TO: Anthony G. Martin
c/o "Conservative Examiner"
Sir:
A link to your
recent piece, was today posted on DemocraticUnderground – and I must admit that the hilarity that ensued was well worth the read.
You begin with:
“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'.” You further state:
“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.”I am truly curious as to exactly who is calling this ‘the biggest hustle’ (besides the blogger you linked to), and who these “investigators” are. Do you have a clue? You seem to be clueless in so many respects, I thought perhaps you might have at least
one clue about something – anything. But maybe not.
What is the “unseen force” behind the President, and what are the “clear ulterior motives” for his seeking office? If they’re so clear, why are you incapable of articulating them?
You go on:
“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.”Interestingly enough, here’s what The Blogging Professor has to say on the matter:
“Since I continue to get blasted with emails (supportive, critical and ones asking to interview me as having written some kind of 'special report' which I did not do), I am removing those parts of this post that I did not myself investigate.
I’ll say once again as I've said to several emailers, I didn't do the original investigation of this. This was a pass-down from another blog cited in the post, and these are allegations from sources that I haven't confirmed”. Ooops! Looks like your source of information is flatly denying any involvement in the “special report” you are attributing to him. Shame, shame, Mr. Martin – you’ve been caught being clueless yet again. But I’m sure that happens a lot, so you’re probably used to it by now.
You then go on to rant and rail about Obama “lying” about his status as a professor at the University of Chicago – instead of just quoting from the law school’s own statement:
“From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."You also include as “evidence” of President Obama’s lackluster academic career yet another reliable source (ahem, another blogger, Doug Ross) who states:
“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." 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.” Let’s review the story so far, shall we? You use bloggers and present them as though they are unimpeachable sources – and even the blogger you quote admits that
their information emanates from an unnamed “professor friend”. Hmmm, journalistic integrity at its highest.
But you (or Mr. Ross – your article is so incoherent, it’s difficult to know at any given point just who's zoomin' who) insist on droning on:
“President Barack Obama … is no longer a ‘lawyer’. He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he ‘fibbed’ on his bar application.” .
As a court reporter for the last twenty-five years, I’ve known a lawyer or two. And I’ve known dozens of them who voluntarily surrendered their licenses when they decided to go into another career. But I wouldn’t want facts to stand in your way – because, obviously, you don’t.
Now, let me digress for just a minute here, if I may – because the phrase “possibly to escape charges” is fraught with danger, sir, and could be used against you as easily as against the President – or anyone else. I note that you do not currently hold public office – is that
possibly because you are under investigation for drug trafficking? I also note that you are not presently a Cub Scout leader – is that
possibly because you’re a registered sex offender? After all, I have seen no evidence to the contrary, so
anything is “possible”.
But you soldier on:
“Michelle Obama ‘voluntarily surrendered’ her law license in 1993. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law.”You are aware, sir, that being licensed to practice law is not a requirement for holding the office of the presidency – and, I would dare to venture, is not a requirement for being First Lady either. I think most people know that. But in your case, being clueless and all, I thought I’d point it out nonetheless.
Your equally clueless Mr. Ross goes on to say:
“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. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal."
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.” President Obama did not cite a quote from the Declaration of Independence. What he said was that our diversity draws on the promise that is
enshrined in the Constitution, the notion that we are all created equal. But cluelessness being what it is, I can appreciate that Mr. Ross doesn’t understand the difference between quoting from one document and connecting its inherent meaning to another.
But, as Mr. Ross himself points out,
“When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.” I guess that applies to phony “journalists” more than anyone these days – being that there are so many of you out there.
You do realize, sir (or perhaps I shouldn’t make assumptions about what you have the capacity to “realize”), there are bloggers out there who also believe the Earth is flat? (Sorry to have brought that up – you might be citing them as reliable sources before the day is out.)
You end your little diatribe with:
“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.'”Wow! Now, that IS news! You wouldn’t happen to have any facts to back up that assertion – I mean other than
I got this info from a blogger, who got it from another blogger, who heard it from his butcher’s son-in-law, whose neighbor’s cousin (twice removed) swears it’s true!In closing, Mr. Martin, I would state what
should be the obvious: Quoting bloggers (especially those who, in turn, quote other bloggers) does not qualify as journalism – it doesn’t even qualify as being interesting in the least.
But should you want to pursue a career in what you obviously consider to be journalism, you might want to contact FOX-News and offer your “services”. They seem to be even less picky about what they consider “journalistic integrity” than you are.
Yours Truly,
NanceGreggs*
*Blogger but self-proclaimed
non-journalist, because I recognize that my personal opinion on any given topic does
not equate to fact. But, hey, feel free to quote me.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
