April 08, 2009

Criticizing Obama's Bow is Not Out of Bounds

This post courtesy of husband-dude:

Recently I wrote an article for FSM called "...for no Earthly King" where I took exception to Barack Obama's uncalled for bow to the Saudi King.

Other conservative bloggers, who will remain nameless (and linkless), take exception to this interpretation. They've pointed out, and posted for example, a picture of former President Bush bowing to receive a medal from the Saudis a while back. This is used as "equivalence" and any reaction to Obama's bow is merely "Obama Derangement Syndrome."

First off, I personally do not think the President of the United States should be receiving awards and medals from any other country. This also applies to cabinet members or elected officials - for example, I do not think Caspar Weinberger should have accepted an honorary knighthood for example for his "services" to England back in 1988.

In both cases however, these were official ceremonies with a defined protocol whether we liked them or not.

Obama's bow to the Saudi King was not part of any official ceremony. There was no protocol being observed. The moment was unscripted and done at Barack Obama's initiative. There was no reciprocity returned. George Bush bowed to receive a medal during the course of a ceremony, Barack Obama bowed because he felt like it.

There's a difference. Pointing out the body language used and its context is not "Obama Derangement Syndrome."

What's not to criticize?

Show Comments »

April 07, 2009

Google and Yahoo Blocking Sites Showing Obama Bowing to Saudi King?

Not that this site gets oodles of traffic anyway, but there are reports that sites that feature the photo of Obama bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia - a major breach of protocol and a major breach of taste - are being blocked by Yahoo and Google. This came in an e-mail - please note that I have no official confirmation, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least:

Google and Yahoo apparently have censured access to WND.com and to a number of blogs where the ignominy was being shown. Save the pictures and the video shown in the American Thinker article, before the Obamista "Civilian National Security Force", embodied in this case by Google and Yahoo, censures it. Remember that the might of Lenin's Cheka and Hitler's Gestapo resided in great part in the hordes of civilian informants and collaborators that supported them.

And of course, the MSM is in full spin mode.

Funny, isn't it, that Obama bowed to the Saudi king, head of a police state that continues the despicable act of slavery and treats women as less than chattel, but didn't make the same mistake with Queen Elizabeth? Hmmm... Cliff Thier has more on the bowing phenomenon and what it portends for American/Middle East relations.

Enjoy the photo here; and be sure to download it yourself. Also, if you can, download the video (found at Michelle Malkin's site). And while you're at it, read this.

"We are not worthy!"

Show Comments »

'Obamunism - Through the Eyes of a Child'

Great post over at Big Lizards about the phenomenon of The One and his disturbingly naive worldview. Here's a snippet:

That is, if America weakens itself by unilaterally dumping its nuclear weapons, then other nations will feel more empowered to aggressively enforce already existing sanctions against rogue nations. But why? By definition, "already existing sanctions" already exist; if our allies are not willing to enforce them now, why would they be more willing if we become weaker? Does Obama truly believe that the world defies us because we're too powerful? Does he believe that we're evil, imperialist warmongers oppressing the world, causing them to resist us the way that the Jedi knights resisted the imperial storm troopers of Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader?

This is magical thinking at its most emblematic: There is no obvious connection between the United States eliminating its nuclear arsenal and Pakistan following suit -- the latter is far more concerned about India (and vice versa) than about us -- or North Korea and Iran abandoning their own nuke hunt; they see nuclear weapons as their route to power in their own regions or protection against their own enemies. It's silly storytelling, jaw-dropping narcissism, and childish "wishing on a star" to imagine that every other country in the world that has or wants nuclear weapons is only driven by fear of America's nuclear arsenal.

Be sure to read it all - this guy has nailed it.

On a tip from husband-dude.

Show Comments »

April 06, 2009

Obama and Arrogance

Last Friday, President Obama said America has been "arrogant" in its dealings with other nations around the world - we have failed to recognize Europe's leadership, blah blah blah.

Leftists in Europe and leftists at home must be gloating with glee: an American president "admits" to the stereotype of the ugly American.

Hearing the audio, my blood was boiling. How dare the man who was elected to represent us call us "arrogant?" Our troops are stationed all over the world, in Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc., protecting their sorry asses from aggression. Whenever there's a flood, hurricane, earthquake, or other natural disaster, who sends the most money and other humanitarian aid (and gets criticized when we don't act fast enough for the recipients' liking)? Who stepped in during two World Wars to keep Europe from imploding? Which nation on earth is the biggest magnet for immigrants desperate for a better life? Who spends big bucks on military security in Europe so they can spend their own money on failing cradle to grave social programs?

He bows to the Saudi king, cozies up to the Russians, and tells the rest of the world we're a bunch of contemptuous losers. If we're such a sorry lot, why did he want to be our president?

And for all his sucking up and Bush bashing, what does it get him? Nada, zip, zilch. Because as much as they despise us, the world expects us to continue to do all of the heavy lifting. And we have a president who is not a leader, but a bower and scraper who wants to be part of the global in-crowd rather than a proud President of the United States. And, he wants to spend us into oblivion while he's at it.

It's going to be a very long four years.

"Oh goodie, I'm destroying America!"

Show Comments »

April 02, 2009

Gordon Brown is Right – Obama Has ‘Changed’ America

My latest at FSM today:

Despite being treated like a poor relation by Barack Obama when he visited the U.S. in early March, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had nothing but wonderful things to say about our president when he arrived in London for the much ballyhooed G-20 summit:

"President Obama, you have given renewed hope not only to the citizens of the United States of America, but to all citizens in all part of the world. And I want to thank you for your leadership, your vision and your courage, which you've already shown in your presidency, and congratulate you on the dynamism, the energy and, indeed, the achievements that you have been responsible for.

"Your first 70 days in office have changed America, and you've changed America's relationship with the world. So I thank you for coming to our country and I hope you will enjoy your visit with us."

I suppose it was a little too much to expect a committed leftist to criticize a fellow traveler, even when Obama’s apparent disinterest in the protocol surrounding Brown’s visit to the White House made Brown look foolish in the eyes of the world.

Read the rest here.

Show Comments »

March 31, 2009

Government Controlling YOUR Salary?

For those of you who cheered when Congress moved to enact a retroactive 90% tax on bonus recipients at AIG (despite the fact that Congress and the President both approved those bonuses in the "stimulus" bill), perhaps you'd like to cheer this as well:

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)

That's right: if you work for a company that received TARP funds, your salary could be regulated by the government. It doesn't matter if your the CEO, CIO, or the guy in the mailroom - Timothy "Tax Cheat" Geithner would have the authority to decide how much you should make. Nice, eh? Looks like the evil CEOs aren't the only ones on government's list.

Obama wants to nationalize the banks and it looks like he has plans for nationalizing the business sector - and it seems as though he has support amongst his minions in Congress. A man with absolutely no experience in the private sector, let alone running a car manufacturer, is now the de facto CEO of GM. What's next? Where will it end?

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." - Thomas Jefferson.

Show Comments »