Hope Brings Legal Trouble

On buttons, posters and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year's presidential campaign: a pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE.

Designed by Shepard Fairey, a Los-Angeles based street artist, the image has led to sales of hundreds of thousands of posters and stickers, and has become so much in demand that copies signed by Fairey have been purchased for thousands of dollars on eBay.

The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.

The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.

"The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission," the AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement. "AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey's attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution."

"We believe fair use protects Shepard's right to do what he did here," says Fairey's lawyer, Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a lecturer at the Stanford Law School. "It wouldn't be appropriate to comment beyond that at this time because we are in discussions about this with the AP."

Fair use is a legal concept that allows exceptions to copyright law, based on, among other factors, how much of the original is used, what the new work is used for and how the original is affected by the new work.

Legal experts offered differing views on the Obama image.

Of course, an interesting side note is this:  Did the Obama campaign team know these posters were being distributed (they did) and that they were based on a "stolen" photograph?  (yes, on both counts.)  

Read more...

Quote of the Day

Today's quote is from the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.   Most of you that pay attention to news from "alternative sources" already know what today's quote is.  Of course, you are not likely to see this in the MainStream Media anywhere.

Here is the quote:

"Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs."

- Nancy Pelosi, February 4, 2009

I strongly suspect that Speaker Pelosi might be exaggerating with this claim, designed to fast track the economic stimulus package that is rapidly loosing favor with the American Public.  Why would I be suspicious that this number is exaggerated?  Well, for one thing, there are only 300 million Americans in the US.  And of those, only about half of them have a full time job.  

So, according to Speaker Pelosi, every month 500 million of the 150 million working Americans lose their job.

I wonder how that happens.  Are there more Illegal aliens working here than we all believed?  Could she be counting them?  Perhaps every American is going to lose his or her job 3 times every month until the stimulus package is passed.  If that's the case, at least 300 million new jobs are being created.

No, Nancy just isn't smarter than a fifth grader.  In fact, Nancy isn't much smarter than a bar of soap.

For all the whining and complaining from the left about Bush's intelligence over the last 8 years, the Dems sure don't seem to be any smarter.  But, do you suppose you'll see this quote all over the evening news this evening?  Hmmmm.... I doubt it.

What really concerns me is that this is the leader of the fray pushing the economic stimulus package.  She doesn't know the difference between billions, millions, or thousands.  Why then should we support a stimulus package when the authors of the package can't do simple math?  Perhaps this is why the numbers in the package are so staggering.  These people simply don't have a clue as to how much the pork they're passing around is going to cost the American taxpayer.  

....  All 800 trillion of us.

Read more...

The Emperor's New Economic Stimulus Package (Part 6)

A Ponzi Scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors either from their own money or from the money of future investors rather than from any profit seen by the investment itself.  A Ponzi scheme will often offer (or promise) very high short term returns in order to entice investors.  The scheme, however, is destined to eventually collapse because any earnings from the scheme (if any) will be less than the amount of the investments.  Very often these schemes are interrupted by legal authorities before the scheme collapses because often the promotors are selling unregistered securities.  As more investors become involved, the attention of authorities increases.

Let's take a hypothetical example...

Suppose there is this guy, let's call him "Obamy", and he wants to use a trillion dollars to go to a variety of personal pet projects that will make him powerful and popular.  But this "investment" has no real hope of actually accomplishing what it is purported to do.  How might he pull this off?  

Let's say he promises each "investor" a $1,200 or $600 return up front (depending on their investment).  In fact some of these "investors" don't even have to invest their own money ... they'll just ride out the scheme using other people's money.   "Obamy" never talks about what the scheme will cost in the long run, who will pay for it or how it will be paid for.  He only mentions the return.  He only mentions that within a few months or a few years at most, this scheme will pay back the investors multiple trillions of dollars.  Of course, no one who is "in on it" really believes that will happen, but that's what the investors will be told.

How long do you suppose it would be before the government shuts down this scheme designed to clean out its investors for the benefit of the few? 

... don't hold your breath.

Read more...

