Chapter II: The myth of the 'rock-star professor'

Obama with his grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, on a park bench in New York City, when Obama was a student at Columbia University. (Associated Press)

Time magazine gushed in 2008 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.

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.

Some former faculty colleagues today describe Obama as disengaged, doing only what was minimally required and almost never participating in faculty activities.

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.

By comparison, more prominent legal scholars on the Chicago faculty wrote frequently. Federal Judge Richard Posner published 132 legal articles from 1993 to 2004, and federal Judge Frank Easterbrook published 32 legal articles from 1992 to 2004.

Obama has often cited his days at the law school as an important part of his preparation for the presidency. At a March 30, 2007, fundraiser, for example, he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means, unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution."

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."

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.

The new faculty status put him on par with Posner, Easterbrook and a third federal judge, Diane Wood. As the Chicago Law School explained, senior lecturers "have high-demand careers in politics or public service which prevent full time teaching."

Senior lecturers were, however, still expected to participate in university activities. University of Chicago Law School Senior Lecturer Richard Epstein told The Washington Examiner that Obama did not do so.
Obama, Epstein said, "did the minimal amount of work to get through. No one remembers him. He was not a participant in luncheons or workshops. He was here and gone."

Robert Alt, a former Obama student, echoes Epstein, telling the Examiner that "I think it's fair to say he wasn't engaged in the intellectual life of Chicago outside of the classroom."
Alt is director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Rule of Law Programs and a senior legal fellow.

Alt said, "When you have faculty giving faculty lectures, you'd literally have packed rooms in which it's not unusual to have just all the big names of the university. It wasn't unusual to see Easterbrook and Posner, and it wasn't unusual to see the Nobel laureates attending as well."

Even so, Alt said, "I never remember ever seeing Obama in the audience."

Obama was also a no-show for the faculty workshops, nonclassroom lectures and moot court cases judged by sitting members of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals of the U.S. Current Chicago Law School professor Lisa Bernstein said faculty lecturers are still encouraged to participate in as many such events as possible.

The pattern of minimal performance at the Chicago campus was not an exception to the rule for Obama. In the state Senate during the same years he was lecturing, Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times, the most of any legislator in the chamber.

When then-Sen. Hillary Clinton made Obama's state Senate voting record an issue in their Democratic presidential primary contest in 2007, the New York Times said it found at least 36 instances when Obama was the lone "present" vote or was one of six or fewer lawmakers casting that vote.

And during his lone term as a U.S. senator, according to Gov Track.us: "From Jan 2005 to Oct 2008, Obama missed 314 of 1300 recorded or roll call votes, which is 24.0%. This is worse than the median of 2.4%."

Next: Chapter III: The 1997 speech that launched Obama

When Will Obama Denounce Piss Christ?

Short answer? Never.

Obama has been falling all over himself for the last week, blaming the 9/11 2.0 terror attacks in Libya on a stupid YouTube video no one in America had ever even heard of 10 days ago. He’s gone out of his way to appease Islamic radicals and reassure them that America is a place where all religions are respected.

In related news, a photograph of Jesus Christ immersed in urine known as Piss Christ,  which was created 20 years ago by an American artist who received tax dollars, is on its way to a gallery in New York City.

The response from the Obama White House so far? CRICKETS.

There are reports that security is being ramped up, as if Christians would start rioting and dragging ambassadors out of their respective embassies in Manhattan. Please.

As offensive as this photo is to American Christians, there will be no riots and no violence.

There will also be no apologies from the Obama administration.

WH Silent Over Demands to Denounce ‘Piss Christ’ Artwork

Religious groups are blasting President Obama for not condemning am anti-Christian art display set to appear in New York City and one Republican lawmaker said he is “fed up with the administration’s double standard and religious hypocrisy.

 “Piss Christ,” once branded as a “deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity,” will be displayed at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in Manhattan on Thursday. The artwork features a “photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine.”

The artwork debuted in 1989 and was funded through prize money provided by the National Endowment for the Arts. The art gallery hosting the retrospective salute to Andres Serrano is privately owned.
Religious groups and some lawmakers have already started sounding off – and making comparisons to the controversy over a recent anti-Muslim film. The low budget movie “Innocence of Muslims” sparked violent and deadly clashes across the globe.

It also brought strong rebukes, condemnations and apologies from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a host of administration officials.

The administration tried to have the film removed from YouTube – but Google rebuffed their request. The State Dept. spent $70,000 on a Pakistani television advertisement rebuking the film. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff personally telephoned a Christian minister in Florida to ask him to withdraw his support of the film.
Rep. Michael Grimm (R, C-NY) wants to know why President Obama hasn’t denounced the exhibit and said he’s fed up with what he called the administration’s “religious hypocrisy.”
“The Obama administration’s hypocrisy and utter lack of respect for the religious beliefs of Americans has reached an all-time high,” Grimm told Fox News. “I call on President Obama to stand up for America’s values and beliefs and denounce the ‘Piss Christ’ that has offended Christians at home and abroad.”

