Tag Archives: president

Obama Issues Executive Order Mandating “Lifestyle Behavior Modification”

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is fond of saying, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Well, the Obama Administration certainly has not let the British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil rig crisis go to waste, using it as a smokescreen to silently assault and further diminish American citizens’ personal freedom. While the nation has its eyes and ears focused on the blame game ping-pong match between President Obama and BP top brass, President Obama on Thursday, June 10, quietly announced a new Executive Order establishing the “National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.” Claiming the “authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America,” President Obama has truly gone off the deep end this time in his most atrocious attempt to date to control every aspect of Americans’ lives. According to Sec. 5. of the Executive Order that details the President’s “National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy,” the Council will be charged with carrying out “lifestyle behavior modification” among American citizens that do not exhibit “healthy behavior.” The President’s desired lifestyle behavior modifications focus on: * smoking cessation; * proper nutrition; * appropriate exercise; * mental health; * behavioral health; * sedentary behavior; * substance-use disorder; and * domestic violence screenings. Making matters even worse, if that is even possible at this point, President Obama will create an “Advisory Group” composed of experts hand-picked from the public health field and various other areas of expertise “outside the Federal Government.” Let’s consider who the President has sought advice and mentoring from in the past: * Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who the Anti-Defamation League calls a “Messenger of Intolerance,” and * Bill Ayers, leader of the 1960′s domestic terrorist group ”Weatherman” that was “responsible for 30 bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructures of the U.S.” Now, President Obama is going to seek medical advisors who will be charged with modifying lifestyles and behaviors of those citizens he deems unhealthy? “Paging Dr. Kevorkian! You’re wanted in the White House STAT by President Obama!” Whether you are a child, a parent, a worker, or retired, the President’s approximately 25-member “Advisory Group” will soon be present in every aspect of Americans’ lives, as the Executive Order prescribes. Specifically, our new so-called lifestyle behavior modification advisors will be actively carrying out the President’s orders in: * worksite health promotion; * community services, including community health centers; * preventive medicine; * health coaching; * public health education; * geriatrics; and * rehabilitation medicine. President Obama’s sweeping plan to enforce “lifestyle behavior modification” is chock full of open-ended target areas, especially when it comes to issues of “mental” and “behavioral” health, “proper nutrition,” “sedentary behavior,” and “appropriate exercise.” The President’s Executive Order is a blatant and forceful attempt to adjust the way Americans young and old think, behave, eat, drink and whatever else free will used to entitle our nation’s citizens to enjoy as prescribed by the Founding Fathers. If you are feeling stressed-out, sad, confused, hungry, thirsty, bored, or tired, do you honestly trust President Obama and his “Advisory Group” to act in your best interests? added by: Omnomynous

Will the White House Press Corps Get Wimpier Without Helen Thomas?

Jon Ward of the Daily Caller, until recently a White House reporter for the Washington Times, wrote a piece for Sunday’s Washington Post titled “Why we’ll miss Helen Thomas.” But Ward also interviewed some White House press colleagues who suggested Thomas had ventured across a line into explicit advocacy and argument: “Helen had always been a tough, no-nonsense interrogator of presidents and press secretaries,” said Ann Compton, who has reported on the past six presidents for ABC News. “About a decade ago, when she shed her role as reporter and began a career at Hearst as an opinion columnist, Helen’s questions began to cross the line into advocacy.” Ward wrote that as “zany and obvious” her advocacy had become, he wondered if other reporters couldn’t learn something about a little bit tougher on press secretary Robert Gibbs. Fox reporter Major Garrett admitted to Ward “that until the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico became a major story, the White House press corps (himself included) had often failed to adequately hold Gibbs’s feet to the fire.” He explained: “There had long been an unnecessary deference and sort of delicacy and decorum about waiting to be called upon, and rigidly adhering to what is essentially a manufactured process that Robert sought to achieve at the very beginning,” Garrett said. He added that the dynamic of the press room works best when reporters are free to follow up and really push the press secretary, but “that has been extremely rare, for whatever reason.” Ward offered a few examples he felt showed excessive deference: A couple of incidents come to mind. At a briefing just one week after Obama’s inauguration, for example, only two reporters pressed Gibbs for details about the president’s knowledge of a drone strike in Pakistan — the first military action of the new administration — and they received no backing from colleagues in the room when he refused to discuss it. And more recently, in the June 3 briefing, Gibbs faced only a few scattered questions on the announcement by Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff that a top White House official had dangled three job possibilities in front of him should he drop his challenge to the incumbent Democrat, Michael Bennet. Ward didn’t explore the idea that the bosses of these White House reporters weren’t truly interested in pressing Gibbs. Even as several reporters asked for answers on job offers to Romanoff and Pennsylvania’s Joe Sestak, the networks never put the non-answers of Gibbs on the air to create pressure for more disclosure. Persistent questions by reporters alone doesn’t move the news needle. Their bosses also have to find it essential to get answers out of Gibbs.

