Sunday, August 26, 2012

Barack and Michelle...both lost their law licenses

This is 100% legit.  Check it out at https://www.iardc.org/ which Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois.

Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.

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 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.

2. 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!
Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-ha s-no-law-license/

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. "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: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_ti tle.html

6. 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.

7. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declarati on-of-independence/

8. Free Republic: 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.

9. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean 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."

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you're a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.


https://www.iardc.org/

Key Obama supporters now turning on him

Survey reveals voting blocs alarmed over nation's direction


Several key voting blocs that Barack Obama desperately needs to pull off a re-election bid this year are expressing alarm over his leadership and the direction he’s taking the nation, according to a new poll.
Analysts say the blocs include young voters, blacks, Hispanics and women. However, the poll shows none of those groups is expressing confidence in Obama.

The poll was conducted for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies, Aug. 18-21. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.44 percentage points.

Overall, only 37 percent of respondents believe America is going the right direction. Meanwhile, 72 percent of independents and 91 percent of Republicans – even 15 percent of the Democrats – say the nation is going in the wrong direction.

Among the key constituencies for Obama, only 34 percent of women believe the nation is going in the right direction, along with only 42 percent of blacks and only 2 percent of Hispanics. Among young voters, only 33 percent of those 20 or younger think Obama is leading the nation in the right direction, and only 29 percent of those in their 30s agree.

The results aligned closely with the job rating that voters give Obama. Only 18 percent think he is doing an excellent job and another 28 percent a good job. A dominant 45 percent of respondents put his performance at “poor” and another 9 percent say his performance was “only fair.”

Among women, 19 percent say his performance is excellent, but 39 percent call his work poor. For blacks, the figures are 32 percent and 45 percent, for Hispanics 2 percent and 78 percent and among under-20 voters, 27 percent say his job performance is excellent and 59 percent say it is poor.

Earlier this year, the same poll showed that only 40 percent believed Obama’s job performance was poor, a figure that has risen now to 45 percent.

At that time, only 33 percent said the nation was going in the right direction.

In the current poll, the key question about the candidates reflected the doubt evidenced in the other questions. While 44 percent of all respondents say they would pick the incumbent Obama in November, 48 percent say they would pick Romney. Five percent would pick Libertarian Gary Johnson, only 1 percent said they would pick another candidate while 2 percent were unsure.

Critically, the youth vote is going for Romney, with his 45 percent to 43 percent edge among voters in their 30s, and a huge 66 percent to 29 percent advantage among voters 20 or under.

The current poll shows Obama remains likeable, even if voters don’t like where he’s taking the country.

Forty percent of respondents say they have a very favorable opinion of Obama, with another 12 percent “somewhat favorable.”

Nearly 48 percent give him an unfavorable rating.

Regarding the likely GOP challenger, Gov. Mitt Romney, his opposition and support were weaker, with 31.4 percent viewing him very favorably and 31.6 percent viewing him very unfavorably.

Johnson is viewed very favorably by 3 percent and very unfavorably by 7 percent. Some 74 percent have no opinion of him.

The problems facing the nation – controversial social agendas, economic malaise, security threats, international headaches, military worries and the like – are unusually bad, according to respondents.

Sixty percent say the difficulties are “one-in-a-generation type” of issues that “threaten the very existence of the country.”

They also say – by a slight margin – they would pick the Republican Party to resolve the problems.

WND reported this week that the youth vote, on which Obama’s campaign was based in 2008, is falling away from the incumbent swiftly.

A Generation Opportunity poll indicated 84 percent of voters aged 18 to 29 are planning a major life change because of the economy, including delaying marriage and a home purchase.

Twenty-six percent said they changed their living situation by taking in roommates or moving back home, 40 percent skipped a vacation and more than half have had to adjust their entertainment budget, the GO report said.

The poll also showed that while 51 percent of that age group voted in 2008, 76 percent plan to vote this fall.

At the same time, the College Republican National Committee was announcing the largest youth mobilization effort in the group’s 120-year history, a plan dubbed “Operation Red November.”

