with enthusiasm and end in tears. In the case of the Middle East, the tears could be avoided if President Obama stands firmly by the values that got him elected. Although American power and influence in the world have declined, our allies and their armies look to us for direction. These armies are strong enough to maintain law and order as long as they stay out of politics; thus the revolutions can remain peaceful. That is what the United States should insist on while encouraging corrupt and repressive rulers who are no longer tolerated by their people to step aside and allow new leaders to be elected in free and fair elections.
That is the course that the revolution in Tunisia is taking. Tunisia has a relatively well-developed middle class, women there enjoy greater rights and opportunities than in most Muslim countries, and the failed regime was secular in character. The prospects for democratic change are favorable.
Egypt is more complex and, ultimately, more influential, which is why it is so important to get it right. The protesters are very diverse, including highly educated and common people, young and old, well-to-do and desperately poor. While the slogans and crowds in Tahrir Square are not advancing a theocratic agenda at all, the best-organized political opposition that managed to survive in that country’s repressive environment is the Muslim Brotherhood. In free elections, the Brotherhood is bound to emerge as a major political force, though it is far from assured of a majority.
Some have articulated fears of adverse consequences of free elections, suggesting that the Egyptian military may seek to falsify the results; that Israel may be adamantly opposed to a regime change; that the domino effect of extremist politics spreading to other countries must be avoided; and that the supply of oil from the region could be disrupted. These notions constitute the old conventional wisdom about the Middle East – and need to be changed, lest Washington incorrectly put up resistance to or hesitate in supporting transition in Egypt.
That would be regrettable. President Obama personally and the United States as a country have much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the public demand for dignity and democracy. This would help rebuild America’s leadership and remove a lingering structural weakness in our alliances that comes from being associated with unpopular and repressive regimes. Most important, doing so would open the way to peaceful progress in the region. The Muslim Brotherhood’s cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate who is seeking to run for president, is a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system. As regards contagion, it is more likely to endanger the enemies of the United States – Syria and Iran – than our allies, provided that they are willing to move out ahead of the avalanche.
The main stumbling block is Israel. In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis themselves. Fortunately, Obama is not beholden to the religious right, which has carried on a veritable vendetta against him. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is no longer monolithic or the sole representative of the Jewish community. The main danger is that the Obama administration will not adjust its policies quickly enough to the suddenly changed reality.
I am, as a general rule, wary of revolutions. But in the case of Egypt, I see a good chance of success. As a committed advocate of democracy and open society, I cannot help but share in the enthusiasm that is sweeping across the Middle East. I hope President Obama will expeditiously support the people of Egypt. My foundations are prepared to contribute what they can. In practice, that means establishing resource centers for supporting the rule of law, constitutional reform, fighting corruption and strengthening democratic institutions in those countries that request help in establishing them, while staying out of those countries where such efforts are not welcome.

BEWARE OF THE FALSE PROPHET

In the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal today – 01-17-2011 a article appears under a Barak Obama by line. I’m sure Obama did not have time to write this between his basketball and football games. The article does not sound like him. The article sounds and reads like a propaganda plan devised by George Soros and his John Podesta – Center for American progress. They always have wonderful names and always offer a Kum ba yah moment in time. Let’s all sing Kum ba yah twice. It will make them feel a lot better.

If he was serious about removing regulations, then he should fire all the socialist over regulators he has in his government. Try the EPA that just shut down a large coal mine, stop the silly drilling regulations. Get rid of the over regulation Czars. The articles approach is a Wolf in Sheep’s clothing. Very Fabian socialistic.
See below:

OBAMA PENS OP-ED PROMISING TO REMOVE ‘DUMB’ & ‘OUTDATED REGULATIONS’
President Obama wants America to know he is a pro-business president.
In an op-ed in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, the president promised to sign an executive order to root out “dumb” and “outdated” regulations that “stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.”
“This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth,” Obama writes. “And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. It’s a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.”
Still, he made sure to note that this doesn’t erase the need for new regulations. “Where necessary, we won’t shy away from addressing obvious gaps: new safety rules for infant formula; procedures to stop preventable infections in hospitals; efforts to target chronic violators of workplace safety laws,” he says, and then adds: “But we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.”
The president gives saccharin — an artificial sweetener — as an example. While many Americans use it in their coffee, the EPA requires companies to treat it as hazardous waste. Not any more.
He concludes his op-ed with a final decree: “We’re also getting rid of absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money.”
“We’re looking at the system as a whole to make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation,” he writes in sum. “And finally, today I am directing federal agencies to do more to account for—and reduce—the burdens regulations may place on small businesses. Small firms drive growth and create most new jobs in this country. We need to make sure nothing stands in their way.”
Read the entire op-ed from the Wall Street Journal.

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !