Ah Bejaysus and Begorrah! Oi’ll be swearin’ boi the auld shrine to the Vorgin with the shamrocks growin’ round it next to the hill where Cuchullain slew the Great Leprechaun of Kildare on St Patrick’s Day that Barack Seamus O’Toole Flaherty Joyce O’Bama is the most Irish US president that ever set foot on the Emerald Oisle, so he is, so he is.

Except, when he’s in Africa, of course, when he disappears into the dry ice and re-emerges with a grass skirt and a bone through his nose and declares himself to be Mandingo, Prince of the Bloodline of the Bonga People, Drinker of Cattle Urine, Father of A Thousand Warrior Sons, Keeper of King Solomon’s Mines, Barehanded Slayer of Lions, Undaunted Victim of the Evil Colonial British Empire.

[...]

Tony Blair used to do this trick too, his accent mutating from broad Glaswegian to genteel Edinburgh to Mummerset to Estuary to Richard E Grant to Sarf London Grime – often in the course of one Downing Street reception – the better to persuade his target audience that he was their kind of guy. And it is, of course, the hallmark of an unutterable charlatan.

I’ve argued before that Tony Blair and Barack Obama have an awful lot in common. Both are lawyers; both are snake-oil-salesman; both claim to be post-partisan, and Third Way and consensual; both play the acceptable, moderate-seeming public face of a regime chock full of Communists, class warriors, single issue rabble rousers, malcontents, communitarians and eco-loons hell bent on destroying every last vestige of what once made their country great. And both do (or did) the things dodgy political leaders always do when the going gets tough at home and their domestic audience finally wises up to how totally useless they are: they hop on the plane and pose as international statesman instead.

No kidding. Is it any surprise that Obama went abroad given the very, very brief bump in his poll numbers, and the continued Spring of Discontent in this country? I am only surprised he didn’t go to the West Bank after his disastrous speech about Israel.

Perhaps he knew that Netanyahu’s speech to Congress was going to be better received than Obama’s was from the State Department. And that Netanyahu would get more standing ovations than Obama did for his State of the Union address. Ahem. Perhaps that is why he felt compelled to get the hell out of Dodge and to get some of that adoration he thrives on so much…

It is all about the spin, isn’t it? Like the spin the MSM is putting on the special election up in NY State. They are making it sound like the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, won by a landslide, and that it is a HUGE referendum on The Republicans’ position on Medicare.

There are two problems with this logic: 1. Hochul had all of 4% more votes than the Republican, Jane Corwin; and 2. the alleged Tea Party candidate, Jack Davis, siphoned off 9% of the votes. Do the math.

And about Davis, I think it is safe to say that Davis, who has run a number of times as a Democrat in that region, was a spoiler, and a successful one at that.

The major spin here, though, as Dana Perino pointed out, is that The DEMOCRATS cut $500 million to Medicare in the DEMOCRATIC passage of Obamacare. How is it that they are now going to be the ones to save it from those evil Republicans? Good grief.

It is clear, though, that this is how the MSM is going to spin it – it is the primary headline for a number of outlets. Wow.

This kind of hoodwinking and bamboozling seems to be the stock and trade these days, and is certainly a hallmark of Obama’s. Along those lines, I will leave the conclusion to Mr. Delingpole, who sums up Obama’s trip to the UK, and his presidency in general, beautifully:

[snip] Obama can’t stand Britain (his wife likes us even less): he made that clear enough when he sent back Winston Churchill’s bust and dissed our Prime Minister with those dodgy DVDS. He blames us for what happened to his grandfather during Mau Mau. He doesn’t believe in the Special Relationship. Are we honestly supposed to believe in that during the subsequent year in office, Obama has since acquired such wisdom and insight that he suddenly realises how special we are?

Of course he hasn’t. Obama is just doing now what all bullies and losers start doing when they realise how unpopular they are and that everyone is abandoning them. They suck up to anybody and everybody. They whore themselves piteously before enemies they once considered beneath their contempt. Fain will they fill their bellies with husks that swine eat – but which no man will give them: and serve them jolly well right, too!

By all means let us enjoy watching Obama smarm and grovel and ingratiate himself like seome presidential Uriah Heep. But for heaven’s sake let us never give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s a cold fish and would certainly never show any mercy towards us were the roles to be reversed.

Amen to that…

Yes, yes, that was mighty funny. Finally, someone was saying what so many of us lefties thought.

Then, at the end of this past September, Chavez turned his, um, aromatic rhetoric on Obama, who came out smelling like a rose:

Oh, blech. Anyone smell any hope up in here? Yeah, me neither.

