And on top of those, he's got the militia too:
Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Funny I’ve never seen any article or section of the Constitution describing what type or method of transportation is to be used for the president.
Being Commander in Chief doesn’t mean that he’s “got” anything. It means he may properly use certain things such as Air Force One in the line of duty. Where is your thinking?
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
"Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States"
How on Earth do you go from "Commander" to "owner"?
But Obama has to pay for personal use of AF1. And this is personal use.
The MSM made a point to bash Bush about using AF1 until he showed he was paying for it out of his pocket.
I wonder if the media is doing the same for this regime?
He’s the “Commander in Chief” not the owner. “H” WE are his Commander in Chiefs actually, and the ultimate say over his personal claims. The guy works for us, and we are going to show him, and remind others of that fact this coming November. The guy’s a Turkey, and November is Turkey month.
It’s a matter of doing it.
He is Commander in Chief, but the men and women who serve under him serve on OUR behalf... the citizens of the USA... God bless us.
Commander-in chief- doesn’t say- own...it says command.
Re: your tagline: “Obama is a miserable failure”
Obama isn’t a failure. He’s doing a pretty damn good job destroying America. His stated goal was/is to “fundamentally transform”, “Change” the country. Communist code words for converting to socialism/communism.
He's a grifting nasty piece of sh!t on a shingle that's not fit for dog consumption, much less a toss in a landfill.