When deciding what is constitutional or not, I am going with the guy who taught constitutional law over a knee jerk right wing response.
________________________________________________________________________
Do you mean the guy who calls himself a "constitutional law professor"? He was not.
Do you mean the guy that was hired as an instructor and after one semester was not asked to return?
Do you mean the guy who issues exec. orders that have been stopped by the courts?
No. I am talking about Obama.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
When deciding what is constitutional or not, I am going with the guy who taught constitutional law over a knee jerk right wing response.
________________________________________________________________________
Do you mean the guy who calls himself a "constitutional law professor"? He was not.
Do you mean the guy that was hired as an instructor and after one semester was not asked to return?
Do you mean the guy who issues exec. orders that have been stopped by the courts?No. I am talking about Obama.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
_________________________________________________________________________
That crap you posted sounds like something written by obama’s campaign or media matters. It has also been debunked many times.
This addresses the load you posted directly:
Obama Not Law Professor, Just Taught at Law School
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obama_not_law_professor_just_taught_at_law_school/
So why has so many of obama’s exec. orders been stopped by the courts?
When deciding what is constitutional or not, I am going with the guy who taught constitutional law over a knee jerk right wing response.
________________________________________________________________________
Do you mean the guy who calls himself a "constitutional law professor"? He was not.
Do you mean the guy that was hired as an instructor and after one semester was not asked to return?
Do you mean the guy who issues exec. orders that have been stopped by the courts?No. I am talking about Obama.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
_________________________________________________________________________
That crap you posted sounds like something written by obama’s campaign or media matters. It has also been debunked many times.
This addresses the load you posted directly:
Obama Not Law Professor, Just Taught at Law School
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obama_not_law_professor_just_taught_at_law_school/So why has so many of obama’s exec. orders been stopped by the courts?
From your link.
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
From my link,
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Your link quoted my link. What you should do at this point is to withdraw from the conversation and make BHawk's blueberry muffins. They sound like they are pretty good. 😛
Sorting through some of the confusing and conflicting statements made in the wake of President Obama's executive actions on guns...
Sorting Out Obama’s Gun Proposal
By Robert FarleyPosted on January 8, 2016
Politicians have offered confusing and conflicting information on guns in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings and President Obama’s announced plans for tighter gun controls:
- Jeb Bush said Obama’s plan would take away the rights of someone “selling a gun out of their collection, a one-off gun” by requiring that person to perform background checks. That’s not correct. Such “one-off” private gun sales would be unaffected by Obama’s proposals.
- In an ad, Marco Rubio says Obama’s plan is to “take away our guns.” The president’s plan would do no such thing. No guns would be confiscated under Obama’s plan, and no law-abiding citizen would be denied the ability to purchase a gun.
- In an interview, Donald Trump said Hillary Clinton’s gun plan is “worse than Obama[‘s]” and that “she wants to take everyone’s gun away.” That’s not what Clinton is proposing either.
- Obama said that “historically, the NRA was in favor of background checks.” That’s misleading. The NRA opposed the Brady bill and offered an alternative background check provision that gun-control advocates saw as an attempt to kill the bill.
Full report:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/sorting-out-obamas-gun-proposal/
When deciding what is constitutional or not, I am going with the guy who taught constitutional law over a knee jerk right wing response.
________________________________________________________________________
Do you mean the guy who calls himself a "constitutional law professor"? He was not.
Do you mean the guy that was hired as an instructor and after one semester was not asked to return?
Do you mean the guy who issues exec. orders that have been stopped by the courts?No. I am talking about Obama.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
_________________________________________________________________________
That crap you posted sounds like something written by obama’s campaign or media matters. It has also been debunked many times.
This addresses the load you posted directly:
Obama Not Law Professor, Just Taught at Law School
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obama_not_law_professor_just_taught_at_law_school/So why has so many of obama’s exec. orders been stopped by the courts?
From your link.
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
From my link,
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Your link quoted my link. What you should do at this point is to withdraw from the conversation and make BHawk's blueberry muffins. They sound like they are pretty good. 😛
______________________________________________________________________
My link quoted the farce of your link as a point of reference and then demonstrates your quote to be a load of crap.
So why has so many of obama’s exec. orders been stopped by the courts?