The grassroots movement of college Republicans nationwide aims to “recruit and mobilize college students to take back our future by voting and volunteering for Republican candidates in local and state level elections in 2012.”

The group is aiming for more than 6 million live voter contacts, 100,000 volunteer hours and 50,000 new College Republicans.

CNN noted over the winter that there already was evidence the “youth vote” had moved beyond Obama.

“In 2012, the youth vote is moving on and throwing those omnipresent ‘Hope’ bumper stickers and T-shirts in garbage bins,” CNN said.

“Not because of apathy. Not because another candidate generates more enthusiasm. Not because of his character. Not because they think voting is pointless,” CNN said. “The 18-29 vote is up for grabs in 2012 because youth can’t afford cars to put bumper stickers on and those T-shirts are worn out from too many days sitting on the couch unemployed.”

CNN’s report noted that without the youth vote four years ago, Obama would have lost at least two states, Indiana and North Carolina. That would have cost him 26 electoral votes – a margin that in 2012 could be decisive.

“It’s time the president did some soul searching on his feelings toward the youth vote,” wrote CNN’s Brad Chase. “And he better do it soon, because the GOP candidate … won’t hesitate to take the youth vote.”

Nearly a year ago, when another Wenzel poll revealed similar concern about Obama’s leadership and the direction he was pushing the nation, Wenzel noted that the longer the numbers stayed low for the incumbent, the harder it would be to change them.

“Poll numbers for political figures tend to be like cement – the longer they sit at low levels without significant rebounds, the harder it becomes to make them move much at all,” Wenzel said at the time. “Voters appear to have drawn conclusions about Obama’s performance in office and his capacity to lead.

“It will be very difficult for him to recover under good circumstances, and there is now no hint on the horizon that the economy or America’s gaping political divide will heal anytime soon,” he said.


See detailed results of survey questions:

Overall, would you say the United States is headed in the right direction or do you think we are off on the wrong track?
Thinking about Barack Obama, how would you rate the overall job he is doing – is he doing an excellent job, a good job, only a fair job, or a poor job as president?
Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama?
Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of Mitt Romney?
Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of Gary Johnson?
If the election for president was today, and the candidates were Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, or Libertarian Gary Johnson, for whom would you vote?
Thinking of all the problems facing our country, if you had to say, do you think they are common problems that crop up from time to time, or do you think these problems are once-in-a-generation type of problems that threaten the very existence of our country?
Still thinking about all of our current problems, which party do you trust more to find the best possible solutions, and to actually do something constructive to find solutions?

Rep. Joe Walsh won't apologize for saying "radical Islamists" in U.S. want to kill Americans

From: Jihad Watch


Walsh bends over backwards to make the usual assurances that not all Muslims want to kill Americans, but the fact that this is a controversy at all shows the extent to which Islamic supremacist propaganda has made inroads in the public discourse. Would Moon Khan and his allies really have us believe that there are no Muslims in the U.S. who want to kill Americans?

Here we go again. What about Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others like them who have plotted and/or committed mass murder in the name of Islam and are motivated by its texts and teachings — all in the U.S. in the last couple of years?

Walsh should not apologize for this. He should educate himself and begin to speak even more forthrightly and clearly about the jihad threat.

