Bow-Wow Obama
First, instead of bowing like a gentleman before Her Majesty The Queen, President Obama shakes her hand, instead:
Ok, we're Americans. We bow to no one, especially English royalty, which we waged a revolution against on the founding of this country.
So, nothing personal.
And we didn't want the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House anymore, either, as the President sent back.
Maybe it was just "too Bush" (see above). And besides, it was replaced with an artistic rendering of Lincoln, instead, so, again, nothing personal to Her Royal Highness.
But when the president met the king of Saudi Arabia:
Well, it could have been much worse:
Why is a president who affectionately holds an aging monarch and old family friend's hand "much worse" than a president bowing low before him, you ask?
I don't know, but judging from the cries of outrage and howls of derision that came out from the left when Bush held hands with the king, versus the defensive rationalizations if not silence when Obama bowed low before him, the former must be much worse, because, as everyone knows, the Left is the righteous, moral arbiter of what is Right and what is Wrong (despite them otherwise clamoring against Manichaeanism and insisting on moral relativism every time a judgment call is made on one of their sundry attempts to advance the agenda of satan).
[note: The substance of the outrage and derision from the Left when Bush held hands with his old family friend had to do with some supposed symbolic obeisance to Saudi oil, and it was segued in with the conspiracy theory about Bush's arrangement to have bin Laden relatives flown back to Saudi Arabia right after 9/11 when all other flights were grounded, i.e. that Bush was showing favoritism only because of oil. But if all of that--or any of that, for that matter--is true, then what's Obama's excuse?]
Anyway, the presider caught some righteous flack for that, and one would think that he learned his lesson on what it means to be the leader--and savior-- of the Free World, but then, just the other day when meeting the Emperor of Japan:
After having to deal with the negative press he received for bowing to the Saudi king, he must have been fully conscious of what he was doing when he bowed down low to figuratively kiss the feet of the Empeh-woe of Jah-pon.
So what conclusion can Queen Elizabeth arrive at?
That the much vaunted "re-alignment" his election supposedly exemplified goes well beyond an alleged American Right-Left demographic shift, but represents an unprecedented presidential shift in world view that rejects Europe--the Cradle of Western Civilization--and instead looks to a rising East--Middle and Far--with the humility of a prodigal son (having been raised in Indonesia)?
That the only royalty worth respecting is Levantine and Oriental?
That maybe he's just sexist?
Whatever the case may be, it's expected--and forgivable-- for a new, inexperienced president to fumble international protocols until he realizes that he's the quarterback (one rationale given for his bow to the Saudi king was "exhaustion"), but, given his aloof, unbowing treatment of English royalty contrasted with his obsequious behavior towards the Saudi king AND the Japanese Emperor, an anti-Western mode is established and it would be difficult to put a positive spin on it.
The president is un-American, pure and simple, and Americans are figuring it out very fast.
Ok, we're Americans. We bow to no one, especially English royalty, which we waged a revolution against on the founding of this country.
So, nothing personal.
And we didn't want the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House anymore, either, as the President sent back.
Maybe it was just "too Bush" (see above). And besides, it was replaced with an artistic rendering of Lincoln, instead, so, again, nothing personal to Her Royal Highness.
But when the president met the king of Saudi Arabia:
Well, it could have been much worse:
Why is a president who affectionately holds an aging monarch and old family friend's hand "much worse" than a president bowing low before him, you ask?
I don't know, but judging from the cries of outrage and howls of derision that came out from the left when Bush held hands with the king, versus the defensive rationalizations if not silence when Obama bowed low before him, the former must be much worse, because, as everyone knows, the Left is the righteous, moral arbiter of what is Right and what is Wrong (despite them otherwise clamoring against Manichaeanism and insisting on moral relativism every time a judgment call is made on one of their sundry attempts to advance the agenda of satan).
[note: The substance of the outrage and derision from the Left when Bush held hands with his old family friend had to do with some supposed symbolic obeisance to Saudi oil, and it was segued in with the conspiracy theory about Bush's arrangement to have bin Laden relatives flown back to Saudi Arabia right after 9/11 when all other flights were grounded, i.e. that Bush was showing favoritism only because of oil. But if all of that--or any of that, for that matter--is true, then what's Obama's excuse?]
Anyway, the presider caught some righteous flack for that, and one would think that he learned his lesson on what it means to be the leader--and savior-- of the Free World, but then, just the other day when meeting the Emperor of Japan:
After having to deal with the negative press he received for bowing to the Saudi king, he must have been fully conscious of what he was doing when he bowed down low to figuratively kiss the feet of the Empeh-woe of Jah-pon.
