Remember back in April when Obama traveled to the G-20 and bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia? If not, here it is:

Actually, that doesn’t look as much like a bow as it does a genuflect. Not, true, says Obama’s Spokes Weasel, Robert Gibbs. Oh, no – it is just because Obama is tall, and “bending over.” I am not kidding you – that’s what he claimed. So, don’t believe what you actually SAW, just believe Spokes Weasel that it’s not what it looked like it was.

Well, it would seem Obama learned nothing from that experience when he traveled to Japan and met the Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko of Japan:

Sigh. I know it is customary to bow in Japan, but this is a bit over the top for anyone, much less a US president, or another world leader. You will notice that, while the Emperor or Empress bows in return, it is slight, almost imperceptible. Nice to see that SOME people understand decorum and protocol, even if Obama doesn’t. They were modeling the appropriate level for him, and he missed it. I might add, Obama doesn’t bow just once, he does it over and over and over again (though not as low) like a frikkin’ bobblehead. His hosts, however, are not recirpocating.

Wow. So much for the President of the United States bowing to no one. What an amateur. Respect is one thing. Subordination is another. This appears to be a case of the latter, IMHO.

Yep, the second bow heard around the world. Oh, and the topic of discussion? Green tea ice cream. I’m not making this up, people, that’s what Obama discussed with the Emperor and Empress.

Perhaps Obama could take a few lessons from Secretary of State Clinton on how one meets with other world leaders, particularly in Japan, as this video from February, 2000 demonstrates (pay special attention around the 5:10 mark when the Empress and Clinton greet each other):

You’ll notice Clinton did not bow to the Empress. Though I have to say, the looks exchanged between the two women were quite lovely. They seem to really like each other (and who doesn’t like our Hillary??). Other than that, not a bow in sight. Oh, sure, she nodded her head a few times in recognition when someone bowed to her, but a real bow? Uh, yeah, NO. Didn’t see a one.

Once again, our Amateur in Chief is on display for all the world to see, and believe you me, they all saw it, too. Seriously, he needs to get some real protocol officers instead of asking one of his frat boys from their video games (“No, really, dude – I’m pretty sure they bow to each other in Japan. At least that’s what my Samurai warriors just did to each other on my X Box…”).

How I wish I could say I was surprised at Obama’s breach of protocol after his “teachable moment” in April with the King of Saudi Arabia. But when you have a president who gives a “shout out” and CALLS it a “shout out” after finding out about a devastating attack on one of our military bases before even acknowledging the attack, this is just par for the course. It just leaves me shaking my head…

“President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”

– French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom. Just how low we’ve sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration’s satisfaction when Russia’s president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the United Nations, that “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable.”

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

I should add, I don’t have the same level of disdain for the French that some in this country have. In fact, I love France, and I love the people I have met there. I have not had the experience of French people looking down their noses at me because I’m American, even in Paris. In small villages in which I’ve traveled, even with my crappy French (I took Spanish in school), and the limited English the shop keepers had, we each worked hard to understand each other. One woman didn’t speak a word of English, but would engage in pantomime (I’m sure there’s a joke there about the French and mimes) to get her point across, AND she was funny, to boot. So, while I appreciate that some people have not had this experience, I won’t jump on the French bashing bandwagon. Honestly, I can’t wait until I get to go back there.

Back to the article,and Krauthammer’s point:

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority — and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Hmmm – WWHD? You know, What Would Hillary Do? Would she reveal this nugget of explosive information? My bet is ABSO-FREAKIN’-LUTELY. How about Obama? What would he do:

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”

Diversion? It’s the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama’s star turn as planetary visionary: “The administration told the French,” reports the Wall Street Journal, “that it didn’t want to ‘spoil the image of success’ for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N.”

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that “we live in a real world, not a virtual world.”

He explained: “President Obama has even said, ‘I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].’ Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite.”

Sarkozy’s unspoken words? “And yet, sacré bleu, he’s sitting on Qom!”