Did anyone watch Obama’s “Town Hall Meeting” hosted by CNN?
What a farce. Obama became annoyed and irritated as the people speaking demonstrated the uselessness of his most recent exec. orders. Citing one of the examples Obama used to justify his actions the speaker pointed out that there was nothing in his orders that would have stopped the perpetrators from getting the guns used.
Before Obama could respond Anderson Cooper jumped in to remind Obama that in the mass killings he mentioned all of the guns were purchased legally and the buyer passed the background check.
As Director of The FBI has affirmed to be true, Obama would not acknowledge that the background check system is defective and broken.
Did anyone watch Obama’s “Town Hall Meeting” hosted by CNN?
What a farce. Obama became annoyed and irritated as the people speaking demonstrated the uselessness of his most recent exec. orders. Citing one of the examples Obama used to justify his actions the speaker pointed out that there was nothing in his orders that would have stopped the perpetrators from getting the guns used.
Before Obama could respond Anderson Cooper jumped in to remind Obama that in the mass killings he mentioned all of the guns were purchased legally and the buyer passed the background check.
As Director of The FBI has affirmed to be true, Obama would not acknowledge that the background check system is defective and broken.
The right and the NRA want total control over the gun issue and will not agree with anything Obama says. No big news here on this.
The changes Obama is recommending are fairly innocuous. Given the creativity of mass murderers it's probably not a good idea to totally base future policies on past actions.
It's all good. Let's hug it out.
Secure in the knowledge that we are all Warm and Fuzzy now, Sir.
IIIICK.............did I actually say that?
You win. mule. Obama is the Anti-Christ. No need to go any further. Now, try those blueberry muffuns.
You win. mule. Obama is the Anti-Christ. No need to go any further. Now, try those blueberry muffuns.
________________________________________________________________________
Wrong, Obama is not the Anti-Christ.
Obama is driven purely by his political agenda and is incompetent.
He constantly calls on "Congress" (meaning the GOP) to pass legislation on gun control while he refuses to talk to Congress and never offers what legislation he wants passed.
The GOP knows very well that there are plenty of laws already on the books and they as well as the American People know that his administration will simply not enforce those existing laws.
Obama also refuses to fix the broken and failed background check system. He won't even discuss the matter.
Twice John Boehner asked to meet with Obama on gun violence and the broken background check system and twice Obama lectured Boehner and would not engage in a discussion.
Paul Ryan knows better than to waste is time.
Surprisingly, CNN gets it about right - but having to ask why anyone wouldn't trust the Liar & Chief seems a little redundant by now...
Why many law-abiding gun owners don't trust Obama
(CNN)—President Obama revealed, with his body language, tone and answers at CNN's "Guns in America" town hall just how much he doesn't connect with the millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country. Nor does he seem to connect to the importance of the fundamental gun rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
For example, as he attempted to justify his new executive actions on guns, Obama pointed to other products or services the government regulates, like aspirin or cars as examples of common sense regulations to make things safer. So why not apply that to guns?
The difference is: a.) There are thousands of gun laws already on the books b.) Aspirin and cars aren't constitutionally protected rights. That matters when the conversation is about the actions of the federal government.
Anti-gun advocates should be very careful supporting constitutionally questionable actions by the President. It may seem acceptable when those actions favor something they want, but what happens when they are for something they don't want? It's a dangerous precedent to set.
The more Obama spoke at the town hall, the more apparent was his contempt for gun ownership. When his logic was challenged, he appeared exasperated by his inability to convince responsible gun owners that his approach was correct. Perhaps that's because his approach is a feckless, petulant response to the fact that Congress, elected by the American people, does not agree with his tactics.
There is common ground to be found on some issues like the need to overhaul the woefully inadequate and failing mental health system in this country. But instead of rolling up his sleeves and working with Congress to get such bills passed, the president has decided to use his pen to just do it himself. That's not how our system was designed to work.
Many Americans seem to agree. In the latest CNN/ORC poll, 67% may have favored the president's policy changes, but 54% of Americans disagree with Obama's use of executive actions to make gun policy changes, including 61% of independents.
When asked by directly Thursday night if wants to take people's guns away, Obama gave a circuitous, long-winded answer filled with emotional anecdotes. He just couldn't bring himself to definitively say, "No, I'm not."
However, Obama did become quite indignant when Anderson Cooper pointed out that many Americans just don't trust him on gun rights or believe him when he says there's no conspiracy to take away guns. Obama, after all, is the one who called gun owners bitter clingers during the 2008 presidential race.
President Obama is the one who continually points to the United Kingdom and Australia as examples of countries he admires for their handling of gun issues. But he conveniently leaves out, for example, that Australia instituted new regulations on who could buy guns, government buy-backs of guns and a prohibitions on rapid-fire rifles and shotguns -- in short, what amounted to gun confiscation programs.
Can you blame law-abiding gun owners for their trepidation every time the President speaks about gun control?
The bottom line is this: Law-abiding gun owners and gun dealers aren't the problem. Criminals are. It's already illegal for violent felons to purchase guns. New York, for example, requires expanded background checks on nearly all gun purchases, yet a 2012 NYPD crime analysis report found almost 90% of murder suspects in New York City had prior criminal records. So much for the deterrence factor.
The President's obsession with the "gun show loophole" is absurd considering that few violent criminals obtain their guns through it. Why the urgent need by the President to circumvent Congress to "close the loophole" by executive fiat?
The President repeatedly talked about violence-plagued Chicago. Although Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the land, shootings are common. A University of Chicago study of Cook County inmates found they aren't getting their weapons from gun shows or dealers either, but rather through "personal connections" on the street or straw purchasers.
As Taya Kyle, widow of American hero Chris Kyle, so eloquently stated -- not one of Obama's proposals or executive action would have prevented any recent mass shootings and murderers could use pipe bombs to kill people en masse too. The overall violent crime rate is stabilized nationally while gun ownership is up. Kyle asked: Why not "celebrate that we're good people, and 99.9 percent of us are never going to kill anyone?"
Perhaps because the President is too busy lecturing the wrong people.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/opinions/setmayer-obama-town-hall-guns/
Contempt for gun-owners? Please - total b.s. What makes you think that? When he said he understands the need for one to protect their home? If you don't trust Obama because he lied, then I suggest you don't trust anyone.
And get out your tinfoil hat for those who think more drastic measures are coming in his one remaining year. This backlash is nothing more than personal bias - keep casting blame if it make someone feels better. Just think about how effective that is. To believe our problems fall on one person is foolish at best.
Those who have no problem casting blame are a major part of the problem. It's dangerous and destructive and nobody wins. It's low- class bullying.
You win. mule. Obama is the Anti-Christ. No need to go any further. Now, try those blueberry muffuns.
________________________________________________________________________
Wrong, Obama is not the Anti-Christ.
Obama is driven purely by his political agenda and is incompetent.He constantly calls on "Congress" (meaning the GOP) to pass legislation on gun control while he refuses to talk to Congress and never offers what legislation he wants passed.
The GOP knows very well that there are plenty of laws already on the books and they as well as the American People know that his administration will simply not enforce those existing laws.Obama also refuses to fix the broken and failed background check system. He won't even discuss the matter.
Twice John Boehner asked to meet with Obama on gun violence and the broken background check system and twice Obama lectured Boehner and would not engage in a discussion.
Paul Ryan knows better than to waste is time.
No, you convinced me. He is the Anti=Christ. Armageddon will happen before 1/20/2017. These are end times.
Tried those muffins yet?
More from the Obama/CNN staged Town Hall event:
He (Obama) also said he would “be happy” to meet with the National Rifle Association -- which has vocally opposed to the president’s gun control proposals -- and that he had invited them to the White House multiple times. Obama criticized the NRA’s decision not to attend the event.
The president said, “I’m happy to meet with the NRA,” but as he said it he had this snarky smile on his face that would have been more fitting on one of his late show appearances.
Now, CNN says they invited President Obama to this live “town hall” on guns at George Mason University and that they later invited the NRA. The NRA, however, said they’d rather not play along with a “public relations spectacle orchestrated by the White House.”
The NRA after the show noted that while CNN invited The NRA to attend the event, CNN advised The NRA that The White House stipulated that only one NRA representative would be permitted and that they would be allowed to ask only one question of Obama and that The White House had to “pre-clear” the one question.
