PDA

View Full Version : Obama bow to Saudi King Abdullah



ZDL
04-10-09, 03:21
Because this will inevitably only last about 3 pages.... I wanted to post this interesting and well written rant I found on another forum. For the love of God I only wanted to share a well written piece. You can agree with it or not but you have to admit... it's passionate. I'm not commenting to the accuracy, fairness, or validity of it. People who plan on jumping off the f-ing deep end. Don't. Enough disclaimers.


In a shocking display of fealty to a foreign monarch, President Obama bowed to Saudi King Abdullah at the Group of 20 summit in London last week.

He not only looked like, but also presented himself to the Saudi King in the same manner like the fidelity owed by a vassal to his feudal lord.

Or worse, much like a slave would to his Master.

I though we were past the whole Master/slave thing.

Mr. Obama later said in Strasbourg, France, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect." Symbolism is important in world affairs. By bending over to show greater respect to Islam, the U.S. president belittled the power and independence of the United States.

You can see the video here:

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JGK-xbXxMw&feature=related

The bow was an extraordinary protocol violation. Such an act is traditionally the obedience or submissiveness of a king's subjects not his peer.

I think it is even more abhorrent of 'President'' Obama to bow to and apparently even kiss King Abdullah's ring; considering 4 years ago, September 2005, the LA Times reported that the Saudi King had ordered his citizens not to kiss his hand, saying the traditional gesture of respect is degrading and violates Islam.

The Saudi King stated, and I quote "Kissing hands is alien to our values and morals, and is not accepted by free and noble souls," Abdullah told a delegation from Baha, in southwest Saudi Arabia, which came to the royal palace to offer congratulations on his accession. "It also leads to bowing, which is a violation of God’s law. The faithful bow to no one but God."

You got that Obama, not only did you offend all real Americans, you also offended Allah, and even the Saudi King as well by prostrating yourself to a foreign monarch like a submissive does to his Dominatrix.

There is no precedent for U.S. presidents bowing to Saudi or any other royals.

Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt shook hands with Saudi King Abdulaziz in February 1945. Granted, Mr. Roosevelt was wheelchair-bound, but former President Dwight D. Eisenhower shook hands and looked him straight in the eye when he first met King Saud in January 1957.

Mr. Obama's bow to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, and to whom many consider the unofficial leader of Islam, does not help his image with those who believe (right or wrong) that Obama is secretly a Muslim.

Not to mention, exactly why did 'President' Barack Hussein Obama choose to bow only to the Saudi King and not to any other royals. That question still remains unexplained.

No American is ever required to bow to royalty. It is one of the pillars of American exceptionalism that our country rejected traditional caste divisions.

Article I Section 9 of the Constitution forbids titles of nobility and stipulates that no officeholder or government employee may "accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state" without the consent of Congress.

Judith Martin wrote in her Miss Manners column in 2001 that bowing "is not an ordinary bit of foreign etiquette one might adopt out of courtesy when traveling. ... Americans do not properly bow to any royalty. We show respect for other countries' leaders the same way we do to our own."

It seems most of the MSM press outlets have been conspicuously silent on Mr. Obama's bowing and prostrating himself, and by extension prostrating the American People, to the Muslim King of a foreign country.

Compare this to the New York Times' reaction when former President Bill Clinton inclined a bit too far when meeting Japanese Emperor Akihito in 1994. "The image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent president, and the Emperor of Japan."

The NY Times Link is here, Link http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/19/weekinreview/the-world-the-president-s-inclination-no-it-wasn-t-a-bow-bow.html

Former President Bush received thorough press attention after being photographed holding hands with then-Crown Prince Abdullah in 2005. "It clearly strikes a nerve," CBS News reported, while David Letterman satirized Mr. Bush as "officially the gayest president since Lincoln."

These two cases were tame compared to Mr. Obama's full-out genuflection, which makes me have to wonder why it is not worthy of any comment by the MSM, Letterman, Leno, or anyone else.

