Benghazi - Sooner or later We'll Know the Truth

Trey Goudy asks hard questions and shows how Susan Rice lied.

Trey Goudy and Hicks

A Black Man I Would Vote For: Elbert Guillory

Listen to this man.  How can you disagree with much that he says?  How can you deny the scorecard he gives the President?   How can you not see how far astray his former party has drifted?

Watch his videos here:  Senator Elbert Guillory, R. LA

So many accuse conservatives for not liking President Obama because he is a black man.  I strongly disagree that race has anything at all to do with my disappointment with Obama.  It is his politics, his policies, his ideology that I can't stand and that I believe is dangerous for this country.  Sen. Guillory shows why the Black community should awaken and see the reality that is Obama and his administration. 

Laura Logan - What A Reporter Really Thinks About Benghazi and Afghanistan

CBS reporter Laura Logan has been suspended for a mistake in reporting on Benghazi lately.  It appears she and her producer did get this detail wrong.   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/60-minutes-correspondent-lara-logan-producer-suspended-over-benghazi-story/article15625938/

Is suspension the right punishment, or should the retraction be enough?  And then get on with finding the straight story.  See retraction story here:  http://voices.suntimes.com/arts-entertainment/the-daily-sizzle/60-minutes-admits-it-messed-up-in-recent-benghazi-report/

Watch this speech by Logan in Chicago this year to the BGA (Better Government Association) and then decide if she should be silenced or not.  Or should her fervent interest in her stories (like Afghanistan) be used by her bosses as the driving force to produce the truth about the world?

Speech to BGA:  http://voices.suntimes.com/arts-entertainment/the-daily-sizzle/chicago-speech-helped-land-60-minutes-correspondent-lara-logan-in-hot-water-with-cbs/

The last two minutes are especially provoking.  

And, will this Administration ever come clean and admit how badly it fucked up in Benghazi?

Washington, DC -Still Treating Gun Owners Like Criminals

Treating gun owners like criminals

By Emily Miller, Washington Times (DC) November 22, 2013 6:50 am

The 1,800 or so criminals who have killed, robbed or assaulted innocent people in the District of Columbia so far this year were hauled into the police station to be fingerprinted, photographed and forced to undergo a criminal-background check. Now legal gun owners who have committed no crime are getting the exact same treatment. It's not fair.
The latest gun-control scheme that starts on Jan. 1 will force every legal firearm owner in the nation's capital to go in person to police headquarter to renew their registration certificates.
The Metropolitan Police Department filed proposed rules last week, and citizens have until Dec. 15 for comment. To avoid becoming a felon, anyone with a gun registered before 2011 will have to go to police headquarters to be fingerprinted, photographed, provide proof of address, pay a fee and confirm they may still legally possess the firearm. The Firearms Registration Section will then create a new registration certificate - now in the form of an ID card - for each gun.
This operation could end up making the rollout of Obamacare look smooth and easy. The police propose scheduling everyone in three- month windows based on their birthday. The eight windows start on Jan. 1 and go through 2015. They intend to set up an online system to make an appointment.
The department is trying to set up a system to accept credit cards for the $13-per-gun fee, but that has not been finalized. George Lyon, who was a plaintiff in the original Heller case, pointed out that it will cost him $104 to re-register his eight guns. "I don't see that they need a re-registration system at all," the Washington lawyer told me. "But if they do, this whole thing ought really to be done online, automated and without adding more fees."
The registration-renewal requirement is already being challenged in court. Heller v. District of Columbia - commonly known as "Heller II" - takes on the entire registration law that was enacted in 2009 after the Supreme Court overturned the District's 30-year-old handgun ban in the original Heller decision.
Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff, told me of the requirement, "What's the point? Will that make the bad guys come down and register? Nope, just the law-abiding."
Heller II is pending in federal district court with each side filing motions for summary judgment this month and next. "Re- registration is onerous and completely unnecessary and is a trap for the unwary," said Stephen P. Halbrook, the lead attorney for Heller II. "Fail to re-register for whatever reason, and you're committing a crime - possession of an unregistered firearm. This is plain harassment for exercise of a constitutional right."
The renewal process was supposed to be done online and by mail and start in 2012, but the police were not able to create a system to do it in time. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier testified before the D.C. Council's Judiciary Committee in January 2012 against keeping the three-year limit on certificates because her department did not have the resources, and so it "may cost more than the potential benefit." City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson refused to let it drop, but passed a law to give D.C. police a two- year extension. In an interview late Wednesday, Mr. Mendelson said that, "The reason for renewals is to make sure people don't become disqualified to own a firearm."
The whole convoluted scheme will not do a single thing to make the city safer. Fingerprints don't change. The only reason for forcing a resident register all over again is the police didn't use a system that was able to retain the fingerprints until March of this year.
It is unnecessary to prove your home address or ownership because the law already dictates that a gun owner must notify the registry office with a change of address or gun sale, so the registration does not change otherwise.
Most importantly, the police can easily check if a registrant is still legally able to possess a gun by running his name and Social Security number through the FBI's background-check system.
A police spokesman estimates there are approximately 30,000 firearms registered to private citizens in D.C. This number is remarkably low for a city of 600,000 because most law-abiding people won't go through the 11 steps necessary to register. As Mr. Heller pointed out, the criminals aren't showing up at police headquarters to offer up their fingerprints or take a written test before buying guns.
Gun registration is a clear violation of the Founding Fathers' intent that the Second Amendment would prevent government tyranny. Once the government knows about every single gun owned by each citizen, then an armed populace is no longer a deterrent.
---
Emily Miller is a senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times and author of "Emily Gets Her Gun" (Regnery, 2013).

