Hoodwinked

@debrakcarey (19921)
United States
April 9, 2013 12:39pm CST
Consider this: President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud! http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/ A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago . 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. "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. http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html ; The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence ... not the Constitution. http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/ 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. Wrong citing, wrong founding document Mr. President. 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. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech? The only people who are afaid of the truth, are people with something to hide. When are people going to wake up to the fact we've been hoodwinked?
1 person likes this
8 responses
@MoonGypsy (4610)
• United States
9 Apr 13
there is always scandal surrounding presidents. he is not the first one and he won't be the last.
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
9 Apr 13
Well, considering he signed an executive order giving himself (the executive branch) the power to regulate elections, he very well may be 'the last'.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Apr 13
We were hoodwinked by our first MBA president (GWB) who sent us into the worst recession since the Great Depression. THAT one REALLY hurt. That BHO was not a full law professor? Doesn't hurt quite so much...
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
10 Apr 13
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/with-landmark-lawsuit-barack-obama-pushed-banks-to-give-subprime-loans-to-chicagos-african-americans/ Obama as an attorney sued banks to force them to lend to those who could not afford mortgages. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bubba_the_housing_bubble_8cUhYsqNdXVlWjflbbjiUO Clinton charged his Housing secretaries, Henry Cisneros and Andrew Cuomo, with driving homeownership rates up to about 70 percent of households from around 64 percent in the early ’90s. How did they do this? Through rigorous enforcement of housing mandates such as theCommunity Reinvestment Act, and by prodding mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make loans to people with lower credit scores (and to buy loans that had been made by banks and, later, “innovators” like Countrywide). The Housing Department was Fannie and Freddie’s top regulator — and under Cuomo the mortgage giants were forced to start ramping up programs to issue more subprime loans to the riskiest of borrowers. We know how that turned out: Fannie and Freddie help stoke a housing bubble that actually made homeownership less affordable unless borrowers took out ever-more-risky loans. Eventually, both agencies imploded (along with the housing market); bailing them out since 2008 has already cost taxpayers more than $100 billion. (And, yes, Bush continued Clinton’s policies — but did try to rein in Fannie and Freddie in his later years, before the meltdown. But Democratic barons in Congress like Rep. Barney Frank balked at stopping the train before the wreck.) You can also blame Clinton for helping usher in an era of wild risk-taking that led to the 2008 banking debacle. As president, he put the final nail in the coffin of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act — which for decades had separated Wall Street risk-taking activities from traditional commercial banking, such as taking deposits and small-business lending. To be sure, ending Glass-Steagall was a bipartisan folly, but Clinton was fully on board. He killed it at the advice of then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin — a Goldman Sachs alum who went to work for the biggest beneficiary of Glass-Steagall’s demise, mega bank Citigroup.
@mariaperalta (19086)
• Mexico
9 Apr 13
Many people do that, Im sure. But because Obama is the us Pres. they look under every single piece of carpet to find trash on him. Hes the usa Pres. for 4 more years.... live with it.
1 person likes this
• Mexico
9 Apr 13
Your right, but even other people in public or private offices have done bad things as well.
• United States
9 Apr 13
A lot of people are watching with alarm the eroding of the strong checks on government power which made America free.. Humans and human nature cannot be trusted, thus strong checks and balances are the only path to liberty. (Until Messiah returns that is.)
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
10 Apr 13
Mariaperalta, but none of them are the leader of the 'free world' are they? And I must ask, do two wrongs (or more) make a right?
• United States
9 Apr 13
I don't think it is going to make any difference because they have nothing better to replace him with. I certainly don't want Binden to take over or the ones under him. That is probably why Obama chose who he did to work under him.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
9 Apr 13
And so we continue on down the road to disaster.
1 person likes this
• United States
9 Apr 13
It looks like it just because there aren't enough of the right people to fight it.
1 person likes this
• United States
9 Apr 13
"That is probably why Obama chose who he did to work under him." I never thought of that, but You're likely on to something there.
@peavey (16980)
• United States
9 Apr 13
Soon, I hope. If not soon, then never. This only confirms the fact that he is an imposter. He does not deserve to even run for president, much less be elected. People have lost their minds... or it's one great, socialist plan that involves fraud and strong arm Mafia tactics. Or both.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
9 Apr 13
Hey, don't disparage the Mafia, at least THEY turn a profit. That was a joke.
1 person likes this
@peavey (16980)
• United States
9 Apr 13
@artemeis (4063)
• China
10 Apr 13
I don't think any of these is true and just proves a point that we should not trust everything on the internet. I believe that America is well established enough to avoid such misconduct of any persons holding office including the President. But, I have to give the country credit for showing tolerance of such scandalous slurs.
