Obamateurism of the Day

posted at 8:05 am on January 29, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday’s big takeaway from Barack Obama’s State of the Union was having a Constitutional law professor scold the Supreme Court for a recent decision — and getting the particulars wrong on national television. Could it possibly get worse than that? HA reader Marvin K and Patriot Post notice that the Con-Law prof seems a little confused about what’s actually in the Constitution:

We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution:  the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

Is “the notion that we are all created equal” actually enshrined in our Constitution?  Er, no. The closest one can get is the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that people cannot be denied “equal protection of the laws.”  There is only one use of any form of the word create, in Article I Section 6, barring former members of Congress from receiving emoluments from offices created or pay increased while serving as a member.  The “notion”, actually a principle, that we are all created equal is found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution:

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.

Even apart from that, Obama gets the idea of equal protection wrong.  Quite clearly, equal protection must apply regardless of whether one complies with the law. Constitutional protections are not granted only “if you abide by the law”; they’re inherent and not conditional.   Some specifically protect Americans from the power of government after being accused of not abiding by the law.  The notion that they only apply if one adheres to our “common values” is a complete misreading of the Constitution and its purpose of limiting government, not the people.

And if Obama really believed what he said, then why is he trying terrorists (who clearly reject our values and refuse to recognize our laws) in criminal court with these same Constitutional guarantees?

One would think a Con Law prof would know the difference, especially as President.  Apparently not.

Update: Jim Hoft, Modern Conservative, and Free Republic also noticed this.

Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.

Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

0 is a dangerous America-hating community organizer.

OmahaConservative on January 29, 2010 at 8:09 AM

I think this will be the Obamateurism of the week, if not the year.

Plus, it’s just scary.

DaydreamBeliever on January 29, 2010 at 8:09 AM

Odamna is an a$$. And I extend my apologies to a$$e$ everywhere for denigrating the species.

Crusader Rabbit on January 29, 2010 at 8:10 AM

a general understanding; vague or imperfect conception or idea of something: a notion of how something should be done.

-dictionary.com

Well, yes, as far as Holder dropping the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, I’d say the Obama administration only has a notion of equality.

Wethal on January 29, 2010 at 8:11 AM

Pagans like Obama to say mankind was “created” only as a rhetorical tool to arouse the interest of people with spiritual sensitivities.

In the hollowed out shell of his heart however, Mr. Obama believes mankind is a grotesque accident who does not deserve life.

Hence his passion for live birth abortion, death panels, population control, earth worship, totalitarian leadership, etc.

It was a mistake to make this man president. He does not reflect the American spirit at all.

jeff_from_mpls on January 29, 2010 at 8:11 AM

And because of the Educational System here in America, most people don’t know this and believe every word he said. So, it doesn’t even matter to half of the country. Just great.

bridgetown on January 29, 2010 at 8:12 AM

Any high school Advanced Placement government student could have told him that.

Disturb the Universe on January 29, 2010 at 8:12 AM

And again, whether or not he had his ‘facts’ straight, calling out the Justices in the SOTU and having his minions clap loudly behind their heads is a total disgrace. Just makes my stomach turn.

bridgetown on January 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM

The more and more I think about it, the less I think he was ever a constitutional law professor. It was more a sinecure that got him money without actually working, and got the school the prestige of having a prominent politician on the payroll. Typical Dem backscratching.

JeffWeimer on January 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM

One would think a Con Law prof would know the difference, especially as President. Apparently not.

Ed

For the hundredth time, Ed, he was never a “con law professor”. He was a part-time lecturer.

He has no particular training or education in anything but law, but his qualification to be considered a constitutional law expert is non-existent.

See the various video of Richard Epstein (University of Chicago Law School) ridiculing Obama for clarification.

Jaibones on January 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM

One would think a Con Law prof would know the difference, especially as President. Apparently not.

pretty sad…all that edumacation and nothing to show for it…

cmsinaz on January 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM

And again, whether or not he had his ‘facts’ straight, calling out the Justices in the SOTU and having his minions clap loudly behind their heads is a total disgrace. Just makes my stomach turn.

bridgetown on January 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM

Hopefully it will dawn on moderates that Mr. Obama is consciously emulating the 20th century strong-men like Il Duce, Castro, and Stalin.