See the rest here:
Will the White House Press Corps Get Wimpier Without Helen Thomas?

Fareed Zakaria Defends Obama’s Oil Spill Response: ‘What Does the Media Want the President to Do?’

Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria on Sunday worked overtime trying to defend Barack Obama’s pathetic response to the Gulf Coast oil spill while chastising his colleagues in the media for having the nerve to criticize the president. In the opening segment of his “Fareed Zakaria GPS” aired on CNN, Zakaria asked, “Have we all gone crazy?”  He continued, “In dealing with the serious problem involving technical breakdown, engineering malfunctions, environmental fallout, regulatory mishaps, the media has decided to hone in on one central issue above all others: presidential emotion.” With a chyron at the bottom of the screen asking, “What does the media want the President to do,” Zakaria told viewers, “The truth is that what’s happening in the Gulf is a terrible tragedy, but there is very little the federal government can do in the short-term to actually stop the spill” (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):   FAREED ZAKARIA: Have we all gone crazy? I don’t mean you, I mean us, the media. In dealing with the serious problem involving technical breakdown, engineering malfunctions, environmental fallout, regulatory mishaps, the media has decided to hone in on one central issue above all others: presidential emotion. The overriding need of the hour, we have decided, is not a cleanup plan, not a regulatory overhaul, not a new energy policy, but the image of the president visibly enraged. At this point in the complete segment that aired Sunday, Zakaria showed a clip of a video created by the Huffington Post that included snippets of media coverage asking the president to show more emotion on this subject. For some reason the folks at CNN.com chose to edit out this portion in the video it published Saturday evening. Maybe they didn’t want people to know that Zakaria was channeling the view of one of the most liberal websites in the nation. But I digress:  ZAKARIA: And what exactly is the point of all this? What purpose would be served by having the president scream or cry or whatever it is he’s supposed to do to show emotion? Would it plug the hole? The truth is that what’s happening in the Gulf is a terrible tragedy, but there is very little the federal government can do in the short-term to actually stop the spill. This is either staggering ignorance or shameful dishonesty. After all, there ARE things the federal government could have done from the beginning which would have limited the amount of oil now slamming into the Gulf states and possibly the entire eastern seaboard in the coming months. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has been asking the feds for weeks to allow him to do a variety of procedures to achieve this goal. Unfortunately, he’s still waiting for EPA environmental assessment reports. Beyond this, the Obama administration at the early stages of this crisis completely ignored emergency procedures granted the White House by Congress decades ago.   The reality is that America is likely facing its biggest non-war related catastrophe in its history, and the federal government has appeared totally inept at facing the challenge. As a result, Americans are rightfully discouraged by what they’ve seen from this president the past seven weeks and counting, and the idea that Zakaria is trying to minimize this criticism is disgusting:  ZAKARIA: This whole discussion is a terrible example of how the media can trivialize political discussion. The presidency is a serious job, the most serious job in the country. And here we are asking the man to dress the part, to play-act emotions, to give us satisfaction by just doing something even if it’s all phony stuff just designed to give the impression of action. And we’ve managed to succeed. We’ve managed to force the president to cancel his trip to Asia, demean himself by trash-talking about the CEO of British Petroleum, hold lots of pointless meetings and press conferences, have admirals give make-work briefings. The federal government is now consumed with pretending it’s doing something about a situation it actually can’t do much about…But thank goodness the president is now talking about kicking some ass. So what SHOULD the president be doing, Fareed? Nothing? Would you tolerate such inaction if George W. Bush was still in the White House? Would you be defending the president’s lack of action and emotion if there was an “R” after his name? The answers to those questions are certainly “No,” which means that James Carville was quite right when he said about Zakaria on Thursday, “I don’t think that he understands exactly what is going on down here.” That’s putting it nicely, James. 

