This is a great video, unfortunately it has only 148 views. I would hope it goes viral and gets perhaps 148 MILLION views.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Bombshell Validated: Why Barack Soetoro And Michele Soetoro Lost Their Right To Practice Law In The United States!
Bombshell Validated: Why Barack Soetoro And Michele Soetoro Lost Their Right To Practice Law In The United States!
⋅ ⋅
Obama Used Crack Cocaine And Has Admitted The Same! Anyone who commits a felony cannot hold a Law License!
Note*
I am sure Barack is or would be barred from obtaining a Law License due to admitted felony drug use. However, the same may not be true for Michelle. Her inactive status may have been voluntary and the court ordered status maybe due to the process she may have had to utilize to obtain ‘inactive’ status. Malpractice insurance may simply be a requirement of all attorneys!
But below are the reasons given for surrendered Licenses.
But below are the reasons given for surrendered Licenses.
EVIDENCE Of FELONY DRUG USE:
The Respondent first admitted illegal drug use by disclosing it in his
book, Dreams from My Father. Obama, Barack. Dreams from My Father: A
Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1995. In
that book he admitted, “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow
when you could afford it. Not smack, though.” pp. 93–94. The
Respondent knew that his activities were illegal. The drug use
occurred from as early as high school at least until he completed his
bachelors degree in New York City. He entered law school in 1988,
living in and traveling in Somerville and Cambridge. He graduated
from law school in 1991.
book, Dreams from My Father. Obama, Barack. Dreams from My Father: A
Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1995. In
that book he admitted, “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow
when you could afford it. Not smack, though.” pp. 93–94. The
Respondent knew that his activities were illegal. The drug use
occurred from as early as high school at least until he completed his
bachelors degree in New York City. He entered law school in 1988,
living in and traveling in Somerville and Cambridge. He graduated
from law school in 1991.
In about early 1991, Respondent submitted his application to take the
Illinois bar exam, in which he attested that his answers to the
questions were true and correct. In the Character and Fitness section,
questions 18 and 19 included the following statement:
Illinois bar exam, in which he attested that his answers to the
questions were true and correct. In the Character and Fitness section,
questions 18 and 19 included the following statement:
NOTE. In connection with your answer to questions 18 and 19, you are
advised that no statute, court order, or legal proceeding withholding
adjudication, expunging information from any record, sealing any
record, or purporting to authorize any person to deny the existence of
occurrence of any information or matter shall excuse less than full
disclosure of any information or matter otherwise required to be
disclosed herein. You must answer questions 18 and 19; the attachment
of letters from law enforcement agencies in lieu of an answer is not
acceptable. Information provided in response to one of the two
questions need not be reported in response to the other.
18. Have you ever, either as an adult or juvenile, been cited,
arrested, accused, formally or informally, or convicted of any
violation of any law other than moving traffic violations.
In response to question 18, it is understood the Respondent answered
“no.” The Respondent did not disclose his multiple drug use occurring
through his time in high school and college.
advised that no statute, court order, or legal proceeding withholding
adjudication, expunging information from any record, sealing any
record, or purporting to authorize any person to deny the existence of
occurrence of any information or matter shall excuse less than full
disclosure of any information or matter otherwise required to be
disclosed herein. You must answer questions 18 and 19; the attachment
of letters from law enforcement agencies in lieu of an answer is not
acceptable. Information provided in response to one of the two
questions need not be reported in response to the other.
18. Have you ever, either as an adult or juvenile, been cited,
arrested, accused, formally or informally, or convicted of any
violation of any law other than moving traffic violations.
In response to question 18, it is understood the Respondent answered
“no.” The Respondent did not disclose his multiple drug use occurring
through his time in high school and college.
By this time in his life he was very mature and sophisticated person
that he either did or should have given a great deal of consideration
to his response to question 18 a great deal of consideration. He has
not disclosed if he consulted with anyone, such as Illinois attorney
Michelle Robinson(later his wife) before answering the question.
that he either did or should have given a great deal of consideration
to his response to question 18 a great deal of consideration. He has
not disclosed if he consulted with anyone, such as Illinois attorney
Michelle Robinson(later his wife) before answering the question.
On December 17, 1991, Respondent was admitted to the practice of law
in Illinois. At no time prior to his admission to the Illinois bar,
did Respondent apprise the Illinois Character and Fitness Committee of
his involvement in illegal drug activity. If he had been caught he
likely would have been charged with criminal possession of a
controlled substance in the fifth degree which is a class D felony.
New York Penal Law Sec. 220.06 (McKinney).
in Illinois. At no time prior to his admission to the Illinois bar,
did Respondent apprise the Illinois Character and Fitness Committee of
his involvement in illegal drug activity. If he had been caught he
likely would have been charged with criminal possession of a
controlled substance in the fifth degree which is a class D felony.
New York Penal Law Sec. 220.06 (McKinney).
The following individuals have personal knowledge of, or access to
documentation of these facts:
documentation of these facts:
William Shaheen, Esquire
Shaheen & Gordon, P.A.
P.O. Box 977
140 Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Dover, NH 03821-0977
(603) 749-1838 fax
(603) 749-5000 phone
wshaheen@shaheengordon.com
Shaheen & Gordon, P.A.
