Recession For Thee, Not Me
By Track-A-'Crat on May 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM in Current Affairs, Michelle Obama
Some things can never be repeated too many times.
One such example is how Michelle Obama, showing the common touch of Queen Marie Antoinette, idiotically stated that President Bush’s $600 personal stimulus was only good for buying a pair of earrings.
Now it transpires that Michelle was wearing a pair of trainers worth $540 while volunteering at a DC food bank, proving that her vanity is more than a match for that of her husband and creepy old Uncle Joe. Just ‘cos she’s hanging out with the bums doesn’t mean that she has to look like one, y’all.
Michelle, as with all other politicians plus spouses, is obviously not feeling the recession’s pinch (or is it a depression? Are we allowed to call it that yet?).
Unlike the rest of us, money just seems to be given to Michelle, regardless of trifling matters such as working to earn it.
Please do tell, Michelle: what is your secret?
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
She God damns America…
When you have the Saudi Arabia King giving you money, it is okay…
Why?
Insurance fraud..deal made for her to give up practicing and the the Illinois State Bar Association would keep the matter private.
How do you know this? Where did you find the ‘insurance fraud’ info?
She is so ugly, like a witch or Queen Kong.TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENT.
Someone can actually run/train in those sneakers? Or is that the casual name nowadays for pieces of high priced garbarge? I personally think those things are hideous, they seem neither fashionable nor practical, but just call me a fuddy duddy. I rely on my excellent Nikes Shox, two pairs bought for $240 total. Not for wearing to foodbank functions, I actually do train in them. And this was the most I ever spent on any kind of sneaker, going through four or five pairs a year. Just let me ask, what the f. is the First Lady THINKING? Does she think? Ever? About anyone but her self? I am tired of such a disgraceful couple in the White House and the morons who sit at home content with this nonsense. Wake up America!
She never runs in anything, because she does not run. Except from the truth. She is doing her “community service” as 1st lady and is trying REAL hard to go down as a fashion icon in history. Serious volunteers get to work and are not front and center for photo ops, with squeaky clean fashion “trainers” that cost more than that shelter probably takes in as donations in a day. Did she do anyone a favor by showing up in that outfit?
Angry: I’m with you. What could possibly make a pair of sneakers worth so much money. Again, the Obamas show themselves to be in the same vein as Condi Rice and her 1500 dollar shoes.
The most I ever spent for sneakers was $50 dollars so I could use them at the Bolder Boulder. I used them there, and decided my asthma would prevent me from using them there again. But….I still use them taking my dogs to the off-leash park four or five times a week. I still think they were overpriced.
I am a frugal person. Most Americans have way too much stuff. Mechelle’s lifestyle is NOT a good example for AA women to aspire to.
OOPS–I forgot to say that I bought them 12 years ago. I am a double Cancer, so my crab feet are feeling fine still.
The First family could be such inspiring role models if they were interested. Obviously they are not.
Tricia: perhaps they’re setting the example that AAs want to see?
I have a feeling that AAs would like to see more food and clothing on their own tables.
Not sure about the AAs but I have a feeling they are not too happy with their future generations being in debt for a long time to come.
As an AA I really dont care for the way the Obamas seem to flaunt all the taxpayers money.
My husband currently works two jobs to make up for the one he was laid off from. (His company went under). Luckily we did not over extend ourselfs like other people and have very little credit out there.
My husband and I can barely make our expenses and the Obamas are spending our taxpayer’s money like there is no tomorrow.
It would be nice to see the Obamas set some sort of example on cutting back. Like lower the thermostat in the WH and not flaunt expensive clothing and food ($100 a lb steak that isnt even US meat???).
Was she wearing her falsies, too? I mean her eye lashes. I don’t think she expects us to buy that her boosoms grew at this late age.
OH my where did that picture come from….I dont think I would want to come across her in a dark alley
@CA
I’d hate to come across her in a well lit alley, because I’d then be able to see her, and may turn to stone.
Margo:
Not sure. One part of this form (https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=163393081) states that she’s “Voluntarily inactive” but another part of it states that “attorney is on court ordered inactive status.”
?
Something smells fishy to me…
Tricia:
How right you are. They could be inspirational but, sadly, are perpetuating some of the worst qualities of which seemingly most politicians are guilty.
The more I think about it, the more anarchical I become…
No, she was NOT disbarred. Her license was placed on “court ordered inactive” status because she left law practice for other jobs.
The “court ordered” part shows up because at that time, one had to go before a judge to make such a change and recieve court approval (order).
What BS
She was ORDERED BY A COURT TO STOP PRACTICING
not Michelle ordered, COURT ordered, by 770 disciplinary
go see Atlas Shrugged, it’s very clear the reality is that if she had wanted to stop practice, she’d file under ANOTHER ruling and pay $150
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/12/wtf-michelle-ob.html
You should get your facts staight. She was involved with her friends in a bad deal.
Which friends? What deal? Kindly give us the facts. Got a source? A link? Anything? I’d like to read it.
Track-A-’Crat~
You really should delete that portion of your OP until you do some real research.
It is not right to post and spread an unsubstantiated (in fact, PROVEN to be UNTRUE) allegation such as that.
It ruins one’s credibility, and that of NQ.
Delete it and do some homework.
[ADMIN: We are checking it. In the meantime, we've changed that part of the story. Thank you.]
ellie: you mean like the lies Obama spread about Hillary in the primaries? Thugs can always dish it out, but they can’t take it.