Well, that was then. Now, Chavez’s olfactory senses are being assaulted again, this time by Obama:

See, I told you Obama was like Bush (and not just because of Chavez)! Oh, this is just too, too rich. I bet Obama didn’t see THAT one coming!

Now I have no particular love lost for Chavez, though I do appreciate that his country sent a whole bunch of heating oil up to New England during Bush’s presidency. Regardless how you feel about him, this is funny.

But it isn’t just Chavez who is turning on Obama. It seems many in the World Community are seing the “Citizen of the World” for who he is. The more Obama traipses around talking, taling, talking, the more they get it. Yes, this headline from the Guardian (UK) pretty much says it all, Barack Obama’s Speech Disappoints And Fuels Frustration At Copenhagen,US president offers no further commitment on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries.

Oh dear. That doesn’t bode well for Obama from the get-go:

Barack Obama stepped into the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit today saying he was convinced the world could act “boldly and decisively” on climate change.

But his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort — and a 10-day meeting — from ending in total collapse.

Obama, who had been skittish about coming to Copenhagen at all unless it could be cast as a foreign policy success, looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders.

He offered no further commitments on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries beyond Hillary Clinton’s announcement yesterday that America would support a $100bn global fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change.

He did not even press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months.

Nope. Of course he didn’t. He’s too busy pushing this “Health Care” policy that the majority of Americans do not want, apparently to feed his own ego. He sure isn’t going to push them on something for which he cannot claim sole credit. C’mon already!

As for what Obama said in Copenhagen:

The president’s speech followed the publication of draft text, obtained by the Guardian this morning, that reveals the enormous progress needed from world leaders in the final hours of the Copenhagen climate change summit to achieve a strong deal. The draft says countries “ought” to limit global warming to 2C, but crucially does not bind them to do so. The text, drafted by a select group of 28 leaders – including UK prime minister, Gordon Brown – in the early hours of this morning, also proposes extending negotiations for another year until the next scheduled UN meeting on climate change in Mexico City in December 2010.

In his address, Obama did say America would follow through on his administration’s clean energy agenda, and that it would live up to its pledges to the international community.

“We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say,” Obama said.

But in the absence of any evidence of that commitment the words rang hollow and there was a palpable sense of disappointment in the audience.

Instead, he warned African states and low island nations who have been resisting what they see as a weak agreement that the later alternative — no agreement — was far worse.

“We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation,” he said.

“Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.”

Well, I guess he chose delay, because there is nothing concrete about the “deal” that came out of all of this. But Obama wasn’t done:

He also took a dig at China, drawing attention to its status as the world’s biggest emitter and reinforcing America’s hardline on the issue of accountability for greenhouse gas emissions.

The lacklustre speech proved a huge frustration to a summit that had been looking to Obama to use his stature on the world stage – and his special following among African leaders – to try to come to an ambitious deal.

The president was drawn into the chaos within minutes of his arrival at Copenhagen, ditching his schedule to take part in a meeting of major industrialised and rapidly emerging economies.

Responding to Obama’s speech, a British official said: “Gordon Brown is committed to doing all he can and will stay until the very last minute to secure a deal… but others also need to show the same level of commitment. The prospects of a deal are not great.”

I believe he was talking to Obama, don’t you? I love Obama lecturing China, too. That is rich. He might want to be a tad careful before they call in all of their chits. We’d be bumming if that happened.

People abroad are opening their eyes on this “Citizen of the World”:

Many reactions were strongly critical of Obama. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

Tim Jones, a spokesman for the World Development Movement, said: “The president said he came to act, but showed little evidence of doing so. He showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster.”

Friends of the Earth said in a statement, “Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world.”

The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: “The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority.”

The extent of crisis in the talks has taken leaders by surprise. The Brazilian leader, Lula da Silva, told the conference that the all-night negotiating sessions took him back to his days as a trade union leader negotiating with his bosses.

There’s that Chavez again exposing Obama’s lack of real action. Not to mention an organization we have supported for many, many years now, the World Wildlife Fund. I think the “Friends of the Earth” sum it up nicely: “…he has disappointed the whole world.” Surely now the “whole world” realizes he hoodwinked them, too, with his “lofty” (empty) rhetoric. All talk, no action, just like we have been saying.

Ah, well – I guess they have learned their lesson, too, like some in the States are now. Maybe next time, they, along with those in this country, won’t be taken in by a charlatan. That doesn’t help for the moment, but maybe we will all be wiser next time around (that’s a collective “we,” not us specifically, as I posted recently). Our country depends upon it. And the world just might, too.

When Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Africa last month, she visited war-racked eastern Congo to speak out against widespread rape by militias. She choked up after meeting with two rape victims and promised more US help – $17 million for medical treatment and security for victims.

Now she’s taking the issue to the United Nations, where the US is leading an effort to shore up a resolution to end sexual violence against civilians during armed conflict. The Security Council passed Resolution 1820 last year, but follow through is sorely lacking.

Women’s rights are becoming a signature issue for America’s top diplomat. In her official travels, Mrs. Clinton talks with women, meets with female activists, and presses the twin challenges of women’s rights and abuse with political leaders. She wants US development aid to focus more on women, and has appointed the first US ambassador for global women’s issues.

The Bush administration, too, championed women’s rights, especially in Muslim countries such as Afghanistan. But no Secretary of State has sought to make women as high a priority as Clinton is attempting. It’s a potentially powerful shift. If she can pull it off.

As Rev. Amy noted in her terrific piece, Well, Isn’t This a Nice Change, the Washington Post started the very short parade to end the virtual press blackout on Clinton by writing a lovely and informative article focused on the woman’s work, not her pantsuits or cackle:

“Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades.”

Well, if anyone can pull it off…

A more detailed article on this issue appeared in the Washington Times today, noting:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who appeared genuinely moved after her August visit to rape victims in eastern Congo, is expected to chair a special U.N. Security Council session at the end of the month to review U.N. efforts to curb the epidemic.

“Meeting with survivors of rape, which is now used increasingly as a tool of war, was shattering,” Mrs. Clinton told a New York audience Friday. “The atrocities described to me distill evil to its basest form. These are crimes against humanity. They don’t just harm a single individual, or a single family, or village or group. They shred the fabric that weaves us together as human beings. This criminal outrage against women must be stopped.”

In a new approach, two U.N. reports issued last week could lay a basis for war crimes prosecutions against individual soldiers.

…the U.N. Security Council meeting Sept. 30 would review implementation of Resolution 1820, passed last year explicitly to outlaw sexual violence in conflict and afterward. Women’s groups praised the 2008 text for designating rape as a threat to international peace and security.

As Tina Brown, editor of The Daily Beast recently stated in her otherwise sexist piece Obama’s Other Wife, “Hillary Clinton has been fighting for the rights of women since before it was fashionable.” I applaud Secretary Clinton for making this a priority. The CSM article states that:

Obstacles abound, including the unruly thicket of US aid programs. But the greatest challenge is the deeply rooted culture in countries that oppress women and girls – often violently and even to the point of enslavement, sexual and otherwise. Honor killings, child brides, female infanticide – all of these accepted customs need to be realized as unacceptable.

They wisely point out that Secretary Clinton is doing her best not to fall into the trap of being seen to lecture foreign countries on their treatment of women, or to create social upheaval and note that she is “wisely framing the issue in terms of countries’ own interests”:

Her pitch: Healthcare for women, especially maternal care, makes for healthier children and families. Schooling for girls contributes to economic progress. Microloans to women pay handsome dividends as women pay them off and invest further in businesses and their families’ welfare. (The majority of the world’s small-holder farmers are women.)

Some experts also see a link between the oppression of women and the problems of extremism and terrorism.

“It is a very-well-researched fact that women are key to economic progress and social stability,” Clinton said in India this summer. Global aid groups, the World Bank, the US military, and economists agree. “Gender inequality hurts economic growth,” reports Goldman Sachs.

Attitudes in male-dominated countries can change once men see the monetary benefits of female empowerment. Writers Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn give a convincing example of this in their new book, “Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide.”

Mr. Kristof and Ms. WuDunn also deserve kudos for drawing attention to this issue. British PM Gordon Brown recently praised their important book in his article Taking Women’s Rights Seriously:

They tell of Saima Muhammad, a poverty-stricken wife and mother near Lahore, Pakistan, who suffered daily beatings from her jobless husband. For lack of food, she had to send her daughter to live with an aunt. When her second child, a girl, was born, Saima’s husband was urged by his mother to take a second wife so he could father a son.

Then Saima got a loan of $65 through a Pakistani group that lends exclusively to women. She started an embroidery business that now employs 30 families in the neighborhood (including her husband). She paid off her husband’s debt (more than $3,000), kept her girls in school, and upgraded her house, adding running water and TV.

The authors write that Saima’s husband is now more impressed with girls. They are “just as good as boys,” he says.

