Home / Congress / Left-Wing Lawyer Who Founded the Modern Buckley-Based Conservative Movement Defends Obama
Print Friendly and PDF

Left-Wing Lawyer Who Founded the Modern Buckley-Based Conservative Movement Defends Obama

Written by Gary North on September 5, 2012

The most famous defection from the Buckley wing of the conservative movement was Garry Wills. That was in the late 1960s. But there was another, less famous: a lawyer who reversed course in the 1990s.

Yesterday, I received an email from him. It was a response to my article on Obama.

I am an attorney licensed in both the District of Columbia and Texas. I am admirer of your daily writings, many of which I find invaluable.

However, my research indicates that the two Obamas properly and voluntarily surrendered their Illinois law licenses upon his being elected President. Had they not done so they would have been subject to criticism.

They were not sanctioned in any way by the Illinois Bar.

If they had done anything wrong while practicing law before his being elected in 2008, don’t you think the Republicans on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees would be howling to the moon about it? Their silence on the issue speaks volumes about the truth of the matter.

This is a classic lawyer’s final statement to the jury, presented by a lawyer who is clearly losing his case. It contains a desperation move, one deliberately calculated to deceive the jury.

It is odd that he sent it to me. I am the prosecuting attorney.

Can you spot the deception? I will give you a hint. I wrote in my article:

They got to the top socially by getting certified by way of Columbia University, Princeton University, and law school. They had it made. And then . . . whammo! No more law degrees. No more certification. They had learned to manipulate academia, but they failed to manipulate the Illinois Bar Association. First, it was Michelle in 1994. Then Obama in 2008. The mainstream media have of course covered this up, but Google uncovers it. (http://bit.ly/ObamasDe-Certified)

Now can you see it?

Michelle Obama lost her license in 1994. But he wrote this:

However, my research indicates that the two Obamas properly and voluntarily surrendered their Illinois law licenses upon his being elected President. Had they not done so they would have been subject to criticism.

Let’s see: Obama surrendered his license in January 2008, when he was running against Hillary for the nomination. He had not yet been elected.

Let’s see: Michelle surrendered hers in 1994. Why? Because her husband — a civil rights lawyer in Chicago — was planning to be elected President in 2008, so she thought it would be a good idea to surrender the license that she had earned at Harvard Law School, at years of personal cost. I can hear his summary argument.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you: Shouldn’t a faithful  and loyal wife voluntarily surrender her law degree 14 years before her husband was elected President? Of course she should have done this. I think this should be obvious to anyone looking at the chronology of their joint actions.”

Does this sound plausible to you? It doesn’t to me.

Did Romney surrender his license? No. Did either of the Clintons surrender theirs? No. Did Nixon surrender his? No. But our lawyer thinks there is nothing suspicious. “Move along. There is nothing to see here.”

My argument was this: Obama’s handlers are using this as the rod of correction. I have argued that the same people control access to the presidential nominations of both parties. You can read my article here.

The Republican lawyers in Congress in 2008 were just like the Democrat lawyers: they closed ranks when one of their peers was . . . maybe not disbarred, but removed. Lawyers have loyalty to the guild. So, they kept quiet in 2008 about Barack/Barry’s surrendering of his law credential. The handlers of both parties sent down word to ignore this. Not one major media outlet ran a story on this, which was a huge event in his career. I searched. (Maybe I used the wrong search words.) The blackout would have been total, except for one thing: the World Wide Web. Even with the Web, the story is not widely known.

The Obamas did what we never hear of any lawyer doing, except when threatened with disbarment: they surrendered their lawyer guild licenses.

If you want to know why Obama’s rhetoric is within the boundaries set by the Establishment, this is one reason. They vetted him. They know he is housebroken.

Print Friendly and PDF
Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

54 thoughts on “Left-Wing Lawyer Who Founded the Modern Buckley-Based Conservative Movement Defends Obama

  1. DockyWocky says:

    This will go over the media's head like a clawless cat sliding off an ice-covered steeply angled roof.

    It points out that we cannot trust the American media in any matter. Both the Obama's are typical crooks with no saving graces and how they managed to get where they are is a travesty of Olympic proportion.

    • how about a headless clawless cat?

