Thread: Is Obama a fraud ?

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.

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.

According to Doug Ross:

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).
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.

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 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.
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.

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 ourConstitution: 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.

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.

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.'
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conserv ... ama-resume

In light of numbing revelations over the last several days concerning fraudulent statements on Barack Obama's resume, this piece of information curiously comes to light. The White House has instructed the 'mainstream media' not to report what they may discover.


The White House directive was issued as part of a deal struck between the Office of the President and reporters of the mainstream media.

In exchange for being given unprecedented access to Barack Obama, reporters would promise not to report 'certain matters' they may discover while covering the President.

From Steve Clemons at The Washington Note:

What I have learned after discussions over the last several days with several journalists who either have regular access to the White House or are part of the White House press corps is that there is a growing sense that access is traded for positive stories -- or perhaps worse, an agreement that things learned will not be reported in the near term.
What, exactly, is meant by 'things learned?' What information could a journalist uncover while having close access to the President that would be deemed so damaging, embarrassing, or even worse, that the White House is exhibiting a near-paranoia in making sure such information is not reported?

And more importantly, why would any true journalist who is worth his/her salt agree to such a scheme?

Clemons believes that part of the reason is that some reporters who cover the White House want to write books about Obama.

A 'sell-out' to the dreaded Capitalism on the part of liberals? Say it ain't so.

The agreement between the White House and reporters is mutually beneficial. The White House gets what it wants. Any information that it considers to be negative or damaging to Obama will not be reported. The reporters also get what they want--unprecedented access to the President of the United States, which will help their careers and eventually earn them millions in book royalties.

In the meantime, what are the citizens not being told about Barack Obama?

At least some of that unreported information can be found here and here.

There is more, however.

Questions are swirling as to how Barack Obama was admitted to Harvard Law School and hired as a temporary instructor at the Chicago Law School. The charge is that they were forced into it by someone or something outside the schools themselves.

These allegations involve the CIA. And that raises even more troublesome questions concerning the background of Barack Obama.

Did the CIA use Barack Obama as an operative during the late 1970s and early 80s due to the fact that he knew the language of those in the middle of wars involving the USSR, as well as those engaged in terrorism against the United States, in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan? Did he discover something during those years that he is now holding over the heads of certain persons in the U.S. government?

And was his admission to Harvard and his hiring as a temporary instructor at the Chicago Law School the pay-off for his having served the CIA overseas? Was it the CIA that forced Obama upon Harvard and Chicago?

Or is there yet another 'sinister force' behind all of these mysterious scenarios?

H/t to Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs.

For commentary on the issues of the day, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere. http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conserv ... u-discover

This does not surprise. I hope this isn't taken the wrong way but many African American applicants for police department jobs do just that. The only reason I know is that they get caught and some have approached me and asked me what to do after they lied on their application. They lie by having friends in former jobs say that they worked there for say 2 or 3 years to meanwhile they were there for 1 to 2 months and let go. Some even lied by saying they worked a job they never had and had friends lie for them.

Also I heard that Obama used another name for his bar exam and the excuse given was that he didn't want to make it known that he was African American even though he claimed to be on his application to Harvard.

Maybe Professor Manning is right. He is holding court on Obama in May. He claims Obama never attended Columbia.

What I have learned after discussions over the last several days with several journalists who either have regular access to the White House or are part of the White House press corps is that there is a growing sense that access is traded for positive stories -- or perhaps worse, an agreement that things learned will not be reported in the near term.

This has been going on forever in Washington. For the press in D.C., a White House press pass is a piece of gold, guaranteeing the front page. Nixon hated the press, "an effete corps of infinite snobs," per Spiro Agnew.