United States | If Bush Had Done That

Justices say employers may not use discriminatory testing practices

On May 25, 2010, In If Bush Had Done That, By Shon Jimenez

: Image via Wikipedia

Employers who use tests that have the effect of ruling out disproportionate numbers of women and minorities may be sued each time they use the results to hire, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

So let me get this straight. Minorities take the same test as everyone else and they score lower than white people, so we have to dumb down the test so that these black people have a better chance to pass? What happened to picking the best man for the job? Maybe if they weren’t so dumb or illiterate they might be able to pass. I get so sick of everything being called racial or discriminatory because they can’t perform as well as white people. Maybe if these black wannabe firefighters cared more about education than their dubs, or slang, or their gats, they’d be more likely to pass a standard test. We should not dumb down a test for a very important job just so we can have more blacks employed.

The court ruled unanimously that a group of more than 6,000 African Americans may sue the city of Chicago on their claim that the way the city used a written application test kept them from being hired as firefighters. Justice Antonin Scalia said the city opened itself to liability each time it used the test results to hire a class of firefighters over a six-year period and rejected Chicago’s assertion that the applicants waited too long to sue.

“Under the city’s reading, if an employer adopts an unlawful practice and no timely charge is brought, it can continue using the practice indefinitely, with impunity, despite ongoing disparate impact” on minorities, Scalia wrote.

Federal law forbids employers from using an employment practice that “causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” even if there is no discriminatory intent. The only exception is if the employer can show the practice is job-related — a test of physical strength, for example — and “consistent with business necessity.”

John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who argued the case on behalf of the black applicants, said the decision will reach far beyond Chicago.

“This is a very significant victory, which should cause other cities and other employers to stop using discriminatory tests as any part of their hiring process,” Payton said.

Business groups said the decision will force employers to defend themselves against allegations of discrimination that occurred years in the past.

“We are very disappointed with the court’s decision,” Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses’ Small Business Legal Center, said in a statement. “It’s unfortunate that the court found that the statute of limitations will begin to run anew every time the employer applies the disputed practice.”

The court’s unanimity stood in stark contrast to the questions of employment discrimination that have split the court in the recent past.

In June, the court decided the flip side of the issue, saying the city of New Haven, Conn., was wrong to junk the results of its firefighter-promotion test because too few minorities qualified. The 5 to 4 decision in Ricci v. DeStefano set new standards for when efforts to protect one group amount to discrimination against another.

The delay-in-filing question was at the heart of the court’s divisive decision in May 2007 in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. That ruling said Alabama factory worker Lilly Ledbetter waited too long to sue when she found out her employer paid her less than her male co-workers.

In the loss, Ledbetter became a feminist heroine for some and her case became fodder for the 2008 presidential campaign. Her name sits atop the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 0f 2008, which said each paycheck constituted a new act of discrimination.

But the Chicago case presented a different set of facts.

The city’s entry-level firefighter test drew 26,000 applicants, with the passing grade set at 65. Faced with a huge number of qualified applicants, the city created two groups: a “well-qualified” set of those who scored 89 or better, and a “qualified” group of those who scored 65 to 88. For years, the city limited its hiring to the “well-qualified” group, which was skewed racially — 76 percent were white and 11.5 percent were black. In all, the city created 10 classes of firefighter recruits, hiring some from the “qualified” group only after the “well-qualified” group was exhausted.

Thousands of black applicants who were deemed “qualified” sued and won. A federal judge said the city had known that the 89 cutoff score was “statistically meaningless” and that there was no proof those who scored higher on the test made better recruits. She ordered the city to hire 132 applicants from the class and ordered back pay that could amount to tens of millions of dollars, Payton said.

When the city appealed the decision, it did not dispute the court’s finding but said that the African American applicants had filed their claim too late. The city argued that those applicants were hurt when the hiring list was first compiled and the job seekers were told they would probably not be hired, but it contended that the applicants missed the 300-day deadline for filing a complaint.

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said in a statement that the city faces challenges no matter how it approaches firefighting hiring.

“For decades, we have tried to diversify the Chicago Fire Department,” Daley said. “But at every turn, like most cities, we have been met with legal challenges from both sides.”

The city in 2006 began categorizing applicants on a pass/fail scale.

Scalia acknowledged that each side made a good argument and sympathized with employers’ contention that practices they had used for years might now bring new disparate-impact suits.

But he said those are arguments to be made to Congress.

