Burch: Boehner's billion dollar boner

Thursday, August 4, 2011 at 9:05pm
By Michael R. Burch

During the recent debt ceiling crisis, U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., suggested that in a default the very first people to feel financial pain should be the congressmen and senators who helped create the problem, then bickered and postured rather than working together like mature, responsible adults to fix it.

If government checks must bounce, why not help elected officials understand the people’s pain by starting with their paychecks?

Now, even though a default was averted at the last second, considering the current sad state of affairs we ought to ask ourselves if we taxpayers have been getting our money’s worth when we pay senators and congressmen handsome salaries only to get such ugly results. Take, for instance, what might be called “Boehner’s Billion Dollar Boner.”

President Obama has been advocating a balanced solution that involves revenue increases along with spending cuts. In his rebuttal of the president’s speech about the debt ceiling stalemate, Speaker of the House John Boehner said, “The sad truth is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago and he wants a blank check today. This is just not going to happen.”

Strong words from a strong-minded man? Boehner tried to come across as a tough-talking, no-nonsense realist who’s ready to cut spending to the bone while holding the line on higher taxes. But when his own budget proposal was analyzed by experts, according the Associated Press, it fell wildly short of Tea Party expectations: “Of particular embarrassment was a Congressional Budget Office finding that Boehner’s measure would cut the deficit by just $1 billion next year,” the AP wrote.

So why all the machismo, political posturing and grandstanding? If the best Boehner can come up with is a measly billion dollars in savings for an entire year, when the deficit is $14.3 trillion and still climbing, he has no call to berate President Obama and other Democrats. Our government spends a billion dollars in about five hours. What Boehner admitted — if only we have the ability to read between the lines — is how very difficult and dangerous it is to radically cut government spending in a weak economy.

Democrats didn’t ask for a “blank check,” nor did Boehner improve on their more balanced approach. All he did was stick his foot in his mouth, at a time when Republicans need to admit that a real-world solution to the national debt is going to require the rich to suffer along with other Americans, for a change.

Can Boehner survive his Billion Dollar Boner? Will the Tea Party types ever let him live it down? Only time will tell the outcome of this latest tempest in a teapot.

 

 

Michael R. Burch is a Nashville-based editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry and other “things literary” at www.thehypertexts.com.

60 Comments on this post:

By: dargent7 on 8/5/11 at 6:07

Good LTE.
I've been hearing the phrase, "Throw the bums out!" for over 30 years.
Yet, every new crop of members of Congress turn out to be the same.
Once they get the taste of power and ways to make money, they sell-out.
All blather, bluster, grandstanding, pandering and lining their own pockets with taxpayer's money.
It's ridiculous.

By: bfra on 8/5/11 at 6:56

d7 - With Dean's win, 50,300 voters, like it that way.

By: gdiafante on 8/5/11 at 6:58

The debt ceiling debate was a debacle that should leave every American ashamed of the trash we have in Washington. The final deal is a joke and does nothing to solve the long-term financial problems this country faces.

As usual, Congress can only kick the can further down the road. I noticed that polls indicate their approval rating is the lowest ever, no wonder. We need to get our financial house in order while doing something to get the economy back on the right track, yet our "leaders" (and I use that term lightly) can only bitch at each other like five year olds who are arguing over the same toy.

It seems that the only thing Congress can agree on is that compromise and tax are dirty words.

Actually, the word Congress should be included in Carlin's words you can't say on television. It's a vile, disgusting word.

By: yogiman on 8/5/11 at 7:37

I agree with you one this one thing, gdiafante. But I must add, I don't feel we have a congress in DC any more. We now have a house of rulers; called congress.

Congress is only interested in their wishes. To hell with the people.

It is past time for the common citizens to study the Constitution more. They are keeping members in congress too long.

One term is enough for the Senate and three for the House. Automatic full salary retirement and lifetime health care they get (by voting it in for themselves) simply on being sworn into office should be eliminated.

The current benefit programs for congress automatically sets the government up for bankruptcy. And it also almost guarantees them a vote for a lifetime in congress.

By: gdiafante on 8/5/11 at 7:43

Term limits exist, yogi. They're called elections. If you have a problem with career politicians, look in the mirror. They can't have such a career if we didn't keep voting for them.

By: serr8d on 8/5/11 at 7:44

Oh, hi! Michael Burch!

Democrats ALWAYS want a blank check. Without one, their party would cease to exist.