More People Want Guns than Obamacare

Another good data bit from Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Digest:  
Original link:  bar-graph-people-want-guns-a-lot-more-than-they-want-obamacare/

---------------
Three takeaways here: One – the Federal government can build a complex networked database that handles high volumes if it wants to; Two – Healthcare.gov isn’t experiencing high volumes of traffic by any applicable standard; and Three – people are a hell of a lot more interested in buying guns than they are in buying Obamacare.

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) system processed 1.68 million applications for background checks for would-be gun buyers throughout the Nation in October. During the same month, Healthcare.gov managed to enroll 49,100 people in Obamacare.
Here’s how that looks in a bar graph (H/T: ZeroHedge):

Is NSA Spying Making You Self-Censor Your Writing?

Do you find yourself limiting your speech?  Come to think of it, I do.  I limit Facebook posts to mostly bland stuff.  I don't talk about several issues that the current government deems unacceptable, by their standards.  What do you not do anymore?

See full article at link below.  This article is repeated from Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty Digest. 

NSA Spying Has Led Writers To Self-Censor

November 12, 2013 by Sam Rolley 

A new survey conducted by a leading literary organization finds that the recent revelations of pervasive spying on American citizens have had a chilling effect on the intellectual freedom, creativity and social discourse of American writers.

The PEN American Center, a nonprofit literary group, partnered with the FDR Group to produce the report titled “Chilling Effects: NSA Surveillance Drives U.S. Writers to Self-Censor,” which notes that 85 percent of writers expressed worries about the government’s ongoing surveillance of American citizens. Seventy-three percent of respondents said that they “have never been as worried about privacy rights and freedom of the press as they are today.”

The report also notes:

–28% have curtailed or avoided social media activities, and another 12% have seriously considered doing so;
–24% have deliberately avoided certain topics in phone or email conversations, and another 9% have seriously considered it;
–16% have avoided writing or speaking about a particular topic, and another 11% have seriously considered it;
–16% have refrained from conducting Internet searches or visiting websites on topics that may be considered controversial or suspicious, and another 12% have seriously considered it;
–13% have taken extra steps to disguise or cover their digital footprints, and another 11% have seriously considered it;
–3% have declined opportunities to meet (in person, or electronically) people who might be deemed security threats by the government, and another 4% have seriously considered it.

