Obama and America's Royal Allies

When Barrack Hussein Obama first ran for and was elected President of the United States, one could be forgiven for thinking that there was even greater pro-Obama hysteria outside of America than here at home. Around the world he was treated like a celebrity, drawing huge crowds in Britain, Germany and even being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize regardless of the minor detail of not having done anything to deserve it. However, now that his two terms in office are almost over most of that gushing adoration has died down and, looking at his administration, we can better evaluate how Obama has done in terms of dealing with the official and un-official allies of the United States. For our purposes here, we will be looking at Obama’s relationship with the monarchies of the world, almost all of which are directly or indirectly allied to the United States. The picture that emerges is, unfortunately, not a pleasant one but not one that most conservatives at least would find at all surprising as they alone seemed interested enough to try to find out what sort of man Obama really is rather than falling in love at first sight with like those on the left, both at home and abroad.

In terms of his dealings with monarchs, one of the first things that grabbed public attention in America was Obama bowing to certain monarchs. If one cares to, one can look back at the archives and see that I stuck up for our president on this occasion, the first instance being when, on a visit to the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, he bowed to His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, albeit rather awkwardly while simultaneously trying to shake his hand. However, that was not the end of it. Many Americans lapsed into exaggerated hysterics about how it was an offense to republican principles for the President to bow to the Emperor of Japan, while the White House responded to the issue by saying the President was simply following local custom. As I said at the time, I had and have no problem with the President showing proper respect and bowing to the Japanese Emperor but I later came to have a problem with Obama’s inconsistency on this front. Given what has happened since, I sometimes wonder if he was actually intentionally bowing at all or simply bending low to shake the Emperor’s hand, given that the Japanese monarch is considerably shorter than the President.

No, it was not his behavior toward the Emperor of Japan that was a problem for me but rather where things went from there that showed Obama was not simply being fastidious on the issue of protocol. Later, Obama bowed to another monarch, that being the King of Saudi Arabia. He bowed so low in fact that it almost seemed he was about to pick something up off the floor. But, again, no major cause for alarm. However, when he later had formal meetings with other monarchs such as the King of Sweden, the King of Norway or the King of Spain, did he ever bow to any of them? Not that I noticed and Michelle Obama committed a major faux-pas in London by actually putting her hands on the person of Her Majesty the Queen. Obviously, the bowing was not being done in an effort to follow protocol to the last detail. If not, why does it seem that Obama only shows such respect to non-western, non-Christian monarchs? And, the list does not end there as Obama has, in his own behavior and the policies of his administration, done a great deal to show that America’s royal friends are no friends of his.

We might as well begin with the United Kingdom which, while not our oldest, has certainly been our closest and most important ally. Despite being widely celebrated in the UK, with even conservatives like Tory MEP Daniel Hannan voicing support for him, Obama made it clear as soon as he took office that he was no great friend of the British. His first act upon moving into the Oval Office was to remove and send back the bust of Sir Winston Churchill that his presidential predecessor had placed there. In their first exchange of gifts, Obama sent the Queen some off-the-shelf items from the White House gift shop and an iPod loaded with his own speeches in an act which even many on the left thought arrogant and in very poor taste. These acts caused more than a few to recall how Obama had, in the books he enjoys writing about his favorite subject -himself-, related stories of how his grandfather in Kenya was supposedly tortured by British colonial authorities during the Mau Mau terrorist insurgency and whether the President might just have a strong anti-British grudge he is nursing. However, there is much more to it than mere symbolic gestures as those above.

Obama referred to the French as America’s strongest friend and ally which is language usually reserved for the British with the French traditionally, and correctly, being referred to as America’s “oldest” ally. Obama refused five requests for a private meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (the Israeli PM could sympathize on that one) and later, in another appallingly bad exchange of gifts, sent Brown a set of various films on DVD which would have been bad enough but to add insult to injury they were DVDs that cannot be played in Britain. Are we expected to believe that Obama and his White House team that is bursting at the seams with Ivy League graduates, hailed as the smartest administration in American history, has no knowledge or understanding of region coding? He also, after the BP oil spill and conveniently right around election time, made a point of constantly referring to BP as “British Petroleum” as if to make it more sinister and foreign sounding, regardless of the fact that no one else calls it that anymore, the company having some time ago dropped the name and stuck only with the initials to stand for “Beyond Petroleum”.

The most serious issues though, are those that deal with actual foreign policy as it relates to Great Britain. Obama has never wasted an opportunity to show his visceral dislike for the British. His primary cohort in this was his Secretary of State and current favored candidate to succeed him, Hillary Clinton. It was Clinton who pushed for the intervention in Libya only to then adopt the “lead from behind policy” and have Europe do all the heavy lifting involved. When the situation resulted in chaos, Obama was quick to blame the Europeans rather than accepting any responsibility for the actions of his own administration. Likewise, when Obama at least pretended like he wanted to go to war with Syria, he blamed British PM “Call me Dave” Cameron for failing to win a vote in the House of Commons for giving the U.S. Congress an example to follow and thus for every bit of bad news that has come out of Syria since. The one point, though, that I found most outrageous was when Argentina began rattling the saber again over the Falkland Islands in 2010, Obama sent Hillary Clinton to act as mediator and basically take the side of Argentina over Britain. Clinton no doubt agreed as it was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who made Argentina a “major non-NATO ally”, and the only one in all of South America, in spite of the fact that this country has an outstanding territorial dispute with Britain, which is already an ally and which the U.S. is obligated to defend.