More from the Obama/CNN staged Town Hall event:
He (Obama) also said he would “be happy” to meet with the National Rifle Association -- which has vocally opposed to the president’s gun control proposals -- and that he had invited them to the White House multiple times. Obama criticized the NRA’s decision not to attend the event.
The president said, “I’m happy to meet with the NRA,” but as he said it he had this snarky smile on his face that would have been more fitting on one of his late show appearances.
Now, CNN says they invited President Obama to this live “town hall” on guns at George Mason University and that they later invited the NRA. The NRA, however, said they’d rather not play along with a “public relations spectacle orchestrated by the White House.”
The NRA after the show noted that while CNN invited The NRA to attend the event, CNN advised The NRA that The White House stipulated that only one NRA representative would be permitted and that they would be allowed to ask only one question of Obama and that The White House had to “pre-clear” the one question.
I'd say impeach the SOB, be he might just unleash the 7 Hounds of Hell on us.
More from the Obama/CNN staged Town Hall event:
He (Obama) also said he would “be happy” to meet with the National Rifle Association -- which has vocally opposed to the president’s gun control proposals -- and that he had invited them to the White House multiple times. Obama criticized the NRA’s decision not to attend the event.
The president said, “I’m happy to meet with the NRA,” but as he said it he had this snarky smile on his face that would have been more fitting on one of his late show appearances.
Now, CNN says they invited President Obama to this live “town hall” on guns at George Mason University and that they later invited the NRA. The NRA, however, said they’d rather not play along with a “public relations spectacle orchestrated by the White House.”
The NRA after the show noted that while CNN invited The NRA to attend the event, CNN advised The NRA that The White House stipulated that only one NRA representative would be permitted and that they would be allowed to ask only one question of Obama and that The White House had to “pre-clear” the one question.
I'd say impeach the SOB, be he might just unleash the 7 Hounds of Hell on us.
_________________________________________________________________________
I’d say don’t bother with impeachment, just keep taking him to court and shutting down his illegal exec. orders.
We still have a Constitution in America. Under the Constitution, Congress writes the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. The president can no more write his own laws or impose his own interpretations upon pre-existing laws than Congress or the courts can command the military.
More from the Obama/CNN staged Town Hall event:
He (Obama) also said he would “be happy” to meet with the National Rifle Association -- which has vocally opposed to the president’s gun control proposals -- and that he had invited them to the White House multiple times. Obama criticized the NRA’s decision not to attend the event.
The president said, “I’m happy to meet with the NRA,” but as he said it he had this snarky smile on his face that would have been more fitting on one of his late show appearances.
Now, CNN says they invited President Obama to this live “town hall” on guns at George Mason University and that they later invited the NRA. The NRA, however, said they’d rather not play along with a “public relations spectacle orchestrated by the White House.”
The NRA after the show noted that while CNN invited The NRA to attend the event, CNN advised The NRA that The White House stipulated that only one NRA representative would be permitted and that they would be allowed to ask only one question of Obama and that The White House had to “pre-clear” the one question.
I'd say impeach the SOB, be he might just unleash the 7 Hounds of Hell on us.
_________________________________________________________________________
I’d say don’t bother with impeachment, just keep taking him to court and shutting down his illegal exec. orders.
We still have a Constitution in America. Under the Constitution, Congress writes the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. The president can no more write his own laws or impose his own interpretations upon pre-existing laws than Congress or the courts can command the military.
some chick just pointed out an obvious solution to me. chicks like to watch football because of the men. i said....well maybe a new fashion style is dressing like players....uniforms. shoulder pads and stuff. an extra benifit is dressed like that, we don't even need guns.
i think its brilliant
I’d say don’t bother with impeachment, just keep taking him to court and shutting down his illegal exec. orders.
We still have a Constitution in America. Under the Constitution, Congress writes the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. The president can no more write his own laws or impose his own interpretations upon pre-existing laws than Congress or the courts can command the military.
LOL. Who is the bigger problem...Obama for his alleged "illegal" executive orders, or the Republicans in Washington who will do absolutely nothing about it. One would imagine that those who despise Obama in Washington like you do, who can actually do something, would surely bring charges to him if he is doing something illegal. And if they don't, what does that mean to you?
