Main Menu

Michelle Obama Disbarred?

It is easy to see the difference between an Illinois Bar listing for a disbarred attorney and the inactive registration of Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama

Disbarred

Click above and type in Phillip Radmer for the first and last name.

Not Disbarred

Type in Michelle Obama for the first and last name.

In an email in response to a public inquiry the ARDC replied:

Michelle Obama holds a valid license to practice law in Illinois, has never been disciplined or the subject of a disciplinary proceeding in Illinois and is on voluntary inactive status as an Illinois lawyer. Voluntary inactive status is simply a lawyer registration category for lawyers who are not currently practicing law. Attorneys on voluntary inactive status may resume active status at any time as a matter of course.

See also:

Print Friendly

,

55 Responses to Michelle Obama Disbarred?

  1. avatar
    mimi January 25, 2009 at 10:22 pm #

    Dr. C. ,
    I didn’t realize I was to click on the words “Disbarred” and “Not Disbarred”. Thanks.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    I added underlining. Perhaps that will help.

  3. avatar
    George Orwell III January 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm #

    Odd… the Michelle Obama link goes to a blank search result. This is what worked for me:

    Not Disbarred

    _delete if need be.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2009 at 6:08 pm #

    The problem is that the link that worked yesterday didn’t work today, leading me to wonder if the ID numbers change from time to time.

  5. avatar
    RTM February 23, 2009 at 5:37 pm #

    I went round and round with someone on this one…

    Michelle voluntarily gave up her license so she wouldn’t face sanctions IMHO. It was an option available through the route she chose to take…

    She used the “court” avenue that was based on setting a court date to decide on punishment and/or sanctions, or to avoid such… To voluntarily give up her license rather than face punishment and/or fine. This court route could be taken for simply inactivating one’s license voluntarily w/o santions but why take it when there was a simpler clerical alternitive?

    She instead could have chosen the clerical/administrative action, if she wasn’t facing sanctions, which simply involved filing a form requesting her license be placed on inactive status and having a clerk sign it, stamp it and send a copy of the completed process to Michelle stating the process was complete(Which of course didn’t involve setting a court date, entering a plea, or voluntarilty giving up her license by a court procedure when it could be handled clerically if no sanctions were involved, etc.).

  6. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 23, 2009 at 6:41 pm #

    That’s simply not true. Michelle’s bar status in Illinois is exactly the same as mine in California — she chose to list herself as voluntarily inactive because she was not practicing law.

    “Inactive” lawyers pay a significantly reduced rate for annual bar association dues and do not have to carry malpractice insurance. They remain in good standing with the bar association and can reinstate their “active” status at any time.

    The records clearly show that she is on voluntary inactive status. That is NOT something that can be done as a way of avoiding sanctions or discipline — it is simply something that is done in order to PRESERVE good standing with the state bar during periods when the individual is not employed as a lawyer.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    Punishment for what? Your comment is fantasy.

  8. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 23, 2009 at 11:03 pm #

    Here is the rule that explains inactive status in Illinois:

    Rule 756(5)
    (5) An attorney may advise the Administrator in writing that he or she desires to assume inactive status and, thereafter, register as an inactive status attorney. The annual registration fee for an inactive status attorney shall be $105. Upon such registration, the attorney shall be placed upon inactive status and shall no longer be eligible to practice law or hold himself or herself out as being authorized to practice law in this state, except as is provided in paragraph (j) of this rule. An attorney who is on the master roll as an inactive status attorney may advise the Administrator in writing that he or she desires to resume the practice of law, and thereafter register as active upon payment of the registration fee required under this rule and submission of verification from the Director of MCLE that he or she has complied with MCLE requirements as set forth in Rule 790 et seq. If the attorney returns from inactive status after having paid the inactive status fee for the year, the attorney shall pay the difference between the inactive status registration fee and the registration fee required under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this rule. Inactive status under this rule does not include inactive disability status as described in Rules 757 and 758. Any lawyer on inactive disability status is not required to pay an annual fee.

