He had tons of money before becoming President. He *might* be paying for his vacation out of his private bank account, not his salary as President. Just saying.

I agree with you! All I know is what these news articles say, but they don't say much. Does anyone know where we can find some real facts? I've googled and tried to get some verified info, but haven't found anything yet.

Okay, thanks for the suggestion! Here are two articles I read:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/07/...

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/25/Obamas-to-...

Well, all that negative feedback came from the first time I left a comment. People didn't agree with what I said, obviously. I'm trying to be rational rather than just react.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no lover of Obama, but is there proof that taxpayers are paying for this vacation? Seriously, can anyone verify it from a reliable source? I would be interested to know. Now if they went to Camp David, I would assume that it would be a taxpayer-paid vacation. From what I've read, the Obamas are paying for their own vacation. Certainly they can afford it, since they were already wealthy before he became President. And doesn't he have the liberty to vacation where he wants to? Maybe he and his family prefer the beach to the mountains. There are plenty of things to criticize him about, but I don't think this is one of them, especially if he's paying for it out of his own pocket. Again, I'm not a supporter of Obama. I think he's ruining the country with his political ideology, so please no flaming accusations. This is an honest question I have. If taxpayers are indeed paying for it, then it's outrageous. If not, then we liberty-loving Americans ought to support his right to spend his money as he chooses.

I'm not a Dylan fan, but I love this song. Yes, keep it!

Just plain stupid.

My understanding is that this is a Tenth Amendment issue. The Constitution does not specifically give the President or Congress power to interfere with the internal affairs of other nations, therefore such action is forbidden. I don't believe that foreign intervention is truly "providing for the common defense" if there is no direct threat to our homeland. Also, you can find a plethora of quotes by the Founding Fathers expressing their opposition to foreign entanglements. A few examples:

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible." -George Washington

"I sincerely join... in abjuring all political connection with every foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance, yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." --Thomas Jefferson

"[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom." - John Q. Adams

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:

The Monroe Doctrine was declared in 1823, nearly 50 years after the Declaration of Independence and 40 years after the Constitution was written. As such I would not consider it to be one of the Primary Documents and don't think it should be put on the same level with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The purpose of the Monroe Doctrine was to prevent European nations from trying to recolonize in the Western Hemisphere. It was not to interfere with the internal affairs of the Latin American republics. I'm afraid that our government has taken to much liberty with this doctrine and made it say something that Monroe never intended. We should try to persuade and encourage liberty in other nations, but we should not try to force the issue. Let's take care of our own problems at home. (Off the subject, I'd just like to say that I am very disappointed by the condescending, downright hostile attitudes that I've encountered today on this forum. Can we not disagree with each other in a civil manner?)

I think you guys need to familiarize yourself a little more with the Founding Fathers' view on foreign policy. Are we not trying to return to the original values that our country had?