Visit link:
Fareed Zakaria Defends Obama’s Oil Spill Response: ‘What Does the Media Want the President to Do?’

Bozell Column: MTV’s Pinata of Profanity

It should tell you something that MTV is still highly valued by Hollywood as the televised center of the coolness universe. Why else would a top movie star like Tom Cruise dress up ridiculously as a fat, bald, bearded guy and embarrass himself in a profanity-littered skit on the MTV Movie Awards? Cruise opened the show by saying he was going to take the program, put it up his posterior, and make it a diamond. He welcomed viewers to “Relax, and enjoy my two-hour giant s—.” And so it began, an apt description for the two hours that followed. What is it about celebrities that they have to – absolutely must – be obscene in front of audiences with millions of impressionable children watching? Broadcast networks have had repeated trouble at awards shows with celebrities cursing. But on cable television, which fears no fines or discipline from the Federal Communications Commission, MTV doesn’t see profanity as a shocking accident. On this show, it was an intentional profanity barrage. If you love infantile cursing as dearly as MTV does, it was a stimulating profanity bath. And it was staged. Actress Anna Kendrick asked, “Ready to make the censors’ ears bleed?” A review of the 122-minute special by the Culture and Media Institute found more than 100 swear words. (Once you remove the incessant commercials, that was more than one a minute.) Network censors bleeped 70 curse words, including a remarkable 47 variations of “f—,” 11 uses of “s—,” two of “a–h—,” one slang expression for breasts, and nine even the watchdogs couldn’t identify. But at least 30 profanities made it past the censors, including nine variations of “f—-,” two of “s—” and one “goddamn.” The censors didn’t even try to cover a whole host of other curse words. It was like candy coming out of a pinata. MTV censors grabbed as many as they could. One of the most egregious offenders was actor Peter Facinelli, who accepted the “Best Picture” award for the teen vampire drama “Twilight: New Moon.” He cooed “I’ve never heard the word ‘f—‘ used so many times in one evening.” He then went on to use it eight times himself, four of which made it past the censors. He only skipped cursing as he honored Stephenie Meyer, the author of the “Twilight” books, because he explained “she’s a Mormon.” That’s consideration, Hollywood-style.  MTV even worked the profanities into three award titles. One was the “Best Scared as S— Performance.” This apparently required S-bombs in the introduction, as comedian Steve Carell declared “When I watched [the low-budget horror movie] ‘Paranormal Activity,’ I literally s— myself.” When predictable controversy erupted, MTV issued a plastic apology: “The MTV Movie Awards is a live televised event known for irreverent comedy and a party atmosphere where our guests speak more freely than they otherwise might. While we aired the live broadcast with a delay, we were unable to mute every word that some might find objectionable. All of these words will be muted in subsequent airings.” That’s responsibility, Hollywood-style. Left unaddressed: how MTV’s “party atmosphere” was entirely their doing. All this cursing was about as unplanned as last year’s Movie Awards stunt, where Sacha Baron Cohen’s bare butt floated in the air just inches away from the face of the rapper Eminem, who feigned outrage and “stormed out.”  The idea that MTV execs would place any of the blame on the celebrities is simply laughable. They put cursing in their award titles, stuffed into their pre-recorded skit with Tom Cruise, and clearly expected a stream of it from their un-famous master of ceremonies, comedian Aziz Ansari. Many of these stars have no trouble appearing in other venues without cursing their faces off. Clearly, in this venue, they were bowing to what they felt MTV wanted. If this spectacle wasn’t enough, MTV heavily promoted throughout the Movie Awards show its new scripted comedy, “The Hard Times of R.J. Berger.” The show’s main plot device? Young Berger loses his pants on the high-school basketball court, demonstrating to the entire school that he has an enormous penis. That’s taste, Hollywood-style. MTV promos during the Movie Awards showed a godly glow coming from R.J.’s crotch, and twisted the Bible to joke “The meek shall inherit the girth.” Before his indecent exposure, R.J. lamented “I’m God’s urinal cake.” One nerdy girl tells R.J. “Any time, any place, any orifice.” She also refers to menstruation as “a vampire buffet.” The Los Angeles Times it declared this raunchy “Berger” show was like the movie “Superbad,” only “minus the humor, warmth, and believability” – and then declared MTV had a hit on its hands with it. Will MTV blame the actors on “Berger” for repeating the disgusting language of MTV’s script?