New York Times editor 'Wesley Mouch' is at it again, too, with a suggestion that we 'eliminate the debt ceiling' 'for the national good'. You just can't get any more ironical than that, can you?

As I 'splained over there...

So, NYT Editor 'Wesley Mouch', you see eliminating the debt ceiling as being "for the national good", do you? You say that anytime they like, Congress can cut spending or raise taxes to control the debt?

What if there's a certain political Party that's mastered the art of promising to voters monies looted from the Treasury, as was predicted by de Tocqueville in his work "Democracy in America"? Would you risk the absolute end of the Republic, caused by reaching the real-world limits to spending, borrowing and debt accrual, because the very necessary payback of the debt to debt holders and of course payback of the interest owed on that ever-increasing debt is now realized? Would you desire to allow that particular Party to continue to operate in such a dastardly and destructive way, past the point even when the debt owed exceeds 100% of National GDP, and we risk a hyper-inflationary period that makes the Great Depression seem a pleasant walk in the park?

Yes, I think you would, because without that promise that's now built-in to that particular Party's platform (the new far-Left Liberal Progressive Democratic Party, not kin to the long-subsumed Democratic Party I remember): that Party's platform being a promise to loot Other People's Money, using demonization of 'The Rich' to goad a sense of loathing and hatred for 'The Rich' into average voter's minds, for the purpose of buying votes from those same voters - Moochers so as to stay in power; without that lure, that particular Party might cease to exist. At least to cease to exist in the gross, overindulgent, Statist form it's become today.

It's an addiction, this love of Other People's Money. Democrats, you've got to work on that. And we need to implement a Balanced Budget Amendment, as many states already have, and as a majority of Americans desire.

And there are real limits to spending, borrowing and a nation's well-being. A short course in Economics, not a blind-faith in Party politics and platform, might be in order, 'Wesley'.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-york-times-editor-wesley-mouch.html

By: gdiafante on 8/5/11 at 7:55

http://www.economist.com/node/21525446

Yeah, seethe previous post as an example of our dysfunction. Congrats, serr8d, how does it feel to be part of the problem, not the solution?

By: yogiman on 8/5/11 at 8:11

Of course you're right, gdifarte, we do have term limits called elections. And we have a lot of stupid voters (like yourself?) who keep them in office as a lifetime appointment... through elections..

Do you remember when Harry Truman got the presidential office set on term limits (when FDR was on his 4th term, not even knowing he was alive)? When that was brought up it was started to be all offices, but no, congress didn't feel that should apply to them. They were the people's choice to represent the people. Well, it looks like old man Truman was right. The original bill should have passed.

By: govskeptic on 8/5/11 at 8:37

"Official and Established Washington" made sure there were never any proposals
large enough to put on the table to make a true difference. Both parties are aloud
to make arguments and individual proposals to their bases but never grand enough
or restrictive enough to truly make a substantial difference in overall direction.
In spite of being called "Terrorist" those Tea Party Representatives did create a
national debate and more understanding by the American public to the problem!

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 9:36

govskeptic,

I agree with you that the Tea Party did create a national debate, but flighty tykes often throw temper tantrums to get what they want. It's hard to see people like GWB, Palin and Bachman solving complex problems when they haven't yet mastered six-grade grammar.

Hopefully the American public can see that we are not going to be able to pay off 14 trillion in debt by taking the money from the lower- and middle-income classes. We need a balanced approach that cuts non-critical spending, spending on the military, and increases revenues (particularly from businesses and rich people who aren't currently sharing the load).

The tea party "solution" is stupid and dangerous. Once terrible tykes have had a tantrum, it's up to adults to come up with a solution that isn't based on anger and bad thinking.

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 9:42

yogiman,

If there is silver lining in a very dark cloud, it is that the Republican party has openly declared class warfare on 95% of Americans. In a democracy, if enough voters see and understand the real Republican agenda, they can change sides and vote the lackeys of the rich and powerful out of office.

If we have fillibuster-proof Democratic majorities in both Houses, we have a much better chance of seeing economic justice (and social justice) enacted. Contrary to popular opinion, the biggest increases in the budget deficit have occurred under the leadership of "conservatives" who say they want "smaller government" but in reality want to cut taxes for their rich patrons while using the US military to establish a military empire around the globe. It's time to speak with our votes, and inform the lackeys of the rich and powerful that we are wised to their game, and that we refuse to pay off the resulting debt with our blood, sweat and tears. It's time for the rich people to step up to the plate and help.

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 9:44

serr8d,

The people who asked for a blank check were name George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Chaney said publicly that deficits don't matter. It was the "conservatives" who spent like there was no tomorrow.

You ought to study history and consider facts.

By: yogiman on 8/5/11 at 10:12

Mike,

These rights to argue about these disagreements are what makes ours the best nation on this earth. Or at least it used to be. But the fact we are rapidly approaching socialism and aren't too far down the road from communist as the controlling of the people, that should worry a true American.

When you say 'take from the rich and give to the poor', what is your logical reasoning for that issue?

The rich are the people who made this nation so great through businesses. They built the businesses and gave the common citizens jobs. When you take take that inspiration for profit away, why would anyone want to take the responsibility of a business?

It now boils down to one fact: who has ruined the nation that we once knew as great? It wasn't the rich people operating the businesses, it was the government forcing those businesses to move into foreign nations for cheaper wages. Or should they stay in the USA and take the losses through their payments to the government?

And with Barry Soetoro in office, there has been more jobs lost than gained back in our nation. It will only become a matter of time when the only "business" a person can work for will be the government.

Please don't get me wrong. Barry Soetoro isn't the main problem on this issue. It goes back to many presidents before him. He's just the last one on the list.

By: gdiafante on 8/5/11 at 10:23

What an asinine post, yogi. And, a direct contradiction of your many other posts as putting Congress in bed with big business. Which is it?

In reality (I know you've never been there, so indulge me), the problem is that the government eased regulations that allowed Wall Street to engage in some very nefarious behavior. Now who do you suppose lobbied Congress for those changes? Farmers? Teachers? Ditch diggers?

There's plenty of culpability to go around.

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 10:25

gdiafante,

I agree: elections serve as term limits.

There is a clear difference in direction between the Republican and Democratic parties. I was a Reagan Republican, but I left the party when I saw it veering more and more toward bad economics, bad religion and fascism (the use of military and political power to favor one class of people over all other classes).

Democratic politicians are far from perfect, but the Republican party has made my vote a no-brainer. Why would I vote for a party that wants to strip Americans of basic rights and freedoms, while extending the dominance of 5% of the population over the other 95%?

If we want social and economic justice, we need to vote Republicans out of office, until they see the error of their ways. They need to represent the majority of Americans, not just their rich patrons.

By: gdiafante on 8/5/11 at 10:30

I cringe when I see the justification for tax reform as some sort of "social justice". The impetus should be common sense and basic economics. First, if you have a policy in place for a decade and are getting dismal returns, it's time to rethink the policy.

Second, you can give every wealthy American and corporation $10 trillion dollars to create jobs but if there is no demand for products or services, their hands are tied.

The emphasis should switch from the Bush Tax Cuts to middle class incentives to perpetuate discretionary spending. That's a start.

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 10:36

gdiafante,

I think we have a debacle for simple reasons:

(1) The main goal of elected officials is to get elected and re-elected. Therefore, the Achilles heel of American-style representative government is the people we elect. Rather than being honest, they say what will help them win elections. Rather than doing what is best for the country, they do what will help them win elections. Why do Republicans want to preserve tax cuts for the rich, when we have a 14 trillion dollar deficit? Because the rich underwrite their election campaigns.

(2) Once politicians are elected, they act as if members of the opposite party are the Devil. To Democrats, GWB was the devil. To Republicans, President Obama is the Devil.

(3) Since both parties refuse to work together for the common good, neither party can improve the economy substantially, so we flip-flop from one extreme to another. When the Democrats are in power, we get a healthcare overhaul. When the Republicans come back to power, they try to undo it.

Is there a solution? I think there is. If enough Americans just open their eyes and see that the Republican party has lost its mind, and is engaging in economic and social warfare against 95% of Americans, we can elect a Democratic majority large enough to end the "two part system," at least until Republicans come to their senses.

No, Democrats are not perfect. But at least their goals are better. The goals of the Republican party are clearly not in the best interest of most Americans. I say this as a former Reagan Republican.

By: yogiman on 8/5/11 at 10:56

Mike,

I'll admit, I'm not as brilliant as you and gdiafarte, but can either of you tell me what the differences are between the "two" parties we have today? The only differences I can see is the spelling of their names.

The country was founded on different parties, maybe its time we founded two more. The Tea Party might be a good start being named after the initiative our founders.