“It is not our task to assess the consequences of each approach and adopt the one that produces the least mischief,” Scalia wrote. “Our charge is to give effect to the law Congress enacted.”

The case is Lewis v. City of Chicago.

Obama backs ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

On May 25, 2010, In If Bush Had Done That, By Shon Jimenez

: Image via Wikipedia

President Obama has endorsed a “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise between lawmakers and the Defense Department, the White House announced Monday, an agreement that may sidestep a key obstacle to repealing the military’s policy banning gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.

That’s all we need is a bunch of fairies corrupting the uniform of the Armed Services. Obama is not going to stop until he ruins evey facet of our once great country. Think about it an openly gay man, think Boy George, as the face of our military. Other countries will laugh at us, if they already don’t. Obama has to go in a bad way.

The compromise was finalized in meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers will now, within days, vote on amendments that would repeal the Clinton-era policy, with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about its impact on troops. That study is due to Congress by Dec. 1.

In a letter to lawmakers pushing for a legislative repeal, White House budget director Peter Orszag wrote Monday that the administration “supports the proposed amendment.”

“Such an approach recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions,” he wrote.

While gay rights advocates hailed the move as a “dramatic breakthrough,” it remained uncertain whether the deal would secure enough votes to pass both houses of Congress. Republicans have vowed to maintain “don’t ask, don’t tell,” while conservative Democrats have said they would oppose a repeal unless military leaders made it clear that they approved of such a change.

Even if the compromise language passes, a legislative repeal would take effect only after Obama certified that the change would not harm the nation’s military readiness.

In a statement, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said the announcement “paves the path to fulfill the President’s call to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation.”

The White House had initially hoped that Congress would wait until after the Pentagon study was completed before bringing up a repeal, but senior lawmakers made it clear that they intended to push ahead on the issue, with or without administration support. Now the controversial issue will return to the national conversation as fall reelection campaigns gear up.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is running for reelection and had previously supported a repeal of the law, said at a recent congressional hearing that the legislation is “imperfect but effective” and that “we should not be seeking to overturn.”

Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), a member of the House GOP leadership, said Monday of a repeal: “The American people don’t want the American military to be used to advance a liberal political agenda. And House Republicans will stand on that principle.”

While some Democrats, particularly in the House, wanted to wait for the Pentagon study to be finished, more-liberal Democrats were pushing for an immediate repeal. The compromise is designed to satisfy both concerns.

“We can live with this and we’re asking, enthusiastically, members to support and vote for it,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), the lead sponsors of repeal legislation, promised Monday night to pursue their goal quickly.

The White House letter clears the way for votes Thursday in the House on the overall spending bill, which Democrats expect will include Murphy’s amendment. The same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee will vote on its version of the spending bill, and Lieberman will introduce the same repeal language.

“It is our firm belief that it is time to repeal this discriminatory policy that not only dishonors those who are willing to give their lives in service to their country but also prevents capable men and women with vital skills from serving in the armed forces,” Lieberman and Murphy said in a statement.

If the compromise is approved, the 1993 policy could be removed from the nation’s law books within weeks. That would satisfy one of the most significant promises Obama made to the gay community during his campaign.

Once in office, however, Obama moved slowly, often causing frustration among his gay supporters.

In February, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, said they supported a repeal of the policy. Mullen said, “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”

But Gates angered some activists by requesting time to assess how best to make the cultural shift within the ranks.

The effort to reverse the ban accelerated with Obama’s one-sentence endorsement of a repeal in his January State of the Union address, sources close to the negotiations said. The next morning, advocates began a multimillion-dollar effort to convince six moderate members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

On Sunday, White House officials invited gay rights leaders to the White House for a Monday-morning meeting with Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina and administration lawyers, according to sources familiar with the meeting.

Related Blogs

Tagged with: Barack Obama • Congress • Mike Pence • Pentagon • United States • United States Congress • United States Secretary of Defense • White House

Spiraling Costs Make Obamacare a Prescription for Disaster

On April 26, 2010, In Obama Care, By Shon Jimenez

: Image via Wikipedia

WASHINGTON – What’s it going to cost me?

That’s the single biggest unanswered question about President Barack Obama’s new healthcare overhaul law — and its weak spot.

Many experts believe the law falls short on taming costs, and that will force Congress to revisit healthcare in a few years.

While it seems hard to believe now, Republicans might want to participate in a debate over costs, perhaps opening the way for limits on malpractice lawsuits and other ideas they’ve advocated.