The left has done a brilliant job of demonizing such comparisons. They have inoculated the nation well against the Obama disease, by their squeals of red-baiting and McCarthyism.

And that inoculation will kill us because we no longer recognize this thing for what it is.

jeff_from_mpls on January 29, 2010 at 8:16 AM

bridgetown on January 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM

and they continue defending him today and calling out alito…unbelievable

cmsinaz on January 29, 2010 at 8:16 AM

He is not a Constitutional Law Professor. If he would release his transcripts we would clearly see that he’s nothing but a big fat failure. A petulant man child. An angry socialist marxist beast who is doing his best at tearing our nation apart. Dam* him.

Key West Reader on January 29, 2010 at 8:16 AM

bridgetown on January 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM

Look around, about the only ones screeching about the SCOTUS decision are Dems, so I am pretty much OK with it. Especially after my local LLL paper had an editorial about that decision destroying our way of life, and corporations will rule the country in short order, or something like that. If it pi$$es of my local LLL paper, I am all in favor of it.

Johnnyreb on January 29, 2010 at 8:16 AM

One would also think that a guest in the People’s House (the POTUS) would treat other guests (the SCOTUS) with respect in his comments. The same Constitution that welcomes the President to address the Congress through the SOTU, places judiciary power in the hands of the Supreme Court. So, while standing upon his Constitutional invitation to address the people, he denigrates the Constitutional powers of the SCOTUS when they have clearly acted within their power and jurisdiction—and to denigrate them in front of America, when they have no retort in that forum. Moreover, to have others mock them in response to their decision is utterly appaling.

This SCOTUS attack was an attack on the Constitution (SCOTUS), by a Constitutional power (POTUS), while using the Constitution to do it (SOTU).

I am deeply offended to see our Constitution treated so badly in this forum and to moreover get it completely factually wrong is an entirely deeper matter. Moreover, to confuse the origin of equality and to which document enshrines that simply completes a trifecta of bland idiocy with regards to our founding documents, the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS’ ruling in this matter.

Please continue pursuit, illumination and characterization of this matter. There shall be no pass for this incident–none whatsoever.

ted c on January 29, 2010 at 8:18 AM

Even apart from that, Obama gets the idea of equal protection wrong.

This assumes that 0bama wrote his own speech, which he likely did not. He was only regurgitating the words that TOTUS was feeding him.

UltimateBob on January 29, 2010 at 8:19 AM

Doesn’t the Heritage Foundation give away pocket versions of the Constitution?

They ought to send a box of them on over to the White House.

Disturb the Universe on January 29, 2010 at 8:19 AM

I dont think he’s ever read the Constitution, let alone be a Col Law prof.

becki51758 on January 29, 2010 at 8:19 AM

Obama was no more a con law professor than Jimmy Carter was a nuclear scientist. It’s no more than an back story contrived for a gullible populace.

ROCnPhilly on January 29, 2010 at 8:20 AM

One would think a Con Law prof would know the difference, especially as President. Apparently not.

Ed
For the hundredth time, Ed, he was never a “con law professor”. He was a part-time lecturer.

He has no particular training or education in anything but law, but his qualification to be considered a constitutional law expert is non-existent.

See the various video of Richard Epstein (University of Chicago Law School) ridiculing Obama for clarification.

Jaibones on January 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM

He was likely an “Adjunct Professor,” which is a fancy name for part-time lecturer. Adjuncts like to drop the “adjunct” part. (I know, I’ve taught a few philosophy of law classes as an adjunct myself. Pays a couple thousand buck per course per semester.)

Wethal on January 29, 2010 at 8:20 AM

Look around, about the only ones screeching about the SCOTUS decision are Dems, so I am pretty much OK with it.

Johnnyreb on January 29, 2010 at 8:16 AM

Come on son, live up to your name, be a rebel.

Mr. Obama fully intends to use Executive Orders to establish law and overturn existing law.