So what conclusion can Queen Elizabeth arrive at?
That the much vaunted "re-alignment" his election supposedly exemplified goes well beyond an alleged American Right-Left demographic shift, but represents an unprecedented presidential shift in world view that rejects Europe--the Cradle of Western Civilization--and instead looks to a rising East--Middle and Far--with the humility of a prodigal son (having been raised in Indonesia)?
That the only royalty worth respecting is Levantine and Oriental?
That maybe he's just sexist?
Whatever the case may be, it's expected--and forgivable-- for a new, inexperienced president to fumble international protocols until he realizes that he's the quarterback (one rationale given for his bow to the Saudi king was "exhaustion"), but, given his aloof, unbowing treatment of English royalty contrasted with his obsequious behavior towards the Saudi king AND the Japanese Emperor, an anti-Western mode is established and it would be difficult to put a positive spin on it.
The president is un-American, pure and simple, and Americans are figuring it out very fast.
posted by John | 3:36 PM
52 Comments:
The point that no President of the United States should bow to any foreign dignitary is simple: He/She is the sovereign representative of the people of the United States, and as such owes no allegiance to any but the Constitution of the United States. As such, Obama has humiliated us as a whole. I have written him along these lines, but I expect to be ignored again.
If anything, the Emperor of Japan should bow to the President of the United States, as we were the ones that allowed him to keep his privilege. I am sick of this egotistical moron that holds our highest office. He has no understanding of history, and he does not hold the honor of those that fought in our war against that same emperor's family.
Now, granted, Obama did not actually puke on any of the dignitaries, and for that I am glad. But, for the love of all that is sacred, WHY does he insist on apologizing to and bowing to foreign powers?
"If anything, the Emperor of Japan should bow to the President of the United States, as we were the ones that allowed him to keep his privilege."
Not only that, but we helped rebuild the enemy that we conquered, reformed it, and set it free to live and prosper at peace and become one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
With enemies like America, who needs friends?
James, don't go anywhere just yet, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions:
1) How did the election go (is going)?
2)I'm surprised the Libertarians have been so quiet during this the most anti-Libertarian administration in American history.
With the exception of the small buzz Ron Paul's son is making in Minnesota politics, I expected to hear a lot more from them, seeing as how now is the best chance they've ever had to step forth as the true alternatives to Big Government Democrats (what with the Republicans going RINO) and a Third Party that's even more viable than Ross Perot's was in 1992.
However, you would have to compromise a bit...
Anyway, where are you guys?
"Now, granted, Obama did not actually puke on any of the dignitaries..."
Wouldn't that have been preferrable--even more presidential, perhaps?--than bowing to them?
1. The election went well. I was third in the race, but I made the big government Republican do some dances as the result was down to about 50 votes. There are still a lot of Republicans and swing voters here that are dissatisfied with Republican-in-name-only candidates.
2. We are not getting a lot of press from any network. Fox does not like us for being a pain in the conservative ass, and MSNBC has never liked us at any rate because we do not support the Democratic platform.
3. Look for a lot more from the LP as the 2010 season gets underway, and especially here in Texas. I am personally thinking hard about running again here, but the Republicans are getting more tuned to the LP contingent and the ideals of smaller government and State's Rights platforms. I am not opposed to supporting Republicans if they can remember their roots. That was the main reason I ran against the Republicans to begin with.
Here in Texas we defeated the trans-state highway system (a huge boondoggle that required many many acres of good productive farmland and ranch land) and we have defeated another attempt by the dems at a huge tax raise.
The main issue with the LP right now is raising funds. As you know, a couple of years ago they passed a law that makes it harder for a third party to raise funds, and while the LP is surviving, the nationals races require some attention. If you or any that read this desire a third party to gain any kind of reasonable expectations, remember the tea parties and know that there are millions of us small types that are tired of taxation, attacks against the first and second amendments, and the desire for freedom. We will not be forgotten, neither shall we desist in our right to protest and vote.
Obama claims to know us and speak for us, but he is a lost cause of pure socialism. We are small business, we are moms and dads, and we reflect a huge vote, and we hope to bring ANYBODY that will fight the big government and its social control to an end. This rises above pure party lines and goes to all that will fight for their heritage of freedom.
Of course puking on a foreign dignitary has a real element of humor, but I would not personally subscribe to that as an element of diplomacy. There is however an element of that that is superior to BOWING to them......
"Fox does not like us for being a pain in the conservative ass...":
You mean GOP ass, don't you? I think Libertarians are very conservative in important respects.
"...and MSNBC has never liked us at any rate because we do not support the Democratic platform."
They may have never "liked" you, but theypositively HATE Republicans.
