Stumbled across this article and I had to inform the masses. I am not surprised at all, but some may be.
(From examiner.com) 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.'
The claim turns out to be false.
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.
Let me just say, "Told you so." To all of those that did not believe me and all of my research!
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.
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.Â
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.Â
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 theChicago 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.Â
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. The B-Cast posted the video.
9. 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."
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.Â
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.
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.
Probably because they don't exist! That would be the only reason! Or it is under his birth name of Barry Sotero, which proves he is not an AMERICAN!
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.'
Yet again, no surprise there! I have been saying this all along! Surprise I am right again! I see a trend...looks like all of us in the Majority of America are correct! I think that speaks volumes.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 209 ( 4 removed by Michelle Witt )
That is a pretty long list of info that the president is concealing. Why would even his supporters, not at least want this info opened to the public. Every president throws their resume out there. Why not offer the proof. Why spend millions hiding thisssss from the public.
You will find more dirt if you look at congress!
"I have known all along that Obama was a fraud, hence why i never voted for him. I am happy to be able to say that! "
I know exactly what the 14th Amendment says, maybe it is you who needs to read it again! Just because you don't care doesn't mean nobody cares. To make that claim is preposterous. And why you quoted what I said without comment is absurd. That is your perogative. Moving on..have a nice day.
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "
I'm not going to believe it or not believe until I have more information.
I do remember something about him not being a professor but a guest speaker back during the campaign
I have to add to the others.
Your post is all false information.
Here for anyone with a registering IQ can go to a reliable site,
University of Chicago and read their statement.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
Bunny "mmmmkayyyyyy!" Isn't a word. Your comment is stupid and a waste of space. You actually can't add anything to the conversation except for insults. That is pathetic. Move on.
BLOG? Why not just form and moderate your own GROUP and then you can just dictate all the rules and regulations you obviously feel you need to protect you from intelligent debate? Maybe called something like
Snippy Huffy Unemployed Tyrant Using Partisanship.
It is all debunked. They don't report it on the ultra-right wing propaganda machine called FAUX news.
So you will never know facts from fiction, but we all know that.
Oh, and please share with us where you got YOUR degree in Constitutional Law.
Obama was born to a "U.S. citizen mother and a British subject father from what was then the Kenya Colony of the United Kingdom (which became the independent country of Kenya in 1963). "
This proves that President Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States based on the Constitution. His father was not an American, nor a US Citizen, therefore Obama is not a US Citizen. This makes him ineligible to be President of the United States. You can also read the British Nationality Act of 1948. Which is what his nationality falls under. If this doesn't prove it to you, then I do not know what will.
Also, Eric is right: (Wikipedia.org)
Through birth abroad to one United States citizen
A person born on or after November 14, 1986, is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:
One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
The citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child's birth
A minimum of two of these five years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.
There you have it Eric is right and so am I. The evidence doesn't get any more obvious. Obama was not born on the correct date to be considered a citizen. His mom was an American but his father was not, and he did not have citizenship!
As a child in Indonesia, he was sometimes known as Barry Soetoro.
Also when typing in Barry Soetoro it links to Obama the President. He grew up Islamic, and spent his childhood in Indonesia.
You're supposed to be a self-professed expert on the Constitution, yet you say This proves that President Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States based on the Constitution. .
The only reason this subject is such fodder for you Foxaholics is because the Constitution does not define "Natural Born Citizen". The U.S Code, however, does:
According to Title 8, section 1401, of the U.S. Code, anyone who falls into the following categories is a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president:
* Anyone born inside the United States (THIS INCLUDES HAWAII, making Obama eligible)
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) (Even if you refuse to accept reality and insist Obama was born abroad, he'd still be eligible on this basis)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Whether or not his father was a British subject is irrelevant, as the US does not base its determination of citizenship on the laws of other countries. The SCOTUS has also ruled several times that parents do not have the right to rescind US citizenship on the behalf of minors, nor is citizenship revoked by removing the child from the US, so the fact that he lived in Indonesia is irrelevant.
Everyone in a position to see actual vital records is satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii. Every member of Congress is satisfied. The SCOTUS is satisfied. All of his opponents throughout the primary and presidential election were satisfied. Everyone in a position of power who dislike the man as much as you do and were in a position to disqualify him if there were any basis to do so, can find none. Yet you still think you know something that all of these people don't?
