Not really. The former Speaker of the House has unleashed a new faux political ad chastising the Comedy Central comic for his faux political ads. Their combined purpose? To squash the GOP’s Super PAC ads, of course, before they can take aim at President Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, Obama’s recent flip-flop on using those very same Super PAC ads goes unmentioned in Pelosi’s new video:

In a new TV ad, Nancy Pelosi takes aim at Colbert’s Super PAC, suggesting that their former friendship (note picture of her signing his wrist cast) has been ruined by the mock-conservative pundit’s refusal to disclose the complete sources of his funding….

House Minority Leader Pelosi, who maintains an admirable poker-face throughout, is in league with Colbert’s not-so-stealth campaign to expose the abuses of PACs, as well as a supporter of the Disclose Act, a bill that’s been introduced to, as Pelosi says in this ad, expose the sources of “secret money from special interests.

From where I sit, this ruling was a travesty, not only because it discarded the wishes of 7 million Californians who voted for it, but because much of the money to overturn it came from Hollywood elites who are completely out of touch with the heart and soul of America.

Honestly, watching the decision come down from the 9th Circuit was like watching Brad Pitt and Elton John stomp all ever everything that flyover country holds near and dear to its heart. I cite Pitt and John because Pitt gave at least $100,000 to “fight the proposition,” and in Jan. 2011, John played a benefit concert in Beverly Hills that raised $3,000,000 for the same cause.

Of course, these two were not alone. Steven Bing, long time Democrat Party donor and Hillary Clinton supporter, donated $500,000 to the cause, and according to Advocate magazine, Mary J. Blige and Melissa Etheridge were right there in the mix as well. Oh, and we can’t overlook old “Meathead,” Rob Reiner, who opposed Prop 8 when it was on the ballot in 2008 and who’s been “one of the biggest fundraisers behind the legal effort” to overturn it since.

Other prominent Hollywood leftists who are against Prop 8 (and who attended Elton John’s concert as well) were David Geffen, who gave at least $200,000 to defeat Prop 8, Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand, Norman Lear, Matthew Morrison, Jane Lynch, Adam Lambert, Marisa Tomei, Jason Mraz, J.J. Abrams, and “Milk” screenwriter Dustin Lance Black.

Moreover, through a website founded by Will Ferrell, another group of Hollywood personalities did their part to oppose Prop 8 via a video mocking Christians, who are staunch defenders of marriage, and Christ Himself. The Hollywood personalities in the video included Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris, John C. Reilly, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph and Margaret Cho.

And of course, what Hollywood v. the Heartland battle would be complete without Keith Olbermann inserting himself into the drama? Back when he still had a job at MSNBC, Olbermann did a PSA to tell everyone in flyover country that gays in California—whom he thoughtfully described as “these people”—just “want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option.”

The bottom line: Hollywood trumped the will of salt-of-the-earth Americans once more, and in so doing, reminded everyone of the great divide that exists between celebrities on the far left coast and those whom they count on to watch their movies, listen to their music, etc. Through their efforts, the will of a clear majority of California voters was overturned and marriage redefined in what, sadly, is not a Hollywood production but real life.

THAT was a performance, as opposed to what we’ve seen from Streep for the last two decades.

I have a very simple rule when it comes to acting: If I notice the acting, if I see the strings — you’re doing it wrong. If you break the spell and take me out of the film with all your “technique” — you’re doing it wrong. If I notice your accent — you’re doing it wrong.  Patrick Swayze’s performance in “Road House” was ten-times better than almost anything Streep’s done since 1998. That’s not a joke, either. Swayze was more convincing, and that’s what true acting is really about. The rest is nothing more than bait for foo-foo critics and shallow Academy voters.

Anyway, here’s a wrinkle in Streep’s march to another trophy:

A Weinstein Company email that appears to skirt AMPAS campaign rules by using a third party to reach Oscar voters has stirred up anger among Academy members and rival campaigners.

But the email does not violate Academy regulations, AMPAS COO Ric Robertson told TheWrap on Tuesday. One of the organization’s campaign rules, he said, “allows for media entities to send such things to valid subscribers who’ve opted into being a subscriber.”