His speech on Wednesday evening was no speech at all, it was a threat.

Fortunately, the Republicans will stand up to him!

jeff_from_mpls on January 29, 2010 at 8:21 AM

His concept of equality:

I’m right = you’re wrong

Dusty on January 29, 2010 at 8:21 AM

I wonder if “Da Won” reads Hot Air?

TimBuk3 on January 29, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Poor Obama and the Dems…now the big corporations will be able to throw as much money at an election as the unions. But Obama’s comments during the speech were not surprising. He has never shown respect for the Constitution because obviously he sees it as a flawed document. But it’s ok everyone, don’t worry. The President is sure he knows what the Founding Fathers MEANT to say in the Constitution…

CarolinaGirl6 on January 29, 2010 at 8:21 AM

becki51758 on January 29, 2010 at 8:19 AM

ding ding ding!

cmsinaz on January 29, 2010 at 8:22 AM

For Obama the Constitution is irrelevant and plays no part in his obsessive march towards the total destruction of our representative Republic. Whether or not he misquotes or misinterprets the Constitution is a moot point and only distracts from his true purpose and motivations.

rplat on January 29, 2010 at 8:22 AM

Obama stupidly thought that somehow intimidating the Supreme Court in an unfriendly crowd would have an effect on future decisions. The “constitutional law professor” forgot that SCOTUS is appointed for life.

They’ll be there when Obama is gone and when a lot of those rowdy Democrats are out of office, too. Otherwise known as getting the last laugh.

Wethal on January 29, 2010 at 8:23 AM

Not only was he an “adjunct professor”, but some stories surfaced early during the campaign that suggested he was “on leave” during most of the time. He’s a fake.

ROCnPhilly on January 29, 2010 at 8:23 AM

This chump should get his money back from Harvard. He sure didn’t learn constitutional law. O I forgot he is affirmative action so it is my dime.

stephana on January 29, 2010 at 8:23 AM

For Obama the Constitution is irrelevant and plays no part in his obsessive march towards the total destruction of our representative Republic. Whether or not he misquotes or misinterprets the Constitution is a moot point and only distracts from his true purpose and motivations.

rplat on January 29, 2010 at 8:22 AM

+100

Absolutely spot on.

jeff_from_mpls on January 29, 2010 at 8:23 AM

He’s making W look like a genius.

flytier on January 29, 2010 at 8:24 AM

I studied under a lot of professors who were unable to apply what they taught in real world applications. The spin on their theories, when Mother Nature conspired to prove them wrong, made one dizzy with disbelief.

Therefore Obama is no surprise. He never taught Constitutional Law. He taught his interpretation of the Constitution. Big difference.

(Somehow this is all the Fault of ‘W’. [/s])

Yoop on January 29, 2010 at 8:25 AM

For the hundredth time, Ed, he was never a “con law professor”. He was a part-time lecturer.
Jaibones on January 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM

But the man and his flunkies purport him to be a perfesser. Therefore, we judge him based on that standard. Makes the comparison even worse than just an adjunct. That said, even by that standard, it’s horrible, his ‘knowledge’. I just had some basic Criminal Justice classes, twenty years ago, and I knew more even then.

bikermailman on January 29, 2010 at 8:27 AM

Stupid Speechwriters!
Whaddayagonna do, eh?
Zero just reads ‘em.

Haiku Guy on January 29, 2010 at 8:27 AM

For the hundredth time, Ed, he was never a “con law professor”. He was a part-time lecturer.

He has no particular training or education in anything but law, but his qualification to be considered a constitutional law expert is non-existent.

See the various video of Richard Epstein (University of Chicago Law School) ridiculing Obama for clarification.

Jaibones on January 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Thank you for repeating this. Unfortunately, despite Epstein’s video, I seem to recall that during the 2008 campaign when questions were raised about his teaching status, the administration at University of Chicago provided Obama with some cover–or at least enough cover that the MSM kept perpetuating this nonsense that he was a constitutional law professor.

Apparently, Obama is the only law “professor” in UC’s history not to be required to do any publishing and not to be on any discernible tenure track.

