I'm wondering which part he doesn't understand. "We the People..."? Or perhaps "do ordain and establish this Constitution". Or maybe, just maybe, it's that "Congress shall make NO LAW" part".

So there's this saying. "Those who can't do, teach. Those who can neither do, nor teach, become journalists."

Wait a minute... I've been wondering about that for decades! The Shakespeare part. I mean...

Me too. Was required curricula. When they used to teach ALL of the American history, from Plymouth Rock on.

Have you seen some of these people? They blot out the sun now as it is.

Lern gud anglish plz.. We do not hate our president. We strongly dislike and disagree with his political policies of redistributive economics, the suppression of wealth accumulation a.k.a. economic freedom, and his practice of dishonoring his nation by bowing to foreign leaders. He disgraces himself by being weak, and by association disgraces the rest of us.

I think this is completely hillarious. If you consider that well over half of the Congress is made up of lawyers, and the vast majority of them are Constitutional lawyers, the notion of "I don't understand" is just, well, stupid. And this tool obviously needs to be sharpened, because it's unlikely he could cut butter.

Ezra, you have to want to understand something in order to understand it. You obviously don't want to understand it because it says "God" a couple of times, and from time to time says "government is BAD"... Don't deny it, now. You know you would say "I don't understand" to your mum any time she said something you didn't like, or any time you didn't want to do what she said. See what I mean? "I don't understand" is possibly the second most common excuse for being inadequate that exists. Right behind "I have a headache".

The Network produced a 400-page report criticising "glaring inadequacies in the United States? human rights record," including the "discriminatory impact" of foreclosures, "widespread" racial profiling and "draconian" immigration policies.

Put this in context. It is a violation of human rights to the UN for people to lose their homes if they don't pay for them (socialist idea), use the known nationality of a terrorist to search for them in public places (racial profiling) and require that immigrants follow prescribed methods of entering and leaving the country (draconian immigration policies). To paraphrase, what the UN human rights council would like, is for the US to be an open territory under UN jurisdiction so that its socialist leaders can finish pillaging the country with impunity. Even though any country has a right to enforce its laws, monitor and control its borders, and protect the universal right to rightfully acquired property. I would say "no".

Hmmm. Serious god complex. Proof of egomania on Capitol Hill?