Romney and “Corporate Personhood”
posted at 5:00 pm on August 13, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
Justin Elliott at Salon has a rather interesting history of the concept of corporate personhood in America’s court system, which Mitt Romney brought back into the spotlight with some recent comments at Ames. He’s exploring it in an interview with 2004 Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb, who hates the idea but still reveals some of the pertinent details of why Romney is right. Of course, the first quote from Cobb sets the tone for his argument.
Mitt Romney said “corporations are people.” Is he right?
Well, he’s correct in the sense that the U.S. Supreme Court has said that corporations are persons with inherent constitutional rights. Of course, he’s wrong just as the court is wrong.
I see. So he’s wrong except for the fact that the highest court in the land examined the question and said he was right? Got it.
Some of the background provided includes cases dating back to the 1800s, including Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railway. He also references Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee from 1933, which is one I hadn’t previously heard of but is clearly an early signal of the court’s intent. The case challenged a law which sought to establish a different, more lenient tax system for small, locally owned business than for large, interstate chain stores. While it may sound like a noble way to protect a mom and pop business from Walmart, the courts noted that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
The basic premise of the argument supporting corporate personhood is that corporations are composed of people. When these people come together and speak as a group – particularly through the collective power of the corporation’s cash – they are still engaged in speech. Cobb then sums up the opposition argument.
The basic argument the court has made is that corporations are just composed of people who have individual human rights. Therefore when those people come together to create a corporation, the collection of people should be able to exercise those same constitutional rights. That’s not logical, though, because these groups of people are not speaking with one mind. And they have not created an inherent human being whenever they come together collectively.
It’s easy to see how a subject this convoluted has brought up such a firestorm in public debate. But at least for the time being the courts seem to be speaking with one voice on it.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
If corporations are people then shouldn’t we outlaw corporations owning other corporations?
thphilli on August 13, 2011 at 5:02 PM
Mutt Romney will almost surely change his tune the next time an interviewer asks about corporations, and will brand them as “bloodsucking exploiters of the working class.”
Maybe in another week or two he’ll be back to calling them “people.”
Oh, yeah: I bet he thinks his dog is a “people,” too.
MrScribbler on August 13, 2011 at 5:05 PM
I don’t think Romney was talking about Corporate personhood at all…
ninjapirate on August 13, 2011 at 5:08 PM
If unions are people, then corporations are people too…
ninjapirate on August 13, 2011 at 5:09 PM
You lost me at ‘Justin Elliott at Salon. . .’
Emperor Norton on August 13, 2011 at 5:09 PM
Mitt Romney said “corporations are people.” Is he right?
Corporations are people – they consist of people who manage, people who produce, people who invest, people who purchase goods and services from other companies.
This “faceless evil” b.s. is just that – b.s.
The level of ignorance in this country, thanks to school indoctrination, the dishonesty of the press, and the insidious demonization of the left (helped by citizens who are more interested in frivolity than understanding the greatness of this country) has brought us to the brink of destruction of everything wonderful about America.
At the root of it is that the left has seized “niceness” as their own, and casts anyone who disagrees into the “greed and cruelty” category.
disa on August 13, 2011 at 5:10 PM
The Mittster meant that all corporations are made up of people: their employees and owners (who usually overlap substantially). People like to talk about corporations as if they’re some nefarious exogenous force from beyond the moon, but that’s just wrong.
Romney’s correct; corporations aren’t just people: in the age of mass investing, corporations are us.
Inkblots on August 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM
Aw, you beat me to it.
Inkblots on August 13, 2011 at 5:14 PM
Inkblots is right, and so was Mittsy.
Bugler on August 13, 2011 at 5:17 PM
So according to the Green party guy, the courts could be considered a person.
mikeyboss on August 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM
cobb wants to argue a very technical semantic point. corporations are made up of people and employ people and are run by people. teh left tries to turn them into faceless entities that when targeted cause no damage to any persons. its a good pushback to start saying things like what mitt said and to explain how hurting corporations hurts people and the economy.
chasdal on August 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM
oh i agree w/ you on that. if the press heats up on this mitt will walk it back. the only gop candidate w/ less spine is tpaw.
chasdal on August 13, 2011 at 5:19 PM
Anyone else getting tired of the kneejerk anti-Romneyism? I mean, come on, some of you are acting like this guy’s on par with Obama.
