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

You're kidding right? Look at our choices. Lousy choices breed lousy presidents.

 

Well ... then Willard should no problem debating the President.

 

Romney was a governor and a successful CEO.
Bush was a governor.
Clinton was a governor.
Bush Sr. was the head of the CIA and the Vice President (not to mention a certified war hero).
Reagan was a governor.
Carter was a governor and a Naval officer.
Ford (who was only selected to be the VP) was a 25-year Congressman.

Obama is a two-bit lawyer and community organizer from Chicago who never ran so much as a lemonade stand. You have probably done WAY more legal work than Obama ever did. In fact, you are better qualified to be President than Obama. I really mean that and that is why Obama is such a giant con-artist. He's like some stoner who fell ass backwards into fame and fortune. It's amazing to me.

 

It's his only hope at this point but based upon his performance so far I am not confident in his ability to sway crucial voters. Romney has no core, or if he does, he is purposely hiding it from voters. Great way to win an election...

 

here was your claim:

Obama embellished his law school credentials, if you read the article. It was not just the media.

Here is the article you cited- with my comments interjected in bold:

Time magazine gushed in 2008 (not Barack Obama- but Time Magazine)about Barack Obama's 12-year tenure as a law lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, saying, "Within a few years, he had become a rock-star professor with hordes of devoted students."

That may have been true during his first two years, when he ranked first among the law school's 40 instructors, with students giving him a rating of 9.7 out of a possible 10. (so we see that during his first 2 years Obama was a Rock Star as Time Magazine claimed)

But law student evaluations made available to The Washington Examiner by the university showed that his popularity then fell steadily.

In 1999, only 23 percent of the students said they would repeat Obama's racism class. He was the third-lowest-ranked lecturer at the law school that year. And in 2003, only a third of the student evaluators recommended his classes.

His classes were small. A spring 1994 class attracted 14 out of a student body of 600; a spring 1996 class drew 13. In 1997, he had the largest class of his tenure with 49 students. But by then, his student rating had fallen to 7.75. Twenty-two of 40 faculty members ranked higher than Obama. (And then Obama's ratings fell.....and what has this to do with what Obama misleading anyone?).

......... And, unlike others on the Chicago Law School faculty who published numerous articles in legal journals, Obama's byline did not appear in a single legal journal while he taught there. (And again- what has this got to do with Obama misleading anyone?)

From 1992 until 2004, Obama taught three courses: "Current Issues in Racism and the Law," "Voting Rights and the Democratic Process," and "Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process." (again- what has this got to do with Obama misleading anyone?)

Obama wasn't a professor; he was a lecturer, a position that the Chicago Law School said in 2008 "signifies adjunct status." He was elevated to a "senior lecturer" in 1996, the year he was first elected to the Illinois Senate in Springfield. (lets discuss this one below- shall we?)

********

So looking at the entire article- the article never claims or describes a single incident where Obama was 'embellishing' his law school credentials. Your claim is just bogus- if it is based upon this article. At this point it doesn't matter or not whether the issues raised in the article are accurate or not- they just don't support your claim.

The article claims that Obama was a rock start his first two years- and wasn't all of the following years. Again- where does this support your 'claim' that Obama 'embellished his credentials? Nowhere.

Now is the article accurate? First of all the piece is clearly anti-Obama- but that is okay. We can't verify the paper's sources- so that is somewhat suspect, but what about the content?

What the Examiner claims:
What the From 1992 until 2004, Obama taught three courses: "Current Issues in Racism and the Law," "Voting Rights and the Democratic Process," and "Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process." (again- what has this got to do with Obama misleading anyone?)

What University of Chicago Law says:

November 4, 2008
The University of Chicago Law School congratulates former Senior Lecturer Barack Obama on his election to the office of President of the United States....

Barack Obama taught at the Law School from 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004. During those years, he brought a dynamic teaching presence to his courses, which included “Constitutional Law III: Equal Protection,” “Voting Rights and the Democratic Process,” and a seminar entitled “Current Issues in Racism and the Law.”

According to the University of Chicago- the Examiner is wrong- and isn't it interesting that they specifically left out his course on "Constitutional Law"? Accident- I don't think so.

What about the rest of the Examiner claims? The Chicago Sun-Times said they review student evaluations also- and they came to a very different conclusion:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/pallasch121807
A Sun-Times review of student evaluations from Obama's 10 years of teaching part-time at the University of Chicago Law School shows that students almost always rated Obama as one of their top instructors -- except for one quarter in 1997.

While a state senator, Obama held classes early on Monday and late on Friday during legislative sessions, running right through the school's popular Friday evening wine-and-cheese hour. Obama was so popular, students signed up for his class anyway.

"We'd be in class and get messages that he would come in 45 minutes late and everyone would wait for him," said former student Andrew Janis, now a New York lawyer.

