Image 01 Image 03

First He Whispered Sweet Nothings In Your Ear

First He Whispered Sweet Nothings In Your Ear

Via Prof. Bainbridge:

Not again.  How could he?


Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Bookmark and Share


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Sure, Obama. Hire whatever advisors you want. But the Congress doesn't have to pay them. I hope Obama is willing to shell out his precious "advisors'" salaries and benefits from his own pocket. Otherwise he'll have to be employing "volunteer" Czars.

mnemosyne23 is right. Obama can have all the "czars" he wants, but Congress does not have to provide the funds to pay them. If he wants, Obama can take those funds from his White House expense account.

But what Obama is saying is that he has the right to hire anyone he wants, for any purpose, and Congress has no Constitutional right to defund those jobs. Damn, for a "Constitutional" law professor, he seems to know little. Oh, that's right, he wasn't a professor, just a senior lecturer who gave classes on Saul Alinsky.

If the opinions of Obama's "czars" is considered so damned important to him, then perhaps he should convince them to "advise" him for free.

And why does he need all that advise? I thought he was the smartest POTUS this nation has ever seen.

Smartest president? Depends who you ask. Some say Coolidge (last president to write his own speeches), some say Lincolm (essentially self-taught).

Obama just looks good because the bar was lowered so far in 2000. (Then again, you might say it's a wise man who knows who to ask for advice.

Questions, questions, questions. First: is this Constitutional? Second: if Congress defunds the positions, then how will he pay them? Third: can the POTUS re-route funds and re-allocate them to pay whoever he wants to hire, regardless of the Legislative branch's allocation(s)? Fourth: will ANYONE call him out on his hypocracy….of which this is yet another example?! How many things like this can a POTUS pull before he has hit the hi-water mark of "impeachable offense"?

There are more questions, but these will suffice.

Sweet nothings seduced the "nuanced thinkers" of the Democratic party.

The fact that they still cling to this sweet-talker kinda makes them floozies, doesn't it?

"Obama just looks good because the bar was lowered so far in 2000."

Still plucking the "stupid Bush" chicken? Are you so ignorant as to believe it?

Well, Robbie, you guys are still punching the "tsar" button (and the "Obama = thin-skinned/arrogant/anti-American" button, and the "liberals are destroying America" button, and on and on) – you hold tight to your stereotypes, and I'll whip mine out once in a while, too.

Seems only fair, right?

Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #1 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

#1 in Books > Nonfiction > Law > Constitutional Law
#1 in Books > Professional & Technical
#1 in Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences