B.O. signed an equal-pay bill into law

[SHTSPRAYER]

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signed an equal-pay bill into law Thursday before cheering labor and women leaders who fought hard for it and the woman whose history-making lawsuit gave impetus to the cause.

Obama, choosing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as the first bill to sign as president, called it a "wonderful day" and declared that ending pay disparities between men and woman an issue not just for women, but for all workers.

With Ledbetter standing by his side, Obama said she lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits that she "still feels today." He then signed the measure that effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision and makes it easier for workers to sue for discrimination by allowing them more time to do so.

"Making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone," Obama said. "That there are no second-class citizens in our workplaces, and that it's not just unfair and illegal — but bad for business — to pay someone less because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability."

Ledbetter said she didn't become aware of the large discrepancy in her pay until she neared the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala, and she filed a lawsuit. But the high court held in a 5-4 decision that she missed her chance to bring the action.

First lady Michelle Obama, in a separate reception with Ledbetter in the State Dining Room, praised her courage and principles. "She knew unfairness when she saw it, and was willing to do something about it because it was the right thing to do — plain and simple," Mrs. Obama said.

Ledbetter said the richest reward is that because of the new law, the nation's daughters and granddaughters will have a better deal.

"That's what makes this fight worth fighting," Ledbetter said. "That's what made this fight one we had to win."

Earlier, the president appeared in a jammed East Room, and his entrance and many lines of his brief remarks were met with happy applause and yells.

He paid special tribute to Ledbetter, who fought for the bill even though it won't allow her to recover any money for herself.

And in the room were the living symbols of this fight: Nancy Pelosi, first woman speaker of the House, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who took her pursuit of the presidency further than any other woman, even though she ultimately lost to Obama in the Democratic primary.

Of Ledbetter, Obama exclaimed: "This grandmother from Alabama kept on fighting, because she was thinking about the next generation."

Ledbetter became a regular feature in Obama's campaign for the White House, addressing the Democratic National Convention in Denver last year and traveling to Washington aboard Obama's train for the inauguration ceremonies. Obama spoke strongly in support of legislation to change the Supreme Court decision during his campaign and the Democratic-controlled Congress moved it to the top of the agenda for the new session that opened this month.

The high court said a person must file a claim of discrimination within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay a worker less than it pays another worker doing the same job. Under the new bill, given final passage in Congress this week, every new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for another 180 days.

Congress attempted to update the law to extend the time, but the Bush White House and Senate Republicans blocked the legislation in the last session of Congress

Obama cited Census Bureau figures that women still receive only about 78 cents for every dollar that men get for doing equivalent jobs — "women of color even less," he said.

The measure, which amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also applies to discrimination based on factors such as race, religion, national origin, disability or age.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_12

[HonestChieffan]

Amazing....

I assume one can still pay two people differently if they have different evaluation....

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Amazing....

I assume one can still pay two people differently if they have different evaluation....

Or a different level of experience. Just not based on a penis vs. vagina. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

[Brock]

Unions have outlived their usefulness. :rolleyes:

[HonestChieffan]

Performance still a measure of value related to pay?

[SHTSPRAYER]

This is going to open a new can of litigation worms. Just what corporations need now, more opportunities to get sued!

[MagicHef]

Amazing....

I assume one can still pay two people differently if they have different evaluation....

Or a different level of experience. Just not based on a penis vs. vagina. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Are you sure? This wording makes it sound like two people that have the same job but are paid differently fall under this bill, regardless of other factors:

The high court said a person must file a claim of discrimination within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay a worker less than it pays another worker doing the same job. Under the new bill, given final passage in Congress this week, every new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for another 180 days.

[Brock]

This is going to open a new can of litigation worms. Just what corporations need now, more opportunities to get sued!

Oh noes, those poor corporations! The CEO might have to sell his house in the Hamptons.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Oh noes, those poor corporations! The CEO might have to sell his house in the Hamptons.

Caterpillar, Sony, Home Depot...

It's not enough that they laid off hundreds of thousands of employees, let's litigate them out of existence so NOBODY WORKS FOR THEM ANYMORE!

NA!

[stevieray]

So now a guy doing the same job for three years has to be paid the same as a noob?

[HonestChieffan]

There is no way they can make anyone pay two people with different performance and ability the same amount because they are in the same job.

[SHTSPRAYER]

So now a guy doing the same job for three years has to be paid the same as a noob?


Yep. It's all about fairness. You know, like capital gains tax is about fairness.

:rolleyes:

This is going to deep six some more companies.

[Brock]

So now a guy doing the same job for three years has to be paid the same as a noob?

Is that really what you think it means?

[Brock]

Caterpillar, Sony, Home Depot...

It's not enough that they laid off hundreds of thousands of employees, let's litigate them out of existence so NOBODY WORKS FOR THEM ANYMORE!

NA!

No, let's let them do whatever they want to whomever they want. THAT'LL FIX EVERYTHING!

NA!

[stevieray]

Is that really what you think it means?

no, that's why I'm asking the question..

:)

[Iowanian]

Equal pay is fine...but you'd better be able to perform EXACTLY the same job.

Jimbo works on the docks and is expected to carry 100lb bags all day.....suzy better do the same for the same pay.


Firefighters and police should be the same way.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Equal pay is fine...but you'd better be able to perform EXACTLY the same job.

Jimbo works on the docks and is expected to carry 100lb bags all day.....suzy better do the same for the same pay.


Firefighters and police should be the same way.

You know damn well when a liberal starts talking about fairness, it's going to be anything but fair.

[MagicHef]

Are you sure? This wording makes it sound like two people that have the same job but are paid differently fall under this bill, regardless of other factors:

So now a guy doing the same job for three years has to be paid the same as a noob?

Does anyone actually know the answer to these?

[Calcountry]

This is going to open a new can of litigation worms. Just what corporations need now, more opportunities to get sued!Now you know why all the attorneys here love BO.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Now you know why all the attorneys here love BO.

Bingo.

:thumb:

[vailpass]

Imposing additional restrictions on employers is a good idea. The employer will absorb any costs incurred by this restriction instead of passing that cost on in the shape of lower wages across the board, employing less people and/or raising costs for the end consumer.
This seems like an ideal time to saddle employers with more obstacles.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Imposing additional restrictions on employers is a good idea. The employer will absorb any costs incurred by this restriction instead of passing that cost on in the shape of lower wages across the board, employing less people and/or raising costs for the end consumer.
This seems like an ideal time to saddle employers with more obstacles.

Oh, absolutely. B.O. is a genius, he went to Harvard, doncha know?

[clemensol]

This is going to open a new can of litigation worms. Just what corporations need now, more opportunities to get sued!

Wrong

This law simply returns employee discrimination law to what it was before the supreme court ruled on the Ledbetter case a couple years ago. This isn't opening a new can of worms, it's just returning what we had before.

[Ultra Peanut]

THIS IS THE WORST THING EVERRRRRRRRR

[Bootlegged]

THIS IS THE WORST THING EVERRRRRRRRR

u little fhaagg

[Ultra Peanut]

u little fhaagghttp://i41.tinypic.com/24xj29z.jpg

[Amnorix]

Wrong

This law simply returns employee discrimination law to what it was before the supreme court ruled on the Ledbetter case a couple years ago. This isn't opening a new can of worms, it's just returning what we had before.

I will keep an eye out for the memos and other analyses coming from the employment law experts, but on first blush I believe this is correct.

This appears to be tweaking the edges of existing law, and not opening up a massive new area for litigation.

[banyon]

What a lie of a thread and thread title.

The ONLY thing this bill did was to extend the filing time for a discrimination complaint.

No surprise I guess.

