Archive for April, 2010

Dem Ed Koch Slams Prez for ‘Outrageous’ Treatment of Israel

Posted on April 11, 2010. Filed under: Israel, Obama |

I don’t understand Christians who support Obama when he is so hostile to Israel.

Dem slams prez for ‘outrageous’ treatment of Israel

Former New York City mayor: ‘I’m almost off Obama train’

Posted: April 11, 2010

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat who campaigned for President Obama in 2008, slammed the U.S. leader’s recent treatment of Israel as “outrageous” and “hostile,” declaring he is “close” to “getting off the Obama train.”

Koch’s sentiments are significant. The former politician has long been an indicator of American Jewish sentiment regarding U.S. presidents and Israel. His statements may serve as a signal that some American Jews are moving away from the Obama administration.

Koch was speaking in a radio interview with WND senior reporter Aaron Klein, who hosts an investigative program on New York’s WABC 770 AM.

The former mayor took issue with the Obama administration’s diplomatic row with Israel last month after a Jerusalem municipality announced the construction of 1,600 new homes in the neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, an already existing Jewish community in Jerusalem.

That announcement came during a visit to the region by Vice President Joe Biden, resulting in the White House calling the new construction an “insult” and an impediment to Israeli-Palestinian peace. A subsequent visit to the White House by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was described in media reports as tense.

“I think it’s outrageous what he has done,” stated Koch, referring to Obama, who Koch said has called for Jews not to “build apartments anywhere they want to and can afford to in their own land in Jerusalem.”

“It’s clear that Netanyahu was treated so terribly at the White House,” he said. “It is just rude what they did to him. … I am extremely distressed with the attitude that the president has shown Israel. I consider it to be hostility.”

“I am really terrified at what is happening and I would urge Jews and Christians who support Israel to stand up and speak out,” Koch added. “We must never again go back to the ’30s, when Jews were afraid to speak out here in the United States because they would be treated as disloyal, unpatriotic, duel loyalty and they deserted,” Koch told Klein.

“We should insist that (Obama) treat our ally as an ally, that he not throw Israel under the bus,” he said.

Koch, who campaigned for Obama in Florida during the 2008 election, said he was “amazed that the members of Congress who normally say wonderful things about the support of Israel, they have not spoken out in denunciation in what has occurred to date under the Obama administration.”

The former mayor also took issue with Obama’s policy of dialogue and seeking sanctions against Iran.

“The fact is U.S. on that issue has lost its nerve and has accepted the fact that North Korea and Iran will have a nuclear bomb. North Korea already does. All this talk about sanctions is baloney,” he said.

When asked if he is deserting Obama, Koch declared, “I am not yet off the train, but, let me tell you, I am close to it.”

He added, “I’m a good Democrat and believe in the Democrat program, domestically certainly.”

Indicator of Jewish American support

Koch’s attitude has long been a good indicator of greater Jewish American sentiment toward U.S. politicians.

In 1980 Koch, although himself a prominent Democrat, defied the Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter and strongly denounced Carter’s policies toward Israel. This foreshadowed the unprecedented shift of Jewish voters that November; with about sixty percent of Jews deserting Carter: 40 percent went to Reagan, and 20 percent to John Anderson.

Koch’s endorsement of George W. Bush in 2004, as a gesture of support for the U.S. war against Islamic terror and Bush’s pro-Israel policies, was likewise indicative of the growing grassroots Jewish support for the Bush administration.

LINK: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139485

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Kenyan Official says Obama Born in Kenya

Posted on April 11, 2010. Filed under: Obama, Obama Corruption, Politics |

Kenyan official: Obama born here

In debate over constitution, minister urges African nation to emulate U.S. inclusion

April 11, 2010

By Drew Zahn

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Kenyan MP James Orengo

A Kenyan lawmaker told the nation’s parliament last month that Barack Obama was born in Africa and is therefore “not even a native American.”

During debate over the draft of a new Kenyan constitution, James Orengo, the country’s minister of lands and a member of parliament for the Ugenya constituency, cited America’s election of a Kenyan-born president as an example of what can be accomplished when diverse peoples unite:

“If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation,” Orengo posited, “how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”

Orengo held up the U.S. as a country no longer “living in the past,” since Americans elected a Kenyan-born president without regard to “ethnic consideration and objectives.”