In short, Obama had a part-time teaching gig at UC. It’s time to stop overstating his credentials. Professor? Scholar? Please.

BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2010 at 8:28 AM

When will people stop calling this President an intellectual? Like it’s been said so many times above…he’s a petulant Marxist. And a snob to boot.

solidaction on January 29, 2010 at 8:28 AM

Part-time lecturer= carpet bagger teacher to fill in for the real guys when they’re at Bill Ayers conventions.

ted c on January 29, 2010 at 8:29 AM

For the hundredth time, Ed, he was never a “con law professor”. He was a part-time lecturer.

He has no particular training or education in anything but law, but his qualification to be considered a constitutional law expert is non-existent.

See the various video of Richard Epstein (University of Chicago Law School) ridiculing Obama for clarification.

Jaibones on January 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Your defense of the filthy lying coward in the White House is absurd. He was trained in the law and he is POTUS. The speech he gave was months in the making by a whole staff of people. For him to get the basics about the Constitution wrong is pretty bad no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig.

highhopes on January 29, 2010 at 8:29 AM

Let’s think this through. The lad took a body blow in the MA election last week.

He huddles with his czars, hires a minister of propaganda, what’s the english translation of “Goebbels” again? Oh yes, Plouffe.

So we have to consider the speech an introduction of Obama’s plan B.

We must turn to history. In the most abstract view, utopians proceed in two stages. Stage 1 is the attempt to cram down a utopian theory. The result of stage 1 is failure and public uprising. Stage 2 is the disease. The dictator is a narcissist who can’t admit he’s wrong. The cognitive dissonance is unbearable. Stage 2 is when enemies are rounded up. The Supreme Court, the Opposition Party, the Press, Bankers (=The Jews), etc.

This is an old story.

Too bad it never got taught to this generation.

God have mercy on their souls.

jeff_from_mpls on January 29, 2010 at 8:29 AM

Another error people keep making is the fact Obama is not and never has been a “professor” of anything. He was only a part-time college lecturer. That’s considerably below professors on the collegiate pecking order. From what is written, he sounds like a pretty clueless “professor” if anything.

bradley11 on January 29, 2010 at 8:30 AM

Ok, I am from and live in another country and even I knew that the whole created equal thing was from the Declaration of Independence and not the Consitution………

Jim708 on January 29, 2010 at 8:30 AM

Dear Liar fundamentally does not understand America. We are a nation founded on the idea of Natural Rights, not “Positive Rights.” Natural Rights elevate the person over the state, Positive Rights elevate the state over the person.

rbj on January 29, 2010 at 8:30 AM

zero sees the Constitution the same as atheists view the Bible – as an outdated, negative and mythological concoction from a bunch of dummies way back when. His mind is a toxic mix of hate, scorn, sanctimony & a massive yearning for dictatorial power (which is truly the only transparent part of his performances).

When he says “God bless the United States of America” at the end of his ever lengthening speeches, it has a haughty “throw the peasants a bone” tenor, like he’s mocking the masses; us unwashed, unlearned little people.

Ris4victory on January 29, 2010 at 8:31 AM

solidaction on January 29, 2010 at 8:28 AM

Intellectual is an apt characterization and pejorative. Intellectuals see themselves as anointed, exalted, holier-than-thou and seek to impose their will on others, despite objections. Tom Sowell has a new book out “Intellectuals and Society” and it is written about intellectuals–and how their ideas/programs etc. always seem to escape the consequences that others face in their respective professions ie business owners/doctors.

ted c on January 29, 2010 at 8:31 AM

Excellent analysis on all counts.

if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

In addition to blowing his argument by giving terrorists who do not share our values equal protection, there are other ironies: Obama negotiated a special deal with the Unions to exempt them from the “Cadillac tax”, and Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida were exempted from their equal share of misery under ObamaCare. And since Barack is rejecting our “values” of free-markets and capitalism using his logic he would not be protected by our Constitution.

Buy Danish on January 29, 2010 at 8:32 AM

And people called me a rat and a racist for remarks I made about some law school students. And they left some white kid at home. Thank your government folks!