[MagicHef]

What a lie of a thread and thread title.

The ONLY thing this bill did was to extend the filing time for a discrimination complaint.

No surprise from this deceptive troll.

To be fair, the thread title is lifted almost directly from the article.

[banyon]

To be fair, the thread title is lifted almost directly from the article.

Fair enough

[BucEyedPea]

Disgusting. I am a woman and know that woman getting less pay has more to do with their choices in life like not being the job for the same duration due to materity leaves and child-rearing, preferring flexible schedules over making more money in order to deal with such preferences including the type of professions they choose. The women that give up these things and seek hi powered jobs do make more money. They also have expensive nannies.

How come there was no media on this bill?

[BWillie007]

Soooo....when it comes time for raises they have to give woman the same pay across the board as the men. This is f*cking stupid. It's about PERFORMANCE. That is it. I'm going to quit working hard, because hey, what is the difference.

[SHTSPRAYER]

In less than two weeks, B.O. has pushed the country more towards communism than the left has been able to do in the las twenty years.

[BigRedChief]

This is going to open a new can of litigation worms. Just what corporations need now, more opportunities to get sued!
Because the extended the deadline to file a complaint?

[Brock]

In less than two weeks, B.O. has pushed the country more towards communism than the left has been able to do in the las twenty years.

LOL

[bkkcoh]

Or a different level of experience. Just not based on a penis vs. vagina. Seems pretty reasonable to me.


So there isn't anyway possible, within reason, to have 2 identical workers?


Unions have outlived their usefulness. :rolleyes:

Agreed :toast:

Performance still a measure of value related to pay?

Nothing like working hard and trying to get ahead when the person doing the same type of job gets by without working as hard.

[Rain Man]

It's hard for me to believe that in 2009 employers still look at a woman and think, "I'll pay her less because she's a woman." Maybe there are still some dinosaurs out there that do that, but it's hard for me to imagine.

[bkkcoh]

In less than two weeks, B.O. has pushed the country more towards communism than the left has been able to do in the las twenty years.

So does that mean that salaries are going to be public knowledge at the workplace. How much resentment is that going to cause until things get equal, if they ever could.

[banyon]

So does that mean that salaries are going to be public knowledge at the workplace. How much resentment is that going to cause until things get equal, if they ever could.

Are people even reading the article at all? Jesus.

[Brock]

Nothing like working hard and trying to get ahead when the person doing the same type of job gets by without working as hard.

Yeah, it's kind of like working hard and trying to get ahead when the boss's cousin's son barely doing the same job makes more money than you do.

[Brock]

Are people even reading the article at all? Jesus.

Nope.

[Rain Man]

Are people even reading the article at all? Jesus.

We're skimming it.



WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signed an equal-pay bill into law Thursday before cheering labor and women leaders who fought hard for it and the woman whose history-making lawsuit gave impetus to the cause.

Obama, choosing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as the first bill to sign as president, called it a "wonderful day" and declared that ending pay disparities between men and woman an issue not just for women, but for all workers.

With Ledbetter standing by his side, Obama said she lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits that she "still feels today." He then signed the measure that effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision and makes it easier for workers to sue for discrimination by allowing them more time to do so.

"Making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone," Obama said. "That there are no second-class citizens in our workplaces, and that it's not just unfair and illegal — but bad for business — to pay someone less because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability."

Ledbetter said she didn't become aware of the large discrepancy in her pay until she neared the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala, and she filed a lawsuit. But the high court held in a 5-4 decision that she missed her chance to bring the action.

First lady Michelle Obama, in a separate reception with Ledbetter in the State Dining Room, praised her courage and principles. "She knew unfairness when she saw it, and was willing to do something about it because it was the right thing to do — plain and simple," Mrs. Obama said.

Ledbetter said the richest reward is that because of the new law, the nation's daughters and granddaughters will have a better deal.

"That's what makes this fight worth fighting," Ledbetter said. "That's what made this fight one we had to win."