P.O. Box 977
140 Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Dover, NH 03821-0977
(603) 749-1838 fax
(603) 749-5000 phone
wshaheen@shaheengordon.com
Also see: 1.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/observations
2. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/latoyakidd/gGCJhC/
In about early 1991, Respondent submitted his application to take the
Illinois bar exam, in which he attested that his answers to the
questions were true and correct. In the Character and Fitness section,
question 49 included the following statement:
NOTE: In connection with your answers to questions 47, 48, and 49,
you are advised that no advice of counsel, statute, court order, or
legal proceeding withholding adjudication, expunging information from
any record, sealing any record, or purporting to authorize any person
to deny the existence or occurrence of any information or matter shall
excuse less than full disclosure of any information or matter
otherwise required to be disclosed herein. You must answer questions
47, 48, and 49; the submission of letters from law enforcement
agencies in lieu of an answer is not acceptable. If you are required
to report an incident in response to more than one of the three
questions, you are required to complete only one explanatory form
regarding that incident.
49. Have you ever been charged with a traffic violation involving
felonious conduct or the use or possession of alcohol or drugs or
which resulted in time spent in custody, a fine of $200 or more, or
the revocation or suspension of your driver’s license?
51. Do you have any outstanding parking violations?
In response to question 49 & 51, the Respondent answered “no.”
On December 17, 1991, Respondent was admitted to the practice of law
in Illinois. At no time prior to his admission to the Illinois bar,
did Respondent apprise the Illinois Character and Fitness Committee of
his multiple civil citations or his concealment of them on his bar
application.
The Respondent knew that he had incurred multiple violations. These
fines exceeded the $200.00 reporting threshold for a total of $400.00.
Between October 5, 1988 and January 12 1990, violations included
failing to put money in meters, parking in a resident-only area,
blocking a bus stop, and multiple tickets in the same day for
exceeding the time limit at a meter. At this time he was living at
365 Broadway, Somerville, Massacustts, 02144. The substance and
frequency of his disregard for legally valid rules demonstrate a
contempt for the rules. He obviously felt he was above the rules that
“the common folk” were expected to follow. All the time that he was
supposed to be attending to learning the law, he contemptuously
thumbed his nose even at simple parking rules. Do as I say, not as I
do! The fines and penalties went unpaid for almost two decades. He
asks others to obey the law yet he is too good and it is beneath him
to pay lowly parking fines. Its all about expediency, parking rules
don’t apply to the “important people” and its too inconvenient and
time consuming to bother with finding a legal parking space. He is so
smart and virtuous that merely electing him will end the illegal war
in Iraq but finding a legal parking space near the elitist law school
it too taxing for him.
The following individuals have personal knowledge of, or access to
documentation of these facts:
Mrs. Susan Clippinger, Director Mr. Tom Champion, Spokesman
Cambridge Traffic, Parking & City of Somerville
Transportation Department Somerville, MA 02144
Cambridge, MA 02139 traffic@ci.somerville.ma.us
(617)349-4747 fax
Also see: 1. http://somervillenews.typepad.com/the_somerville_news/2007/03/obama_finally_p.html
2. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/08/obama_paid_late_parking_tickets/
Evidence Offered in Mitigation
None. The Respondent does not have a good reputation for truthfulness
and veracity but continues even to this day to shade the truth and
mislead. The Respondent has never expressed remorse for his
intentional misleading and dishonesty.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In attorney disciplinary proceedings, the Administrator must establish
charges of lawyer misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. In re
Ingersoll, 186 Ill. 2d 163, 168, 710 N.E.2d 390 (1999). It is the
responsibility of the Hearing Panel to determine the credibility and
believability of the witnesses, weigh the conflicting testimony, draw
reasonable inferences, and make factual findings based upon all the
evidence. In re Timpone, 157 Ill. 2d 178, 196, 623 N.E.2d 300, 308
(1993). In this case, there is no dispute as to facts as the
Respondent readily admits them. With the above principles in mind and
after careful consideration of the evidence and exhibits, I ask the
Hearing Panel to make the following findings.
The Respondent should be charged with:
1.
making a statement of material fact in connection with a
bar application that the applicant knows to be false in violation of
Rule 8.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”);
2.
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer’s fitness to practice law in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the
Rules;
3.
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Rules;
4.
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Rules; and
5.
engaging in conduct which brings the courts or the legal
profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.
It is undisputed that the Respondent consumed illegal drugs and failed
to disclose that when completing his bar application. The Respondent
subsequently disclosed these actions in his own published writings.
Furthermore, he committed multiple criminal traffic violations which
he deceptively and intentionally failed to report them as required to
on his bar application. Of the 17 violations, cumulatively they
exceeded $350.00. By his own admission by his use of drugs he was
therefore in possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree
which is a class D felony. As a result, we find clear and convincing
evidence that the Respondent violated Rules 8.4(a)(3) and 8.4(a)(4).
It follows that such misconduct was prejudicial to the administration
of justice and brought the legal profession into disrepute.
In analyzing whether the attorney engaged in misconduct, we request
that the Hearing Board adopt the Administrator’s previous suggestions
to employ a two-step process. First, the Hearing Board ascertained
whether in that particular case, appellate opinions were of a nature
to be properly identified in response to the question on the
application. If they were, the Hearing Board then examined the
attorney’s state of mind to determine whether his failure to disclose
the information was purposeful.
The Hearing Board concluded that the appellate decisions were directed
at the trial court’s actions, not the attorney’s actions or
professional conduct and therefore found that the attorney responded
appropriately. In so finding, the Hearing Board did not reach the
second step of the analysis, but noted the attorney’s candor and
credibility.