Red Cloud on August 13, 2011 at 5:21 PM
Romney was not making the technical point about corporations being considered persons as a legal standing matter. Instead, he was making the point that corporations are comprised of individuals that personally bear the burden of taxation and regulation…
RedSoxNation on August 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM
Faced with a choice between establishment socialists on the one side verses establishment corporatists on the other, I choose a third path: America and the Constitution. Sure, the Constitution and BOR may get in the way of corporate profits sometimes, but I’ll take freedom and liberty over socialism and corporatism any day.
FloatingRock on August 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM
This is quite possibly one of the dumbest “controversies” I’ve seen in politics in quite a while. And it shows how the left in this country has been taken over by communists. Yes, corporations are people. What the hell else do you think they’re made up of?
Just take one corporation the media loved recently, McDonald’s, because they hired 50,000 new employees. They have nearly half a million employees worldwide working at 32,000 restaurants. Those aren’t people? Oh, and it’s publicly traded on the NYSE which means even more people own shares of stock in that corporation.
Doughboy on August 13, 2011 at 5:23 PM
QED.
SlaveDog on August 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM
No matter how thin you slice, it’s still baloney.
I know it’s accepted as true among the left that corporations don’t (or shouldn’t) have 1st amendment rights but is that where it ends? Do they believe that corporations are not bound by contract law as individuals are? Can they be held legally responsible for their actions, or failures to act? Cobb’s argument would seem to imply “no” in both cases since corporations don’t speak, or act, with one mind & since they haven’t created a human being when they come together.
And there’s the problem with the left’s understanding: it can only hold in very narrow circumstances. i.e. political speech.
landshark on August 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM
Apple is a happy company full of unicorns and rainbows. Wal-Mart is an evil corporation full of tyrants and slavery.
John the Libertarian on August 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM
Ok, if they are people then abolish the corporate tax system and put them under the income tax system.
How about a ‘Three Strikes and you’re out’ law to abolish a company after individuals in it commit three felonies to aid in the corporation’s mission? That would help get rid of their ability to live forever as opposed to our corporeal status which has an end to it.
Can we make them have to decide which country they owe allegiance to so as to make transnational corporations accountable? No ‘dual citizenship’ for them. Either you want to be a US citizen or you don’t. If your HQ is in the US then you can be a citizen… if not, then you aren’t.
I’m all for it!
One tax code for EVERYONE corporate and corporeal, both!
ajacksonian on August 13, 2011 at 5:32 PM
Nice fallacious argument. Much easier than actually dealing with the question.
CW on August 13, 2011 at 5:34 PM
OT but I do have to say that when it comes to the car companies in particular I get a kick out of so many on the left and their sudden(heh) love of corporate welfare.
CW on August 13, 2011 at 5:37 PM
You Win.
CW on August 13, 2011 at 5:39 PM
For God’s sake…. some people are just flat stupid.
I understood what he meant, and I didn’t go to Harvard.
He clearly meant that corporations are made up of people, that corporate earnings go back out as paychecks, dividends and (yes) as bonuses.
And by the way, most pension funds around the country have investments in corporations, and a good many millions work for corporations, so taxing them into oblivion works against most people’s own interests.
n0doz on August 13, 2011 at 5:39 PM
I own a corporation. I’ve worked for several corporations. I have invested in several corporations.
At no time doing any of the above did I ever NOT deal with people when dealing with the corporations.
The whole premise that corporations aren’t people is ludicrous.
angryed on August 13, 2011 at 5:44 PM
It’s depressing that this point has to be made.
billy on August 13, 2011 at 5:47 PM
The whole purpose of a corporation is to be a legal person. That’s why “corporation”, “corpus”, and “corpse” are words branched from the same roots.
And it’s why investing in a corporation is easier than investing in a partnership. If a partnership does something wrong, all of its partners can be sued for damages; if a corporation does something wrong, the corporation itself is liable, but not its investors.
cthulhu on August 13, 2011 at 5:48 PM
I am less interested in the legalese whether the laws define corporate personhood.