MSNBC spews hate speech with impunity because their liberals.
They hate hatefulness, won't tolerate intolerance, and judge the right to be judgmental.
James, you didn't tell John how many votes you actually got...that was an impressive thing in itself.
John, you aren't the only blogger to bring up this subject of our POTUS bowing to another foreign dignitary. Whether he bows to a Saudi leader or the Queen of England...can you imagine if had bowed to her???
We fought a war so that we did not need to bow to any other nation. We declared our Independence...we do not give our allegiance to any other nation...NO BOWING!!
So bowing was okay for Republicans like Ike & Nixon but not okay for Obama?!!?
Who did Ike and Nixon bow to?
Nixon bowed to The Emperor of Japan & Ike to (SHOCK!!!!) The President of France (De Gaulle). Now go find some RNC talking points to defend these guys while simultaneously denigrating the current POTUS. NO surprise that a bubble head like Captain Moron doesn't know anything about history but I would've figured a know-it-all like you would've done his homework.
I'm sure you'll scour the internet now and come up with some 1000 word defense of Nixon & Ike, rather than just flat out say you have a double standard.
Obama's just a suck-up. Face it.
He'll be perfect for the next remake of Gunga Din.
John said: "You mean GOP ass, don't you? I think Libertarians are very conservative in important respects."
You are very correct there. The tea party events that I went to were largely LP gatherings with, thankfully, a huge element of people that were there demanding more conservative platforms from just about anybody, and they were fine if they were Republicans. That is what they were more used to seeing, but the LP made a few followers at those meetings as well.
As far as the MSNBC crowd goes, they hate anything that is not as far left as Al Gore.
Again, the reason that I ran in the first place was that if there is no party willing to speak the truth and run on a platform that can be easily identifiable as a Constitutional Party (sic) in the sense that they follow the intent of the Constitution of these United States, some people have to stand up and say that we DO believe that the original intent has meaning and value to us today.
I have a lot of people that are now encouraging me to run again against the Republican State Rep, and my response is that I am unsure. If I knew that the Republicans were really thinking about stop being this wishy-washy half-being that the party is now, I would not run against them.
As it stands, the Dems are slowly ruining their chances for re-election by standing for the radical left against common sense. Even in the face of radical stupidity that is the common course now in the Congress, the people that are the workers and business owners and those of us that work for them are appalled by what has been happening. If the Republicans on the Hill will rally and fight and choose a real leader, I may not support the LP in the face of what may be a worse choice.
In a word, I choose to fight for freedom. I do not, at this point, care as much about labels and smaller issues as I do about defeating this monstrosity that has invaded our government under the guise of fairness and equality.
"Fairness" and "equality" my foot. They base ids comprised of thieves who are represented in the congress--and the White House--by preening narcissists who think that they're more equal than others, all being the ideological heirs of liars and murderers.
What, no response about the double standard? Or are you just practicing your "ignore it and may be nobody will notice" Strategy?
The Left is complaining about "double standards?" That's rich.
*SHOCK*
Double standard??
How is that a problem if you stnad on the left?
Sorry about abandoning you and allowing this "blog" to return to the obscure, shithole status it was in before I came, but I found some much more interesting sites with many more monkeys to fuck with, whereas this dead zone has NO ONE at all when Stan's not around. I'll drop by and give you a little attention once in a while, so don't give up hope entirely. I know my absence is a death knell for you, but I prefer to keep you just barely alive to prolong the torture of your misbegotten existence.
Stanny old boy, drop dead.
Poor Stanley, feels he needs to move on because his projections are getting reflected back upon him far too often here. You're right, it is time for you to move on to a place where your real talents can be more truely appreciated... perhaps you should target gullible Democrats such as yourself. They're far more likely to believe in your tales of alien abductions and anthropogenic global warming.
AWWWW. Poor Stanley. He don't get no respect.
Well, well...Stan the Man is out checking his trap line this morning and whaddyano...three furry little wingbats in the jaws. Hahaha...only three comments on this backwater moron's site and THEY'RE ALL ABOUT Stan...too funny...this shithole is even deader than I imagined. And, I see Berty is back with a thinly disguised plea for sexual intercourse with a powerful, liberal itellect and studhorse...help me, she seems to be saying...give me loftier children...I soitanly won't get them from the conservagleeps I know. Well, birdybrain...drop bout foty pound offen yore fat cow's ass and transfer another ten to yer hooters and Stan might get hissef lubed up.
And, for your science denying edification:
Nutcase Inhofe Trashes Military Generals Who Advocate For Clean Energy Legislation: They Crave ‘The Limelight’
"limelight" dat is so forties.
