Saturday, September 3, 2011
Friday, September 2, 2011
BARACK AND MICHELLE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW “NOT”
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.
Source:
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.
Source:
I checked it out myself at this website. https://www.iardc.org
This is the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee.
It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois.
There is no one with the last name of Obama licensed to practice law in the state of Illinois.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Leftist Media Declares Open Season on Perry
The flailing attacks on Rick Perry multiply as he pulls easily ahead of the Republican field. Journalists had rooted for an exciting figure to parachute into the lackluster race but now probably regret that hope. Perry scares them. He is, by their lights, a "terrifying" critic of the New Deal and Great Society, a "theocrat," a hater of "science," and no "compassionate" conservative.
The same media that portrayed George W. Bush as ideologically dangerous now hold him up as the measure of an acceptable Republican. Rick Perry has managed to make journalists nostalgic for the Bush years. A Perry victory, the Washington Post reports with concern, would "cement the Republican Party's shift away from Bush's approach to a more libertarian, anti-government GOP."
In other words, another "compassionate" conservative from Texas would be tolerable to the chattering class after all, but not a Tea Partier from Texas.
Mitt Romney can count on favorable coverage in the coming months from a media that now sees its mission as "saving America from Rick Perry." Those words come from Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, who calls that an "urgent fight." Perry represents to this media the dreaded continuation and expansion of 2010 Tea Party success, whereas Romney represents a reassuring step back to the safety of establishment Republicanism.
The rumored strategy of Romney against Perry will apparently feed off these media fears. According to Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen, "Romney's campaign will argue that Perry is against the very idea of Social Security and Medicare," and it will use his book Fed Up! to "scare seniors in early-primary states with large retiree populations, such as Florida and South Carolina." Also: "The Romney campaign will argue that Perry repels independents and can't win in key swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan -- while Romney can."
And yet if Perry is too conservative for Romney's taste, he is also, on at least one issue, too liberal. Thiessen reports that the Romney campaign "plans to use immigration to drive a wedge between Perry and his conservative base by highlighting Perry's opposition to a border fence and legislation he signed in 2001 allowing the children of illegal immigrants to attend Texas colleges and universities at in-state tuition…. Romney strategists believe immigration will be a devastating issue for Perry with Tea Party Republicans across the country -- especially in important primary states such as Arizona."
Another line of attack will be that Perry is the "anti-government candidate who has spent most of his life in government," says Thiessen. Romney has already rehearsed this one, saying in a speech on Tuesday that "career politicians got us into this mess and they simply don't know how to get us out."
Much of this is likely to fall flat. A scenario in which the Tea Party rushes into Romney's arms over immigration is improbable, particularly if he is at the same time knocking Perry for a dim view of Social Security and Medicare and saying that Perry is unacceptable to independents. The two lines of attack will cancel each other out. Lumping Perry in with career politicians that "got us into this mess" also seems odd, since most Tea Partiers don't associate Perry with the national political class and consider jobs-rich Texas under Perry a contrast to the mess.
Unmentioned in the Thiessen piece is whether Romney will engage Perry on any cultural issues. Perhaps this is an area best avoided by Romney, though one can imagine the media helping him in this regard, casting the formerly pro-choice Mormon as more "mainstream" than the "theocrat" Perry.
The media is certainly itching to address these issues. In a preview of things to come, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller demands to know if a candidate places "fealty" to religion over the "Constitution." What touching concern from Keller for a document liberals have shredded through fealty to secularism.
Most of the Founding Fathers wouldn't have passed Keller's vetting. If Perry is a "theocrat" for thinking that America is one nation under God, so were they. If Perry is "anti-science" for thinking that the world didn't create itself through random processes, so were they. As usual, the media intends to use politically correct name-calling and mau-mauing as its chief mode of covering a conservative candidate. Any stick will do in its quest to save liberal America from Rick Perry.
THE CBR (Congressional Black Racist)
The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) needs to change their name to The Congressional Black Racist.