    • SicOfObama says:

      The devil protects his own, and he is like a roaring lion because he knows his end is near. Unfortunately, he is inside of obama and his demons are inside of the dems. They will stop at nothing to stay in control. Control being the operative word. They want power and control over us, and they will stop at nothing to destroy the only nation left that stands for liberty and freedom. They have to divide and conquer us, the only nation who has stood for Christianity and freedom, to make satan's one world government.

      • SicOfObama says:

        Continued: We are in a time that is leading up to the worse time the world has ever known. obama and his communist democrats, and the elites, are handing our sovereignty over to the UN. We are looking at the end of our country as we know it. Untold millions will be slaves or die, why else would he take our guns away from us. He refuses to protect and defend us by keeping our borders wide open and telling our border patrol to not arrest and not deport. It's not just illegal Mexicans, he wants his muslim brothers and foreign troops smuggled in. If we don't get this monster out of office, we are in for a horrible time. How hard can it be to get a rogue president out of office? All it took for Nixon was to embarrass him and he resigns. Here we see an unethical usurper being protected by his entire party, by his appointed paid off radical judges, by his paid off media, and by foreign powers who should have absolutely no say so in the matter, but yet, they contributed to his election. He has divided our nation and fueled the fire of hateful racism, what a better way to ensconce oneself into OUR White House to assure he stays there.

  2. Jacob Steelman says:

    I can see no reason why the Obamas would voluntarily give up their law licenses. Both Obamas were lawyers with a major USA law firm. No one gives up their law license voluntarily. But with Obama nothing is as it appears in public and he does not allow any personal information to be disclosed to the public. He is the real Manchurian candidate bought and paid for by the middle eastern oil sheiks.

    • "…bought and paid for by the middle eastern oil sheiks."
      Huh, whaddhesay? If you base that claim on the strength of BO's middle name, you are mistaken/deceived. If he was an agent of Arab oil interests, he would not continue signing those checks to Israel every year, like presidents have been doing since Truman.

      The only reason he's not backing Netanyahu for an Iran strike before November is because he knows it will be an election loser.

      And I defy you to point to a cabinet-level appointment of his with an Arab name or background. What we have instead are: Kagan, Napolitano, Geithner, Sunstein, Emmanuel…I think you get the picture.

      • American Thinker says:

        In defiance of Congress Obama released funds to Hamas in Gaza earlier this year. This week he has forgiven $1billion in Egyptian debt. Seems like pretty clear indication of where his loyalties are. Those super liberal Jews you name are not fans or supporters of Israel as you well know.

        The "money" "Given" to Israel is mainly weaponry that Americans (jobs!) made and sent over for defense from the rockets that rain down on civilians every day from the terror-tory Israel pulled out of so the Palestinians could establish their own terror-tory since their Arab brothers keep them as second class citizens in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to fuel their rage and employ UN "aid" workers who run a separate program only for Palestinkians which costs the US bllions more.

        And since we cannot see Obamas transcripts or know who PAID for his education (wealthy Saudi roommate aside) the assumption by many that he is in the pocket of muslims is a valid theory.

        By the way, a strike on Iran would rally Americans to his side because we stand behind our government in times of war.

        Sorry to resort to name calling but you are either a nimcompoop or a paid deceiver.

        • Texas Chris says:

          FYI, "jobs" making bombs and guns are not productive. They are a waste of scarce resources. Read up on the Broken Window Fallacy.

          Speaking of weapons, I also find it odd the the US Military recognizes the right of Iraqis and Afghans to own fully automatic rifles in order to protect themselves and their families, yet US citizens in America cannot own one without MAJOR federal paperwork, liecnses, spending thousands of dollars, background checks, and the guns have to be "antique".

          Who's freedom did I fight for again?

        • What hogwash. IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields and for target practice, the US paid for an apartheid wall around Gaza, inside which the Israelis commit all the atrocities against the indigenous population they please (stealing homes/land from Palestinians who have been there for generations, bull-dozing Palestinian olive groves — and peace activists — with complete immunity). IDF also murdered an American citizen on an aid flotilla 2 years ago in international waters and where was your "pro-Ayrab" Obama then?