The email in question, which went out on Tuesday morning, is not part of Weinstein’s aggressive Best Picture campaign on behalf of “The Artist,” but instead promotes Meryl Streep’s Best Actress candidacy for “The Iron Lady.”

It was sent as a third-party advertisement by the Hollywood Reporter’s parent company, Prometheus Global Media, to THR subscribers, some of whom are Academy members.

Headed “From: The Weinstein Company: The Iron Lady,” its subject line reads “Exclusive Meryl Streep Video.”

The email contains a “for your consideration” ad with an embedded link. The ad is headed with a Thelma Adams quote – “It’s been TWENTY-NINE YEARS SINCE MERYL STREEP WON AN OSCAR and she certainly deserves to win for her performance in ‘The Iron Lady’!” – and then contains a link to a video interview with Streep on the Weinstein website.

The interview is moderated by Pete Hammond, who mentions the 29-year gap in his introduction and says, “Something has to be done about that!”

The rest of the article amounts mainly to push-back from the Weinstein Company:

“It seems that every time TWC is innovative there is always some jealous competitor who… comes out of the woodwork.”

It’s all inside-insidery that only helps to illuminate how bent leftists get at the thought of unbridled competition. These self-imposed rules surrounding Oscar campaigns are famously absurd (at least in the real world):

Academy campaign rule number four specifically prohibits emails that “extol the merits of a film, an achievement or an individual,” emails that contain references to past awards, and links to websites that promote an eligible film.

Rule five adds that references or links to websites are only allowed if the website contains basic screening information, with no promotion or “photographic, audio, video, graphical and other multimedia elements.”

The subtext is: Please, heavens, no, don’t make me compete! I can’t stand the pressure! And as a result, you have the Weinsteins pushing for every advantage they can, and frequently benefiting from it.

Isn’t that right “Private Ryan?”

News of the Nevada-based artist’s new painting, “The Forgotten Man,” went viral over the past few days sparking massive sales and a bit of outrage as well. The painting depicts President Barack Obama standing on the Constitution while previous presidents look on with outrage.

John McNaughton’s “The Forgotten Man” sold in one day “what we would sell in three months.”

The amount of traffic the story generated even crashed his website.

“I hate to think of the sales I lost with the site being down, but I’m pleased that the message got out,” he told CBS Las Vegas.

His webmaster needed to increase the amount of bandwidth for the site four times before it went back up Saturday night.

Naturally, some Obama supporters instantly dubbed the painting racist, charges McNaughton refutes on his web site:

There is no racial meaning or undertone that the FM [Forgotten Man] isn’t black. This is not a racial painting; it is about the vanishing of the American dream.

Stuart Katz, an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University’s Department of Strategic Communication, said all the finger pointing over the offending digit misses the target.

“It shouldn’t have happened, and it didn’t have to happen,” says Katz, who has been working on live broadcast sporting events like The Olympics since 1978.

“The reality is somebody has to operate the technology. No technology recognizes an obscene gesture,” Katz told Big Hollywood. “That halftime show was rehearsed repeatedly … that reinforces the concept that it didn’t have to happen that way.”

Katz says it was likely human error responsible for the gaffe, adding that it’s improbable the equipment tasked with blurring an offensive image suddenly malfunctioned during showtime.

“They were supposed to blur the picture or at least cut to the wide shot in time… they didn’t do it fast enough … or somebody wasn’t watching,” he says.

The imbroglio could impact future broadcasts and inspire another “layer of protection” to be added to live events, he says.

Not everyone watching the broadcast noticed M.I.A.’s defiant finger gesture. But Katz, a veteran sports broadcast professional, remembers the moment “vividly.”

“I said, ‘oh, there’s gonna be trouble after that,’” he says.

The gesture, accompanied by a barely disguised expletive, came during a performance of Madonna’s new single, “Give Me All Your Luvin.’” At the end of her lines, M.I.A. appeared to sing “I don’t give a (expletive),” although it was hard to hear clearly.