Uh, yeah. It seems like the perfect setting for exposing this information. Evidently, Sarkozy thought so, too. Others didn’t realize what had just happened:

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama’s fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, “No one nation can . . . dominate another nation.” That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” in fact “make no sense in an interconnected world.” NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

Bismarck is said to have said: “There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.” Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com)

Mon Dieu! Those are some pretty strong words there. Appropriate, though. Can you imagine if any other president, who had the opportunity to chair this very important committee for the FIRST time, sat on that kind of information? No doubt, it wouldn’t just be the French President who was upset about this. Thankfully, those who are less invested in the “aura” of Obama actually paid attention to this “oversight” on Obama’s part at this critical juncture.

Once again, Obama has demonstrated how woefully prepared he is for the REAL World Stage.

(And C, if you’re reading this far, I hope you appreciate the French phrases!)

Join me from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. ET on NoQuarter Radio for Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle. These are truly historic times in the global economy. Let’s “navigate the economic landscape” without the pandering or nonsense found elsewhere!

Tonight I have a very special guest: Dr. Paulo Vieira da Cunha, renowned emerging market economist of Tandem Global Partners.

Former Deputy Governor of the Central Bank of Brazil and one of three Monetary Policy Committee Members, Dr. Vieira da Cunha was Brazil’s representative at the G-20 meeting of Central Bank Governors and Finance Ministers until January 2008. Dr. Vieira da Cunha is a visiting scholar at Columbia University and a consultant to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

For nearly a decade, he produced and managed research on Latin America for the global securities industry, first at Lehman Brothers and later at HSBC where he managed research teams in Buenos Aires, Mexico City, New York, and Sao Paulo.

Dr. Vieira da Cunha had a distinguished career at the World Bank where he was Senior Adviser to the Chief Economist, Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz from 1993 to 1996. From 1996 to 1998 he was the Lead Economist for Mexico and also had operational assignments on Russia, Turkey, and Uganda.

Prior to joining the World Bank, he was the CFO of a large state enterprise in the state of Sao Paolo (Prodesp) as well as advisor to the Secretary of Budget and Finances on the issues of renegotiation of domestic and foreign debt. Earlier in his career he held senior positions in the government of the State of Sao Paolo.

With the emerging markets leading the world at this juncture, there is much to navigate in this sector of our economic landscape. Dr. Vieira is uniquely qualified to provide perspectives and insights not commonly found.

Call in to share your thoughts or ask questions at (377) 647-0792. I look forward to having you join me for NoQuarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle.

LD

France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, whose unhappiness was recorded by American Girl in Italy on April 6th, objected to Obama’s rude commentary on how Europe should treat its Muslims. On Friday, newspapers reported that Sarkozy finds Obama “inexperienced,” and also said this:

Mr Sarkozy voiced concerns that Obama was “not up to standard” in terms of his decision-making or his efficiency. Mr Sarkozy did praise Obama as being “very intelligent and very charismatic” but said there were certain areas in which Obama “did not have a position.”

Now we have Hugo Chavez brazenly strutting up to Obama and handing him a book — clearly a symbolic gesture indicating that Hugo doesn’t think that Barack is very informed.

The title of the book that Hugo gave Barack is Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent.

Some smartie on MSNBC suggested that Barack give him one of his own books. Uh. How does a book about Obama’s ME ME ME begin to compare to a scholarly treatise on five centuries of European domination of Latin America?

Here’s the raw press pool report via Time‘s Mark Halperin (who knew that pool reports were really this raw):

“I have a lot to learn and I’m very much looking forward to listening,” POTUS says. ^* [SEE FOOTNOTE.]

He is seated at the head of a U-shaped table, with the leader of Chile to his right. Chavez was all the way to his left, at the far end of the U. Your pooler asked if he had gotten any reaction from the other leaders to his speech. “We’ll find out right now.”