Debate is then recorded in the Kenyan government’s official March 25, 2010, hansard – a traditional name for printed transcripts of a parliamentary debate – as continuing with no other MPs mentioning or attempting to correct Orengo’s comments about Obama.

As WND has reported, several other sources – including National Public Radio – have claimed Obama’s birthplace as Kenya prior to his election as president.

WND also reported when a video appeared in which Michelle Obama said her husband’s “home country” was Kenya, though her comments didn’t specifically suggest his birth there.

The video, posted April 3 on YouTube and forwarded by a score of Internet e-mails, shows Michelle Obama saying, “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test.”

The reference drew attention because of the claim made in numerous lawsuits and other challenges to Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office that he is not eligible to be president under the requirement of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution that the president be a “natural born citizen.”

But the NPR reference and Michelle Obama’s comment are far from the only ones of their kind.

At one point, there were reports that even Obama’s grandmother claimed being in attendance at his birth in Africa.

According to a compilation of images at a military forum, another reference was made in 2008 in the Nigerian Observer.

Under a byline from Solomon Asowata and a Washington dateline, the report says,

 “Americans will today go to the polls to elect their next president with Democratic Party candidate, Senator Barack Obama largely favoured to win. The Kenyan-born Senator will, however, face a stiff competition from his Republican counterpart…”

A commentary at The Post & Email website said, “It is no wonder that many doubt Obama’s claim of a Hawaiian birth.”

It cited another report from African Travel Magazine that said,

 “As Kenyan born U.S. Senator Barack Obama jets into Kenya today as part of his African tour, concerns have once again been raised on the security preparations for other visitors and residents. ….”

The Post & Email commentary also cited a report from Indonesia Matters that includes similar references.

WND documented earlier several other statements linking Obama and Kenya.

These included the apparently archived article from the Sunday Standard in Kenya. The report begins,

 “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack (sic) Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.”

The article is credited to the wire service Associated Press at the bottom of the page. However, the article could not be found either in the AP archives available to the public online or the archive on the newspaper’s website. WND telephone calls and e-mails to the newspaper did not generate a response.

Last year, an African news site and an MSNBC broadcaster referred to President Obama’s birthplace as being outside of the United States.

Network correspondent Mara Schiavocampo was reporting on the celebratory atmosphere in Accra, Ghana, immediately prior to Obama’s visit to the west African nation.

Interviewing a person who appeared to be a shop operator, she stated, “Barack Obama is Kenyan … but Ghanaians are still proud of him.”

Also, a report at Modern Ghana posted in advance of the president’s visit cited his birthplace on the continent of Africa.

“For Ghana, Obama’s visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth,” the report said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums exceeding $1.7 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

WND also reported previously when Michelle Obama contradicted Obama’s story that he lived with his mother and father for several years in Hawaii after he was born before his father left to pursue a graduate degree.

Michelle Obama said her husband’s mother, Ann Dunham, was “very young and very single” when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.

Her comments undermine the official story as told by Barack Obama – that Dunham was married to his father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of birth.

The remarks were made by Michelle Obama during a July 2008 round table at the University of Missouri. Obama was responding to criticism of her husband’s presidential campaign speeches about fatherhood and faith-based initiatives.

 LINK: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139481

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

French Leader Sarkozy Slams Obama, Warns He Might be Insane

Posted on April 11, 2010. Filed under: Obama, Politics |

Hmmm…so much for Obama gaining the respect of the rest of the world. The only thing he has done is alienate our allies and kiss up to our enemies. I’m not sure he’s insane, but he certainly is dangerous!!!

French Leader Sarkozy Slams Obama, Warns He Might Be Insane

By News on the Net Sunday, April 11, 2010

– eutimes.net

A new report circulating in the Kremlin today authored by France’s Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE) and recently “obtained” by the FSB shockingly quotes French President Nicolas Sarkozy as stating that President Barack Obama is “a dangerous[ly] aliéné”, which translates into his, Obama, being a “mad lunatic”, or in the American vernacular, “insane”.

According to this report, Sarkozy was “appalled” at Obama’s “vision” of what the World should be under his “guidance” and “amazed” at the American Presidents unwillingness to listen to either “reason” or “logic”. Sarkozy’s meeting where these impressions of Obama were formed took place nearly a fortnight ago at the White House in Washington D.C., and upon his leaving he “scolded” Obama and the US for not listening closely enough to what the rest of the World has to say.

