Author Archive

“With 37 percent of precincts reporting, Obama took 59 percent to 41 percent for Wolfe. In Kentucky, with nearly all precincts reporting, 42.1 percent of Democratic primary voters opted for “uncommitted” rather than backing the president, who received 57.9 percent.

Those results come two weeks to the day after Keith Judd, a convicted felon incarcerated in Texas, won 41 percent of the vote against Obama in the West Virginia primary.

Although these results haven’t stopped Obama’s march to renomination — he officially clinched the Democratic nod on April 3 — they remain an indicator of not-insignificant pockets of unrest within his party.”

Source:  Wash Post 

The time has come for a Republican Southern Strategy.

So, dear GOP, here is a great idea for a running mate for your white and nerdy New Englander (pick one) …

Hey, a good ole Southern boy by the name of John Wolfe, Jr. (pictured) just might do that for us on Tuesday! May 22 is the Arkansas Democrat primary election, and Tennessee Democrat underdog just might be positioned to left a leg on the Incumbant’s parade!

Not only that, but if Wolfe gets wings in Arkansas, well then he might really catch fire a week later in Texas.

I recently predicted that The One would fall either before or at the Democrat convention …. the last few weeks, once the GOP beat-a-thon  ended, is the beginning of his end.

I will go one more and predict that Wolfe will catch fire for Texas and really show just how sick rank and file Democrats are of their beloved. It is comments like this one that will really fire up the Southern Blue Dog base:

“They want a coronation,” Wolfe tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD. “They’re conflating [Obama] with the party. Are we supposed to call him ‘Dear Leader’? Is this some kind of North Korea thing?”

Source.  

Wolfe gets it.  Now I am sorry we did not run our own Jim Sack against “Dear Leader” here in Indiana.  (Jim, I still respect you even if you will not come out against our nation’s Chief Executive Officer, aka Barack Hussein Obama, nee Indonesian (or is it Manchurian?) Barry Soetoro.)

I bet Sack would have sacked the alleged Kenyan — especially if a nontelepromptered debate was held.  And Sack would likely be tempted to vote for Wolfe, what with Wolfe claiming to be running  for president to send “a statement against powerful Wall Street interests and corporate abuse of power.”

Now, the man might be a Blue Dog Democrat, but I doubt it.  More like the new John Edwards.  (Looks like the Democrats need a new John Edwards.)   According to Politico, Wolfe is “A lawyer from Chattanooga [who] speaks in a Southern drawl, and says Obama and national Democrats don’t want to acknowledge that there are members of the party like him.”

Wolfe appears to be an old-school Dixiecrat liberal lawyer, as this analysis reveals:

Wolfe has been critical of Obama for being tied too closely with Wall Street interests and not pursuing a more forthrightly liberal agenda, like a single-payer health care system that Wolfe (and other Democrats, he

 says) prefer to Obamacare. And he criticizes the president’s style. “He doesn’t like to be challenged,” he says. “Strong people don’t mind dissent.” 

Right, John.  Some of us kinda think if Obozo is not removed from power we might end up in re-education camps.  Clowns can be creepy, real creepy.

Hillary knew. Bill had to know. The entire Democrat Party at the top had to know. Yet the charade went on because polling revealed that white guilt and lockstep voting by Democrats would give this man the White House, to be the front man for the America-haters behind his teleprompter.

I said it in the comments earlier in the week …. the Dems are done with this clown and will trade him in for some new charlatan at their convention.

Let us agree to punish that party for an entire generation for the destruction that they have wrought on the land that we love.

Source : http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/prof_conduct/index.html#_Toc313019228

Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct

(a)    A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

***

Comment

[1]     Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate disciplinary investigation when they know of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.

[3]    If a lawyer were obliged to report every violation of the Rules, the failure to report any violation would itself be a professional offense. Such a requirement existed in many jurisdictions but proved to be unenforceable. This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that a self-regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to prevent. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in complying with the provisions of this Rule. The term “substantial” refers to the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware. A report should be made to the bar disciplinary agency unless some other agency, such as a peer review agency, is more appropriate in the circumstances. Similar considerations apply to the reporting of judicial misconduct.

Rule 8.4. Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a)    violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b)    commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c)     engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d)    engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e)    state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

(f)     knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or

Comment

[1]     Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so or do so through the acts of another, as when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer’s behalf. Paragraph (a), however, does not prohibit a lawyer from advising a client concerning action the client is legally entitled to take.

[2]    Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving “moral turpitude.” That concept can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.

[3]    A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law.

All lawyers who just read the above in blue and know something about any illegal conduct of attorney in a law firm probably do not have the ground for a good faith defense.  Time to rat out your peers.   

The ad features Joe Soptic, former GST Steel employee, along with David Foster, former lead negotiator for GST Steel workers. They give a firsthand account of GST’s closure and the subsequent loss of 750 jobs.  “It was like a vampire. They came in and sucked the life out of us, said another worker.   Source   (Obama re-election campaign demonstrating bad timing on its use of metaphoricals.)

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings proclaimed , in the very same week …

COULD IT BE THAT NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING AND NAME CALLING HAS A DOWNSIDE???

Caveat:  Hey, Newsweek means Gay in policy, not personally, right?  Or was all of this orchestrated to take the sting out of several blackmailers’ threats?   An interesting question, is it not?  (Especially when one considers Van Jones’ comments a few weeks back:  http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2012/04/03/van-jones-even-if-obama-were-gay-hed-still-win-black-vote