No, she was NOT disbarred. Her license was placed on “court ordered inactive” status because she left law practice for other jobs.
The “court ordered” part shows up because at that time, one had to go before a judge to make such a change and recieve court approval (order). The code was changed in 1999, IIRC, and it is no longer required.
Beforew someone claims the code number on her record indicates wrong-doing, again, the code numbering was changed in intervening years.
NO, SHE WAS NOT DISBARRED. Track-A-’Crat, you are passing along bogus information.
As much as I dislike MO, this sort of misinformation does none of us any good.
Do some real research rather than passing along bogus nonsense picked up from some site.
She wasnt passing along bogus information…she was just stating what she knew….and where are the links to your information?
One can go to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinoissite. There is a search function where you can view every single attorney that was disciplined that year. Then you can search the codes.
I spend careful hours on this a coupla months ago. I do not care to do it all over again for your sake. You can do it yourself.
T-A-C did not do any research. On the face of it, it appears to be suspicious, but upon actual research, turns out to be nothing at all.
There is no good to come from posting inacurate claims.
If you care, you can research it, as can T-A-C.
There is no good to come from posting inaccurate claims.
There’s also no good to come from being an insufferable ass. you could have reported your knowledge that the one statement in the article was incorrect without such histrionics. in one post.
I did research it ELLIE and you’re just BSing everyone
RULE 770 IS ONLY STRICTLY FOR DISCIPLINARY REASONS
Looks as though she was ORDERED by a COURT to stop practice so thy would not pursue more punishment/investigation.
and here you are trying to say she stopped practice voluntarily when there is another rule just for such a thing, no court order involved whatsoever for $105
NICE BOT OBFUSCATIONS, NOT BUYING IT
The Rule numbering was changed after she went inactive (sometime between 1994 and 1999). You have to actually read the rules… it is right there, noting the change.
An explanation of the rule change:
http://www.yestodemocracy.com/yes_to_democracy_no_to_pu/2008/11/bergs-whistleblowing-lawsuit—illegal-alien-claim-made-against-obama.html
See http://www.iardc.org/rule770inactivestatus.html .
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/12/25/michelleobamaardcrecord.jpg
WHAT DID SHE DO THAT in 1993 — AFTER only 4 YEARS — HER LICENSE to PRACTICE LAW WAS REVIEWED AND PUT ON INACTIVE by a DISCIPLINARY AGENCY?
What Is the ARDC? (this is NOT the Illinois Bar-where one can voluntarily be inactive) As our name implies, the ARDC is the agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois which registers attorneys and investigates complaints of misconduct filed against attorneys holding a license to practice law in Illinois.
We cannot impose fines, imprison, obtain monetary damages, enforce remedies between the lawyer and client, or seek civil or criminal relief against a lawyer as part of the disciplinary process. We can affect only the lawyer’s ability to practice law in Illinois.
We are not funded by taxpayers’ money. We are funded entirely by the annual registration fees paid by attorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois.
What Is a Request for an Investigation of an Attorney?
It is a request to us that we look into the conduct of an attorney who you believe has acted improperly. We will review your request to determine if an investigation is warranted. In most cases, we will initiate an investigation where the information you provide us suggests that the attorney engaged in illegal, dishonest or unethical conduct. Filing a request accusing an attorney of unethical conduct is a serious matter to the lawyer. We recommend that, whenever practical, you try to resolve any differences or disputes that do not concern claims of unethical conduct directly with the lawyer.
How Do I Request an Investigation of an Attorney?
By mailing to our office, either in Chicago or Springfield, a request that you want an attorney to be investigated by our office. Your request should be in writing. No special form is necessary. For your convenience, you may download a Request for Investigation form. Please return the Request by postal mail or hand-delivery. The ARDC does not accept an e-mail transmission of a Request for Investigation.
wyatt: exactly, no good came of Obama lying about the Clintons. Now we have a poseur in the WH. Obama made himself (and MO) indefensible when he chose to circulate lies and defamation about his opposition. He has no claim to ethical treatment now.
Well said, tek. If those two can’t take it, they should refrain from dishing it out.
Well, just because OB is a liar, you would prefer to read more lies, rather than the truth. Fine. I really thought we were better (and smarter) than that.
The distinct problem that the First Family is having is primarily due to their secretiveness about their pasts, which could be rectified by simply releasing all pertinent information. That they have not and apparently refuse to so do leads anyone with even a trace of skepticism wondering why they would go to such great lengths to keep this information out of public view.
I do not know why MO is no longer practicing law and it really isn’t important to me. What is important, however, are the promises of openness made by That One in the run-up to the election. That they are as empty as his resume is self-evident when these sorts of questions about her (and him, especially) are allowed to fester.
In short, there is something quite disturbing about these two.
Exactly! For a man and his wife who spent 20 years “praising Jesus,” they must have never heard a sermon with “the truth will set you free” verse.
I positively agree with your comments! It is exactly what fuels this sort of speculation. It is nearly impossible to find out anything about them, but what incomplete and inaccurate “stories” OB has put in his books.
This just happens to be one aspect that one CAN find the truth, through public information: She wasn’t disbarred.
According to the link provided in the article, Track-A-’Crat is a ‘he.’