Earlier, the president appeared in a jammed East Room, and his entrance and many lines of his brief remarks were met with happy applause and yells.

He paid special tribute to Ledbetter, who fought for the bill even though it won't allow her to recover any money for herself.

And in the room were the living symbols of this fight: Nancy Pelosi, first woman speaker of the House, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who took her pursuit of the presidency further than any other woman, even though she ultimately lost to Obama in the Democratic primary.

Of Ledbetter, Obama exclaimed: "This grandmother from Alabama kept on fighting, because she was thinking about the next generation."

Ledbetter became a regular feature in Obama's campaign for the White House, addressing the Democratic National Convention in Denver last year and traveling to Washington aboard Obama's train for the inauguration ceremonies. Obama spoke strongly in support of legislation to change the Supreme Court decision during his campaign and the Democratic-controlled Congress moved it to the top of the agenda for the new session that opened this month.

The high court said a person must file a claim of discrimination within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay a worker less than it pays another worker doing the same job. Under the new bill, given final passage in Congress this week, every new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for another 180 days.

Congress attempted to update the law to extend the time, but the Bush White House and Senate Republicans blocked the legislation in the last session of Congress

Obama cited Census Bureau figures that women still receive only about 78 cents for every dollar that men get for doing equivalent jobs — "women of color even less," he said.

The measure, which amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also applies to discrimination based on factors such as race, religion, national origin, disability or age.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Unless I'm missing something, this bill simply extends the amount of time to file. I honestly don't see why some of you folks are getting your panties in bunches.

[Brock]

Unless I'm missing something, this bill simply extends the amount of time to file. I honestly don't see why some of you folks are getting your panties in bunches.

Well, don't you see, these poor corporations are forced to send all the jobs to places where they can legally employ 10 year old children who earn 15 cents per day because of the horribly restrictive laws in the US.

[BigRedChief]

Unless I'm missing something, this bill simply extends the amount of time to file. I honestly don't see why some of you folks are getting your panties in bunches.
Thats all it does. Why the panties in a bunch? Cause their guy lost?:hmmm:

[Ultra Peanut]

Well, don't you see, these poor corporations are forced to send all the jobs to places where they can legally employ 10 year old children who earn 15 cents per day because of the horribly restrictive laws in the US.Also, let me tell you about a world power known as Ireland.

[Rain Man]

Also, let me tell you about a world power known as Ireland.


When they learn to make oil from peat, the new sheiks will have red hair.

[patteeu]

Unless I'm missing something, this bill simply extends the amount of time to file. I honestly don't see why some of you folks are getting your panties in bunches.

Missing something? Yeah, you apparently missed post 28.

[MagicHef]

When they learn to make oil from peat, the new sheiks will have red hair.

Great. Terrible bands in the middle of the night.

[DaneMcCloud]

It's hard for me to believe that in 2009 employers still look at a woman and think, "I'll pay her less because she's a woman." Maybe there are still some dinosaurs out there that do that, but it's hard for me to imagine.

That's because you live in a progressive city.

It's hard to imagine that racism exists but does.

[Rain Man]

That's because you live in a progressive city.

It's hard to imagine that racism exists but does.


Yeah, I have no doubt that racism and sexism occurs (along with baldism and fatism and uglyism), but something like pay that's so tangible seems like it would not be good business. Not just for legal reasons but for business reasons.

[DaneMcCloud]

Yeah, I have no doubt that racism and sexism occurs (along with baldism and fatism and uglyism), but something like pay that's so tangible seems like it would not be good business. Not just for legal reasons but for business reasons.

Well, think of all the small, Mom & Pop businesses across America. People "get away" with whatever they can get away with.

[SHTSPRAYER]

No more negotiating salary when a job offer gets made, I guess.

[Saul Good]

Yeah, it's kind of like working hard and trying to get ahead when the boss's cousin's son barely doing the same job makes more money than you do.