There was a terrible din outside from pushy camera crews trying to get in. POTUS acknowledged the ruckus –u will get a transcript. When the pool entered the room Chavez was busy talking to other leaders. Then Obama spoke, and as the pool was being ushered out Chavez walked over to him. Obama stood up and Chavez handed him the book The book is :

Las Venas Abiertas de America Latina
By eduardo Galeano

(The Open Veins of Latin America). A helpful Chilean delegate who did not want to be named described it as an academic book that is the basis for the 60s-era “dependency theory” that latin america depends on the north.

The North Koreans are so not worried about Obama that they’ve merrily done away with every bit of progress that the Bush administration accomplished (admittedly not nearly enough), and are gleefully shooting rockets into the air with the knowledge they have NOTHING to fear for doing so. Kim is beside himself with gaiety:

(Learn more about Kim Jong Il and his “wocket” at TheNoseOnYourFace.com. H/T Potfry.)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

^*FOOTNOTE:
RE: “‘I have a lot to learn and I’m very much looking forward to listening’, POTUS says.”

Dear President Obama:

You know, it is not necessary to point out your ignorance. We who’ve had the sad task of closely following your every move area intimately familiar with your lack of knowledge and qualifications. Unfortunately, all the world’s leaders are similarly informed.

Furthermore, it’s flat-out embarrassing to us U.S. citizens who take pride in leaders who know what they’re doing and have also read and studied global foreign policy for years. Like Hillary Clinton, for example.

Modesty has its virtues. But we remain the world’s only superpower, and in that there is in superpower status an intrinsic, essential power that we must protect for the good that it can do, for the destruction it can prevent, and for the threats that it can authoritatively issue or carry out.

Keep your ignorance to yourself, please. It’s bad enough that they all know you’re clueless. You needn’t draw attention to your deficits.

We must also remain somewhat fearsome because then, and only then, will despots listen to us. You are “greenlighting” the world’s dictators that they can continue their despotic, cruel ways with impunity!

Here’s an example. Can you please SKIP the warm gesture of a hand on Chavez’s arm and that silly grin?

And here’s Jake Tapper, one of the few reporters who doesn’t feel compelled to suck it up all the time, who describes how you reacted when Chavez walked over and handed you the book:

At President Obama’s meeting with the heads of South American countries this morning, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez stood, walked over to him, and presented him with a copy of "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano.

Obama politely posed for a photograph with Chavez, shook his hand, and accepted the gift.

WHY???

Fellow NoQuarter Regulars: HOW WOULD YOU HAVE REACTED if Chavez had handed you a book? That book?

For starters, I doubt you’d have shaken his hand and posed for a photograph. Had I been Obama, I might have stood up, to show the advantage of my height, taken the book but not extended my hand. I wouldn’t have smiled either since it was obviously another typical Chavez stunt — which anyone with a clue would instantly recognize. One would avoid being duped into willing participation.

Jake Tapper also reports:

The copy of the book Chavez gave Obama appears to be in Spanish, a language Obama does not speak.

At the start of the first plenary session at the Summit of the Americas later this morning, President Obama was asked what he thought of Chavez’s gift.

“You know, I thought it was one of Chavez’s books," Obama answered. "I was going to give him one of mine.”

Hello? If the book is in Spanish, it’s clearly intended as an insult.

CALLING LARRY JOHNSON (who knows so much about how to behave in diplomatic settings that he teaches the subject): Larry, can you instruct this doofus in how to behave with dignity and how to avoid such trickery?

LARRY: Can you also show him how to make himself look a bit more like a powerful leader, rather than a subservient, please-be-my-friend, babe-in-the-woods chump?

The post-superpower meme might be fashionable in the salons of Fareed Zakaria and Charlie Rose but it’s downright embarrassing to most American citizens that our president behaves like a subservient, unskilled, gawkish capitulator.

Red head: “I think it was a….a leaning over.”