In applying the two-step analysis in this matter, we must first
determine whether the Respondent’s conduct as a serial violator of the
criminal traffic laws was of a nature to be properly identified in
response to question 49 of the bar application. Question 49 asks,
“Have you ever been charged with a traffic violation involving
felonious conduct or the use or possession of alcohol or drugs or
which resulted in time spent in custody, a fine of $200 or more, or
the revocation or suspension of your driver’s license?” It is known
that prior to the time the Respondent submitted his bar application
the record irrefutable proves that he his multiple citations
represented fines in excess of $200.00. As a result, we find the
Respondent’s payment of the fines without objection in this case is
sufficient nature to be properly identified in response to question 49
on the bar application. Knowledge of his repeated violations when
understood in conjunction with the plain language of question 49, we
find the Respondent answered deceptively and that he therefore engaged
in intentional misconduct.
RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of the disciplinary system is to protect the public,
maintain the integrity of the legal system and safeguard the
administration of justice. In re Howard, 188 Ill. 2d 423, 434, 721
N.E.2d 1126 (1999). In determining the proper sanction, I ask that the
Hearing Board give deliberative consideration to the proven
misconduct. In re Witt, 145 Ill. 2d 380, 398, 583 N.E.2d 526 (1991).
In this matter the evidence demonstrates that the Respondent consumed
illegal drugs that should have resulted in felony charges and a felony
criminal conviction. The Respondent can be sanctioned under the Rules
of Professional Conduct for a criminal conviction even though he
committed such acts before he was admitted to the bar. See In re
Chandler, 161 Ill. 2d 459, 641 N.E.2d 473 (1994).
The Respondent has not cooperated fully with questions into his
illegal drug use and possible sale or distribution of drugs. While he
has no publicly known prior bar discipline we find multiple
aggravating factors. He has consistently denied his misconduct as it
relates to his bar application, failed to take genuine responsibility
for his actions, and demonstrated no remorse.
Based upon the well settled case law discussed above and the
considerable evidence in mitigation I believe disbarment is the
appropriate sanction.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/observations
2. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/latoyakidd/gGCJhC/
In about early 1991, Respondent submitted his application to take the
Illinois bar exam, in which he attested that his answers to the
questions were true and correct. In the Character and Fitness section,
question 49 included the following statement:
NOTE: In connection with your answers to questions 47, 48, and 49,
you are advised that no advice of counsel, statute, court order, or
legal proceeding withholding adjudication, expunging information from
any record, sealing any record, or purporting to authorize any person
to deny the existence or occurrence of any information or matter shall
excuse less than full disclosure of any information or matter
otherwise required to be disclosed herein. You must answer questions
47, 48, and 49; the submission of letters from law enforcement
agencies in lieu of an answer is not acceptable. If you are required
to report an incident in response to more than one of the three
questions, you are required to complete only one explanatory form
regarding that incident.
49. Have you ever been charged with a traffic violation involving
felonious conduct or the use or possession of alcohol or drugs or
which resulted in time spent in custody, a fine of $200 or more, or
the revocation or suspension of your driver’s license?
51. Do you have any outstanding parking violations?
In response to question 49 & 51, the Respondent answered “no.”
On December 17, 1991, Respondent was admitted to the practice of law
in Illinois. At no time prior to his admission to the Illinois bar,
did Respondent apprise the Illinois Character and Fitness Committee of
his multiple civil citations or his concealment of them on his bar
application.
The Respondent knew that he had incurred multiple violations. These
fines exceeded the $200.00 reporting threshold for a total of $400.00.
Between October 5, 1988 and January 12 1990, violations included
failing to put money in meters, parking in a resident-only area,
blocking a bus stop, and multiple tickets in the same day for
exceeding the time limit at a meter. At this time he was living at
365 Broadway, Somerville, Massacustts, 02144. The substance and
frequency of his disregard for legally valid rules demonstrate a
contempt for the rules. He obviously felt he was above the rules that
“the common folk” were expected to follow. All the time that he was
supposed to be attending to learning the law, he contemptuously
thumbed his nose even at simple parking rules. Do as I say, not as I
do! The fines and penalties went unpaid for almost two decades. He
asks others to obey the law yet he is too good and it is beneath him
to pay lowly parking fines. Its all about expediency, parking rules
don’t apply to the “important people” and its too inconvenient and
time consuming to bother with finding a legal parking space. He is so
smart and virtuous that merely electing him will end the illegal war
in Iraq but finding a legal parking space near the elitist law school
it too taxing for him.
The following individuals have personal knowledge of, or access to
documentation of these facts:
Mrs. Susan Clippinger, Director Mr. Tom Champion, Spokesman
Cambridge Traffic, Parking & City of Somerville
Transportation Department Somerville, MA 02144
Cambridge, MA 02139 traffic@ci.somerville.ma.us
(617)349-4747 fax
Also see: 1. http://somervillenews.typepad.com/the_somerville_news/2007/03/obama_finally_p.html
2. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/08/obama_paid_late_parking_tickets/
Evidence Offered in Mitigation
None. The Respondent does not have a good reputation for truthfulness
and veracity but continues even to this day to shade the truth and
mislead. The Respondent has never expressed remorse for his
intentional misleading and dishonesty.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In attorney disciplinary proceedings, the Administrator must establish
charges of lawyer misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. In re
Ingersoll, 186 Ill. 2d 163, 168, 710 N.E.2d 390 (1999). It is the
responsibility of the Hearing Panel to determine the credibility and
believability of the witnesses, weigh the conflicting testimony, draw
reasonable inferences, and make factual findings based upon all the
evidence. In re Timpone, 157 Ill. 2d 178, 196, 623 N.E.2d 300, 308
(1993). In this case, there is no dispute as to facts as the
Respondent readily admits them. With the above principles in mind and
after careful consideration of the evidence and exhibits, I ask the
Hearing Panel to make the following findings.