          Meanwhile, Americans are treated to endless reruns of "Schindler's List" and nazis on the History Channel, while an Israeli ex-foreign minister says in a youtube video that screaming "Anti-semite!" is just another tactic they use to silence any criticism of their lawless actions on the world stage.

      • winghunter says:

        New Warning About Muslim Brotherhood’s Influence on White House From…Liberal Marxist Muslim http://bit.ly/pncSbw

        The Dark Muslim Brotherhood World of Huma Abedin
        http://frontpagemag.com/2011/jamie-glazov/the-dar

      • you need to take your brain dead comments back to yahoo so they fit in and no one will notice how brain dead they are

      • 1. This administration doesn't give as much to Israel as we use to. 2. His cabinet level appointments you mentioned are all far left leaning supporters of muslim nations.

        • Geithner is a left leaning supporter of muslim nations? And your proof is?

          (PS: being off your meds is not proof)

        • Texas Chris says:

          We should be giving exactly $0 to Israel, or to any other foreign country. Or guns. Or food. Or "aid". Or military presense, defense pacts, or any other shenanigan the government dreams up.

          We, private citizens and companies, should be buying their stuff, and selling them our stuff. No government interference. Free trade means peace.

      • Danno,

        Bang on. The white house staff is incredibly non-diverse. It looks like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.

        The Jewish lobby purged arab sympathizers from the government after the suez crisis, where the US humiliated Israel and its puppet, the UK.

        Come on, neocon skeptics: find us ONE arab in the administration.

        • Hey….I certainly saw MANY muslims on camera at the DNC convention? Whether they're all "arabic" or not dunno. Just sayin……..

    • Just because you "can't see a reason why the Obamas would voluntarily give up their law licenses" doesn't mean one does not exist.
      "No one gives up their law license voluntarily." Really? Not even one person in the history of law licenses?

  3. Kind of point's out the words of Mark Twain about correcting the ills of America still ring true . And I quote " Want to straighten out America ? Take all the Lawers out and shoot them ." (No Offense to you sir) I had once considered becoming an Lawyer during my collage years , I opted instead for military service and the to become just a dumbass cowboy . I have pointed out to liberal friends that Michelle was supposedly disbarred as was Barry . They of course refute this as does the lawyer who sent you the letter . It will be interesting tossing the dates out there in our future debates and discussions .

  4. Homosexuals & lesbians want you, your spouse, your daughters and
    your sons. They are planning on using deadly force to take what they
    want, they already have………………………..

    The Homosexual Manifesto……………………….. http://www.conservativevideos.com/2012/06/the-hom

  5. Barack Hussein Obama is an enemy of America……………. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Xfti7qtT0&fe

  6. Obama & his followers have another tool
    to silence anyone who opposes them.
    It's only a matter of time before they come
    for you & me…… Raymond http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUYL_BFhKY&fe

  7. Is God angry with us?
    Is God's wrath being poured out?
    Is God sending us a message & we are not listening?
    Is the worst yet to come? I had to watch this twice. Ray http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEZ3GanXjRE&fe

  8. [...] covered this up, but Google uncovers it.  (http://bit.ly/ObamasDe-Certified)Now can you see it?READ MORE September 5th, 2012 | Tags: Columbia University, Illinois Bar, left wing, Obama's | Category: [...]

  9. Notentirelyconvinced says:

    Gary, you ignored his argument that the Republicans would have made a stink about Obama's actions if there was some wrongdoing. You imply the response to this argument when you say that lawyers "close ranks." As a lawyer, I chuckled at this. I am certainly no DC power player, but most lawyers could not care less about the "guild." Many, like myself, know it to be a simple cartel entity for controlling competition.

    Your best argument is that the handlers who handle presidential nominees will set the tone of debate, so they prevent key Republican leaders from raising the 2008 oddity.

    However it is not "unheard of" to let go of a law license if you are engaging in a career of politics and are already an Illinois senator and favorite for a presidential nomination. Some lawyers go into inactive status if they find a second career. It can be reactivated. My wife contemplated going this route.

    Notwithstanding the above, my gut is with your analysis on this one. However, I don't think it is because of lawyers' loyalty to some guild, but rather the close grips the superclass has on key leaders, who pass down the instructions. Also, the very corrupt Chicago machine that would be as good as anyone in keeping a lid on any Obama malfeasance before the bar, such as your speculation that it has to do with his name.

