In case you were having trouble telling the difference, here’s what separates IHateTheMedia.com from the New York Times:
We haven’t checked out the veracity of this story because we don’t have the resources. They haven’t checked out the veracity of this story because they don’t want to know the truth.
It’s just one of those stories that came floating in over the internet:
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).
True? What do you think?
Source: Director Blue
View Comments (10)
The fact that he didn't publish at Harvard is certainly suspect and enough to raise a red flag, the editor(s) would typically be the top students at the respective University....there is nothing to suggest that Barry was of that caliber. he was a middle tier student on his best day, and my w.a.g. is that he was bottom third of his class. In any event, Harvard seems to have 90 or so "editors" per issue...so it seems as if Harvard just uses its Law Review as a Resume Padding Utility for all their students.
To many people Obama was an enigma, a balm to assuage guilt many people felt over the past treatment of Black Americans, a path to salvation. To others he was the path to free homes, free cars, free food, free health care, free everything. These people could not have cared one wit whether he was legitimate or not for they were entranced by the constant chant of “hope and change” during displays of his remarkable ability to read teleprompters. Unfortunately, those who could assemble facts and make sound judgments were in the minority on election day.
Now we have an alleged “constitutional scholar” that seems to know nothing of the constitution. As a matter of fact, he seems to be completely out of his league as President. His rise to the Presidency is one of incredulousness. He is known for nothing of substance. He has accomplished nothing of note. Yet, he rose to assume the highest office in the land. How is this possible? We know so precious little of this guy. This only gives credence to the thought that, just maybe, he is a “Manchurian candidate”, manipulated and controlled by those around him for purposes even Obama isn’t aware of.
his opponents werent that good either
@MNR - I'm not arguing that he was a Constitutional Law Professor - I don't think he was, I'm not even sure he's read the Constitution. And no, he hasn't written anything for HLR or any other publication. Obama himself has certainly offered more than enough proof that he's a lying, incompetent, unqualified disaster in office — the post entry could very well be true but does it matter now? Judging from UCL's statement, he was just a lecturer; however, seems like UCL has a pretty loose policy on professorships and has officially claimed him as a professor, so he can say he was one. From UCL itself: Statement Regarding Barack Obama
Do I have to have a University degree to have an opinion? If so just disregard this one.My education consists of high school, some technical certificates,and seventy eight years of studying people. The first time I saw and heard him I said "he would made a good mouth peace because he reads well". So far, That seems to be about all he is except,,,, His agenda, in my opinion is to make this country into a first class communist strong hold. Why? I think he want's to have power over people and even though he doesn't have the ability to be successful at it, he must have some experience in it. I do believe he has intentionally hornswaggled his way so far. Whitch is not too hard to do. Like some people I've heard of who past them selves off as doctors, lawyers, other professionals of stature. The world always catches up to them though...... him too.
Also, Otis. How bout you do some fact checking and find something he wrote for the HLR?
Wow, there is a REAL credible source of info... factcheck.org which is run by the Annenberg, which Obama served time on their board. How incestuous.
Obie was was a senior lecturer (shocker) and lectured on Constitutional law. Univ. of Chicago Law does regard him as a professor. Here's part of a statement from UCL found at FactCheck.org
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.
Why was this not made public prior to the election? It actually was. Blame the "Bush-derangement" syndrome. People refused to see what was painfully obvious to lots of people (like me); Barry was, is, and always will be a complete fraud who just happens to be intent on destroying this country. I've known this for several years, as I live in Chicago and have been watching these shenanigans for years. The good news is that people are finally waking up and seeing him for what he is. We can undo what he has done. Don't *ever* think we can't.
The only problem that I have with this is why didn't it come out BEFORE he became President? If it is not true, okay so it is not true, but it would have been advisable to investigate this nevertheless, because like my Mom says "where there is smoke, there is fire" and something somewhere would have come out about his past that would have changed the game completely.
If it is true, the people that voted for him needed to know this before they made one of the biggest mistakes of their lives. Only the most idiots of idiots would have still voted for him. Now it is too late. What purpose would this serve now?
It is obvious to me that he has no idea what the constitution is truly about and everytime someone reminds him that he cannot do something because of it I am sure he wishes he could use it for toilet paper.