The Emperor's New Economic Stimulus Package (Part 5)

Read more...

The Emperor's New Economic Stimulus Package (Part 4)

What if Obama and congress simply agreed to take the 1.25 trillion dollars and distribute it out to the 105 million households in America? Well, each household would receive a check for about $12,000.

I wonder out loud how many people (if given the choice) would prefer to give the $12K back to the government rather than keep it for themselves. I ask this not just from the selfish standpoint of having the money in your pocket, but rather from a standpoint of knowing what this sort of money could do for Americans who are struggling and what it could do for the overall economy. Do we "really" believe that this stimulus package will help the economy in such a manner that it would be hypothetically worth $12,000 per household or $7,000 per taxpayer? Because that is what these stimulus packages are costing us.

The reality is that very few people believe that the 1.25 trillion dollars will bring instant relief for anyone. In fact, Obama and the member of congress promoting this bill are not much more optimistic about what it will do than those in congress (and talk radio) who oppose it. They want the 1.25 trillion, but they promise very little in terms of actual stimulus. In fact they warn that it may make very little "immediate impact". What it means is that they want the 1.25 trillion, but really don't want the responsibily that goes with it.

The reality is that we have the least experienced President in our lifetime who has now been handed over power with a wide margin in the house and an almost fillibuster proof Senate. On top of this, he was given $350 billion dollars to work with "before" he became President and now is asking for another $800-900 billion more within days of being sworn in.

That's an awful lot of faith to put into this President and this particular congress. We didn't give this sort of power to Bush, Clinton, or Reagan. All of them took office during rough economic times, and all of them pulled us out of it without requiring 1.25 trillion dollars to do so.

When I hear Nancy Pelosi make a fool of herself trying to explain why the pet project of providing federal aid to purchase birth control is stimulus I cringe to think that she represents one third of the leadership that will make the decisions on this money. When you strip down this bill it seems to include every pet project that the Democrats "wanted" to get through over the past eight years, but couldn't. Clearly, they want this 1.25 trillion for political reasons more than they want it for the reason everyone believes it is needed. Winning an election does not undo the fact that you lost previous elections. You certainly cannot govern like it did.

And let's put this into real perspective. This is the sort of money that not only can, but probably "will" tie our hands for the forseeable future. It will effect us today. It will effect our children when they grow up. It may even effect our children's children. Is an untested President, and two bitter congressional leaders really the right people to bank our entire future on? Do we really even trust that their intentions are what they claim? Would you trust them enough to hand over $12,000 of your family's money if it came down to it?

Read more...

Say It Isn't So!

I thought Obama was invincible ... that he couldn't make a mistake.  But here we are, two weeks into the Obamanation, and lo and behold.....

(from Fox News)....

President Obama admitted he made a "mistake" in his handling of Tom Daschle's Cabinet nomination, telling FOX News on Tuesday that he takes full responsibility for a process that ended in Daschle withdrawing his name amid tax problems. 

The president also said in the interview with FOX News that he's standing firm on a Feb. 16 deadline for the multi-billion dollar stimulus bill being debated on Capitol Hill, despite growing concerns that package contains too much unnecessary spending. 

Daschle's withdrawal, along with wrangling over the stimulus, made for possibly the rockiest day of Obama's presidency so far. The president said he will learn from the Daschle debacle. 

"I consider this a mistake on my part, one that I intend to fix and correct and make sure that we're not screwing up again," Obama said. "Ultimately I have to take responsibility for a process that resulted in us not having a (health and human services) secretary at a time when people need relief on their health care costs. 

"So this is a mistake -- probably not the first one I'm going to be making in this office, but what I'm absolutely committed to doing is fixing it," he said. 

Obama, who had tapped Daschle to steer a sweeping health care reform effort, said the next order of business is to find another "highly qualified" health and human services secretary. 

Obama denied influencing Daschle's decision to withdraw, which caught a number of senators by surprise Tuesday. Though Daschle caught flak for revelations that he had failed to pay more than $130,000 in taxes, the former Senate majority leader has strong personal ties on Capitol Hill, and several Democrats said they thought he still could have won confirmation. 

Read more...

The Emperor's New Economic Stimulus Package (Part 3)

Here is part 3 of my series on Obama's Porkulus package. 

I suppose I should insert an aside here:  The package as it exists at this point is really the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi Porkulus package.  They are the real originators of what is being debated and talked about.  However, we all know that Obama could walk into their offices today and essentially dictate what he wants changed, if anything.  He has the power, the popularity and the "bully pulpit".  I think we can all assume that whatever the Dems end up passing in congress will essentially have Obama's blessing, and any changes made will be made for political gain after seeing what the media and the blogs are saying.  (Not the conservative blogs, though.)

In this installment, I want to focus on some of the more ridiculous pork in the package; those items that really do little or nothing to actually stimulate the economy, but really represent pet projects either of the Democratic party as a whole, or of individual Democratic congressmen.  The plan is filled with a staggering amount of waste. We will be adding billions to our national deficit so we can fund such fine programs as:

• $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.  (Payback?)

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities.”

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for “youth activities,” including youth summer job programs.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for “energy efficiency initiatives” at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

Will reducing lead-based paint stimulate our economy? Will inspecting canals in our urban areas create jobs?

Support for the stimulus plan appears to be fading fast. As we reported here, many believe that the stimulus plan won’t reach American taxpayers until it’s too late to create any real jobs. Meanwhile, our federal employees will have some nice Priuses to drive around in.

Read more...

The Emperor's New Economic Stimulus Package (Part 2)

According the Glenn Beck's Website, here is the breakdown of the "Porkulus" package:

• $825 billion total (as of 1/15/09) 
• $550 billion in new spending, described as thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in. 
• $275 billion in tax relief ($1,000 tax cut for families, $500 tax cut for individuals through SS payroll deductions) 
• $ 90 billion for infrastructure 
• $ 87 billion Medicaid aid to states 
• $ 79 billion school districts/public colleges to prevent cutbacks 
• $ 54 billion to encourage energy production from renewable sources 
• $ 41 billion for additional school funding ($14 billion for school modernizations and repairs, $13 billion for Title I, $13 billion for IDEA special education funding, $1 billion for education technology) 
• $ 24 billion for "health information technology to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies" and "to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments." 
• $ 16 billion for science/technology ($10 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation; $6 billion to expand broadband to rural areas) 
• $ 15 billion to increase Pell grants by $500 
• $ 6 billion for the ambiguous "higher education modernization."

[Source: Committee on Appropriations: January 15, 2009] 

Here is a further breakdown of the package: 

NOTE: The following are highlights of the package; for the full 13-page summary from the Appropriations Committee, click here: 

(as of 1/15/09) 

Energy 
$32 billion: Funding for "smart electricity grid" to reduce waste 
$16 billion: Renewable energy tax cuts and a tax credit for research and development on energy-related work, and a multiyear extension of renewable energy production tax credit 
$6 billion: Funding to weatherize modest-income homes 

Science and Technology 
$10 billion: Science facilities 
$6 billion: High-speed Internet access for rural and underserved areas 

Infrastructure 
$30 billion: Transportation projects 
$31 billion: Construction and repair of federal buildings and other public infrastructure 
$19 billion: Water projects 
$10 billion: Rail and mass transit projects 

Education 
$41 billion: Grants to local school districts 
$79 billion: State fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid 
$21 billion: School modernization ($15.6 billion to increase the Pell grant by $500; $6 billion for higher education modernization) 

Health Care 
$39 billion: Subsidies to health insurance for unemployed; providing coverage through Medicaid 
$87 billion: Help to states with Medicaid 
$20 billion: Modernization of health-information technology systems 
$4.1 billion: Preventative care 

Jobless Benefits 
$43 billion for increased unemployment benefits and job training. 
$39 billion to support those who lose their jobs by helping them to pay the cost of keeping their employer provided healthcare under COBRA and providing short-term options to be covered by Medicaid. 
$20 billion to increase the food stamp benefit by over 13% in order to help defray rising food costs. 

Taxes 

Individuals: 

*$500 per worker, $1,000 per couple tax cut for two years, costing about $140 billion. 
*Greater access to the $1,000-per-child tax credit for the working poor. 
*Expansion of the earned-income tax credit to include families with three children 
*A $2,500 college tuition tax credit. 
*Repeal of a requirement that a $7,500 first-time homebuyer tax credit be paid back over time. 

Businesses: 

*An infusion of cash into money-losing companies by allowing them to claim tax credits on past profits dating back five years instead of two. 
*Bonus depreciation for businesses investing in new plants and equipment 
*Doubling of the amount small businesses can write off for capital investments and new equipment purchases. 
*Allowing businesses to claim a tax credit for hiring disconnected youth and veterans

[Sources: Associated Press: Highlights of Senate economic stimulus plan; January 23, 2009; WSJ: Stimulus Package Unveiled; January 16, 2009; Committee on Appropriations: January 15, 2009] 

When is the money being is going to be spent, and on what? 

The government wouldn't be able to spend at least one-fourth of a proposed $825 billion economic stimulus plan until after 2010, according to a preliminary report by the Congressional Business Office that suggests it may take longer than expected to boost the economy. The government would spend about $26 billion of the money this year and $110 billion more next year, the report said. About $103 billion would be spent in 2011, while $53 billion would be spent in 2012 and $63 billion between 2013 and 2019. 

• Less than $5 billion of the $30 billion set aside for highway spending would be spent within the next two years, the CBO said. 

• Only $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending would be delivered into the economy by the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, just 7 percent. 

• Just one in seven dollars of a huge $18.5 billion investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be spent within a year and a half. 

• About $907 million of a $6 billion plan to expand broadband access in rural and other underserved areas would be spent by 2011, CBO said. 

• Just one-fourth of clean drinking water projects can be completed by October of next year. 

• $275 billion worth of tax cuts to 95 percent of filers and a huge infusion of help for state governments is to be distributed into the economy more quickly. 

[Note: The CBO's analysis applied only to 40 percent of the overall stimulus bill, and doesn't cover tax cuts or efforts; a CBO report outlining all of its costs is expected in the next week or so.] 

• The Obama administration said $3 of every $4 in the package should be spent within 18 months to have maximum impact on jobs and taxpayers; if House or Senate versions of the bill do not spend the money as quickly, the White House will work with lawmakers to achieve the goal of spending 75% of the overall package over the next year and a half. 

[Source: AP: Three-quarters of stimulus to go in 18 months; January 22, 2009; Bloomberg News: Much of Stimulus Wont Be Spent Before 2011, CBO Says; January 20, 2009; link] 

Who will be spending the money? Will the states be receiving any money to spend, community organizations? Churches? 

The economic stimulus plan now moving through Congress would shower billions of federal dollars on state and local governments desperate for cash: 

• The House stimulus bill includes an extra $87 billion in federal aid to state Medicaid programs. 

• It allots some $120 billion to boost state and city education programs. 

• There's $4 billion for state and local anticrime initiatives in the legislation, not to mention $30-plus billion for highways and other infrastructure projects. 

• $6.9 billion to help state and local governments make investments that make them more energy efficient and reduce carbon emissions. 

• $87 billion to states, increasing through the end of FY 2010 the share of Medicaid costs the Federal government reimburses all states by 4.8 percent, with extra relief tied to rates of unemployment. 

• $120 billion to states and school districts to stabilize budgets and prevent tax increases and deep cuts to critical education programs. 

Overall, about one-quarter of the entire $825 billion recovery package would be devoted to activities crucial to governors, mayors, and local school boards - making them among the plans biggest beneficiaries. 

Read more...

The Emperor's New Economic Stimulus Package

I was just thinking about the cost of stimulating the economy.  $1.3 trillion dollars, at this point, with interest.  More is likely to come.  And 1.3 trillion is only for the "Stimulus Package," not for any additional government spending or programs that are likely to come down the pike this year or in the next four years.

One Point Three Trillion, with a 'T', Dollars.

That's $1,300,000,000,000.

That, my loyal readers, is a lot of zeros.

This package is, in many ways, a reward for failure.  The automakers, the financial institutions and various other companies are being given billions of dollars because they spend money on things like a $50,000 private bathroom for the CEOs office and private jets and trips for the executives to expensive spas, and they are unable to pay enough attention to the businesses they run to see that they make even a small profit.

Meanwhile, hard-working Americans and successful small businesses are asked to foot the bill. 

Remember the story of Robin Hood?  Monte Python did a parody sketch based loosely on Robin Hood in which a do-gooder on horseback stole from the rich and gave to the poor.  In the Monte Python version, their Robin Hood (named Dennis Moore) initially stole bouquets of flowers from the rich and gave them to the poor.  A nice gesture, but the poor got tired of the flowers and asked for valuables; jewelry, china, furniture, etc.  Eventually, the hapless Dennis Moore stole everything from the rich and gave it to the poor so that the poor were now rich and the rich were now poor.  The song accompanying the sketch contained the line:  "He stole from the poor and gave to the rich; stupid b*tch."   Upon realized what he had done, he remarked "This redistribution of the wealth is more difficult than I thought." 

I suspect Obama will find out the same thing.

He has already stated in his campaign that he intends to redistribute the wealth.  He will find it more difficult than he initially though.  However, unlike Dennis Moore in the Monte Python sketch, who agonized over the issue before finally coming up with a humorous solution, I suspect Obama will not really care.  Not as long as he pleases his liberal base.  

And the reason he won't really care is because the whole point is not to have a fair tax/spend/redistribution system.  The whole point is to grab and retain power for secular humanist liberal Democrats.  I don't believe for a minute that the Democrats in congress and in the Obama Administration care nearly as much about "fixing" the economy as they do about retaining power.   Granted, they see fixing the economy as a possible key to retaining power.  But even if the economy struggles for the next decade, or even the next generation, if they can use this opportunity to increase government power, institute socialized health care, increase abortions, remove all remnants of religion from public life, secure gay marriage laws, and advance a whole host of additional liberal policies, then they will hang the "Mission Accomplished" banner, in spite of what happens to the economy.

So when this stimulus package fails (because it really isn't a stimulus package at all), expect another one to follow.  And the next one will contain just as many liberal pork projects as this one. 

Because that's really the whole point.

Read more...

Deja Vu

I don't know about you, but something about this sounds vaguely familiar:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Fighting to salvage his Cabinet nomination, Tom Daschle apologized Monday for failing to pay more than $120,000 in taxes and appealed to former Senate colleagues to approve him all the same. President Barack Obama said he was "absolutely" sticking with his nominee for health secretary, and a key senator added an important endorsement.

The White House both underscored the magnitude of the problem and tried to downplay it in the space of seven words. "Nobody's perfect," said press secretary Robert Gibbs. "It was a serious mistake. ..."

Nobody was predicting defeat for Daschle's nomination as secretary of health and human services, but it was proving an unsavory pill to swallow for senators who only last week confirmed Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary despite his separate tax-payment problems. It's an issue that strikes a nerve among lawmakers' constituents who are struggling with their own serious money problems.

On the bright side for Daschle, he got warm words of support from the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the panel that will have the first say on his fate. Daschle has been "an invaluable and expert partner" in efforts toward health care reform, said Democrat Max Baucus of Montana—an especially important endorsement since the two men have had tussles in the past over Baucus' handling of GOP tax-cut proposals, Medicare changes and other issues.

Daschle was to meet into the evening with the committee in private.

The former Senate Democratic leader, expressed his remorse in a letter to the Finance Committee, saying he was "deeply embarrassed and disappointed" about what he said was an unintentional failure to pay taxes that he owed. He recently filed amended returns for 2005-07 to report $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest.

Obama, asked at the White House whether he was standing by his nomination, answered, "Absolutely." He did not elaborate.

In his letter, released Monday, Daschle sought to explain how he overlooked taxes on income for consulting work and the use of a car service. He also deducted more in charitable contributions than he should have.

"I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them," he told committee members.

