"Somebody PLEASE put The CONSTITUTION on Obamas teleprompter!!!!"

This was the status update from a "friend" (well, someone I kinda knew about 15 years ago) on Facebook. I couldn't resist and replied as to what that meant. My question wasn't answered, so I asked again and cited the clear violations of the Constitution by GWB. The response was "BUSH isn't our PRESIDENT anymore, so that doesn't matter. NOW we have to deal with OBAMA!" Person went ton to mention all Obama's czars and how that's just one violation of the Constitution and show's that he's a socialist...

First person I've ever un-friended on Facebook. Not seen the person face to face since for 15 years, so no big loss. I can sometimes tolerate stupidity, but just couldn't handle that.

its hard.

My brother is nearly there as he "kinda likes Glen Beck"

I had told him that Beck is no different than the tent revival preachers. Many of them were hucksters who were fleecing the flock. It was pure entertainment devised to stir the emotions.

Reagan and Bush I added more "czars" so the concept did not originate with Obama or even the Democrats. Out of the "czars" in the Obama administration, NINE were held over from the Bush II administration.

So in the 35+ years since Nixon began the idea of "czars" in his administration, why didn't ONE person complain about the practice being unconstitutional until the first Black president take office? You know as well as I do why.

The "czar" title was brought in to make fun of the wide range of powers given to the first one that Nixon appointed, John Love, the "Energy Czar."

Hmmm, I was wrong according to Wikipedia - "czar" as a political term in the US dates back to the First World War when Woodrow Wilson appointed Bernard Baruch to the War Industries Board and he was called the "industry czar." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_%28political_term%29#Development_of_term

Here is another interesting bit - The number of "czars" was low for most of time since Wilson, but skyrocketed under GWB - he had 35 positions and made 47 appointments. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/

Obama's administration has 38 positions but he has only made 8 appointments. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/

A list of the "czars" and the administrations that used them is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars So MOST of Obama's "czars" are holdovers from GWB, many more than I thought!

'Cuz you know that degree Obama has is just a piece of paper... and being a Constitutional law professor doesn't mean he understands the Constitution or anything... we don't need no gulldurn egghead elitist in the White House! But that Sarah Palin! Boy oh boy is she a smart cookie! AAAAAIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

:eyes:

It's hard... really hard.

your sig. :thumbsup:

I've been enjoying his smarts and wit on the Stephanie Miller show... driving to work can actually be pleasant! :hi:

.........has no friggin' idea what the Constitution acutally SAYS. Ask them to cite EXACTLY which provision Obama is violating and they'll give you a blank stare. They don't know. They're just repeating what they've been told to say, and they think it sounds authoritative enough that nobody would ever dare question them on it.

Here's MY challenge: if any person who claims that Obama is violating the Constitution can cite the ACTUAL provision being violated, and DOESN'T simply say, "The Tenth Amendment," I will give you every dime in my wallet.

The simple fact of the matter is that people don't know the answer, they're just parrotting back something they heard. Even the most "educated" of them will only be able to muster up a weak "Tenth Amendment" reply. That's the stock answer of anyone who doesn't particularly like what the Federal Government is doing. Apparently, according to some, the Tenth Amendment ACTUALLY means that the Federal Government doesn't have the power to do..............ANYTHING. It's ALL reserved for the States. Yeah, great legal analysis there, Dershowitz.

Here's the brilliant reason that impeachobamacampaign.com comes up with to impeach a president who's been in office all of 14 months:

In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a criminal act (as some would lead you to believe) and our Founding Fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the President for actions which were... well... simply put... egregious... grossly incompetent... grossly negligent... outright distasteful... or, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country, which is unabated."

They keep repeating the same bolded phrase above (a quote from wingnut author Tammy Bruce), as if this is even a case. And the paragraph above is the LEAST nutty thing about that whole screed . . . it just goes on and on and on, like a red-bait word salad littered with Fox-vomit and borderline racism. It's unbelievable.

God, I hope you've got a lot of money in you wallet!

Ca'ching!

Or if Nixon and Reagan appointed any Czar types.

Or that many of the so called czars were created prior to Obama.

Eisenhower had a Missile Czar.

Nixon had his Drug, Energy, and a Price Czar.

Pappy Bush had a Savings & Loan Czar (probably to protect Neil) and Drug Czar.

Reagan had is czars too but they just used the official cabinet title.

anyone who shows any Republicanism whatsoever. Life is too short to listen to that nonsense.

It's takes a lot to get an "amen" out of this atheist, but you get one.

I would have defriended him if it wasn't for his sister being friends with my sister and I just don't feel like the hassle.

(Off topic, but do people KNOW when they've been defriended?)

That is their new talking point. But they would vote for him again if he were running against Obama. So says my dimwit brother.

as far as putting the Constitution on a teleprompter for him...yeah right, like he couldn't cite it from memory.