"I loved teaching," Obama told the Sun-Times. "But when the opportunity came [to run for U.S. Senate] I took it. I think some of the public speaking skills I developed in the classroom -- stay on your toes; don't make my answers too long -- I'm using on the campaign trail."

The student evaluations of Obama that remain at the school library (some are missing) are overwhelmingly positive. A reporter was unable to find the four students who said they would not recommend Obama's class to another student.

This is getting rather long- I will finish showing how wrong you were in a second post

 

I was talking more about character, but...

 

Obama is just what he appears to be. He has a chip on his shoulder and was educated to believe that you could buy votes and get to the top as opposed to working for what you want. He is a fraud and he is dangerous to those of us who believe in the constitution.

 

Love the bias there.

Here I will turn it around and do it like you did but in reverse
Romney was a Mormon missionary
Bush was a failed professional sports owner
Clinton never held a job in the private sector.
Bush Sr. got his oil job because of his daddy's connections
Reagan was a two bit actor
Carter was a peanut farmer
Ford was an affable former athlete.

Obama was a U.S. Senator and Illinois State Senator and prior to that taught law at Chicago Law University.

See how that works if you turn things around with the intent of providing a completely biased and inherently dishonest review?

Probably not.

 

FTA:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/introduction-the-obama-you-dont-know/article/2508080#.UFtmihRGJ5R

 

Wouldn't you agree that in order to meet a minimum level of competency for the US Presidency that an individual would have to have some kind of executive experience?

Gary Johnson. Governor.
Ron Paul. Air Force Officer and an experienced medical doctor.

Again, what has Obama actually done!? Next-to-nothing! That's what!

 

you ARE aware that Obama was not a community organizer at the time he was elected president?

Reagan was a bad actor from (*)(*)(*)(*)ty monkey movies

 

lol

Nothing you say will change the immutable fact that Obama is probably the least qualified person in history to get elected President. He has zero executive experience of any kind. Every individual elected or having run for President in recent memory had AMPLE executive experience but Obama, like I said, was just a two-bit lawyer and politician from the cesspool of Chicago. He got elected because a bunch of brainless zombies bought into his utopian hope & change claptrap and nothing more. Obama is a man of ZERO substance. It's all fluff and artifice and posterity will see it easily.

 

Yes, he was a no-account politician from Illinois who won a virtually uncontested Senate race.

And the governor of California.

 

Yup, GW ran a few businesses into the ground before he graduated to President and did the same to our country!!

 

Why should anyone but any faith in anything from the "Washington Examiner" when it puts out flat out lies like this:

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...alba-asks-voters-pledge-allegiance-obama.html

 

He also governed Texas.

 

I refer you to President Abraham Lincoln- consistantly ranked as among the top three most successful Presidents in U.S. history. Oh and he was a Republican too!

The rest of your stuff is just as biased and inaccurate as the Examiner's article.

 

Excellent job setting the record straight in these two posts, SFJeff.

Showing this is just another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) propaganda distortion and fabrication piece from the Washington Examiner, promoting flat out lies like in this article:

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...alba-asks-voters-pledge-allegiance-obama.html

Yet I'm sure that tomorrow we will see several new threads with new Examiner lies.

Propaganda works.

 

Abe Lincoln was the worst President in American history, so you are not helping your case by referencing him. And who cares if he is a Republican? What a stupid thing to say.

No, they are facts. Obama has no notable executive experience of any kind. Everyone else I mentioned does. Obama is a con-artist, possibly the biggest one in human history. He's a heady stoner/academic who slimed his way into the halls of power by peddling utopian claptrap.

 

Not according to the U.S. Constitution or the voters. I know you find both inconvenient but there you go. I happen to agree that it would be better for Presidents to have experience as governors- but some of our worst Presidents(i.e. Carter and Grant) have been governors and military men and some of our best- i.e. Abraham Lincoln had absolutely none.

What you are exposing is a contempt for voters and an ignorance of history.

 

Well I will let your entire statement speak for itself.

I don't know how better to display your ignorance.

 

Best response you could make.

 

I never said otherwise. The Constitution allows voters to choose whatever buffoon they like. I would HOPE, though, that their choice would take into account the individual's work experience in the public and private sectors, or, in Obama's case, his lack thereof.

No, clearly you cannot "know" that because I never said or implied it, which means you are lying.

Or some kind of notable executive experience, of which Obama had none.

I'm expressing contempt for an unqualified con-artist and his pathetic cult of personality.

 

The facts are the facts. Of course, Obama's loser fanboys will stop at nothing to distort and obfuscate them, but posterity will see Obama for the con-artist that he is. Future generations will be amazed that such a no-account malcontent got elected to the most powerful position in the world.