Blonde: “He was clearly leaning over to shake his hand. They idea that Barack Obama would bow to him is SO ridiculous…. A person is sitting down and you lean over to shake their hand, you are not bowing…The person is sitting down and you…”

Oh ye of little intelligence…. when someone is NOT sitting down, and you bend over at the waist in front of them, you are in fact bowing.

The FOX panels goes on to discuss this in the Behind the Break segment, and they continue the argument that it is ridiculous that Obama, as POTUS, would bow to him.

But that is exactly what Obama did. Why would they not admit it? The blonde insists the King was sitting, and Obama would never bow to him.

It’s bad enough that Gibbs lied about this, scoffed at the question, and dismissed the blunder, but for *journalists* to spread the lie is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

This is the kind of thing we can expect from msnbc and CNN, and this is why their ratings are so much lower than FOX’s. But FOX needs to remove these two liars from their lineup. They are irrelevant, and are either too stupid or too biased to ever be listened to, again. And having them on future segments lowers the credibility of the station.

This just proves, to me, that if they are SO willing to LIE about something so simple, they will lie about anything. And I don’t know about you, but I am sick and tired of the media lying to us.

This story could have been killed days ago, had Gibbs given some kind of honest explanation, like Obama had met the King earlier in the day, and they were just joking around. Or that they know each other and had met years ago, through some friend of Obama’s. Or that Obama was overcome with excitement on meeting a King (but he refuses to bow to women)… SOMETHING, ANYTHING is better than a LIE. A lie so ridiculous, Gibbs can’t even say it with a straight face.

And for what it’s worth, I think Gibbs lost ALL credibility on this one as well. Obviously he won’t get fired for it, because he was doing it for Obama. But, I will no longer believe a word he utters, or stutters. And I ask again, why the lie?

The blonde woman from FOX just makes this more laughable by insisting that Obama would never bow to the King, since he DID. And the King is NOT sitting down.

Susan sent me this story, and the headline is hilarious:

“How Do You Say Faux Pas in Austrian?“ by Kathleen Parker

(One thing that really bothers me is the media’s refusal to hit Obama on his faux pas’ without also taking a whack at Bill, or Hillary or Bush. Can’t we just criticize Obama when he deserves it, without constantly running with the *But…but…but Bush/Bill/Hill did it too!!* meme. Bush was following PROPER protocol when he held hands with King Abdullah. Like it or not, it was protocol, and a sign of equal respect and friendship. Bowing is a sign of submission, and offensive to King Abdullah: “I have tremendous distaste for such matters because I believe that one only bows before one’s God, not before another human being.”)

Anyway, back to Kathleen’s piece, she calls it what it was, a bow.

“It is also not in our DNA to bow to monarchs or to act beholden to anyone save God. We kneel before no human. Yet, occasionally, we are required to behave politely in countries that still cleave to their pomp and circumstance.

For such purposes, we have hirelings to instruct us in questions of protocol. We wonder lately where they are. Who didn’t tell Michelle Obama that one doesn’t put an arm around the queen of England, no matter how endearing we renegades might find it? Who didn’t tell the president that the United States does not bow, especially not to the rulers of countries where women are less valuable than sheep?”

Whatever their other flaws, the Kennedys could be counted on to mind their p’s and q’s in public. If there were any question, Baldrige — officially White House social secretary and chief of staff to Jacqueline Kennedy — was there to fill in the blanks.

Which is to say, you do as the Romans. Or the Austrians (who speak German, not Austrian, Mr. President). That doesn’t mean we compromise our own values in the process. Hence Rule No. 1: Americans don’t bow to monarchs.

I’ve now watched the tape of Obama’s bow a dozen or more times. It is simply not possible to accept an anonymous [she missed Gibbs' lie, apparently] White House official’s insistence that Obama was merely reaching down to take the king’s hand and had to bend over because of the height difference.

Not to name drop, but I’ve met the king and I’ve met the president. We’re not talking Gulliver and the Lilliputians. Even if Obama needed to reach down for the king’s hand, why not let the king raise his hand of his own volition? When I shook hands with the king, he seemed to know what to do.