Finally, we have Obama’s latest effort to insert himself into the debate over Britain staying in or leaving the European Union with Obama very publicly urging British voters to vote to stay in the European Union. This, of course, is just the sort of behavior that would infuriate Americans on the left and/or the right if it were done by a foreign leader in regard to an American issue. I am a big fan of the U.K. and as much as I wish that the British would feel the same about the U.S. the fact of the matter is that Britain should tell Obama to mind his own bloody business and not try to tell them how to vote. They should be concerned with what is best for Britain, not what is best for America (that is for Americans alone to worry about). Furthermore, I cannot regard this as yet more evidence of simple bad manners since I am very, very much of the opinion that staying in the EU is bad for Britain and so, taken along with his history in office, cannot dismiss the notion that Obama is purposely advocating something that has had and will have a very negative impact on a country he clearly dislikes. It is no surprise that more than one prominent figure in the ‘Brexit’ crowd such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage (UKIP MEP) have finally been compelled by this to state openly that Obama has been consistently anti-British during his time in office.

Moving beyond Europe, where thanks to the EU national relations between America and individual countries does not count for much anymore as Brussels handles everything, we have the problematic situation in the Middle East where, despite his bowing and scraping, Obama has left the Arab monarchies feeling less than pleased with the United States government. Certainly he has been more attentive to them than to the crowned heads of Europe but for the Arab monarchies there is one overriding issue and that is the Islamic Republic of Iran. For a long time there has been a long-standing tension and recurring open hostilities between Iran and the Arab states over the dominant position in the Middle East (and other than Egypt, the leading Arab states are predominately monarchies; Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman). Now, one can certainly question whether or not these Arab states are genuine allies of the United States (they leave plenty of room for doubt) but the facts on paper are that such is the case and they have been greatly alarmed by the Iranians, who already had a pliant ally in Syria, expanding their influence into Iraq and they have been trying to do the same in Yemen.

This has greatly alarmed the Arabs and never have they expressed more diplomatic outrage at the United States than after Obama’s notorious “deal” concerning the nuclear program in Iran. This called for the release of billions of dollars to Iran, the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran and left little room for doubt that they will inevitably obtain nuclear weapons. Since the agreement, and in spite of it, they have also been buying more and more conventional weapons from the Russians. Of course, when it comes to Iran, the enemy they like to talk about the most is Israel but since the Islamic Revolution they have made it clear that they are the enemies of the Arab Muslims as well, referring to the Sunnis as the “heretics who hold Mecca”. Obama’s deal with Iran and his overall indecisiveness in the region so infuriated the Saudis that they turned down a temporary seat on the UN Security Council on the grounds that, thanks to Obama, it doesn’t matter anyway. By clearing the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, Obama has set the stage for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia and Egypt sure to obtain their own nuclear arsenals to counter that of Iran.

Moving farther to the east, we have the situation with America’s most important ally in the East Asia-Pacific region: Japan. Here, a great many people, including a great many Japanese, have been fooled by Obama’s empty gestures. He gave, as political pay-back, Japan a “celebrity” ambassador in the person of Caroline Kennedy, never mind that she has no diplomatic experience, could not speak Japanese or any such troubling details, she was a Kennedy after all, she is famous and she was given an uproarious welcome when she came to Japan. However, rather than simply representing the United States in Tokyo, Obama’s chosen ambassador said that her primary goal in Japan was to promote greater participation in politics by women in Japan. Because, it seems, that gender roles in the Land of the Rising Sun are still far too traditional for the liberals of the Obama White House. What does it say that a foreign ambassador’s stated goal upon being posted is to interfere in the internal affairs of the host country? To represent the American government is her job, to promote Japanese-American friendship is great, to promote American interests is fine but to try to tell Japanese voters what sort of people they need to elect is, again, none of her business and none of Obama’s business. And one will notice that none of Obama’s ambassadors to countries where women are treated as little more than property ever said anything similar. She has also stuck her nose where it doesn’t belong with her comments critical of fishing practices in Taiji and the Prime Minister visiting the Yasukuni Shrine.

Other countries, particularly China and Korea, have a history of protesting any time any Japanese official chooses to worship at Yasukuni Shrine but the U.S. had previously always said nothing about it, considering it an internal matter and, shocking as this may sound, none of their business where and in what way a Japanese prime minister chooses to exercise his freedom of religion. But, all of that was before Obama and thanks to Kennedy’s expression of “disappointment” other countries which had previously stayed out of the issue, took the occasion to speak up as well, piling on Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The idea that someone as far to the left as Obama would find nothing to criticize in a prime minister as far to the right as Shinzo Abe was certainly naïve. What was most outrageous though was something that many in Japan cheered Obama for which was his public statement that the Senkaku Islands, which are Japanese territory but claimed by Communist China, are covered by the Japanese-American security treaty. In other words, if China decides to grab the islands, it will mean big trouble with America.

The Japanese applauded this but it was actually only a re-statement of what was already well established. What many, in all their rejoicing, failed to note was that Obama followed up that comment with the completely asinine statement that the U.S. took no official position on the territorial dispute over the islands between China and Japan. I seem to have been the only one to find this outrageous but I hope I am mistaken in that. Either way you look at it, this was an immensely outrageous thing for Obama to say. By that statement, Obama could only mean one of two things; either he meant that the Senkakus are Japanese territory and we will defend them but that could change at any time depending on how this dispute unfolds, or he just casually announced that he was pledging America’s sons and daughters to possibly give their lives in defense of a cause which he is not even sure is the right one! In any case, it shows that Obama’s attitude toward Japan has been one of tepid support and unfriendly meddling. An aide to Prime Minister Abe went so far as to say that relations were better when there was a Republican in the White House.

Lastly in the region, there is also the case of Obama’s disgraceful record toward the Kingdom of Thailand. The United States and Thailand have been official allies since 1966 but have had friendly relations going back much farther with King Mongkut of Siam famously offering to send President Lincoln a herd of war elephants so he could fight the Civil War properly and illustrated at the worst of times by the United States not responding in kind when Thailand declared war on the United States in World War II. Things began to go wrong when, again, Obama decided to meddle in the affairs of an American ally after the 2014 military coup. Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s successor, John Kerry caused great offense in the halls of power in Bangkok when he issued a statement expressing how “disappointed” he was in the actions of the Royal Thai Army and that, “this act will have negative implications for the U.S.-Thai relationship, especially for our relationship with the Thai military”.