The bar association council routinely makes deals like this. You will never see the documentation on their web site..they asked her to give up her license for an ‘ambiguous’ reference.
It is common practice because of the cost and humiliation to both the attorney in question and the association.
Obviously your web investigation did not go far enough. Interview the attorney involved.
OK.
Back to the topic at hand…
Why couldn’t she wear sneakers from an American designer? As I recall, this is not the first time the BO ‘n’ MO have purchased a lavish item from abroad—the Italian ring?
theBO ‘n’ MOI still can’t get past the fact that she got angry when people thought she looked a little pregnant last month. Remember? Her response was one of anger , saying “as hard as I work on my abs? and you think I look PREGNANT?!”!!!!
Her message to women everywhere was: there’s something DISGUSTING about a woman who looks pregnant!
So, the first lady of the United States thinks you’re being “dissed” if you look pregnant and are not pregnant. Jeeze…. Why wasn’t her response: “No, I’m not pregnant, but thank you for the compliment! What a blessing to bear children. They’re so precious to me”.
MICHELLE OBAMA WAS NOT DISBARRED.
I recently corrected similarly erroneous comments on another blog; this time, I will reproduce a comment left by another lawyer who identifies as “GeorgetownJD,” on “yestodemocracy,” from January, essentially stating what I restated months later, before I found his earlier defense. http://www.yestodemocracy.com/yes_to_democracy_no_to_pu/2008/11/bergs-whistleblowing-lawsuit—illegal-alien-claim-made-against-obama.html
Here are GeorgetownJD’s comments, repeated in full.
[ADMIN: The author is checking that part of the story. In the meantime, we've changed the story. Thank you.]
Any questions?
Here’s some information I posted on that other blog, which is not contained in GeorgetownJD’s comment, copied above.
One can also go to ARDC site and look at all disciplinary actions against all Illinois attorneys by year. I poured through all several hundred for that year, plus half a year on either side to be sure.
There is NO disciplinary action against her.
It is not good to perpetuate this bogus story. It is not good for NQ.
this is hogwash jbjd, since rule 756 has ALWAYS been in place and it’s ALWAYS been for voluntary withdrawal, and 770 has ALWAYS been for DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
this is bullshittery of the highest order and you know it
Since I am not a lawyer I do not know which would of you might be right. But in looking at how the truth seems to be stretched by the Obama and his people I would tend to believe that there was probably something weird.
To me if it was voluntary why is it not part of an open bio on Michelle. You know some article saying that due to new positions she took Michell voluntarily gave up her lawyer’s license.
You see this is what makes almost everything about the two of them so Weird. Obama’s bio is missing many many years and Michelle’s bio has a few holes in hers as well.
What is interesting is that these two say they care about America and Americans. So far what the two of them seem to be saying is to do as they say not as they do. Hey because of what Obama’s team has done to America, there are fewer and fewer Americans that can even dream about dressing($500 tennis shoes) or eating ($100 a pound steak) like them.
Hey just give me the money Obama has spend keeping people away from his real Birth Certificate and I would not have to work another day in my life.
tminu, apparently, you are confusing me with the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission (”IARDC”). I only quoted the IARDC’s interpretation of the rules governing the licensed practice of law, which were written by the Illinois Supreme Court. http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/rules/Art_VII/artVII.htm Again, here’s what the IARDC wrote about those rules.
“Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer’s preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.”
http://www.iardc.org/rule770inactivestatus.html
Track-A-’Crat,
You are a loser. Further degrading this website and taking further down into the gutter.
Just another nutty try to smear the president with anything website.
Suppose to be some feminists on this site, but that is BS.
Attacking the first lady with this garbage.
Look at the Poll for it looks like the majority didnt like the idea of Michelle spending so much on a pair of tennis shoes when so many people are losing jobs, homes and etc.
So are we going to critise how much the first family spends on their clothes now. A lot of woman spend $450 on shoes. No big deal.
And how do you not know she spent $450 on those shoes? Where is the proof? Some bullshit slimy newspaper article.
She has gone out of her way to where clothes that are not all that expensive. Her big thing was JCrew.
Here is a close-up of MO wearing her Lanvin sneakers.
http://www.luxist.com/2009/05/01/mrs-obamas-lanvin-sneakers/
Here is the Lanvin price list.
http://shopping.instyle.com/browse/womens-shoes/Lanvin
Only a pompous ass wears designer sneakers to ‘volunteer’ at a food bank (or runs for POTUS notwithstanding he is not a NBC).
Or designer boots to the ceremonial turning of garden soil…
Martha you had better taste and could identify with the American people.
http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/fashion/1555301,CST-NWS-shoes02.article
http://www.shopstyle.com/browse/shoes-athletic/Lanvin this is the same line of shoes as MO’s: prices range from $540 to $565.
oops should have refreshed screen before post
Well, “Reason”, when you behave like a hypocrite, you can expect to be criticized for it. Her angry countenance doesn’t exactly brighten a room when she enters it, either. She really needs to take a few lessons in human interaction and find herself a decent razor. You, on the other hand, really ought to change your moniker to histrionics or hyperbole.
your comments are the best…
they cut right to the chase and with laser precision..I love it! Kudos!
REason: the shoes cost $540. The point is that Americans are starving because of a recession the Dems helped to happen and that SOB in the WH is spending money like it grows on trees while he tells average Americans they need to sacrifice and suffer. He’s a wannabe, just a wannabe. Mechelle, too.