Apparently, as this report details, the animosity between Sarkozy and Obama arose out of how best the West can deal with the growing threat posed by rising Islamic fundamentalism. Both Sarkozy and his European neighbors had previously been supported in their efforts by the United States in forming an alliance to strengthen the integration of Muslim peoples into their societies, and has including France and Belgium moving to ban the wearing of burqa’s.

-snip-

LINK: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21864

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Parting Company: Maybe it’s Time for the Two Americas To Divide

Posted on April 8, 2010. Filed under: Politics, Socialism/Communism |

I agree with Mr. Williams. I would hate to see the country split into two countries, but I would rather live free, so if that means we have to divide, then maybe we need to do it. I do NOT want to live in a socialist country.

Parting Company

By Walter Williams

Here’s the question asked in my September 2000 column titled “It’s Time To Part Company”: “If one group of people prefers government control and management of people’s lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?”

The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upsmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two decades. There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.

You say, “Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?” Let’s look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do anything upon which they can muster a majority vote.

James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Americans who wish to live free have several options. We can submit to those who have constitutional contempt and want to run our lives. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America’s tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights. We can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. Some independence movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden; Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally.

The bottom-line question for all of us is: Should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another? My preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.

LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/04/07/parting_company

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Team Obama Bans ‘Islamic Radicalism’ & ‘Jihad’ From National Security Documents

Posted on April 8, 2010. Filed under: Muslim Invasion, Obama, Politics, Terrorism |

And the bozo we have for a president continues to appease the terrorists…

Team Obama Bans “Islamic Radicalism” & “Jihad” From National Security Documents

Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 4:49 AM

Jim Hoft

Yesterday, he removed nukes from the equation – Today he removed “Islamic radicalism” and “jihad.”

The Obama Administration will remove the terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from national security documents in a new effort to win over Islamic countries.

FOX News reported:

President Barack Obama’s advisers plan to remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.

The change would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”

The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document is still being written and is unlikely to be released for weeks, and the White House would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document is the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on U.S. foreign policy, as with his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used.

The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the U.S. talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.

LINK: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/team-obama-plan-to-remove-islamic-radicalism-from-national-security-documents/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

ObamaCare and the Constitution

Posted on April 8, 2010. Filed under: Healthcare, Nanny State, Obama, Socialism/Communism |

ObamaCare and the Constitution

By Daniel Henninger – WSJ

If Congress can force you to buy insurance, Article I limits on federal power are a dead letter.

The left-wing critics are right: The rage is not about health care. They are also right that similar complaints about big government were heard during the New Deal and the Great Society, and the sky didn’t fall.

But what if this time the sky is falling—on them.

What if after more than a century of growth in the national government, starting with the Progressive Era, the American people are starting to push back. Not just the tea partiers or the 13 state attorneys general seeking protection under the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause. But something bigger than that.

The Democratic left, its pundits and academics criticizing the legal challenges to ObamaCare seem to be arguing that their version of our political structure is too big to change.

That’s not true. The American people can and do change the nation’s collective mind on the ordering of our political system. The civil rights years of the 1960s is the most well-known modern example. (The idea that resistance to Mr. Obama’s health plan is rooted in racist resentment of equal rights is beyond the pale, even by current standards of political punditry.)

Powerful political forces suddenly seem to be in motion across the U.S. What they have in common is anxiety over what government has become in the first decade of the 21st century.

The tea party movement is getting the most attention because it is the most vulnerable to the standard tool kit of mockery and ridicule. It is more difficult to mock the legitimacy of Scott Brown’s overthrow of the Kennedy legacy, the election results in Virginia and New Jersey, an economic discomfort that is both generalized and specific to the disintegration of state and federal fiscs, and indeed the array of state attorneys general who filed a constitutional complaint against the new health-care law. What’s going on may be getting past the reach of mere mockery.

Constitutional professors quoted in the press and across the Web explain that much about the federal government’s modern authority is “settled” law. Even so, many of these legal commentators are quite close to arguing that the national government’s economic and political powers are now limitless and unfettered. I wonder if Justice Kennedy believes that.

Or as David Kopel asked on the Volokh Conspiracy blog: “Is the tax power infinite?”

In a country that holds elections, that question is both legal and political. The political issue rumbling toward both the Supreme Court and the electorate is whether Washington’s size and power has finally grown beyond the comfort zone of the American people. That is what lies beneath the chatter about federalism and the 10th Amendment.