Mr. Obama has once again proven that one can be elected (selected?) president without knowing how to behave or conduct himself as a president.

His servile and submissive gesture was fully fitting with the tone of HIS (not America's) humility tour of Europe.

In his eagerness to be loved personally by everyone else in the world (except by his own countrymen), Obama, has lost sight of the fact that the leader of the free world also must be respected. If he ever was aware of that fact in the first place.

Which personally, I highly doubt. Since he obviously doesn't care about respect either to or from the American Citizen.

Mr. President, if you choose to bow to anyone, at least have the respect for this country to do so AFTER you are no longer President of the United States of America.

When you prostrate yourself like a cheap tramp to her pimp, you not only disgrace yourself, but the rest of America as well. No American I know of would bow to King Abdullah or anyone else.

And in probably one of the ONLY things I could ever agree with Saudi King Abdullah on, I bow to but God Almighty Himself, and not to any man that walks the face of this earth.

VooDoo6Actual
04-10-09, 07:33
He did not inhale....

montanadave
04-10-09, 07:35
Playing the "slave-master" card? You gotta be kidding. So I guess when President Bush planted a kiss on the Saudi king, it signaled the intimacy of their homosexual love. Feel free to criticize Obama's administration on substantive policy issues, but enough with this "pickin' shit with the chickens."

EzGoingKev
04-10-09, 07:46
The thing I like about this is that the White House has issued a statement saying it didn't happen while there is video of him bowing all over the internet.

buzz_knox
04-10-09, 08:12
Playing the "slave-master" card? You gotta be kidding. So I guess when President Bush planted a kiss on the Saudi king, it signaled the intimacy of their homosexual love. Feel free to criticize Obama's administration on substantive policy issues, but enough with this "pickin' shit with the chickens."

Actually, Bush's actions demonstrated friendship between equals in that culture. Obama's action showed subservience on behalf of himself and the US.

You can call it picking at shit, but the fact is, his actions meant something in that culture and it's something that will be remembered. This is a substantive issue, even if some want to sweep it under the rug.

One thing to remember is that in the videos, all the other world leaders shook hands but didn't bow. Only the newbie did. Think that doesn't tell the leaders about his understanding and experience, the capabilities of his staff, etc? We know he's an empty suit, Congress knows he's an empty suit, and now they know it. Anyone really think that won't bite us?

FromMyColdDeadHand
04-10-09, 10:43
Bows matter.

Irish
04-10-09, 10:57
He did not inhale....

Not sure if that was sarcasm but here's Obama stating "I inhaled frequently, that was the point..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpBzQI_7ez8

Nice post ZDL!

Gramps
04-10-09, 11:18
Excellent post ZDL, thanks.

As long as there are those choosing to live in denial as to what is going on, we will continue to lose ALL our rights that our forefathers gave their lives for, that we their ancestors could live freely. What a shame.

It's amazing how many people would rather give up their freedom to live a life under muslim rule.

MarkC
04-10-09, 11:47
No American is ever required to bow to royalty.

Right. Sometimes they give them iPods. We have an idiot in the white house. A smooth talking, empty suited puppet boob. The stuff this guy pulls is so incredible that no one could make it up.

Irish
04-10-09, 11:56
A few more tidbits...
Obama gave British Prime Minister Gordon Brown a boxed set of DVDs when he visited the White House.
When visiting England Obama gave the Queen of England an iPod.
Does he do all his Presidential gift giving shopping at Best Buy??? He honestly has no clue about etiquette nor Presidential gift giving and what is deemed appropriate.

CarlosDJackal
04-10-09, 12:51
Didn't you guys get the memo? Saudi Arabia has graciously accepted the United States as a Colony. It's an obama plan to lower the cots of gas here. :D

TheGreenRanger24
04-10-09, 13:39
Playing the "slave-master" card? You gotta be kidding. So I guess when President Bush planted a kiss on the Saudi king, it signaled the intimacy of their homosexual love. Feel free to criticize Obama's administration on substantive policy issues, but enough with this "pickin' shit with the chickens."