I'm actually expecting the Dept of Commerce to try and do away with the executive order.
😛
Actually, the Department of Commerce should work on knocking down the executive order.
Since Pops is the only person to respond, I'll ask him what is this "Gun Show Loophole" that is such a crisis.
When did this "crisis" come up? Who pointed out this "crisis" ?
As for the executive order, there are things in it I have felt very strongly about them being needed.
More assets to do the background checks, needed for many years. The backlog on some days is terrible, plus if the background check goes beyond a certain time limit, the approval of the purchase must go forward. Which has sometimes led to tragedy.
Money for mental health issues, a big factor in many of our conversations on firearms for years.
Status of a persons' mental history (non-voluntary admittance to a mental health facility with subsequent finding on being a danger to others, or mental incompetence) should be a factor in the background check.
States should be required to pass the information, Georgia already does.
Now, why should the Commerce Dept. go after parts of the executive order? The sections of who would be "dealers" falls under their department.
When you purchase a used auto do you have to go through a used car dealer when you are buying it from an individual, like a neighbor? Why not, since that's the used car loophole?
How about when you buy something at a Flea Market, should you have to go through a dealer in antiques, used furniture and appliances, jewelry store? Those are the dreaded used furniture and appliances loophole, used jewelry loophole, and antiques loophole.
All this falls under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the 10th Amendment, and the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution.
I’d say don’t bother with impeachment, just keep taking him to court and shutting down his illegal exec. orders.
We still have a Constitution in America. Under the Constitution, Congress writes the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. The president can no more write his own laws or impose his own interpretations upon pre-existing laws than Congress or the courts can command the military.
LOL. Who is the bigger problem...Obama for his alleged "illegal" executive orders, or the Republicans in Washington who will do absolutely nothing about it. One would imagine that those who despise Obama in Washington like you do, who can actually do something, would surely bring charges to him if he is doing something illegal. And if they don't, what does that mean to you?
________________________________________________________________________
“alleged "illegal" executive orders”
- There is nothing alleged about it. The courts have repeatedly stopped Obama illegal exec. orders.
“or the Republicans in Washington who will do absolutely nothing about it”
- You have bought Obama’s rhetoric hook, line and stinker.
Congress has passed laws on guns, they have been on the books for decades. Obama simply will not enforce them. His Justice Department routinely plea-bargains crimes using gun violence down to misdemeanors or refuses to prosecute.
“those who despise Obama in Washington like you do”
- Man you really need to hate. It has nothing to do with despising Obama. It has everything to do with recognizing the fact that Obama is all about his political agenda and his utter failure to lead.
Congress is acting to get things done about gun violence. After Sandy Hook Obama pledged to “do something” about the broken mental health system and then promptly did nothing. Rep. Tim Murphy (R), crafted a bi-partisan bill to begin to fix the failed mental health system but the leadership democrats in both the House and the Senate, at urging of the White House have pledged to stop kill the bill.
The day after Obama’s crying speech, Biden was asked exactly how the $500 million Obama pledged for mental health would be spent, when and from which federal agency the fund would come. Biden stated that the $500 million be spent over the next 10 years (and not how) but that it was “not a priority for this administration”.
Obama constantly “calls on Congress” to act but is never specific on what legislation he wants passed. He also refuses to work with Congress.
Have you noticed that while Obama never offers specific proposals, neither do the Democrats in Congress?
A president has the obligation to enforce existing laws and to work with the Congress to change them or enact new laws. Obama has failed to do so.
At the Obama/CNN staged Town Hall event, a gentleman asked Obama “you have said that you will order the hiring of 230 more FBI agents to do gun purchase background checks in a system that the FBI Director says is broken. Why not fix the broken gun purchase background check system and hire 230 more law enforcement officers to get the criminals and their illegal guns off the streets?”
The look on Obama’s face was pained. He mumbled something inaudible while squirming in his seat, never answered the gentleman’s question and looked to Anderson Cooper to move on.
"Why not fix the broken gun purchase background check system and hire 230 more law enforcement officers to get the criminals and their illegal guns off the streets?”
Yeah, 5 more cops per state would really ramp up the pressure on the illegal street guns.
MORON.
[Edited on 1/12/2016 by Muleman1994]