"Walsh won’t apologize for saying ‘radical Islamists’ in U.S. want to kill Americans," by Bill Bird for the Chicago Sun-Times, August 24 (thanks to Mackie):
U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh remains steadfast in his conviction that “radical Islam” threatens the American way of life — a view the controversial congressman again expressed to an unhappy group of Muslim constituents Friday night. 
Moon Khan, a Republican Party precinct committeeman in DuPage County and member of the York Township board of trustees, was one of about 80 people who attended an “intense” meeting with Walsh Friday night in the back yard of Khan’s home in Lombard.
“It was a very, very intense meeting, and he did not change his mind,” Khan later said of Walsh.
The meeting was called after Walsh alleged there is “a radical stream of Islam” in the U.S. that threatens the lives of Americans — including residents of Addison, Elgin and Elk Grove — at a townhall meeting in Elk Grove.
At the meeting Friday night, Khan said members of the local Muslim community “are young, American-born-and-raised individuals who share the American dream of a life of liberty, peace and the pursuit of happiness. They are your teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, policemen and hard-working Americans that [are] productive members of society ...”
“Your recent speeches have created catalogues of issues for the Muslim community,” Khan told Walsh, according to a transcript of his remarks.
“We want to ask the congressman why he is the only person who sees the ghost of radical Muslims everywhere. Why did not his colleague, Congressman Peter Roskam ... raise such alarm? We did not hear such warnings from U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, not to mention the Democratic members of Congress. You are running the idea up the flag, and nobody is saluting it.”
“We would also like to know if you found any radical Muslim in this gathering. If yes, please tell us, how did you detect that? Do you have a device like a metal detector that you rotate around and find Muslim radicals?”
Khan said he and others “are here to pick up the stones that have been thrown at us by the congressman, and turn them into the milestones of tolerance.”
Khan later said it appeared Walsh during the meeting “was kind of trying to defend himself about what he has been saying in the media. He was trying to clarify that he is just talking about a tiny, tiny percentage” of people with the “radical Muslim” agenda, Khan said.
“But [Walsh] said that he did not want to apologize ... and just defended himself,” Khan said.
“He said he did not want to hurt people and he does not hate the Muslim community, and he was just raising the question.”
Walsh spokeswoman Erin Rapp said Friday night she was sorry Khan felt the way he did.
“The congressman is glad he brought everyone together, but he has nothing to apologize for,” Rapp said. “He implores all Muslim Americans to condemn radical Islam.”
Walsh also issued a prepared statement, in which he said he “thought it was important for me to reach out and meet with concerned Muslim Americans in my district to discuss the threat that the radical strain of Islam poses to all of us ...”
“While this issue brings heated emotions from both sides, I was happy to hear their thoughts and concerns,” Walsh said. “It affirmed my belief that the vast — vast — majority of American Muslims are peace-loving, patriotic citizens.
“However, there is still a radical strain of Islam within our country, Attorney General Eric Holder has said it, [Homeland Security Director] Janet Napolitano has said it, and I will not back down, and will continue to say that it is a major threat to our safety and security.
“Thus, after tonight’s meeting, I stand by my original statement that while the overwhelming majority of Muslim Americans are as peace-loving as everyone else, there are radical Islamists right here in the United States trying to kill Americans and destroy this country.”

A Missed Prediction

By: Political Calculations / posted on Townhall.com / Finance

Political Calculations is a site that develops, applies and presents both established and cutting edge theory to the topics of investing, business and economics.Townhall.com / Finance

We're not wrong often, but we're happy when we are.

The reason why is because that means the world has turned out to be a much more interesting place than we had previously supposed.

Today's celebration of wrongness on our part comes from the first public prediction we've offered in a very long time that we missed. Here, on 6 August 2012, we looked at the rising level of the national average price of gasoline in the United States and predicted that we would see an upward shift in the number of new jobless claims filed each week some two to three weeks after they rose above the $3.50 per gallon mark.

Here, we noted that they had risen above that mark on 30 July 2012, which would have our predicted surge in new jobless claims sometime between 11 August 2012 and 18 August 2012 (or as we had described it on 6 August 2012, "either with this week's jobless claim data or with next week's data").

Today's initial data release for the week ending 18 August 2012 from the BLS, although showing an "unexpected" increase, doesn't qualify as the upward shift we had expected. Our chart below shows where the latest data fits with respect to what we've identified as Trend J, which ended on 30 June 2012.

Residual Distribution for Seasonally-Adjusted Initial Unemployment Insurance Claims, 26 March 2011 - 18 August 2012

Thanks to volatility in the data related to how the BLS does its seasonal adjustments, which didn't match up with the timing for when a number of U.S. automakers actually took their mid-year plant shutdowns this year, we don't yet have enough data points to indicate the current Trend K (ideally we need at least six to ten weeks of consistent data to model a trend using our methods). Using our statistical control chart-inspired equilibrium limits however, you can see that Trend K so far appears to paralleling Trend J's upward trajectory, which indicates continuing weakness in the U.S. job market.

