Barbara Flynn Currie

(Chicago, IL) — December 5, 2009. President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama welcomed a group of Illinois Democrats to a glittering holiday party at the White House on Thursday.

A select group.

Heading up the Illinois White House party goers–with an invitation–were: Secretary of State Jesse White, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, State Senate President John Cullerton, and House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie.

With choirs scattered throughout the White House, the group dined on: roast beef, turkey, smoked salmon, and shrimp. Yum.

Missing from the event however–besides Michaele and Tareq Sahali–was a photo line. The invitation and, perhaps, a pilfered cocktail napkin were the souvenirs.

In addition to White, Madigan, Cullerton and Currie, the other Illinois Democrats at the soirée included:

• State Sen. Iris Martinez
• State Sen. Terry Link, a candidate for Lt. Governor
• Former Senate President Emil Jones
• Former Illinois State Rep. Robin Kelly, chief of staff to Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, and a candidate for Treasurer
• Cook County Clerk David Orr
• Cook County Board Member Forrest Claypool
• State Rep. Art Turner, a candidate for Lt. Governor
• State Board of Education Chair Jesse Ruiz
• 4th Ward Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, a candidate for Cook County Board President

Of course, there are names of some “favored Illinois Dems” conspicuously missing from this list, and that creates morsels of speculation as juicy as the shrimp at the buffet table. And you can imagine political folks back home chewing–or stewing–over those crumpets.

Merry Ho, Ho.

The New York Times today on the surprisingly good jobs numbers:

The sudden and unexpected improvement surprised even the most optimistic forecasters. Instead of yet another six-figure job loss, only 11,000 jobs disappeared last month and instead of another rise in the unemployment rate, it went down, to 10 percent from 10.2 percent in October. “This is an emphatic demonstration that the economy is moving in the direction of a self-sustaining recovery,” said Robert Barbera, chief economist at ITT Investment Technology Group, who joined many other forecasters in predicting that the work force would be growing again by early spring. The Obama administration was quick to take credit for the improvement, asserting that the $787 billion stimulus package had thus far either saved or created a total of 1.6 million jobs.

Yesterday, I was looking at this chart here and thought to myself, “Republicans are screwed. Obama is about to preside over a Reagan-length (or Clinton-length) period of economic growth and job creation.” All the bloviating of the far right cannot make up for the larger seismic shifts in the demographic and economic pictures. Short of a huge terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the Republicans are going to be in the wilderness for a very long time. Obama has played his first year cards near perfectly (no major foul-ups), and his presidency is synchronizing with a period of economic growth. If you’re an American, this is the beginning of a period of progress and prosperity that may last at least six years, and perhaps ten. Sell your miserly dark gold hoard—its clearly peaked, anyway—and enjoy the new ride.

Gabrielle Union nude in Essence

Wayne with one of his BM’s Sarah (and their cutie son)

Wayne at his daughter’s pajama party thrown by Toya

Joanna Krupta’s racy Peta Ad (the crucifix!)

Katy Perry poppin out of her dress while announcing Grammy nominees

Aretha Franklin sporting somethin’ like a hideous furry snuggie

Michelle Obama biting her daughter’s arm (cute!)

The Million Dollar Bra at this year’s VS Show, worn by Marisa Miller

Preview Pics of Rihanna’s “Hard” Video

Well maybe they didn’t go that far but c’mon, lets call a spade a spade, this is more like the pot calling the kettle black, its not like we are calling Barry Sotoro AKA Barack Obama,or his ignorant wife a Buffie, a Brownie, a Bounty Bar a Crow, Darkie, Eight ball, Gable, Jigaboo, Jungle Bunny, kaffir, Moon Cricket, Mammy,Oreo, Sambo, Spear Chucker, Spook, Bur Head, Porch Monkey or Coon…. It’s just a stupid picture.  Really, the ape should be suing here for defamation of character. BTW all of the above derogatory and insultingly racist terms were referenced on Google! I posted them all to make a point and I left out the really offensive ones!

OK, It is not only Google in China that restricts what is posted on their  internet search pages, and that is only because of the Chinese Government,  but Google is now doing this in the USA,  all on their own.

