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

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:26:14 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus22050
scrawled the following:

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

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

All I can say is "What? They let him keep it?"


Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

This is all good, tho.

--
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

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

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:52:20 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

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.

Little lights of awareness are going on in peoples' eyes all over the
world as you write that, Wes. sigh I wonder if Ig's will.

--
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

"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.

--
Ed Huntress

"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.


JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"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.


JC

Hmm. I'd have to look. I gather that he was still involved in failing
companies at that point. g

BTW, there is a complication to the Constitutional provision, but it cuts
both ways. Congress passed a law that's resulted in a federal statute, 5 USC
par. 7342, that essentially says that any gift that would "insult" a foreign
government (at the president's discretion) can be accepted. But it then
becomes government property -- specifically, of the Executive, in this case.

However, nobody in Congress it going to battle a contribution of such money
to legitimate charities, unless he wants to be made an ass by the media.

--
Ed Huntress

Ignoramus22050 wrote:
Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

Great he is "donating" money that he legally cannot accept anyway.
If he accepted it and kept it he would be in direct violation of Federal
law.

Sort of hard to call it "Charity". More like MAJOR spin control..

--
Steve W.

"Steve W." 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.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

Great he is "donating" money that he legally cannot accept anyway.
If he accepted it and kept it he would be in direct violation of Federal
law.

Sort of hard to call it "Charity". More like MAJOR spin control..

--
Steve W.

Do you really know what you're talking about, Steve, or are you blowing
smoke? I just read the Constitutional provision and the federal statute to
be sure, and it sounds to me like you didn't read the White House press
announcement and what it means in context of the law.

In other words, *you're* the one doing the spinning.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"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.


JC

Hmm. I'd have to look. I gather that he was still involved in failing
companies at that point. g

BTW, there is a complication to the Constitutional provision, but it cuts
both ways. Congress passed a law that's resulted in a federal statute, 5
USC par. 7342, that essentially says that any gift that would "insult" a
foreign government (at the president's discretion) can be accepted. But it
then becomes government property -- specifically, of the Executive, in
this case.

However, nobody in Congress it going to battle a contribution of such
money to legitimate charities, unless he wants to be made an ass by the
media.

It's a safe bet that OLC weighed in on this one a long time ago and Obama
never recieved any payment - he directed the NC to pay it to the charities
he listed. They could have refused you know. Motives aside, the act itself
was both thoughtful and generous. That ought to be enough for anyone - even
the fair and balanced crowd.

I'm otherwise surprised, however, that it got any ink at all.

Anyway, I've been off the beam a bit. Respiratory failure will do that to a
person but I will say that if you have to be really sick, as in near death,
do it at Pendelton. The jar heads there are pretty fair and Scripps is right
down the street. Those guys can do just about anything.
LOL


JC

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

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

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

Anyway, I've been off the beam a bit. Respiratory failure will do
that to a person but I will say that if you have to be really sick,
as in near death, do it at Pendelton. The jar heads there are pretty
fair and Scripps is right down the street. Those guys can do just
about anything.
LOL

Damn, I was just getting worried about you on Monday, and was going
to ask if anyone knew where you were. So, are you doing Ok now?

I'm coming off two weeks of Vancomycin and one of IV Cipro today. I've lost
twenty percent of my body weight and the effects of that are problematic. My
posts to this thread lead to a 4 hour nappy G
Next week will tell the tale on the effectiveness of treatment. Nothing like
a drug resistant nosicomial infection masked by the seasonal flue to ruin
your whole day.
I'll either be calendaring a motion next week in an unlimited civil case or
not and if it's the not option, I'll be in real trouble healthwise.
You ought to see me argue before the court Ed. I really do my homework and
that's surprised some folks.
I just need to be able to breath.

You take care.

--
John R. Carroll

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

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." 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.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the
Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a
national nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are
receiving care at Veterans Administration medical centers. He
will give another $200,000 to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help
the country recover from the earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including
education foundations, scholarship funds and regional development
groups in Africa and Central Asia.''
Great he is "donating" money that he legally cannot accept anyway.
If he accepted it and kept it he would be in direct violation of
Federal law.

Sort of hard to call it "Charity". More like MAJOR spin control..

-- Steve W.

Do you really know what you're talking about, Steve, or are you
blowing smoke? I just read the Constitutional provision and the
federal statute to be sure, and it sounds to me like you didn't read
the White House press announcement and what it means in context of
the law.

In other words, *you're* the one doing the spinning.


U.S. Constitution: Article 1 Section 9

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no
Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present,
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King,
Prince or foreign State.

In order to deal with the above and allow some gifts to be given without
constant action be Congress they passed the Foreign Gifts and
Decorations act of 1966. It and legislation passed in 1977 were
Congressional items that do allow Federal Officials to accept gifts up
to an amount set by the General Services Administration. The current
amount that is allowed to be kept is $335.00

See the GSA regulations on Federal Management Subchapter B - Part 102-42
Part 102-42—Utilization, Donation, and Disposal of Foreign Gifts and
Decorations
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/cha...annelId=-24555

Some of the relevant excerpts below.

§102-42.5—What does this part cover?

This part covers the acceptance and disposition of gifts of more than
minimal value and decorations from foreign governments under 5 U.S.C.
7342. If you receive gifts other than from a foreign government, you
should refer to 102-36.405 of this subchapter B.

§102-42.10—What definitions apply to this part?

The following definitions apply to this part:

“Decoration” means an order, device, medal, badge, insignia, emblem, or
award offered by or received from a foreign government.

“Employee” means:

(((Snipped 1,2 and all after 5)))

(3) An individual employed by or occupying an office or position in the
government of a territory or possession of the United States or the
government of the District of Columbia;

(4) A member of a uniformed service as specified in 10 U.S.C. 101;

(5) The President and the Vice President;

“Foreign government” means:

(1) Any unit of foreign government, including any national, State,
local, and municipal government and their foreign equivalents;

(2) Any international or multinational organization whose membership is
composed of any unit of a foreign government; and

(3) Any agent or representative of any such foreign government unit or
organization while acting as such.

“Gift” means a monetary or non-monetary present (other than a
decoration) offered by or received from a foreign government. A monetary
gift includes anything that may commonly be used in a financial
transaction, such as cash or currency, checks, money orders, bonds,
shares of stock, and other securities and negotiable financial instruments.

“Minimal value” means a retail value in the United States at the time of
acceptance of $335 or less, except that GSA will adjust the definition
of minimal value in regulations prescribed by the Administrator of
General Services every three years, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, to reflect changes in the consumer price index for the
immediately preceding 3-year period.


§102-42.15—Under what circumstances may an employee retain a foreign
gift or decoration?

Employees, with the approval of their employing agencies, may accept and
retain:

(a) Gifts of minimal value received as souvenirs or marks of courtesy.
When a gift of more than minimal value is accepted, the gift becomes the
property of the U.S. Government, not the employee, and must be reported.

(b) Decorations that have been offered or awarded for outstanding or
unusually meritorious performance. If the employing agency disapproves
retention of the decoration by the employee, the decoration becomes the
property of the U.S. Government.

§102-42.20—What is the typical disposition process for gifts and
decorations that employees are not authorized to retain?

(b) Monetary gifts. When an employee receives a monetary gift above the
minimal value:

(1) The employee must report the gift to his/her employing agency within
60 days after accepting it.

(2) The employing agency must:

(i) Report a monetary gift with possible historic or numismatic (i.e.,
collectible) value to GSA; or

(ii) Deposit a monetary gift that has no historic or numismatic value
with the Department of the Treasury.

§102-42.70—Who handles gifts and decorations received by the President
or Vice President or a member of their family?

The National Archives and Records Administration normally handles gifts
and decorations received by the President and Vice President or a member
of the President’s or Vice President’s family.

§102-42.125—How is donation of gifts or decorations accomplished?

The State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASP) must initiate the process
on behalf of a prospective donee (e.g., units of State or local
governments and eligible non-profit organizations) by:

(a) Completing a Standard Form (SF) 123, Transfer Order Surplus Personal
Property, and submitting it to General Services Administration, Property
Management Division (FBP), Washington, DC 20406. Conspicuously mark the
SF 123 with the words, “FOREIGN GIFTS AND/OR DECORATIONS.”

(b) Attaching an original and two copies of a letter of intent to each
SF 123 submitted to GSA. An authorized representative of the proposed
donee must sign and date the letter, setting forth a detailed plan for
use of the property. The letter of intent must provide the following
information:

(1) Identifying the donee applicant, including its legal name and
complete address, its status as a public agency or as an eligible
nonprofit tax-exempt activity, and the name, title, and telephone number
of its authorized representative;

(2) A description of the gift or decoration requested, including the
gift’s commercially appraised value or estimated fair market value if no
commercial appraisal was performed; and

(3) Details on the planned use of the gift or decoration, including
where and how it will be used and how it will be safeguarded.




Basically it says that NO member of government can accept awards or
decorations without approval of the Congress. That includes the Peace
Prize. It further states that money in excess of 335.00 cannot be
accepted and HAS to be either turned over to the Treasury OR it can be
donated. However that decision is made by Congress NOT the individual
who gets the money in the first place.

Then the actual donation has to be approved through Congress.

So like I said earlier, He cannot accept the money, so instead of
saying, "I cannot accept this money and instead am turning it over to
the U.S. Treasury and requesting that Congress donate it to these
charities that I listed"

The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.



--
Steve W.

Steve W. wrote:
Ignoramus22050 wrote:
Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

Great he is "donating" money that he legally cannot accept anyway.
If he accepted it and kept it he would be in direct violation of Federal
law.

Sort of hard to call it "Charity". More like MAJOR spin control..

But if he really wanted to keep it, he would, because "The election is
over, and I won"

On Mar 11, 5:26*pm, Ignoramus22050 ignoramus22...@NOSPAM.
22050.invalid wrote:
Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

So, those being the "more examples", please tell us of the previous
examples of Obama's generosity to which they have been added.

John Martin

On Mar 12, 9:27*am, "Steve W." wrote:
[snip]
The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.

--
Steve W.

For ****'s sake, Steve. if the headline read, "Obama walks on water"
you'd spin it to mean "Obama can't swim."

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:42:38 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
I'm coming off two weeks of Vancomycin and one of IV Cipro today. I've lost
twenty percent of my body weight and the effects of that are problematic. My
posts to this thread lead to a 4 hour nappy G
snip

My best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery. Naps are
good.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

RBnDFW wrote:
Steve W. wrote:
Ignoramus22050 wrote:
Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

Great he is "donating" money that he legally cannot accept anyway.
If he accepted it and kept it he would be in direct violation of Federal
law.

Sort of hard to call it "Charity". More like MAJOR spin control..

But if he really wanted to keep it, he would, because "The election is
over, and I won"


Oh he might try that, but I don't think even he is that stupid. That
would land him in even deeper water than his ignorance of reality
already has.


--
Steve W.

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:42:38 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
I'm coming off two weeks of Vancomycin and one of IV Cipro today. I've lost
twenty percent of my body weight and the effects of that are problematic. My
posts to this thread lead to a 4 hour nappy G
snip

My best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery. Naps are
good.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

As long as you wake up....

--
Steve W.

rangerssuck wrote:
On Mar 12, 9:27 am, "Steve W." wrote:
[snip]
The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.

--
Steve W.

For ****'s sake, Steve. if the headline read, "Obama walks on water"
you'd spin it to mean "Obama can't swim."


If it didn't involve illegal methods I wouldn't have a problem with it.
However for anyone to consider this charity on Obamas part is like
considering it a great thing if a bank robber donated the money to
charity. Same principle.

Maybe if you read the laws you might understand it, unlikely but
stranger things have happened.

--
Steve W.

"John R. Carroll" wrote:


Anyway, I've been off the beam a bit. Respiratory failure will do
that to a person but I will say that if you have to be really sick,
as in near death, do it at Pendelton. The jar heads there are pretty
fair and Scripps is right down the street. Those guys can do just
about anything.
LOL

Damn, I was just getting worried about you on Monday, and was going
to ask if anyone knew where you were. So, are you doing Ok now?

I'm coming off two weeks of Vancomycin and one of IV Cipro today. I've lost
twenty percent of my body weight and the effects of that are problematic. My
posts to this thread lead to a 4 hour nappy G
Next week will tell the tale on the effectiveness of treatment. Nothing like
a drug resistant nosicomial infection masked by the seasonal flue to ruin
your whole day.

Please conserve your strength and fight the battle that really matters.

Best wishes,

Wes

rangerssuck wrote:
On Mar 12, 9:27 am, "Steve W." wrote:
[snip]
The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.

--
Steve W.

For ****'s sake, Steve. if the headline read, "Obama walks on water"
you'd spin it to mean "Obama can't swim."


If he wants to be a nice guy he should pony up HIS money not taxpayer
money. How about he donates his Presidential salary to the cause.
That would be a DONATION.