And that's pretty much where we're at today. We'll be exploring what factors might be behind our missed prediction in our next post on the topic, but here's a short list of what we're weighing today:
  • On 30 July 2012, the national average price of gasoline was recorded at $3.508, barely above the bottom level of where we've previously considered the critical threshold to be (between $3.50 and $3.60). One week later, the national average price of gasoline per gallon was $3.645, so perhaps we will see that expected surge in new jobless claims in next week's data.
  • After so many months of high gasoline prices for consumers, the sudden break below $3.50 per gallon unleashed pent up consumer demand, which has carried through even though gasoline prices have risen back to a high level. If this is the case, we might see a gradual rise in new jobless claims back to the levels they were previous as the high level of gas prices erodes the purchasing power of consumers and the momentum of pent up demand wanes.
  • The price of gasoline in the U.S. is really uneven - perhaps the average gasoline price for the nation was high, but not in the regions showing the greatest economic growth. The comparatively strong growth of those regions then helped keep new jobless claims at their lower level, even though the national average gasoline price rose .
We're psyched for next week's data! And the best part is that we don't know which of these options, or others we've not yet listed, might apply!

Democrats: 154 Years of Progress Uninterrupted by Common Decency 

By: Mark Baisley  / Townhall Daily


The whole political party system was not even in place in the United States until well after George Washington’s first oath of office.  The first semblance of a political party formed out of a remnant of the Federalists, who organized the U.S. Constitution in 1787.  According to my legacy 1964-65 Encyclopedia Britannica, “The political group which became known as the Federalist party may be regarded as definitely organized practically from 1791; it was led, leaving President Washington aside, by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.”

That same written oracle states in Volume 7 that the Democratic Party began one year later “as a national group of voters supporting Thomas Jefferson and using at times the title ‘Republican,’ derived in part from their emphasis on the newly established ‘republic’ as contrasted with ‘monarchy.”  Jefferson’s Democratic Party adopted the principles of “popular control of government, widest extension of suffrage and the fullest measure of personal liberty consistent with law and order, strict interpretation of the constitution and preservation of the rights of the states; opposition to centralized power in the federal government; religious liberty, free speech and a free press.”

The Federalist Party held that a far more centralized government role was in order to ensure the survival of the republic.  Their emphasis was on funding the war debt, neutrality in foreign wars, and the granting of crisis powers to the federal government.

After the second president, John Adams, the Federalist Party never held that high office again and effectively folded in 1787.  Not until 1834 did the Whig Party emerge, eventually establishing a platform that asserted such boring issues as a well-regulated currency, tariffs for revenue, and term limits for the presidency.  The Whigs went extinct in the late 1850s when the bulk of their membership followed Abraham Lincoln in defection to the newly formed Republican Party.

From its very foundation, the Republican Party took on the mantle of individual rights, especially when those rights are overwhelmed by the conflicting rights of someone else in a more powerful position.  While losing its first run at the presidency, the party’s soul and maturing platform was established in the speeches of nominee Abraham Lincoln.

At his final debate with Lincoln on October 15, 1858, Democratic Party nominee Stephen Douglas argued that the federal government ought to leave the states to decide for themselves whether to permit or to outlaw slavery within their individual borders.  “I look forward to  a time when each state shall be allowed to do as it pleases.  If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own.  If it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business; not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government, the right of the people to rule than I do for all the negroes in Christendom.  I would not blot out the great inalienable rights of the white men for all the negroes that every existed.”

After resolving the Civil War with 600,000 lives, the nation settled into a new polarity of world views.  The Republican Party generally stood for holding to a government that was weak in its ability to involve itself in the affairs of community while at the same time powerful for defending every individual’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  The Democratic Party took a position at the opposite end of the political spectrum, entrusting centralized government with the authority to manage the people at every level, and to institute laws and court rulings aimed at protecting its members from experiencing shame.