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 12:57

yogiman,

I think the difference is clear.

The Democratic party favors social and economic justice, which means not expecting the poor and middle-income classes to bear more than their share of the burden.

The Republican party talks about "smaller government" but in reality keeps giving more power to the federal government by demanding a huge military and using it to bully other nations into submission, particularly in the Middle East. At the same time, the GOP demands lower taxes for the richest Americans, meaning that the upper 5% prosper while the other 95% work harder and harder to stay afloat, or collapse into poverty.

The difference was perfectly clear during the debt debate. Republicans want to cut "entitlements" and preserve tax cuts for the rich. Democrats stood for economic justice and a more balanced approach.

It's clear that Democrats are working for the majority and that Republicans are lackeys for their rich patrons. If we want economic justice, we need to vote Republicans out of office and elect Democrats. That will send a strong message to Republicans that they need to work for the 95%, not just the 5%.

If we don't use our votes wisely, we;ll end up paying off 14 trillion in debt while the richest Americans buy more yachts and laugh all the way to the bank.

By: pswindle on 8/5/11 at 12:59

Yogi,

Do you get some kind of pleasure in referring to our President as Barry Soetoro? You know better, but it takes your kind of mentality to try to keep the lie alive. Our Speaker has show what he is made of and that the Big Money does his talking for the American People.

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 1:04

gdiafante,

I agree with you. We need to stimulate the economy by putting more money in the hands of people who will actually spend it. If anyone gets a tax cut, it should be the average American worker, not trillionaires who only spend a small faction of their wealth.

If working Americans have more money to spend, the rich will prosper because most of the profits go to them.

The Republican Party is (pardon my French) full of s*** and uses rhetoric and smoke and mirrors to confuse the American public.

If we want a healthier economy, we have to reward hardworking Americans, rather than granting favors to the sharks at the top of the food chain. We need a "trickle up" economy, not a "trickle down" economy because the rich can sit on their money until Doomsday and never suffer.

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 1:12

pswindle,

I think the Speaker came out of the closet, as did the entire Republican party.

Anyone who is able to ignore the rhetoric and consider what the GOP actually DID, should be able to arrive at the GOP's real goals.

The GOP "plan" is remarkably simple: favor the top 5% (the rich and super-rich) and give the shaft to the other 95%. What does it mean to "slash spending" in a poor economy, while preserving tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?

Obviously, it means that 14 trillion in debt will come out of the retirement funds of average working Americans. How did the money I paid into Social Security and Medicare all my life suddenly become an "entitlement"?

The GOP attacked my retirement funds, and I am smart enough and good enough at math to understand exactly what they did, and why they did it.

Anyone who isn't rich and votes for Republicans is bringing about his/her own economic doom. How many Americans will be able to retire without Social Security and Medicare?

We live in a Democracy, so we can only be enslaved if we vote for the enslavers.

If we end up being slaves, it will be because Americans stupidly believed what Republicans said and didn't consider what they actually did. Con men always say one thing and do another.

By: yogiman on 8/5/11 at 1:54

pswindle,

I refer to the man you think is Barack Obama as Barry Soetoro. Why? Well, why do you see him as Barack Obama? Because that is the name he is using?

I am referring to Barry Soetoro as his name to the last name he gave as himself in his autobiography; Dreams From My Father.

He wrote his stepfather adopted him and gave him the name of Barry Soetoro. If he has changed that name back to Barack Obama, when did he do it? It sure isn't automatic because of the divorce by his mother.

By: bfra on 8/5/11 at 2:32

pswindle - yogi is too yellow livered & weak minded to insult the President of the United States in any other way, such as because he is black. So this is his piss poor way of doing it everyday, over & over. He doesn't have sense enough to know, that just shows what he, (yogi) really is!

By: dargent7 on 8/5/11 at 3:09

Yogi, you, and all the racists over at The Tennessean, refer to Barack Obama in the worst, denigrating name calling possible.
So, what, he changed his name back?
You think Tony Curtis was his actual name? Joan Rivers? Rock Hudson? Marilyn Monroe?
So, he became President of the USA. You think it was a career move to call himself Barack Obama to get elected?

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 3:12

yogiman and bfra,

Many people these days use some combination of their father's and mother's last names. This can be a sign of respect for both parents and their families. My wife's middle name is Steed because that was her mother's family name. If my son wanted to use his mother's family name along with my last name, that would be fine with me.