The Obama State Department has since then made numerous statements and taken actions which have all offended and aggravated our friends in Thailand and all because the military government is out-of-step with Obama’s liberal worldview of how things should be done. And it cannot be said that this has nothing to do with the King, a great man revered in Thailand who was born in America and supported the United States during the Vietnam conflict. The King officially appointed the Thai general who led the coup to the office of prime minister in 2014, effectively giving it his endorsement and was totally correct to do so. Not only is the meddling of Obama unseemly and uncalled for, it is also putting him on the wrong side. The military took action because of the violent acts of radical leftists who were upset that their favorite government had been brought down, a government that was marked by corruption and criminal behavior on a rampant scale. By being so critical of the current government in Thailand, Obama has offended a long-standing friend and pushed them closer toward Communist China which is ever looking to increase its influence in Southeast Asia, made all the easier since Russia abandoned Vietnam in favor of the Chinese. Thailand is our only solid friend in the region and Obama, in true, holier-than-thou, Wilsonian fashion, has needlessly antagonized them and made things worse for Thailand as well as the United States.

It is not terribly dissimilar from his actions in regard to the republican government in Egypt where Obama pushed for the removal of an official Arab ally because he did not meet his lofty, liberal standards, only to then see the country fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood (an organization so radical even Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE have labeled it a terrorist organization). If Obama knew anything about Thailand he would know that the occasional coup is not exactly unprecedented and not the harbinger of disaster as it often is in other countries. He would know that the U.S. military and the Royal Thai military have worked closely together for decades and that the leaders of the Royal Thai Army are not power-hungry tyrants-in-waiting but are largely honorable men, loyal to their King, who want the best for their country and took action to save it from the disruptive, even terrorist and disloyal elements that were threatening it.

Then again, perhaps I am being unkind to Mr. Obama. Perhaps he knows the situation better than that. Perhaps he knows what the “red shirts” were all about, perhaps he approved of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his socialist, welfare-state policies, his easy loans and big spending that made Thai farmers dependent on the government, his cronyism, his rampant bribery and the violence and intimidation used by the supporters of the prime minister and his family. Maybe he sees nothing wrong with the extremely dubious loyalty of his crowd to the fundamentals of Thailand. If so, then he is guilty of nothing less than cheering on the ruination of an American ally and is doing the best he can, short of direct intervention, to kill any chance at recovery. However, whether his policy is malicious or simply ignorant, it has certainly been negative for both countries involved and has only served the interests of powers that have only the worst of intentions for both the United States and the Kingdom of Thailand in the long-run.

There are other issues that could be highlighted, such as Obama’s killing of the Keystone XL pipeline, even going so far, as he did with BP, to invoke national bigotry by constantly complaining how the pipeline would primarily be to the benefit of Canada rather than the United States but, then again, that was when Stephen Harper was in office and I’m sure now that little Justin Trudeau has taken over his opinion of Canada has greatly improved. However, I think the case has been well made. President Obama has certainly been bad for this country and his constant habit of “reaching out” to our enemies while snubbing or taking sides against our allies, has certainly been well demonstrated and had negative consequences. The only problem I have in pointing this out is that, while it upsets me a great deal, from numerous on-line comments I see on a daily basis, I am also constantly having to face the dilemma that there is so much mindless anti-Americanism out there as to mean that in this twisted, upside-down world where many people seem to hate their friends and admire those who want to kill them, that maybe Obama’s antagonistic attitude toward our royal allies will have the opposite effect that it otherwise would have. I hope that is not the case and hope that there is a silent majority out there who wants to be friends rather than enemies but, if that is not the case, change may soon be coming with the next presidential election.

Japan: After Obama

I want to direct these comments specifically to the people of a monarchy near and dear to my heart: 日本 (Japan). President of the United States Barack Obama just visited the “Land of the Rising Sun” and I’m sure everyone is still exhilarated in the afterglow of such a brush with celebrity, especially when, for the first time ever, the President of the United States actually stated specifically that the Senkaku Islands were covered by the treaty which requires the United States to fight in defense of Japan if Japanese territory is ever attacked by a foreign power. First of all, I do not mean to diminish such a statement. I am certainly glad that it was made and can only say it should have been made much sooner but, better late than never as the saying goes. There is nothing I want more than for the United States and Japan to be fast friends and close allies. The assurance from Obama means that if the People’s Kleptomaniac Republic of Chinese Sweatshop Workers tries to seize the Senkaku Islands, the United States will assist Japan in defending and/or recovering that part of Japanese sovereign territory. Well, almost, that is to say, more or less because President Obama also said that the United States does not take a position on the issue of the sovereignty dispute over the islands between Japan and Red China. After all, the last thing you want to do is make your banker angry with you.

Wait a minute, WHAT?! So, everyone is all excited because President Obama, almost in the same breath, said that the Senkakus are included in the U.S.-Japanese defense treaty but that the United States does not take sides in the dispute over who actually holds sovereignty over those islands? Surely this must be some mistake! Surely, our brilliant, Harvard-educated President did not just pledge to go to war on behalf of a few islands without first being sure where he stands on who exactly is the rightful owner of said islands -right? You see, Japan, this is why it doesn’t do to get too excited over President Obama. Again, I am glad he gave an assurance on support in the Senkakus issue, it is certainly better if he had given none at all. However, his assurance rings rather hollow when he cannot even say that the United States, under his administration, is taking the side of its ally Japan over Maoist China in regards to the dispute that is at the heart of the matter. Remember, this is the same man who had Chairman Mao’s face emblazoned on his Christmas tree ornaments. This is the man whose former communications director was Anita Dunn who said that Chairman Mao was one of the two people she admired most. This is the President who named Ron Bloom his “manufacturing czar” who said that, “We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun”. Be happy, but do not be too trusting of this President.