What you are giving him credit for is the same thing as saying that a
person who robbed a bank and then donated the money to charity did a
good thing.

--
Steve W.

On 3/11/2010 8:46 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
"Don wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:23:38 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Ed wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
wrote:

In the end, eh?G

There have been a couple of notable wins but Obama is finding the truth in
the old adage that you can't lead from behind.
Time will tell what he takes from the lesson.

JC

Much to their dismay, the right wing is going to find out the hard way
that Obama is their worst nightmare. He's a smart guy that knows how to
manipulate the system better than anyone. He's got a lot of irons in the
fire right now. He's out to make a lot of changes and he's not going to
stop until he gets them done. This is going to come down to a test of
who is going to prevail Obama or the republicans. Obama isn't going to
back down and he's going to just keep going and going and going. That's
what gets things done. Refusing to quit until you get your way. That's
Obama. That's real bad news for the republicans who thought they were
going to stop him from getting his agenda done. I'm enjoying the fight.
My money is on Obama. Last time my money was bet that Bush would muck
things up. My record on these things is pretty good if I do say so
myself. Poor republicans.

Hawke

"Ignoramus22050" wrote in message
...
Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

Obama's quite generous with other peoples money.

The problem I have with Obama is he is trying to cram his health care down
our throats. His bill doesn't have the votes to do it according to the
constitutions so he is trying to overthrow the constitution for his health
care bill so he can send money to Planned parrenthood. Imagine a bill that
is so significant that it is 20% of the US economy but the Democrats want
the pass it without a vote, since they don't have enough votes to pass it
the constitutional method.

RogerN

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 9:27 am, "Steve W." wrote:
[snip]
The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.

--
Steve W.

For ****'s sake, Steve. if the headline read, "Obama walks on water"
you'd spin it to mean "Obama can't swim."


Actually if the news was that Obama can't swim, it would be spun into "Obama
walks on water". Steve's just unspinning what has already been spun.

RogerN

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

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

Anyway, I've been off the beam a bit. Respiratory failure will do
that to a person but I will say that if you have to be really sick,
as in near death, do it at Pendelton. The jar heads there are pretty
fair and Scripps is right down the street. Those guys can do just
about anything.
LOL

Damn, I was just getting worried about you on Monday, and was going
to ask if anyone knew where you were. So, are you doing Ok now?

I'm coming off two weeks of Vancomycin and one of IV Cipro today. I've
lost
twenty percent of my body weight and the effects of that are problematic.
My
posts to this thread lead to a 4 hour nappy G
Next week will tell the tale on the effectiveness of treatment. Nothing
like
a drug resistant nosicomial infection masked by the seasonal flue to ruin
your whole day.
I'll either be calendaring a motion next week in an unlimited civil case
or
not and if it's the not option, I'll be in real trouble healthwise.
You ought to see me argue before the court Ed. I really do my homework and
that's surprised some folks.
I just need to be able to breath.

You take care.

--
John R. Carroll


Oh, jeez, John, that doesn't sound good. Please keep us informed about how
it goes.

(I don't think I'd be surprised at how you argue before the court. g)

--
Ed Huntress

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." 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.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the
Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a
national nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are
receiving care at Veterans Administration medical centers. He
will give another $200,000 to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help
the country recover from the earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including
education foundations, scholarship funds and regional development
groups in Africa and Central Asia.''
Great he is "donating" money that he legally cannot accept anyway.
If he accepted it and kept it he would be in direct violation of
Federal law.

Sort of hard to call it "Charity". More like MAJOR spin control..

-- Steve W.

Do you really know what you're talking about, Steve, or are you
blowing smoke? I just read the Constitutional provision and the
federal statute to be sure, and it sounds to me like you didn't read
the White House press announcement and what it means in context of
the law.

In other words, *you're* the one doing the spinning.


U.S. Constitution: Article 1 Section 9

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no
Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present,
Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King,
Prince or foreign State.

In order to deal with the above and allow some gifts to be given without
constant action be Congress they passed the Foreign Gifts and
Decorations act of 1966. It and legislation passed in 1977 were
Congressional items that do allow Federal Officials to accept gifts up
to an amount set by the General Services Administration. The current
amount that is allowed to be kept is $335.00

See the GSA regulations on Federal Management Subchapter B - Part 102-42
Part 102-42-Utilization, Donation, and Disposal of Foreign Gifts and
Decorations
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/cha...annelId=-24555

Some of the relevant excerpts below.