    Link:
    Rules Governing the Legal Profession and Judiciary in Illinois
    http://www.iardc.org/rulesSCT.html

  9. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 23, 2009 at 11:07 pm #

    If you search Barack Obama’s status, you will see that he is listed as “retired”, as of this year. Here is the rule explaining what that means:

    (6) An attorney may advise the Administrator in writing that he or she desires to assume retirement status and, thereafter, register as a retired attorney. Upon such registration, the attorney shall be placed upon retirement status and shall no longer be eligible to practice law or hold himself or herself out as being authorized to practice law in this state, except as is provided in paragraph (j) of this rule. The retired attorney is relieved thereafter from the annual obligation to register and pay the registration fee. A retired attorney may advise the Administrator in writing that he or she desires to register as an active or inactive status lawyer and, thereafter so register upon payment of the fee required for the current year for that registration status, plus the annual registration fee that the attorney would have been required to pay if registered as active for each of the years during which the attorney was on retirement status. If the lawyer seeks to register as active, he or she must also submit, as part of registering, verification from the Director of MCLE of the lawyer’s compliance with MCLE requirements as set forth in Rule 790 et seq.

    Link:
    Rules Governing the Legal Profession and Judiciary in Illinois
    http://www.iardc.org/rulesSCT.html

  10. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 23, 2009 at 11:10 pm #

    Subdivision (j) which is mentioned in both the “inactive” and “retired” provisions above is an exception that allows the attorney to do pro bono work:

    (j) Pro Bono Authorization for Inactive and Retired Status Attorneys and House Counsel.

    (1) Authorization to Provide Pro Bono Services. Notwithstanding the limitations on practice for attorneys who register as inactive or retired as set forth in Rule 756(a)(5) or (a)(6), or for attorneys admitted as house counsel pursuant to Rule 716, such an attorney shall be authorized to provide pro bono legal services under the following circumstances:

    (a) without charge or an expectation of a fee by the attorney;

    (b) to persons of limited means or to organizations, as defined in paragraph (f) of this rule; and

    (c) under the auspices of a sponsoring entity, which must be a not-for-profit legal services organization, governmental entity, law school clinical program, or bar association providing pro bono legal services as defined in paragraph (f)(1) of this rule.

  11. avatar
    Andrew Yu-Jen Wang March 8, 2009 at 12:02 am #

    Speaking of First Lady Michelle Obama:

    Michelle Obama is a racial-minority individual, and in her heart and mind she inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.

    George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).

    George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.

    And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.

    Many people know what Bush did.

    And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.

    Bush was absolute evil.

    Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.

    Bush is a psychological prisoner.

    Bush has a lot to worry about.

    Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.

    In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.

    Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
    B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
    Messiah College, Grantham, PA
    Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

    “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
    _____________________
    I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

  12. avatar
    Geo. Washington May 21, 2009 at 7:39 pm #

    Barak Obama is NOT a Citizen ofthe United States and is hiding the factor, He has born in Kenya to an underage mother that could not transfer citizenship.

    Obama is a HOAX and FRAUD and will be found out and he is a Socialist and ruining this country the stupid asshole Racial and Muslim Terrorist friend and Anti Christ.

    Release you real Birth Certificate if you have the nerve but Obama won’t because he is not what he claims.

  13. avatar
    NBC May 21, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    Other than a lack of evidence, what do you have to offer in support of your claims.

    Sigh…

  14. avatar
    Bonnlass May 22, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    In order for Barack Obama to support his eligibility as president of the United States he must prove that he’s not a usurper by presenting his vaulted copy of his valid certified Birth Certificate. Without the bonified evidence Obama cannot support his credibility or validity to be Commander in Chief.

  15. avatar
    NBC May 22, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    There is no such requirement. President Obama has supported his eligibility through his COLB which shows him born in Honolulu.

    That’s all folks

  16. avatar
    thisoldhippie May 22, 2009 at 5:01 pm #

    He must be “bonafide?” Kinda like in “O Brother Where Art Thou?”

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2009 at 8:26 am #

    Bonlass said: “In order for Barack Obama to support his eligibility as president of the United States he must prove… ”

    Barack Obama is already president. He doesn’t have to prove or support anything. If you wish to challenge what is, then you must prove that he is whatever you claim.

  18. avatar
    IN Sensed May 25, 2009 at 11:29 am #

    There is all kinds of evidence to prove he is not eligible to be president. No court has yet ruled on the validity of the evidence — they have only declined to hear the case on the grounds that it’s not “appropriate” for them to take the case.