“Now that the baseline question of coverage has been answered, it would be irresponsible if we didn’t come back and try to do more on costs,” said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who voted for the bill and led efforts to squeeze more savings.

“I think there is going to be a debate in the Republican Party on whether they should waste all their energy on repeal or make an effort to do something on cost containment,” Warner said.

For now, the political parties are too polarized — and lawmakers too exhausted — to contemplate healthcare 2.0. Conservatives are planning court challenges, and some Republican leaders hold out the promise of repeal. But economic reality probably will bring lawmakers back to the table.

Insurance premiums are likely to keep going up over the next few years. Experts predict that the law’s early benefits — such as expanded coverage for children and young adults — could nudge rates a little higher than would otherwise have been the case. Also, insurers and medical providers could try to raise their prices ahead of big shifts set for 2014.

Under the 10-year, $1 trillion plan, 2014 is when competitive insurance markets for individuals and small businesses are expected to open, and tax credits start flowing to help millions of middle-class households now uninsured. Medicaid will expand and pick up millions of low-income people. Most Americans would be required to carry health insurance, except in cases of financial hardship. Insurers no longer could turn away those in poor health.

More than 30 million previously uninsured people would gain coverage quickly — and they’ll start going to the doctor for care previously postponed. Increased demand will push up health care spending, putting more pressure on premiums.

The cost controls in the bill are unlikely to provide much of a counterweight. Democrats scrambling to line up votes for the final bill weakened a provision that would have enforced austerity through a hefty tax on high-cost employer coverage.

Other savings in the law — mainly Medicare cuts — may prove politically unsustainable, according to the government’s own experts.

The problem isn’t that the 2,700-page law is devoid of ideas for curbing costs. Many mainstream proposals are incorporated in some form. But what will work?

While the law creates a commission to keep pursuing deeper Medicare savings, there’s no overall cost control strategy and no single official to coordinate many experiments seeking greater efficiency.

“This bill takes a sort of spaghetti approach to cost control,” said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who supports the broad goals of the overhaul. “You throw a bunch of stuff against the wall and see what will stick. Healthcare, Round Two, is when we will make a serious effort at cutting costs down, based on what this law has shown us.”

If the law gets a B-plus for expanding coverage to 95 percent of eligible Americans, it probably deserves a C-minus or D for cost control. The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on healthcare, with some results worse than what other developed countries get by spending far less.

“Most people who have problems with health care costs now are not going to see much change in the next few years,” said Mark McClellan, who ran Medicare under former Republican President George W. Bush. “Hopefully some of these ideas will work, but it’s not automatic. I do hope we can revisit this in a more bipartisan manner.”

A look at some of the law’s main cost control provisions:

INSURANCE MARKET

Starting in 2014, the overhaul sets up new state-level insurance supermarkets called exchanges, intended to enable small businesses and individuals buying their own coverage to pool purchasing power. In theory, that would inject competition into markets now dominated by one or two major insurers in most states.

It also would reduce insurers’ overhead by giving them access to many customers in one place. The companies would be heavily regulated by state and federal authorities, and proposed premium increases would get a close look.

“Individuals and small businesses will, over time, have something much more predictable to look at,” said Christine Ferguson, former Massachusetts public health commissioner under Republican Gov. Mitt Romney. “We will have much more predictable rates of growth in health care costs.”

Romney, a potential GOP presidential candidate in 2012, signed a similar law in Massachusetts, but is now calling for repeal of the federal version.

PAYMENT REFORMS

Using Medicare as the lab, the law includes experiments designed to change the way medical providers are paid. It encourages them to keep patients healthier by avoiding foreseeable complications.

Doctors and hospitals could band together to better coordinate care. Instead of paying piecemeal for visits and tests, providers would get a lump sum for managing patients with certain health conditions. Primary care providers would be encouraged to create “medical homes” for their patients, serving as wellness coaches and medical gatekeepers.

Successful experiments would be adopted as national policy.

MEDICARE BOARD

The law sets up a board to hunt for Medicare savings. Congress could reject the proposals, but it wouldn’t be able to tinker with them.

INSURANCE TAX

Employer-sponsored health insurance is part of total compensation, but traditionally it’s been tax-free.

The law imposes a 40 percent tax on health insurance plans worth more than $27,500 for a family plan, $10,200 for individual coverage. (Family coverage now averages $13,375.)