§102-42.5-What does this part cover?

This part covers the acceptance and disposition of gifts of more than
minimal value and decorations from foreign governments under 5 U.S.C.
7342. If you receive gifts other than from a foreign government, you
should refer to 102-36.405 of this subchapter B.

§102-42.10-What definitions apply to this part?

The following definitions apply to this part:

"Decoration" means an order, device, medal, badge, insignia, emblem, or
award offered by or received from a foreign government.

"Employee" means:

(((Snipped 1,2 and all after 5)))

(3) An individual employed by or occupying an office or position in the
government of a territory or possession of the United States or the
government of the District of Columbia;

(4) A member of a uniformed service as specified in 10 U.S.C. 101;

(5) The President and the Vice President;

"Foreign government" means:

(1) Any unit of foreign government, including any national, State,
local, and municipal government and their foreign equivalents;

(2) Any international or multinational organization whose membership is
composed of any unit of a foreign government; and

(3) Any agent or representative of any such foreign government unit or
organization while acting as such.

"Gift" means a monetary or non-monetary present (other than a
decoration) offered by or received from a foreign government. A monetary
gift includes anything that may commonly be used in a financial
transaction, such as cash or currency, checks, money orders, bonds,
shares of stock, and other securities and negotiable financial
instruments.

"Minimal value" means a retail value in the United States at the time of
acceptance of $335 or less, except that GSA will adjust the definition
of minimal value in regulations prescribed by the Administrator of
General Services every three years, in consultation with the Secretary
of State, to reflect changes in the consumer price index for the
immediately preceding 3-year period.


§102-42.15-Under what circumstances may an employee retain a foreign
gift or decoration?

Employees, with the approval of their employing agencies, may accept and
retain:

(a) Gifts of minimal value received as souvenirs or marks of courtesy.
When a gift of more than minimal value is accepted, the gift becomes the
property of the U.S. Government, not the employee, and must be reported.

(b) Decorations that have been offered or awarded for outstanding or
unusually meritorious performance. If the employing agency disapproves
retention of the decoration by the employee, the decoration becomes the
property of the U.S. Government.

§102-42.20-What is the typical disposition process for gifts and
decorations that employees are not authorized to retain?

(b) Monetary gifts. When an employee receives a monetary gift above the
minimal value:

(1) The employee must report the gift to his/her employing agency within
60 days after accepting it.

(2) The employing agency must:

(i) Report a monetary gift with possible historic or numismatic (i.e.,
collectible) value to GSA; or

(ii) Deposit a monetary gift that has no historic or numismatic value
with the Department of the Treasury.

§102-42.70-Who handles gifts and decorations received by the President
or Vice President or a member of their family?

The National Archives and Records Administration normally handles gifts
and decorations received by the President and Vice President or a member
of the President's or Vice President's family.

§102-42.125-How is donation of gifts or decorations accomplished?

The State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASP) must initiate the process
on behalf of a prospective donee (e.g., units of State or local
governments and eligible non-profit organizations) by:

(a) Completing a Standard Form (SF) 123, Transfer Order Surplus Personal
Property, and submitting it to General Services Administration, Property
Management Division (FBP), Washington, DC 20406. Conspicuously mark the
SF 123 with the words, "FOREIGN GIFTS AND/OR DECORATIONS."

(b) Attaching an original and two copies of a letter of intent to each
SF 123 submitted to GSA. An authorized representative of the proposed
donee must sign and date the letter, setting forth a detailed plan for
use of the property. The letter of intent must provide the following
information:

(1) Identifying the donee applicant, including its legal name and
complete address, its status as a public agency or as an eligible
nonprofit tax-exempt activity, and the name, title, and telephone number
of its authorized representative;

(2) A description of the gift or decoration requested, including the
gift's commercially appraised value or estimated fair market value if no
commercial appraisal was performed; and

(3) Details on the planned use of the gift or decoration, including
where and how it will be used and how it will be safeguarded.




Basically it says that NO member of government can accept awards or
decorations without approval of the Congress.

Congress has given blanket approval for certain circumstances, Steve. You
quoted the GSA regulations, but those are administrative rules intended to
implement the federal statute, which is he

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/...2----000-.html

Note that under section (d) of the statute, it's up to the "employing
agency" whether a decoration of more than minimal value can be accepted. In
this case, that means the President himself. This is acknowledged in the GSA
regulations, as well, in the section titled "Care, Handling, and
Disposition":

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/cha...html#wp2017145

As for the money, as John said, it probably never was transferred to the
President himself or actually in his possession.