At least the gesture with Bush was more a sign of friendship than subservience.

On a somewhat related note:
http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/EricAllie/2008/12/6
If Obama is that subservient, what does that make the MSM?

SHIVAN
04-10-09, 13:56
It depends on what your definition of "is" is.... :rolleyes:

EzGoingKev
04-10-09, 14:02
When visiting England Obama gave the Queen of England an iPod.

An iPod filled with his speeches.

Sam
04-10-09, 14:13
A few more tidbits...
Obama gave British Prime Minister Gordon Brown a boxed set of DVDs when he visited the White House.
When visiting England Obama gave the Queen of England an iPod.
Does he do all his Presidential gift giving shopping at Best Buy??? He honestly has no clue about etiquette nor Presidential gift giving and what is deemed appropriate.

I know that decisions to give foreign head of states gifts are probably decisions of many people or a small committee, I'm sure obamalamadingdong didn't come up with those original ideas himself. Or did he? Isn't there anybody in his little circle capable of understanding diplomatic protocol? Or was it the idea of "deadfish" rohmbo emanual?

montanadave
04-10-09, 14:23
Every American president since Nixon has been kissing the Saudi's ass while talking shit about American energy independence. That includes Bush and Obama as well. And it ain't gonna stop anytime soon 'cuz they got the oil and we gotta have it. You want to bitch about a real issue, bitch about energy.

Read it and weep:

Let's Get Real About Renewable Energy
We can double the output of solar and wind, and double it again. We'll still depend on hydrocarbons.
By ROBERT BRYCE

During his address to Congress last week, President Barack Obama declared, "We will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

While that statement -- along with his pledge to impose a "cap on carbon pollution" -- drew applause, let's slow down for a moment and get realistic about this country's energy future. Consider two factors that are too-often overlooked: George W. Bush's record on renewables, and the problem of scale.

By promising to double our supply of renewables, Mr. Obama is only trying to keep pace with his predecessor. Yes, that's right: From 2005 to 2007, the former Texas oil man oversaw a near-doubling of the electrical output from solar and wind power. And between 2007 and 2008, output from those sources grew by another 30%.

Mr. Bush's record aside, the key problem facing Mr. Obama, and anyone else advocating a rapid transition away from the hydrocarbons that have dominated the world's energy mix since the dawn of the Industrial Age, is the same issue that dogs every alternative energy idea: scale.

Let's start by deciphering exactly what Mr. Obama includes in his definition of "renewable" energy. If he's including hydropower, which now provides about 2.4% of America's total primary energy needs, then the president clearly has no concept of what he is promising. Hydro now provides more than 16 times as much energy as wind and solar power combined. Yet more dams are being dismantled than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the U.S. have been removed.

If Mr. Obama is only counting wind power and solar power as renewables, then his promise is clearly doable. But the unfortunate truth is that even if he matches Mr. Bush's effort by doubling wind and solar output by 2012, the contribution of those two sources to America's overall energy needs will still be almost inconsequential.

Here's why. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that total solar and wind output for 2008 will likely be about 45,493,000 megawatt-hours. That sounds significant until you consider this number: 4,118,198,000 megawatt-hours. That's the total amount of electricity generated during the rolling 12-month period that ended last November. Solar and wind, in other words, produce about 1.1% of America's total electricity consumption.

Of course, you might respond that renewables need to start somewhere. True enough -- and to be clear, I'm not opposed to renewables. I have solar panels on the roof of my house here in Texas that generate 3,200 watts. And those panels (which were heavily subsidized by Austin Energy, the city-owned utility) provide about one-third of the electricity my family of five consumes. Better still, solar panel producers like First Solar Inc. are lowering the cost of solar cells. On the day of Mr. Obama's speech, the company announced that it is now producing solar cells for $0.98 per watt, thereby breaking the important $1-per-watt price barrier.