Ironically, Lincoln’s success in halting the seceding of the southern states marked the beginning of the weakening of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  His proclamation for the emancipation of slaves was an edict to all states.  Over 100 years later, the Roe versus Wade decision successfully imposed the Democratic Party’s opinion on abortion to all states.

In the meetings this week leading up to the official kickoff of the Republican National Convention, the GOP Platform Committee reaffirmed the party’s official commitment to recognize unborn Americans as persons deserving of the right to life.  The Republican heart sees the unborn in a similar light as their predecessors saw American slaves.  

The protracted debate over abortion rights will hear from the Democratic Party Platform Committee next week.  Democrats are as indignant about abortion restrictions as their predecessors were with abolition.  And the powerful abortion industry does not appreciate being subjected to legal restrictions any more than did the slave trade.  

Political parties reflect the averaged values of their membership.  Membership comes voluntarily and without restrictions.  Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party called on the nation’s founding principles in his famous Gettysburg Address.  Anyone who now holds to Thomas Jefferson’s principles defected from his original party decades ago.

The Democratic Party has evolved into a collection of those who reject the conserving of founding principles as America’s liberals.  “As the antithesis to Whig-Republicanism, the Democratic Party has proved the logical home for the rebellious and the disaffected.”  [The Democratic Party, A Photographic History, page 9]

The abortion / right-to-life issue is the persistent bellwether that reflects the original disagreement between the two prevalent political parties.  In spite of the rhetoric, the issue is about who is deserving of the Creator’s endowment of rights and an un-admitted sense of guilt.

Republicans in 1865 were no more motivated by the desire to suppress the industry of plantation farmers than the Republicans of today are desirous of denying a woman’s rights to her own health decisions.  But the abortion issue will eat away at the conscience of America until she humbly arrives at the same level of civilization for those still in utero development as she did for those who were enslaved.
Op-ed:
Remembering and honoring Neil Armstrong
By: Diane Sori

 
Yesterday, America lost a true hero when Neil Armstrong passed away.

With these simple words, “That’s one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind” man took the first step towards reaching for the stars when on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot on the moon.

American ingenuity, know how, scientific leadership, and most importantly exceptionalism, shined brightly that day as the world was glued to their televisions watching this brave explorer place our beloved American flag onto the lunar surface, claiming the moon NOT for America but for all mankind.

And so Neil Armstrong assured his place in history as the most courageous of all explorers advancing man’s eternal quest for knowledge.

From humble beginnings in Ohio; to becoming a Navy jet fighter pilot flying 78 combat missions during the Korean War (for which he received three Air Medals); to logging more than 1,000 hours as a test pilot for the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the predecessor to NASA; to becoming one of the first civilian astronauts, and then finally becoming commander of the now immortal Apollo 11 mission, Neil Armstrong did this all with humility and grace, never seeking or reveling in the bravado that so rightly came his way.

Neil Armstrong, Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin, and Michael Collins, the crew of Apollo 11, fulfilled President John F. Kennedy’s dream of putting a man on the moon by the end of the 1960’s.  With the words, “Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed" heard around the world, our dream of true manned space exploration had begun. 

“The single thing which makes any man the happiest is the realization that he has worked up to the limits of his ability, his capacity.  It’s all the better, of course, if this work has made a contribution to knowledge, or towards moving the human race a little further forward,” Armstrong said in describing what the Apollo 11 mission meant to him.

And describing it well he did for man’s quest for knowledge must never be stopped...for if it is man himself will become complacent and stop growing, learning, and exploring the wonders of the universe around him.  And thanks to brave men like Neil Armstrong, a new generation of space explorers is ready to take up where he left off and reach for the stars.

Neil Armstrong is sadly gone but his footprints and our American flag that he so proudly placed on the lunar surface are still up there, and will be remembered for all eternity by the brave men and women who share his dream of touching the stars. 
 
And next time, on a clear night when I look up at the moon in all its splendor, I will do as his family requested by remembering Neil with a wink, and thank him for a job well done as a tear rolls down from my eyes.   

Rest in Peace Neil Armstrong for now you are one with the stars you so loved.