Aw, poor delusional Stanley. He believes his measured 70 IQ score was "high". Well, I guess it was "high", for a liberal, anyway.
The only thing measuring smaller than your intellect is likely to be your...
Peace out, Pee-wee
Don't mind our "little" Stanley, Berty. He's got his panties in a wad because Inhofe is calling for a Congressional investigation into that now totally discredited world-wide liberal green-scam formerly known as "global warming".
Hahahaha...nothing here but the usual...more ineffectual sniping at The Man. I own this place.
Meanwhile...Rumdum revealed to have let Saddam get away. And how about that FLYING Palin bus tour?
Grotesquer and grotesquer.
Kinda like the war in Afghanistan is biting Obama, the cap & trade bill is biting Pelosi or the public option is biting Reid, Stanley?
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
Nope. More like how UNEMPLOYMENT is biting all the Democrats since Porkulus II put the economy on the back burner of the Congressional calendar until "summer" at the earliest!
By the time they can vote another jobs bill, the 2010 election will be OVER!
HA!
Kyoto's dead, Copenhagen is stillborn and the Democrats have checkmated themselves for the elections in 2010. I love it when a plan comes together.
Should Stan just let this pathetic thing die...or should he provide life support?
Which is the kindest course?
Good question. If I were you, I'd stop sending those checks to the DNC and just let it die.
Darn! I thought you were moving on to greener pastures, Brokeback boy. What happened? They have an intelligence test?
Merry Christmas to you all!
Well, after basically ignoring his military advisers by undercutting the numbers of troops they have requested, Obama tries to then trump them by talking about how great his plan is going to be. Fine, he has that choice to make.
This, however, is going to have the rabid left wanting to chew on him, and it is not going to impress people with a serious mind to the national defense. By searching a middle ground, I am afraid that he has succeeded in making nobody happy and placing the troops that we are sending in unnecessary peril.
I will be interested in seeing how this plays out in a few months.
...and by announcing a withdrawl date, he has allowed the taliban to perfectly calculate the best strategy for outlasting and eventually lifting the siege, unless he pulls a Napoleon at the fortress at Mantua, and traps the relieving force inside with the garrison.
I'm with the cadet who was reading "Kill bin Laden" during the speech. I just can't stand to listen to him lie anymore.
"Amazing how everthing is finally biting these freaks in the ass."
Projection. Their fifteen minutes of fame are up and karma-or is it Mephistopheles?-- is at the door with a very hefty bill.
Obama is in way over his head. He's as unfit a president as Clinton was in '93, but Clinton had a recovering economy at the dawn of the Tech Revolution and America being the sole-surviving superpower with the end of the Cold War giving him lots of leeway and freetime to party, play big shot, experiment with liberalism, lie, lie, and lie, and consequently disgrace himself and his party but then comeback for a second term after he had a devastating mid-term comeuppance (but still managing to get himself Impeached).
Obama has no such leeway.
His only hope now is plagiarising yet another page out of Clinton's "(Man From) Hope & (It's Time For) Change playbook:
Compensate both for the impression that he doesn't know what he's doing and is weak both at home and in the eyes of the world and the consequential sinking of approvals by wagging the dog: Folding up a newspaper into a tri-cornered hat and riding a wooden hobbyhorse and pretending that he's at the vanguard of the unleashed military spectacles while he's actually hiding behind them.
But it won't be enough this time. While Clinton was willing to bomb the bejesus out of sovereign countries (that were a whole lot less of a threat than Afghanistan is)--if only because of neurotic, overkilling overcompensation to "prove" something--Obama's half-ass, token gestures (shortchanging the general's requests for more troops, for example) is once again just voting "present" and refusing to commit to victory, which will make Afghanistan look more like LBJ's Vietnam than W's Iraq (the latter which is what Obama actually inherited in both theaters).
Too bad that the mountains of Afghanistan aren't as susceptible to aerial bombardment the way Kosovo or Baghdad was when Clinton needed to vent his frustration and fury with Impeachment and boost his approvals, because then Obama--like Clinton--could turn the campaign into a televised Juvenalian circus without shedding one drop of American blood (and simultaneously keeping the Left's "antiwar" base on slowburn).
At this juncture, without the revolutionary invention of something on the scale of the Internet to transform the economy and catapult it to stellar heights (and I'm afraid high-tech windmills, putt-putt hybrids, and flourescent, curly-Q light bulbs won't cut it), or the Jihadists having a mass conversion to Christianity and handing Obama a bloodless victory on the Global War on Terror in his first term, this is quickly shaping up to be the Worst--and Messiest Presidency in American History.