Really, having all these things that Barry supposedly did or did not do means nothing. It's what he's doing in the position he's in now. Personally, I see someone who talked their way into the highest office in our country, only to become the puppet of Pelosi and Reid. It is Pelosi and Reid (I'll give Oprah a little credit in here too) who pulled all the strings (and probably a few dirty tricks) to rocket launch a real nobody (who outside of Illinois had ever heard of this guy) into the spotlight and now control the whole show because they suceeded in getting him the job. What does he do? He tears apart the country, puts us into debt, walks all over our Constitution. He talks about transparancy, yet keeps anything questionable about himself locked up tight. He makes enemies with the media, something I've never seen a president do before, by being belligerent with them when he feels they get too close....that's if he's not completely going mute and refusing to answer questons.
Yeah, I'd say that even if he has all these credentials, he still doesn't know what to do with them.
Here for anyone with a registering IQ can go to a reliable site, University of Chicago and read their statement."
Thank you, Cena, for providing a link to evidence that makes it clear that the author of thisarticle (or the Gather member who copied and pasted it here) doesn't know what they're talking about.
I've done my own research, Michelle. You're the one who's copied and pasted somebody else's article. The proof that Obama wasn't an instructor at the Univ. of Chicago has been provided by the University of Chicago itself. Evidence that Barack Obama was indeed the President of the Harvard Law Review is available from many sources, including this New York Times article. Another source would be an issue of the Harvard Law Review itself. For example, in Volume 103, Issue 3 on page 772 there's a listing of the members of the Editorial Board. Barack Obama's name is in the middle column, second from the bottom, right between Lars Noah and Patrick J. O'Brien. In the same issue, starting on page 823, is Obama's case comment discussing Stallman v Youngquist. Have you read it? Or are you a mindless zombie who believes that it doesn't exist because you read something on examiner.com and believed it to be true?
Oh, and your Bither nonsense about his Kenyan father making him ineligible for being POTUS. All that stuff you wrote (copied and pasted?) has to do with people born outside the U.S. It doesn't apply to Barack Obama, who was born in the U.S. state of Hawaii.
I read your article, and I'm still telling you that your Birther claims are a bunch of nonsense.
"Why don't you get an original argument instead of using some one else's."
You copied and pasted an article from examiner.com that was clearly full of complete nonsense, and you're advising me to "get an original argument"? That's funny.
"YOu have yet to debunk anything...GO bother someone else with your nonsense."
If it bothers you when people point out that you're saying things that aren't true, maybe you ought to stop post things that aren't true.
*~sticks hands in pockets... turns and walks away... shoulders hunched... shaking his head sadly.~*
Bunny your just a follower with no mind of your own. So sad.
I know exactly what I'm talking about, which is why you delete my posts each time I demonstrate such.
Nice to see that you removed the blurb about you being a "general psychologist" on your profile page. You don't seem to be able to admit when you're wrong, but at least you know enough not to continue to perpetuate the lie.
While you're at it, maybe you can figure out why you have such a need to constantly claim you're something you're not. Start with the DSM-IV-TR entry on low self esteem.
You know nothing! I delete your posts because you repeat the same crap over and over. If all you wanna do is argue about me go elsewhere.
You again know nothing. I got sick of arguing with you so I removed it, as is my right! I am sick of you trying to force your holier than thou attitude down my throat. I am sick of you, period. Just because you said the last part, I will put it back on my profile. It seems to annoy you to no end. I will proudly continue to tell everyone who I am and what I do. I don't care if you don't like it. The world doesn't revolve around you.
You don't have any anger? You're not bitter or cynical? Do you even read your own posts? You are either completely self-deluded, suffering from short term memory loss, or have no idea what the above words mean.
Show me one state in the country where you can be qualified as psychologist with a BA degree. I dare you. Saying so over and over again doesn't make it true. Put up or shut up!
Uh, yeah you did. You said it's a top 25 school. It's not even close enough to the top to be ranked. It's a tier 3 school.
Now either comment on the post, or get lost!
I say again: You are not a psychologist. PUT UP OR SHUT UP! I'll post my transcripts, degrees and research publications any time you're ready, sweetie. Cause I have nothing to hide. Can you say the same?