This from a search engine that has disgusting un human like pornography, where you can not only view images of a woman shitting in a guys mouth, but Jesus Christ being made fun of, George Bush and all conservative white and black women and men insulted and degraded beyond belief , yet this picture of an ape melded with Michelle Obama went too far for them???

Funny I noticed that you can still search the word “Nigger” on Google, when are you going to do something about that, or is that not as bad as a stupid photo of your Messiahs wife being photo-shopped with an ape? Good God what a bunch of Chimps…Oh I mean Chumps!

WTF! Google you really suck monkey ass!  This is ridiculous!

This is the Photo that caused Google to Screw the First Ammendment rights of American Citizens.

Here is an article that I think anyone who still uses Google should read…

Read this crap from the Michelle Obama Watch website, AKA Fat Assed, American Hating  Bitch Prayer Site:

“Google has removed the racist image of First Lady Michelle Obama from their images search.

Dickwad Google employee Jem left this comment in the Google Web Search help forum… Note he calls this picture “Disturbing” What a  Gay dick!

“If you recently used Google Images to search for the term [ Michelle Obama ], you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the image in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google.

As with Google Web Search, ranking in Google Images results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.

Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results, or images from our Google Images results, simply because the content is in very poor taste or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the image, page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the image.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google Images and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it. We will continue to improve the product based on your feedback to make sure that users find the most useful, relevant images through Google Images.”

From The Fat Assed Bitch site I mentioned, above was this B.S. reply:   

I just want to thank everyone, especially the vigilant Michelle Obama Watchers, that took a few minutes of their time to practice a little arm chair revolutionary work for the cause.  As far the people who sent those nasty emails and left hateful comments, your karma deal with you.

Please know that this was not about censoring the Internet or denying any one their right to free speech. It was just about showing a little respect to the First Lady of the United States. The same respect that I would want granted to any woman.

Posted by Aminah Hanan

Can anyone remember when Google pulled a photo or article dealing with insulting George Bush or the first family when he was in office, because of bad taste?  The answer is NO! In fact google videos was and still is biased toward the American Right when it comes to what they allow on their video sites as well.

Take note of this paragraph Posted by Aminah Hanan “Please know that this was not about censoring the Internet or denying any one their right to free speech. It was just about showing a little respect to the First Lady of the United States. The same respect that I would want granted to any woman.”

Oh, ok Mister Hanan,  you mean like any woman on the left?  Or any Black Woman?  because you obviously feel different about Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and more women on the right, and Christians don’t you!  Where were you when Laura Bush was being made fun of by your party?

Where is your fat ass now speaking up for Sarah Palin?  Anything?  Come on Mr. Hanan, get out of your tent with your camel and be honest here! You are a racist liar but you can not take it when the sandal is on the other hoof  now can you?

This is wrong!  Did anyone compensate the ape for having its face melded with this fugly woman, Michelle Obama?  Where is PETA?  Google sucks monkey ass!

 Have you ever made a mistake on your job? Have you ever made a big mistake? Did you get fired? Some of you will answer yes to both questions, but others were granted a second chance. Let’s give Desiree Rogers a second chance. Perhaps she has been too caught up in the glamour of her job. Perhaps she has never met a designer she didn’t like. Why are the same things that were applauded about her when she came to Washington now the subject of criticism? She made a mistake by not having a member of her staff at the checkpoints but she is not head of security. It was security’s job to check the credentials of all the guests and they did not do this. She should not be fired she should be given another chance and she should review and revise her procedures. This was a serious breech that not only affected the president but it also affected a visiting dignitary. We should be glad that India is not making more of an issue of this breech because of the presence of their leader. The crucifying of Rogers has reached a fever pitch and hopefully the president will not throw her off the bus for this incident.

Bochic earrings worn by First Lady Michelle Obama will definitely make our wish list for this holiday.

There are many, many things that we love about First Lady Michelle Obama, and her measured sense of style and taste is certainly high on the list.

These lovely earrings by Bochic (pictured at top) that Mrs. O wore to accessorize her stunning Naeem Khan gown at the State dinner were the perfect compliment to the knock-out dress. We’re told that Bochic has doesn’t advertise the cost of their creations, but we know that prices start at $5,000 for Bochic earrings. These lovelies are definitely on our all-time wish list.