The reason they don’t buy expensive American-produced good is because they don’t like America.
Its amazing that ‘folks’ like Ellen on this site do not notice the 20,000 other folks living in the new ‘tent city’ in Sacramento..the over 1,000,000. new homeless ‘folks’ because to date- in Obamas first 100 days 6,000,000 jobs have been lost. Hey..like Obama who cares about those folks? They can’t contribute any more money, can they?
She dares to say something about Bill Clinton who in his first term created 21,000,000 new jobs!
Obama’s first 100 days has seen more people/companies go belly up(or bankrupt),
more people lose/losing their jobs,
more people lose/losing their homes to foreclosure,
more school districts laying off teachers while upping student teacher ratio,
more money spent by the Federal government
more people going/gone homeless and living on the streets,
and the list goes on.
100 Days & Throwing People Under the Bus. Campaign promises, family members, and cabinet-level nominees have all been thrown under the bus. Celebrate Obama’s first 100 days on a bumpy ride
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1E-V0QHets&feature=channel_page
Attacking the first lady with this garbage..
Attack Attack!
Well seems to me MO is a inviting it since she is a hypocrite.
Reason is upset about people attacking the first lady about her clothes. How upset was Reason just last year when a former first lady and then incumbent US Senator was subjected to much worse attacks?
Also I don’t know any woman who spends $450 on shoes.
Wasn’t Palin brutally attacked for wardrobe reasons? I’m sure Reason was her staunch defender.
Well said.
Get your facts straight before you come here defending MEchille, the wannabe fashionista. Her husband is telling everyone else to tighten their belts while she flaunts outrageously expensive (what amounts to) tennis shoes.
They think if they keep putting her airbrushed pics on magazine covers and touting her as a fashion icon, we’ll all follow along. Not so. She has very bad taste in clothes and more often than not chooses inappropriate items for the occasion. One especially bad choice was the get-up to visit #10 Downing Street. Wear JCrew all you want in casual situations but please go to some trouble to dress more formally when making appearances with a national leader and his spouse. I guess she thought she was being “cool”. Poor little MEchille. She’ll never make it.
And just because it’s shiney and has rhinestones, doesn’t make it correct.
But it’s shiny…and shine is in..and it flies in the face of the quiet understated elegance that has been associated with America’s First Family…
now, the O’s and company are going to bust America down a few notches [or more]…
and so goes the class, and the elegance…
and in comes the garish, gaudy, loud and tasteless..
get used to it..there is much more to come…
“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
-Michelle Obama
That little gem came from a stump speech at UCLA. Indeed, we are the ones who must live with less and sacrifice as they live in decadent luxury at our expense.
They are the worst case of “Noblesse Oblige” that I have witnessed in a very looooong time….
You have that backwards.. noblesse oblige does not mean luxury the nobles think they are entitled to, it means the obligation of the well-to-do for those less fortunate. Those who have, ie. the noblesse, have an obligation, ie. the oblige, to those who have not. What you see in Meechelle is nouveau riche at it’s worst. New rich, usually tacky beyond belief. No taste and no feeling for those they rose above economically. The “I got mine, screw you!” attitude is typically nouveau riche. It has nothing to do with noblesse oblige.
Pardon my jumping in here, but I think Chris was referring to the act of serving food to the poor - a definite act of noblesse oblige, yet tainting it by flaunting their wealth in front of people who have so much less.
IMHO
Sorry but there is just something so very wrong with both of them. They are both so very very vain…. They are both more concerned with their looks, their clothes, their popularity, their stardom and etc than what is happening to America and Americans.
I was so preoccupied correcting the mistake in this post about MO’s law license that I neglected to register my outrage at the reference to people receiving food at the food bank as “bums.”
Again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
http://www.capitalareafoodbank.org/hunger/who.cfm
The shoes are hideous looking, just like you know who. Ick.
kinda “in yow face”
Michelle was disbarred? Really? LMAO!
I know this is a blog and emphasizes opinion as opposed to journalism. But isn’t there some editorial control over what posters write? This “article” is so riddled with errors and purposeful misrepresentations I’m not really sure where to start.
Larry? Susan? Care to comment.
God what an ugly bi…um.wretch.
OMG what a mug on that woman! Blechhhh!
And she was in People’s most beautiful? Maybe in Field and Stream, but not People!
I wonder how much that cost?
In actual cash or political capital….
People a right to buy designer clothing if they can afford it but it is so insensitive for Michelle to wear those shoes to a homeless shelter. This reminds me of her talking about buying $600 earrings. She simply does not get it!
It reminds me of when she was in Ohio talking to the people that were really struggling, but pretending to understand by complaining about paying 10 grand a year for camp and dance lessons, while wearing the 600 dolar Jimmy Choos. The problem is neither Obama has any empathy and when they try to fake it to be like regular people they come across as delusional hypocrits. WHO goes to a group of workers that make 30 grand and complains about finally paying off school loans (which since we can’t see any of Obama school records, who knows if he paid any of his own Harvard tution) spending 10 grand for childrens activities and wearing shoes that cost more than a couple outfits could?
and then I read an article about how Michelle is the most popular FLOTUS and “beloved”? right.
