Mercury One charity hits the $1m-raised mark for Oklahoma Tornado relief

Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Entertainment

Do You Think Free Speech Extends To Art? (Yes, We’re Referring To ‘Obama In Pee Pee’)

Nov. 28, 2012 7:22pm Mike Opelka

The amount of media attention swirling around the story of Glenn Beck’s controversial work of art entitled “Obama In Pee Pee” is staggering.

Obama In Pee Pee Is it Art Or Offensive?

Image: TheBlaze.com

If you just search for “Obama In Pee Pee,” there are literally thousands of stories already online. And no doubt, more to come.

There’s also a Twitter account — @ObamaInPeePee

And, of course we have Obama In Pee Pee merchandise popping up.

Image: GlennBeck.com

However, some folks are not happy about this experiment in pushing the limits of Free Speech. There have even been disagreements among TheBlaze editors over the use of hyperbole to make a point.

Where do you stand on the subject?

We invite you to participate in TheBlaze Free Speech poll. (You can also submit a question as well. Please limit the questions to those with “Yes” – “No” – or “Don’t Care” answers.

Obama In Pee Pee Quiz

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (130)

The-Monk
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:52pm
Neither the Christ in pee or the Obama in pee is Art.

You can call free speech the art of free speech but, the jars with liquid are not Art.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- IWISHIWASINTEXAS
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:03pm
  I agree Monk, in no way do I think either is art. Free speech however? Yeah I would consider it that. If it is “art”, then Picasso must be rolling in his grave.
  
  Report this comment
- Stelex
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:06pm
  As much as I dislike either and personally don’t consider it art……art is in the eye of the beholder. Thats the nature of art. Its personal to the individual. I think its idiotic, but I’m sure some things…..say the music I like ….. you would not consider art. But I do and visa vera. Art is subjective not objective.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:08pm
  Hi MONK, I agree with you, but I also agree with GEMINICONTENDER’s statement at the bottom of the page. I also applaud Glenn, and frankly, the left needs to eat this one. If they don’t like being offended, then they shouldn’t set out to offend. Regardless how the 1st Amendment covers it or not. We should all go back to a day when we knew to be responsible with our 1st Amendment right.
  
  Report this comment
- takie
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:15pm
  I would definitely not call it art. However, I think Odipshit in PeePee is very appropraite.
  
  Report this comment
- Stelex
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:15pm
  RJ……that would take respect……a lost art in today’s world.
  
  Report this comment
- Polarized America
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:16pm
  .
  is pooping on a cop car free speech ? aww.. i mean free toot .after all, many people speak out on their ****
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:17pm
  Hi RJJ,
  
  Oh, I think it’s very, very funny AND well deserved. Just not Art.
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:18pm
  I studied Picasso, and i feel confident he would appreciate both the “Piss Christ” photograph and Glenn’s “Obama in Pee-pee”. Picasso stole cubism, at first, to mock Cezanne’s experimental infatuation with it…
  pretty sure the dude had a sense of humor.
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:24pm
  Glenn doesn’t believe it’s art either.
  
  Many liberals thought such things were art until their savior was spoofed; now they think it’s blasphemy.
  
  Report this comment
- Fearnone
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:30pm
  The 1st Amendment is not all-inclusive and does not address “art” or any expression thereof to be a protected right. Art is governed by seperate laws, as is indecent exposure, prostitution, or child pornography.
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 9:42pm
  If I were to make a BHO fire hydrant for doggy parks NOW that would that be ART !!!
  
  Report this comment
- Gorp
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 10:54pm
  @IWISHIWASINTEXAS “I agree Monk, in no way do I think either is art. Free speech however? Yeah I would consider it that. If it is “art”, then Picasso must be rolling in his grave.”
  
  I agree with you in that it isn’t art, in my opinion also. However, the only way Picasso would be rolling in his grave would be because this is better “art” than the crap he painted. He must have been a drinking fella!
  
  Report this comment
- Falsegods
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:06am
  It is not artful.
  It is freedom of speech, and won’t back downism.
  