Originally posted here:
Bozell Column: MTV’s Pinata of Profanity

Letterman Guest Robert Klein Suggests Limbaugh’s Good Health is a Bad Thing

Appearing as a guest on Friday’s Late Show with David Letterman on CBS, left-wing comedian Robert Klein suggested that it was bad that Rush Limbaugh turned out to be in good health after his hospital visit in Hawaii, inspiring laughter from Letterman. Klein: “You lose some, you win some.” After Letterman brought up the birther conspiracy theory that President Obama was not born in America, Klein, who is known for attacking conservatives in his comedy act over sex scandals while being softer on liberals, changed the subject to Limbaugh’s fourth marriage to suggest that Limbaugh is hypocritical for opposing same-sex marriage, and then joked about the possibility of the conservative talker having health problems. Klein: What’s his name, Rush Limbaugh, who believes so much in the sanctity of marriage he’s done it four times now, you know, but, you know, not if he, doesn’t approve of marriage if both the husband and wife are circumcised, you know, that’s out of the question. I think a lot of that came from him, and, you know, he was in the hospital couple of months ago in Hawaii. Turned out to be nothing. See? You lose some, you win some. But anyway. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, June 11, Late Show with David Letterman: DAVID LETTERMAN: I’m ignorant in the world of politics, and I don’t know what the people that believe, and the ones who do believe, who really believe that he wasn’t born in this country, that they claim that he hasn’t produced a birth certificate. Do you have any understanding of why we’ve selected this to worry about? I mean, I believe he was born in the United States. ROBERT KLEIN: I’m not worried about it. It’s just, you know, dirty pool, and, you know, what’s his name, Rush Limbaugh, who believes so much in the sanctity of marriage he’s done it four times now, you know, but, you know, not if he, doesn’t approve of marriage if both the husband and wife are circumcised, you know, that’s out of the question. I think a lot of that came from him and, you know, he was in the hospital couple of months ago in Hawaii. Turned out to be nothing. See? You lose some, you win some. But anyway. (LETTERMAN LAUGHS) (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) LETTERMAN: Turned out to be nothing.

Excerpt from:
Letterman Guest Robert Klein Suggests Limbaugh’s Good Health is a Bad Thing

Is Karzai Losing The Faith?

Rumors are swirling in Afghanistan that the country’s president, Hamid Karzai, is losing faith in the capacity for the West to defeat the Taliban, and some are even accusing Karzai of trying to strike his own deal with the Taliban and arch-rival Pakistan. The rumors follow a dramatic meeting between Karzai and the just-resigned intelligence chief and interior secretary, both of whom defected from the administration after claims that Karzai was unwilling to show interest in evidence proving the Talbian’s culpability in a rocket attack earlier this month. —JCL The New York Times: Two senior Afghan officials were showing President Hamid Karzai the evidence of the spectacular rocket attack on a nationwide peace conference earlier this month when Mr. Karzai told them that he believed the Taliban were not responsible. “The president did not show any interest in the evidence — none — he treated it like a piece of dirt,” said Amrullah Saleh, then the director of the Afghan intelligence service. Mr. Saleh declined to discuss Mr. Karzai’s reasoning in more detail. But a prominent Afghan with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Mr. Karzai suggested in the meeting that it might have been the Americans who carried it out. Minutes after the exchange, Mr. Saleh and the interior minister, Hanif Atmar, resigned — the most dramatic defection from Mr. Karzai’s government since he came to power nine years ago. Mr. Saleh and Mr. Atmar said they quit because Mr. Karzai made clear that he no longer considered them loyal. Read more Related Entries June 11, 2010 British PM: 2010 ‘Vital’ for Afghanistan June 9, 2010 Kandahar Test [A Cartoon From UAE]