There also is the question whether this statute and these regulations apply,
because, although the Nobel committee is chosen by the Swedish parliament,
the prize is awarded by the private Nobel Foundation. Unlike committees that
are appointed by Congress in the US, and then disperse government money,
the Nobel Foundation's money comes from the original Nobel will. So that
one would be a tough legal question to answer.

But none of that was the issue. The issue was Wes's and your claim of
"spin." It appears you still may not have read the press announcement from
the White House:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...-money-charity

Nowhere does it claim that it was the President's money. All it says is that
it was money that came with the prize and that the President has decided who
it will be donated to. Unless you have some information that he actually
received the money -- that you know what account it went into -- the
question of "spin" is all in your own head. There are no unwarranted claims
in the announcement, and you apparently misunderstand the provisions of the
law for acceptance of the decoration.

snip

So like I said earlier, He cannot accept the money, so instead of
saying, "I cannot accept this money and instead am turning it over to
the U.S. Treasury and requesting that Congress donate it to these
charities that I listed"

Nope. Read it again. The press release didn't say it was "his" money.

If it was, you can be sure that the long knives would be out among the
Republicans, and someone would have filed a complaint with the
GSA and demanded that charges be pressed by the Attorney
General. They wouldn't miss such an easy opportunity to stick their
political knives in.

Now, it's not likely that many members of Congress would have done it,
but we would have heard from some of the operatives.


The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
When in reality it is NOT his money.

That's all in your head. Read the press release.

It is actually taxpayer money.

Very unlikely. See above.

Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.

All in your head. You see everything in terms of how you can cut him down.
There is no objectivity or equanimity in your claims, and you missed some
key
legal issues.

--
Ed Huntress

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:
On Mar 12, 9:27 am, "Steve W." wrote:
[snip]
The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.

--
Steve W.

For ****'s sake, Steve. if the headline read, "Obama walks on water"
you'd spin it to mean "Obama can't swim."


If it didn't involve illegal methods I wouldn't have a problem with it.
However for anyone to consider this charity on Obamas part is like
considering it a great thing if a bank robber donated the money to
charity. Same principle.

What a ridiculous statement. He didn't "rob" it. He won it, and decided
where it would go. Unless you have some information to the contrary, it's
unlikely that he ever took possession of it.


Maybe if you read the laws you might understand it, unlikely but
stranger things have happened.


Maybe you should read the statute again, yourself. And read the press
release. Then tell us what laws were broken. And if you find one, tell us
why the RNC isn't screaming for an investigation as we speak. It's their
nature, you know.

--
Ed Huntress

"RogerN" wrote in message
news

"Ignoramus22050" wrote in message
...
Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

Obama's quite generous with other peoples money.

And whose money do you think it is, Roger?


The problem I have with Obama is he is trying to cram his health care down
our throats. His bill doesn't have the votes to do it according to the
constitutions so he is trying to overthrow the constitution for his health
care bill so he can send money to Planned parrenthood.

Which consistitution are you reading? The constitution of Berzerkistan?

This isn't you by any chance, is it? g

http://www.theonion.com/content/news...te_defender_of

Imagine a bill that is so significant that it is 20% of the US economy but
the Democrats want the pass it without a vote, since they don't have
enough votes to pass it the constitutional method.

Wrong constitution, Roger. It's only about 4,500 words, not counting the
Amendments. You should stop and read it some time.

--
Ed Huntress

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 9:27 am, "Steve W." wrote:
[snip]
The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.

--
Steve W.

For ****'s sake, Steve. if the headline read, "Obama walks on water"
you'd spin it to mean "Obama can't swim."


Actually if the news was that Obama can't swim, it would be spun into
"Obama walks on water". Steve's just unspinning what has already been
spun.

Did you read the press release, or are you just blowing smoke, too?

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
news

"Ignoramus22050" wrote in message
...
Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

Obama's quite generous with other peoples money.

And whose money do you think it is, Roger?


The problem I have with Obama is he is trying to cram his health care
down our throats. His bill doesn't have the votes to do it according to
the constitutions so he is trying to overthrow the constitution for his
health care bill so he can send money to Planned parrenthood.

Which consistitution are you reading? The constitution of Berzerkistan?