Writer comments on the matter included statements like: “I assume everything I do electronically is subject to monitoring.”

And: “I feel that increased government surveillance has had a chilling effect on my research, most of which I do on the Internet. This includes research on issues such as the drug wars and mass incarceration, which people don’t think about as much as they think about foreign terrorism, but is just as pertinent.”

A similar chilling of creative expression and research by U.S. writers and journalists occurred after the passage of the  2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which included provisions allowing the Federal government to detain indefinitely any citizen suspected of aiding foreign terrorist organizations. The Act sparked a lawsuit by activists and reporters — including such notable names as Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and Daniel Ellsberg — who claimed a section of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Barack Obama in December, could give the Federal government legal powers to detain any dissident voices.

Corporate Taxes Actually Paid

Here's some info from Forbes Magazine from 2010.  www.forbes.com

Some friends were denigrating corporations again, so I chimed in with some facts as I know them: Average taxes paid by most corporations is about 35%. It is not $83 billion per year that the FED is injecting into the economy, it is $83 billion per month. Food stamp program went from 27 million people subsidized to 47 million in only 5 years and the cost doubled too.

If you don't like that the FED keeps printing money each month, then call the White House, where this plan originates. Get your budgets in order - inflation is coming.

I googled "what companies paid in taxes" as suggested and got the following links.  

Here is some perspective on GE's taxes. They just follow the rules made by Congress: ge-exxon-walmart-apple-corporate-taxes

For all the outcry over GE, a number of corporate titans are paying much higher rates than the average citizen.  Top 20: Many pay more that 35%. ge-exxon-walmart-apple-corporate-taxes_slide

My bet is that the majority of large and small US companies pay close to 30%. Also note how the top three (ExxonMobil, Conoco, Chevron) are the supposedly evil oil companies. Also note how much these companies pay to other countries. These top 20 form a significant part of the about $700 billion of total corporate income tax.

Obamacare Poop

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare:

“We have to pass it, to find out what’s in  it”

A physician called into a radio show and said:

"That's the definition of a stool sample".

That pretty well sums it up.

Grimes 2nd Law - The News Formula

Kyle Wintersteen at Guns & Ammo on October 28, 2013 has a interesting article about why the media covers some violent crimes (13 Navy Yard killings vs. 13 Chicago school yard woundings) and not others.  Is it because they are biased, lazy, or affected by other factors.  In the article he refers to media Prof. Charlotte Grimes, Knight Chair in Political Reporting at Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. She has developed a formula that relates many factors common to news items and provides "a common sense explanation of what the media considers newsworthy, as well as a sobering look at today’s fragmented information world."

Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/10/28/shooting-national-tragedy/#ixzz2jKMmUpYO

See Prof. Grimes here:  charlotte-grimes

Grimes' Second Law:  The News Formula

N / Di(prx) x I x Du x T x R x P x Cf/Cr x Ch x Hypcrsy x U x Factor X = News Value

Variables:

N = number of people affected by event, issue, policy

Di = the physical distance those people are from the news organization's home community—Baghdad and Syracuse, for example. Also considered the PRX or PROXIMITY to the news organization’s home community.  Or the emotional or psychological distance between the subject and the reader, say, a welfare mother and an affluent suburbanite. The closer the event or person is, geographically or emotionally, the higher the news value. 

I = the intensity of the effect, such as death being a more intense effect than injury, or injury more intense than damage to property

Du = the duration of the effect, such as the longer-lasting effect of an atomic bomb or tsunami, compared to a temporarily closed bridge

T = the timeliness of the event–today, yesterday, last year

R= the rarity of the event, issue, policy. An atomic bombing is rarer than a hurricane; a hurricane is rarer than a thunderstorm; a "First" – as in "first Hispanic as U. S. Attorney General" or "first woman

or African American as Secretary of State" – has high rarity value

P = the prominence of the people involved, as a plane crash in which one of the passengers is the president compared to a senator