What business is that of the government's? If you don't like it, start your own company and make your own rules.

[splatbass]

This is going to open a new can of litigation worms. Just what corporations need now, more opportunities to get sued!

I work for one of the largest companies in the nation (no I'm not going to name it), and women employees on average make 80% of what their male counterparts make. Working with some of these women, you can't tell me that their performance, on average, is only 80% of men's performance. I know better. That is wrong, and it needs to be fixed. It should be based only on performance, not on gender, race, or anything else. A level playing field.

I should point out that we are talking white collar office jobs here, mostly engineering, not physical labor.

[BucEyedPea]

It's none of the govt's business to be concerned about what business pays anyone in what it deemed a "free" country. This is egalitarian social engineering aka part of socialism. This means more loss of liberty. We women can handle ourselves.

[banyon]

It's none of the govt's business to be concerned about what business pays anyone in what it deemed a "free" country. This is egalitarian social engineering aka part of socialism. This means more loss of liberty. We women can handle ourselves.

You think it would be right for a company to pay its white workers 100$ a day and its black workers 10$ a day?

[banyon]

No more negotiating salary when a job offer gets made, I guess.

No more reading the articles you post I guess.

[Ultra Peanut]

You think it would be right for a company to pay its white workers 100$ a day and its black workers 10$ a day?LAISSEZ-FAIRE MOTHERFUCKER

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY

[patteeu]

I work for one of the largest companies in the nation (no I'm not going to name it), and women employees on average make 80% of what their male counterparts make. Working with some of these women, you can't tell me that their performance, on average, is only 80% of men's performance. I know better. That is wrong, and it needs to be fixed. It should be based only on performance, not on gender, race, or anything else. A level playing field.

I should point out that we are talking white collar office jobs here, mostly engineering, not physical labor.

I'm skeptical of your testimonial. I won't ask you for a link since you don't want to divulge who you work for, but my skepticism is based on whether this statistic really compares male apples to female apples.

[patteeu]

You think it would be right for a company to pay its white workers 100$ a day and its black workers 10$ a day?

If that's what they're worth, yes. If their skin color is the only distinction, no. Should government be mediating these issues in the private sector, not IMO.

[banyon]

If that's what they're worth, yes. If their skin color is the only distinction, no. Should government be mediating these issues in the private sector, not IMO.

Really? You want to repeal the civil rights act of 1964?

[Brock]

What business is that of the government's? If you don't like it, start your own company and make your own rules.

It doesn't have to be the government's problem, the workers can unionize. But I suspect you hate unions even more than you hate government intervention.

[patteeu]

Really? You want to repeal the civil rights act of 1964?

I think it's wrong for government to be sticking it's nose into these kinds of private affairs. Maybe the 1964 CRA can be justified as the lessor of two evils, but we don't live in 1964 anymore and it's time for government to become less heavy handed, not more, IMO.

[splatbass]

I'm skeptical of your testimonial. I won't ask you for a link since you don't want to divulge who you work for, but my skepticism is based on whether this statistic really compares male apples to female apples.

You can be as skeptical as you want, but I'm telling the truth.

[T-post Tom]

Luv it. So glad to see the U.S. now has a President that it can be proud of after eight years of Bush, his minions and their sophistry.

[patteeu]

You can be as skeptical as you want, but I'm telling the truth.

If it's any consolation, I believe that you're being sincere. I'd just have to see the details that go into that statistic to believe it myself.

[bkkcoh]

If that's what they're worth, yes. If their skin color is the only distinction, no. Should government be mediating these issues in the private sector, not IMO.

But the worth of a person under this system is derived from their benefit to the company.

It's none of the govt's business to be concerned about what business pays anyone in what it deemed a "free" country. This is egalitarian social engineering aka part of socialism. This means more loss of liberty. We women can handle ourselves.

Equal outcome is what government want, not equal opportunity. That is a lot easier to measure.