This isn't you by any chance, is it? g

http://www.theonion.com/content/news...te_defender_of

Imagine a bill that is so significant that it is 20% of the US economy
but the Democrats want the pass it without a vote, since they don't have
enough votes to pass it the constitutional method.

Wrong constitution, Roger. It's only about 4,500 words, not counting the
Amendments. You should stop and read it some time.

--
Ed Huntress

We have a constitutional process for things like the health care bill. They
don't have the votes and are trying to cram it through other ways.

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
news

"Ignoramus22050" wrote in message
...
Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

Obama's quite generous with other peoples money.

And whose money do you think it is, Roger?


The problem I have with Obama is he is trying to cram his health care
down our throats. His bill doesn't have the votes to do it according to
the constitutions so he is trying to overthrow the constitution for his
health care bill so he can send money to Planned parrenthood.

Which consistitution are you reading? The constitution of Berzerkistan?

This isn't you by any chance, is it? g

http://www.theonion.com/content/news...te_defender_of

Imagine a bill that is so significant that it is 20% of the US economy
but the Democrats want the pass it without a vote, since they don't have
enough votes to pass it the constitutional method.

Wrong constitution, Roger. It's only about 4,500 words, not counting the
Amendments. You should stop and read it some time.

--
Ed Huntress

We have a constitutional process for things like the health care bill.
They don't have the votes and are trying to cram it through other ways.

RogerN

They only need 51 votes in the Senate, Roger. They have more than that, and
more than are needed in the House.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution. This is all about Senate
rules, which have frequently been changed. The relevant one, concerning
cloture, was changed in 1975. In 2009, Republicans set a new record of
invoking it over 100 times.

It's a way for the minority to subvert the will of the majority, and the
Founders probably are rolling over in their graves that such a thing was
ever put in place.

You're an honest guy, Roger, so I'm going to do you a favor here and, rather
than explain it all, suggest that you (1) actually read the Constitution, so
you don't sound like one of these idiots who keep yelling about "getting
back to the Constitution as it was written," when they really have little
idea about what's in it; then (2) read about "cloture" and "filibuster."
Wikipedia will do.

To me, there are few things sadder than sincere people who get twisted
around the little finger of media pundits because they don't really know
what's in the Constitution, or how Congress works.

--
Ed Huntress

Great he is "donating" money that he legally cannot accept anyway.
If he accepted it and kept it he would be in direct violation of Federal
law.

Sort of hard to call it "Charity". More like MAJOR spin control..

But if he really wanted to keep it, he would, because "The election is
over, and I won"

That's right. And your side lost. This is how it works. I know you hate
it that the side that beat you gets the chance to do things in ways you
don't want. That's too bad, for you. The fact you wingers are extremely
sore losers is crystal clear. From day one you folks have done nothing
but bellyache about everything Obama has done. You're just going to have
to get used to it though because Obama has lots of time to do whatever
he wants. The funny thing is how much you guys like democracy when your
candidate wins but you seem to hate it when your side loses. Yeah, it's
really tough but that's life. When you lose you don't get to call the
shots, and the rest of the country is so thankful you don't.

Hawke

Obama's quite generous with other peoples money.

The problem I have with Obama is he is trying to cram his health care down
our throats. His bill doesn't have the votes to do it according to the
constitutions so he is trying to overthrow the constitution for his health
care bill so he can send money to Planned parrenthood. Imagine a bill that
is so significant that it is 20% of the US economy but the Democrats want
the pass it without a vote, since they don't have enough votes to pass it
the constitutional method.

RogerN


You also seem not to know that the health care bill has already passed
the senate and the house. So your representatives have done their work
and passed the law, which is how it is supposed to work. You also seem
to have forgotten what happened in 2008 so I'll remind you. The
Democrats won everything by a strong margin and they said at the time
their goal was to pass health care reform, and that is why they were
elected, to do that. The public was strongly behind reforming health at
the time. Now, after a full on campaign by the right wing to convince
the public not to do it some have changed their minds. But the
circumstances haven't changed and the system needs to change or it will
fail. So if you want to call that being crammed down your throat, go
ahead. The facts are that change has to happen. Democrats have faced
that fact are are finally addressing the problem. Now it's your turn.

Hawke

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve W." wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:
On Mar 12, 9:27 am, "Steve W." wrote:
[snip]
The story get's spun that HE is donating his money to the charities.
When in reality it is NOT his money. It is actually taxpayer money.
Just another of the "Gee look how great this man is" stories.