Romney was right. at least 50% of the US population owns stocks in various guises, be that in IRA, 401 k, pension plans (those of the Unions as well) , mutual funds. Essentially people are owners of business and corporations and benefits from a successfully ran business. Business also employ people produce the goods and services that people need and buy.
Some anti-business lefties, moonbats and the media seized that sound bite and tried to distort what Romney said. Even lefty like Colbert King acknowledged Romney was right. But the shameless Dems are putting out ads using the distortion to stir up class warfare among the ignorant Barry voters.
bayview on August 13, 2011 at 5:49 PM
Corporations are not “people,” with the same rights as human persons. But they are persons, “personae ficta,” in law.
But that won’t for a minute stop leftist agitators from demagoguing the hell out of the “DERP DERP corps are human!!1!” meme.
Hannibal Smith on August 13, 2011 at 5:51 PM
I concur. When you tax a corporation, you are just taxing the same pot of money twice. No other way to look at it.
Corporations are people. They own every bit of it either through stock or outright. When they are taxed, people pay. I’ve never seen a corporation sign a check to the tax man.
BierManVA on August 13, 2011 at 5:52 PM
This. And cut it down to where a 12th-grader can understand it. No more having a tax code more tangled than a yarn factory after an earthquake.
Uncle Sams Nephew on August 13, 2011 at 5:55 PM
The main reason corporate personhood was popular (and controversial) in the 19th century is that it was used to exploit “substantive due process,” the same legerdemain employed in the Dred Scott case but updated to arbitrarily invalidate business regulations in the name of “liberty of contract,” and still later appropriated by liberals for their own jurisprudential ends. “Substantive due process” is a euphemism for “we don’t need to show you no stinking badges.” In fairness to Mittens, that doesn’t sound like him.
Seth Halpern on August 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM
Well, I agree that corporations of people have rights. But I don’t think “the [highly politicized] courts say so” should be our fallback argument. I certainly don’t agree with everything that some court dictates. We need an argument to explain why the court was right.
joe_doufu on August 13, 2011 at 5:59 PM
Well, the Court has been wrong on slavery & abortion.
itsnotaboutme on August 13, 2011 at 6:00 PM
What is an inherent human being?
Romney would not have made that mistake:)
Buy Danish on August 13, 2011 at 6:05 PM
They’re not speaking with one mind? Then how do they come up with the corporation’s position? When a corporation issues a public statement or takes a position on some issue, are we to believe that that is only the opinion or position of the individual spokesperson who wrote the press release, but not that of the CEO or CFO or COO?
What passes for logic on the left is quite bizarre. No wonder they’ve made such a mess of things.
AZCoyote on August 13, 2011 at 6:06 PM
People are not saints, and collections of people are no more saintly.
Like schools of sharks, they devour the weak to gain control of the feeding grounds.
Some corporations are like zombies.
Some like octupuses.
Without contant scrutiny, they tend to be as statistically crooked as their contituents.
profitsbeard on August 13, 2011 at 6:07 PM
Hand raised.
Buy Danish on August 13, 2011 at 6:16 PM
Well then, the government should be disbanded. It is blatantly obvious that the federal government does not speak with one mind. The argument that a company does not have the inherent rights of people is the argument that government is not legitimate. Yet the government speaks against many of its citizens. Me for instance, it speaks against my morals. Thus, it has not legitimate power.
Right?
astonerii on August 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM
If corporations are not people, then what are they? A corporation is defined in the dictionary as a group of people. You cannot have a corporation if you do not have people.
The reason the Left has gotten themselves into the mess of attacking corporations is that they’ve conflated the word to mean “certain companies that we hate”.
Unions are corporations, are they also evil and to be stripped of the right to speak? Of course not. The Left wants to punish those corporations they don’t like, and give benefits to those they like, which is why the Supreme Court decided as they did: removing the differences and providing the same rights to all groups of people, such as corporations.
If corporations are to be forbidden from speaking, then the New York Times editorial board, speaking on behalf of the New York Times, would have to be prevented from speaking. Is that were the liberals want to take the democracy?