Exactly. If she can afford it, she can spend as much as she wants on her wardrobe. What bugs me, is the Obama’s fail to grasp the fundamentals of etiquette and manners. It’s not about YOU. It’s about those around you. Being gracious and making those around you feel comfortable. If her first thought was others and not herself, she wouldn’t wear $540 sneakers to the homeless shelter, a tank top and sweater to Buckingham Palace, chew with her mouth open, or give thoughtless presents to guests.
i agree ..
Touting this woman as some kind of fashion icon is as absurd as this whole farce of a presidency. The Obamas are only interested in being celebrities and acquiring personal wealth by any means necessary. Michelle is an ungainly water buffalo.
Michelle Obama is plain and she’ll never make the Greek goddess category no matter how much plastic surgery or “designer” clothes she wears and the media lies calling her beautiful just points it our more.
She never gives a genuine smile, always looks angry, and always looks as if she begrudges having to be somewhere. The way she raced into the room to meet the Queen and ended up nudging Prince Phillip out of the way was just greedy.
You don’t have to be beautiful to be gracious and elegant; we’ve had a lot of first ladies considered plain. Eleanor Roosevelt was one and yet she had a beautiful spirit that shown through. Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower were never considered “beauties”, Lady Bird Johnson followed Jacki Kennedy and knew she had no chance of besting her. Just look at the photos of the first ladies; the best known - including Jackie Kennedy who worked to make the White House a museum for the People - were those who used their talents to accomplish something besides living a jet setting life courtesy of Air Force 1.
If Michelle would work on her personality as much as she works to become a fashion “icon” perhaps she would be thought better of…but that takes having empathy for people; a trait that seems to be missing from her and her husband.
“If Michelle would work on her personality as much as she works to become a fashion “icon”….
This statement exemplifies the derision and contempt with which held by this administration…
They fully expect us to believe that she is a “changed” woman..
because her clothes and her exterior
have undergone some polish…Basta!
In reality, she is still the angry vituperous unprincipled hag we were first presented with..
and no amount of primping and polishing and painting..will ever and change that…and we know it…
“the purported populist who wears $550 (I checked)
sneakers to help out at a food bank..
most obviously does not get it…and I fully expect her next statement will be to “let them eat cake”…although I am still unsure what type she will recommend!
What I find astounding from reading the comments here is that the obamabots in our midst are just as adoring of their false idol and just as invincible in their ignorance as the bushbots who came before them. I thought the election of this provocateur and his insignificant other were supposed to bring about hope and change. After all, wasn’t that the entire focus of their campaign? I just see more of the same old I-won-you-lost-get-over-it politics. Other than a 180-degree turn in policy, I see scant difference between the two, with one exception: Laura Bush was a credit to her position as first lady, irrespective of my views on her tinhorn, Yosemite Sam of a husband. Me-chelle had better get a complete attitude makeover to go along with her exterior remodeling or she will join her Daffy Duck husband in becoming an example of the worst our wretched two-party system has to offer.
Bah
adeptly and eloquently stated!
I bet if the camera pans the Oprah show audience’s feet over the next few weeks, we would see lots of women wearing these $540 sneakers. Many from women who probably can’t afford them, but charged them anyways.( And we all get stuck with the higher fees and interest rates to cover their defaults) J Crew sells out of an item if MEchelle or the girls wore it. Same with Talbots. Inexpensive items if you are in the Obama’s tax bracket, too costly if you are like most American families.
where’s the MO mug of one the most beautiful people in the world, you had up last night?
don’t tell me that you guys are starting to scrub your stuff too?
gimme a break?
I found it Chris. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/file:m_113_Creature.jpg
yikes..before or after picture?
Before the air brushing, of course!
srry but Im still trying to figure out which one was scarier LOL
The picture here before or http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/file:m_113_Creature.jpg
Tack-A-’Crat~
I am all the more dismayed to now realize that the “source” of your claim that Michele was disbarred is your own website, where you make the claim based only on your misinterpretation and lack of knowlege of the Rules changes in 1999.
I suggest that you directly contact the ARDC and ask.
Why should any of us be surprised at how she dresses or acts? America put Chicago thugs and low life’s in the WH.
BTW re: her law statis, I read somewhere back some time ago that she is on that statis because of insurance fraud while working in that Chicago hospital. Not sure if it is rue or not.
and if it is do you really think that it is going to be posted there?
If there is a word which captures how the Obamas are handled by the press..it has to be
SCRUBBED!
EVERYTHING IS SCRUBBED CLEAN AND MADE PALATABLE..
FOR US..THE DUMB-ASS TAX PAYERS
Remember back in the 30s and 40s when the Gangsters’s girlfriends used to try and dress like high society. They still stood out like a sore thumb even with all that money to buy clothes with.
—– Hmmmm now I know what Michelle’s style reminds me of .
What I am confused about is why she would want to put her law license on inactive status? Could someone explain that to me. (I have to agree that if she had been disbarred, we would know.) I just want to know the reasons a lawyer would do that?
I am asking because I have a teaching license, but there were several times I left teaching to do other work, but I didn’t ask to have my license put on inactive status.
Here’s my example that makes me ask this question.
I was teaching high school and had two teenagers at home during my divorce. It was too hard listening to teenagers whine during the day, listening to them whine at home while also having to deal with a very bad divorce lawyer. So I took a different less stressful job at that time as a documents editor for a consulting firm.
Right after my divorce was finally finalized–after four years of my ex trying to, as he said,”put me on the streets homeless”–I found out my lawyer’s incompetence would cost me a great deal of future legal fees, something he had not explained to me.