Cf/ Cr = the conflict or controversy surrounding the event

Ch = the change, and its degree, from the usual or normal

Hypcrsy = hypocrisy – people saying one thing/doing another or contradicting their public images – always has high new value, especially for politicians

U = the usefulness to the audience of the information

Factor X = such variables as sex, money, children, pets, human interest, a slow news day when nothing else is going on, or an editor's whim

ATI Moving to South Carolina

Elections have consequences.  We hear that a lot.  One consequence of electing Governor Ed Cuomo in New York State, plus of lot of liberal legislators, is the SAFE Act which imposes draconian limits on firearms.  The cost is hundreds of jobs.  From the blog Albany Watch:  Firearms-maker-leaves-rochester

Firearms maker leaves Rochester to “a state that is friendly to the Second Amendment rights of the people”

29 October 2013, 10:15 am by Joseph Spector in Other - No Comments

American Tactical Imports is leaving Rochester for South Carolina, blaming the move in part on the state’s gun-control law passed in January.
“As one of the gun industry’s top importers and manufactures of firearms and firearm related accessories, ATI’s decision to relocate is two-fold,” the company said in a news release yesterday. “ATI believes it is imperative that a firearms importer and manufacturer do business within a state that is friendly to the Second Amendment rights of the people.
“It is also important that ATI be close to the port-of-entry into the country for several of their imported products. The relocation to South Carolina ensures that both of these factors are met.”
It was unclear how many jobs will be lost in Rochester because of the move, but the company said the relocation will have a $2.7 million impact on the Summerville, S.C., community and create an estimated 117 new jobs in the area. Summerville is near Charleston, thus providing port access.
The move is slated for next month. The company is receiving tax incentives to leave, as well.
“This move to South Carolina will help ensure a solid foundation for our company,” said Tony DiChario, the company’s president, in a statement. “The relocation process will be smooth and we have ensured that the process will not affect customer service, product distribution or any other segment of our business. The people of South Carolina have welcomed ATI with open arms and we are excited about making our new corporate home there.”
Rockland County-based Kahr Arms announced in July it was leaving New York for Pennsylvania, blaming the move on New York’s gun-control law.
Remington Arms, based in the Mohawk Valley, has also dealt with questions about whether it would move out of the state and has been wooed by other states. But the company hasn’t said it would leave.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is quoted in the press release touting the ATI move.
“Today’s announcement is another testament that South Carolina is a destination for job-creating investments,” Haley said in a statement. “We celebrate American Tactical’s decision to invest in Dorchester County.”
ATI says it is one of the nation’s top importers and manufactures of firearm-related products.

Conversation or Confrontation?

I have noticed that much of the difficulty in having a productive conversation these days, especially on politics, is that people talk AT each other instead of WITH each other.  They strive to make their pet points and to "win" the argument, instead of finding the common ground on which they do agree, or the basic facts that are not in dispute, and then moving forward towards a solution or conclusion.

Several friends discussed this lately and I have paraphrased some of what they said, because it is well spoken to explain the problem and a solution:

• Friend 1:  Regardless of the persons I meet, I always learn from diversity if I am paying attention.  You want to withdraw from political wrangling? That's an understandable position; it can be stimulating and fun, but it can wear on one, too. I too withdraw at times, to rest my mind, and clear my head.
• Friend 2:  In church, I have met a fellow whose political convictions are not mine. But the sense of brotherly love that we feel for each other from the beginning seems to mean that we can actually discuss the positions as ideas without the bashing emotional baggage. Curiously, his wife is more conservative.  But basically we enjoy each other's company at a level deeper than the politics.  I don't agree with his politics but it doesn't keep me from having spontaneous love. I enjoy the company of several persons who are horrified that my wife and I are Republicans and have attended Tea Party Rallies and campaigned with them - and support Tea Party gambits to save the country, according to the Tea Party vision of the Good for the country. For the most part, I think if I have an opportunity to just hang with people in some kind of normal non-thinking socialization paradigm, the common family reality of humanity trumps the political divisions. It just so happens that we don't have that situation. There is a degree of difficulty in our relationship that might be remedied by physical propinquity, but we don't have that. Physical propinquity is not a universal balm because for the most part it seems that my sister and I are better off not being in each other presence. Maybe before one of us dies, that can change but for now it seems to be the practical truth. In  my readings in philosophy, I have dimly learned that the Greeks considered philosophy to be the effort to move from opinions to KNOWLEDGE. There are seemingly endless questions that emerge from a definition like that -- especially if we apply it to contemporary American Political Problems. Socrates' claim was that he knew that he DID NOT KNOW.  His primary engagement was with folks who believe that they DID KNOW.  Does REAL KNOWLEDGE exist? This is just one of those seemingly unlimited questions that arise in the philosophic approach to things.
• Me:  Well said.
• Friend 2:  We had an luncheon event at which this gentleman was present. We adjourned to Peet's for robust discussion. One thing I think we agreed on - commit to intellectual integrity at the cost of losing arguments and being humiliated.   But if our foundation is friendship and quest for truth, there is little cost to admitting -- hmm -- I was wrong about that. Or -- being able to confess honestly -- My feeling is that your opinion has some defect, but at the present time I cannot articulate what it is. With time, study and thought I might be able to rebut your opinion or come to an acceptance of its truth. When we are engaged in a hostile dynamic, you cannot admit weakness and fault because it will be used to destroy you, unfortunately.
• Me:  More well said. Can I copy it?

Police State Alive and Well in Our Nation's Capital

Do we live in a police state?  Judge for yourself.  From the Washington Time's Emily Miller:

D.C. businessman faces two years in jail for unregistered ammunition, brass casing

Mark Witaschek

By Emily Miller

-

The Washington Times, Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Mark Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal record, is facing two years in prison for possession of unregistered ammunition after D.C. police raided his house looking for guns. Mr. Witaschek has never had a firearm in the city, but he is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The trial starts on Nov. 4.
The police banged on the front door of Mr. Witaschek’s Georgetown home at 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, to execute a search warrant for “firearms and ammunition … gun cleaning equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts.”

---

SEE RELATED: MILLER: Justice delayed is justice denied - Appeal for decision on D.C.’s gun carry-rights ban

---

Mr. Witaschek’s 14-year-old daughter let inside some 30 armed officers in full tactical gear.
D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with the police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail.
Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witaschek’s estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.
After entering the house, the police immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads of Mr. Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed.
In recalling what followed, Mr. Witaschek became visibly emotional in describing how the police treated him, Ms. Harris and the four children in the house.
His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the police arrived. “They used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked,” said his father. “The police put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening.”

---

SEE RELATED: MILLER: D.C. police help get firearms to National Cathedral for event to promote gun control

