A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Very interesting article although I am not familiar with the site ...


Posted: Apr 7, 2010

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.

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon).

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 DEVELOPMENTjust 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.’

For commentary on the issues of the day, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.

;

how many hours - goji

[ In Reply To ..]
a week do you log for digging up the "truth" about someone you alledgedly dislike? The article certainly has an impeccable source "The Blogging Professor"- we know and love him well in his anonymity. Besides, he left out the most explosive secret - Obama isnt even a MAN - sex change in Indonesia. Gnaw on that for a bit.

You are really funny and your sarcastic post speaks volumes of what - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
a miserable person you must be. As I said, I was not familiar with this site, this was emailed to me this morning and I found it interesting and thought that I would share. Get over yourself please, nothing about your post was remotely funny. I feel for the people that are close to you if this is your typical attitude. Oh and FYI, I never "log for digging up truth" about anyone.

As I have stated, I am not familiar with this site but I, personally, found this to be an interesting read and there are MANY facts in this article, all you have to do is the research yourself.

Some like to keep the blindfold on.... - nnn

[ In Reply To ..]
they feel more secure when they can't see what's in front of them and as long as they're all holding hands.... All together now.... Kumbaya my Lord...

Have you independently confirmed these "facts"? nm - oldtimer

[ In Reply To ..]
.
These "facts" concern... - nnn
[ In Reply To ..]
our illustrious president. Whether they are true or not, they will never be confirmed. He has his "people" who will see to it that they are dismissed and chalked up as "lies from the disgruntled right or some crazy racist." Being a president of color has it's advantages. ;)
Racist post - goji
[ In Reply To ..]
The subject matter is disseminating falsities from anonymous speakers. Race plays no part in this discussion. Personal racism should be kept within the confines of your own home.
I am far from a racist... - nnn
[ In Reply To ..]
I am white...my daughter is white and married to a black man. They have given us 4 beautiful grandchildren that we love dearly. The fact remains that O can play the race card if he so desires and he knows he can get away with it. Race can and very well may play a part in proving something to be true or false that concerns our president. It's a fact that can't be ignored, regardless of your accusations. ;)
There was nothing racist about her post - You cant use that threat anymore
[ In Reply To ..]
We aren't buying it anymore. Might want to get a new line.
Then maybe you can explain why she felt compelled to include - the president of color phrase.
[ In Reply To ..]
What purpose did that serve in conveying the alleged message, which to my read is nothing but a hateful slam designed to justify a pack of lies.
Stating the obvious does not make one prejudice - You cant use that threat anymore
[ In Reply To ..]
When you can't argue statements or have anything to back up your statements you throw around the word "racist", or any of the other liberal buzz words they think will shut people up. She was stating the obvious, which even the President makes reference to his race all the time. He uses his race when it serves a purpose, just like Hillary used her gender when it served her purpose.

If they want to use race, gender, religion, sexual preference, or whatever they want to serve their purpose that's fine. Most do it, but the false accusations throwing liberal buzz words around does not scare people anymore. They are just meaningless allegations that have no substantial backing.
Racism is not a liberal buzz word. It is our nations number one - historical embarrassment.
[ In Reply To ..]
x
It IS a liberal buzz word because... - You cant use that threat anymore
[ In Reply To ..]
Using it in the wrong context as a threat and not a true accusation (or accusation without any substantial backup) is wrong and makes it one of those buzz words liberals hope will scare people. Trying to brand people by calling them a racist takes away the severity of people who truly are racists. It's really a very strange feeling to be called a racists when I am a black person. Disagreeing with the administration and policies and issues they are voting on does not make a person a racist. Saying he is using his race to his advantage also does not make one a racist. This term has become one of those liberal buzz words that if you don't agree with what is going and have the audacity to say so you will now be called a racist, when in fact no racial tone was used. People should not threaten others by calling them something they are not.

You are taking away the severity of real cases of racism with the phony accusations.

I am proud our country has come to a point where a person who is of another color is a president, or even that we almost had a woman president. Shows our country has come a long way. Does that mean I agree with all the issues. No. Does that make me a racist...most certainly not.