    For starters, let’s take the forged COLB released by the Obama campaign to “prove” he was born in Hawaii. This document has been examined by multiple forensic document experts who have all shown it to be a blatant forgery. If you study the information about this forgery, it is not difficult to see for yourself that that document is fake. Case in point the border pattern does not match ANY COLB *EVER* produced by the State of Hawaii.

    For you coolaid-drinking Obama supporters, yes I know the document was supposed declared to be “real” by a Democratic activist and operative who also happens to be the Health Director. However, despite what you might have heard, she did not verify that he was born in Hawaii. And, she did not verify that the certificate on file in Hawaii matches the “COLB” published by Obama. She only said that she can confirm the existence of Obama’s birth records on file with the State of Hawaii, and that it would be against the law for Hawaii to release these documents to anyone but Obama.

    It’s not a question of IF the COLB is a fake. It IS a fake. The question you should be asking yourself, is WHY was it necessary to post a fake COLB?

  19. avatar
    NBC May 25, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    For starters, let’s take the forged COLB released by the Obama campaign to “prove” he was born in Hawaii. This document has been examined by multiple forensic document experts who have all shown it to be a blatant forgery.

    It was examined by one expert who stated that she could not tell if it was a fake or not without examining the original. The other ‘so-called’ expert wasn’t.

    In fact, I have looked in quite a bit of detail at the so called fake and found no evidence of forgery.

    The question thus become, why was it necessary to call the documents released by Obama to be fakes and forgeries?

    Because no such evidence exists.
    Don’t you feel used by allowing your ignorance to conclude something which is at odds with the facts?

  20. avatar
    NBC May 25, 2009 at 1:09 pm #

    they have only declined to hear the case on the grounds that it’s not “appropriate” for them to take the case.

    Actually they have declined to hear the case because the plaintiffs lack in standing, and more. The problem is with the plaintiffs who have no legal case.

  21. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 25, 2009 at 2:31 pm #

    I’ll address the point 1 by 1.

    1. The Certificate of Live Birth. What if I told you that one of the biggest sites purporting the Birth Conspiracies also did their own forensic experts to take a look at the document, and declared it to be genuine? Would that satisfy you? WorldNetDaily, shortly after the Birth Certificate came out posted this in one of their articles: “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.” Remember, WND is one of the big ones that states that Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen.

    Here’s the article that it displayed it in: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

    It’s about half-way down the article, right next to the school records.

    2. Which forensic experts? Do you have their names, their backgrounds, their qualifications, and their history? Would they be willing to testify in a court of law?

    3. Governor Linda Lingle has stated that the birth certificate looks like the one that the state issued her. This discounts the so-called border problem.

    4. I’m getting tired of this. So, let’s just link you to where this is documented with sources.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/birth-certificate/

    Here’s your border issue: http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis.html

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

    Need any other things?

    And the answer to your final question is “It’s not a fake birth certificate. It’s a scanned image of an actual birth certificate.”

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    IN Sensed (in italics) said:

    For you coolaid-drinking Obama supporters, yes I know the document was supposed declared to be “real” by a Democratic activist and operative who also happens to be the Health Director.

    You’re in fantasy land. Both Onaka (the head of Vital Statistics) and Fiyume (the Director of the Health Department) are Republicans, along with the Republican governor that appointed them.

    As for your so-called “forensic experts” I just challenge you to give the name of one of them (fake names don’t count). Warning: Sandra Lines never said the document was a fake.

    http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/210-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis.html
    http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

  23. avatar
    Demon Cleaner May 27, 2009 at 12:35 pm #

    Forget the BC or COLB.Forget the FACT it describes Saetoro as “African-American” when that language had yet to enter the legal lexicon. Forget that the Kenyan gov’t erected a plaque at the Mumbasa hospital where Saetoro was born. Forget the FACT that Barry’s Kenyan grandmother IS ON VIDEO talking about how she remembers the day he was born and how she held his mother’s hand in the Kenyan hospital!
    Forget that his g’ma in Hawai’i NEVER, EVER mentioned ANYTHING about him being born there. Forget how that on his COLB the border around his name is in B&W while the rest of the document is GREEN. You know, for all the trillions the NWO has, you’d think they’d AT LEAST pay for a Photoshop course! The Clone tool is cake to use.
    Oh, how about how he wrote in his own book how he vacationed in Pakistan in 1983. Hmmm…interesting since India (US ally) was at war with Pakistan then and ANY US citizen caught entering the country would be guilty of TREASON. So…
    Either Barry Saetoro entered as an Indonesian citizen, or he committed treason. Oh, how about how he wrote on his Indonesian school records he was a MUSLIM! Is it wrong to be Muslim? No! But it is wrong to tell America he is a Christian…
    Nuff said.
    Eat it, trolls!