I called him to say he needed to make amends. He refused my call, so I left a voice message saying I would file a complaint against him. I got a nasty return voice mail threatening me and telling me to get a different lawyer to help me in court since I would be facing him.
Undeterred, I called our state’s office for investigating complaints against lawyers. They said I did not have a complaint that would prove to impugn his ethics but implied that I still needed to pursue him for other reasons–obviously poor work.
Then then fifteen minutes after my call to that office and about an hour after he had left the nasty voice message, I got another call from him saying he had “thought about it” and would help me with the problem–at no cost.
It took another three and a half very long years in the legal system to get things straightened out. All that time his office kept sending me invoices. I would call, and he would say “don’t worry about it.”
Then three years after everything was settled and after I hadn’t had to deal with him again during that time, I suddenly got a notice that he was going to get the state to attach part of my salary to pay my enormous overdue bills.
I found a lawyer whose office window was higher than his and looked toward his building, showed that lawyer a letter I had saved from him in which he actually admitted his fault in not doing things right during the divorce. For a small fee, my new lawyer called him, read the letter and asked if he REALLY wanted to pursue his action against me.
It was settled in a minute in my favor of course.
I’m working from one example and I know that overgeneralizing from too little data is illogical. I also know, however, we all do it in order to survive. That is learning by experience.
It’s simply that my experience makes me wonder why a person who worked hard to get that license would voluntarily just put it away. Maybe it was some sort of admission or concession on her part of her incompetence as a lawyer.
The reason for placing a professional license on ‘inactive’ status is that
(1) one does not have to keep up with the ‘mandatory continuing legal education program’.
(2) One pays a reduced fee to merely keep the license registered, but not active (since she was not going to practice law having taken a position in another sector).
(3) One does not have to carry malpractice insurance.
I know another attny. on ‘inactive’, as he pursues a non-law avocation. An engineer who has his license on ‘inactive’, as he works in another field. A builder who keeps his general contractors license on ‘inactive’, while he works for another company.
All of these licenses can be reactivated, usually requiring completion of some courses in the field to bring them up to date.
It happens all the time.
Thanks for the explanation.
I explained all of this in the lengthy comments by GeorgetownJD, which I posted above, yesterday.
I didn’t read your comment then.
But now after thinking about it a while, I still have this to say. My lawyer, as I found out was the son of the firm’s founding lawyer–who had retired. It was a nationally known firm for family law, but it became apparent to me that my lawyer was there NOT on merit but as a not to his father.
Mechelle got an affirmative action scholarship to pursue the law at a university that poor and middle class good students of every color woul love to get into. While there she writes a thesis that disses that very university. The affirmative action laws, in my mind, are meant not only to right past wrongs but to graduate good examples for AA’s and other minorities.
Here’s a lawyer who got that scholarship and the degree and the licens, and then does NOT use it. Instead, she accepts enormous pork money as a salary for a position she takes that she has no qualifications for from her incompetent husband-Senator (also in my mind an affirmative action POTUS)
And now she is spending her time imitating the new incarnation of June Cleaver and Margaret Anderson for all the uppwardly mobile yuppie type latte liberals, spending money on show.
Why they diss Hillary, the daughter of the working class who has a long distinguished history of using her hard-won degree from a university when women had a slim chance of being accepted to better the lives of women and children. Has Hillary found a reason to put her license on inactive status? I would like to know that.
Diana–The only thesis of Michelle’s that I’m aware of is her senior thesis at Princeton where she studied the attitudes of black Princeton graduates to their black community after leaving the university.
I actually read this thesis over a year ago, before it vanished, and wasn’t impressed. I’ve wondered if affirmative action, as well as friendship with the Jacksons, moved her application into the Ivy Leagued Halls.
Like her husband, she is a blank slate onto which people project all kinds of nonsense, e.g., being named to the SCOTUS–what a laugh!.
I read it too. There were comments about the lack of enough places and organizations on her campus to serve the AA community. I wasn’t impressed with it either. And her conclusions, which seemed negative toward the AA graduates who didn’t seem to go back to their roots, shows her doing the same thing, I believe.
It was a while ago that I read it. So I hope I am not remembering it incorrectly.
no, you are correct, I downloaded the 4 pdfs of it when they first hit the web
The paper I saw of Michelles smeelled a lot like a bitter AA.
What is strange is that it disappeared.
Why?
Why was so many things about the Obamas scrubbed off the internet. Luckily there are afew that have saved them.
I do believe that one day all of this will come back to not only haunt the Obamas but America as well(Especially the media people who have and keep giving the Obamas a free ride).
And my point all along has been that her voluntarily giving up that law license that she earned with the help of the American public, no doubt, should be used!
I got a full-tuition academic scholarship when I attended college, and it was the only way I could afford that education since my family could not help pay expenses. I always felt obligated to the people (since it was a local public university) to do something to pay them back for that opportunity. I worked hard and long in education, always trying my best to help all my students.
Mechelle just seems like the type who takes, takes, and takes again and never says thank you because she believes she deserves everything simply because she is MEchelle. I am still very offended by the $200,000 a year raise she got from O’s pork spending in Congress. I am still offended by the shady house deal courtesy of Rezko. All these things point to her character. We don’t need to question anything about that law license other than that she felt it was something she no longer valued enough to keep so that maybe she could use it for some good.