To any objective observer, Obama’s bend from the waist quacked like a duck. It was . . . a bow. Clumsy, embarrassing and unbecoming a president, yes, but not an act of treason or, as one newspaper put it, a gesture of “fealty to a foreign potentate.”

She acknowledges the bow, but then goes on to “grant him slack” and excuse it away (and takes another swipe at a former President), OK, fine. Whatever. Spin it however you want. Excuse it away.

But for crying out loud people, ADMIT it happened. And STOP they lying. Or find a new line of work.

(Has Katie Couric covered the Bow story? I would be interested on her take. I do recall her telling NBC reporter Lee Cowan during the primary that if he can’t be objective, he should not be a reporter…)

Writes Ed Morrissey for Hot Air, “The White House miscalculated on its “no-bow” response. CNN spends a couple of minutes calling them on it. … CNN compares the bow to Saudi King Abdullah and the correct protocol of a head nod to the shorter Queen Elizabeth. …”

Special Report anchor Bret Baier did a great segment on “the bow” in his daily “Grapevine“:

Now, more from Ed Morrissey:

[...]

Moos also shows that the bow preceded the two-handed handshake, and concludes that the White House is not being terribly honest. [...]

Instead of just acknowledging an error, Robert Gibbs lied about it, and all but dared the media to report it. CNN isn’t the only media outlet taking the challenge, either. The Chicago Sun-Times scolds Obama for his display, now that the White House tried to spin it:

Did he or didn’t he? Did President Obama bow to Saudi King Abdullah at the G-20 meeting in London? That question is creating a bit of a dust-up in the blogosphere. The brouhaha reminds me of the tsk-tsking a few years back when President George W. Bush was photographed holding hands with then-Crown Prince Abdullah. …

That said, the president of the United States does not bow to kings. He is not only the chief of government, he’s our head of state — the equal of any monarch. The White House says Obama didn’t bow, that he “grasped (Abdullah’s) hand with two hands and he’s taller than King Abdullah.”

Sorry, but a videotape on YouTube doesn’t quite back that up. Obama clearly bends his body toward the Arabian monarch, and Obama doesn’t grasp both the king’s hands until he’s standing straight up. As for the he’s-taller argument, the 6-foot-1-inch Obama towers over a lot of people, so we’d have seen him bowing during handshakes many times if that were the explanation. Furthermore, the king had his hand extended, so Obama didn’t have to reach down an inordinate amount to grab it.

Heads of state do not bow to other heads of state. Abdullah didn’t reciprocate with a bow to Obama, for instance, and none of the other heads of state in the original video did so much as a shoulder incline. It’s the act of a rank amateur, a man unprepared to represent a nation as head of state. Thankfully, a few people have begun to notice it.

Update: Deceiver experiences Wonkette’s “humor”, which relies heavily on fellatio.

Don’t miss our earlier stories, including the latest by American Girl in Italy.

Demonstrators shout anti-U.S President Barack Obama slogans during a protest in Istanbul April 7, 2009. Obama is on the last leg of his debut trip on the world stage as president. He is trying to rebuild ties with Muslims after anger at the invasion of Iraq and war in Afghanistan, made more urgent by a strengthening al Qaeda and Taliban insurgency.Picture taken with a fish-eye lens. REUTERS/Pawel Kopczynski (TURKEY CONFLICT POLITICS)

Second image: “Many invited Obama to head back home. He had planned to do just that on Tuesday — but then made a surprise stop in Iraq to visit US troops on Tuesday.”

Protestors hold a banner against US President Barack Obama's visit during a demonstration in Istanbul on April 6, 2009. Obama, seeking to boost ties with a key Muslim ally, firmly backed Turkey's bid to join the EU and tread carefully on Armenia's decades-old claims of genocide. AFP PHOTO / MUSTAFA OZER

Third image: “Turkish demonstrators walking on a photo of Barack Obama in Istanbul.”