If Barack Obama chose to use his stepfather's last name at any point in his life, out of love or respect, he only did what many other children with stepfathers choose to do. If his name was not changed legally, it certainly makes sense for the president of the United States to use his legal name.

As Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet [compared to the Republican alternatives: GWB, Palin, Bachman, et al]."

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 3:24

dargent7,

I agree. The best proof that Barack Obama is not a "planted Muslim" or "fictional character" of some sort happens to be his name.

If someone was trying to create a false identity with an eye on high political office in the USA, the LAST NAME they would choose is Barack Hussein Obama.

The right-wingers have once again demonstrated their preference for irrational beliefs over simple facts and logic. Nothing could be sillier than to suggest that Barack Hussein Obama is not exactly who he claims to be, because if he was going to lie he would have chosen a different name and invented parents far more palatable to the majority of American voters (many of whom remain racist and intolerant of religions other than Christianity and Judaism).

By: bfra on 8/5/11 at 3:26

Mike - I understand that. However, when someone keeps presenting it as a legal name, knowing better & offering no documentation or proof to back up his claims, it is only being used as trying to discredit or insult someone. Anything gets old & stale after a while.

By: brrrrk on 8/5/11 at 3:50

Well, I see that serr8d, the member of The Republican On-Line Literary Society was busy today.

By: yogiman on 8/5/11 at 3:58

People,

Your intelligence is sadly lacking to be considered to be called smart. Call me what you wish, that's the least of my worries. But to accept someone in the highest office of this nation whom you know nothing about, and who has put this nation deeper into dept than all presidents combined before him, and wanting to put it twice as deep in dept in the next 10 years, and you think this is a good president; what the hell are you using for a brain?

dargent7, call me a racist if you wish. That's your choice. But I think I could call you a racist simply because you favor that man in the office because he is black.

For the people of this nation to accept someone in the highest office in this country whom they know nothing about makes me wonder what nation am I living in today. A nation of idiots? Or just a bunch of damned fools? I'm thinking both.

By: yogiman on 8/5/11 at 4:01

bfra,

Why do you insist I'm referring to Barry Soetoro as I am because he is black. Hell, I thought he was white. Which of us is wrong?

By: yogiman on 8/5/11 at 4:05

dargent7,

I'll admit, Barry Soetoro, like the other actors, may be using the name Barack Obama. So, why is he using that name? Only he knows, doesn't he?

By: yogiman on 8/5/11 at 4:18

Mike,

Correct me if I'm wrong. Unless the laws have been changed, your official name is the one given you by your parents at your birth. You can change your name after you reach adulthood If you wish, but it must be done legally, on paper. You cannot legally just change it verbally.

When you are adopted, you are given your stepfathers paternal name as your family name. Not only are you given a new name, you are also given a new birth certificate. You original name becomes null and void.

I'll repeat my argument. Did Barry Soetoro change official his name back to his original name?

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 5:14

bfra,

I agree that many of the things being said about President Obama, his name and his origins are insulting, or give the appearance of being insulting. Perhaps conservatives are irked that President Obama is so much smarter that people like GWB, Palin and Bachmann. To even the tables, they make up delusional crap or dredge up things that don't matter a hill of beans, like his name.

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 5:40

Yogiman,

Before you call other people "sadly lacking" in intelligence, you might consider brushing up on basic English grammar. You said:

Your intelligence is sadly lacking to be considered to be called smart.

To properly insult us without sounding like Jackie Gleason accusing Twiggy of being overweight, you should say something like:

Your intelligence is too sadly lacking for anyone to consider you "smart."

But even that falls short of the mark. Why not make it harder-hitting:

You'd like me to believe you're geniuses, but your lack of intelligence is so profound, I'd sooner trust a turnip.

If you don't fall into the trap of GWB, Palin, Bachmann, and all the other Tea Party Tykes who never mastered sixth-grade grammar, your ability to insult us will soon soar to unprecedented heights!

Cheers,
Mike

PS, the national debt grew LESS under President Obama than under Reagan and both Bushes. As you can see below, the biggest increases in the national debt as a percentage of GDP have occurred during Republican presidencies.