Don't take away the severity of real racism issues in this country. Just because people don't agree with his issues does not make people racists. I'm just ashamed he himself has not said anything about it.
Whats obvious to me is Obamas vision of a post racial America. - Not your warped perceptions.
[ In Reply To ..]
nm
We are not racist, we don't like his WHITE side either...LOL - nm
[ In Reply To ..]
its a joke I heard yesterday..
And what advantages does the president of color have - Pray tell. Keep in mind that
[ In Reply To ..]
you must come up with alleged advantages that are not shared by presidents of non-color (gag me). Otherwise, your statement has no veracity and, despite your family tree, you have displayed a rather disturbing type of "selective" racism...especially reserved for our President.
The advantages should be obvious... - nnn
[ In Reply To ..]
or at least they would be to someone who can see the obvious. If anyone dares to disagree with his policies, they are branded "racist" simply because the man happens to be black and he realizes that his adoring fans will be at the ready with the race card should he need to use it. I hope there are many more black presidents to come (my grandson would make a wonderful president), providing they are competent and have this country's best interest at heart but O certainly doesn't fit that bill, no matter what color he is. Obama's policies are not for the good of this country but don't dare say anything or you'll be branded a racist... why? Because the president is black...as if that has anything to do with his incompetence.

Selective racism...what a hoot.
Exactly! If you criticize, you hate a black man. What - an easy cop-out for them.nm
[ In Reply To ..]
nm
Nothing funny about the kingsize case of selective racism - you so proudly display.
[ In Reply To ..]
Suppose you tell us all what this has to do with the veracity of the original pack of lies, err..., I mean post. It takes a lot of energy to harbor the kind of hate you and your kind express. Pitiful.
Your flailing... - nnn
[ In Reply To ..]
Any time anyone tries to expose something about O, it's chalked up as a "pack of lies" whether it's been proven or not. It's a knee-jerk action from adoring fans. I don't hate Obama. I just think he's leading this country down a dangerous path. I hate his policies and I hate what he's doing to this country and I think he has things he's hiding. More than likely, most presidents did no matter what color they were. I do have lots of energy and what has that got to do with anything??
Cite one reliable source to back up any one single claim - in that pack of lies. Just one.
[ In Reply To ..]
xo
You are playing the reverse race - card
[ In Reply To ..]
in case you don't know what you're doing, which appears to be highly likely.
That's a new one - LOL
[ In Reply To ..]
So now the libs have a new strategy, the "REVERSE RACE CARD."

Still makes your defense pretty weak and ludicrous.

NEXT........
What defense? - Just
[ In Reply To ..]
stating a well-known fact. Not trying to defend anything at all.
"Obama's policies are not for the good of this country". That is just... - your opinion. sm
[ In Reply To ..]
my opinion is the opposite. I think that Obama is the best thing that has happened to our country in many a year. Does that make my opinion any less important or intelligent than yours?
Actually its the opinion of about more than half the country - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
If you've been watching what is going on and what the country is saying about the policies you would know that more than half the country does not think the policies are good for the country.

But everyone is entitled to their opinions. We all have them.

We'll see this fall just how many people are happy with the policies.

Nobody's opinion is any more or less important or intelligent. She was just voicing hers.

Yours may be that he's the best thing since sliced bread, I and many others do not. I don't like the direction this country is headed and neither do many other people in this country.

Fact check...sm - oldtimer

[ In Reply To ..]
Was Obama a professor at the University of Chicago School of Law? Read this link and decide for yourself.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

He's guilty - alright

[ In Reply To ..]
Guilty of thinking the US is made up of reasonable people. I'll bet if he had a step-child, certain people would scream if the child called him father because technically, he isn't.

He knows how to handle it though by giving it all the attention it deserves.

It's sad that there are people who spend their time on things like this.

Problem is, Obama is the most secretive president - in history with his paperwork

[ In Reply To ..]
Why is that? huh?

