Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (1128)	1/19/2013 8:00:00 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

If you want to avoid being disbarred, you can retire or else go inactive.

To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (1128)	1/19/2013 8:04:09 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 16547

Lost Law Licenses: Presidents Obama, Clinton, and Nixon by Gary North Tea Party Economist http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1197.html In my article on the letter I received from a lawyer who insisted – inaccurately – that Michelle Obama let her license to practice law go inactive when her husband surrendered his license in early 2008, I responded: “Did Romney surrender his license? No. Did either of the Clintons surrender theirs? No. Did Nixon surrender his? No.” I was responding to the argument that it was to be expected that a candidate for the nomination of President would surrender his right to practice law. On the contrary, it had never happened before in American history. Then I listed people who had not surrendered their licenses: Romney, both Clintons, and Nixon. I thought this point was obvious: I was talking about the nomination. Romney is not President. Neither is Mrs. Clinton. Nixon surrendered two licenses after he left the White House: California and the Supreme Court. He tried to surrender his third license in New York State. The state Bar’s disciplinary agency disbarred him in July of 1976. It asked him to sign a statement that he was innocent of obstruction of justice. Not wanting to perjure himself, he refused. Clinton’s situation was similar. The Wikipedia entry on the legal case of Clinton v. Jones explains. On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for “intentionally false” testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas. The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton’s Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr’s successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton’s U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment. So, Nixon escaped disbarment in two instances, but not the third, by surrendering his license. Clinton resigned his Supreme Court license in order to avoid disbarment. He was suspended in Arkansas, but not disbarred. My points in all this are simple with respect to the Obamas’ licenses to practice law: (1) Michelle Obama went inactive in 1994, despite a Harvard Law School degree, which is very strange, unless she was doing so to avoid a hearing on something; (2) her husband “retired” in January 2008. I am not saying that they were ever formally charged with misconduct. I am saying that the most plausible reason for their having abandoned their licenses was to avoid disciplinary action and the threat of public disbarment. That was what Nixon and Clinton fully understood. My critics do not, or, being lawyers, pretend not to. Obama’s supporters – several of them lawyers – have sent me emails crying “foul.” I don’t much care. This is not a court of law. This is a court of public opinion. The Snopes entry does not deal with the problem, namely, providing a plausible explanation for two people walking away from the lifetime income and prestige to be gained by certification by Harvard Law School. Michelle Obama was 29 when she quit (went inactive). The Bar granted her this request when she turned 30. Let me remind readers of the main point I was making in my original article, namely, that President Obama is not a Marxist, because he does not believe in proletarian revolution. Barack Obama is a Left-wing social climber with a wife who loves to shop. Second, he is under control by his handlers, because they know why he and his wife are no longer allowed to practice law. It was voluntary on their part in the same was that it was voluntary on Nixon’s part and Clinton’s part. If you want to avoid being disbarred, you can retire or else go inactive. If you want to avoid a hearing on whatever issue a critic has raised with the Bar, the matter will not be raised publicly if you go inactive or retire. It is all informal. You are allowed to depart gracefully. No hard feelings. There is still hope. And there surely has been change. September 8, 2012 Gary North [ send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 31-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.

To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (1128)	1/20/2013 5:27:45 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

CBS News' Political Director: Obama Must 'Destroy' Republican Party breitbart.com by John Nolte 19 Jan 2013 900 post a comment Reading the Left's fevered desires over at Slate isn't anything new. Not even articles breathlessly titled and subtitled: Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party. Not even articles that read: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. … Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray. Slate is what it is and some bloodthirsty Slate writer orgasmic over the prospect of Obama permanently pulverizing and destroying the GOP is as noteworthy as green on grass. Oh, except after someone like Brit Hume connects the dots. The author of this outrageous left-wing fever dream is John Dickerson, whom Slate describes as "Slate's chief political correspondent". What Slate leaves out of its little bio, though, is that Dickerson is also the political director at CBS News. Dickerson is merely being Dickerson, and there's no doubt he speaks for legions upon legions of those in the media today. What is worthy of note, though, is that a CBS News' political director is now comfortable openly calling for the destruction of the Republican Party. He obviously fears no admonitions from his colleagues or his employer. And why should he? Earlier this week, Bob Schieffer, a CBS News "living legend," was perfectly comfortable publicly comparing the NRA to Nazis. You lump all of this with CNN chief Jeff Zucker applauding Piers Morgan's shameless feasting off the dead children of Sandy Hook for ratings and attention, and what you have is a media that's finally … coming out. And yet, even as they do, even as they openly celebrate their left-wing biases out of one side of their mouth, out the other, they will claim they remain objective and unbiased. The Big Lie has officially arrived. And somewhere Dan Rather's thinking, "Oh, so now it's okay!?"