Turkish demonstrators walk on a picture of US President Barack Obama during a protest in Istanbul on April 7, 2009. Obama earlier met with university students for a discussion, before wrapping up his two-day trip to Turkey with a visit to the 16th-century Sultanahmet Mosque in the ancient heart of Istanbul, following strong messages of US reconciliation with the Islamic world on his maiden trip to a mainly Muslim country. AFP PHOTO / DIMITAR DILKOFF

Did they not see the video? It wasn’t even a double handshake! And you know what?

It WASN’T a bow. It was a curtsy!

(One of our readers said that on my previous post, *obama bends over for the saudis*) and they are RIGHT!)

A bow is a bend at the waist. This was a full on knee bending curtsy.

That was the most ridiculous spin, ever.

The left is working overtime to defend Obama, deny the curtsy, and talk of it’s irrelevance. However, Bush holding hands with the King was apparently news and snark worthy.

Bush: Holding hands with the Saudis for nothing – Seattle PI

Abdullah-Bush Stroll Strikes Nerve – Images Of Leaders Holding Hands Doesn’t Sit Well With Americans – CBS News

David Letterman mocked Bush on his top ten, calling him gay. (But Dave can find NOTHING to criticize about Obama?)

Barbara Walters on 20/20 asked King Abdullah about holding hands with Bush, and he explained it is a sign of friendship. His comments on bowing are interesting, though. “KING ABDULLAH: I have tremendous distaste for such matters because I believe that one only bows before one’s God, not before another human being.” (when he said *that one* do you think he meant Obama?)

Brian Williams was still talking about it in 2007.

The New York Times wrote about it. Newsweek. Time.

So I guess, when a Republican does something (that is actually actual protocol), it generates negative news coverage, but when Obama does something that is out of protocol, and according to the King, distasteful, you only hear about it on FOX.

Camille Paglia from Salon.com chalks it up to staffing issues. (that would sure fit in well with Obama’s habit of blaming his staff for everything…)

“Obama’s staffing problems are blatant — from that bleating boy of a treasury secretary to what appears to be a total vacuum where a chief of protocol should be. There has been one needless gaffe after another — from the president’s tacky appearance on a late-night comedy show to the kitsch gifts given to the British prime minister, followed by the sweater-clad first lady’s over-familiarity with the queen and culminating in the jaw-dropping spectacle of a president of the United States bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia. Why was protest about the latter indignity confined to conservatives? The silence of the major media was a disgrace. But I attribute that embarrassing incident not to Obama’s sinister or naive appeasement of the Muslim world but to a simple if costly breakdown in basic command of protocol.”

While I agree with Camille’s comments that these events were tacky, and the media has been disgraceful, I am not sure if the problems can be blamed soley on the lack of a protocol officer. I don’t have a chief of protocol and I knew that the gifts were tacky, the appearance on Leno was the wrong place, wrong time, with very wrong comments, and I know not to be so touchy feely with the Queen (and I wouldn’t have blocked Prince Philip out of the photo either, especially if I towered over him – how tall ARE they?). And I wouldn’t have kept my back to the press pool either. But that’s just me… (I don’t want pictures of my behind!)

And I highly doubt I would bow to the King of Saudi Arabia. If I bowed to anyone, it would have been the Queen. So, this just sounds like yet another round of excuses for Obama.

Obama called on an Indian reporter, Simrat Ghuman at his G20 presser. She alluded to Obama’s meeting with the Indian PM, Dr. Manmohan Singh (yes, he has a Ph.D. in Economics and is largely credited with the economic turn around of the subcontinent) and then asked Obama the question about what America was going to do to help India deal with terrorism emanating from Pakistan.

Obama started by saying “your PM is a wonderful man..” The reporter said “Thank you, I agree..” But then it took a turn for the weird with Obama making this idiotic comment: “Did you have something to do with that?” Watch:

If you didn’t hear his answer, there was something about carbon footprint. It is astounding that he is where he is today.