That could have been a firm nudge to get people into more frugal coverage. But facing stiff opposition from labor unions, Obama and congressional Democrats punted, postponing the effective date until 2018. That’s after the president leaves office, assuming he’s re-elected.

Related Blogs

Tagged with: Barack Obama • George W. Bush • Health care • Insurance • Mark McClellan • Medicaid • Republican Party • United States

Pataki Says Obamacare Can Be Repealed

On April 25, 2010, In If Bush Had Done That, Obama Care, By Shon Jimenez

: Image via Wikipedia

Former New York Gov. George Pataki is leading a national effort to repeal Obamacare.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Pataki said he is launching the effort because the recent healthcare plan signed into law by President Barack Obama imposes the heavy hand of the federal government into the healthcare decisions of all Americans, contrary to the great traditions of the United States.

The popular conservative Republican who was thrice elected to the Empire State’s governorship, has just launched a new organization, RevereAmerica.org, a group Pataki says is aimed at promoting American traditions such as personal freedom and free enterprise.

Pataki has had a stellar career in politics. In 1994, he defied the polls by defeating Mario Cuomo in a gubernatorial upset. He presided over New York’s economic resurgence in the 1990s and had been widely credited in leading New York City back to health after the devastating attacks of Sept. 11.

Pataki left the governorship in 2007 and took up private practice as a lawyer. But he coming back into the political fray with his new 501(c)4 nonprofit, RevereAmerica, where he serves as chairman.

The group’s main priority is to encourage Americans to go to the RevereAmerica.org website to sign an online petition where concerned citizens can voice their desire to repeal Obamacare.

The organization has also begun airing TV ads on Fox News and MSNBC featuring a Paul Revere figure on horseback with a message from Pataki urging Americans to “protect” the country’s freedom.

Pataki argues that many of the claims of Obamacare are not true. For example, he says the oft-made claim by Democrats that individuals will be able to keep their current healthcare plan if they like it, is not true.

He also noted that millions of seniors on Medicare Advantage will have to give up their healthcare plans because the program is essentially being eliminated.

“He said it wasn’t going to increase healthcare costs, but today Obama’s own HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) has put out a report saying Obamacare will drive up healthcare costs over this coming decade,” Pataki told Newsmax.TV.

“And then they said it’s going to reduce the deficit, and I think everyone understands that rather than reduce the deficit; they are going to create unsustainable deficits by hundreds of billions ̶ probably over a half-trillion dollars.

“It’s not what they said it was, and they thought the American people would roll over and accept it once they rammed it through.”

Pataki vows his organization will be among those leading the fight to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a better plan.

Republicans would likely need large majorities in both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto for any repeal legislation. Still, Pataki expressed his belief that Republicans could succeed.

“I’m realistic about it, and I think we can do it,” he said.

The former governor said winning Republican majorities in the House and the Senate was critical to his goal of repealing Obamacare.

“The president would have a tough choice if he had a Congress that passed a bill that would repeal and replace, with good reforms repealing Obamacare,” Pataki said. “And he may well sign it, but probably the most realistic of all is that we have over half ̶ a majority committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare ̶ then they could just refuse to fund important or critical parts of this law.”

Getting the healthcare reform law repealed will require popular resolve, and Pataki encourages everyone interested in repealing the law to sign the petition on his website.

Pataki favors replacing Obamacare with tort reform including an elimination of “junk lawsuits,” allowing competition for insurers across state lines, as well as making healthcare premiums and policies tax deductible for individuals.

“None of these provisions were in Obamacare except the insurance provisions, and they will drive down costs; they will give people the power to get better healthcare and make their own decisions the way they should be in this country,” Pataki said.

Asked about Obama’s financial reform bill, Pataki said the administration and the Democrats have quickly latched onto it in an effort to get Americans to forget about the healthcare debacle.

In other parts of the wide-ranging interview, Pataki said:

Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his al-Qaida 9/11 co-conspirators in New York City would be an unconscionable mistake, and they should be tried and executed by a military tribunal.

Obama likely is supportive of the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court.

New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has failed New Yorkers by not taking strong enough of a stand against trying the 9/11 defendants in lower Manhattan.

As for speculation he may run for president in 2012, Pataki said he has no interest in doing so.

Related Blogs

Tagged with: Barack Obama • Federal government of the United States • George Pataki • Mario Cuomo • New York • New York City • Senate • United States

Limbaugh Hits Back at Obama for Criticism

On April 5, 2010, In If Bush Had Done That, By Shon Jimenez

: Image via Wikipedia

Rush Limbaugh is striking back at President Barack Obama.