---

Police spokesman Gwendolyn Crump would not provide further information on the events in this case.
The police shut down the streets for blocks and spent more than two hours going over every inch of his house. “They tossed the place,” said Mr. Witaschek. He provided photos that he took of his home after the raid to document the damage, which he estimated at $10,000.
The police found no guns in the house, but did write on the warrant that four items were discovered: “One live round of 12-gauge shotgun ammunition,” which was an inoperable shell that misfired during a hunt years earlier. Mr. Witaschek had kept it as a souvenir. “One handgun holster” was found, which is perfectly legal.
“One expended round of .270 caliber ammunition,” which was a spent brass casing. The police uncovered “one box of Knight bullets for reloading.” These are actually not for reloading, but are used in antique-replica, single-shot, muzzle-loading rifles.
This was the second police search of his home. Exactly one month earlier, Mr. Witaschek allowed members of the “Gun Recovery Unit” access to search without a warrant because he thought he had nothing to hide.
After about an hour and a half, the police found one box of Winchester .40 caliber ammunition, one gun-cleaning kit (fully legal) and a Civil War-era Colt antique revolver that Mr. Witaschek kept on his office desk. The police seized the Colt even though antique firearms are legal and do not have to be registered.
Mr. Witaschek is a gun owner and an avid hunter. However, he stores his firearms at the home of his sister, Sylvia Witaschek, in suburban Arlington, Va.
Two weeks after the June raid, D.C. police investigators went to his sister’s house — unaccompanied by Virginia police and without a warrant — and asked to “view” the firearms, according to a police report. She refused. The next day, the D.C. police returned to her house with the Arlington County police and served her with a criminal subpoena.
The Office of Attorney General of the District of Columbia Irvin Nathan signed an affidavit on Aug. 21, 2012, in support of a warrant to arrest Mr. Witaschek. A spokesman for Mr. Nathan would not comment on a pending case.
Mr. Witaschek went to the police station on Aug. 24 at 5:30 a.m. to turn himself in, but was not transferred to central booking until 11:30 a.m., at which time he was told it was too late to be arraigned that day. He spent the night in jail and was released the next day at 10 a.m.
Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier reserves such harsh tactics for ordinary citizens. When NBC News anchor David Gregory violated the gun-registration law last year by wielding an illegal 30-round magazine on live television, he was not arrested.
Mr. Nathan also gave Mr. Gregory a pass, writing that prosecuting him “would not promote public safety.”
Mr. Nathan, who is unelected, showed no such leniency to Mr. Witaschek. In September 2012, the attorney general offered Mr. Witaschek a deal to plead guilty to one charge of unlawful possession of ammunition with a penalty of a year of probation, a $500 fine and a contribution to a victims’ fund.
Mr. Witaschek turned down the offer. “It’s the principle,” he told me.
To increase the pressure a year later, Mr. Nathan tacked on an additional charge in August of illegal ammunition from the first, warrantless search. Mr. Witaschek chose to accept the risk of prison time by going to trial instead of pleading guilty.
The firearms laws in places such as the District of Columbia, Chicago, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey do nothing to reduce violence, but merely infringe on the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding.
However, if these laws are going to be enforced, the police and government must treat everyone equally.
The charges against Mr. Witaschek should be dropped.
Emily Miller is a senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times and author of “Emily Gets Her Gun” (Regnery, 2013).

Dave Ramsey on Obamacare: It's the Math, Stupid

See here:  dave-ramsey-destroys-obamacare

Obama not a Lawyer?

Something I had never heard before and will never hear from teh MSM:  Both Barack and Michelle Obama no longer hold valid Illinois law licenses.  Barack voluntarily surrendered his in 2008, while Michelle surrendered hers in 1993.  I just obtained this from the Illinois ARDC web site:

----------------
ARDC Lawyer Search Results from the ARDC database last updated as of September 27, 2013 at 1:11:39 PM: for the following terms: Last Name: obama, status: All, Country: all

Name	Date Admitted	City	State	Authorized to Practice?
Barack Hussein Obama	December 17, 1991	N/A	N/A	No
Michelle Obama Former name(s): Michelle Robinson	May 12, 1989	N/A	N/A	No

----------------

The following was sent to me to make me aware of this.  While it sounds like one of the usual atttempts at slander, it appears to hold a lot of truth.  The parts about thte licences is most important, because the Left loves to trumpet that our President is a Constitutional lawyer.  Apparently not so much any more.  The examples from 7. are all nice corroborations but not really proof of anything but that he should stick to his teleprompter.

The info on Michelle is disturbing.  I hope she learned some lessons..

----------------------

Bombshell: The Real Reason Barack Obama And Michele Lost Their Law License.

Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:25

BY David Herold

I am reposting for those who have missed it.

FORMER LAWYERS?

I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn't know why until I read this.

This is 100% legit. I check it out at https://www.iardc.org/ Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois ; and they are very strict. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.

Big surprise.

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!

3. Facts.Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/

4. 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 .

5. 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.

6. "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_title.html ;

7. 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.

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

9. 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.

10. 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 are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

Keep this moving — educate others

-------------------------