The State Dinner party of four: Barack and Michelle Obama welcome Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife Gursharan Kaur at the White House

Of the Naeem Khan gown, Mrs. Obama noted:

The strapless gown features hand cut sterling silver sequins sewn on nude silk chiffon, which create an abstract floral pattern. The dress is entirely handmade, requiring three weeks of work by 40 people, completed in Naeem Kahn’s family workshop in India.

How perfect and very, very Michelle.

Images courtesy of The Cut.

This MSM/Whitehouse show is so hilarious. It’s better than any primetime comedy on television.  I hope Michelle and Barack get an Emmy Award to put next to the Nobel Peace Prize; only the Emmy will be truly deserved!

People Magazine practically slipped over their drool-laden piece yesterday involving First Lady Michelle Obama’s decision to recycle ornaments for the White House Christmas tree.  The opening statement of this piece is so very complimentary of this novel decision, you’d think it was a decision that qualifies Mrs. Obama as a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize next year.  (Cause that’s a little ridiculous, no?)

It reads:

“It used to be that Christmas at the White House dazzled visitors with the glitter of thousands of fairy lights. But not this year. Not in this economy and not with this practical-minded first lady.”

Apparently, first ladies of years past had celebrated Christmas in the White House with a total disregard for the economy and the environment.

Not so, however…

Shortly after the opening paragraph’s praising of the current White House Christmas tree, the People article takes a swipe at the Clintons and Bushes for not being more like the Obamas:

“On Wednesday, Michelle Obama debuted a White House whose decked halls were decidedly understated. Where the Bushes and Clintons previously put up a dozen Christmas trees in the mansion’s Foyer and Cross Hall alone, there are just seven on the entire State floor this year. The biggest of them – the 18 1/2 foot Douglas fir in the Blue Room – is decorated with recycled ornaments that Mrs. Obama’s team dug out of the warehouse where old White House decorations are stored.”

However, what the Clintons and Bushes had done previously that was ‘decidedly understated’ in this article was, well, use recycled ornaments.

In 2003, then first lady Laura Bush introduced the White House Christmas tree with ornaments first used by Barbara Bush in 1989.  In an interview with NBC’s Norah O’Donnell on the Today Show in 2003, Laura Bush described the tree as follows:

“It’s a beautiful, beautiful tree from Wisconsin, and now it’s decorated with ornaments that we actually borrowed from Barbara and Jenna’s grandparents, President Bush and Barbara Bush. They were the ornaments that were on their tree their first Christmas here in 1989…”

To the Clintons credit, Hillary Clinton introduced the 2000 tree which featured ornaments from the First Lady’s past.

In 1962, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy reused ornaments from the previous year’s tree.

Nancy Reagan and Pat Nixon also somehow managed to use ornaments from the past.

Recycling ornaments for the White House Christmas tree is hardly a new or novel idea.  Yet in reading this piece, one would think that the Obama’s had invented the concept.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2009/12/04/obama-s-pioneer-recycling-christmas-ornaments-after-bushes-clintons-rea

The White House party crashing Salahis did not bother to show up yesterday at the Congressional hearing, and that was as expected. They knew they were not invited to the State Dinner and they knew their lame email invite story would not stand up to Congressional scrutiny, but why didn’t Desiree Rogers attend? She planned the dinner and she is the person that made the decision not to have a member of her staff with a clipboard at the check-in spots so she should have come to explain. Instead the White House exercised executive privilege and would not let her testify. Rogers is a close friend of the Obamas from Chicago. She is the former wife of Johnathan Rogers the founder of Ariel Financial. She is very well-connected, and she raised millions for the president’s campaign,  so she is  probably an untouchable in the administration, but she should have testified. One of the congressman said I can understand that the Secret Service will take a bullet for the president, but not for this staff and that is what this seems like.

wasn’t our president so chic in college???

Who is this woman?  Is she a special assistant to Michelle or the bloviator?  I’m just askin’.  I mean I’d never even heard of Obama before 2007 much less all these other people and now they’re in the White House running things.  And they’re not doing a very good job.  When I need to know something I always go to my favorite site. Hillary Is 44 said this about her earlier this week:

Many Americans are upset at the lavish Obama party spending in the face of so much economic dislocation. Even so, with all the assistants Michelle Obama has hired to keep her high on the hog, with all the employees dedicated to state dinner jobs, how do such “mishaps” happen? What do the little things say about the big things?

A little noticed Newsweek story clues us in to the fact that the Secret Service is taking all the blame when clearly something else is going on:

The White House staff member whose job was to supervise the guest list for state dinners and clear invitees into the events says she was stripped of most of her responsibilities earlier this year, prompting her to resign last June.

The account of Cathy Hargraves, who formerly served as White House “assistant for arrangements,” raises new questions about whether changes that she says were made by President Obama’s social secretary, Desiree Rogers, may have contributed to the security lapses that permitted Virginia socialites Michaele and Tareq Salahi to crash the state dinner for India’s prime minister last week and get themselves photographed with the president.

Hargraves tells Declassified in an exclusive interview that although she had originally been hired as a White House political appointee in 2001, she landed a new position on the White House residence staff in 2006 and was specifically detailed to the social office to work on state dinners.

Her job duties included overseeing the invitations for guests at state dinners and keeping track of RSVPs, she says. On the evening of state dinners, she says, she physically stood at the East Gate portico entrance and greeted each of the guests as they arrived, checking their names off a computerized printout of those who had been invited.

But when she met with Rogers last February and went over her job responsibilities, she says, the new social secretary told her, “We don’t feel we have a need for that anymore.” Rogers’s explanation, according to Hargraves: “In these economic times, I don’t think we’re going to have very many lavish expensive dinners. It wouldn’t look very good.”

Was she too busy partying and prancing to bother checking the door?  What’s the deal about Cathy Hargraves?  Something had to happen for these people to get into the White House.  Either they new someone and they’ll take the fall soon or maybe there was a complete lapse in security.  I don’t believe the story about the Salahi’s and their show on Bravo and Bravo being owned by NBC.  Could this really be a publicity stunt?  A photo op?  A distraction?  Well, now we have Tiger, I mean Cheetah (thanks, Simo). There is more to the story and again Hillary Is 44 brings us up to date:

Publicity stunt Obama should immediately lose his job.

* * * * *

Unqualified and inexperienced Barack Obama is not the only one who should lose his job.

Valerie Jarrett, should lose her job too. For many earlier reasons and now for defending Desiree Rogers (who should lose her job too) and stating there is no need for Rogers to testify before the House Homeland Security Committee investigating the breach of security at the State Dinner for the Prime Minister of India, Valerie Jarrett should lose her job. That is only the latest reason why Jarrett should get the heave-ho. The Secret Service should not take a bullet for the incompetence of Desiree Rogers.

I found an article on NPR’s website today about her:

Before Desiree Rogers was social secretary and special assistant to the President, she was a queen. Twice.

Rogers’ late father, Roy Glapion, was president of the prestigious Zulu Social Aid and Pleasure Club, New Orleans’ oldest black Mardi Gras krewe. She was Queen of Zulu, an honor usually extended to a debutante or young woman deemed to be socially important, in 1988 and 2000. After college at Wellesley and business school at Harvard, Rogers and her then-husband, John Rogers (president of Ariel Capital Management) cut a high-profile swath through Chicago’s glittery gratin. And she’s regularly cited as one of the country’s best (and okay, most adventurously) dressed women.

All great preparation for her current job at the White House.

But Rogers’ style and glamour are a double-edged sword, one that might have drawn a little political blood over the past few days after the gate-crasher snafu.

Other social secretaries have stood on the steps to greet guests as they enter the White House for state dinners; it’s considered an extension of the first lady’s hospitality, since she can’t be there at the moment herself. Instead of greeting guests, Rogers functioned as one: she walked the press line, posed for photos and became fodder for the chattering classes by sticking out from the formal versions of Ann Taylor-wear normally seen at state occasions by coming to dinner in cutting-edge Japanese couture.

Some have even suggested that Rogers step down, since she can’t contain her own ego needs to serve the first lady. That probably won’t happen. For one thing, she has a powerful protector and loyal friend in Obama mentor Valerie Jarrett. For another, Michelle Obama values Rogers’ style and savvy; the first lady clearly feels her social secretary has her back when it counts, regardless of what she’s wearing.

Every new administration has its learning curve, and this may have been Rogers’ teachable moment. She didn’t get as far as she’s gotten by not grasping what’s important right away. And if I were a betting person — which I’m not — I’d be betting that she’ll be the woman overseeing the next state dinner, that she’ll be personally greeting guests as they ascend the White House steps and that she will still stun. But on official White House occasions, with slightly lower voltage.

Whatever is happening here it is clear that the Obama’s have brought all their Chicago crime lords with them to Washington.  I am sure we will find Michelle Obama’s corrupt fingerprints all over this.  She is dirty and her friends are criminals.  Valerie Jarrett should be in jail.  The people in her low income properties are suffering and she should be held accountable.

OK I am sure by now everyone has heard and seen the Michelle Obama photo that was merged with an ape.  (See the article HERE)

Nothing new here, Bush was merged, and there is a site that merges many famous people, even America hating people like Michelle Obama.

Guess what?  Blacks are ranting and raving about it and blaming the white race for it….. Sounds racist to me considering the photo was originally morphed by someone in China, however, this does not matter to the racists ranting and crying foul because it involves a black woman.  Obviously the first amendment does not apply unless it is anti white or anti Male Christian, bashing as far as these idiots are concerned.

I think PETA should get involved here because if anything constitutes an abuse, it is the depiction of the poor ape which was morphed with an ugly fat-assed witch,  like Michelle Obama.

I did a bit of morphing of my own with Michelle and Nazi Piglosi (Nancy Pelosi) Two extremely Fugly women! Note I did not do anything to Michelles screwed up hair, in this picture…. oh-tay!  her hair looks like “That Girl” style after a grease fire and a windstorm.

I haven’t paid a lot of attention to the White House’s holdings; I’ve been a naughty girl – or at least so I thought, until I did closer inspection on the Desirée Rogers “scandal.”

Politics is an extensive, overwhelming topic. But when it’s somehow incorporated into fashion, as it was in this case, it drew my interest, so I thought I’d touch base.

Up until today, I didn’t even know who Desirée Rogers or Robin Givhan were. And I’m not ashamed of it because ultimately, when it comes to Obama affairs, they’re not (or at least not supposed to be) the center of attention, here. But both are getting partial flack over the first Obama state dinner in honor of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that took place on November 24. With Ms. Givhan as the supposed instigator, and Ms. Rogers as the faux pas at-large.

Ms. Rogers, the longtime compadre to the Obama clan, was hired as their Social Secretary at the White House. I admit, I consider that a fancy term for PR girl. With that being said, maybe it shouldn’t come as a surprise that she’s reveling in the laws of glamour, immaculately adorned in the latest fashions, and accepting feature requests from the world’s top fashion publications. Including the infamously lavish Wall Street Journal piece where she made her staple on building the “Obama brand” while deliberating over whether to wear an Oscar De La Renta gown for the photo spread. She’s merely doing her job right? Well, maybe. But I do believe when your job gets in the way of scruples, something’s got to give.

“[The dress] featured layers of sheer pink and creme fabric and loops of pearls, is from [Comme des Garcons’s] Fall 2009 collection.” Wrote Mrs.O.

Indeed, Ms. Rogers was stunning in that sheer nude Comme des Garcons dress she wore to the dinner. And I say that as someone half her age – sincerely. For a single mother at age 50, who obviously still has a vivacious zest for life, she glided in the risqué ensemble that bared transparent sleeves, looped in strands of pearls and white tulle outlining her silhouette. However, as much as I personally love all things avant-garde – especially fashion, if I were initiated into the White House camp, even I would willfully suppress my splendiferous tendencies – this isn’t funny business, you know.  Especially when it will inevitably lead to scrutiny amongst some of the most respected media (fashion or otherwise) in the arena.

Ms. Givhan, the Washington Post alum (Fashion Editor to be specific) wrote a hard-hitting article regarding that night. The smooth running and guest list for the dinner was left in Ms. Rogers’s care.  So how, were Michaele and Tareq Salahi, two relatively “unknowns,” able to get past security service without being invited is beyond the nation, even me.  The fact is that according to Ms. Givhan, Ms. Rogers, so wrapped-up in glamour-puss mode, didn’t properly delegate people in her office to closely monitor patrons at the front gates. “Social secretaries had always quashed their own public profiles, demurred from seeking the limelight, in service to their position and in deference to the first lady; [but] there was a new social sheriff in town and, for better or worse, she was one like no other.” Wrote Ms. Givhan in her article. On top of that, Ms. Rogers  sat at the dinner table as a bona fide guest rather than waiting on the sidelines as a staff member organizing an event should do.

“They (her friends) warned her of the ways of Washington, its desire for discretion, and urged to keep her profile low. In the nation’s capital, no one need know whether the social secretary wore Nina Ricci or Halston, just that she was appropriately clothed.” And now Ms. Givhan is looked at like some snooty nosed perpetuator. Especially because as soon as she saw Ms. Rogers on the press line she confirmed  by asking “Are you wearing Comme des Garcon?” in which Ms. Rogers replied “Of course.” Ms. Givhan obviously knows her stuff, but I guess to others she’s trying to tarnish Ms. Rogers’s reign because she may be just a bit more glamorous than herself. “You don’t wear something like that if you don’t want or mind a little attention. That single dress, I thought, said a lot about who Rogers is and how she sees herself.” Ms. Givhan rebutted on her blog.

At this point, with the myriad of coverage garnered, the twists and turns of plotlines and everything in between, I’m not sure who or what is to blame here. And the concept of party crashing is certainly not new. Maureen Dowd from NY Times reported that even President Obama “crashed Hillary’s high-hat party in 2008 and he crashed the snooty age-old Washington party of privileged white guys with a monopoly on power.” And I’m quite sure Ms. Rogers had hoped her high-profile parties (back when she was a Chi-town girl), would be crashed by high society people she forgot to invite too.

But I suppose that this story is much deeper than Ms. Rogers’s rapturous dress and the power-hungry couple that broke the gate of entry. The problem at hand is Mr. Obama and family’s protection and image conflicting with Ms. Rogers’s star-studded ego.

In case you’re thinking the foreign press is still bowled over by His Oneness and Our Lady of Perpetual Dissatisfaction,  enjoy  this piece in the Daily Telegraph about the White House Christmas decorations.    Scroll down to the caption above the picture of former First Lady Laura Bush

Laaa!! It’s that time of year. Christmas tends to bring out the good in a lot of people. Someone even helped me break into my apartment building the other day when I forgot my key. It’s all about the neighborly spirit, people.

With this being the Obama’s first Christmas in the White House, I could not WAIT to see what Michelle did. Today she gave a sneak peak, and I’m disappointed.

Green dress. Not her best. And she’s sporting that bee hive again.

The tree just looks blah. Like, what family doesn’t have a tree like that? We’re expecting great things from you, Michelle. Please pick up the pace.

Then I saw this photo, and I was like wow.

But I realized I was only like wow because the room is so gorgeous. Unless Michelle had this room painted red for the holidays, she isn’t responsible for the wow factor. Alas, there’s only two tacky trees sitting in the window.

I know she’s busy, but she has a staff. For goodness sakes, use them!

Hopefully this is only a SNEAK peek, and there are better things yet to come. I’m crossing my fingers.

Here’s a video, but I’ll warn you, it’s boring.

Decorators used about 800 ornaments left over from previous administrations. The ornaments were sent to 60 local community groups throughout the country, and decorated to pay tribute to a favorite local landmark, then they were sent  back to the White House for display. Landmarks include the Statue of Liberty, the Boston Celtics, Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo and the DuSable Museum of African American History.

The official White House Christmas tree is lit with energy-saving LED lights. Six of the trees on display at the entrances of the East Wing, West Wing and North Portico will be replanted after the holidays by the National Parks Service. Chef Bill Yosses and his team personalized the annual white chocolate-covered gingerbread White House to reflect the first family’s first year in the White House.

Click On Links:
Michelle Obama Receives The White House Christmas Tree

‘Reflect, Rejoice, Renew,’ is the theme of this year’s holiday decorations at the White House. (Photo Credit: Getty Images)

Washington (CNN) — Unveiling the White House Christmas tree and holiday decorations Wednesday, first lady Michelle Obama explained why she chose this year’s theme, “Reflect, Rejoice and Renew.”