Just for a little parallel, remember how excited everyone was when President Obama named Caroline Kennedy the U.S. Ambassador to Japan? Sure, she didn’t have any diplomatic experience, had never lived in Japan and has no understanding of the Japanese language but, it’s CAROLINE KENNEDY! Her dad was President! Remember all the crowds cheering and waving when she arrived, all the excited people singing “Sweet Caroline” as she went to the Imperial Palace to present her credentials? Yes, that was fun, but how did that work out? Ambassador Kennedy said her top priority was to promote more feminism in Japan because there are not enough women serving in the Japanese government (and trust me, she did not mean that she wished Madame Yuko Tojo had been elected) as if that is any of her business and as if her job was not to represent the President of the United States in Japan but to spread American-style feminist “equality” amongst the less “progressive” Japanese! But that was just the beginning. She then went on to be the first U.S. Ambassador to express “disappointment” at Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, again, as if it is any of her business or that of her country or any other country where the political leader of Japan goes to pray. Later she stuck her nose in local matters again by calling the traditional dolphin hunt in Taiji as an example of “inhumaneness” and later still she had her embassy staff release an official statement condemning the comments made by the new governors of the NHK. What do all of these have in common? They all were none of her business and had nothing to do with the United States or American-Japanese relations, yet she decided to sit in judgment of the people of Japan on every one of them.

She still gets the celebrity treatment of course and maybe, having no diplomatic experience, she just didn’t understand that these were things she should not have done. Then again, maybe this is all some passive-aggressive way of taking revenge on the Japanese for sinking her father’s PT Boat in World War II -I don’t know. The point is that the Obama administration should not be gushed over in regards to its relationship with Japan. President Obama has something of a track record when it comes to traditional American allies and it is not one to inspire a great deal of confidence. This is the President who told the State of Israel that it should return to its pre-1967 borders, who sided with the pro-Hugo Chavez socialist dictator of Honduras in his seizure of power, who shook hands with Chavez while spurning traditional allies like Colombia and Honduras, who took down the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic (which they agreed to at considerable risk to themselves) in order to placate Mr. Putin in Russia (didn’t work out so good did it?) signed on the anniversary of the invasion of Poland no less. And, this is the man who handed over the serial numbers for the British Trident missiles to the Russians, selling out the United Kingdom which had been the closest ally the United States has had in recent years.

I bring this up not to cast doubt on Japanese-American friendship, that is the last thing I would want to do. In a survey last year, 81% of Americans had a positive view of Japan and 69% of Japanese people have a favorable view of the United States (which is considerable given that foreign countries as well as elements on both the far-left and right in Japan often try to spread division between Japan and America). The two countries have a good relationship and I want that to continue. I bring this up only because one must take politics into consideration and differentiate between the American people and the American government (something difficult for all peoples around the world to do most of the time) and because I don’t want Japan to get too carried away by any reassurances of support from President Obama. Just because Obama said that the Senkaku Islands are included in the Japan-US security pact does not mean that Japan should not continue to persevere in the campaign to amend Article 9. The American public (if not the government) is leaning more and more heavily these days back in the direction of isolation and the best thing Japan can do for the sake of security is to be grateful and appreciative for any American support but to strengthen itself and build-up the Japanese Self-Defense forces as if no such agreement existed. In the event of any trouble, I hope the United States would be there to help and it probably will be but one should always hope for the best and prepare for the worst and no country should depend exclusively on the protection of another. Governments change, politicians come and go and what one administration does, another can un-do.

Numerous Presidents of the United States promised their staunch support for South Vietnam in the fight against communist aggression in Southeast Asia. The last to do so was Republican President Nixon in 1972. Yet, only the following year, in June 1973, after the Democrats had taken control of Congress, the Case-Church Amendment was passed with sufficient votes to override a veto by the Republican President, and all military assistance to South Vietnam was cut off. The Americans went home and the communists rolled into Saigon not long after. There are other examples that could be cited but the overriding point is that, in any crisis, nothing should be taken for granted. Happily (and honestly, somewhat to my surprise) the Obama administration has been positive about Japan taking a more direct role in its own national security matters. So, I say take that ball and run with it! Amend Article 9, strengthen the country and restore a strong and proud Japan that would be happy to have American assistance but hopefully, would not require it.

Again, it was better than nothing, but the statement could have been much stronger and less ambiguous. Americans, and particularly the men and women of the American military, should be much more upset by this. Look at it from their perspective; their commander-in-chief just said that they might be called upon to fight and die for a cause that he will not even take a solid stand on! When Obama says he takes no side in the sovereignty dispute, one would not be unjustified in asking how on earth he could expect the military to put their lives on the line for the issue. What he is saying is that, Japan might be right but then again China might be right too. That seems a pretty flimsy position to potentially go to war over and I am surprised the reaction to this sort of double-talk has not been stronger. As I have covered before, in my opinion there should be no dispute at all, the islands clearly belong to Japan and the United States government should come out and say that with no equivocation. If troubles do arise, with the treaty in place and generally good relations prevailing between Washington and Tokyo, I trust that the United States would be prepared to assist. My ideal scenario, however, would be for Japan to be strong enough and assertive enough to tell America in such a crisis, “Thanks, but we got this”.

Obama Says No Monarchy

In a recent interview with Univision U.S. President Obama (again) informed the public that America is not a monarchy and that he is not a king. You'd think the oldest major republic in the world would not have to be constantly reminded of that fact. In this case it was the President making excuses for failing to deliver on a campaign promise to "reform immigration" during his first year in office (Univision is the main Spanish-language American media outlet). Again, he equated monarchy with tyranny but the excuse doesn't hold water Mr. President. In your first year in office your party had control of the entire government; the House, the Senate and the Presidency so, king or not, you could do pretty much whatever you pleased. In fact, in such a position, the President actually had far, far more power than all but a handful of the actual monarchs left in the world. However, if there is one thing the Republicans seem to agree with President Obama on (and it may be the only thing at this point) it is that monarchy is bad. Senator Rick Santorum (again) criticized Obama by comparing him to King George III (a terrible insult to the late king), Mitt Romney has done the same (poor King George) and Ron Paul never passes up an opportunity to pour scorn on the late Shah of Iran (while acting like the current regime is a bunch of innocent victims). So, perhaps we can at least take some small comfort in the fact that both major parties in the U.S. in spite of all the time that has passed since 1776 are still haunted by memories of monarchy. If this lot is so against it, it's bound to be a good thing right?