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
10 Apr 13
Can you provide me with solid proof they are NOT true and therefore scandalous slurs? If not, thank you for your response.
@artemeis (4063)
• China
11 Apr 13
In the first place, I have to wonder for the lack of or no official process to find a candidate eligible for office which is quite a position to be a President and Chief of Staff of America. Then, when he is elected in by the people - the very people does not believe the established system to scrutinize his decisions and actions. When the words does not bring about any results from the systems' scrutiny, it is deemed that the system is faulty and worse is covering up for the elected President. Really? Is that why the top percent does not like to be in the politics? Alright, now just supposedly you are elected into office, what would you have done differently coming from a position where your country has just caused a worldwide economic meltdown? Coming from a position where your country had just been attacked despite being considered to be one of the world's leading military defense? Interestingly, I wonder who was responsible for this meltdown and lapse that resulted in 9/11? Why is it no one has been taken to task? Instinctively, I believe that history does teach people and the system to be more wary of possible misconducts and abuses where no matter how much the President may conspire and hide, it will be exposed and in due time taken to task. I suppose we are going back to say that the system can be corrupted and fail, then the "cycle" just carry on with more theories. Worse more, slurs?
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
11 Apr 13
I am not so sure America HAS CAUSED a worldwide economic meltdown. Who is responsible for 9/11? Some of the world may say that America's policies in the mideast caused it. I partially agree. We've had ineffective and stupid men making decisions since Carter. But the MAIN cause is the Islamist jihad leaders (Imams) and Ayatollahs who have sworn to make the western world submit to Islam. As for why my country is going downhill, well I could go into all the cultural reasons and the political reasons. But what would that accomplish here? It's been going downhill for several decades, and sadly will continue until we fail completely. What then? What will the whole world do when America is NOT THERE to stop the bad guys when they gain power in Europe and the Mideast and Asia and Africa?
• United States
10 Apr 13
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/ FULL ANSWER We briefly addressed rumors about the status of the Obamas’ law licenses back in January 2010 in an Ask FactCheck titled “Clueless ‘Columbo.’ ” But a steady stream of questions about them has continued to flow to our inbox ever since. It’s true that neither the president nor the first lady holds an active license to practice law. A search on the website of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois shows that Barack Obama is listed as “voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law,” and Michelle Obama is listed as “voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law.” But it’s not true that President Obama “surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application,” or that Michelle Obama “ ‘voluntarily surrendered’ her law license in 1993 after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud,” as the chain email claims. Lawyers who voluntarily change their registration status to inactive or retired “may not practice law based upon their Illinois license or hold themselves out as being so authorized,” according to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. But James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the ARDC, said that the Obamas were “never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings.” Voluntary Changes President Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991 and was admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of Illinois on Dec. 17, 1991. Prior to being elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, he worked as a civil rights lawyer at the firm formerly known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Four days after Obama announced that he would run for president in February 2007, he voluntarily elected to have his law license placed on “inactive” status, according to Grogan. Then, after becoming president, he elected to change his status to “retired” in February 2009. Michelle Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1988, and was admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of Illinois on May 12, 1989. Following graduation, she joined Sidley Austin, a corporate law firm in Chicago. But a few years later, in 1994, while working for the Public Allies project in Chicago, Obama voluntarily had her license placed on “inactive” status. But the claim that the Obamas “surrendered” their licenses to avoid ethics charges has no basis in fact. Neither of the Obamas has any public record of discipline or pending proceedings against them, according to the online public registration records of the ARDC. We also confirmed that with Grogan, who said that the Obamas were “never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings.” The Obamas haven’t said exactly what prompted them to change the status of their licenses. But Grogan said that it was fairly common for lawyers who didn’t intend to continue practicing law to go on inactive status. It was actually one of the reasons, he said, that the rule was changed so that lawyers wanting to switch to inactive status no longer had to petition the Illinois Supreme Court to do so. In 2011, more than 12 percent of the state’s 87,943 registered attorneys were on inactive status (see Chart 2), according to the ARDC’s annual report for that year. In addition, prior to June 5, 2012, the Obamas would have been required to pay an annual fee of $289 (now $342), and take classes to satisfy the state’s Minimum Continuing Legal Education requirement, in order to keep their licenses active. Lawyers on retirement status, however, don’t have to pay an annual fee or take classes. And lawyers on inactive status also don’t have to take classes, but they do have to pay an annual fee of $105. Perhaps one reason for these false claims is that the online registration record used to list Michelle Obama as being “on court ordered inactive status.” But that wasn’t because of any wrongdoing. As previously mentioned, before 1999, an Illinois Supreme Court rule required active lawyers who wanted to change their registration status to do so by petitioning the court. ARDC