Yep, we are just as good as boys. And once in a while, we’re even better. Sssh. Keep that under your hat. Would have been nice if people figured that out in 2008. But I digress…

In closing, the Christian Science Monitor states that Secretary Clinton has found the best way to frame this issue in order to get the most mileage, since we know appealing on a humanitarian basis has not gotten us very far in the decent and equal treatment of women and girls – either here or around the world:

Of course, women’s rights are human rights. They don’t need to be justified for any other reason than that. But in many countries, the path to that realization may well begin with economic self-interest, and Clinton is right to recognize this.

It is the understatement of the century that I would prefer her leadership as President, yet I appreciate she is making this cause such an important element of her platform as Secretary of State, a cause she promoted in her famous speech in Beijing in 1995, which she delivered in defiance of the U.S. State Dept. and the Chinese government:

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”

I am so proud to have supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 and to see that she is still working for the issues she holds near and dear, no matter how she is treated, no matter how the American press pretends she doesn’t exist, no matter what else is going on around her. This is an adult who sees the bigger picture.

She’ll always have my vote.

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).

It’s always ABC’s Jake Tapper who gets the essential details (h/t B). Besides a great many photos of the Queen’s visits to the U.S. in 1957 and 2007, there were these, because surely the Queen must be dying to hear and see “The One”:

• Photos from President Obama’s Inauguration
• Audio of then-state senator Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and
• Audio of President Obama 2009 Inauguration Address

There was also this amusing exchange between Prince Philip and President Obama, via Mirror.co.Uk:

Prince Philip nearly put his foot in it on meeting Barack Obama last night.

The president told him: “I had breakfast with the Prime Minister. I had meetings with the Chinese, the Russians, David Cameron.”

The prince replied: “Can you tell the difference between them?” Observers said they believed he was referring to the meetings, not the people.

Prince Philip, as you may recall, is a bit infamous for not being terribly P.C.

We who partook of television news today were told countless times that one NEVER touches the Queen. Well … reports the BBC:

Michelle Obama has frequently displayed a down-to-earth approach during the trip.

On meeting the Queen, she followed formality by curtseying, but later, during a reception, she showed her more casual, affectionate side by putting her arm around Her Majesty to hug her.

It is reported that the Queen was so taken by Mrs Obama she even said: “Now we’ve met, will you please keep in touch?”

I’m sure.

Then there was the BIG question of the day: Would Michelle bare her arms? Everyone expected it wouldn’t quite be proper protocol. Nevertheless, as we all saw when she and the president arrived at 10 Downing Street for dinner, here she was:

Here’s one more photo from the BBC:

I have a question. How did the president of the United States end up in the second row? And why is Brazil’s President Lula seated to the Queen’s right?

Lastly, here’s the serious stuff, with the “blame the U.S.” meme going strong, adopted by PM Gordon Brown because he’s teetering on the edge of an abyss and will use the ploy if it wins him a percentage point or two in the polls:

UPDATE: Here’s a CNN video about Michelle’s style. There are things I could say. I’ll recall a memory from my teen years: I vividly recall my mother, and her friends, emphasizing to me how to walk, and we girls would often practice with a book balanced on our heads.

– From my site, The John Batchelor Show.

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

Editor’s Postscript: Be sure to catch Larry Johnson on John Batchelor’s radio show Sunday nights just after 7 p.m. PT, on Los Angeles’s KFI-AM. Here’s our most recent Sunday reminder with all the links and details. Stop by NoQuarterUSA.net on Sunday to read the topics and linked stories for Sunday night’s programming.

Original: This is one of the HOTTEST VIDEOS out there! Enjoy (or become enraged!) … and perhaps you can think of another politician to whom such a speech might be spoken???

NOW, GEITHNER’S GAFFE EXPOSURE OF HOW LITTLE HE CARES ABOUT THIS NATION!

SECRETARY GEITHNER: WE CANNOT ENTRUST OUR “TREASURE” TO YOU. You must go. You are not a patriot, sir. You are speaking to patriotic Americans who are paying for that TRICK — THAT STUNT — you pulled with the “toxic assets” plan that, as Paul Krugman vehemently pointed out, will cost American taxpayers around “$1 TRILLION” — all of it going to major companies, not to the people WHO ARE THE ONES paying for it!!!

AND: Are we all calling our representatives and senators every day? And e-mailing them constantly? They need to hear from us! They won’t read our e-mails to each other!

And, what else say you?

SURPRISE BONUS: LatinaFreedomFighter e-mailed me this video!