The Respondent should be charged with:
1.
making a statement of material fact in connection with a
bar application that the applicant knows to be false in violation of
Rule 8.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”);
2.
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer’s fitness to practice law in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the
Rules;
3.
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Rules;
4.
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Rules; and
5.
engaging in conduct which brings the courts or the legal
profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.
It is undisputed that the Respondent consumed illegal drugs and failed
to disclose that when completing his bar application. The Respondent
subsequently disclosed these actions in his own published writings.
Furthermore, he committed multiple criminal traffic violations which
he deceptively and intentionally failed to report them as required to
on his bar application. Of the 17 violations, cumulatively they
exceeded $350.00. By his own admission by his use of drugs he was
therefore in possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree
which is a class D felony. As a result, we find clear and convincing
evidence that the Respondent violated Rules 8.4(a)(3) and 8.4(a)(4).
It follows that such misconduct was prejudicial to the administration
of justice and brought the legal profession into disrepute.
In analyzing whether the attorney engaged in misconduct, we request
that the Hearing Board adopt the Administrator’s previous suggestions
to employ a two-step process. First, the Hearing Board ascertained
whether in that particular case, appellate opinions were of a nature
to be properly identified in response to the question on the
application. If they were, the Hearing Board then examined the
attorney’s state of mind to determine whether his failure to disclose
the information was purposeful.
The Hearing Board concluded that the appellate decisions were directed
at the trial court’s actions, not the attorney’s actions or
professional conduct and therefore found that the attorney responded
appropriately. In so finding, the Hearing Board did not reach the
second step of the analysis, but noted the attorney’s candor and
credibility.
In applying the two-step analysis in this matter, we must first
determine whether the Respondent’s conduct as a serial violator of the
criminal traffic laws was of a nature to be properly identified in
response to question 49 of the bar application. Question 49 asks,
“Have you ever been charged with a traffic violation involving
felonious conduct or the use or possession of alcohol or drugs or
which resulted in time spent in custody, a fine of $200 or more, or
the revocation or suspension of your driver’s license?” It is known
that prior to the time the Respondent submitted his bar application
the record irrefutable proves that he his multiple citations
represented fines in excess of $200.00. As a result, we find the
Respondent’s payment of the fines without objection in this case is
sufficient nature to be properly identified in response to question 49
on the bar application. Knowledge of his repeated violations when
understood in conjunction with the plain language of question 49, we
find the Respondent answered deceptively and that he therefore engaged
in intentional misconduct.
RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of the disciplinary system is to protect the public,
maintain the integrity of the legal system and safeguard the
administration of justice. In re Howard, 188 Ill. 2d 423, 434, 721
N.E.2d 1126 (1999). In determining the proper sanction, I ask that the
Hearing Board give deliberative consideration to the proven
misconduct. In re Witt, 145 Ill. 2d 380, 398, 583 N.E.2d 526 (1991).
In this matter the evidence demonstrates that the Respondent consumed
illegal drugs that should have resulted in felony charges and a felony
criminal conviction. The Respondent can be sanctioned under the Rules
of Professional Conduct for a criminal conviction even though he
committed such acts before he was admitted to the bar. See In re
Chandler, 161 Ill. 2d 459, 641 N.E.2d 473 (1994).
The Respondent has not cooperated fully with questions into his
illegal drug use and possible sale or distribution of drugs. While he
has no publicly known prior bar discipline we find multiple
aggravating factors. He has consistently denied his misconduct as it
relates to his bar application, failed to take genuine responsibility
for his actions, and demonstrated no remorse.
Based upon the well settled case law discussed above and the
considerable evidence in mitigation I believe disbarment is the
appropriate sanction.
BARACK OBAMA
BARRY SOETORO
CONCLUSION
Considering the nature of the Respondent’s misconduct, the lack of
significant evidence in mitigation and the numerous instances of
aggravating factors, the movant recommends that the Respondent be
disbarred.
Search Results Label/Receipt Number: 7006 2150 0002 2527 0708
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 2:32 PM on July 23, 2008 in CHICAGO, IL 60601.
Big surprise.
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
Self Appointed King Obama & Queen Michelle Antoinette
1.
Putative 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.
| Obama never held the title of Professor of Law! 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…the_title.html Investigation Reveals Numerous Bogus Claims On Obama Law Resume |
2
FACTCHECK.ORG:
COMMUNISM aka; MAFIA A’ LA CARTE’
Factcheck.org is sponsored by the Annenberg Foundation from which the Chicago Annenberg Project received a large educational grant.
Denies That Obama Soetoro & Michelle Soetoro needed to surrender their law licenses. Factcheck says with their unsubstantiated pontifications that this is a mere rumor a political stunt. Factcheck says they only inactivated their licenses because they did not want to pay the yearly fee! On face value this is an absurd excuse!
