Supporting their spiritual brothers, namely status quo-defending leftists who castigate others for their lack of “civility” while calling those who want this country as we have known it to be around for future generations “hostage takers” and “economic terrorists,” Newsweek, the publication that was such a hot property it was bought for a buck last year, has given us a deliberately bad cover picture of Michele Bachmann on the right.
In response, a gentleman from Texas named Rick Shick (about; resume; artwork) has graciously provided yours truly with a response in the form of a deliberately bad alternative cover appropriately placed to the left of Ms. Bachmann. You can click on his picture to see a full-sized version in a separate window or tab.
Nice job, guy. Say hi to the folks in the fever swamp at the Austin American Statesman for me.
Readers who choose to use the graphic should be sure to credit Mr. Shick.
_____________________________________
Speaking of mocking Dear Leader, there’s this, which originally appeared last night at Instapundit:

_____________________________________
On a more serious note, here’s Rush yesterday on the downgrade, Obama’s eventual reaction, and who Barney Frank is blaming. He also echoes Rick Santelli’s “we’re better than this” riff (internal links added by me):
Obamageddon, Barackalypse Now! Bam is “Debt Man Walking” in 2012
Does anybody now doubt that this is on purpose? I mean, after all, Barack Obama inherits a AAA credit rating from George W. Bush, and look what he does to it. Obama is always running around complaining and whining and moaning about all that he inherited from George W. Bush. Well, he inherited a AAA credit rating, an unemployment rate of 5.7%.
… What are the Democrats doing? Blaming the referees! Blaming Standard & Poor’s! That always changes the outcome, doesn’t it? Blame the refs. You people in Seattle? The Seahawks, Super Bowl, 2005, Steelers? Blame the refs. Last time I looked the Steelers still won the game. So go ahead and blame Standard & Poor’s all you want, Democrats. Now they’re blaming the military! Barney Frank’s blaming the military. Rumsfeld was on our DC affiliate this morning, WMAL. You know our military spending is 4% of GDP right now? Military spending is 4% of GDP. During the Eisenhower administration in the fifties, post WWII, defense spending was 10% of GDP. Today it’s 4% of GDP, and Barney Frank and the Democrats are trying to say it’s the military’s fault that we’ve been downgraded.
This is the fault of the Democrat Party.
… Even my old buddy Pete Wehner who worked for Rove in the White House and who has been reluctant… Pete’s the epitome of fairness and evenhandedness and so forth. Even Pete, at his Commentary magazine blog today, said this: “It reinforces, perhaps, like nothing else has the impression that Obama is overseeing — and some respects engineering — the decline of the American republic.”
… Folks, this is not who we are.
This country today, as constituted, is not who we are.
… We have a president that’s overseeing — and Pete’s right here: Engineering — the decline of the American republic. I’m glad that somebody is finally starting to echo this.
… I’m simply trying to point out here that this is all being done on purpose, and it’s tragic, and it just ticks me off. When Barney Frank sits over there and starts talking about how we need to cut defense, he is singing from the ChiCom hymnal. They want us to cut our defense spending, too! Now, contrary to what the Democrats are saying, Standard & Poor’s is not saying we’re not taxed enough; they’re saying we’re spending too much …
Those who are offended by the suggestion that our decline is being deliberately engineered (but at a speed slow enough to allow for the opportunity for those engineering it to remain in power) should ask themselves the following: If Team Obama, the architects of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy aka the Fear-Based Economy, and the left haven’t hasn’t been working towards this objective for the past three years while still wishing to remain in power, what would they be doing differently if they did? The only available answer is: Not a damned thing.
_____________________________________
Warren Buffett, the oracle of Omaha, said that he considers U.S. debt to be “AAAA.”
That was a weak attempt at self-defense. Astute investor Buffett he had to know what was coming next:
Standard & Poor’s has lowered its outlook on Berkshire Hathaway’s debt from “stable” to “negative” but the revision isn’t due to something Warren Buffett did or didn’t do.
In its news release issued a few minutes ago, S&P says its downgrade of U.S. debt over the weekend “constrains our financial strength ratings on insurers,” including Berkshire.
Berkshire and four other U.S. insurance group keep their AA+ ratings, but they now have “negative” outlooks.
… Why the changes? S&P explains:
“In our view, the U.S. sovereign credit rating constrains the long-term rating on these U.S. insurers because their businesses and assets are highly concentrated in the U.S. and they have significant holdings in U.S. Treasury and agency securities.”