On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:40:40 -0600, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:23:38 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus22050 wrote:

Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.

While I applaude his giving to Fisher house, I have a nagging thought in
the back of my
mind that he is prohibited by law from accepting that 1.4M by ethics
rules. In other
words, he can only accept an award with monetary value if he gives it
away while he is
serving a term as President.

This may be a case of forced charity and if so, it doesn't count.

Wes

Not ethics rules. Constitutional law. Nobody reads the Constitution, do
they? g

Article 1, Section 9. Congress would have to vote to allow the President
to accept any "emolument" from a foreign power. The Nobel committee is
quasi-governmental. It would be a tough call. But no president in his
right mind would accept the money for himself -- even if Congress voted to
allow it.

Especially not one with a seven or eight figure bank balance that was the
result of his own professional efforts.
It's interesting to compare the accomplishments of Obama and Bush at age 46.
Using that yardstick to measure the actual result Bush produced as
President, we ought to expect a pretty fair job from Obama in the end.

In the end, eh? G

I'm surprised that he didn't conclude his text with "BOHICA!"
Liberals. Well, at least they're consistent.

--
There is no such thing as limits to growth, because there are no limits
to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder.
--Ronald Reagan