Barack Obama "The Rock Star Legal Professor" is a Total Fraud

thanks Albert- I didn't know it. GG is supposed to be a fine school, I have known a few people from there.

 

Without due process how can you even say that they are really terrorists? You can declare anyone a terrorist and kill them with the precedence we're setting. We should trust that our leaders are great judges of character? That's the power you want to hand them?

 

How does this differ Albert, with Reagan's strike on Libya? Not on scale but legally?

 

The world is black and white only to ideologes who wear blinders to the truth.

 

According to Norwestern Law School Obama would be a Professor:

The Law School actively recruits for faculty positions at the tenure-track levels listed above and the following non-tenure-track professorships: Senior Lecturer, Adjunct Professor,

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/recruitment/

 

There was no specific Congressional authorization for Reagan's strike on Libya. To that extent it was unlawful except under some unarticulated notion of self-defense.

The strike was based on the specific event of the Gadhafi supported bombing of the Berlin disco that killed two American GIs. The Obama strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen are not in self-defense unless one construes the idea to proportions which are absurd.

But that strike occurred before the advent of Lawfare as a weapon against presidents who engage in conflicts without a Congressional Declaration of War.

The bottom line is that America has a political culture in which it is perfectly legitimate to use legal doctrines to hamstring the American command authority and even commanders in the field.

The net result is that America can't effectively engage in military conflicts. This is one of the consequences of having an irreconcilably divided polity.

 

Say way we say folks are suspect of a crime.

No, I said that I think they should be apprehended and provided at least basic due process if reasonably possible.

If we have solid information and intellegence that an Al Quaida leader is plotting terrorist attacks against us, but we cannot reasonably apprehend them, you just let them be?

 

The law is black and white. Justice is that area of technicolor that surrounds it. Giving people authority to suspend intrinsic rights because they say they need it is not a good enough excuse for me. It is asking for too much trust in government officials.

 

I would have to trust that you have solid information. The US government has done far too many things--truly once is enough--that have violated ethics and morality to trust the word of government officials that they have solid, accurate information.

When given power our officials tend to abuse it, therefore power over life and death is not something I wish to hand over at this time.

 

Obama didn't publish anything. Who gets put on the tenure track when they haven't been published? Only someone receiving special consideration.

Obama worked at a law firm for a year and hated it. Then he taught Alinsky tactics under the guise of Constitutional Law...at least that's my opinion. Obama is no great Constitutional scholar. He probably doesn't know a demurrer from demure. The guy's a poser.

I recognized him as a shyster from the beginning. I've met a thousand just like him.

 

According the the War Powers Act, it was very legal. The President has the authority for short-term military initiatives. It is expected. No Congressional authorization required. There was nothing unlawful about it.

 

the following non-tenure-track professorships: Senior Lecturer, Adjunct Professor,

And Obama wasn't on the tenure track. Obama worked at Miner Barnhill & Galland for 12 years.

Sorry Albert- you just are wrong about the facts, and in my opinion, wrong about your opinion.

 

That's not correct imo because that's not the legislative intent. The War Powers Act does not authorize any military action for a limited period of time. On the contrary, it was designed to impose a constraint on the use of force by compelling the president to report and seek Congressional authorization after the lapse of time.

My friend, imo you are making a glass half full argument when the truth of the matter is that the glass is both half full and half empty. You won't be able to make that argument successfully until a federal court rules on it.

 

Don't be sorry. Obama worked at a law firm for one year. He was imo listed on the letterhead for an additional eleven years. Big deal. It means nothing in terms of him actually practicing law.

If Obama had worked at a law firm for twelve years he would have made partner would he not? He was probably listed as "Of Counsel." Ronald McDonald might as well have been listed as Of Counsel...it would have been as meaningful.

I've answered several of your questions, but there is one question I've asked of you repeatedly but which you haven't answered. Let me ask it again. Why do you believe in Obama?