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2009 at 12:49 pm #

    Demon, I think you may have set a record for misinformation in a comment that short!

    First, Obama’s COLB says neither “Saetoro“ nor “African-American”.
    Second, there is no plaque at the Mombasa hospital.
    Third, there is no video of Sarah Obama saying anything about her step-grandson´s birth.
    Fourth, while there is an audio tape of Sarah Obama, it says nothing about Kenyan hospitals, or holding anyone´s hand.
    Fifth, all Hawaiian birth certificates are black printed on green security paper.
    Sixth, the visit to Pakistan was in 1981 (I don´t think it´s in his book), but there are contemporary State Department bulletins from that year describing how to get a visa to Pakistan.
    Seventh, he is a Christian.
    Eighth, He, didn´t write on his Indonesian school records anything. Someone else did.

    Look around the links on this web site that document all of this. You´re incredibly full of it.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2009 at 10:17 pm #

    Smedley Butler, USMC warrior, Tim Vegan, Promethius11, Demon Cleaner, KRS-1, Luke, “doc conspiracy, gordon & NBC are the same person!”, “9/11 Was An Inside Job” and “Tear Down the FED” said: “Eat it, trolls!”

    I think someone who posts provocative nonsense under 11 different names fairly deserves the name of “Troll”.

  26. avatar
    TRUTH June 14, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    WOW, there isn’t a single Birther that has a thing on this Loose Canon Psychopath. When did they get Internet in the Section 8 ward? YuJen Wang needs his meds.

  27. avatar
    NBC June 14, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    Yeah, he sounds too much like some of those truthers, birthers, poor guy.
    He has of course one thing right, Bush was a pretty poor president and his actions deserve further scrutiny by the Courts, if we as a country want to face up to what happened in the last 8 years.

  28. avatar
    Heavy June 15, 2009 at 10:40 am #

    THIS is liberal ideology. THIS is why these people MUST be stopped!

  29. avatar
    Gordon June 15, 2009 at 11:05 am #

    How do you purpose to stop the flow of free speech and idiotic ideas Heavy? We certainly can’t stop yours.

  30. avatar
    Heavy June 15, 2009 at 11:47 am #

    That’s for you to figure out, “Detective”.

  31. avatar
    NBC June 15, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    Heavy, meett Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
    Andrew Yu-Jen Wang, meet Heavy
    Enjoy yourselves.

  32. avatar
    TRUTH June 15, 2009 at 12:57 pm #

    AWESOME!! Its great to see your true colors shine through NBC. You want a Previous President investigated. Have you been sharing Kool-aid with YuJen Wang? You refuse to budge on the idea of looking at just ONE more document for proof of birth, as simple of a task as that would be, but your willing to devote money, probably hundreds of thousands, into investigating the decisions a President of the United States had to make, and for what benefit?…to hopefully find SOMETHING no matter how big or little that you can blame Bush for then do your Mr. Bean dance while singing “We Win We Win!”

    YET, we can’t even look legally into the background of a President Elect(at that time) that used to chum around with a known terrorist, no matter how you try to Spin that he was(is) a terrorist(self admitted), and we elect the man President. He did shady land dealings with a criminal that is now in prison, but we don’t look into any of that for whatever excuses you again spin, and you elect him POTUS.

    Gotta luv those priorities.

  33. avatar
    NBC June 15, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    AWESOME!! Its great to see your true colors shine through NBC. You want a Previous President investigated.

    Crimes should be investigated, especially ones as severe as these as they impact not just our past but also our future.
    I appreciate and even understand your efforts to distract but you cannot logically and reasonably reject investigations into known potential criminal acts of a previous president when you insist on investigating a sitting president, now can you?
    Funny how your standards seem to slip quickly…

  34. avatar
    Rufus July 27, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    Why not comment with a solution….instead of asking someone else to do your work stud!

  35. avatar
    Carol September 15, 2009 at 2:17 am #

    What’s a “bonified”?