And yet, while price reductions are important, the wind is intermittent, and so are sunny days. That means they cannot provide the baseload power, i.e., the amount of electricity required to meet minimum demand, that Americans want.

That issue aside, the scale problem persists. For the sake of convenience, let's convert the energy produced by U.S. wind and solar installations into oil equivalents.

The conversion of electricity into oil terms is straightforward: one barrel of oil contains the energy equivalent of 1.64 megawatt-hours of electricity. Thus, 45,493,000 megawatt-hours divided by 1.64 megawatt-hours per barrel of oil equals 27.7 million barrels of oil equivalent from solar and wind for all of 2008.

Now divide that 27.7 million barrels by 365 days and you find that solar and wind sources are providing the equivalent of 76,000 barrels of oil per day. America's total primary energy use is about 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Of that 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent, oil itself has the biggest share -- we consume about 19 million barrels per day. Natural gas is the second-biggest contributor, supplying the equivalent of 11.9 million barrels of oil, while coal provides the equivalent of 11.5 million barrels of oil per day. The balance comes from nuclear power (about 3.8 million barrels per day), and hydropower (about 1.1 million barrels), with smaller contributions coming from wind, solar, geothermal, wood waste, and other sources.

Here's another way to consider the 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day that come from solar and wind: It's approximately equal to the raw energy output of one average-sized coal mine.

During his address to Congress, Mr. Obama did not mention coal -- the fuel that provides nearly a quarter of total primary energy and about half of America's electricity -- except to say that the U.S. should develop "clean coal." He didn't mention nuclear power, only "nuclear proliferation," even though nuclear power is likely the best long-term solution to policy makers' desire to cut U.S. carbon emissions. He didn't mention natural gas, even though it provides about 25% of America's total primary energy needs. Furthermore, the U.S. has huge quantities of gas, and it's the only fuel source that can provide the stand-by generation capacity needed for wind and solar installations. Finally, he didn't mention oil, the backbone fuel of the world transportation sector, except to say that the U.S. imports too much of it.

Perhaps the president's omissions are understandable. America has an intense love-hate relationship with hydrocarbons in general, and with coal and oil in particular. And with increasing political pressure to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, that love-hate relationship has only gotten more complicated.

But the problem of scale means that these hydrocarbons just won't go away. Sure, Mr. Obama can double the output from solar and wind. And then double it again. And again. And again. But getting from 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to something close to the 47.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day needed to keep the U.S. economy running is going to take a long, long time. It would be refreshing if the president or perhaps a few of the Democrats on Capitol Hill would admit that fact.

Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'"(Public Affairs, 2008).

NoBody
04-10-09, 15:24
Deleted.

parishioner
04-10-09, 15:29
Jeeze. You guys make it sound like he doesn't like America or something.



Oh wait.......

http://albanysinsanity.wnymedia.net/blogs/files/2007/10/obama-no-patriot.thumbnail.jpg

NoBody
04-10-09, 15:38
Deleted.

TheGreenRanger24
04-10-09, 16:15
Jeeze. You guys make it sound like he doesn't like America or something.



Oh wait.......

http://albanysinsanity.wnymedia.net/blogs/files/2007/10/obama-no-patriot.thumbnail.jpg

:eek: But he's got such a wonderful wife who loves America to back him up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BogJvgdH6eo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw&feature=related

Safetyhit
04-10-09, 17:56
Playing the "slave-master" card? You gotta be kidding. So I guess when President Bush planted a kiss on the Saudi king, it signaled the intimacy of their homosexual love. Feel free to criticize Obama's administration on substantive policy issues, but enough with this "pickin' shit with the chickens."



Bush should not have done what he did, you win that one.

But Obama most certainly should not have bowed to the oppressive, evil dictator for any reason whatsoever. Political correctness to the extent that it offends the sane. Real, real simple.