I just joined. I have no idea how I got bumped up. It's better than RedState, where I got banned just for asking someone their reasoning behind some stance (and it wasn't asked in a snarky way, I was genuinely curious).

As for "attempt at humor", I would say yes, a failed attempt, except that I don't really see where there's even an attempt. What part of the bit that I replied was supposed to be humorous?

See, the main reason the story hasn't been covered extensively is because it is astoundingly idiotic, rendering those who search for signs of Freemasonry world domination in symbols on various currencies look studious and reasonable. The NYT and WaPo (which is, BTW, one of the largest employers of ex-Bush Administration figures in the media) aren't covering because there's quite a bit of news out there that isn't based solely on fantastic conjecture and paranoid conspiracy theories.

There, I had fun with that.

Right, that was the first thing Obama did after taking office. No , wait: first he made sure he paid his monthly retainer fee to the jack-booted thugs at ACORN. THEN he said, OK, what defense agencies are in the midst of a logo re-design that we can hijack to bolster our nefarious plot? Get me Al Kamen on the phone!! We're gonna need a cover story for this one, comrades!

And yet another nail in the coffin on freedom.

"I'd say there's more to the story." Yeah, I guess you would say that. There will always be more to the story until the story matches the magical narrative in your head. Fight the power, brother, fight the power.

There was a need for a new logo because it was "cheaper, because it's three colors as opposed to the five colors on the official logo."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...

It was also done three years ago during the Bush Administration.

Took me less than a minute of Googling to find that out.

What was wrong with the old logo is apparently that it required too many colors. That's why it was redesigned DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

To answer the question in the subject, no this can not be true. Even if it wasn't for this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...

"This was a logo that was developed three years ago for our recruiting materials and our public Web site," [said] MDA spokesman Rick Lehner. "...It was done one year before the 2008 elections... [it was] cheaper, because it's three colors as opposed to the five colors on the official logo."

You bunch of idiot sheep. Holy crap, you don't have to agree with Obama or like him or anything to not be so eager to jump on anything that you believe the freaking logo of a defense agency is meant as some symbolic capitulation to... whoever the hell it's supposed to be that he's capitulating to. Grow the hell up.