Between two of Obama's Cabinet appointees, they've avoided more in taxes than I'm likely to make in the next 5 years.  Somehow I suspect that if I failed to pay a dollar and twenty cents in taxes, I wouldn't get off so easily.

Read more...

Super Bowl: Not for Kids Anymore

Super Bowl XLIII was difficult to watch with children. Instead of being an opportunity to teach about discipline, teamwork and sportsmanship, the subject all-to-often was sex. At least nine of the big game’s bigger commercials used sex to help sell products. Barely covered breasts were heaving, racecar driver Danika Patrick was showering while by being leered at by young men and women either took their clothes off or had them blasted off.

 

Family viewing this wasn’t.

 

The Super Bowl advertising spectacle is arguably almost as important a tradition as the game itself. The idea, of course, is that because the firms are paying a fortune for air time, advertisers will pull out the stops to produce memorable (and hopefully funny) commercials. This year, the first half of the formula worked well. NBC reportedly sold out, at a record $3 million per 30 seconds. Some advertisers did manage to field clever, funny, innovative and otherwise effective spots. But many fumbled their opportunity. Whether it was far too suggestive sexual content or just juvenile slapstick, the finest minds in advertising went right for the lowest common denominator.

NBC refused to accept two commercials for the broadcast. In the first instance, it deserves kudos for the refusal.

Had it run, “Veggie Love” from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would unquestionably have been the least appropriate Super Bowl ad of the year – perhaps ever. The hyper-sexual spot from PETA features women in negligees who apparently find vegetables quite a turn-on. NBC said the ad didn’t meet its standards.

Way over on the other end of the acceptability spectrum, NBC declined an ad from the Catholic pro-life group Fidelis. The showed an ultrasound image of a fetus that, we are asked to imagine, grows to become the first African American President of the United States, Barack Obama. NBC rejected that commercial saying it would not accept “issues advocacy” commercials. That, however, is not what NBC told PETA when rejecting its “Veggie Love” ad.

As to the PETA ad, I doubt they ever expected NBC to run the ad.  In fact, I doubt that PETA could have or would have paid the rate that running the ad would have cost.  However, I've already seen the ad (or most of it) numerous times on the talk show circuit.  PETA got what they wanted.

Read more...

Obama: Jessica Simpson is Fat

Apparently, President Barack Obama thought that Jessica Simpson's weight was something he needed to make fun of during his pre-Super Bowl interview with Matt Lauer on NBC Sunday. Seriously. Obama called Jessica Simpson a fatty on national TV.

Lauer displayed for the audience the cover of a recent issue of the tabloid entertainment magazine US Weekly that featured the President's wife and daughters and also had an insert photo pushing a story about singer Simpson.

As he viewed the cover, Obama decided to smack the singer down for "in a weight battle."

MSNBC Transcript

Lauer: Yeah, well -- let -- let me show you. This is the -- the current issue of -- of Us Weekly.

Obama: Right.

Lauer: And here’s a great picture

Obama: Oh, it’s beautiful.

Lauer: -- of -- of you and -- and Michelle and -- and your daughters. Now, the -- the reason I bring this up I think is funny. It’s a great picture.

Obama: Yeah.

Lauer: But I wanna show you the cover. Look what they did. They -- they took you off the cover.

Obama: Yeah.

Lauer: They took you out of it.

Obama: It -- it’s -- it’s a little hurtful.

Lauer: You got replaced by Jessica Simpson.

Obama: Yeah, who’s in a weight battle apparently. (LAUGHTER) Yeah. Oh, well.

Now, let's think about this incident a bit, shall we?

It seems a bit low of the President of the United States to so offhandedly slam a mere entertainer, doesn't it? Is this something that a good politician would do? What did Simpson ever do to Obama?

Lastly, let us imagine the hue and cry that would have been raised if George W. Bush had on national TV slammed a singer for being fat? Would the moonbats of the left have ignored that? Wouldn't the rest of the media have gone nuts reporting the story if it should have been Bush instead of Obama that called someone like Jessica Simpson fat?

Read more...