IlikedAUH2O on January 29, 2010 at 8:33 AM

TOTUS failed him again.

Fletch54 on January 29, 2010 at 8:33 AM

Any high school Advanced Placement government student could have told him that.

Disturb the Universe on January 29, 2010 at 8:12 AM

True, but remember Obama’s high school grades + affirmative action couldn’t get him into Swarthmore.

redridinghood on January 29, 2010 at 8:34 AM

OT: Ruh-roh. The GDP increased dramatically in the fourth quarter. Good news for Obama, but I don’t think it removes the paralysis in hiring. What employers will expand with such governmental uncertainty?

BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM

He was only a part-time college lecturer. That’s considerably below professors on the collegiate pecking order. From what is written, he sounds like a pretty clueless “professor” if anything.

bradley11 on January 29, 2010 at 8:30 AM

I’m guessing that Obama was one of those “lecturers” who did a lot of group projects so he didn’t have to prepare a lesson plan.

highhopes on January 29, 2010 at 8:36 AM

True, but remember Obama’s high school grades + affirmative action couldn’t get him into Swarthmore.

redridinghood on January 29, 2010 at 8:34 AM

How in the h*ll was he ever able to transfer from Occidental to Columbia? That’s never been explained. I thought all he was doing at Occidental was snorting coke.

BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2010 at 8:36 AM

I’m guessing that Obama was one of those “lecturers” who did a lot of group projects so he didn’t have to prepare a lesson plan.

highhopes on January 29, 2010 at 8:36 AM

Barack;
Could you please read my powerpoint slides tomorrow?
– Law Professor

Qualifications.

ted c on January 29, 2010 at 8:38 AM

The referencing-the-wrong-document Obamaturism is the funny part, and the one that makes him seem like a boob. If that was meat of the story I’d think it was another bad-TOTUS moment. But Ed is right, this is something much darker.

Constitutional protections are not granted only “if you abide by the law”; they’re inherent and not conditional. Some specifically protect Americans from the power of government after being accused of not abiding by the law. The notion that they only apply if one adheres to our “common values” is a complete misreading of the Constitution and its purpose of limiting government, not the people.

Keeping in mind that once a power structure such a national or international government assigns itself the power to define what constitute “common values” and withhold inalienable rights from those persons the structure chooses, what results in the end is tyranny.

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face — forever.” — George Orwell

zenscreamer on January 29, 2010 at 8:38 AM

True, but remember Obama’s high school grades + affirmative action couldn’t get him into Swarthmore.

redridinghood on January 29, 2010 at 8:34 AM

Really? Swarthmore rejected him?

Wethal on January 29, 2010 at 8:38 AM

One would think a Con Law prof would know the difference, especially as President. Apparently not.

Ed

For the hundredth time, Ed, he was never a “con law professor”. He was a part-time lecturer. He has no particular training or education in anything but law, but his qualification to be considered a constitutional law expert is non-existent. See the various video of Richard Epstein (University of Chicago Law School) ridiculing Obama for clarification. Jaibones on January 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Exactly. Not putting the words Con Law Prof in quotation marks is itself an Obamateurism.

Basilsbest on January 29, 2010 at 8:39 AM

Millions of voters around the country (several exist in my family tree) are now claiming “don’t blame me, I didn’t vote in this last election.”

The failure’s we are now living with, and our children and grand children will eventually pay for, is the simple fact that Americans voted into office a man who was obviously not qualified, but also a man we knew little about. Americans made an unkwown man the most powerful person in the world.

Shame on those who voted in this fashion. Shame on the media for not vetting this man on behalf of the people.

Keemo on January 29, 2010 at 8:40 AM

What can you expect from a dunce who thinks Congress can “pass a bill” to undo a SCOTUS decision?

The Reasonable Man on January 29, 2010 at 8:40 AM

BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM

I wouldn’t start counting my 401K returns quite yet:

“Growth was boosted (by) a sharp slowdown in the pace of inventory liquidation, a factor that could mask the strength of the economic recovery from the longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression.