Didn't GW's service records get "lost"?? nm - NONONANNETTE

[ In Reply To ..]
....
No it did not - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
Besides, this has nothing to do with Bush. We are talking about the current one.
Yes there was a huge - controversy
[ In Reply To ..]
and.... when someone says "most secretive president" the comparison to other presidents is already made isn't it?
Pleae provide your sources - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
There was no secrecy. His records did not get lost. That is what I responded to. As for controversy, I guess if you call accusations of Bush not fulfilling his military duties (which was proved he did), yes there were those who claimed he did not. There were a lot of lies being spouted by those who hated Bush and tried to make things up. Those reporters also got in trouble for that too.

But no his records did not get "lost" which is what I replied to.

I'll give you the okay on the comparison to other presidents by saying "most secretive present", yes you are correct that comparison would be made to other presidents, however, there are many other presidents you can compare his secrecy to and not Bush's service record (which was not lost).
Yes they did, thought to have been destroyed then magically - appeared
[ In Reply To ..]
so.....hmmmmm, they must have been "lost" wouldn't ya say? DUH!
For starters, how about the bogus claims he repeatedly made - about being a fighter pilot, when in fact
[ In Reply To ..]
his permission to fly was revoked by the military? This was a very well documented and thoroughly explored subject at the time and there are literally thousands of references should you desire to do your own research. Here are a few....

http://www.exit23.com/bushrecord/

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=327

http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/militaryrecord.htm

http://www.hereinreality.com/commander.html
No takers? - No surprise. nm
[ In Reply To ..]
nm
So you have studied the secretive nature of all former presidents - or is this just another unsubstantiated slur?
[ In Reply To ..]
Ask yourself that question, and tell yourself the truth.
you replied to the wrong post - post
[ In Reply To ..]
x
No she didn't - Read the posts
[ In Reply To ..]
nm
Yes she did - read the - posts
[ In Reply To ..]
x
Once again - No she did not. You need to read the posts - more carefully
[ In Reply To ..]
Maybe a little slower. Hit all the posts where it says "In Reply To". It's a quick link and takes you right to the post someone is replying to.

She did not reply to the wrong post.
Once again, YES she did. The post that suggests the - president is the most
[ In Reply To ..]
secretive is not the post she replied to. You need to try to understand the content of the posts.

Once again, she replied to "contraversy" - please follow the links
[ In Reply To ..]
who stated - "There was a huge controversy and.... when someone says "most secretive president" the comparison to other presidents is already made isn't it?"

The reply was - "So you have studied the secretive nature of all former presidents - or is this just another unsubstantiated slur?"

So in the content of that post, yes she replied to the correct poster as the poster she replied to was talking about previous presidents. Unless you think she meant to reply to the poster who wrote that Obama is the most secretive president, and in that case you could be right, maybe she meant to reply to that one.

Until the poster of the message replies back whether or not she replied to the correct post, none of us will know.

Before you accuse people of not understanding the content of posts, you yourself need to read them as it looks as though you didn't understand.

There is no suggestion of who is the most - secretive
[ In Reply To ..]
president in the controversy post.

Read the string!
I am clicking on the hot links inside the messages that say... - read the string yourself
[ In Reply To ..]
"In Reply to: ____" When you click on that link it takes you to the post that someone is replying to.

She replied to a post named "Yes there was a huge - controversy" and that is who she should have replied to. IMO.

Before you tell people to read the posts you need to read them yourself.

Done with this conversation.
YHO is - sadly mistaken
[ In Reply To ..]
If you can't follow links and draw reasonable conclusions, keep your nose out, you're just muddying the waters.
If you are not the one who made the post in - question
[ In Reply To ..]
Don't you think you are being quite presumptive yourself?
Why would the reply be to a post that did not suggest any knowledge of - who the most
[ In Reply To ..]

secretive president is when there is one that does make this claim above it? If you are the one who posted it, then you are very mixed up.  I'll attempt an explanation for you.   


Post in question:


So you have studied the secretive nature of all former presidents - or is this just another unsubstantiated slur?


Posted: Apr 7th, 2010 - 4:58 pm In Reply to: Yes there was a huge - controversy

Ask yourself that question, and tell yourself the truth.________________________________________________


Post to which reply fits:


 Problem is, Obama is the most secretive president - in history with his paperwork


Posted: Apr 7th, 2010 - 1:53 pm In Reply to: He's guilty - alright

Why is that? huh?