    • I think you are right. It is not loyalty to the guild (I am also a lawyer), but rather maintaining connections to power. We are not talking about average lawyers here. Some lawyers find themselves (whether by birth or circumstance or design) well connected to the people who actually control government. Party politics matters less than power.

      We have seen this recently in Ontario, where conservative and liberal powerbroker lawyers conspired together to rip off the taxpayer through public agencies. Surprise surprise, to find senior partners at law firms defending each other and covering their mutual butts, despite supporting different political parties.

  10. Notentirelyconvinced says:

    Also, Gary, why would you borderline insult a self-professed admirer of your daily writings? This article is pointlessly dramatic and aggressive. Just disagree and move on. This reads like you imagine yourself in a battle with a balrog. You say you are the "prosecuting attorney" and don't understand why the "defense attorney" would send you the email.

    What nonsense! You are a writer and thinker, and he is a fan with a differing view who thought you would be gracious enough to consider his viewpoint. Unless this is just some silly setup and your friend agreed for you to make some sensationalistic story about it, you could have just privately corrected the man's thinking (which was not entirely wrong anyway, see my post above).

    • Nonsense. The fellow made a laughable claim. He said that the Obamas surrendered their licenses upon Obama's election.

      This turns out to be highly questionable, if not stupid. His wife surrendered her license 14 year before Obama was elected, and we are supposed to believe this explanation?

      As North points out, no other president elect has done the same thing.

      In short, the explanation is crap, and deserves to be called such.

  11. Shame on you, Gary. You can't even admit when you're wrong, you just have to keep trying to slam your invalidated point home. You are disgusting.

    • Nice, another ad hominem. Keep it up. Someday you may graduate to grade 3.

      So why is his argument 'invalidated'?

      PS: An argument can be valid or invalid. This is an assessment of its structure in terms of the rules of deductive reasoning. An argument can also be sound or unsound. I don't know what an 'invalidated point' is, although I guess a parking ticket can be 'invalidated'. Take a critical thinking class.

    • He is NOT wrong. IF there was nothing to hide, then explain to me WHY Obama has already spent over $4 million to keep ALL records sealed?? No smoke without fire. And, I grew up about 80 miles southwest of Chicago, & believe me, ANY politician from Chicago is either part of the mob, or at least mob approved. How do you think Rahm got to be mayor? He was NOT a legal resident of Chicago, & for Daly to step down, & allow Rahm to become mayor, spoke volumes. You are the one who is disgusting, because you keep defending the ILLEGAL in the WH!

    • So why don't you very publicly announce that you are going to cancel your free subscription posthaste like all the other trolls?

  12. Anti-Obama Lawyer says:

    Lawyer here. And I'm an Anti-Obama lawyer at that. I can offer a lawyer's perspective on this matter, and why I thought, long before the Obamas ever came along, that it would be wise for a lawyer going into politics to voluntarily resign from the bar. In short, it's because overly-vague, accordion-like "professional rules" that can be abused by a politicized bar establishment. (more on this in my next post)

    A couple of points:

    DEGREE vs LICENSE
    First, readers need to remember the distinction between law DEGREES (conferred by schools) and law licenses (conferred by state judiciary or bar authorities, depending on the state). Just to be perfectly clear, law DEGREES are not turned in and you don't "resign" your law degree. In contrast, a lawyer can be stripped of his LICENSE to practice law, and he can resign from the bar (essentially turning in your license to practice law).

    SECOND:
    Mitt Romney had a law DEGREE from Harvard Law School, but, to the best of my knowledge, he never used the Degree to get a state law LICENSE by sitting for the bar. In essence, he got the degree and then didn't bother formally using it. He went right into business. It's unusual, but some people do this. And in his case, it would make sense as he stood to make far more money from the business opportunities in front of him than from law. Besides, studying for the bar is something of an ordeal that takes a few months.

    THIRD:
    Starting in the 1990's, state bar authorities made it harder and more expensive to maintain law licenses by requiring hours and hours of "Continuing Legal Education" seminars every year in order to maintain a law license and keep it active. You can be professionally DISCIPLINED for not performing your required "CLE." To be a CLE seminar/class provider you have to be accredited by the bar authority. This has been a bonanza for CLE providers. CLE requirements are a conspiracy between the bar (to reduce competition amongst lawyers) and CLE providers (to milk each lawyer for a few hundred bucks a year). I should note that bar authorities are often populated and disproportionately influenced by older partners at larger established law firms. These guys love to have the bar authority crank out rules and regulations that disproportionately hamper small law firms and solo practitioner lawyers. All in the name of "protecting the public," of course.

    At typically more than $18 per CLE credit hour for me, its hundreds of dollars a year and hours of time to keep a law license in good standing. This effectively eliminates marginal law license holders from the pool of competitors (as in people who earned the license, and who might take a case or two if it comes along, but who spend much of their time earning a living outside of the law.)

    Thus, in the last 20 years, it became expensive and a real pain in the neck to keep a law license active and usable unless you are working regularly as a lawyer. Thus, although I am by no means a fan of Obama, if Michelle was not employed as a lawyer, I can definitely understand her resigning from the bar in order to get out of CLE and avoid the extra fees. Once Obama was in the Senate he was no longer working as a lawyer, and because he would not be employed as a lawyer while President, I can definitely understand why he would resign from the bar in order to get out of CLE classes and the annual fees. He is a multi-millionaire due to his book sales. He doesn't need to ever go back to law. And frankly, Obama never had much of a legal career anyway.

    Illinois, I believe, unlike some other states, designates whether or not someone resigned from the bar while they were under investigation for professional misconduct. Years ago I checked, and it appeared Obama was not under investigation when he resigned. Being a lawyer myself and knowing how the system works, it seems to me that Obama's bar resignation is one facet of his background that actually looks innocuous, in contrast to the rest of the guy's records that either look suspicious (Birth Certificate), look dirty (Rezko Real Estate deal), or haven't been released (college transcripts, Passport, selective service, etc.).

    • Who manages the records from the bar association? Do you really believe that it is beyond the ability of a dedicated group of individuals to retroactively remove any marks on his file?

      Recall that this guy has been groomed for a long time. his bogus history as a 'community activist', his iffy performance as a 'law professor', etc. People used him as a vehicle to gain the presidency. if they are willing to spend millions to groom him, they are willing to alter a record.

      • Anti-Obama Lawyer says:

        I definitely do not trust the liberal bar establishment. See my posts below on why conservative lawyer would be wise to resign BEFORE they decide to get into politics.

        And even liberals like Obama avoid CLE and fees by resigning a license they no longer use.

    • just some guy says:

      Hundreds of dollars? A lawyer complaining about money? What is the world coming to? I guess those CLE hours aren't billable.

  13. The (non) issue of the Obamas' law licences has been debunked along time ago.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses….

  14. As a former illinois lawyer retiring in '88 the illinois bar disenfranchised me in in '03 in absentia for something done by other lawyers in '95 . Being over 70 yrs of age and retired, not having paid the fees since '88 required by the bar to continue practicing otherwise be stricken from the attorney roles, I chose to do nothing rather than to hire councel and spend money to preserve a licence I had since '60 but had not used since aug '87. I can only surmise the Illinois bar is a worthless organization made up of fools and incompetents. At near 80 yrs of age, disabled and unable to practice, I think the Illi nois bar needs a total overhaul or abolishment .

  15. Anti-Obama Lawyer says:

    Following-up on my earlier post:

    The bar establishment is leftist. The ABA for years screened conservative judge candidates out of the judicial confirmation process. This is part of the way we ended up with so many liberal judges. Conservative lawyers looking to run for office should remember this.

    Most state bar authorities have adopted overly vague accordion-like professional conduct rules that can be used by a politicized bar establishment to hammer or smear a lawyer who dissents from the liberal bar establishment. Although attorney discipline against President Richard Nixon and President Bill Clinton was probably justified, what happened to these two lawyers-turned-president could happen to others even if those others are not actually guilty of any wrongdoing.

    The bar authority's rules can be selectively used as a hammer against a conservative lawyer.