Seixon on August 13, 2011 at 6:23 PM
Well-said. In a similar vein they luv the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or the Corporation for National Community Service which runs AmeriCorps among other Federal taxpayer funded boondoggles.
Buy Danish on August 13, 2011 at 6:35 PM
If I didn’t know any better, this is just one of the examples of liberals now trying to manufacture a Joe-the-Plumber “spreading the wealth around” film clip. This was the strike at Mitt. Bachmann had hers with that gat teen yesterday, I think. Expect an increasing amount of stalking of GOP candidates of any kind.
The Joe the Plumber encounter was very effective, and the left knows it. They’ll be stalking GOP candidates from now until the end of time.
BuckeyeSam on August 13, 2011 at 6:37 PM
Don’t you just love it when the left misrepresents your position?
Aardvark on August 13, 2011 at 6:42 PM
Two words: “collective bargaining”.
Ortzinator on August 13, 2011 at 6:42 PM
No matter how tightly the trees grow or how they are tied together a forest is still made up of individuals.
Speakup on August 13, 2011 at 6:44 PM
“The basic argument the court has made is that corporations are just composed of people who have individual human rights. Therefore when those people come together to create a corporation, the collection of people should be able to exercise those same constitutional rights. That’s not logical, though, because these groups of people are not speaking with one mind. And they have not created an inherent human being whenever they come together collectively.”
@ ninjapirate on August 13, 2011 at 5:09 PM
Agreed. Just like you noted, the same argument invalidates unions.
Danny on August 13, 2011 at 6:45 PM
Cobb’s statements apply more to labor unions than corporations.
Here’s a deal for you, Cobb. Take away the legal personality of labor unions first. Then we’ll talk.
jaime on August 13, 2011 at 6:47 PM
Obama: This is our moment, this is our time.
Obama operatives: This is their macaca moment, this is our time.
Buy Danish on August 13, 2011 at 6:49 PM
Corporation is not people, Soylent green is people !!
bayview on August 13, 2011 at 6:52 PM
“I’m an IBM’er.” (ergo, not a real human being)
Aardvark on August 13, 2011 at 7:01 PM
Cyberdyne Systems is DEFINITELY not people.
Bishop on August 13, 2011 at 7:11 PM
“Cor-por-ation is people.
Cor-por-ation is made out of people.”
aquaviva on August 13, 2011 at 7:24 PM
Bambi on August 13, 2011 at 7:34 PM
Sorry, didn’t mean to include all of it as a quote!
Bambi on August 13, 2011 at 7:35 PM
Would not that requirement also exclude homosexuals from personhood rights?
whatcat on August 13, 2011 at 7:45 PM
wonder it these knuckle heads know that one of the oldest corporations in the United States Is The Democratic Nation Committee. Da DNC…… yep they not people.
roflmao
donabernathy on August 13, 2011 at 8:26 PM
oops … that’s National in the above
donabernathy on August 13, 2011 at 8:27 PM
Why should it matter if corporations are people are not? The first amendment says nothing about that. That’s a red herring. Abridging freedom of speech is abridging freedom of speech.
NukeRidingCowboy on August 13, 2011 at 8:39 PM
The term “corporation” descends from the latin meaning human body. If as a person you are in-corporate, that means you are still in your body. If you are ex-corporate, that means you don’t care anyway because you are not in your body. The purpose of “Corporation” or “incorporating” is to be treated as if you were all in one body. Even a dumb ol’ country boy knows that.The arguement about corporations owning other corporations is stupid. Companies incorporate so they will be treated the same as anyBODY else under the law and have the same rights as anyBODY else.It has nothing to do with slavery. I swear, some posters at Hot Air get dumber by the posting. I suspect those are the liberal/marxists. It doesn’t take much for them to get dumber.
Old Country Boy on August 13, 2011 at 8:57 PM
Actually, just when I am feeling good and think the world can’t get any more stupid, I run into a liberal.
Old Country Boy on August 13, 2011 at 9:02 PM
About 50% of families in the USA own stock, either individually, through their pension plan, 401K, etc. I guess families are not people either.
Jasper61 on August 13, 2011 at 9:31 PM
I’m not comfortable with treating a corporation exactly as a citizen, but if “as a person” is basically just shorthand for a way of making sure the rights of the owners are protected with respect to the company, then I have no problem with it.
Count to 10 on August 13, 2011 at 10:27 PM
The one he put in a cage on top of his car during the family vacation?
SagebrushPuppet on August 13, 2011 at 10:57 PM
There’s this thing called Romneycare. Maybe you’ve heard of it.
SagebrushPuppet on August 13, 2011 at 11:00 PM
Mitt wasn’t speaking legalistically. His point was that corporations (and other business entities) are comprised of people in the form of employees and owners and that the profits of the company are those of the people. Isn’t that obvious?
There also needs to be made clear the distinction between “legal entity” and “personhood”. A corporation (and other business things) are legal entities that, like people, can own property, sue and be sued, sell and buy, etc. etc. The question of personhood (as in “rights of the people”) devolve upon corporations within some limits. If corporations have no first amendment rights, the New York Times has no constitutional protection to publish. Can you separate the editors, reporters, blah blah blah from the business entity? I think not, nor does the Supreme Court.
Skipper50 on August 13, 2011 at 11:39 PM
This hits the nail on the head.
Chaz706 on August 14, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Romney addressed this last night very nicely:
“Romney defends ‘corporations are people’” on CNN – video:
LINK
Cindy Cooper on August 14, 2011 at 1:20 AM
yes, but can corporations get gay- married? how do you ascertain the gender of a corporation anyway?
i’d like to gay- marry Apple, please- that steve jobs is a minx.
this from the man who signed legislation that is murdering small businesses in the state of MA and driving the middle class into poverty- those, anyway. that didn’t flee for states like new hampshire with less big government man handling and no romneycare.
mittens on August 14, 2011 at 2:48 AM
Romneycare is people.
Ronnie on August 14, 2011 at 2:56 AM
If corporations are a faceless evil, why am I getting all this progressive SPAM about the Koch Brothers?
BKennedy on August 14, 2011 at 4:00 AM
Campaigns who leave their guy this vulnerable are people. And if someone tried it with BHO they would have been bruised or shot.
IlikedAUH2O on August 14, 2011 at 7:02 AM
The only way this can even be an issue, is that if today’s Democrat party really is made up of mostly Marxists. Or retards. Or both.
MNHawk on August 14, 2011 at 7:11 AM
The US Supreme Court ruled that Corporations have the same rights as persons. They ruled that as the Corporation was made up of persons then to deny the Corporation Rights would deny the Person in the Corporation rights. Here I disagree, each individual in a Corporation still has all of their rights. The Corporation is not a living entity, if it is then every small business owner who has set up an S-Corp to handle their business should have the same rights TWICE once as them self and as the S-Corp. Confuses the issue and I think Congress needs to fix that soon.
old war horse on August 14, 2011 at 8:25 AM
So how do you feel about Dred Scott? Please, don’t play dumb.
anonymous irishman on August 14, 2011 at 8:29 AM
Think about that logic for a minute. If we are supposed to deny corporations the right to free speech because they are not speaking with one mind, then can we deny the dems free speech because as a party they are not speaking with one mind. And of course once they have been silenced, we can keep them from fundraising to overturn the law other than from the one person who argues before the supreme court (because otherwise it is obviously a group who can’t be speaking with one mind. The possibilities are endless.
yetanotherjohn on August 14, 2011 at 8:34 AM
Guns don’t kill, corporations do, or something.
Seriously, we have the right as citizens to assemble in this country. We don’t forfeit any of our other rights, such as the freedom of expression, when we do.
The context that Mitt was speaking was with regard to taxation. The yahoo that heckled him tried to say that we should tax people less and corporations more. Romney pointed out that taxing corporations was the same as taxing the people who invest in that corporation because ultimately all the assets and profits of a corporation belong to individuals.
MJBrutus on August 14, 2011 at 8:35 AM
I don’t think Romney meant “people” in the legal sense having to do with corporations, he should have said “corporations are about people too”, which I think is what he meant.
Anyway, this is not worth the hot air spewed about it.