The rest is here:
Is Karzai Losing The Faith?

Chris Matthews: If Titanic Sank Today GOP Wouldn’t Support Requiring More Life Rafts on Ships

Chris Matthews said Friday that if the Titanic sank today, Republicans wouldn’t support requiring the shipping lines to have more life rafts and life preservers on their vessels. In an at times heated discussion about energy policy with Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Steve Scalise (R-La.), the “Hardball” host continually bashed the GOP. “The smartest move for your party is to screw things up for the next couple of years, right through November, get the country completely bollixed up, and they will vote Republican out of desperation, and you will have more power,” said Matthews. “Is that the strategy of the Republican Party this year?” When Scalise refuted this claim, Matthews added, “If the Titanic sank today, you know what the Republicans would be saying? Don`t be telling the shipping lines they need more life rafts or life preservers.” Scalise marvelously responded, “If the Titanic sank today, I`m sure the president would try to blame it on George Bush. And we have seen where that has gotten us” (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Here`s Mitch McConnell`s position, which I think is not a position. He said: “What I believe most of my members, if not all of them, will not be interested in is seizing on the oil spill in the Gulf and using that as a rationale, if you will, for passing a national energy tax referred to down here at the White House as cap and trade.” Now, that`s a negative position. What is the positive position in terms of moving forward? And do you support some kind of negotiation with the Democrats, which never seems to get done in this presidency? You guys — McConnell from day one has said you guys` platform is no. That`s your platform. REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: That`s right. MATTHEWS: That`s what… (CROSSTALK) REP. STEVE SCALISE (R-LA), ENERGY & COMMERCE CMT: Well… MATTHEWS: Is he right? Is McConnell right? The smartest move for your party is to screw things up for the next couple of years, right through November, get the country completely bollixed up, and they will vote Republican out of desperation, and you will have more power? Is that the strategy of the Republican Party this year? Because McConnell says it is. MATTHEWS: What I see here… (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: What do I see? If the Titanic sank today, you know what the Republicans would be saying? Don`t be telling the shipping lines they need more life rafts or life preservers. Don`t get involved with industry telling them what to do. At some point, the government has to intervene, because the private sector is not doing the job. The private sector is what we`re seeing on that live bug every night on television. By the way, Congressman, that`s the work of the private sector without regulation. That`s what it looks like without being taxed heavily. Actually, what we’re seeing in the Gulf of Mexico right now indeed IS the result of an over-regulated industry. If our oil companies were allowed to drill in Alaska AND set up more rigs closer to the coast, they wouldn’t be drilling in mile-deep seas. For some reason folks like Matthews just don’t get that! But I digress:  SCALISE: Well, but the federal government is the regulator, Chris. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Your oil patch people have been getting away for centuries without paying taxes. You have had the biggest tax breaks in the world because you have controlled the Ways and Means Committee. You have controlled the Finance Committees and the regulating committees to the point there is no regulation of safety. This is either astonishing stupidity or an out and out lie. The Democrats have controlled both chambers of Congress — and therefore the Ways and Means Committee as well as the Finance Committees – since January 2007! That’s approaching three and a half years. In fact, Democrats have mostly controlled Congress since oil exploration began in this country. As such, any suggestion to the contrary is absurd. Fortunately, Scalise had the best line of the night:  MATTHEWS: You have had your way. So, that works. And we`re seeing it every night on the air. (CROSSTALK) SCALISE: If the Titanic sank today, I`m sure the president would try to blame it on George Bush. And we have seen where that has gotten us. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, that`s not useful. Actually, it’s quite useful — and spot on! Bravo, Congressman! Bravo! 