But even stripping out inventories, the economy expanded at an annual rate of 2.2 percent, accelerating from the 1.5 percent increase in the third quarter, reflecting relatively strong performance from other segments of the economy.”

Someone, someplace, is playing with the numbers yet again. I forsee a “revised sharply downward” article sometime in the next few weeks.

Johnnyreb on January 29, 2010 at 8:41 AM

BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM

saw that as well, but watching the business shows last night, no one is feeing safe right now…a lot of folks are worried what dear leader is going to do next…

cmsinaz on January 29, 2010 at 8:42 AM

Amazing. But the MSM said he was awesome and intelligent and cool. How can someone who is so awesome, intelligent and cool be soooooooooooooooo wrong? Clearly we have misunderstood this guy and need to give him a pass.

milwife88 on January 29, 2010 at 8:42 AM

He’s just not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Alana on January 29, 2010 at 8:44 AM

One would think a Con Law prof would know the difference, especially as President.

The evidence is clear that Obama knows little about the law. On the other hand, he’s got the Con part down pat.

jwolf on January 29, 2010 at 8:47 AM

Remind me, speaking of Foreign entaglments, why Candidate BO made a speech in GERMANY??

Wander on January 29, 2010 at 8:47 AM

Any high school Advanced Placement government student could have told him that.

Disturb the Universe on January 29, 2010 at 8:12 AM

Heck, in this area, any middle school Civics student could have told him that.

ladyingray on January 29, 2010 at 8:49 AM

I am deeply offended to see our Constitution treated so badly in this forum and to moreover get it completely factually wrong is an entirely deeper matter. Moreover, to confuse the origin of equality and to which document enshrines that simply completes a trifecta of bland idiocy with regards to our founding documents, the US Constitution, and the SCOTUS’ ruling in this matter.ted c on January 29, 2010 at 8:18 AM

Well said Ted. I too, am deeply offended by this Presidents ability to not only wrongly admonish the Supreme Court Justices, but in doing so, embarrass his own office, (the executive branch), in the people’s house. His “act” was not becoming of a United States President. The fact that he hijacked the justices knowing full well they would not have been present if they knew of this petulance and contemptuous act, speaks volumes about how low this administration and our President will reach for personal political gain at the expense of OUR office. This disgraceful act will not go un-noticed in 2012.

Rovin on January 29, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Johnnyreb on January 29, 2010 at 8:41 AM
cmsinaz on January 29, 2010 at 8:42 AM

No argument here. I’m all for improvement, but I think that this is a mirage and that all it will do is color economic debates for the worse.

No doubt Obama will walk into the House GOP retreat and proclaim, “We’re cured.”

But nobody will be hiring.

BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Obama made it very clear that he considers himself above the Congress AND above the Supreme Court. God help us all.

ctmom on January 29, 2010 at 8:51 AM

OT: Ruh-roh. The GDP increased dramatically in the fourth quarter. Good news for Obama, but I don’t think it removes the paralysis in hiring. What employers will expand with such governmental uncertainty?

BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM

Haven’t you noticed, that any time we get a number that is positive (housing starts, 1st time unemployment claims, GDP, durable goods orders etal), they end up getting revised “significantly down” about three weeks later.
And thirty lashes with that wet noodle! Why would uptick in GDP be a RUT-RO moment for anyone?

Chewy the Lab on January 29, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Well, if he’s not really a law professor, and maybe not even an adjunct, could Oblabbo be the “George O’Leary” of presidents?

AubieJon on January 29, 2010 at 8:53 AM

Obama is dumber than dirt, and we will never, ever see his college transcripts. However, his grades are the least of our worries, now.

mobydutch on January 29, 2010 at 8:55 AM

I think we know why Toonces’ grades were never released, now.

MNHawk on January 29, 2010 at 8:58 AM

oh c’mon lay off. BO is clearly an affirmative action solid B+ prez.

jbh45 on January 29, 2010 at 8:58 AM

One would think a Con Law prof would know the difference, especially as President.