The incident was reminiscent of Janet Jackson’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction” eight years ago — a surprise risque moment in front of tens of millions of unsuspecting viewers. The brief exposure of Jackson’s nipple during the 2004 halftime show raised a storm of controversy and put CBS in hot water with the Federal Communications Commission.

The Super Bowl, shown on NBC this year, is routinely viewed by more than 100 million people, the biggest TV event of the year.

The screen briefly went blurred after M.I.A.’s gesture in what seemed like a late attempt to cut out the camera shot. The NFL, which produces the show, had no immediate comment.

Madonna had admittedly been nervous about her performance, hoping to position herself as the queen of a new generation of pop stars with an opulent show and a sharp performance that mixed her new release with more familiar songs. She seemed like Roman royalty when muscle-bound men carried her extravagant throne across the football field to the stage for her opening song, “Vogue.”

Guests Cee Lo and dance rockers LMFAO also appeared with M.I.A. The singing and dancing on “Vogue” was smartly choreographed, as Madonna moved more deliberately — she is 53 — but still adroitly. She briefly appeared to stumble at one point while trying to make a step on the stage set, but recovered in time.

She let a tightrope walker make the more acrobatic moves during a performance of “Music.”

Madonna carried gold pompons for a performance of her new single. Twitter was alight with questions about the vocals being lip synched or augmented by tapes, particularly during this song.

The best guest was clearly Cee Lo, who joined Madonna for the final song, “Like a Prayer.” They were joined by a robed chorus in the show’s most soaring performance. With a puff of white smoke, Madonna disappeared down a trap door in the stage, and lights on the field spelled out “World Peace.”

The veteran star’s vocals were not strong throughout, lending to a sense of distance. Still, the finger incident is the more likely headline from the event.

Earlier, Kelly Clarkson, Blake Shelton and Miranda Lambert offered some pregame patriotism. Shelton and Lambert did a twangy duet on “America the Beautiful” and Clarkson, in a simple black dress, sang “The Star Spangled Banner” without a hitch after last year’s performer, Christina Aguilera, flubbed a line.

Fortunately, the car bomb did not detonate.

The terrorist turned out to be Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistan-born U.S. citizen. And, not surprisingly, Shahzad wasn’t upset about the health care bill. After pleading guilty in court he said, “I consider myself a Mujahid, a Muslim-soldier.” He was upset, as he put it, over “American occupation of Muslim Lands.”

Shortly after the attack, Bloomberg prematurely asserted that there was no evidence suggesting the bomber was part of any recognized terror network. Shahzad later told the court he trained with the Pakistani Taliban to learn bomb-making and other related skills.

Could it be that Bloomberg has underestimated the threat of Islamist terror, or is there another agenda?

The issue has again become relevant in recent days. The New York Times ran a series of articles and editorials blaming the NYPD for using the film The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America as part of their counter-terrorism training.

The articles calling the film “a Dark Film on U.S. Muslims” and a “Hateful Film” are riddled with inaccuracies and omissions.

Following publication of the articles, Mayor Bloomberg stated that NYPD used “terrible judgment” in showing the film, despite admitting that he had never seen it.

We were not aware that the NYPD was using the film, but when we learned of it some months ago, we were pleased that the officers would have an opportunity to learn about the indoctrination taking place in certain segments of Muslim society in America. The film reveals what viewers are unlikely to see on the evening news: What terrorists, radical preachers and Islamists are saying in their own words, in their own mosques and media, to their followers.

The film exposes how radicals employ the dual strategies of “violent Jihad,” along with a “cultural Jihad,” through which Islamist groups use coercion and non-violent means to gradually expand their influence over Western society.

Now, Mayor Bloomberg, The New York Times and others want to bar law enforcement officers from seeing the film. The question is, why?

We reject, outright, the charge that our film is anti-Muslim or that it casts a shadow over the entire Muslim community. In fact, we go to great lengths throughout the film to differentiate the radical Islamists from peaceful Muslims. The film is narrated by, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim-American, who has dedicated his life to exposing the threat of radical Islam.