So will the Obama Administration condemn the anti-Christian art display? Will they air a television ad denouncing the exhibit? Will the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ask the gallery to cancel the exhibit?
The White House did not return calls seeking comment. Neither did the Pentagon.

The State Dept. referred to a previous statement Clinton made in reference to the anti-Islamic film.
“America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation,” Clinton said. “And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.”

Grimm said the lack of response from the White House is unacceptable.

“Perhaps they’ve forgotten the controversy that surrounds this deplorable piece depicting a crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine,” Grimm said. “It outraged Christians in American and throughout the world.”
Grimm, who is Catholic, said he found the artwork to be vulgar and offensive, “just as many in the Islamic world found ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to be highly offensive.”

“Like most Americans, I condemn both yet remain tolerant as the First Amendment demands,” he said. “Unfortunately, this administration has yet to echo these views in regards to the religiously offensive ‘art’ here at home.”

And the congressman isn’t the only one demanding a response from the White House.
“I would like to find out what my government is going to say about this,” said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. “We have the United States government making apologies and some very critical statements about the abuse of freedom of speech because it might offend Muslims.”

Donohue said the Obama administration seems to have a double standard when it comes to incidents that might offend the Christian community.
“It seems like we have a protected class for Muslims as well as some other segments of our population,” he told Fox News. “But when it comes to Christians, it’s an all-out war.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the two incidents show a clear contrast between Islam and Christianity.
“You won’t have to worry about a mob of people storming the gallery after Sunday school lets out,” Perkins told Fox News. “Christ has been the subject of attacks for 2,000 years – as have his followers. As Christians, we have learned to turn the other cheek.”

Perkins said the lack of response from the White House over the “Piss Christ” display provide an unintentional recognition.
“It’s a recognition of the contrast between Christianity and Islam,” he said. “You don’t have to plead with Christians not to riot and burn and storm buildings simply because they are offended. That’s the difference. That’s why Christianity moves nations forward and Islam moves nations backwards.”

As for the display – Perkins said it’s being held in a private gallery – without taxpayer funding.
“They have their freedom to do what’s wrong,” he said. “That’s what’s great about America.”
But Donohue said he may very well be outside the gallery on Thursday – and he questions the timing of the exhibit.

“The timing is not a mistake,” he said. “The obvious reason is not because it’s something new – it’s the idea of throwing more salt on Christians. This is a pattern that’s calculated, it’s deliberate and it’s time the elites spoke out on this.”

Tapes the Obama loving media chooses to ignore

Obama attended an anti-Israel conference with Rashid Khalidi.  The L.A. Times will not release the video.

Obama was caught on an open mic calling federal employees ”slugs.”  CBS News will not release the tape.

Obama was caught on an open mic promising the Russians to be more flexible if re-elected, and CBS describes the controversy as mere “presidential politics.”

An audio surfaced of Obama talking about how he loooooves redistribution, and Andrea Mitchell will not play it.

We caught Mother Jones putting forward an edited snippet of a Romney answer without disclosing that 1-2 minutes were missing, including part of the very answer which caused the controversy, and the media yawned.



Where would this country be, where would this Presidential race be, with an objective media?  They have become nothing more than an extension of the Obama campaign.
But you people with brains already know this.

Nevada Republican to Harry Reid: Make our day, release your 2011 tax return

Should Sen. Democratic leader Harry Reid follow in the footsteps of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney by releasing his 2011 tax return?

Dave Buell, chairman of the Washoe Country Republican party in Mr. Reid's political backyard of Nevada, certainly thinks so.

"Senator, make our day and release your 2011 tax return," he said in an email blast Friday evening.
Citing an anonymous source, Mr. Reid has repeatedly claimed in recent weeks that Mr. Romney "didn't pay taxes for 10 years."

Mr. Romney countered that over the past ten years he never paid less than 13 percent of his taxable income and that "Harry Reid's charge is totally false."

Shortly after Mr. Romney released the additional tax information, Mr. Buell blasted out the email calling for Mr. Reid to come clean and release hits tax records "so that all Nevadans can see that he is paying his fair share." He added, "In addition, Mr. Reid should explain to all of us how he became a millionaire on a bureaucrat's salary. Mitt Romney earned his money by investing in companies, people and creating jobs in the private sector while Harry Reid made his money by taking money from the private sector and redistributing it through government."

Mr. Buell also pointed out that Nevada has had the highest unemployment rate in the country.