 

Hmmm I can't say I 'believe in Obama' anymore than I have ever 'believed' in any politician. Its just that I have preferred Obama over the alternatives each time they have presented themselves. I preferred his message more than Clintons. I preferred his positions more than McCain's. I prefer his potential Supreme Court nominee's over Romney's.

I am far from a rabid Obama fan- I can find plenty to criticize him for. I tend not to defend his policy decisions because I often have some issues with them myself- I oppose the dishonest attacks on his past.

This started when the day after his swearing in, when I heard on the radio about some wingnuts who claimed he wasn't eligible to be President and was therefore not our legal President. Most of my posts regarding Obama are some variation of the propaganda that started in 2007 or 2008 attempting to smear Obama as being other than American, all of which Birthers embraced and became part of the Birther mantra.

 

Not necessarily. How good was he? Did the other members of the firm like him? Did the partners like him? Did he want to be partner?

 

Apparently Obama quislings find the truth to be a "smear". That's so informative.

This issue still resonates because it shows how completely the media is in bed with Obama. He wasn't a "rock star" legal lecurer at all!
Only a third of the students at the U of Chicago said they would recommend his classes to others.

Barry Obama: an entire life time spent letting other people down.

 

The point is that the law allows the President to act unilaterally as CIC within some loosely defined parameters, and a time constraint of 60-90 days. Here is a good synopsis:

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html#_1_24

Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, such as Reagan bombing Libya was "legal". Considering how we drop cruise missiles all over now, it would seem to have been set-in-stone legal. I do not care to argue one way or the other, as we have seen what Presidents have gotten away with. I would argue that the most egregious violation of it was Obama and his Libya incursion. But he got away with it.

The fact is that you cannot make the argument successfully, much less state as fact, that Reagan's bombing was unlawful. You made that assertion, not I. You have nothing on which to anchor your "fact"" ................ eh ?

 

Most of my friends are liberals. They are all deeply disappointed in Obama. They aren't voting so much for Obama as they are voting against Romney. I tell them that since we live in California it would be better for their consciences if they didn't vote for Obama. Let others do the dirty work without them lowering themselves.

This is what the election is all about for folks on the left. It's all about imposing the leftist agenda on the country. The only way for the right to fight that approach is to delegitimize the political regime and the entire federal govt.

I know you resent the attacks on his past. That's why I call him the Kenyan. I know where he was born, but it is so irksome that I enjoy it.

The reelection of Mr. Obama and the response it engenders will be very hard on this country and its people.

 

Like everything else, Obama's performance was undistinguished.

 

There is a difference between the power to do something and the right to do something. Lack of the right does not restrain the power. But exercise of the power does not establish the right.

Thanks.

I think this is no longer a ripe issue.

I think folks on the left will rue the day they cut Obama so much slack because the time will come when a conservative uses force and throws the Obama precedent in their face. But that will not stop the attempted use of Lawfare by leftists.

I have my understanding of the law. Until this matter receives judicial resolution my understanding will be what guides me.

I once analyzed things as you do. But the left's use of the federal govt. as its instrument to aggrandize its power convinced me that all federal power must be opposed across the board. This is in keeping with my perception of the American left as the most direct threat to the ideal of individual liberty. In the grand scheme of things this is the threat that matters...not third world dictators.

 

I pretty much agree. But I also believe that the Founders gave the President considerable leeway. In this instance, I believe that their vision failed them, as I doubt push-button war was considered. Or even aerial bombing at any distance. Obama's flaunting of the process, beyond what any prior President had done, has sown the seeds of disarray.

Its what we get for allowing a rookie to run the show. A pox on him, and all who still support him.

 

It is one aspect of why he was elected. Another reason is he wants to spread it around. About 25% of voters want a form of socialism. The rest are clueless Democrats.

 

Indeed. A pox on him and them.

 

I would say a pox on all those who oppose him.....

But I don't hate on people just because I disagree with them politcally.