More Slander from the Murdoch Empire

He has, on the occasion of the wedding of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge no less, slandered the British Royal Family as robbers, presiding over an empire built on theft, tonight that bold, fresh piece of excrement Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel turned his hateful ignorance against the martyred Queen of France, Marie Antoinette. The subject at issue was a doctored satirical picture of Michelle Obama portrayed as the late Queen and the reaction of many Democrats that the picture was "racist". O'Reilly didn't think it was racist (nor do I) but he did think it was unfair to compare Mrs Obama to Marie Antoinette because the Queen was, in his words, a real "villain" and of course he brought up the old, "Let them eat cake" line which -as has been stated countless times- has been proven by eminent historians to be an absolute lie. This willing ignorance infuriates me to no end. If the comparison of Michelle Obama to Marie Antoinette was offensive or unfair to anyone it would be the late Queen herself. The Queen was as far from being a snob as anyone of her background could possibly be. She was not villainous, she was not uncaring and she died a pious and heroic death at the hands of godless, bloodthirsty traitors. I am not one of those monarchists who despises the United States or Americans on principle (some do, even American monarchists) and I even allow them their republican fussing because I know they can't really help it -to some extent they have to be that way or they have no reason to exist. However, I get fed to the teeth with this sort of drive-by royal bashing. It seems particularly outrageous when Americans (especially the ultra-patriotic sort) target King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette of France considering that without the intervention of His Most Christian Majesty the United States would almost certainly not exist at all.

To Bill O'Reilly, here's a "Fox News Alert" for ya: WISE UP YOU PINHEAD!!!

(breath...in...out...in...out...okay...)

Obama's Job Speech

Alright, so I watched the big campaign speech yesterday. I know the President called it a “jobs speech” but the man was shouting and he only ever shouts at campaign speeches so no one is being fooled by this. Here again was more of the Obama version of an old Hollywood film set: an impressive front with nothing behind the façade. Of course, as has become the standard rule for Democrats and most Republicans, when confronted with a problem the thing to do is throw money at it and hope it goes away -at least for a little while. And to be fair, this usually works with lobbyists who are about the only people politicians listen to on a regular basis. Obama wants spending on infrastructure, tax credits for job creation and a renewed effort to bring manufacturing back to America. That all sounds great doesn’t it? But, of course, there are big problems, which is probably why his speech gave us no details because the White House knows as well as anyone how crawling with devils those pesky things are. Obama constantly reminds me of what someone once said about another Democrat President, Woodrow Wilson, that he thinks he has actually dealt with a problem simply by uttering some pretty phrase about it.

To start with infrastructure, he has a point, it is falling apart in the good old United States of North America, however, throwing money at it might not be the answer to even the infrastructure problem, to say nothing of unemployment. In the first place, no one addresses how the infrastructure (our roads and bridges) came to be in such disrepair. After all, we pay taxes every year to maintain them; right? They should not be in disrepair if the government was looking after one of its most basic duties and not spending the money on other pet projects. So, if they are not spending the money they take in for what they supposed to be spending it on, why should this time be any different? Besides which, though it brings back warm Democrat memories of the FDR administration (you know, the first President to recognize the Soviet Union, the man who introduced socialism into the American economy, provoked Japan to get the US into World War II and whose primary aim after bringing down the Axis was to destroy the British Empire -that guy) the fact is that infrastructure jobs are temporary and not a long-term solution to unemployment. It didn’t work for FDR (he could thank Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo for ending his unemployment problem) and I doubt it will work now. Besides which, without changing the existing problem of the failure of the government to maintain our roads and bridges they will soon be just as dilapidated as they are now in the future.

Next we come to tax credits for job creation, with special credits for hiring the chronically unemployed (that smells a bit) and for hiring military veterans. Obviously, if someone has been unemployed for a very long time, there is usually a reason for it and trying to bribe people into hiring those proven incapable of holding a job is just silly and will never work. Hiring anybody is too risky these days. As for the veterans, I don’t know of any business that would not love to hire veterans, if not out of the goodness of the heart, then simply so they could say in their advertisements that they are a “patriotic” business that hires more ex-servicemen than anyone else. The problem with hiring people is that (thanks to the government and Obama in particular) there are way too many strings attached. An employer takes a risk on hiring somebody and he/she is suddenly on the hook for a whole lot of potential expenses (even near ruinous expenses) if everything doesn’t work out just right. Why do they think so many people hire illegal aliens? Because there are no strings attached. They do a job and they get paid -that’s it and that’s all. What would help more than tax credits would be a simplification of the tax code but, no one is ever going to go for that.

This also ties in with Obama’s call to bring manufacturing back to America. That would be nice, but the very causes he champions drove manufacturing out of the country in the first place. One of the President’s special guests up in the gallery was Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO. It was his types, the overreach of the unions, which drove up the cost of labor to such an extent that it is actually cheaper to ship materials over to China, do the manufacturing there and then ship them all the way back across the Pacific. That is a considerable discrepancy I would say. It is also why there is always a market for illegal alien labor. Also sitting up in the gallery alongside the First Lady was “Jobs Commissar” Jeffrey Immelt, head of General Electric, who himself recently shipped a bunch of manufacturing jobs over to China. So, frankly, Obama saying he wants to bring manufacturing back to America is rather like Robespierre saying France needs more royals.