Liberals will argue that government today is doing good. But government now is also unprecedentedly large and unprecedentedly expensive. Even if every challenge to ObamaCare loses in court, these anxieties will last and keep coming back to the same question: Does the Democratic left think the national government’s powers are infinite?

No one in the Obama White House, asked that in public on Sunday morning, would simply say yes, no matter that the evidence of this government’s actions the past year indicate they do. In his “Today Show” interview this week, Mr. Obama with his characteristic empathy acknowledged there are “folks who have legitimate concerns . . . that the federal government may be taking on too much.”

My reading of the American public is that they have moved past “concerns.” Somewhere inside the programmatic details of ObamaCare and the methods that the president, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid used to pass it, something went terribly wrong. Just as something has gone terribly wrong inside the governments of states like California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts.

The 10th Amendment tumult does not mean anyone is going to secede. It doesn’t mean “nullification” is coming back. We are not going to refight the Civil War or the Voting Rights Act. Richard Russell isn’t rising from his Georgia grave.

It means that the current edition of the Democratic Party has disconnected itself from the average American’s sense of political modesty. The party’s members and theorists now defend expanding government authority with the same arrogance that brought Progressive Era reforms down upon untethered industrial interests.

In such times, this country has an honored tradition of changing direction. That time may be arriving.

Faced with corporate writedowns in response to the reality of Congress’s new health plan, an apoplectic Congressman Henry Waxman commanded his economic vassals to appear before him in Washington.

Faced with a challenge to his vision last week, President Obama laughingly replied to these people: “Go for it.”

They will.

As to the condescension and sniffing left-wing elitism this opposition seems to bring forth from Manhattan media castles, one must say it does recall another, earlier ancien regime.

LINK: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304252704575156031760261858.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Sick Thinking From ‘Mainstream’ Leftists

Posted on April 8, 2010. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Media Bias, Obama, Politics |

Amen!

Sick Thinking From ‘Mainstream’ Leftists

by David Limbaugh

The Obama left, realizing it has really stepped in it with the American people by cramming Obamacare down our throats, has decided to blunt the backlash against it by tarring, yet again, mainstream conservatives as racists, bigots, homophobes and violent. Its tactics are objectively despicable.

You know the drill. We conservatives, who happen to understand ourselves better than liberals do, know that we are largely a civil, respectable, peaceable bunch. Attendees to the Rush Limbaugh-inspired Dan’s Bake Sale years ago can attest to the mature, wholesome behavior of Rush fans. Ditto Sean Hannity’s Freedom Concert attendees and tea party protest attendees.

The leftists who actually believe the fraudulent bile they are spewing about conservatives as being violent are merely projecting. They know their own side often disrupts and shuts down debate and engages in hate speech and even anarchy. Witness the unruly leftist disruptions of Ann Coulter appearances or the sabotaging of Karl Rove’s appearance by Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans, one of Obama’s radical buddies. Look at the tea party violence from the SEIU left.

But the majority of leftists making these bogus claims about conservatives are either deeply warped or outright lying. There are some isolated acts of fringe violence from the right, but they are just that — isolated and rare. With the many tea parties that have occurred, how much conservative-spawned violence have you heard about — even with a liberal media champing at the bit to slander the entire movement? Hardly any — beyond the fabrications.

The left wants to shut us up. Liberals say they want universal voter registration so all voices can be heard. What? They don’t even want dissenting voices among already existing voters heard. After the way they cheated and gamed the system to impose socialized medicine on an unwilling public, they’ve forfeited their credibility about promoting the people’s will — which we always knew was a ruse anyway.

The Obama left has tried to muzzle us through intimidation — as in its declaration of a false consensus on global warming, its issuing summonses to corporate executives to justify announcements that Obamacare is going to cost them dearly, Obama’s telling those of us who “created this mess” that he doesn’t want us to “do a lot of talking,” his declaring a communications war on Fox News, and on and on. Failing that, the left intends to paint us all as racists who are just a hair trigger away from committing violent acts.

With the groundwork rationale established — that conservative “hate speech” incites violence — liberals will be a step closer to using laws and regulations to emasculate or silence conservative talk radio. But their claim is a vicious, destructive, divisive lie — just like their depiction of conservatives, by virtue of their conservatism, as racists.

A caller to Rush Limbaugh’s guest host Mark Davis said conservatives might not consciously be racists, but the results of their policies harm African-Americans, so it’s fair to infer they are racists. Well, under that standard, Obama is racist because he recently reversed welfare reform, which everyone agrees reduced black poverty and the black illegitimacy rate. The same thing holds for his liberal education policies that result in trapping minorities in inferior inner-city schools. The list goes on.