Read more:
Chris Matthews: If Titanic Sank Today GOP Wouldn’t Support Requiring More Life Rafts on Ships

Leaked Draft Treasury Docs: Majority of Employer Health Plans Won’t Be ‘Grandfathered’

Earlier this year, in his “Can we lose health coverage? Yes we can” column, syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock made a point asserted in dozens if not hundreds of columns and reports during the hide-and-seek legistlative process that ultimately led to the passage of what is commonly known as ObamaCare: The President’s core promise relating to the statist health care legislation that ultimately became law in March — namely that “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what” — could not and would not be kept. In that column, Murdock quoted Cato Institute analyst Michael Cannon as follows: “Obama’s definition of ‘meaningful’ coverage could eliminate the health plans that now cover as many as half of the 159 million Americans with employer-sponsored insurance, plus more than half of the roughly 18 million Americans in the individual market. … This could compel close to 90 million Americans to switch to more comprehensive health plans with higher premiums, whether they value the added coverage or not.” In a late Friday afternoon blog post followed by a fuller early evening report , David Hogberg and Sean Higgins at Investors Business Daily confirmed that Obama’s never-credible core promise is on the brink of being shattered, and that the employer-related calculations by Cato’s Cannon were essentially correct (graphically illustrated by IBD at the top right): Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare. Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans. The “midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013,” according to the document. In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law. …. The 83-page document, a joint project of the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the IRS, examines the effects that ObamaCare’s regulations would have on existing, or “grandfathered,” employer-based health care plans. Draft copies of the document were reportedly leaked to House Republicans during the week and began circulating Friday morning. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., posted it on his Web site Friday afternoon. … In a statement, Posey said the document showed that the arguments in favor of ObamaCare were a “bait and switch.” … (A White House) source conceded: “It is difficult to predict how plans and employers will behave in the coming years, but if plans make changes that negatively impact consumers, then they will lose their grandfather status.” … In total, 66% of small businesses and 47% of large businesses made a change in their health care plans last year that would have forfeited their grandfathered status. When one looks at the list of what would cause a plan to get de-grandfathered compiled by Hogberg and Higgins, it’s easy to see why the percentages are so large. The referenced Treasury document (an 83-page PDF ) lays out how employers might react to the new law on Page 36: Page Plan sponsors and issuers can decide to: 1. Continue offering the plan or coverage in effect on March 23, 2010 with limited changes, and thereby retain grandfathered status; 2. Significantly change the terms of the plan or coverage and comply with Affordable Care Act provisions from which grandfathered health plans are excepted; or 3. In the case of a plan sponsor, cease to offer any plan. Option 1 would be nice, but as the IBD reporters noted in the bolded paragraph in the excerpt above, most employers would have run afoul of it during the past year. This means that they would have been forced into Options 2 or 3. Employers choosing Option 2 would have to buy pre-designed and very expensive coverage through the bill’s health insurance exchanges. Employers choosing Option 3 would force their employees to buy pre-designed and very expensive coverage through those same exchanges. If the legislation stands, the end result over a not very long time will be that the large majority of employers and employees will be stuck in the exchanges, the roach motels of health care — Once you go in, you can’t come out. Statist mission accomplished. The Associated Press has noticed the story too, but with the weakest of headlines: “Health overhaul to force changes in employer plans.” The content isn’t much better. Earth to AP reporter Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar: ObamaCare, as predicted by so many during the previous year by experts most of the establishment press willfully ignored, will cause many employers to drop their insurance entirely. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

More:
Leaked Draft Treasury Docs: Majority of Employer Health Plans Won’t Be ‘Grandfathered’

Friday Night Funnies: Obama Sings ‘Kick Ass’ Song

The folks at Auto-tune the News have done it again, this time putting President Obama’s “Whose ass to kick” interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer to a hip-hop melody (h/t Right Scoop ). Enjoy!

More:
Friday Night Funnies: Obama Sings ‘Kick Ass’ Song