President Increase debt ($T) Increase debt/GDP

Jimmy Carter 0.29 -3.3%
Ronald Reagan 0.82 +11.3%
Ronald Reagan 1.05 +9.3%
George H. W. Bush 1.48 +13.0%
Bill Clinton 1.02 -0.7%
Bill Clinton 0.40 -9.0%
George W. Bush 2.14 +7.1%
George W. Bush 3.97 +20.7%
Barack Obama 1.65 +9.0%

By: Mike Burch on 8/5/11 at 5:55

Yogiman,

Any can change the name they go by without changing their name legally. My legal name is Michael Ray Burch. But nearly everyone calls me "Mike Burch." I never changed my legal name.

Elton John's real name is Reginald Dwight. If he wants people to call him Elton John, he doesn't have to legally change his name. If he doesn't change his name legally, he still signs contracts as Reginald Dwight. But he can call himself Elton John.

Many celebrities have two names. Bob Dylan is really Bob Zimmerman. Babe Ruth was George Herman Ruth. Mark Twain was Samuel Clemens.

Some of the American founding fathers wrote under nom de plumes. Alexander Hamilton used the name "Pacificus."

At least one American president wrote under a second name. James Madison wrote some of the influential Federalist Papers under the name Publius.

No white conservative ever accused Mark Twain, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison of doing anything wrong when they invented names for themselves. Isn't the real reason for white conservatives holding President Obama to a different standard really bigotry?

By: yogiman on 8/5/11 at 6:13

Mike,

You are correct in stating many people go be different names other than their official name. Unless it has been changed, they are called "nick names". You still must use your official name in official matters.

Will your burial notice be given as Mike Burch officially?

Oh, and by the way, you make such a statement about Obama's intelligence be so superior to the others. Why was his IQ I saw shown as 116 compared to GWB's 125 and Hillary Clinton's 140?

By: bfra on 8/5/11 at 7:28

There is far more to "intelligence" than an IQ!

By: yogiman on 8/5/11 at 7:52

I agree, bfra. Experience is the best teacher you can have.

It seems you can find any thing in Barry's favor over everyone else even though you don't even know the man.

My experience tells me you are just like him, not a true American.

By: pswindle on 8/5/11 at 8:46

We know more about President Obama than most presidents. He has had his background searched and searched and they could not come up with anything to bring him down. So they go after silly personal lies. Do you think that if we had really known George Bush, that he would have ever been president? America has paid dearly for that major mistake.

By: serr8d on 8/5/11 at 10:46

Mike, carefully consider this chart...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SxPWa6s6dZU/Tjad7ar09PI/AAAAAAAAGUg/rppMPRB6bOM/s1600/debt+to+democrat+controlled+congress+chart.jpg

...and tell me why and how George Bush spent all that money, when the purse strings of spending are controlled by our Congress. Sure, GWB got a substantial majority of both houses of Congress to fund 'his' wars, but recall that the votes were bipartisan. A little fact-checking of history will help you out there.

But, because you insist it's the President who's responsible for spending and financial woes, allow me to introduce you to Barack Hussein Obama, the first President in U.S. history to officiate over the down-ding of the U.S. AAA credit rating. A fine job, Baracky! You da MAN!

Heh. The only worse President than Barack Hussein Obama? Jefferson Davis~!

UNEXPECTEDLY! http://twitpic.com/2ihjln

By: serr8d on 8/5/11 at 10:54

Oh.

We know more about President Obama than most presidents. He has had his background searched and searched and they could not come up with anything to bring him down.

I noticed, pswindle, that the college records of Republican candidate for President Perry were being poured over by the media (if you want to call Huff 'n Blow the media). And recall the glee when Sarah Palin's records hit the swine lists, after reporters descended on that little town in Alaska no one ever heard of to fisk her life.

But, UNEXPECTEDLY!, as of this minute, the media has not poured over the college records of President Barack Hussein Obama, because he's not released them. And they've failed to press him to release them. Because they are, mostly, fellow travelers (LeftLibProggs and neo-Marxists).

By: yogiman on 8/6/11 at 12:26

Its going to be interesting, serr8d.

Because Barry has shown his "birth certificate", I understand a court order has been issued for Hawaii to release his "original" certificate and an attorney is going to be in Hawaii Monday to ask to see it. Two of the experts who edited the one he showed will be with her to check it out. We Could have some interesting news Monday night.

Its kind of funny the former head of the Health department said she had observed his original "certificate" and half of it was written in pencil yet the one he showed in July was typewritten except for the signatures.

By: Mike Burch on 8/6/11 at 4:15

Yogiman,

How can we know what Barack Obama's IQ is, unless the official results of accredited tests are published?