A Con Law professor would. He was not one. He was an adjunct. He was not a ‘professor’ of any kind, and furthermore, his name and ‘scholar’ should NEVER be uttered in the same sentence.

I find him to be a phony across the board, but claiming to be a constitutional law professor and/or scholar is outright ridiculous and laughable among academics.

DrStock on January 29, 2010 at 8:59 AM

Someone, someplace, is playing with the numbers yet again. I forsee a “revised sharply downward” article sometime in the next few weeks.

Johnnyreb on January 29, 2010 at 8:41 AM

Expect an unexpected revision.

Yoop on January 29, 2010 at 9:00 AM

One would think a Con Law prof would know the difference, especially as President. Apparently not.

Ed
For the hundredth time, Ed, he was never a “con law professor”. He was a part-time lecturer.

He has no particular training or education in anything but law, but his qualification to be considered a constitutional law expert is non-existent.

See the various video of Richard Epstein (University of Chicago Law School) ridiculing Obama for clarification.

Jaibones on January 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Thank you, Jaibones. I am mighty tired of the boilerplate, empty references to ObaMao as a “professor.” His knowledge of the Constitution and American history is woeful.

onlineanalyst on January 29, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Parody: Obama Tells Supreme Court American Voters Are Unconstitutional http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-tells-supreme-court-american.html

Mervis Winter on January 29, 2010 at 9:01 AM

OT: Ruh-roh. The GDP increased dramatically in the fourth quarter. Good news for Obama, but I don’t think it removes the paralysis in hiring. What employers will expand with such governmental uncertainty?

BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM

I’m sure that GDP number will be revised down next quarter due to something “unexpected”. It’s just another lie to try and trick the public into thinking Obama is actually doing something good.

loudmouth883 on January 29, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Really? Swarthmore rejected him?

Wethal on January 29, 2010 at 8:38 AM

Yep.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/politics/Obama_Swarthmore_rejected_me.html

redridinghood on January 29, 2010 at 9:03 AM

UltimateBob on January 29, 2010 at 8:19 AM

When I had to give presentations that others prepared I went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure the information was correct. If the “won” can’t be bothered to do the same then he wholly owns the gaff(s).

chemman on January 29, 2010 at 9:05 AM

BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM

Here’s the other thing about the GDP number: I’m no economist, but wouldn’t “Cash for Clunkers” grossly inflate those numbers? If so, the 2010 1st Q GDP will be a giant buzz kill.

Chewy the Lab on January 29, 2010 at 9:07 AM

BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2010 at 8:35 AM

I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the 5.7% number is true. New housing sells tanked, existing housing sells tanked, car sells ?, Christmas sells anemic and major companies still announcing large layoffs. In my science classes I called something like this a WAG (Wild A$$ guess).

chemman on January 29, 2010 at 9:09 AM

The clown is confusing the Declaration of Independence (which does state “all men are created equal”) with the US Const.

You would think a Harvard Law grad (who was born in Hawaii) would know this basic stuff.

alwyr on January 29, 2010 at 9:15 AM

0 is a dangerous America-hating community organizer.

OmahaConservative on January 29, 2010 at 8:09 AM

You need a few more adjectives in there, like “communist, ignorant, etc.”

Daggett on January 29, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Anyone who took one of his courses should demand their money back.

Ed Laskie on January 29, 2010 at 9:24 AM

How in the h*ll was he ever able to transfer from Occidental to Columbia? That’s never been explained. I thought all he was doing at Occidental was snorting coke.

BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2010 at 8:36 AM

Will there be a James O’Keefe to uncover this mystery? I hope so.

redridinghood on January 29, 2010 at 9:26 AM

You would think a Harvard Law grad (who was born in Hawaii) would know this basic stuff.

alwyr on January 29, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Does make one ponder how much in that one sentence is fact, how much is assumption, or how much is fake-but-accurate.

Yoop on January 29, 2010 at 9:26 AM

The increase in GDP with no reduction in unemployment is actually bad news for those who claim a recovering economy will lead to full employment. Does anyone have the time to post the particulars of federal government revenues and expenditures in the same period?