In other news, you remember the picture of the G20ers with the Queen, where the only guy with a million dollar smile that he can’t afford is Obama. In the video below, you can see him getting ready to flash his smile and there is something very unnatural about it. He must take the edict “Smile” to heart whenever a picture is taken. Incidentally the Queen did not like being told to smile for that picture and asked what they were celebrating.

And you remember the Italian guy, Berlusconi? Here he is with our million dollar smile guy and the Russian dude.

Well, Mr. Berlusconi apparently caused a stir by shouting “OBAMA” at the end of the photo shoot which made the Queen ask, “why does he have to shout?” Yeah, really why?

What is it that makes Obama attract losers like Berlusconi?

Here is some more idiotic banter from the smartest man on earth: Obama does not know the term for wheeling and dealing in Austrian language, he confesses. But what he does not know is that there is no Austrian language. Their official language is German. What the hell do they teach in these Ivy League schools, ha? Bit by bit, the man behind the curtain emerges.

OF NOTE: Too many blogs, particularly the Hillary-friendly blogs, would never publish a Dick Morris video, solely because of what he’s said about Hillary and Bill. I think that that is a mistake. Let’s leave such strict censorship to the Daily Kos crowd. I’m willing to listen to anyone whose commentary strikes a chord within me, or at the very least raises highly important matters that — sigh — our media do not cover.

I didn’t know that Morris does videos. Here is the link to his YouTube channel.

Mr. Morris’s blog contains more interesting thoughts, including these recent posts:

• “OBAMA, GM: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT (right on, Dick!)
• “OBAMA’S WORST JOBS-KILLER,” published April 1 in the New York Post:
  

  More than anything else, business needs a predictable environment if it is to create jobs. Changes in the regulatory environment and the tax code make it almost impossible for businesses to make investments.

  Yet President Obama seems to ignore this reality. Each day’s news brings another bold and far-reaching proposal to change the fundamentals of the US economy. And each time he indulges his personal ideology with such a pronouncement, businesses all over the world cut back on their planned investment until the dust settles.

  Most incredible was the fact that he chose the middle of a deep recession to announce a major tax-code overhaul. …

• “OBAMA SOAKS THE RICH: CHURCHES, DAY CARE, HOMELESS SHELTERS,” printed March 28th:
  

  President Obama’s glib assertion that his reduction in tax deductions will not reduce donations is absurd. His pathetic defense at his press conference – that he would still give a $100 dollar check to charity even if he only got $11 less of tax deduction from it was both disingenuous and beside the point.

  And his comment that his reduced deduction would only impact one or two percent of the nation misses the point that it is these folks who are doing almost half of the donating.

  In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, four million taxpayers had adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more. They comprised 3% of the tax returns, made 31% of the income, but donated 44% of all charitable contributions. Together, they provided charity with $81 billion in that year. …

You can’t say we’re not eclectic in what we post here, eh?

Here are some fun excerpts and pictures that prove my point, all from an article in the Daily Mail:

Oh Gordon, your smile! The Prime Minister, appearing alongside Barack Obama after breakfast today, stared at his American visitor and almost shattered the TV camera lenses with his moony grin.

You could have played Jewish harp with his lower lip, it was stretched so twangy tight.

Messrs Mills and Boon, when next looking for a book cover for one of their romantic novellas, when next seeking an illustration of doggy devotion, could do worse than use a photograph of the Prime Minister at the meeting.

Mills and Boon !!? I have not heard those names in 25 years. Are they still around?

What about this picture of Gordon’s moony grin?

and this one?

Mr Brown had by now turned his profile to us and it meant we could see the silhouette of his pouchy-cheeked, greedy grin.

His lips puckered, forming the shape of a robin’s beak, and he nodded slowly, repeatedly, at times even swallowing, so much was he salivating.