Having failed to drum up support for Barack Obama in the form of racial hatred by playing the victim card in the infamous Tea Party “N-Word” incident that didn’t happen, the CBC is now promoting racial violence against the Tea Party.
Members of the CBC are traveling the country inciting racist hatred, telling audiences that the Tea Party “wants to lynch blacks.”
Without question the CBC has declared war on the Tea Party which of course has nothing to do with race. The Tea Party is if fact all about smaller federal government and lower federal taxes. There are quite a few black people in the Tea Party but that doesn’t keep the CBC from playing the race card.
As the TEA Party has attempted to reign in Congressional spending, the CBC has become more vicious in its rhetoric against it. Members of the radical Congressional Black Caucus are now spewing hatred against TEA Party members by comparing their efforts to stabilize the US economy to ‘enacting Jim Crow laws’ and ’seeing us [blacks] hanging on a tree’! If these CBC members knew American history, they would know that the Jim Crow laws and Ku Klux Clan lynchings were affected by Democrats.
I believe the action by the CBC is part of Obama’s campaign strategy for the 2012 election, but there is more. By threatening race riots, Obama has intimidated the entire US Government from questioning his Constitutional eligibility for the Presidency and investigating his forged birth certificate and Selective Service registration and his stolen Social Security Number.
The race riot strategy has worked so well keeping him in office, Obama intends to exploit that threat to get himself re-elected.
The recent racially-motivated flash mob attacks on non-black US citizens have provided dry runs for 2012 and have served as a warning to anyone considering opposing the empty suit now occupying the Oval Office.
Police in West Allis, Wisconsin, say attacks by black teenagers on white people outside the gates of the Wisconsin State Fair on August 4th were racially motivated and should be prosecuted as hate crimes.
The latest cyclist attack in St. Louis, Missouri, occurred on August 25th near the Missouri Botanical Garden where a group of 10 to 15 African-American teens charged and attacked Cheech Ramirez.
According to Ramirez: “They weren’t really interested in robbing me. It just seemed like they wanted to beat me up.”
The CBC must be very pleased with the increase in racial violence.
It Is Not Illegal
- Appeals Court Rules It Is Not Illegal To Film Police
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Despite the mass hoax still being promulgated by both the mainstream media and local authorities across America, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that it is not illegal for citizens to videotape police officers when they are on public duty.
“The filming of government officials while on duty is protected by the First Amendment, said the Court,” reports Daily Tech [1].
“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].,” said the Court. “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs,” stated the ruling, adding that this has been the case all along, and that the right to film police officers is not just restricted to the press.
The case cited several examples where citizens were arrested for documenting acts of police brutality on recording devices, including that of Simon Glik, who was arrested after he filmed Boston police punching a man on the Boston Common.
Another case involved Khaliah Fitchette, a teenager who filmed police aggressively removing a man from a bus in Newark. Fitchette was arrested and detained for two hours before police deleted the video from her cellphone.
The court ruling also made it clear that bloggers who report news based on their recordings of police have equal protection under the law as journalists.
“The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status,” stated the court.
Despite the ruling, state authorities in Illinois are still trying to prosecute 41-year old mechanic Michael Allison [3] for recording police officers in public. Allison faces a life sentence on five separate counts of “eavesdropping” that add up to 75 years.
The Attorney General’s Office is determined to make an example out of Allison in a bid to intimidate the public against filming the actions of police. In brazenly disregarding the law as well as legal precedent (every single charge against people for filming police, including a recent case in Illinois [4], has been thrown out of court), authorities are clearly using official oppression in their vendetta against Allison.
Despite innumerable cases where charges have been dropped against citizens arrested for filming police, the mass media still constantly invokes the misnomer that it is illegal to record cops in public.
The fact that arrests are still occurring on a regular basis nationwide also underscores how police are being trained to enforce a law that doesn’t exist, before hitting victims of this hoax with charges more severe than those a murderer would expect to receive and expecting them to back down and plea bargain, a startling reflection of the cancerous criminality that has set the United States well on course to becoming a police state.
*********************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)