--
Steve W.
For ****'s sake, Steve. if the headline read, "Obama walks on water"
you'd spin it to mean "Obama can't swim."

If it didn't involve illegal methods I wouldn't have a problem with it.
However for anyone to consider this charity on Obamas part is like
considering it a great thing if a bank robber donated the money to
charity. Same principle.

What a ridiculous statement. He didn't "rob" it. He won it, and decided
where it would go. Unless you have some information to the contrary, it's
unlikely that he ever took possession of it.

Ed you might want to take a reading comprehension course.

Obama cannot legally take possession of the money. Period.

The money would legally have to be transferred to the U.S, treasury for
disposal per the law. This is all covered under the GSA regulations as I
showed in my other post.

As such the money now falls under the purview of Congress.
Obama made the announcement about what HE wanted done with the money,
when that choice is not his to make.


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

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

Now unless these words mean something different.
"$1.4 million he received"
"He will give another $200,000"

I read that as HE is giving away money that HE had no legal right to
accept. That is a FAR cry from charity.

Charity is reaching into your OWN wallet and giving YOUR money, or
giving of YOUR time.

Having it attributed to you that YOU are giving money to charity when
the money can not legally be yours in the first place is the problem.
What does the title of this post say?


Maybe if you read the laws you might understand it, unlikely but
stranger things have happened.


The press release is NOT the problem. The problem is that in no way can
this be claimed to be charity on his part.


--
Steve W.

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Obama's quite generous with other peoples money.

The problem I have with Obama is he is trying to cram his health care
down
our throats. His bill doesn't have the votes to do it according to the
constitutions so he is trying to overthrow the constitution for his
health
care bill so he can send money to Planned parrenthood. Imagine a bill
that
is so significant that it is 20% of the US economy but the Democrats want
the pass it without a vote, since they don't have enough votes to pass it
the constitutional method.

RogerN


You also seem not to know that the health care bill has already passed the
senate and the house. So your representatives have done their work and
passed the law, which is how it is supposed to work. You also seem to have
forgotten what happened in 2008 so I'll remind you. The Democrats won
everything by a strong margin and they said at the time their goal was to
pass health care reform, and that is why they were elected, to do that.
The public was strongly behind reforming health at the time. Now, after a
full on campaign by the right wing to convince the public not to do it
some have changed their minds. But the circumstances haven't changed and
the system needs to change or it will fail. So if you want to call that
being crammed down your throat, go ahead. The facts are that change has to
happen. Democrats have faced that fact are are finally addressing the
problem. Now it's your turn.

Hawke

I want healthcare reform too but I don't think it should be used to channel
billions of dollars to planned parenthood for taxpayer funded abortions.

RogerN

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It's a way for the minority to subvert the will of the majority, and the
Founders probably are rolling over in their graves that such a thing was
ever put in place.


If the founding fathers wanted a simple majority to prevail, they would not have created a
Senate. The Senate's purpose is to represent each States interest.

I doubt the founding fathers are rolling atm, we at least about this.

Wes

On Mar 12, 12:36*pm, John Martin wrote:
On Mar 11, 5:26*pm, Ignoramus22050 ignoramus22...@NOSPAM.





22050.invalid wrote:
Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

So, those being the "more examples", please tell us of the previous
examples of Obama's generosity to which they have been added.

John Martin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Still waiting for all those examples, Iggy.

John Martin

On 2010-03-14, John Martin wrote:
On Mar 12, 12:36?pm, John Martin wrote:
On Mar 11, 5:26?pm, Ignoramus22050 ignoramus22...@NOSPAM.





22050.invalid wrote:
Those who accused President Barack Obama of soliticing donations
towards Haiti, but only contributing next to nothing, are now proven
wrong.

``WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has announced which
groups will get the $1.4 million he received for winning the Nobel
Peace Prize.

Obama said Thursday that $250,000 will go to Fisher House, a national
nonprofit that houses families whose loved ones are receiving care at
Veterans Administration medical centers. He will give another $200,000
to the Bush-Clinton Haiti Fund to help the country recover from the
earthquake.

The balance will go to an array of other groups including education
foundations, scholarship funds and regional development groups in
Africa and Central Asia.''

So, those being the "more examples", please tell us of the previous
examples of Obama's generosity to which they have been added.

John Martin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Still waiting for all those examples, Iggy.

Here's one for you. He donated $15,000 towards Haiti earthquake
victims earlier.

i