The Obama Nation

Wrong. This is why you can supply no supporting evidence for these claims. I presume that you have no evidence for this daydream.You could have this fantasy about anyone. The Pope isn't really a Catholic, he just pretends to be to further his ecclesiastical ambitions. McCain is secretly a die-hard Communist, but he wants to be president. The folks at the Discovery Institute are really evolutionists, but they've found they make more money as creationists.It's a very mean-spirited way of avoiding reality, don't you think? Oh for Pete's sake.If he knows that it guarantees the right to bear arms, he also thinks that it guarantees the right to bear arms.However, if you are going to insist on what he thinks rather than what he knows, here you go: See above. He thinks it's an individual right, rather than reserved to the "militia", whatever that is.Of course, whatever he says, you will still fantasise about how he doesn't mean it, so that you can hate him for being against the Second Amendment and for lying about it.

Clearly your posts have incurred the wrath of God. Or at least his severe embarrasment.

No it hasn't.

A scaremongering article about something that hasn't actually happened. A lie. That isn't socialized medicine. I guess that's why you had to get your misinformation off a site that actually boasts itself to be unfair and imbalanced. Obama has of course increased military spending. Funny way to undermine the military. This would be easier to refute if you bothered to say what the heck you were talking about. Until then: This is of course a lie, which is why neither you nor the hysterical moron who wrote this article can quote him as doing so.I also notice that the President has not in fact set up any paramilitary organizations. And since it was James Madison and not President Obama who wrote the Second Amendment, this has nothing to do with Obama, does it? Did you notice that this gibberish, while admittedly ridiculous, paranoid, and retarded, has nothing else in common with your gibberish about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine"?You will also notice that Obama has not in fact imposed the "Fairness Doctrine", which he opposes. That doesn't sound very dangerous. Tell us, what, in your opinion, makes him more "dangerous" than previous holders of the same office, such as James C. Miller III, Christopher DeMuth, Wendy Lee Gramm, John Spotila, Sally Katzen, Susan Dudley, and John Graham? (Note that lunatics frothing about how he is a "czar" doesn't actually make him dangerous, it just makes idiots think he's dangerous.) To call this pathetic mishmash "research" is generous; to call it "verification" is frankly false.I don't see why it took you two hours to dredge up some sort of affirmation for your fantasies --- paranoid whackjobs aren't that hard to find on the internet.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

One difference between you and scientists is that all your predictions turned out to be wrong.This is because of another big difference between you and scientists --- that your idea of "researched data" is any bullshit that someone makes up that happens to feed your prejudices. That's an interesting excuse for why you were wrong about everything. It allows you to maintain your customary level of hatred and paranoia even if every single fact available to you contradicts your delusions. Translation from crazy into English: Obama is doing exactly what every other president has done, but since he hasn't done anything we can actually criticize him for, I guess we're going to have to pretend that this is sinister in some way. Let's have an actual quotation, shall we? Such a snub, eh? And giving them $30,000,000,000 dollars must have really stung.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And after. He's not bound by the memorandum of understanding agreed on by the Bush administration and Israel; he has the option to cut it; he said he wouldn't before he was elected; and he hasn't. Then you must be a big fan of Obama's policies towards Israel. The real ones, that is, as represented by what he actually says and does, not the imaginary ones in your head.

So ... did Bush not have anyone in charge of these things you think are so important? Or is it just that Glen Beck never called them czars?

So does Obama have fewer cabinet members? Which jobs which Bush had done by a cabinet member are now performed by "czars"?The only one "czar" you've singled out for mention so far is the head of OIRA, which has been run by a "czar" since it was founded in the 1980s.(Obviously no powers have been transferred from the legislative to the executive branch.)

And I'll ask you again: Which jobs which Bush had done by a cabinet member are now performed by "czars"? Which powers which used to be vested in cabinet members are now vested in "czars".(Obviously there has been no transfer of power from Congress to the President.)Be specific. Or admit that you're making a big fuss over absolutely nothing that you actually know of.