Another AA young woman who might be out there fighting legal battles for the people–like Hillary did–could have used it instead.
Admitting she didn’t really like law would be one step, but then really doing something to help with her degree would be another. Her handing out food at a shelter while wearing too-expensive shoes is, for instance, nothing compared to what that woman does–the one in the story posted recently who gives away her $750 stipend as a coucilwoman (I think that’s what she was) to people who really need help, the woman who fought so hard for O in S.C. I can forgive that woman for her work for O, but I can’t find much really to admire in MO.
I agree about Michelle’s ingratitude. I don’t mean that she has to bow and scrape, but, please, after two ivy league degrees, did she have to belong to a church where the minister shouts, “God Damn America”? America has given her *every* advantage and now she’s first lady.
I’ve come full circle with the black/slavery history with 0’s election. If America owed anything, it’s been repaid.
I hope that he doesn’t destroy this country while trying to “Remake America”, while spreading what little wealth that’s left.
It’s not about him.
well said arran
Everyday I pay that Obama or at least someone in government will realize what Obama is doing to our country before its too late.
elliewyatt’s post does make more sense..
Michelle Obama was not disbarred. There was never any disciplinary action of any sort against her.
Her Illinois Registration Status reads: “Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law–Last Registered Year: 1993.” A further comment exists, which has fueled much speculation: “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.” You can see that all on the official ARDC website page here:
http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=974460005
The comment doesn’t imply any sort of wrongdoing. All it refers to is the fact that, prior to 2000, an Illinois attorney had to obtain formal consent of the Illinois Supreme Court to cease practice. Granting of that consent took the form of a court order. The entry simply means that Michelle Obama sought that consent and it was granted.
As the linked reference below reveals, if any sort of disciplinary action had been involved, it would be so stated on the ARDC entry. The relevant entry space clearly indicates that this was not the case.
http://24ahead.com/michelle-obama-court-ordered-inactive-status
If all this is so innocent, crdeulous, why not release the information voluntarily to stop the parade of guessing? But, nooooo. You obamabots never think of the f-ing obvious because you are just as dense as
Daffy Duck and the Lady Me-chelleThat One and his Insignificant Other.Ferd you need a good laugh….watch this….
100 Days & Throwing People Under the Bus. Campaign promises, family members, and cabinet-level nominees have all been thrown under the bus. Celebrate Obama’s first 100 days on a bumpy ride
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1E-V0QHets&feature=channel_page
LMAO, PK. That was great!
That video was sooo funny, PainKillerJane.
Someone else, not a commenter here, agrees with us.
Ty ty ty Pain PainKillerJane….
NoQuarter should put it up someplace….
It decribes our administration right now so well.
lol…funny.
Thats what I keep saying about all the school records, the BC and his name changing. If it was all innocent why not just bring it forward.
Hey if you want to see my school records or BC I’d be happy to show it …
Hmmmm Come to think of it for my job I have to show my offical transcripts
For my driver’s license I have to show my BC plus a picture ID ……
So why is Obama so special???
I’m with you. I have worked for the same government contractor for 18 years. My current position required me to show two forms of identification in addition to the certified (raised-seal) birth certificate and SS card. Never mind that I’ve been working for one government agency or another for the entire 18 years.
I would have an easier time becoming President as the only thing that is required is an ability to
spin lies into truthwork cattle flop into a passable souffle.“If all this is so innocent, crdeulous, why not release the information”
Release WHAT?! Release that Michelle was not disbarred? Release that she was not disciplined for “insurance fraud”?! It’s public information. It’s in front of your face, if you’d bother to read the links.
As I have stated before, she should personally address the issue and have the records released. As can be seen from this thread, there is a lot of confusion, which is a
of their secretiveness.
She either does that, or this sort of skepticism leading to false rumors and false responses to said rumors, ad nauseam will be the result.
The First Family cannot have it both ways.
direct = direct consequence
No public figure should be expected to address every crackbrained allegation and rumor that surfaces. There would never be an end to it, because of the ridiculous ease with which any rumor can be put into circulation. It’s also virtually impossible to produce evidence that something is not the case, particularly when the allegation readily mutates to remain in circulation.
Ziggy it seems weird that Palin did, McCane did, Hillary did, and if I remember right Bill Clinton had a lot of explaining he had to do… If I remember right Bush had alot of things he had to explain, like his grades (which most laughed about), and his DUI….
Ziggy my point is that if I have to show proof of my grades, and birth why are thye excempt…..I mean Obama technically works for us.
So why are Michelle and Obama getting a free pass on everything and anything?
You make no sense at all-
“she should personally address the issue and have the records released.”
Address what issue? … an assertion by some unknown blogger with absolutely nothing to back it up? There is no “issue”. The public official record with links to explanation of official Illinois Rules and attorney registration and disciplinary actions by the agency appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court has been provided here.
The person, “Tack-A-’Crat”, has made an utterly empty speculative claim. Let T-A-C back up his assertion with ANYTHING to show the claim to be legitimate.
Why should she address the “issue” when there is none at all and “the records” are out there and have been for years?
Why don’t you and T-A-C satisfy yourselves:
You are not making a lick of sense. At least at this point, T-A-C seems to recognize that some actual fact-checking is in order before continuing on asserting this nonsense.
Their secretiveness is causing this hullabaloo just as Bush and his secretiveness made a mess of understanding much about his *real* past.