Of course, with a fourteen trillion dollar debt, the big question is how the President plans to pay for all this. The President says it can all be paid for by closing tax loopholes and raising taxes on the “rich”. I cannot see that happening because if there was any will to do it the loopholes wouldn’t exist in the first place or else would have been closed long ago. There could be a reform of the tax code but neither party wants that because the Democrats and the Republicans both have their super-rich circles of support who they protect from, as Obama says, “paying their fair share”. His buddy Immelt is not paying “his fair share” and that’s okay with Obama. That problem exists on both sides which is why the tax code has never been touched no matter which party has been in power. Right now the Republicans are shouting for it, but of course when they held both Houses of Congress and the White House they did nothing about it. I will predict that if they get back into power after the next election the Democrats will say the same thing when they can no longer do anything about it. However, at the end of the day, it still seems to me that this was a campaign speech and nothing more. This was a show, full of rhetoric on the part of Obama so that when things don’t improve he can blame Congress for being uncooperative. In other words, Democrats or Republicans, it’s politics as usual.

Mad Rant: Obama's No King

Recently, in an interview with Univision aimed at getting Hispanics to vote for Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections Obama reminded us all that he is not a king. Frankly Mr. President, I don’t think being mistaken for royalty is a big problem for you. Some very illustrative evidence of this is that interview itself along with another interview done just prior on the radio show of Al Sharpton aimed at getting Blacks to vote for Democrats. Of course, the fact that Obama feels the need to address these two usually very loyal Democrat voting blocs tells you something about the state of his administration but that’s another story. To get back to the point; why does Obama feel it necessary to remind the people that he is not a monarch or lament the fact that he is a mere president rather than a king? Let’s have a look shall we…

The Democrats and probably a great many Republics see Hispanics in the U.S. as single-issue voters. They call it “immigration reform” but the honest truth is that they mean amnesty for illegal aliens. They want no penalties for crossing the border illegally, no one penalized or deported for breaking immigration laws and for all those currently in the country illegally to become full citizens, which would make it easier for them to vote Democrat. That is just the truth, they think that is the only thing Hispanics care about and they assume voting trends will not change. If you think voting trends have nothing to do with it you are kidding yourself. If most Mexican-Americans (the largest immigrant community by far) were voting Republican the Democrats would have the Great Wall of China built across the southern border and Republicans would be calling them “undocumented” immigrants instead of Democrats. When he was running for office, as usual, Obama tried to have it both ways. He said he was against amnesty but favored “comprehensive immigration reform” -which means amnesty. Many Republicans have used the same double-talk. However, half-way through his term Obama has yet to lift a finger on the border/immigration issue and his only explanation to Hispanic voters was that he is not a king and cannot do whatever he wants. In other words, if only he had total dictatorial power he could keep all his promises but he is being thwarted by the limitations on his authority.

One thing this shows the persistent image of royal prestige. Despite the fact that there are few kings left in the world and most of them have little to no power at all the symbol of a king, the very title itself, still seems to connote power and authority. That, in itself, says something about the symbolic importance of monarchy. However, even in the modern sense, Obama is still correct: he is no king. The interviews he has been giving prove that as did his subsequent words in that same interview in which he urged Hispanics to vote for Democrats in order to reward their friends and “punish” their “enemies”. Can anyone imagine the Kings of Spain, Norway, Sweden or the Belgians speaking in such terms? A king is supposed to stand for national unity, the shared history and values of a nation and, though they certainly do not have the power of Louis XIV, be the personification of their countries. Obama, the most prominent president in the world, is doing the exact opposite. Giving separate messages to ethnic and racial communities, dividing the country between certain groups of Americans and calling other Americans the enemy.

Do such feelings exist in monarchies today? Certainly, that is a sad truth but a truth nonetheless. Does the King of the Belgians tend to be more popular in one part of the country than in another? Yes. Are there areas in Spain where King Juan Carlos is more unpopular than in the rest of the country? Yes. As we have recently seen, amongst the subjects of Queen Elizabeth II in Northern Ireland there is one group that is quite fond of her and another group that largely opposes her. These are facts and will tend to be the case in any country that has at least some level of diversity or historical differences. Is the Queen as popular in Quebec as she is in other parts of Canada? Obviously not. However, when the Queen last visited Canada she spoke French as well as English in her official speeches (and she speaks French quite well). Does the King of Spain refer to the more troublesome parts of Spain as ‘the enemy’? Of course he does not because he sees himself, as he must, as the King of all of Spain and for all Spaniards and not just certain parts. In Belgium such an attitude would be unthinkable and for those who do regard their fellow countrymen as enemies the King will not even deal with them.

Obama, by his actions, has inadvertently provided us with a very valuable lesson about the benefits of having a king rather than a president. Modern kings and queens, in the west certainly, hold themselves aloof from politics for this very reason; to avoid partisanship, to take no sides and to represent the nation as a whole rather than one party, faction or school of thought. However, even in the past when kings held actual political power they did not view their subjects in such a way. As has often been discussed here, monarchs view their people as extensions of their family with the king and queen as father and mother of the national family. As such, even when factions disagreed with them or even outright opposed them they were usually not inclined to view them as enemies. Even monarchs like King Charles I of Britain or King Louis XVI who were attacked by their own people did not seek their destruction but preferred to bring them to their senses as easily as possible. Even after his downfall, Tsar Nicholas II still considered the Russian communists as his own people. Politicians, on the other hand, thrive on division, disunity and playing one faction off against another. It is why republics are fundamentally unhealthy and another reason for being a ... Mad Monarchist.

Michelle Obama is no Marie Antoinette

Most have, by now, probably heard about Michelle Obama being accused of behaving like Queen Marie Antoinette due to her lavish vacation to the shores of Spain. Although I take a somewhat more critical view of the First Lady (who should spend her money here in such times as these) Elena Maria Vidal of Tea at Trianon explains in detail how Michelle Obama is NOT behaving like the martyred Queen of France and why the frustratingly persistent reputation of Marie Antoinette is totally undeserved. In fact, our First Lady would do well to *try* to be much more like the compassionate Queen of France. It would be an immense improvement.