On Friday, the nation’s top-rated radio host hit back at Obama, saying the president isn’t telling the truth and doesn’t have the support of the American people.

The controversy started Thursday, when Obama used an interview with CBS’ Harry Smith to level a broadside at Limbaugh and Fox News host Glenn Beck.

Smith asked Obama if he is “aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation” about him, including being called a Nazi and socialist.

Obama shot back, “Well, I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, it’s pretty apparent, and it’s troublesome, but keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out.”

The president said, “It happens often when you’ve got an economy that is making people more anxious, and people are feeling like there is a lot of change that needs to take place. But that’s not the vast majority of Americans. I think the vast majority of Americans know that we’re trying hard, that I want what’s best for the country.”

Limbaugh didn’t take Obama’s comments lightly.

In a response on his radio show, also posted to rushlimbaugh.com, the talk radio king said, “Who has called him a Nazi? Who do we know that has called him a Nazi? Socialist? Yeah. Stalinist? Yeah. Marxist? Yeah. Nazi? We have compared healthcare in America to what the Nazis tried to do in Germany and get the control of the people going in that regard.”

As for Obama’s claim to have the people’s support, “The American people do not think that Barack Obama is doing what’s best for the country,” Limbaugh said.

“They do not believe that in the slightest. Never in my life have I seen a regime like this governing so against the will of the people, purposely. I have never known more people personally who literally fear for the country.”

Limbaugh also lambasted the major media for its bias in favor of Obama.

“For Barack Obama to run around and say that this show and Beck and all of talk radio is filled with vitriol? Barack Obama sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years and never once complained about the tone of Jeremiah Wright’s bigoted, anti-American, racist rants.”

Polling data suggests that Rush may be right, as Obama’s approval ratings sink.

Obama’s approval rating fell to 44 percent in the latest CBS News Poll, the lowest level of his tenure in office.

That compares to 49 percent in late March, just before the healthcare reform bill became law. His approval rating was 50 percent in January and 68 percent last April.

Related Blogs

Tagged with: Barack Obama • CBS • CBS News • Glenn Beck • Harry Smith • Jeremiah Wright • Rush Limbaugh • Talk radio • United States

Obama Throws White Half Under the Bus. Again

On April 5, 2010, In If Bush Had Done That, By Shon Jimenez

: Image by karpov the wrecked train via Flickr

It is official: Barack Obama is the nation’s first black president.

A White House spokesman confirmed that Mr. Obama, the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, checked African-American on the 2010 census questionnaire.

The president, who was born in Hawaii and raised there and in Indonesia, had more than a dozen options in responding to Question 9, about race. He chose “Black, African Am., or Negro.” (The anachronistic “Negro” was retained on the 2010 form because the Census Bureau believes that some older blacks still refer to themselves that way.)

Mr. Obama could have checked white, checked both black and white, or checked the last category on the form, “some other race,” which he would then have been asked to identify in writing.

Aha! He could have checked off both, but chose not to. Full heritage, including his poor grandma, thrown under the bus yet again. I’m just surprised that he didn’t check off “Other” and then enter “Not a typical white person.”

Personally, I think I should have written in Wise Americana. Hey, I figure that I may as well use identity politics to my advantage; maybe I’ll score some extra points for my fancy womb. Identity politics is all that matters, isn’t it? Isn’t that the entire and sole reason for such a question?

Heck of a job, politically correct police. You’ve put people all into boxes. Instead of just being, you know, people.

Related Blogs

Tagged with: African American • Barack Obama • Cuban Missile Crisis • Hawaii • Indonesia • Kansas • Kenya • President • United States • United States Census Bureau

We Are Now Controlled by The Evil Empire

On March 22, 2010, In If Bush Had Done That, By Shon Jimenez

: Image via Wikipedia

We are the new U.S.S.R. Can’t you see it. I can. I knew once Obama was elected our country would change for the worse. Last night assurred that. We are one step from becoming 1930-1945 Germany. Obama is our Hitler. He makes you feel good, then stabs you in the back without you knowing it. He is moving his pieces into place for a government take over.

The left, neo nazi’s, are primed for a systematic takeover. Next you will have to line up and receive the mark on your arm to be able to get food and gas. Don’t believe me? Who would have thought Obama would have gone this far? He hasn’t even warmed up yet.