1995
- Ayers works with Mayor Richard Daley on the city’s school reform program.
- It may be interesting to note that the Chicago Climate Exchange in spite of its hype, is a veritable rat’s nest of cronyism. The largest shareholder in the Exchange is Goldman Sachs. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is its honorary chairman, The Joyce Foundation, which funded the Exchange also funded money for John Ayers’ Chicago School Initiatives {The Chicago Annenberg Challenge}. John is the brother of William Ayers.
- Ayers writes grant proposal for Chicago Annenberg Challenge and obtains $49.2 million over 5 years for public school reform.
- Barack selected as Founding President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge => FACTCHECK!
- Bill Ayers has Barack fundraiser and political coming out party in his home. Barack and Michelle Obama were both present.
Obama’s known history is replete with symbiotic associations and participation with admitted anti-American radicals, many of which/who advocate the destruction of American imperialism and capitalism, even through violent means. Consider William Ayers, Khalid Al Mansour, Rhashid Khalidi, Jeremiah Wright, Sol Alinsky, James Cone, Mike Klonsky, as well as organizations such as the Weather Underground, STORM, Chicago Annenberg Challenge => FACTCHECK, Woods Foundation, ACORN, which have all received major tax payer funded support. Obama has never denied or even argued about his nefarious involvement with these people and organizations.
BELOW IS THE DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION’S REPORT ON MICHELLE. SHE WAS COURT ORDERED TO SURRENDER HER LICENSE!
MICHELLE SOTORO Illinois Registration Status: Not authorized to practice law – Last Registered Year: 1993
COURT ORDERED WITHDRAWAL OF LAW LICENSE.
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.
3.
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.
“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.
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.
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:
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
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
According to the New York Times, Michelle was unfulfilled by her law career. She told the newspaper, “I wanted to have a career motivated by passion and not just money.”
Related articles
- Obamas lose both law licenses – Why? (moralmatters.org)
- Investigation Reveals Numerous Bogus Claims on Obama Resume (theobamahustle.wordpress.com)
- Obama’s Records Are Missing & Why He is Causing a Media Blackout (itmakessenseblog.com)
- Barack Obama: To All The White Girls I’ve Loved Before? (politicalvelcraft.org)
- The Biggest Hustle in Human History (atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com)
- Mass Arrests of the Dark Cabal – Why & How? (pathwaytoascension.wordpress.com)
Muslim Brotherhood in the US – Another Holder Scandal
Muslim Brotherhood in the US – Another Holder Scandal
The Muslim Brotherhood is here to stay, if the Obama administration has anything to say about it, and they have! They invite terrorists to the White House, they consulted hundreds of times with them overseas and at home, and they have infiltrated every level of government, military, and institutions across the land.
Mohamed Morsy waves to his supporters after Friday prayers in Cairo in this June 22, 2012 file photo. REUTERS/Suhaib Salem/Files
The OTHER Eric Holder Scandal
by Ryan Mauro – Family Security Matters and Institute on Religion and Democracy
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is in the spotlight after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold him in contempt because he is refusing to provide documents related to the Fast and the Furious scandal. But there’s another scandal you should know about. For over one year, he has refused to hand over documents about the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, confronted Holder about the matter on Thursday, June 21. Rep. Gohmert wants Congress to have access to documents from the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history. Five Foundation officials were found guilty of funding Hamas and evidence introduced by the federal government shows it was set up by the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret “Palestine Committee” in the U.S.
Three prominent Muslim-American organizations were labeled by the federal government as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the trial-the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The documents requested by Rep. Gohmert for the past year were provided to the Holy Land Foundation’s defense team, yet are being denied to Congress.
“They are terrorists, and we wanted the documents you gave to the terrorists. We are a year later, and we still don’t have them,” complained Rep. Gohmert. Holder replied that he’d only provide what is already available publicly.
Rep. Gohmert is one of five members of Congress requesting investigations into the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied organizations and individuals in the U.S. government. As I reviewed here, this influence is far-reaching. It is very possible that the documents from the Holy Land trial would be embarrassing to many government officials, not to mention businesses and interfaith groups that have embraced Brotherhood entities. At the very least, they could provide further justification for the labeling of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT as “unindicted co-conspirators.”
The documents were originally requested on April 27, 2011 after reporter Patrick Poole broke the blockbuster story at Pajamas Media that Justice Department political appointees blocked the prosecution of one CAIR co-founder and, according to his high-level Justice Department source, other groups and individuals listed as “unindicted co-conspirators.”
Poole learned that Assistant Attorney General David Kris wrote a memo dated March 31, 2010 titled, “Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad,” an individual who was present at a Muslim Brotherhood meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 to discuss how to support Hamas. The idea to create a new group was put forward at this meeting and Ahmad co-founded CAIR the next year. Ahmad was also personally listed as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land trial. The given reason to drop the prosecution was potential jury nullification but the source is certain that it was a political decision.
According to Poole’s source, “It was always the plan to initially go after the [HLF] leaders first and then go after the rest of the accomplices in a second round of prosecutions.” The original trial resulted in a mistrial, pushing back the planned prosecutions. The Obama Administration then came into office and they were stopped.
After the report broke, the Administration claimed that its predecessor had decided not to indict CAIR in 2004. Poole explains that this is true but it was because “They decided to get the bigger fish after they convicted the smaller fish.” Rep. Peter King confirmed that FBI officials and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Texas, which prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation, were ready to begin the second round of prosecutions and were outraged at how the political appointees stopped them.