When he turned back to face us his eyes were narrow with creamy pleasure and he pushed forth his chin, stretching his lower neck.

Now he placed his hands behind his back and bounced a half inch or so on the balls of his feet, relishing the sound of Solomon Obama’s replies to a few questions from the Press.

Those replies were, as I say, on the chewy side and came out at the speed of an action replay on Match of the Day.

And finally, this one.

Could someone photoshop this picture above to put Gordon’s arm around Obama’s waist, please?

But all is not lost for Gordon. The article concludes with this:

Our old donkey Gordon, by comparison to this American visitor, was for once Mr Eloquent, Mr Quick-Off-The-Mark.

Mr Obama had managed to make Mr Brown look good. Another amazing achievement.

There you have it. Read all of Quentin Letts hilarious but true article here. Letts makes Mills and Boon proud (not that I read any of them but just have a feeling).

Que pasa? What else is going on?

Let’s review the objectives and commitments, each followed by questions and/or comments that I have:

1. Address countries providing tax havens.
My question: who will police?

2. Develop a Financial Accounting Stability Board to regulate currently unregulated financial entities, primarily hedge funds.
My questions: how will it be staffed, operated, and judgments adjudicated? (I don’t like FASB as the acronym to be confused with Federal Accounting Standards Board)

3. Develop global policies and outline to address compensation
My questions: who and how will this be implemented? how will it be regulated? will there be punishments for those not participating?

4. Develop a global systemic risk oversight body.
My Question: who and how?

5. Develop a common global approach to address toxic assets within the banks.
My Questions: will this approach be akin to the FASB relaxation of the mark-to-market? How will it be implemented? Will it employ free market principles or manipulate those principles?

6. Utlilize a global growth and recovery stimulus plan of $5 trillion via global central banks.
My Question: will every country and region go along with this?

7. Global central banks will maintain a fiscal expansionary posture.
My Question: what if inflation increases?

8. The IMF and other international agencies will receive $1 trillion. $750 billion directed to the IMF, $250 billion of which will be in the form of Special Drawing Rights. The G-20 will look for these international institutions to strengthen their independence. The G-20 looks for emerging economies and developing countries to get a greater voice in these international institutions.
My Comment: China just won BIG RIGHT HERE!!

9. The G-20 countries will look to kickstart international trade.
My Question/Comment: Congratulations!! How do they plan on doing this in the face of the global protectionist measures and financial protectionism being enacted everywhere?

10. The G-20 will meet in New York City again in September.
My Comment: is this really a very good idea? Can you imagine the rioting that may ensue there? I wonder if body piercing is optional to get involved in the fun?

In summary, the global equity markets are responding positively to these commitments along with the relaxation of the mark-to- market. I am concerned that free market principles have taken a back seat to potentially excessive political and accounting manipulation. That said, the global economy and global banking system will receive significant hard dollars along with significant accounting cover to help itself heal. My personal opinion is world leaders are trying to buy time but will risk real inflation to heal the global recession.

I will say, though, there will certainly not be a dearth of material for Sense on Cents to address as we navigate the economic landscape!!

LD

Here’s a video that Andy discovered that fleetingly shows the mortifying bow:

As a PROUD American who still sees our nation’s position as the “leader of the free world,” I am shocked that President Obama seems to go out of his way to depict our nation, as its top global representative, to be a second-class, has-been nation.

President Obama is making us look WEAK and quite VULNERABLE.

Did he buy into Fareed Zakaria’s premise in the title of his book, The Post-American World, which bloggers discovered in this photograph and posted widely during the election campaign?

BTW: For some truly “un-PC” comments, check out the Yahoo Answers page all about the bow.

Here’s a substantive CNBC discussion on the issues to be brought up during meeting between President Obama and King Abdullah, with former Saudi ambassador Richard Murphy, now with the Council on Foreign Relations, and Mohsin Kahn, a Peterson Institute Senior Fellow. Those issues include Iran, of course, and the U.S.’s Iraq exit strategy.