  36. avatar
    NBC September 15, 2009 at 2:26 am #

    Something like bonafide although I doubt that he understands that concept either?
    Remember that at a minimum President Obama is a de facto officer, duly elected. If it can be shown that he is not eligible, he would not be a de jure President. However, lacking such, he is at a minimum de facto and at the moment, de jure President.
    Time to get used to the facts.

  37. avatar
    Se'shait September 25, 2009 at 6:25 pm #

    This is my first visit here and I am bored. First, I believe that some of you are mad that a black man is president and just won’t admit it and that’s ok. I mean, I am a black female and I don’t like white male supremacy and I don’t have a problem saying so. Second, it is quite clear that some of you are not independent thinkers because all of your info and opinions are based on what the media has fed you. If the government thought that Obama’s papers weren’t in order believe me he would not be in office. They can access anyone’s information that they choose because the laws that they use to control you don’t apply to the elite. Hell the hackers do it all the time on the net! And third, there is no difference between either party whether republican or democrat, black or white – so who actually sits in the presidential seat doesn’t matter. Both president Bush and Obama traveled to Europe and bowed before the queen of England. They all serve the same objective. I mean really, how many presidents do you have to live through to see that its all a game and you don’t know the rules? MASS DISTRACTION is such a powerful tool as you all have so blatantly proved. The plans that “they” have for this country extends beyond US borders. It has nothing to do with a birth certificate, nationality or any of this shit. By the time you guys get your heads out of the rumor-mill we will have lost more rights and more lives to this worthless war. I would think watching Bush STEAL his first election without being stopped would give people a clue about the governments the people of the world exist under. Watch what people do, and not what they say.

  38. avatar
    REB September 27, 2009 at 1:00 pm #

    Response to complaints against “Birthers”
    Bob Benitez
    09-27-2009

    When posting from some ISPs the address appears the same leading some to mistakenly think the posters are the same people.

    That said, let’s look at complaints directed at “Birthers.” Most are from liberal Democrats, often leftists with little understanding of or disdain for the Constitution, who refuse to admit that the Democrat Party challenged the right of Sen. Goldwater of AZ, Gov. Romney of MA, and Sen. McCain of AZ to run for the presidency claiming they WERE NOT native born citizens as required by the Constitution. These claims were based on the facts that Goldwater was born in AZ Territory before it became a state, Romney was born in Mexico, and McCain in Panama.

    Claims were admitted by courts, and in the case of McCain the Democrats even held a congressional hearing to try and bar him from running. Documents were demanded including birth certificates and WERE PROVIDED as requested by all three individuals. Not one ever attempted to block such requests.

    The courts ruled that those born in US Territories like Goldwater were in fact eligible, that both Romney’s parent were US natural born citizens by birth on business in Mexico, and that McCain’s parents were also natural born citizens and that his father, a US Naval officer, was assigned by military orders to the CANAL ZONE which was also at the time US Territory. Thus all three were eligible despite Democrat Party attempts to disqualify them. I might add, why is that Democrats often try to bar ballots for servicemen and women voting from overseas?

    With that background, why is it unreasonable or hypocritical to demand the ORIGINAL certificate of live birth of Obama? Why are court challenges to Republicans allowed but not of Democrats? Is there a double standard here? Considering that Obama’s mother married a British citizen, was a minor when she gave birth, supposedly arrived in HA from Kenya just before giving birth, and HA was in the habit of giving certifications of birth, not certificates of live birth, to people who had given birth recently outside the state and country without verifiable certification, the questions raised about Obama’s place of birth are completely reasonable and legitimate.

    Yet Obama has spent over $1 million dollars to hide not only his certificate of live birth, but also his admission records from all his schools which would list his admission status for the sake of possible scholarships for foreign born students. The fair question is, why?

    Now you can respond with obscurations, lies, epithets, or ad hominem attacks, claiming such questions are unpatriotic and racist, but that doesn’t change the fact there are legitimate reasons to question Obama’s status as a NATIVE born US citizen and therefore his qualification to hold the office of the presidency. You can even claim that the Constitution is outdated and therefore not relevant, but that raises far more serious issues.

    I might add, it is Obama’s furtive and herculean efforts to hide relevant documents that have led me to believe that he is indeed not qualified to hold the presidency; not his race or his politics. But then you can always just call me a prevaricator. But if you do, at least don’t be aliterate and please also have the cajones to back up your claims, not just suppositions.

    Capice?