Related video: Mrs. Obama on holiday giving

“For the Obama family, Christmas and the new year has always been a time to reflect on our many blessings, to rejoice in the pleasure of spending time with our family and our friends, and to renew our commitment to one another and to the causes that we believe in,” she said in the Grand Foyer of the White House.

She said everything came together with the help of East Wing and residence staff members, and 92 volunteers from 24 states who spent more than 3,400 hours getting the White House ready for the holidays.

Not part of the theme but on the minds of the first family is recycling.

Decorators used about 800 ornaments left over from previous administrations. “We sent them to 60 local community groups throughout the country, and asked them to decorate them to pay tribute to a favorite local landmark and then send them back to us for display here at the White House,” Obama said.

Kim Fawley, a schoolteacher in Virginia who volunteered her time to help decorate, said she was impressed by the handmade ornaments, which include the Statue of Liberty, the Boston Celtics, Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo and the DuSable Museum of African American History.

“They’re just beautiful. The love and the care that they took to put them together is obvious when you hold them in your hands,” Fawley said.

In keeping with the environmentally conscious theme, the official White House Christmas tree, a Douglas fir that stands 18 1/2 feet high in the Blue Room, is lit with energy-saving LED lights. And according to the first lady’s office, six of the trees on display at the entrances of the East Wing, West Wing and North Portico will be replanted after the holidays by the National Parks Service.

White House pastry chef Bill Yosses and his team personalized the annual white-chocolate-covered gingerbread White House to reflect the first family’s first year in the White House. The 390-pound house includes replicas of “first dog” Bo and the first lady’s kitchen garden.

Yosses said this is also the first time the gingerbread White House includes an interior replica of the State Dining Room, complete with furniture made of dark chocolate.

(CNN) — When a racist image of first lady Michelle Obama surfaced from the ugliest corners of the Internet last week to top Google’s image search results, the episode shined a spotlight on the mysterious workings of search engines.

Google placed an ad near the image, apologizing for its offensive nature. But the company resisted calls to scrub the image from its database, saying its role as a neutral tool for searching the Web means having to live with the results, whether it likes them or not.

“We have a bias toward free expression,” Google spokesman Scott Rubin told CNN. “That means that some ugly things will show up.”

Google handled almost two-thirds of all Internet searches in the United States in October, according to comScore, making the company the dominant player in the field. Like other search engines, Google relies on a complicated and largely secretive algorithm to decide which Web pages should pop up first based on a user’s search terms.

The popularity of a Web site, the number of times a certain page has been viewed, the number of people who have linked to a page from their own pages — all weigh heavily in the automated decision-making process triggered each time a user clicks “search.”

“They [Google] have these 200 different factors that they analyze,” said Danny Sullivan, who writes about online search issues at his site, Search Engine Land. “They put them all together and kind of cut it loose and see what it comes up with. It can surprise them as well.”

In the case of the crudely doctored Obama image, which replaced her face with that of an ape, Google eventually removed the page on which it first appeared — but, according to Google, because the page potentially contained malicious software that could harm the computer of anyone who visited it.

As of Tuesday, the image did not appear within the first several hundred results for a Google Images search for “Michelle Obama,” although it remained the first result produced by an image search for the words “Michelle Obama ape.”

“When the image was coming up on the term ‘Michelle Obama,’ it was coming up that way against an innocuous query,” Rubin said. “If the term you’re using is ‘Michelle Obama ape,’ one could argue that’s a relevant result, however offensive it may be.”

Sullivan believes Google may have tweaked its search algorithm after finding a bug in its system that caused the Obama image to climb on its results pages.

“When it doesn’t do what they want it to do, they go back and start tweaking things,” he said. “Long term, you look at how they got there. When you search for Michelle Obama, do you really think that kind of image is one of the most popular things about her on the Internet? I don’t think so.”

Rubin would not comment on whether any changes were made in the wake of the Michelle Obama incident. But Google and other engines are constantly tinkering with their processes.

Google says it has added an automated feature to prevent “Google bombing,” an orchestrated effort by search-engine users to force a specific result.