Our critics have failed to mention these points and have chosen not to challenge the film on the merits of its thesis or content.

Perhaps the reason Mayor Bloomberg wants The Third Jihad banned is the same reason he insinuated the Times Square bomber was a health care terrorist — namely, CAIR.

CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is one of many Muslim interest groups that purport to represent the Islamic community in America but in reality have well established ties to Hamas and other terror groups.

CAIR was designated by the U.S. Justice Department for its role in terror financing during the nation’s largest-ever trial on the subject. As a result, the FBI has officially severed all ties with the “advocacy organization.”

Outside of its support for terror organizations, CAIR works to quickly and effectively to silence any discussions about radical Islam by playing the racism card and accusing critics of Islamophobia. CAIR’s devices are effective.

As soon as the current story broke, CAIR immediately branded the film “anti-Muslim propaganda” in a press release. This was followed by a CAIR-led protest on the steps of City Hall calling for the resignation of the NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly.

The entire episode could have been a chapter in The Third Jihad. We are now seeing “cultural Jihad” in action. In order to avoid agitating Muslim constituents, Mayor Bloomberg  and Commissioner Kelly are backing away from the film, regardless of its merits.

The net result is that CAIR, a designated Muslim interest group with ties to terror financing, is now telling the NYPD how it should go about fighting terror. If that’s not the ultimate act of subversion, I don’t know what is.

The Arab world’s most famous comic actor is heading to jail for supposedly insulting Islam through his films and plays.

Adel Imam has received a three-month jail sentence for insulting Islam in films and plays, a court document showed on Thursday.

Imam, who has frequently poked fun at authorities and politicians of all colors during a 40-year career, has one month to appeal the sentence and will remain out of jail until the appeal process is concluded.

The sentence Wednesday evening came weeks after Islamists swept most seats in a parliamentary election. The case was brought by Asran Mansour, a lawyer with ties to Islamist groups, and had languished in court for months, judicial sources said.

The actor is accused of offending Islam and its symbols, including beards and the Jilbab, in the film “Morgan Ahmed Morgan” and the play “Al-Zaeem” (“The Leader”).

Let’s see if anyone from Hollywood wears a pin or ribbon in solidarity with Imam during the upcoming Academy Awards ceremony.

The Obama administration released a list of its top money bundlers yesterday, and while the list featured the usual political suspects it also contained some familiar Hollywood power brokers.

Top fundraisers include movie producers Jeffrey Katzenberg and Harvey Weinstein, and Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour. Actress Eva Longoria was in the second highest tier, bundling $200,000 to $500,000 for Obama’s re-election.

The biggest surprise for celebrity watchers was the inclusion of Longoria. She’s hardly the most outspoken actress on the Hollywood circuit, but the svelte star clearly wants to fatten up Obama’s re-election campaign coffers.

“Desperate Housewives” is in its final season, and Longoria’s attempts at a big screen career so far have met with little success. Maybe she could pull a Kal Penn and get a gig in the Obama administration should all her fundraising efforts pay off.

Anna Wintour, the Vogue editor that hosted Obama’s supporters in her New York townhouse and who recently co-hosted a $35,000 per person fundraiser at Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein’s home, is heading up the venture. In the past, Wintour’s tony political functions were attended by the likes of Alicia Keys and $70,000 dinner power couple Coldplay singer Chris Martin and his actress wife, the “suddenly everywhere” Miramax “muse,” Gwyneth Paltrow.

So with Wintour now raising reelection funds, you can just forget the $5 raffle tickets for a hot dog dinner with Barry and Shelley. Instead, the campaign will be hawking designer duds to people who, last time around, were in such dire straits they hoped the new president would fill their gas tank and pay their mortgage.

For her latest effort, Anna Wintour has recruited Hollywood notables, designers, pop and hip-hop artists, and other all-around really rich people to raise money for Barack 2012 by designing overpriced T-shirts, tank tops, scarves, wristlets, and bags to sell at inflated prices to people who, in the midst of an Obama recession, really can’t afford them.

Thus, “Runway to Win” is yet another example that Barack Obama and his helpful circle of elite Hollywood friends and Seventh Avenue designer devotees are all pretty much insulated from reality, out of touch, and oblivious to the plight of the common man.

Recently, in order to make a point that a $40 tax cut is needed in order to feed starving American families, Obama asked the question: “What does $40 Mean to You?” Most Americans were probably thinking warehouse club paper towels and lunch for two at Taco Bell, not $45 T-shirts.

Unlike them, Obama was thinking T-shirts!  Apparently, the budget-minded President is comfortable with Mrs. Jay-Z, barely off the delivery table and out of the special maternity suite with the 10-man security team at Lenox Hill Hospital, designing cotton tee jerseys for impoverished Americans.

Beyonce’s creation stands to pull down a hefty profit for merchandise that’s actually worth no more than $5. For 45 bucks, clotheshorses all along the “Flaws and All” campaign trail, instead of buying groceries, will have a chance to wear a cheap quality “Yes we can… Greater Together” T-shirt.

New mom Beyonce is only one of many slobbering Obama supporters who will be joining forces to produce a trendsetting Barack Obama clothing line for 2012.

Thanks to all the participants, Obama for America supporters will have an opportunity to parade around with an Obama-logo tote bag while wearing clothing that shouts to the world that just because a person’s been unemployed for more than three years doesn’t mean they don’t want to contribute to four more years of watching Michelle Obama wear $2,000 sundresses.

For most Americans, splurging means shopping at Target. In the meantime, while the 99% eat Spaghetti-Os for dinner, the “Runway to Win” list of designers reads like a Who’s Who of attendees at White House Wednesday-night Kobe-beef Conga/cocktail parties.  The list is a couture catalog of who dresses Mrs. Obama in outfits whose one-year cost, when totaled, tallies to an amount that could save 1.2 million American homes from being foreclosed.

Some of the 22 designers participating in the effort are: Russell Simmons, billionaire business magnate of Def Jam fame; Sean “Diddy” Combs, another billionaire, rapper, and record producer who’s also recognizable by the names Sean John Combs, Puff Daddy, and P. Diddy; and even Tory Burch, the designer of the $500 boots Michelle wore to turn over the White House lawn when instructing Americans on the money-saving benefits of planting an at-home organic vegetable garden.

Many of Michelle Obama’s highbrow clothes designers will also be contributing to the effort: Narciso Rodriguez, Jason Wu, Alexander Wang, Joseph Altuzarra, Rag and Bone, Rachel Roy and Tracy Reese.

For those wanting a “first access pass,” on the tongue-in-cheek “Proudly made in America” campaign blog is the following announcement:

We’re launching something new, and a little different, over the next few weeks: Runway to Win, a collaboration by some of the country’s top fashion designers in support of Obama 2012. In the coming weeks, we’ll be rolling out Obama-inspired designs by everyone from Tracy Reese to Jason Wu to Tory Burch at runwaytowin.com. The details are still under wraps, but sign up for your First Access pass to get updates—and a first look at the new designs. Then invite your friends and family to do the same.

The truth is, any designer invested in Obama winning another term is probably secretly hoping their names will continue to be printed on the tags of what fills Mrs. Obama’s sartorially-stuffed clothes closet.

On the other hand, previous Obama supporters like Donna Karan, who participated in 2008, decided this year their idea of change would be to put Republican customers and capitalism first. Apparently, some decided to bow out because maintaining a customer base means more to them than being introduced by Scarlett Johansson at an Obama 2012 fashion show/fund raiser.

So, while Americans continue to suffer, big-name fashion designers and a diverse group of entrepreneurs like ‘Let’s Move’-Beyonce will be directly involved in “Runway to Win.” And yet, aside from the all the glitter and glamour, in light of 2008’s “Runway to Change,” the whole thing is really a bit scary. Why? Because if “change” is any indication of what four years of “winning” will be like, instead of walking the runway, if Mr. Fashionista manages to win a second term, America will more likely be walking the plank.