Basilsbest on January 29, 2010 at 9:30 AM

The death nail. I hope he does not get a traffic citation, because he would be the first person in history to receive the Death Sentence for such an infraction.

MSGTAS on January 29, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Anyone who took one of his courses should demand their money back.

Ed Laskie on January 29, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Are there people who remember attending any of his lectures? I’d like to speak with a few and ask them what they learned.

thomasaur on January 29, 2010 at 9:40 AM

For the hundredth time, Ed, he was never a “con law professor”. He was a part-time lecturer.

He has no particular training or education in anything but law, but his qualification to be considered a constitutional law expert is non-existent.

See the various video of Richard Epstein (University of Chicago Law School) ridiculing Obama for clarification.

Jaibones on January 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM

Well, the qualifications normally applied to academic and scientific titles are waived for POTUS. After all, Jimmah was a nuclear physicist.

What is funny, though, is how only Democratic presidents get a pass on this, while the genuine achievements of Republican presidents are always denigrated.

mr.blacksheep on January 29, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Hey, it just hit me. Is The 0ne actually Sacha Baron Cohen doing the most brazenly outrageous satire ever?

Naah, couldn’t be. Nobody could make this $#!+ up.

mr.blacksheep on January 29, 2010 at 9:48 AM

One would think a Con Law prof would know the difference, especially as President. Apparently not.

That depends on what your definition of “con” is.

Fallon on January 29, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Manchurian Candidates

Why didn’t anyone see that the Affirmative Action programs were going to result in a bumper crop of left wing puppets?

Take a kid from a poor family, blame all of his problems on our system, forge him in the reeducation camps that pass for our school systems and nurture him with love from the state.

Then give him the best credentials for success in our meritocracy and, with a state ordered program, insure his or her employment and even career success and then wait.

You haave now rewarded left wing causes with an actor who will produce returns for the social engineering programs and other goals of the left for a lifetime.

The whole thing is worse than confiscatory taxes on qualified people since, in this option, the victims don’t even get the satisfaction of achievement before the fruits of their labor are taken away from them.

Of course, all this is aside from the boon to productivity that results from unqualified people people in important jobs.

And every President from Carter to The One has supported it.

I made a comment on the Breitbart thread that I regret. My paranoia was not global enough.

IlikedAUH2O on January 29, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Obama wasn’t a constitutional law professor, at least not in the conventional sense of that title. Con law is a required course that every law student must take, and it’s pretty comprehensive. The Con Law professor is generally a pretty big deal at any law school. Obama was a non-tenured instructor who taught a voting rights class, a class on racism and law, and a class on due process and equal protection, all of which would be electives. He did not teach the required, comprehensive Con Law course. It’s a subtle but significant difference, imo.

mbs on January 29, 2010 at 9:57 AM

I should have read all the comments first re: Obama not being a con law professor, several people beat me to it. It just makes me mad to see him referred to as a con law professor.

mbs on January 29, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Quite clearly, equal protection must apply regardless of whether one complies with the law.

Or whether one is a foreigner or a foreign corporation — a group to which Obama would deny freedom of speech.

unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Makes you wonder if he actually got a degree from Harvard. He is hopelessly unemployable. He doesn’t seem to know anything about how to do a job of any kind. He hates the Constitution that he is supposed to “know”. He has spent most of his adult life trying to find an end run around it. He tries to find ways that he doesn’t have to actually work and be responsible.
He said he was going to work really hard on jobs, then tells Congress to have a jobs bill on his desk, soon. Even the dumba@@ Dems know that they can’t create jobs out of thin air. They have to know by now that JFK and Reagan were correct on the lesson of getting the economy back up and running. The big question is will they send something up for him to sign that will actually work or will they pretend that the Once is right?

BetseyRoss on January 29, 2010 at 10:06 AM

Now America knows why they did not release his transcripts. All hat…no cattle.

kingsjester on January 29, 2010 at 10:10 AM

All hat…no cattle.

kingsjester on January 29, 2010 at 10:10 AM

All crap…no bull

thomasaur on January 29, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2