Congressional sources later told Poole that Assistant Attorney General David Kris also dropped the prosecution of several officials involved with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Muslim Brotherhood front, and the SAAR Foundation/SAFA Group, which has disbanded since the federal government raided their offices. They were to be prosecuted on charges related to tax evasion and money laundering because Sami al-Arian, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader in the U.S., refused to testify and reveal their terrorist connections.
Poole reported that one of these protected officials is Jamal Barzinji. In October 2011, former Virginia Governor and current Democratic Senate candidate Tim Kaine spoke at an event honoring Barzinji. His ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are very well-documented. FBI documents all the way back from 1987-1988 identify him as a Brotherhood operative. He is also a founder of the radical Dar al-Hijrah mosque, which Treasury Department records say “is a mosque operating as a front for Hamas operatives in the U.S.”
Rep. Gohmert slammed Holder for not prosecuting these groups and individuals when there is a “mountain of evidence” against them. He further revealed that “at least one of which now says it is working inside your [Holder's] agency to help advise on the purge of counter-terrorism training materials.”
The role of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has already been discovered. MPAC was founded by Brotherhood ideologues and works in tandem with the aforementioned groups, but was not labeled as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land trial. Rep. Gohmert was apparently referring to CAIR, ISNA or NAIT.
On February 8, ISNA was part of an interfaith group that met with the FBI Director about the training materials. A FBI spokesperson said the agency would consider a proposal from the group to create a committee to review the materials. More recently, the White House’s new Director for Community Partnerships, George Selim, said that “There is [sic] hundreds of examples of departments and agencies that meet with CAIR on a range of issues.”
Fast and Furious isn’t the only controversy Holder is refusing to show documents about, but it’s probably the only one you’re hearing about.
This article was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is in the spotlight after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold him in contempt because he is refusing to provide documents related to the Fast and the Furious scandal. But there’s another scandal you should know about. For over one year, he has refused to hand over documents about the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, confronted Holder about the matter on Thursday, June 21. Rep. Gohmert wants Congress to have access to documents from the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history. Five Foundation officials were found guilty of funding Hamas and evidence introduced by the federal government shows it was set up by the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret “Palestine Committee” in the U.S.
Three prominent Muslim-American organizations were labeled by the federal government as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the trial-the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The documents requested by Rep. Gohmert for the past year were provided to the Holy Land Foundation’s defense team, yet are being denied to Congress.
“They are terrorists, and we wanted the documents you gave to the terrorists. We are a year later, and we still don’t have them,” complained Rep. Gohmert. Holder replied that he’d only provide what is already available publicly.
Rep. Gohmert is one of five members of Congress requesting investigations into the influence of Muslim Brotherhood-tied organizations and individuals in the U.S. government. As I reviewed here, this influence is far-reaching. It is very possible that the documents from the Holy Land trial would be embarrassing to many government officials, not to mention businesses and interfaith groups that have embraced Brotherhood entities. At the very least, they could provide further justification for the labeling of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT as “unindicted co-conspirators.”
The documents were originally requested on April 27, 2011 after reporter Patrick Poole broke the blockbuster story at Pajamas Media that Justice Department political appointees blocked the prosecution of one CAIR co-founder and, according to his high-level Justice Department source, other groups and individuals listed as “unindicted co-conspirators.”
Poole learned that Assistant Attorney General David Kris wrote a memo dated March 31, 2010 titled, “Declination of Prosecution of Omar Ahmad,” an individual who was present at a Muslim Brotherhood meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 to discuss how to support Hamas. The idea to create a new group was put forward at this meeting and Ahmad co-founded CAIR the next year. Ahmad was also personally listed as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land trial. The given reason to drop the prosecution was potential jury nullification but the source is certain that it was a political decision.
According to Poole’s source, “It was always the plan to initially go after the [HLF] leaders first and then go after the rest of the accomplices in a second round of prosecutions.” The original trial resulted in a mistrial, pushing back the planned prosecutions. The Obama Administration then came into office and they were stopped.
After the report broke, the Administration claimed that its predecessor had decided not to indict CAIR in 2004. Poole explains that this is true but it was because “They decided to get the bigger fish after they convicted the smaller fish.” Rep. Peter King confirmed that FBI officials and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Texas, which prosecuted the Holy Land Foundation, were ready to begin the second round of prosecutions and were outraged at how the political appointees stopped them.
Congressional sources later told Poole that Assistant Attorney General David Kris also dropped the prosecution of several officials involved with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Muslim Brotherhood front, and the SAAR Foundation/SAFA Group, which has disbanded since the federal government raided their offices. They were to be prosecuted on charges related to tax evasion and money laundering because Sami al-Arian, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader in the U.S., refused to testify and reveal their terrorist connections.
Poole reported that one of these protected officials is Jamal Barzinji. In October 2011, former Virginia Governor and current Democratic Senate candidate Tim Kaine spoke at an event honoring Barzinji. His ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are very well-documented. FBI documents all the way back from 1987-1988 identify him as a Brotherhood operative. He is also a founder of the radical Dar al-Hijrah mosque, which Treasury Department records say “is a mosque operating as a front for Hamas operatives in the U.S.”