I’ve made my point a thousand times and will not make it again for the terminally obtuse. Good day.
The links you give are no more credible than the Obama’s BC….
By the way do you know why Obama has spend $1 million (give or take a little) not to have to show his BC.
Guess the Obamas just love flaunting their money dont they.
What original source documents exist that would resolve this issue? Ultimately we get down to an entry in an old ledger book, or a fading scrap of paper, or a photocopy or microfilm or digitalized scan of such–any of which are “proof” of the particulars of the event they pertain to only to the extent that we’re willing to believe in them and in their custodians.
I graduated HS not long after Obama was born, and was born way before he was.
Maybe next time my HS diploma or BC is asked I should them that they are too old to retreave and none of their business.
Hmmm I think I would probably not get hired or lose a job. Believe it or not I had to produce my HS diploma from the mid 60s a year or so ago even though I had college transcripts and diploma.
I didn’t have to get my HS diploma, but I had to provide transcripts after I retired from teaching just to do a few months of substitute teaching for a sick friend. Do you know how many hours of classes I have on my transcripts–from four universities and a community college–for all the continuing ed I have to take to maintain my license? Geez–to substitute! And not only that, several letters of reference.
You’d think we, as the future bosses of the POTUS, would have a right to transcripts of the candidates. As has been said before, all the other candidates–all those whose public service records are well-known to be better than O’s–provided theirs.
Come on, BO and MO, prove you’re smarter than W.
“The links you give are no more credible than the Obama’s BC…”
The links are to ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
It is the same site the original article writer links to in his own blog!!!
Gads. I give up.
elliewyatt,
I believe your explanation. What I don’t understand is your determination to defend these people who have been anything but transparent about their backgrounds. It is just so hypocritical for people who claim to want transparent government.
My objections to her voluntarily giving up her license have not been addressed.
I personally don’t want a superficial, spend-thrift, hypocrite acting as a role model for women. She was NASTY to Hillary–who used her law degree for so much good for women and children–during the campaign. Hillary graciously stepped aside from the primary, which, if you count actual votes, she had won and then graciously gave MO help and advice about raising children in the WH.
I am sorry that I cannot find a darn thing to admire in MO.
I am not “defending these people”. I am addressing ONE inaccurate assertion: That MO was disbarred. It simply isn’t true.
The facts that BO and MO are not transparent, and that they lied about Hillary, and that the primary was stolen have nothing to do with the fact that MO was not disbarred.
Do you prefer facts? Or do you prefer the perpetuation of lies because of a dislike for the 0s?
If you prefer fact, here it is: She wasn’t disbarred. It may not be what many would like the truth to be, but there it is.
Tack-A-’Crat has been given the full contact information for ARDC to contact them directly and the links to ARDC information about the meaning of “court ordered voluntary inactive” and Rule 770 prior to 1999. He has not come back to say that he was able to verify his original assertion, has he?
I look forward to T-A-C’s return to report his findings.
Okay, now that Track’s false statements about MO’s law license have been debunked, how about addressing his use of the word “bums” to describe the people receiving food from food banks, this evidence to the contrary from a D.C. area food bank, notwithstanding?
http://www.capitalareafoodbank.org/hunger/who.cfm
jmo I did not think the article read as though TAC believes this, but rather that he believes MO believes this. In any event, he’s entitled to his opinion.
The article essentially addresses MO’s hypocrisy, something with which I concur.
If that were true, wouldn’t the sentence be written as:
“Just ‘cos she’s hanging out with the people who Michelle likely regards as bums doesn’t mean that she has to look like one, y’all.”?
The way it is written, TAC has called them bums. I’m sure that wasn’t the intention, but that’s how it’s written.
“In any event, he’s entitled to his opinion.” jbjd is challenging TAC’s opinion and characterization of people going to a food bank as “bums”.
If that were true, wouldn’t the sentence be written as:
“Just ‘cos she’s hanging out with the people who Michelle likely regards as bums doesn’t mean that she has to look like one, y’all.”?
No. Your phrasing is both long-winded and lacks the intended inclusiveness with the reader.
More, if you’re sure the intention wasn’t to call them bums, why are you being so overly critical? I can see what he intended and you can see what he intended, & probably everybody else can see what he intended too: there doesn’t seem a whole lot to complain about, now does there?
I think you guys are taking his words too literally. He was just being snarky. If you want to take his every word at face value, what about the part, “just ‘cos she’s hanging out with…”; we work at a local food bank ourselves occasionally & I can tell you the work does not involve “hanging out” with the people who are there. He was clearly j o k i n g. About her ridiculously expensive and odd looking attire, which was deserving of a joke.
Hear, hear! I wish people would pay as much attention to the fractured words spewed forth every day by politicians. We might actually see some of them getting a well-deserved boot in the backside.
“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”
Aw, geez, ellie, I thought you promised to give up. And yet you keep arguing. About everything.
You obviously cannot tell time. Each post is time stamped.
You obviously cannot tell sarcasm. Pity.
But not unexpected.
jbjd boy are you nit picking…
The jest of the article was Michelles hypocritical over flaunting of money, especially to people who probably cant afford even cheap new clothes much less able to feed themselfs/their families decent.
Michelle’s clothing, jewerly and other home expenses have not shown any cutting back on their part during this recession. Expensive clothing, trips, rooms and meals.