    In Nixon's situation, after some of the details of Watergate became known, the New York Bar (Nixon was licensed to practice law in New York) began proceedings to disbar Nixon based on his actions in Watergate. To head off disbarment Nixon tendered his resignation from the bar. The bar refused to accept his resignation unless he also admitted to wrongdoing with respect to Watergate. Thus, a bunch of liberal New York lawyers decided to go after Nixon's law license based on actions Nixon might (or might not) have taken as President and in no way connected to his practicing law before a court or with clients. At the very least, they were determined to affect the political situation by trying to extract a confession out of Nixon.

    In Clinton's case, Clinton was disbarred from practicing law for 5 years because he lied under oath in a federal court proceeding as a litigant.

    Clinton definitely deserved disbarment, and Nixon is a 'maybe,' but consider that a conservative/libertarian lawyer-turned politician, even though completely innocent of any wrongdoing, could suffer a similar fate at the hands of a liberal bar establishment as explained below.

    When you consider that some of the lawyer's professional rules of conduct apply AT ALL TIMES, and WORLD-WIDE (doesn't matter that you're not in court, or not working with or for a client, or that you're not in the United States), and that some of the rules are vague, and accordion-like to the point that they can be expanded or contracted to fit almost any situation, then you realize that as a conservative lawyer turned politician, you could be targeted for "selective enforcement" or at least smearing, by the liberal lawyers in the bar establishment. How? Start with a rule like Rule 8.4 (or your state's equivalent) which can be construed to prohibit a lawyer from doing or saying anything "dishonest" or involving "deceit."

    Did you tell your wife that that dress doesn't make her look fat, when really it does? That's a technically a "dishonest" statement for which an attorney could (technically) be disciplined. Did you ever tell somebody in a negotiation that "$1000 is my final offer" but it really wasn't. That's "deceit." Sometimes Rule 8.4, as well as other rules, are interpreted to prohibit "deceptive" or "misleading" statements. Remember that to a large extent, "deceptive" and "misleading" are concepts that are in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, these rules are not usually taken literally and they are seldom enforced — for if they were taken literally and always enforced, almost every attorney would be disbarred. But there is definitely the potential for the liberal bar establishment to selectively enforce these rules, and use them as a hammer, in order to smash a conservative office-seeker. Even if the conservative is ultimately vindicated, just having to go through the process of defending oneself before the bar against spurious charges is expensive, distracting, draining, and damaging to one's reputation. The accusation will be printed on page one of the newspaper. Two years later if you're cleared, and if the story of you being cleared is carried at all, it will be buried on page 46.

    One way for a conservative to head off this persecution by the liberal bar establishment, if you're going into politics and won't be practicing law anymore, is to voluntarily resign from the bar. Resigning from the bar also gets a no-longer practicing lawyer out of dozens of hours of expensive Continuing Legal Education (CLE) classes/seminars and saves the lawyer hundreds of dollars a year on annual/biennial attorney registration fees.

    (to be continued)

  16. Anti-Obama Lawyer says:

    continued from previous …

    Thus, in light of what New York liberal Democrat lawyers did to Nixon, and in light of the vague, accordion-like professional conduct rules that they wield over lawyers, conservative lawyers going into politics would be wise to consider voluntarily resigning from the bar before going into politics, lest some liberal on the bar disciplinary committee decide to bring spurious, though damaging misconduct charges against a conservative on the basis that said liberal found one of the conservative's TV commercials "deceptive" or "misleading" or "dishonest."

    It's foolish to think that these liberals are going to apply the rules fairly to you if you are a conservative. Thus, it is wise to turn in your law license as soon as you no longer need it. Once you've resigned from the bar, they can no longer threaten you with disbarment or "professional (lawyer) discipline" for what you say on the campaign trail.

    Obama didn't have to worry about the liberal establishment targeting him, but by resigning he did avoid the hassle of CLE. Also, if memory serves, Hillary ended up letting her bar membership lapse because she didn't fulfill her ongoing CLE requirements.

    There a good reasons for even an innocent lawyer to want to quit the bar.

  17. I just have one comment~WHY, if nothing was illegal, or shady about this, has Obama PAID to keep it sealed? If nothing suspicious is involved, then why not allow people to look at the documents? You don't pay over $4 million to keep something hidden, IF there's nothing to hide!