Yet I don’t believe leftists are racists because the effect of their policies often works to the detriment of blacks; I just think they are misguided and, after all these years of failed policies, have no moral authority to claim otherwise. Good intentions cannot trump decades of bad results.

But the more Obama forces through his unpopular agenda to dismantle America’s founding principles the more outraged the public will become and the more protests and blowback we’ll see (sans violence). These protests, in turn, will result in Obama leftists’ ratcheting up their wild accusations aimed at demonizing their conservative opponents — ordinary Americans, who at this point can be considered victims.

So we should expect more disgraceful columns from liberals, such as Frank Rich, who wrote that conservatives’ “over-the-top rage” over Obama’s policy agenda is caused by “the conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman” — not his agenda. Or Chris Matthews, who asked, “What are the tea partiers really angry about, health care reform or the fact that it was an African-American president and a woman speaker of the House who pushed through major change?”

This is just sick stuff, folks, but not uncommon for leftist thinkers. We conservatives simply don’t think this way. It doesn’t compute. Yet there are scores of examples of other leftist commentators making the same claims.

Note to fellow conservatives: Please understand whom we’re up against here; otherwise we don’t have a prayer of defeating them.

LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2010/04/02/sick_thinking_from_mainstream_leftists

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Chicago Law School Faculty Hated Obama

Posted on April 8, 2010. Filed under: Obama |

How very interesting..but not surprising. Obama is such a fraud. His ‘accomplishments’ have been blown out of proportion. The MSM just loves covering up his faults and padding his resume.

Chicago Law School Faculty Hated Obama

theblogprof.com

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Chicago Law School faculty hated Obama “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”

The smartest genius President evah is nothing more than a carboard cutout. A fraud. Doesn’t exist. We don’t even know how he did in school because to this day his transcripts are sealed. Turns out now that when he was an instructor at the Chicago, his colleagues who were actual Professors didn’t like him and didn’t want him. Obama’s position was obtained through political channels. From Doug Ross: To be (a lawyer) or not to be…

Is the President’s resume accurate when it comes to his career and qualifications? I can corroborate that Obama’s “teaching career” at Chicago was, to put it kindly, a sham.

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).

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. …

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.

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.

Here was that video that I posted back in January (Video: Former Constitutional Law Professor Obama makes up quotes in SOTU not found in the Constitution):

10. 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.

11. 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.

For a constitutional senior lecturer, it’s also noteworthy that Obama doesn’t know what car insurance covers

UPDATE: Doug Ross updates with this: Most Transparent President Ever Has Bar Records Redacted This Week, Leaving Only Traces of His Existence Some Betamax Videos and a Fraternity Pin

President Obama’s Occidental College transcripts have never been released. His Columbia transcripts are, likewise, AWOL. And his Harvard Law transcripts also haven’t been made public. Finally, it’s reported, he never published any articles while at Harvard, yet somehow served as Editor of Law Review. That would make him unique among editors, according to insiders.

Even John “D Student” Kerry was guilt-tripped into releasing his transcripts.

Curiously, since I relayed a report of Obama’s “teaching career” at Chicago (he was apparently never a law professor, as some have claimed), the Illinois Bar has decided to partially redact what little public information it had available on its website related to the President’s legal status.

UPDATE #2: Another from Doug Ross: Rub a dub dub, how many IDs does one profile need?

An anonymous tipster points out that the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois has gone through some amazing contortions maintaining a single database record for a retired attorney named Barack Obama.

Obama is only transparent in the sense that his past is invisible.

LINK: http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/03/chicago-law-school-faculty-hated-obama.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

Michelle Obama: Barack’s Home Country is Kenya

Posted on April 6, 2010. Filed under: Obama, Obama Corruption, Politics |

Check out the video link below. This video, posted April 3 on YouTube and forwarded by a score of Internet e-mails, shows Michelle Obama saying, “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test.”

The clip comes from a June 2008 campaign speech she delivered to the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee in New York City, as reported by Reuters.

Doesn’t anyone find this interesting??? We can’t have a president with divided loyalties to two different countries!! This should at least open the door for more inquiries into his citizenship.

Michelle Obama: Barack’s Home Country is Kenya

LINK to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDHDfPNBME&feature=player_embedded

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...