You can say that his IQ is 116. Other people have suggested 130 to 145. What do the numbers mean, if people just make up whatever they prefer to believe?

The same thing goes for his name and origins. People are just making up whatever they prefer to believe. Is that fair? I have no idea what George W. Bush's IQ is, or Barack Obama's. All I know is that Bush couldn't pass a sixth grade grammar exam, while Barack Obama seems to be much more intelligent. So if I was going to take an "educated guess," I would guess that GWB has a lower IQ than Barack Obama ... but that would be speculation on my part.

By: Mike Burch on 8/6/11 at 4:22

Yogiman,

Why all the angst about President Obama's birth certificate? Did anyone worry about GWB's birth certificate, or Bill Clinton's, or Jimmy Carter's, or Ronald Reagan's?

President Obama is obviously much smarter than GWB, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Why aren't you questioning their IQ's and birth certificates?

Shouldn't we be more worried about unqualified people becoming president, than qualified people becoming president?

By: serr8d on 8/6/11 at 8:28

Mike Burch thinks only elitists can and should be allowed to govern from the Oval Office (that contains a desk where position papers are routinely dropped by even more 'elite' academic sorts); and then only those who've completed Harvard, Yale or another 'elite' (read: Leftist - Progressive, for the most part) University. He's fallen for the IQ fallacy; that fallacy that self-styled 'intellectuals' are the only people who should have any say in the leadership and direction of 'less-qualified', lower IQ and therefore lower-order beings. I'd guess that somewhere lurking in the pits of his mind is a troubling dissatisfaction that the (Progressive) invention, eugenics, was so soundly refuted in the aftermath of cleaning out the showers and ovens in post-war Germany and Poland.

But look for him to continue to champion a hierarchical ranking of those who seek the Presidency, solely based on whether or not they've achieved the 'Progressive' benchmarks of elitism, supra-IQ and the proper academic qualifiers. Because that's written in the Constitution, don't you know.

By: yogiman on 8/6/11 at 9:42

As that old saying goes, Mike: "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", and it seems you hold an admiration of Barry Soetoro in your democratic mind.

Let's look at a couple of facts on the issue. George Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagon were well know by the general population of America for many years before they were sworn into that office. tell me, Mike, what do you know about the man you call Barack Obama?
I mean, just who in the hell is he?

As is known, none of the men you mentioned tried to hide any personal information from the public population of our nation.

May I ask; what do you factually know about Barack Obama? Do you have the personal information as to why he is so secretive about himself? Didn't think so.

Can you explain why the head of the Health Department of Hawaii made the statement she had read his original birth certificate and half of it was written in pencil, yet the one he "displayed" to the public on July 27 was typewritten except for the signatures?

Wonder why, after over two years he made the statement several times the State of Hawaii would not permit him to show his "birth certificate" they "finally" decided to let him show it?

Could it be because in was a week before the publication of Jerome Corsi's book "Where's the Birth Certificate" was placed on the market? Just wondering.

Again, Mike, who the hell is the guy?

By: bfra on 8/6/11 at 10:17

OMG yogi, if you don't know who Barack Obama is by now, there is no hope for you! You have lived, slept & breathed him for months and still don't know who he is? Wonders never cease.

And, BTW, as I am part Cherokee American Indian, I doubt you being more American than me or any of my relatives.

By: yogiman on 8/6/11 at 2:37

Well, bfra, being part Choctaw Indian, I'd say, yes, I am as much an American as you. But with my concern as to what is going on in this nation, maybe even more so, because you don't seem to give a damn who's sitting in the Oval Office of this nation (yeah, I would like to be referring to OUR nation).

I seem to be much smarter than you because I question the legality of a person sitting in the highest office of this nation and you seem to be willing to welcome anyone who wants it to take it.

And you know what I'll bet? I'll bet I know more about Barry Soetoro than you. And you know what else I would bet? I would bet he is sitting there illegally.

By: Mike Burch on 8/7/11 at 12:34

Yogiman,

Why succumb to paranoia? After all, if President Obama was a "planted" Muslim agent, then obviously his name would not be Barack Hussein Obama and his birth certificate would be picture perfect. The fact that he has a Muslim-sounding name and that his origins seem "un-American" (at least to bigots) is proof that there is nothing to fear. If his identity was contrived, the contrivers would have made him seem more "American" for the sake of the many Americans who fear that anyone who isn't a lily-white Christian is somehow inferior and dangerous.