Chessplayer on August 14, 2011 at 9:18 AM
If corporations are supposed to pay taxes and be socially responsible, then they should have personhood. I would like to eliminate corporate taxes, corporate political action, corporate social responsibility, and corporate personhood. In my ideal world, if the CEO of a corporation attempted to divert the shareholders to a charity–so called corporate social responsibility–or if the CEO attempted to give money to a political organization, the CEO would face criminal charges of embezzlement of funds. The profits of firm should be passed on to the shareholders to spend as they like. Only people should pay taxes, donate to charity, and make political contributions.
thuja on August 14, 2011 at 9:38 AM
Romney is so stupid! I bet he doesn’t know there are 57 states either.
Herb on August 14, 2011 at 10:17 AM
1. What do you call “profits”? Marketing expenses (such as charitable contributions) are deducted from revenue which means that “profits” aren’t used to make charitable contributions.
2. The shareholders elect a board of directors to take actions on their behalf. It’s incredibly inefficient to make every corporate decision via shareholder vote. Shareholder votes can take 90 days to fully complete.
The board of directors appoints executives and empower them to make certain decision without board approval. Often the board will empower a CEO to spend a certain amount of money on marketing as his discretion. Shouldn’t a CEO be allowed to make certain decisions about the marketing value of certain charitable contributions?
blink on August 14, 2011 at 11:38 AM
Romney was right, and I have no problem saying that. I was really glad he made assertion. I hope he doesn’t back down from it.
Funny how that works in the minds of leftists, isn’t it? Kind of like how “war isn’t the answer unless a Democrat is president of the United States.”
theotherone on August 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM
Probably one of the funniest posts I’ve seen on here in awhile.
crr6 on August 14, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Corporations are made of people, as are unions, and the market itself. Saying a group of people coming together do not deserve constitutional rights because they are not of one mind is completely idiotic. We form assembly and vote as the electorate with many different minds coming together and we enjoy the same constitutional rights.
The left’s argument always falls apart with their own hypocrisy. Corporations are not people, but Unions are. Special Interests are destroying politics, but only when it’s the N.R.A because Planned Parenthood is perfectly fine. They target specific groups, conservative groups, and destroy their own argument as a result.
Daemonocracy on August 14, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Charity as marketing would be illegal in the legal framework I propose. Too often donations from corporations are a form of blackmail, anyway. And isn’t the CEO being a paid a salary. Can’t he pay for his favorite charities out of his own money?
thuja on August 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM
1. Then you should stop using the term “profits” for your framework.
2. Thanks for making it clear that you’re comfortable with more government interference into corporate marketing strategies.
blink on August 14, 2011 at 1:44 PM
Love the cheap shots, but profits is clearly the right word in my framework. A corporation is a legal framework by which a group of investors gets limited liability. As such, it already is a form government interference. Yes, I would prevent some marketing strategies, but they would be much less popular marketing strategies if people actually understood them.
My view of corporations most accords with libertarianism and the individual as a decision maker. People should be making choices–not governments and not corporations. In the Road to Serfdom, Hayek celebrates the virtues of “independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, the successful reliance on voluntary activity, non-interference with one’s neighbour and tolerance of the different, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority.” Why give the CEO authority over how to spend your money from your share in a corporation?
thuja on August 14, 2011 at 2:05 PM
1, How is that a cheap shot? You basically repeat me when you say, “Yes, I would prevent some marketing strategies,”.
2. Under your framework an UNprofitable corporation would be allowed to give cash donations to charities.
How is giving something protection from government courts considered government interference?
1. Nobody is forcing anyone to own shares of a corporation. A person has a choice to both vote and sell their shares.
2. Apparently, you WANT government to restrict a group of people (a corporation) from making the choice to make certain charitable contributions.
blink on August 14, 2011 at 3:37 PM
Opposing “corporate personhood” is Ralph Nader’s favorite hobby-horse. Really all you need to know.
Knott Buyinit on August 14, 2011 at 4:07 PM
Uh huh. The people who believe such things are probably the type who tend to believe that a human being has no right of personhood at conception.
L.N. Smithee on August 14, 2011 at 10:08 PM
Silly Hot Air, have you forgotten the new standard Obama has set now?
:-)
JeffinSac on August 15, 2011 at 9:48 AM