[Obama supporters can still take heart: Lincoln's first term--without the benefit of hindsight--was pretty horrid, so Obama is still not disqualified from achieving presidential greatness. But he has to walk through a minefield, blindfolded, to get there, and he demonstrably doesn't have the character qualities of a Lincoln that would improve the probability of success (like the ability to weather whithering scorn, for example, an ability, incidentally, shared by Bush).]
You mean after hiding for all these weeks you still won't respond to how you belittled the President for bowing yet have no problem with Republicans like Bush 41, Ike, & Nixon doing THE EXACT SAME THING!
No wonder I thought you were lana banana, stankee. You write with a female voice and whine like a chick I used to date.
btw -
So, Stanky, when are the following scandals involving Democrats (Baucus, et al) going to get investigated? Or does Gyges inspired press blackout and "cloak of invisibility" being offered by the MSM for Democrats remain in effect in perpetuity?
Wow, the moderator has learned to be concise. Too bad he still can't defend his rethug brethren. After all those weeks hiding we expected better...
...and Stanky demonstrates the hypocrisy and double standard evident in his limited reasoning ability by ducking a question who's answer would reflect poorly upon his methods for making political arguments once again...
No surprise.
Like every Democrat before him facing an embarrassing political question... the stankmeister ducks it.
One has nothing to do with the other. The issue is that the moderator rips POTUS apart for a bow but has no problem with Republicans do it. Your continued attempt to divert to another topic just shows how you idiots lack the ability to reason things out on your own, absent any RNC talking points.
OMG OMG OMG OMG!!! Repubs did it too!!! Fox news doesn't have a response!!! What do we say!!!! Maybe if we change the subject nobody will notice!!!
but has no problem with Republicans do it.
LOL! There you go again... making accusations and never backing them up with evidence. I hate to tell you this, stanky, but just because YOU believe something to be true doesn't make it so.
If you want to accuse John of hypocrisy, go right ahead, but don't expect ANYONE to listen to you unless you can back it up with evidence. So get off your lazy butt and go produce the evidence, lazy-stank! Your credibility is zilch.
...but of course, were you to actually PRESENT the evidence, it would contradict your statements, wouldn't it?
Nixon has a HUGE drin on his face, and the emperor is returning a similar "restrained" bow. Unlike O'bj, who looks like he's about to drop to his knees and offer the emperor a hummer in the picture on this post...
...as for Ike's Sept of '59 bow before DeGaulle, I'd say he was intentionally goading the old goat, who looked kinda foolish with his outstreached hand expecting a shake...
Obama's a joke because he's too stupid to know who's supposed to bow to who. The only time I was ever proud of him was when Hugo Chavez's mistook Obama's pointing finger for a handshake.
LOL, after denying any evidence exists you go out and find it yourself. This is great, I can make BS excuses too! POTUS wasn't bowing... He accidently dropped his pen! What about Bush 41, no BS excuse for him?
Dude, maybe you should stick to being a cheerleader. "Republicus" may be a blowhard but at least his screeds don't sound like something a 5 year old made up. WAAAAHHHH They aren't bowing!!! WAAAAHHHH WE'RE NEVER WRONG!!! WAAAHHHH
LMAO!
The pictures don't lie Stan. That's why you didn't produce them.
Obama's the only American president in history who ever bowed subserviently to multiple world leaders with a straight face and all the timidity of a court eunuch, and no words from your pen can ever countermand the visual record.
We didn't produce them because we figured you morons knew how to use google. Granted that is expecting too much. And your "make crap up to explain away that rethugs do the EXACT SAME THING" defense just doesn't work. So why did Bush 41 do it? Bad back perhaps??? But that's ok, we all know the moderator is the only one in this bunch with half a brain so go run along little boy.
I'll let my better half speak for me vis-a-vis the Republican grace that is bred of supreme confidence but tempered by one part Christian modesty, another part Christian charity, and a sprinkling of American playfulness (which is very far removed from shame and submissive groveling):
"Nixon has a HUGE drin on his face, and the emperor is returning a similar "restrained" bow. Unlike O'bj, who looks like he's about to drop to his knees and offer the emperor a hummer in the picture on this post...
...as for Ike's Sept of '59 bow before DeGaulle, I'd say he was intentionally goading the old goat, who looked kinda foolish with his outstreached hand expecting a shake...
Obama's a joke because he's too stupid to know who's supposed to bow to who. The only time I was ever proud of him was when Hugo Chavez's mistook Obama's pointing finger for a handshake."
Yeah. What he said. But don't worry, stankee, I'll personally devote a post to add my two cents (which is worth a buck-fifty in your Obamadized currency).
Post a Comment
<< Home