Mad Rant: Fighting Fat Kids

Traditionally, the First Ladies of the United States have been far more popular than their husbands, mostly because they tend to stay out of politics and focus mostly on humanitarian causes that everyone can get behind. Not unlike most constitutional monarchs today for that matter. Michelle Obama has caused a little more controversy, even since the campaign of her husband, and her primary pet project is one that really gets under my skin. That is, her declaration of war against fat children. I will state from the outset that, once I lost all my baby fat at least, I have been skinny as a rail my whole life and never very sympathetic toward the overweight. You control what you eat and how much and the amount of physical activity you do. So, being overweight is something, justly or not, I’ve always seen as an issue of self-discipline more than anything else.

However, Michelle Obama’s campaign against “childhood obesity” really gets on my nerves. For one thing, I do not see it as a non-political issue for her. One of the biggest goals of her husband has been socialized healthcare and that makes the personal choices of everyone the business of everyone else and the government as well. I totally reject the idea that it is any damn business of the government or anyone else how much or how little I eat or what my dietary choices are. And with all of the celebrity worship and emphasis on physical perfection these days, do not the fat kids have it hard enough already? I’m sure they get teased and bullied and called names for their size and that is probably more than enough motivation to change if motivation is the issue. If a person is overweight that is their business and not the government’s. If a child is overweight it is the business of their parents, again, NOT the government.

More than that though, the amount of attention, laws and government regulations regarding this issue really infuriates me. They are banning salt, taxing fatty foods, getting rid of soda pop and so on because it is a ‘national crisis’ that so many children are overweight. Well, call me crazy (you wouldn’t be the first) but how about we all thank God for fat children?! How about we thank God Almighty that are children have too much to eat rather than not enough? What must the children, and adults, of third world countries struggling to survive think when they see the people of America crying and moaning and claiming a national emergency because our population is so well off that we have chubby kids? This blows my damaged mind! Having too much food, too many people living too well, too many people having more than enough -IS A PROBLEM?! I must have moved to CrazyTown and Michelle Obama is the mayor. We do not need laws we just need responsible parenting and that is something no government program can provide. If you think fat children are a problem go visit Chad, the Congo, Burundi or Ethiopia or any of the other countries were children are dropping dead every five seconds from hunger and perhaps reevaluate you perspective. I absolutely despise celebrities who act like fame is such a burden or super-rich people who complain that wealth is such a burden and when I hear people fortunate to live in a land of plenty demanding government action because our children have plenty to eat, it makes me a very, very … Mad Monarchist.

Victoria Jackson "There's A Communist Living in the White House"

You may as well laugh as cry...

Obama Too Busy for King

A rather insolent pattern is emerging regarding "The One" U.S. President Obama and the royals of the world. First there was Obama all but kotowing to the King of Saudi Arabia before barely giving a nod to the sovreign of America's most supportive ally Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain. Later on, the Marxist-in-chief snubbed the XIV Dalai Lama for fear of offending the communist bandit government in China. This was followed by a technically improper but very reverential bow to the Emperor of Japan. Now, many Norwegians are upset that B. Hussein Obama refused an invitation by King Harald V of Norway to have lunch as is traditional for winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. He has also ruffled Norwegian feathers for refusing to attend other customary events. So what is the attentive monarchist to gather from this odd, inconsistent behavior? Bow to the Saudi King, snub the British Queen, snub the Dalai Lama, bow to the Japanese Emperor and snub the King of Norway... hmmmm... The only possible conclusion I can come to is that Obama only shows respect to the monarchs of people who have attacked the United States within the last hundred years. As Obama's own Democrat party used to constantly point out the majority of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia as is Osama bin Laden himself. We also recently passed the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Am I being a tad unfair? Probably. The King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan had nothing to do with those tragic events but for a President who is constantly being accused of selling out long-standing allies while trying to make nice with the enemies of America I cannot help but notice which monarchs he bows to and which he chooses to brush off. Probably all just a coincidence I'm sure, after all Obama was probably occupied with his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in which he had to defend his sending of 30,000 more troops to one of the two wars he is engaged in and then go on to remind the world why sometimes warfare is needed and beneficial. Which is true, but probably not the sort of thing one expects to hear in an acceptance speech for someone getting the Nobel Peace Prize. So, I guess the moral of the story is that if you want President Obama to bow to you, first induce some of your countrymen to attack the U.S. at some point and if you want to win the Nobel Prize for Peace you need to send more troops to war.

And I'm the one who's crazy?!

In any event, at least the royals on hand behaved with all of the dignity and civility one would expect and in an effort to leave on a high note I will close with this picture of the lovely Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden looking very regal in her purple dress and matching jewels.

Before They Even Start......

Alright, they really have already started but I thought I would make clear my thoughts on President Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan. As some might remember when I addressed the controversy regarding Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia I have no problem with this sort of thing and really fail to understand why anyone else would. My position remains unchanged. Obama is a common man, HIM Akihito in an Emperor and as such I see no reason why he shouldn't bow to him. Regardless of which, bowing to someone is a common form of greeting in Japan (one reason they've been less troubled with plague than the western world) and he is on the Emperor's turf here after all. I am certainly not a member of the Obama fan club but I think there are plenty of bigger issues and reasons to condemn him than for bowing to the Emperor of Japan. As far as I'm concerned it was the correct, polite and respectful thing to do and probably set a good example for the local Obama-fanatics that he shows all due respect to His Majesty the Emperor. He's done other things on this same visit that I have a problem with but bowing to the Emperor certainly does not make the list. On this issue, let Obama be I say.

Et tu Obama?