Pelosi is his henchwoman. Obama and the minorities are fixing to take over our country and there is nothing we can do about it. Not unless you ready to get your hands dirty and fight back. Fight dirty and unfair. We have to fight at their level to stop them. Being nice and filing law suits won’t do it. To fight evil you have to take their heads off. Unless you like everything chosen for you, you’d better get in the fight and stop Obama before he destroys everything we have built over the last 300 years.

Shon

Related Blogs

Tagged with: Adolf Hitler • Country music • Germany • Government • Nazism • Neo-Nazism • President • United States

We are doomed!!!

On March 22, 2010, In If Bush Had Done That, By Shon Jimenez

: Image via Wikipedia

The House has approved the Senate version of the health-care bill in 219 to 210 vote. This bill now goes to President Obama for his signature. The House will now vote on the reconciliation bill, which will probably no changes to it. We will forever pay for this bill and our taxes will go sky high. Thanks to all the idiots who voted in this jer, Obama and his gang. When Obama was sworn in he should have just sworn to tear this country apart.

You wanted a socialized country, well now you have it. We are no the United Socialist of America.

Shon

How to become the Senate parliamentarian. (slate.com)
Health Care Reform Schedule (themoderatevoice.com)
Reid tells House Dems what they want to hear (washingtonmonthly.com)

Related Blogs

The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Is Health-Care Reform …

Tagged with: Barack Obama • Health care • House • Politics • Reconciliation • Senate • United States • United States Senate

Buy Anti Obama Bumper Stickers

On March 19, 2010, In If Bush Had Done That, By Shon Jimenez

create & buy custom products at Zazzle

http://www.zazzle.com/drytech*

Related Blogs

Tagged with: Barack Obama • Business • Candidates • Conservative Party • Fox Broadcasting Company • History • Humor • President • RealClearPolitics • United States • Zazzle

The Jokes on Obama

On March 17, 2010, In If Bush Had Done That, By Shon Jimenez

Joker

Bush had a lot to deal with. When history is written he will have a favorable presidency. He tried to help, tax cuts; I liked the checks I got once in a while from the tax checks he sent us. I worked for him when he was Governor of Texas and he is not the boob most people portray him as being. He is a very intellectually honest man, principled values, and hard working. He has gotten a bad rep. He did not lie about the intelligence, Hillary saw the same intel that he did and came to the same conclusion, as well as Colin Powell.

Osama has never worked a real job a day in his life. He has always had big corporations in his pocket. We don’t need healthcare reform, we need tort reform and that would lower cost of healthcare. Osama doesn’t even know what a terrorist is or he wouldn’t allow one his Miranda rights read. Osama has spent more money in one year than Bush did in eight. Look at all the crooks, racist, and murders Osama hangs with.

What other president could get away with all this stuff. None, he only gets away with it because he is black, period. Sorry if the truth hurts. But the only reason he got elected in the first place is because he is black. We now know the color of a man’s skin doesn’t make the man and we are finding that out now.

Bush came into office and had to deal with the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, one of the worst natural disasters in Katrina, and the most vengeful left wing attacks ever. No president could come out of office with a perfect country after that. He did what he thought was right, what I thought was right, I would rather have another 8 years of Bush than another 6 months of this dishonest idiot.

Enough said

Related Blogs

Tagged with: Bush • Colin Powell • List of Governors of Texas • Miranda warning • Pearl Harbor • President • Tort reform • United States

If Bush Had Done That

The Liberals Would have Hung Him

Justices say employers may not use discriminatory testing practices

Related Blogs

Obama backs ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

Related Blogs

Spiraling Costs Make Obamacare a Prescription for Disaster

Related Blogs

Pataki Says Obamacare Can Be Repealed

Related Blogs

Limbaugh Hits Back at Obama for Criticism

Related Blogs

Obama Throws White Half Under the Bus. Again

Related Blogs

We Are Now Controlled by The Evil Empire

Related Blogs

We are doomed!!!

Related Blogs

Buy Anti Obama Bumper Stickers

Related Blogs

Posts

Supporters

Comments

Login

Twitter

The Liberals Would have Hung Him

Related Blogs

Related Blogs

Related Blogs

Related Blogs

Related Blogs

Related Blogs

Related Blogs

Related articles by Zemanta

Related Blogs

Related Blogs

Related Blogs

Posts

Supporters

Comments

Login