I work for one of the largest companies in the nation (no I'm not going to name it), and women employees on average make 80% of what their male counterparts make. Working with some of these women, you can't tell me that their performance, on average, is only 80% of men's performance. I know better. That is wrong, and it needs to be fixed. It should be based only on performance, not on gender, race, or anything else. A level playing field.

I should point out that we are talking white collar office jobs here, mostly engineering, not physical labor.


Whose fault is it if the man and woman is offered a certain salary for a particular job and the man says that he wants $5000 more a year and the woman accepts the offer without haggling the salary. Whose fault is that?

[Iowanian]

Fellow Business Executives:

As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people, I have resigned myself to
the fact that Barrack Obama will be our next President, and that our taxes and
government fees will increase in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Clients will have to see
an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot increase our fees
right now due to the dismal state of our economy, we will have to lay off six of our
employees instead. This has really been eating at me for a while, as we believe we
are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is
what I did. I strolled thru our parking lot and found 8 Obama bumper stickers on our
employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I
can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. These folks wanted change;
I gave it to them. If you have a better idea, let me know.

Sincerely,
The boss

[jiveturkey]

^Awesome!

And equally as retarded using Bush stickers to score more troops for Iraq.

[Iowanian]

Those cars already have the "my son is a soldier" sticker next to them.

[BucEyedPea]

Equal outcome is what government want, not equal opportunity. That is a lot easier to measure.
It's also communistic.

It's not within our govt's powers to force employers to pay according to gender. It's a free country. Equality under the law with regard to govt is what we have not in life or in the market.
Besides, it's not really apples and oranges when one looks beyond those stats about women's pay.

[BucEyedPea]

The free-market served Obama well as a Senator regarding equal pay for equal work. He paid the women on his staff much less than the men.

"On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to date [sic] calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)"


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=35972

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2008/09/barrack_obama_under_pays.html

[splatbass]

The free-market served Obama well as a Senator regarding equal pay for equal work. He paid the women on his staff much less than the men.




http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=35972

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2008/09/barrack_obama_under_pays.html

That doesn't mention if they were working the same jobs. Apples to oranges.

[SHTSPRAYER]

The free-market served Obama well as a Senator regarding equal pay for equal work. He paid the women on his staff much less than the men.






Some people he didn't pay at all.

[BucEyedPea]

That doesn't mention if they were working the same jobs. Apples to oranges.

That wasn't why I put it up. That also goes to the point of women, as a whole, don't work the same demanding jobs or the same jobs with the same committment of schedule ( maternity leave etc) that a man does that are in those stats on women making less pay. Those are the stats Obama was referring to. So it applies to his office.

[BucEyedPea]

Shouldn't Obama have the govt regulate clubs that have lower entry fees and drink charges for women on the basis of discrimination since we're complainin'.

Here is a case where a man sued just for that reason. LMAO
http://www.nj.gov/oag/Gillespie.Order.06.01.04.html

[bkkcoh]

Shouldn't Obama have the govt regulate clubs that have lower entry fees and drink charges for women on the basis of discrimination since we're complainin'.

Here is a case where a man sued just for that reason. LMAO
http://www.nj.gov/oag/Gillespie.Order.06.01.04.html

The end result of this will be a lot fewer guys getting laid because of no ladies' night 1/2 price or dollar drinks.......

[splatbass]

The end result of this will be a lot fewer guys getting laid because of no ladies' night 1/2 price or dollar drinks.......

That guy that sued was very shortsighted.....

[Simplex3]

Is that really what you think it means?

No, I don't think that's what they want the bill to do.

Now ask me if I think that's how it is going to be applied in the real world.

[Darth CarlSatan]

In less than two weeks, B.O. has pushed the country more towards communism than the left has been able to do in the las twenty years.

For once we agree; no communism.


Now, pushing the US towards "Hollandism"? Yes!!!!!!!