In 2003, critics of former President George W. Bush gamed the system by repeatedly linking the words “miserable failure” to his official White House biography. Supporters of the Republican president apparently responded, pushing former Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s autobiography to No. 2 on the search results for the phrase.

In 2007, comedian and talk-show host Stephen Colbert’s fans pushed to link him to the phrase, “greatest living American” — an effort that worked briefly before Google reversed it.

“We’re always working to improve our algorithm to provide more relevant search results,” Rubin said. “We do not make editorial decisions based on our politics or anyone else’s.”

Sullivan and other observers say the Michelle Obama photo did not appear to be a case of “bombing.” Instead, they say, it appears to have slowly crept up Google’s image search results until it was noticed, and written about, by bloggers and other media whose attention propelled it to the top.

When negative search results arise on the Web, they recede quicker for some people than for others.

Rhea Drysdale, who handles online image issues for Internet marketing company Outspoken Media, said that the offensive picture of Michelle Obama will fade quickly for a simple reason — there are so many other images of her on the Internet.

“That’s not something that’s going to stick with her for long,” she said.

As examples, she cited two people who got negative press in 2009: rapper Kanye West and convicted Wall Street swindler Bernie Madoff.

A Google search for Madoff’s name delivers page after page of news stories about the multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme the former investment banker pleaded guilty to earlier this year.

West grabbed headlines, and much criticism online, by barging onstage to interrupt an acceptance speech by country singer Taylor Swift at the MTV Music Video Awards in September.

But search Google for “Kanye West” and the first news account of the incident comes after about half a dozen other items, including West’s official Web page, personal blog and Wikipedia entry.

“It’s just a matter of news coverage,” she said. “Kanye has a blog. Kanye has a MySpace page. He has a record label that writes all these other things about him. If you have any of those other properties that are yours out there, they can fill the search results.”

In recent years, a cottage industry has developed among online consultants who help clients manage how they look in Web searches. These hired guns work to push positive news to the top of search results while burying, as best as possible, negative information.

Meanwhile, Google says it will work to try to keep its search results pure.

“A result that you’re not looking for is not a good search result,” said Rubin, the Google spokesman. “It’s not a good search experience.”

“That’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service.”

— Michelle Obama

Empress M’Obama has 26 servants. The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented (“Change!”) attention is approximately $1,750,000 plus an unknown amount in benefits, for her Chief Of Staff, Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady, White House Social Secretary, Director of Communications for the First Lady, Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady, Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady, Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady, Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady, Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady, Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary, Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary, Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady, Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady, Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady, Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady, Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady, Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady, Deputy Associate Director, Social Office, Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady, Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary, Staff Assistant, Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady, &c., &c., &c., &c.

And of course she must be fed, and clothed and groomed.

The Empress is the most attended-upon “First Lady” ever. Now, some insensitive people might complain that America is supposedly a republic, and this woman was never elected, and why can’t she just stay home and take care of her young’uns and get the food on the table and such-like, and keep her trap shut and be abut her busmess and stop acting like Marie Antoifuckinette. However, I believe that this position of “First Lady’ was established in the American Constitution. Perhaps I’m mistaken.

This is very interesting!  I never thought about it this way. Perhaps this is why so many physicians are conservatives or Republicans.

The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers’ Party.

*  Barack Obama is a lawyer.

*  Michelle Obama is a lawyer.

*  Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.

*  Bill Clinton is a lawyer.

*  John Edwards is a lawyer.

*  Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.

Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).

Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.

Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:

*   Harry Reid is a lawyer.

*   Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different.

*   President Bush is a businessman.

*   Vice President Cheney is a businessman.

The leaders of the Republican Revolution:

*   Newt Gingrich was a history professor.

*   Tom Delay was an exterminator.

*   Dick Armey was an economist.

*   House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.

*   The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer?  Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.  The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.

The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers.  Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.

The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America.  And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party, grow.

Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail?  Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers.  Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people.  Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine.  But it is an awful way to govern a great nation.  When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming.  Some Americans become “adverse parties” of our very government.  We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit.  We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives.  America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked.  When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.  When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great…  When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America.  Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789.  Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders.  Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business.  Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.  Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers! Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as ’spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you’ and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!