********


The reply was to this post:  


Yes there was a huge - controversy


Posted: Apr 7th, 2010 - 3:56 pm In Reply to: No it did not - sm

and.... when someone says "most secretive president" the comparison to other presidents is already made isn't it?


And the above post was in reply to this post:


 No it did not - sm


Posted: Apr 7th, 2010 - 3:44 pm In Reply to: Didn't GW's service records get "lost"?? nm - NONONANNETTE

Besides, this has nothing to do with Bush. We are talking about the current one.


NOTE:  "MOST secretive president" made the comparison to all other presidents.  And the post to which the person in question replied made NO claims of knowing which president was the MOST secretive.  I was replying (with my controversy post) to the person who said we were talking about the current president, ("No it did not - sm" post).  My contention is that once a comparison is made to ALL other presidents, ("In history with his paperwork" post), then we are no longer talking about just one.  DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET?  Follow the POSTS.  READ THEM and understand before you stick your nose in. 

So what kind of paperwork would satisfy - you

[ In Reply To ..]
Perhaps something chiseled by the Pope on a stone tablet?

Secretive about what? What paperwork? Please dont recycle - the embarrassing birther babble.

[ In Reply To ..]
nm
His health records, college records. This is fact. - Go ahead... deny deny deny..nm
[ In Reply To ..]
nm
If memory serves, McCain also refused to release college records. - Were you equally as diligent in
[ In Reply To ..]
pursuing that information? He never did release them because he came in at the bottom of his class. Remember? He also was extremely recalcitrant about his health records, but after much toodoo, McCain finally relented and release a health care summary, just as Obama did.

There is a difference between being deliberately secretive and simply desiring his basic right to privacy. It is quite obvious that no matter what he releases, the hate that fuels these relentless inquiries will never fail to produce an endless array of suspicions, doubts and scandal mongering. I say let the loons have at it. What a colossal waste of time.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_releases_health_informat.html
There is so much information out there - but they dont want to hear
[ In Reply To ..]
Don't let it get to you though. When they keep repuking the word birther, etc, you just have to sit back and laugh. The truth will come out one day.

the site you're unfamiliar with - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
is a far right-wing blog. It's obvious what kind of site it is, why would you claim you aren't familiar with it?

I wasn't familiar with the site either - What is Your Point

[ In Reply To ..]
I go to a lot of conservative sites, this is a new one to me. I will just have to add this one to my "favorites."

Thanks to "anon" who posted it.

Similar Messages:


Thought You Might Find This Site InterestingAug 16, 2012
For those that like the polls, there are a few sites I posted I think you might like to view.  One is called Purple Poll (some of their graphs are a little difficult to read), which does polls only for the swing states.  Another site with a lot of interesting data is Election Projection.  The graphs below come from that site.  Enjoy! National Head-to-Head Polls - more polls Barack Obama 47.4% - Mitt Romney 43.9%    Polling Firm    ...

An Interesting ArticleNov 03, 2009
Very good article.  Not so good for us, but the article is well written and interesting.  Pretty insightful.  Written by a naval aviator, Commander http://www.mesacounty.com/A%20Warning%20to%20Americans.pdf     ...

An Interesting ArticleNov 22, 2009
If you don't like Huffington post I found this on other non-liberal sites.  The article is the same words no matter which site you choose, so I'll just post the Huffington Post one.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-lindorff/obama-must-dump-the-bums_b_364293.html     ...

Interesting ArticleNov 29, 2009
  http://www.rense.com/general88/dss.htm ...

Another Interesting ArticleNov 29, 2009
http://crabbycon.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/king-obama-to-head-the-un-security-council-scraps-the-missile-shield/     ...

An Interesting ArticleJan 18, 2010
An article by John Whitehead.   Speak Truth To Power.  Just thought it was interesting and wanted to pass it on.   http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=630     ...

Interesting ArticleDec 06, 2010
I thought this was interesting.  Not a bashing post, just interesting read. ...

Interesting ArticleNov 20, 2010
This is interesting.  It's an article by David Horowitz called "The Democrat party will disappear from the political scene".  Well written and has some really good insight.  The link has the first part of the story and at the bottom of the article is a link to the full story.  Horowitz is founder and president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, founder of Students for Academic Freedom, and co-author of “The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, an ...