Rep. Gohmert slammed Holder for not prosecuting these groups and individuals when there is a “mountain of evidence” against them. He further revealed that “at least one of which now says it is working inside your [Holder's] agency to help advise on the purge of counter-terrorism training materials.”
The role of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has already been discovered. MPAC was founded by Brotherhood ideologues and works in tandem with the aforementioned groups, but was not labeled as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land trial. Rep. Gohmert was apparently referring to CAIR, ISNA or NAIT.
On February 8, ISNA was part of an interfaith group that met with the FBI Director about the training materials. A FBI spokesperson said the agency would consider a proposal from the group to create a committee to review the materials. More recently, the White House’s new Director for Community Partnerships, George Selim, said that “There is [sic] hundreds of examples of departments and agencies that meet with CAIR on a range of issues.”
Fast and Furious isn’t the only controversy Holder is refusing to show documents about, but it’s probably the only one you’re hearing about.
This article was sponsored by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
Reason for Fox not airing program
Subject: Reason for Fox not airing program
Dear Friends,
This is a difficult video to watch. Because of the content and the person speaking. The Bible, in the book of Romans, chapter 13 says that we are to submit ourselves to those who rule over us (paraphrased). What I'm going to say is extremely difficult. We have a man in the White House who professes to be a Christian and yet he acts like a Muslim. When he quotes from the Bible, he always misquotes the verses and takes them out of context. When he quotes the Quran, he quotes it in Arabic. (True Muslims believe that the only way you can really understand the Quran is in the Arabic language, The language it was written in).
Just a couple of interesting facts. The Quran states that it is acceptable to lie and deceive your enemy if it furthers the spreading of the Muslim religion. So, when you see him professing to be a Christian, is perfectly acceptable within the precepts of the Muslim religion. Personally, I see a this man make a profession of faith that he is a Christian, yet he shows no evidence of a transformed life and all evidence shows that he is a follower and believer in the Muslim religion which is diametrically opposed to Christianity. There is a saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well in this case it's probably a Muslim. I am encouraging you to watch this video and see for yourself exactly where he stands, so you don't think I am putting words into his mouth. click on the link below for the video.
The only thing I can add is, Maranatha, even so come quickly Lord Jesus!
This is a difficult video to watch. Because of the content and the person speaking. The Bible, in the book of Romans, chapter 13 says that we are to submit ourselves to those who rule over us (paraphrased). What I'm going to say is extremely difficult. We have a man in the White House who professes to be a Christian and yet he acts like a Muslim. When he quotes from the Bible, he always misquotes the verses and takes them out of context. When he quotes the Quran, he quotes it in Arabic. (True Muslims believe that the only way you can really understand the Quran is in the Arabic language, The language it was written in).
Just a couple of interesting facts. The Quran states that it is acceptable to lie and deceive your enemy if it furthers the spreading of the Muslim religion. So, when you see him professing to be a Christian, is perfectly acceptable within the precepts of the Muslim religion. Personally, I see a this man make a profession of faith that he is a Christian, yet he shows no evidence of a transformed life and all evidence shows that he is a follower and believer in the Muslim religion which is diametrically opposed to Christianity. There is a saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well in this case it's probably a Muslim. I am encouraging you to watch this video and see for yourself exactly where he stands, so you don't think I am putting words into his mouth. click on the link below for the video.
The only thing I can add is, Maranatha, even so come quickly Lord Jesus!
Sean Hannity has vowed to vett Obama this election cycle because the press did not do it in 2008, and he is...except for one segment.
Remember all the emails you received saying to "watch FOX news this Sunday at 9:00 to find out about the real Barack", only to have nothing shown that
night. Here is why....
|
MEMBERS OF CONGRSS SHOULD HAVE TO TAKE A TEST ON THE CONSTITUTION
From godfatherpolitics.com
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) says that support for nationalized healthcare is constitutional under the ‘Good and Welfare Clause.’ Huh? CNSNews.com asked Rep. Conyers, “What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?” Here was Conyers’ response:
“Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know — I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know — they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”
Note that Conyers is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Chairman!
Now if only Justice Roberts had been tested on the content and meaning of the Constitution.
A careful reader will note that “general welfare” did not mean aid to some at the expense of others, as James Madison was quick to point out in Federalist 41:
A careful reader will note that “general welfare” did not mean aid to some at the expense of others, as James Madison was quick to point out in Federalist 41:
“But what color can the objection have [that the phrase ‘general welfare’ is not specified by particulars], when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? . . . Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars . . . .”[1]
In the entire list that follows the semicolon, there is nothing that even remotely resembles the social welfare programs promoted by liberals. At least Justice Roberts knew this much about the Constitution.
Following modern-day proponent’s of General Welfare, the national government has unlimited authority to do anything it defines as General Welfare. This is impossible. Madison points out that the phrase is found in the Articles of Confederation, and it has a particular meaning:
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
You can see by how “general welfare” is used to mean what applies to everyone generally and has nothing to do with wealth redistribution which a national healthcare care program would be. You can find similar uses of “general welfare” in Articles VIII and IX. Madison continues:
Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
The modem concept of general welfare is most often defined in terms of wealth redistribution where some members of society (“the rich”) are taxed heavily in order to benefit the “welfare” of others (“the poor”). General welfare, according to the Constitution, means welfare that benefits everybody more or less equally. This can be clearly seen in providing “for the common Defense.” Taxes collected to defend the nation benefit everybody generally. Taxing some people so other people can have decent housing or an education or healthcare is not general welfare; it’s particular welfare.
