Topic: WorldNetDaily
An Aug. 4 WorldNetdaily article by Chelsea Schilling began in a quite sinister manner:
Why did Michelle Obama give up her license to practice law in 1993?
Records at the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois list her status as "voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law."
It further states that Michelle license is "on court ordered inactive status."
The statement has many bloggers wondering why a court would issue an order to stop Michelle Obama from practicing law, and some have even suggested the first lady may have been facing allegations of misconduct.
Then, Schilling decides not to answer that question for a while, preferring instead to engage in an irrelevant, Investor's Business Daily-sourced screed about Obama's decision to abandon work in a law firm for a job in public service that committed the offense of "staffing AIDS clinics."
It's not until the 23rd paragraph of her article that Schilling gets around to the declared point of her article -- what happened to Obama's law license: the only way for a lawyer to go on inactive status is to file a court order to do so.
And it's not until paragraph 37 that Schilling writes:
"There's absolutely no indication of any disciplinary proceeding ever lodged against Michelle Obama," he said.
Why is that information at paragraphs 23 and 37 instead of paragraphs 4 and 5?
Because Schilling and WND want to smear Michelle Obama.
Because Schilling and WND love conspiracies, and they want to create the illusion of one over Michelle Obama's law license -- even though they are forced to admit one doesn't exist.
Because they Schilling and WND viscerally hate Michelle Obama.
That about covers it.