An Interesting ArticleMar 20, 2010
Thought this was interesting and wanted to pass on.   http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/     ...

Interesting ArticleMar 23, 2010
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives ...

An Interesting ArticleSep 09, 2010
I thought this was interesting.   http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/bernankes_helicopters.php ...

Interesting ArticleAug 18, 2010
Guess this is only the beginning.   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7948878/US-breast-cancer-drug-decision-marks-start-of-death-panels.html     ...

Interesting Article AboutApr 30, 2012
Paul Ryan. ...

Interesting Article Put Out By The APMay 27, 2012
My apologies that it is not current or if it has already been posted/discussed, but I just read it.       Is Joe Biden going to be our interim President before the end of this year? Tweet December 29, 2011 By admin VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT AP - WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information&rdq ...

Interesting Article. SmJul 19, 2012
The Romney quotes were taken from an interview with National Review.  He explains about offshoren banking.  Thoughts? ...

Interesting ArticleSep 09, 2012
While I was reading through some various articles on this website, which has articles on health, money, politics and other subject matters I came across this article I thought was very interesting and wanted to pass it on.  This goes to prove that it is okay not to like someone because of their ideologist and what they represent.  About the author:  Mychal S. Massie is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of ...

Interesting Article From NYT. Tell Me Again, What Was ItSep 15, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/us-is-preparing-for-a-long-siege-of-arab-unrest.html?_r=0 ...

Interesting ArticleSep 26, 2012
63% of Republican participants in a recent Dartmouth poll still believe today, 2012, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. military attacked Iraq in 2003. 64% of that 63% of Republicans also still believe today, 2012, that Barack Obama was born in another country. The poll, constructed by Dartmouth government professor Benjamin Valentino and conducted by YouGov from April 26 to May 2, found that fully 63 percent of Republican respondents still believed that Iraq had ...

Interesting ArticleNov 23, 2012
Found this interesting.  Especially the part where Obama said he wished he could "govern without opposition".  Hmmm....can we say dictatorship?   http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/112012-634213-obama-southeast-asian-trip-more-style-than-substance.htm#ixzz2CsnmLciF ...

Here Is An Interesting Article About ACAOct 28, 2014
This tells some things people may not be aware of. ...

Interesting ArticleJun 22, 2017
http://www.rense.com/general31/satanic.htm ...

Interesting/good ArticleFeb 17, 2012
Why is What is a "Right" for the left, Is "Bigotry & Hate" From the Right? Very interesting article and thought provoking.  He has some valid points and I too have often wondered the same thing he wrote about.   http://www.lsnewsgroup.com/2012/02/16/why-is-what-is-a-right-for-the-left-is-bigotry-hate-from-the-right/ ...

Interesting Article - Why I'm A ConservativeNov 08, 2009
I thought this was pretty good and wanted to share.  Ive seen many articles but this was a little different. Why I am a conservative.   http://www.thevrwc.org/keepers/conservative.html ...

Interesting Article (and A Cartoon)Nov 13, 2009
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/05/socialized_medicine.html ...

Interesting Article - 2 PartsNov 14, 2009
It was written on 5/12, and the second part on 5/22, but I just read it. Democrats:  Party of Hate and Division.   Part 1: http://varight.com/?p=156 Part 2: http://www.varight.com/?p=216   ...

Interesting Article - Autumn Of The Dec 29, 2009
Autumn of the Republic ...

Interesting Article On The UCA And How It Came To Be - LinkDec 08, 2013
(love the part about the college girls - i.e. the Sandra Flukes of the world) Link ...

An Interesting Article On The 2nd AmendmentMay 20, 2014
I think the key to the 2nd amendment is "well-regulated," though I assume none of us by any means represent a militia.  I also find it interesting that the original included an exception for conscientious objectors: In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arm ...

See Link Inside For An Interesting Article...smNov 30, 2010
from 2002 discussing how the majority of Americans thought the SURPLUS should be used.  ...

Interesting Article On The HC Bill By A ConservativeMar 22, 2010
Waterloo March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum | No Comments |  Share Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But: (1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by ...