Notes:
Following modern-day proponent’s of General Welfare, the national government has unlimited authority to do anything it defines as General Welfare. This is impossible. Madison points out that the phrase is found in the Articles of Confederation, and it has a particular meaning:
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
You can see by how “general welfare” is used to mean what applies to everyone generally and has nothing to do with wealth redistribution which a national healthcare care program would be. You can find similar uses of “general welfare” in Articles VIII and IX. Madison continues:
Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
The modem concept of general welfare is most often defined in terms of wealth redistribution where some members of society (“the rich”) are taxed heavily in order to benefit the “welfare” of others (“the poor”). General welfare, according to the Constitution, means welfare that benefits everybody more or less equally. This can be clearly seen in providing “for the common Defense.” Taxes collected to defend the nation benefit everybody generally. Taxing some people so other people can have decent housing or an education or healthcare is not general welfare; it’s particular welfare.
Notes:
- The Federalist No. 41: General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution, No. 41 (January 19, 1788).
Green Light Update
Victory of the Light!
Green Light Update
Real Green Light has not been issued yet. When that happens, action will be taken within 24 hours timeframe. This action will be very evident for everyone and nobody will have any more doubts whatsoever.
I have received hints from independent sources that action might indeed take place by Fourth of July. However, they were just hints and I can not completely confirm this. Even if nothing happens by then, rest assured that mass arrests WILL happen. The Cabal must be removed from this planet and that removal will happen within a reasonable timeframe.
It is worth mentioning that there are interesting developments in occult economy taking place. The Resistance Movement has been playing with and testing the computer systems of the Rothschilds banking casino to prepare for the Reset:
Eastern Alliance and White Dragon Society are very active during this weekend, putting additional pressure to the system.
This is all in preparation for the “financial Green Light” as Drake calls it.
Many members of the Cabal are now seriously considering “silent surrender” when the Event happens.
The Event is a worldwide operation. In USA it will happen through the Positive Military. In Canada and Australia it will be a combination of their own Positive Military and Interpol. In Europe, it will be carried out through the positive faction inside Interpol and NATO. In Asia, it will be a combination of Interpol and White Dragon Society. In Latin America it will happen through a certain positive group that has members throughout most of the South / Central America and whose name can not be disclosed. Situation in Africa is more complex and will receive special assistance.
And finally, the Resistance will give support with Operation Omega Phoenix:
And the Pleiadians with Operation Stardust 2:
Hidden Portals in Earth’s Magnetic Field
The Rumor Mill News Reading Room
Hidden Portals in Earth’s Magnetic Field
Posted By: Steve [Send E-Mail]
Date: Saturday, 30-Jun-2012 15:33:35
Date: Saturday, 30-Jun-2012 15:33:35
|
"Obamacare now invalid because tax bills must originate in House"
The Rumor Mill News Reading Room
Reader, link: "Obamacare now invalid because tax bills must originate in House"
|
This Is A Bad Sign For Obama
This Is A Bad Sign For Obama
KEEP
IN MIND THAT MARYLAND IS AMONG THE MOST LIBERAL OF DEMOCRAT STATES IN THE
UNION.
As soon as you come into Worcester
County, Maryland from Virginia this sign will appear.
|
4th of July History Lesson
|
Two
lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another
had two sons captured.
NINE of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the REVOLUTIONARY WAR. THEY SIGNED AND THEY PLEDGED THEIR LIVES, THEIR FORTUNES, AND THEIR SACRED HONOR. WHAT KIND OF MEN WERE THEY? TWENTY-FOUR were lawyers and jurists.
ELEVEN
were Merchants,
NINE were Farmers and large plantation owners;
men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured. |
CARTER BRAXTON
of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader,
saw his ships swept from the seas by the British
Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay
his debts, and died in rags.
THOMAS McKEAM was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of DILLERY, HALL, CLYMER, WALTON, GWINNETT, HEYWARD, RUTLEDGE and MIDDLETON.
At the battle of Yorktown , THOMAS NELSON, JR. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters.
THOMAS McKEAM was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of DILLERY, HALL, CLYMER, WALTON, GWINNETT, HEYWARD, RUTLEDGE and MIDDLETON.
At the battle of Yorktown , THOMAS NELSON, JR. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters.
He quietly urged
General George Washington to open fire. The home was
destroyed and Nelson died bankrupt.
FRANCIS LEWIS had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
JOHN HART was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.
FRANCIS LEWIS had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
JOHN HART was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.
So take a few minutes
while enjoying your 4th of JULY holiday and silently
thank these
patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.
Remember: FREEDOM is never FREE!
The best way to HONOR these men and keep their Memory alive, is to send this to as many people as we can so everybody in this Country will know the price that was paid for our FREEDOM. It's time to WAKE UP AMERICA and get the word out that PATRIOTISM is something to be proud of and to live here and enjoy the privileges, the 4th OF JULY is more than beer, picnics and baseball games.
Remember: FREEDOM is never FREE!
The best way to HONOR these men and keep their Memory alive, is to send this to as many people as we can so everybody in this Country will know the price that was paid for our FREEDOM. It's time to WAKE UP AMERICA and get the word out that PATRIOTISM is something to be proud of and to live here and enjoy the privileges, the 4th OF JULY is more than beer, picnics and baseball games.
SO PASS IT ON. . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