    By the way, why does the Democrat Party refuse to consider a proposed bill to require all future candidates to provide relevant documents to establish their qualifications to run for various federal offices? I had to do so to become a military officer in order to take an oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Could it be for the same reasons the Democrats don’t want to permit time to read massive bills such as the Healthcare bill before being voted on; that is they don’t want the American people to know what they’re up to? Is there a pattern here?

  39. avatar
    aarrgghh September 27, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    the duly-elected, certified and sworn-in president has already presented the only prima facie* document he is required to provide, a certified state-issued certificate attested to by the department of health.

    because the birthers have no evidence whatsoever to invalidate that document, they want the courts to treat them to an all-expense-paid no-return-date deep-sea fishing trip into the president’s lifetime personal records wherever they may be found — many of which are protected at some level by privacy laws their keepers are mandated to follow — all based on rumor and outright lies from people with a vested interest in discrediting them.

    request denied.

    case dismissed.

    capice?

    * prima facie: accepted as correct until proved otherwise

  40. avatar
    Bob September 27, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    Most are from liberal Democrats, often leftists with little understanding of or disdain for the Constitution, who refuse to admit that the Democrat Party challenged the right of Sen. Goldwater of AZ, Gov. Romney of MA, and Sen. McCain of AZ to run for the presidency claiming they WERE NOT native born citizens as required by the Constitution.

    Which democrats challenged McCain?

    Claims were admitted by courts, and in the case of McCain the Democrats even held a congressional hearing to try and bar him from running.

    Which hearing was held to try to bar McCain?

    Documents were demanded including birth certificates and WERE PROVIDED as requested by all three individuals.

    When did McCain provide his birth certificate?

    The courts ruled that those born in US Territories like Goldwater were in fact eligible, that both Romney’s parent were US natural born citizens by birth on business in Mexico, and that McCain’s parents were also natural born citizens and that his father, a US Naval officer, was assigned by military orders to the CANAL ZONE which was also at the time US Territory.

    Which court ruled that about McCain?

    With that background, why is it unreasonable or hypocritical to demand the ORIGINAL certificate of live birth of Obama?

    You mean your “background” of lies?

    Why are court challenges to Republicans allowed but not of Democrats?

    Frivilous suits, of all stripes, are stupid and ought to be dismissed.

    HA was in the habit of giving certifications of birth, not certificates of live birth, to people who had given birth recently outside the state and country without verifiable certification

    Except “HA” (Hawaii) is not in any such “habit.”

    Yet Obama has spent over $1 million dollars to hide not only his certificate of live birth

    Except there’s no evidence that he did.

    but also his admission records from all his schools which would list his admission status for the sake of possible scholarships for foreign born students.

    There’s no evidence he was a foreign student and Obama is president.

    Now you can respond with obscurations, lies, epithets, or ad hominem attacks, claiming such questions are unpatriotic and racist, but that doesn’t change the fact there are legitimate reasons to question Obama’s status as a NATIVE born US citizen and therefore his qualification to hold the office of the presidency.

    Except there are no legitimate reasons.

    I might add, it is Obama’s furtive and herculean efforts to hide relevant documents that have led me to believe that he is indeed not qualified to hold the presidency;

    What effort?

    By the way, why does the Democrat Party refuse to consider a proposed bill to require all future candidates to provide relevant documents to establish their qualifications to run for various federal offices?

    Because it is unnecessary and clearly birther nonsense.

    Is there a pattern here?

    Other than your pattern of lies?

  41. avatar
    Whatever4 September 27, 2009 at 2:41 pm #

    Wow. Nice mess of misinformation. First off, the Romney that was born in Mexico was George Romney, former Governor of Michigan, not Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts. George’s parents weren’t in Mexico on business, they lived in a Mormon community. There were no lawsuits about his eligibility and no court ruled on it. http://amxfiles.com/amc/romney.html If you have different evidence, please provide a citation. (On this site, unlike many others, citations are part of the discussion.)

    As for McCain, no Congressional hearings were held on his eligibility. The only place this appears is an aside in a Senate hearing on a different topic, where Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff both agreed that Sen. McCain was a natural born citizen. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_senate_hearings&docid=f:45594.pdf Page 18 of the pdf. In the transcript, Democratic Sen. Leahy is quite supportive of McCain’s position.
    “Chairman LEAHY. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this:
    I believe—and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was
    born in the Panama Canal Zone, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement.
    You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind—I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
    Secretary CHERTOFF. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
    Chairman LEAHY. That is mine, too. Thank you.”