  Report this comment
- Secret Squirrel
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:24am
  .
  How sick is it that progressives think a depiction of Christ in urine is okay,
  but Obama in urine is horrible?
  Just another day in the war on Christians.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:52am
  Art is in the “Eye of the Beholder”, and Beholders have many eyes, and are ugly creatures… :p…
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 5:09am
  Prostitution has nothing to do with ‘art’… It’s the oldest ‘profession’….
  
  art does not = ‘profession’, although some have professions related to art..
  
  I’m not sure ‘indecent’ exposure falls under art. Although quite a few pieces of ‘art’ are ‘nude’.
  
  Pornography in general some argue it is art, and others argue it isn’t.
  
  There is also a difference between how government currently defines pornagraphy vs. art. Pornagraphy in general isn’t considered ‘art’. But simply ‘nudes’ often are. Children in ‘nude’ artwork or photographs have been legal for decades. Whereas a children in sexual acts would not be legal. “Nudes”, including parents taking their nude ‘baby and bath photos’ have only recently been challenged as pornagraphy. Which opens up a question of ‘free speech’ right there, do we arrest parents for taking ‘nude’ or half-nude photos of their kids? If nothing of ‘sexual’ behaviour actually takes place?
  
  Strangely some things not intended to be art, become art over time. Nudes from the late 1800s or early 1900s for example may have been created for the purpose of the penny arcade or voyeurism, but those same photos now are considered ‘art’ and are worth money.
  
  Report this comment
- N37BU6
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 6:52am
  “Jars with liquid is not art”
  
  Not all liquids are equal, my friend… neither are the figures being submersed.
  
  Introducing Milk Romney:
  
  http://i.imgur.com/eSvnZ.jpg
  
  Now THAT is pure class.
  
  Report this comment
- Thomas_Jefferson
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 7:48am
  I call it
  Giving the liberal Nazis a taste of their own medicine.
  
  Report this comment
- shimauma42
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 9:43am
  I bid #my2k on #obamainpeepee, but since it went up to $11,000, I just used #my2k to commission a sculpture of @barackobama in dog poo. I would light it on fire and place it at the front door of the White House, ring the bell and run like hell. Then barry hussien would answer the door and, seeing the fire, stomp on the flaming poo, shaking his fist as he yelled “you damn kids!!”
  
  Report this comment
Rob Tacoma
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:51pm
The point is made, but did we have give up the moral ground? Glens made the free speech point and the lefts hypocrisy of it much better on the show tonight. That begs the question, Would he have been able to make his point and get the artist to appear on his show had he not used the “pee pee” in a jar (apple juice) gimmick?
I my self am not sure. I do think the jar/pee pee was over the top.
The Blaze is still the best news and commentary in the media to date.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ClaudeRains
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:51pm
I just ordered mine.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Locked
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:49pm
Of course free speech extends to art. I don’t think anyone has ever even implied it didn’t. The question at hand should be “Is purposely antagonizing people the best way to promote conservative viewpoints and to get them to understand our views?”

Pretty sure the answer is an emphatic “NO.” Look at the “Piss Christ” art exhibit. Do you think ANY Christian looked at that and went “Huh, this makes me consider how foolish I am to get upset over a mere symbol being disrespected. Thanks, artist!”? Heck no!

In the same way, if Beck’s point was to get people to realize how it’s hypocritical to get offended at one thing but not at others, he failed spectacularly. I doubt any liberal is going to see “Obama in Pee Pee” and think to himself “Why yes, how foolish I’ve been, getting angry that people would disrespect the president. I’m glad Glenn Beck was there to point out my hypocrisy!”

Beck’s incredibly intelligent. Offending liberals gets him in the media, and it’s cathartic to many of his viewers. It’s win-win for him. But not for a second can anyone sit back and think that he’s seriously trying to teach liberals about hypocrisy. Does he have the freedom to do this? Absolutely. Does that mean that he’s acting just as disrespectful and childish as the “Piss Christ” artist? Absolutely.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Marine25
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:24pm
  Well said.
  
  Report this comment
- Fearnone
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:47pm
  I disagree with you Locked, the 1st Amendment is not all-inclusive and does not address “art” or any expression thereof to be a protected right. Art should be governed by seperate laws, as is indecent exposure, prostitution, or child pornography. Art is not, nor was it ever intended to be, an extended form of free speech. This is a misinterpretation of freedom of speech as described in the 1st Amendment.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 9:31pm
  @Fearnone
  
  “Art is not, nor was it ever intended to be, an extended form of free speech.”
  
  I disagree with your opinion, though I think I understand why you hold it (strict constitutionalism). Unless I am sorely mistaken, the Supreme Court has ruled that art is indeed covered by the first amendment; legally-speaking, it is a protected right. You may disagree with the Supreme Court’s arbitration of course, but I don’t think you’ll find many people who would agree with your statement that art is not (legally speaking) a form of free speech. Certainly you’d be hard-pressed to find a court or a lawyer who would say so.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 5:12am
  Prostitution has nothing to do with ‘art’… It’s the oldest ‘profession’….
  
  art does not = ‘profession’, although some have professions related to art..
  
  I’m not sure ‘indecent’ exposure falls under art. Although quite a few pieces of ‘art’ are ‘nude’.
  
  Pornography in general some argue it is art, and others argue it isn’t.
  
  There is also a difference between how government currently defines pornagraphy vs. art. Pornagraphy in general isn’t considered ‘art’. But simply ‘nudes’ often are. Children in ‘nude’ artwork or photographs have been legal for decades. Whereas a children in sexual acts would not be legal, and would be considered porn.
  
  “Nudes”, including parents taking their nude or half-nude ‘baby and bath photos’ have only recently been challenged as pornography. Which opens up a question of ‘free speech’ right there, do we arrest parents for taking ‘nude’ or half-nude photos of their kids? If nothing of ‘sexual’ behaviour actually takes place? Do we put the parents on the child predator/sexual offender lists?
  
  Strangely some things not intended to be art, become art over time. Nudes from the late 1800s or early 1900s for example may have been created for the purpose of the penny arcade or voyeurism, but those same photos now are considered ‘art’ and are worth money.
  
  The same thing has occured with books… With a dime novels or mass-produced lowbrow becoming ‘classics’ over
  
  Report this comment
IWISHIWASINTEXAS
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:49pm
Free speech is FREE speech. Offensive or not. Art is described by many as “self expression” and a form of speech. I hate the religious “art” that degrades God and Christ but hey that’s the artist’s right to make it if he wants to and I get to be a big boy and not care. The street goes both ways but we all know that’s not the case when free speech offends a crybaby liberal.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Vman
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:46pm
How soon can I get a shirt?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Totally Domestic
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:43pm
You mock Jesus at your own risk.
God is not mocked. Go ahead, make his day!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- IWISHIWASINTEXAS
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:01pm
  Haha I like it :)
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:07pm
  Jesus, Jesus
  Bo- beezuss
  Fanana- fana fo- Feezus
  Me my mo- Meezus…
  Jeeez- uss!!
  
  The Jesus i know, love, and worship has a sense of humor. I he doesn’t, he’s not half the God i thought he was.
  
  Report this comment
LHardy
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:42pm
I really enjoyed seeing the Obama in Pee Pee.
As much as I do not like some of the art that is intentionally offesive. I agree with their right to produce and display such art.
What I draw the line on is subsidizing art of any fashion with tax dollars.
Be as disgusting as you wish. Just don’t ask the tax payer to fund it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- whatthecrazy
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:47pm
  You just spoke for both of us.Thanks
  
  Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:41pm
Of course free speech extends to art. It’s the very definition of art…

That being said…. I appreciate Glenn’s “art” because it is humorous… and intentionally so…

I also appreciate the original “Piss Christ” because it is a well-produced photograph…

Who knows if either of them were actually sunk in urine?.. Doesn’t matter because the value in Glenn’s is in it’s cynical, sarcastic portrayal of the original…. the value in the original is in it’s use of color, texture, and light.

I could care less about the actual mediums used in either case… They are both worthy of the label “art”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:48pm
  I agree.
  
  Art is in the eye of the beholder.
  
  I don’t care if Beck peed into a container and called it art.
  
  Seems pointless that people get upset by this nonsense.
  
  Report this comment
- Stelex
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:53pm
  East…..nice post…..what people don’t realize is that you give them the power to offend them. I’m sure some were offended when they thought is was urine, but were ok when they found out it was beer. Either way…….its not Obama. Just as the Christ pic was not Christ. The reaction is what they want and if you give it to them, you arm them with more ammo to come at you. Nobody has the power to offend me……unless I give it to them. Liberals, progressives are emotional being’s ……..its why they love the feel good irrational solutions to life. Its also why they react the way they do and conservatives are actually the more tolerant of the two groups. I can’t be offended. Its very easy to offend a progressive. That will be the key someday to defeating them also.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:59pm
  I agree with both of you. Yes, some people who don’t care much about the subject matter will appreciate each picture for the reasons East said… but there’s no doubt that the artists in both cases set out to offend. I think it’s silly that anyone is offended by either, but it’s not surprising in the least.
  
  Report this comment
- Fearnone
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:35pm
  The 1st Amendment is not all-inclusive and does not address “art” or any expression thereof to be a protected right. Art is governed by seperate laws, as is indecent exposure, prostitution, or child pornography. Art is not, nor was it ever intended to be, an extended form of free speech as described in the 1st Amendment.
  
  Report this comment
- Totally Domestic
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:42am
  I would call it hate art.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 5:05am
  Prostitution has nothing to do with ‘art’… It’s the oldest ‘profession’….
  
  art does not = ‘profession’, although some have professions related to art..
  
  I’m not sure ‘indecent’ exposure falls under art. Although quite a few pieces of ‘art’ are ‘nude’.
  
  Pornography in general some argue it is art, and others argue it isn’t.
  
  There is also a difference between how government currently defines pornagraphy vs. art. Pornagraphy in general isn’t considered ‘art’. But simply ‘nudes’ often are. Children in ‘nude’ artwork or photographs have been legal for decades. Whereas a children in sexual acts would not be, but only recently has been challenged as such.
  
  Strangely some things not intended to be art, become art over time. Nudes from the late 1800s or early 1900s for example may have been created for the purpose of the penny arcade or voyeurism, but those same photos now are considered ‘art’ and are worth money.
  
  Report this comment
bekhiet
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:41pm
I would not consider this to be art, but I do appreciate the freedom of expression.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Stelex
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:57pm
  Most “Art” isn’t art except to the clique.
  
  Report this comment
alrunner58
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:40pm
Free speech and art…I get discussed at some of the filth but it is free expression.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
LBJDIDIT1963
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:40pm
What’s the issue? By the same standards as the “pissed on Jesus” painting or whatever it is, this is great art. Glenn, what about Chris Matthews and Bill Mahr behind jars? Let’s collect these like GI Joe’s!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Eastinfection
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:47pm
  Maybe if it’s just photos…… but i’m really not interested in collecting human void.
  
  Report this comment
- since1629
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:56pm
  Thank you, that made me laugh. Thinking of Mason jars with Matthews, Sgt. Schultz, Ma(filth)her, Reverend? Al, Soros, and a 20gal aquarium to accommodate Michael Moore’s inaction figure floating in pee pee (or Bud Light, whatever) is hilarious. I’d love to see the 40-year-old virgin collect THAT set!!
  
  Report this comment
thekriplins13
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:39pm
I do!! Art is free thinking if we all put on our big boy pant’s and grow up. I don’t like some stuff I see but the great thing is I don’t have to look at it. The same could apply to the whiners over Christmas the holiday is to celebrate Jesus’ birthday?? Jesus is the reason for the season people. Off topic the guy on today’s show looked like Stone from General Hospital ??

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- thekriplins13
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:42pm
  He was manning the O so busy phone call’s coming in from the e-mail I guess lol
  
  Report this comment
seek.the.truth
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:36pm
Glenn made the point he wanted to make and…………..people noticed. Nice work!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RevPh
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:35pm
Art that serves to denegrate cherished spiritual icons always sparks great passion in believers. It hurts feelings. We used to have a Constitution for ALL Americans, and those who were offended by tasteless “art” would just have to get over it. Not so much now.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
progressiveslayer
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:33pm
The first amendment protects all speech not just the speech that isn’t offensive. Obama in pee pee didn’t violate e bays policy since they sold a used condom,no they shut Beck down because Beck gave Barry a golden shower or in this case bath and e bay probably got one too many complaints from Obamazombies or the powers that be at e bay took it down because Barry is their guy.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dj_bonneromics1982
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:20am
  Fair enough. Now let’s apply the same standard every time a religious wingnut tries to ban Harry Potter books from libraries for promoting “witchcraft,” and every time a Becktard fantasizes that the FBI undertake a 1950s-style prosecution of anyone who advocates “communism.”
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:05am
  Passive aggressive much?
  
  Report this comment
kickagrandma
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:33pm
Does anyone else out there tired of living in junior high?
Four years of the current non-administration administration leaves me already feeling like a student having to stay after school for the remainder of my school career.
This arsty-smartsy crapola reminds me of why I never did well in artsy kinds of “stuff”.
I always thought the arty crowd was missing something major- besides good taste that is.

“Ah, me. Back to the drawing board!
Signed,
GOD”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Stelex
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:39pm
  KG……most have never left high school, society is modeled after it. If God is gonna make a move, I’m ready…..its really getting sad out there.
  
  Report this comment
Stelex
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:33pm
Wake up folks……its a waste of perfectly good urine.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:41pm
  I know he submerged a Marxist mulatto POS in urine and contaminated the urine. Beck better have tax resolution specialists on speed dial.
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:59pm
  STEELXXX . . . “most have never left high school, society is modeled after it. If God is gonna make a move, I’m ready…..its really getting sad out there.”
  
  Wow, contradicting yourself in adjacent posts. Congratulations, pissant, you’re the new record holder. (Try harder, PRONGMILKER.)
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 10:57pm
  Pantload WTF are you talking about fool? There’s no contradiction.
  
  Report this comment
cdn1979
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:32pm
i dont see much media attention about this. the only mainstream media outlet that has a story on this is msnbc(NBC news). and they are as far left as the blaze is far right. basically, each catering to their own brand of wing nuts. the blaze is the only one hyping this up. i’m guess glenn beck has a book coming out or a new denim line or something so he needs to put his name front and center. Is this art? if anyone else did it, sure. why not. so many other things pass as art, no reason this shouldn’t either. but beck didn’t do it as a piece of art. he did it for his own personal gain. he wants high ratings and more people who think like him to pay for his stupid channel. doing something just to try and anger others or to solely make money for yourself is not art. its just beck being beck.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
FISH_BONE
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:32pm
The hypocrisy of liberalism is overwhelming.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:48pm
  eBay is a business, not a liberal outlet. They probably calculated they would make more money by not riling up the majority of Americans who voted for Obama. Theirs were the purest of capitalist motives.
  
  Report this comment
- Stelex
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:02pm
  Ebay is liberal.
  
  Report this comment
- FISH_BONE
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:09pm
  I didn’t make a reference to Ebay.
  
  Report this comment
- Stelex
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:13pm
  So sorry…..LLoyd, ebay is liberal…..
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:13pm
  Lloyd You make it sound like Barry won by a landslide but he clearly didn’t,e bay took it down because Barry is their guy simple as that. They wouldn’t lose any money either way,you think the idiots are going to boycott e bay because of Becks artwork? No way they’ll continue to use the site no matter whats sold on it.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:32pm
  @stelex
  so is the country, evidently.
  
  Report this comment
BlackCrow
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:30pm
Free speech, YES!

Government support, NO!

Did Glenn take a cent of government money for this? Highly, Highly doubtful.

As for E-Bay you can buy all the parts for a nuclear bomb but they won’t sell this? We’re up to our armpits in IDIOTS!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Patriot Z
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:30pm
Free speech dose not mean free from reaction to that speech. I am free to sat what i want, you are free to be offended by what i say (which also comes under free speech) its not ‘fair’ or even logical. is it hypcritical..YES. but to try and assign logic and fairness(by laws or policy) to this by definition destroys free speech

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
JP4JOY
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:28pm
Juvenile, but poignant.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
progressiveslayer
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:27pm
Obama in feces any bidders?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- FISH_BONE
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:33pm
  How could you tell which was which?
  
  Report this comment
- Stelex
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:36pm
  What the he77 did feces ever do to you? Good God man, have some compassion for American Exrement!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- sparkyrules
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:37pm
  I suppose we’ll all be in a world of ‘it’,at the end of his next 4 years.
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:39pm
  The feces smells better.
  
  Report this comment
geminicontender
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 7:25pm
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:04pm
  Hear, hear!
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on November 28, 2012 at 8:56pm
  is it a miracle goose?
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.