website: Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer’s preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law. Obama’s motion seeking a transfer to inactive status was filed on June 8, 1994. And the court granted the request the following month, Grogan said. Grogan said claims that Michelle Obama went on inactive status to avoid disbarment are simply false. “We had to consent to this,” he said, noting that the ARDC would’ve brought up any disciplinary problems with the court. And he added that simply changing the registration status wouldn’t prevent the ARDC from bringing a case against a lawyer. (The online registration record no longer refers to Michelle Obama as being on “court ordered inactive status.” Grogan said that changes were made to the online registration system because other inactive lawyers had complained that they were also being suspected of wrongdoing.) And the Obamas could return to practicing law if they decide to, Grogan said. President Obama would have to submit a written or online notification stating that he intended to return to active status. And he would have to pay the registration fee for each year that he was retired. The process for Michelle Obama would be different, Grogan said, because she changed her status under old Supreme Court Rule 770. She would have to once again file a motion with the Illinois Supreme Court requesting to be transferred back to active status. But unlike President Obama, she would only have to pay the registration for the year that she requested to return to active status. Other Claims The email also claims that “Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago.” That’s technically true. As we wrote back in 2008, Obama’s formal title was “senior lecturer,” but the University of Chicago Law School says he “served as a professor” and was “regarded as” a professor. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama regularly referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor.” But the university later clarified his title in an official statement: UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” 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. The email also faults Obama for mixing up the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.” But whether Obama was right or wrong depends on how his words are interpreted. In his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, Obama made the following statement: Obama, Jan. 27, 2010: Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we’re 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; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else. However, the exact phrase “created equal” is not found in the U.S. Constitution. It is found in the Declaration of Independence: Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776: 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. But Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA, writing for the Volokh Conspiracy blog, said that the president was actually correct. Volokh, April 5, 2010: But of course President Obama’s statement is quite correct: The Constitution enshrines the notion that we are all created equal in the Equal Protection Clause, in the voting rights amendments, chiefly the Fifteenth Amendment and the Nineteenth Amendment, and in large measure in the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. (And don’t quibble that these are Amendments, and not the Constitution. As Article V of the Constitution says, the Amendments “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”) Why dont you research things before just believing anything you read ?
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
10 Apr 13
But whether Obama was right or wrong depends on how his words are interpreted. depends on how the words are interpreted!!! OF COURSE IT DOES. Same as 'technically true' I guess? “Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago.” That’s technically true. omg...so we are to entrust our freedom and our country to interpretation and half truths? Research? really?
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
10 Apr 13
Barack Obama lied about never using the name Barry Soetoro on his Registration with the Illinois Bar Association? "Full Former names" is the second question on the ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD. (doesn't even go into the fact that his social security number is in the name of Harrison J Bounel or the fact he was enrolled at a school in Indonesia under the surname Soetoro) However, instead of Listing "Barry Soetoro," he wrote the word "NONE" on the "Former Names Used" line. The Bar wants to know EVERYTHING on the background about its members, and generally do not look kindly on deception by applicants or members. This could have lead to more questions about "Barry Soetoro" if he disclosed that name. Such as, when, where, and how was it used. There could have been requests by the Bar for supporting documents that were used with than name which could prove embarrassing.
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
10 Apr 13
Michelle Obama gave her reason for voluntarily giving up her law license as a wish to leave corporate America, but then in 2002, she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, eventually earning $317,000. Wish to leave corporate America? Michelle is listed as court ordered inactive, Barack is listed as retired. While I do agree it also says 'voluntary' inactive, I'm told by my family member who is a tax lawyer at the DOJ and teaches tax law as well that 'voluntary' can mean they were asked to give up their licenses as well. But, like so many other things in Obama's past we will never know because his records are sealed, and big money protects him. BIG CORPORATE MONEY.
@gljcleeve (147)
10 Apr 13
A politician who tells lies, I'm both shocked and amazed. Surly you don't believe that such a person would get to where he is without telling a few untruths? I've never yet heard of anyone in any form of pokitics anywhere in the world who can be totally trusted and unbiased, it just goes with the job. I just thank my lucky stars that I'm not American, but then again we have Cameron, Clegg and Milliband.
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
10 Apr 13
Thank you gljcleeve. Politicians get away with being liars because not enough people dare question them or their motives. And those who do are often insulted, demeaned and branded as nutcases.
@flowerchilde (12533)
• United States
9 Apr 13
Oiye! As if the rest of it wasn't enough, but a prez who doesn't know his constitution from his declaration!
@debrakcarey (19921)
• United States
10 Apr 13