  18. Blair Franconia, NH says:

    Ronald Reagan once told a story about a Republican candidate who went to a farm and visited a farmer. The farmer was surprised
    because he'd never seen a Republican and said "Let me go get Ma." The Republican looked around for a platform from which he could give his speech. It was a pile of organic fertilizer. When he was finished, the farmer said: "This is the first time I've heard a Republican speech." The Republican said: "This is the first time I've given a Republican speech from a Democratic platform."

  19. I received an email some weeks back now that contained a letter written by a lawyer who said both Obama's "voluntarily" surrendered their Lawyer licenses back in 1994, it also contained a link to that Bar Association. I simply typed in Obama in the search bar on that web page and it did indeed return the finding that BOTH not just her but BOTH of them gave it up in 1994. So if today you get a different year for him well someone has been changing the data base most recently. That lawyer, if i remember right he was in his 80's, went on to say that no Lawyer ever gives up their license unless given no choice. I've personally seen a few given the choice to "voluntarily" surrender or be formally disbarred. Check it out yourself find the Illinois bar association site do the name search and see what you find.

  20. Steve Gustafson says:

    I have been unable to open any of your articles on my IMac at home. It tells me the addresses are invalid but I can open them on my PC in my office. You should check to see if your IMac subscribers in the US are having a problem.

  21. [...] by Gary North on September 7, 2012 In my article on the letter I received from a lawyer who insisted — inaccurately — that Michelle Obama let her [...]

  22. [...] 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.” [...]

  23. we the people,who are the real government,1st ovomit/lucifer ignored a georgia supreme court subpoena{treason}2nd ovomit has a social security card,which belongs to a dead connecticut person{fraud/felony/treason}3rd ovomit sent additional throops to afganistan with out congress approval{treason}4th ovmit put a live birth form on the wh internet,which isn,t a legal birth certificate{treason against we the people,and the constitiuion}5th ovmit father was born in kenyan,making the treasonous trader,ineligible to be president{treason}and ovomit was in chargf a/g holdup,who under a/g holdup and ovomit and napalitanos watch,fast and furious was in operation,and resulted in the wrongful murder of border guard brian terry and lots of guns,went into the hands of the mexican drug cartel.we the people,charge a/g holdup,ovomit and janet napalitano,with the wrongful murder of border guard brian terry,and lots of illegal guns going into the hands of the mexican drug cartel,we demand they immediately be arrested and indicted for the failed operation of fast and furious,god bless ron paul,sheriff joe and cold case posse,brian terry and family,chuck norris,frank serpico,and all american veterans/citizens.one nation under god

  24. [...] = ""; google_ui_features = "rc:0"; teapartyeconomist.com / by Gary North / September 7, 2012In my article on the letter I received from a lawyer who insisted — inaccurately — that Michelle Obama let her license to [...]

  25. I need to preface this by saying that it truly pains me to defend the Comrade and his trailer-park trash wife on anything.

    Unfortunately, some of your comments and your conclusions are so far off base and demonstrate such an ignorance of the facts, that they bring into question anything that you say. One does not "earn" a law license at Harvard or any other law school. One may earn a diploma which a prerequisite for a law license in most, if not all states, but not a law license. A law license is granted by a state or the District of Columbia only after passing a Bar Exam for that state. And such license is valid only in the state of issue. Thus, one who wants to practice in a second state needs to become licensed in that state. In order to maintain an active license, an attorney must pay annual dues (and, in some states, annual occupation taxes). Further, most, if not all, states require that an attorney complete annual Continuing Legal Education (CLE) in order to maintain an active license. These CLE requirements cannot legally be waived simply because one is an elected official, including a Senator or even President.

    By taking inactive status, one can avoid the annual CLE requirements, pay a lower annual dues and likely avoid the occupation taxes. And, if one later wants to resume practice do so by merely changing status, pay the higher dues for an active membership and completing the current year CLE requirement. If, however, one has surrendered the license, he/she would need to re-apply, including taking the current bar exam or otherwise qualifying, for a new license.

    While the Comrade and Michelle could clearly afford to pay the reduces dues for inactive membership, let's be honest — will either ever really practice law again? They will rake in more from authoring a book or two and making speeches than they could ever hope to earn from the practice of law.

    Your wild and incorrect statement of the basic facts behind this story denigrate your conclusions and would make one question any of your writings. Your comments are often on point, don't blow your credibility with such stupid errors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>