    No documents were demanded, none were shown, no witnesses were called. Same with Goldwater and Romney. No courts ruled on any of their eligibility. If you have different information, please link to the hearing transcripts or court cases.

    The circumstances behind the birthplaces of these three gentlemen were well known. Birth certificates would have been useless to provide any relevant information. No requests were made by a court, none were blocked. McCain’s birth certificate has never been published — this very site has much information on that. (With links, even.)

    I highly doubt if everyone here is a Liberal Democrat. I personally am a moderate Republican, Libertarian on privacy issues. I think you’ll find that on this site in particular, the single issue of constitutional eligibility as it relates to the legal history of the natural born citizen definition is the most important thing posters have in common, not party ideology.

  42. avatar
    Welsh Dragon September 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    Let’s not short change Demon in counting his falehoods:

    Ninth, India and Pakistan were not at war in 1981.

    Tenth, India was not an “ally” of the US in 1981

  43. avatar
    Mary Brown September 27, 2009 at 6:07 pm #

    His father’s nationality was listed as African. If you are in anyway familiar with the Pan African movement of that era, you would see the logic in his father’s doing that.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    Justice Ginsberg’s grandson was born in France to US Citizen parents. She has always considered him a natural born citizen. She doesn’t believe in de Vattel either.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    See my article here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/the-african-race/

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 27, 2009 at 6:41 pm #

    That argument might make sense if the facts were true. But they are not. Rational people will reach irrational conclusions when given false premises. I think the above comment is a poster child for that scenario.

  47. avatar
    Gordon September 27, 2009 at 7:26 pm #

    What happened to jtx and Heavy? This Demon character and REB are an even lower form of Troll. They sound like the have Freepers on the minimizer for reference.

  48. avatar
    Gordon September 27, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    Another popular Michelle Obama myth. Michelle worked at the University of Chicago Hospital in it’s Urban Health Initiative Program. She has been accused of participating in the hospital’s patient dumping scheme, where the hospital steered poor patients to neighborhood hospitals. My sister was an administrator at the U.of C. The scheme by the hospital had been in the works long before Michelle began working their. They did not implement it while she was employed there because she was adamantly against patient dumping. When she went on leave of absence that is when the hospital implemented this policy.

  49. avatar
    Dan December 7, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Why then does the ARDC state that Michelle is on COURT ordered inactive status. Court in this sense is the Illinois Supreme Court.
    True, she was not disbarred but she was ordered by the court to be inactive. I can not imagine anyone just deciding to become inactive 4 years after getting their license and paying for all of that education at Harvard

  50. avatar
    Black Lion December 7, 2009 at 3:46 pm #

    But yet Dan there is no evidence that anything happened other than she is inactive…Now if you can contact the IL State Board and find out what that means, and if it does mean something negative, then you have an argument. If not then you are engaging in blatent speculation with no real facts to support your theory. She is not disbarred. If she decided to go inactive that is her choice. You are trying to invent something here with no evidence.

  51. avatar
    Gordon December 7, 2009 at 4:49 pm #

    Dan you pulled that little snippet off some Right Wing blog. I live in Ill. There is no such designation on Mrs. Obama’s law license

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 7, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    By requesting the court to relieve her of active status, Michelle Obama, who was no longer practicing law, didn’t have to carry insurance and meet continuing education requirements.

  53. avatar
    Northland10 December 7, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    I think Dan is a little confused about the term “ordered.” If I remember correctly, for a court to decided something it must be in an “order.” They could be deciding something that would benefit the petitioner but it would still be court ordered. In this case, an order is not a demand but just a method of announcing a decision (granted, dismissed, etc.).

    What it somewhat ironic, is the explanation of her inactive status is covered by WND and appears to explain that it was by her choice alone with no other issues.
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105998

  54. avatar
    Johnny December 29, 2009 at 10:07 pm #

    Why Barry Soetero Barrack Hussein Obama has paid over 1 million US dollars to his lawyers to keep top secret his records?

    Please answer that……

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 29, 2009 at 10:48 pm #

    First, you answer what evidence you have that President Obama has paid over 1 million US dollars to his lawyers to keep top secret his records?

    Why am I expected to explain something somebody just made up?