Just when you thought that the glorification of "the One" could reach no more absurd depths an Obama appointee, one Rocco Landesman, now Director of the National Endowment for the Arts, has compared the President to someone held by many (including Alexander Hamilton) to be the greatest man who ever lived; Julius Caesar. To quote the new artsy moron-in-chief, "Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar". Fellow faithful, I am aghast. Just when you think you've heard it all someone compares the President to Julius Caesar, forefather of that masterpiece of ancient civilization the Roman Empire. Just to be clear about the record here, Obama rose to office in Illinois mostly by legal tricks that got his competition thrown out, was a junior senator yet to finish his term in office, most known for his multitude of "present" votes before being elected President. Since taking office, with a commanding majority in the House and Senate Obama has accomplished nothing, lived up to none of his promises and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for basically doing --nothing! Compare that to the accomplishments of Julius Caesar who conquered what is now France, Holland, Belgium, western Germany, led two expeditions into Britain, defeated the armies of Pompey in the Roman Civil War and was prepared to embark on further expansion to the east when he was murdered. However, the awed but noble Romans of ancient times still had more integrity than Obama's modern sycophants. They at least waited until after Caesar was dead to declare him a god whereas Obama, poster-boy of the "me" generation must have all of his accolades now, whether he has earned them or not.

Mad Rant: The Deification of Obama

Sorry to subject everyone to another rant so quickly but I could not let this pass. When first I heard I thought it must have been some sort of joke, but no, our secular American messiah, "The One" Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm) has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. What exactly has he done to earn this supposed honor no one can really say. He's been president for less than a year, the decision was made some time ago, he has not negotiated any treaties, he has not ended any wars nor has he brought any opposing factions together. This is the man who, when running for office threatened to invade Pakistan! He also promised to get the US out of Iraq (not done), win the war in Afghanistan (not done) close the prison at Guantanamo Bay (not done) but, perhaps they are going solely by his abandonment of eastern Europe to Russia, his kid-gloves approach to Iran, kissing up to brutal dictators in China, Venezuela and Central America and his shunning of the Dalai Lama.

It is, however, his lack of any accomplishments rather than simply stupid decisions which most confounds me about this. It is certainly not because I consider it unheard of that the Nobel Prize could be awarded to someone unjustly. For instance, when it comes to US Presidents who have won the Nobel Peace Prize I'm sure Obama would consider himself in good company. President Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) won it for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. For those who don't remember Teddy Roosevelt is the guy who came to fame as a leader in the Spanish-American War in which the US picked a fight with Spain and grabbed Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. He's the guy who built the "Great White Fleet", invented "big stick" diplomacy and was probably the leading war hawk in 1914 pushing for US intervention in World War I. The next presidential winner was Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) in 1919 for his leadership in bringing peace at the end of World War I. Just to refresh, Wilson was the guy who, before getting involved in WW1 to "make the world safe for democracy" invaded numerous Caribbean and Latin American countries and then helped engineer the post-war world which led only a couple decades later to World War II. The next US President to win the prize was Jimmy Carter (Democrat) who was the guy who sold the Shah of Iran down the river, allowed terrorists to gain control of an established country and sat back and did nothing while US citizens were held hostage in Tehran. Then there was Vice-President and Presidential pretender Al Gore who won the prize for a slide show which said the environment was going to kill us all if we did not all buy carbon credits and wind mills which he just happened to be heavily invested in and set to make millions from. Now we have President Barack Hussein Obama (Democrat, mmm, mmm, mmm) who has won for -what? Promising to be nicer to Muslims? Making friends with communist dictators? Again though, nothing should surprise anyone considering that the Nobel Peace Prize was once given to the open and avowed terrorist Yasser Arafat. Looking back on that list at least, the prize committee does seem to be remaining consistent. Nonetheless, I remain the digusted, the disgruntled and ... The Mad Monarchist.

Obama Shuns Exiled Monarch

His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama will soon be visiting the United States, but for the first time since the 1990's the exiled sovereign of Tibet and leader of Gelugpa Buddhism will not be meeting with the President. Lately the Communist Chinese regime has been increasing efforts to isolate the Dalai Lama and Barack Obama seems to be caving in to red pressure. US officials say that Obama is open to meeting with the Dalai Lama but only at an appropriate time after his upcoming visit to China. Seems he wants no uncomfortable moments when he goes to Bejing to meet with one of America's largest debt holders, however, some have grumbled that such an "appropriate time" may never come given the Red Chinese determination to threaten and bully the leaders of all/any countries from meeting with the deposed Tibetan monarch. There are also fears that this could damage the on-going stand-off between China and India over the Arunachal Pradesh territory as India looks for any sign of the US cooling toward or warming up to Beijing. Obama's position is a reversal of that of the previous administration as George W. Bush met with, was photographed with and even decorated the Dalai Lama despite Red Chinese protests (though if it's any comfort to the commies Bush was not as forceful as he should have been either). It may also be a sop to Iran as the regime there has not been happy with the Dalai Lama since he was photographed holding a sign calling for "freedom for Iran". The Wall Street Journal has pointed out that after 9 months in office, Obama has met with the likes of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Vladimir Putin, but will not meet the Dalai Lama who is best known around the world for championing peace, freedom and human rights. Go figure...

Being Fair to President Obama

I have been accused of being too critical in some of my rants on the current US President Barack Obama. Well, I cannot help it -I do not like the man, I do not like his policies and I do not like his background or way of thinking. However, I shall endeavor to be fair. Some have accused Obama of betraying the very spirit of the Founding Fathers of the United States in his efforts to, in his words, transform America. That, I have considered, may be a bit unfair because Obama does have some things in common with the American Founding Fathers. There are a number of similarities. For instance, Barack Obama is the first Black President of the US; George Washington was the first White President of the US. Obama is somewhat similar to Benjamin Franklin; both threw their own relatives under the bus in pursuit of their political goals and both think nothing of leaving close relatives in poverty while they live the high life. Like Alexander Hamilton, Obama believes in centralizing power in a strong federal government and like Thomas Jefferson our current President has Black children. Obama is also like John Adams in that he also would like to make it illegal to criticize the government. Just like John Jay Obama has sold out America’s allies to make peace with America’s enemies. Obama has some similarities to James Madison in that he supports government involvement in the economy and detests Great Britain. Finally, like all of the original Presidents of the United States, Obama was not born a U.S. citizen either (I know, I know, poked it, prodded it, pushed it right off the cliff & killed it…)

President Obama Meets the Pope

President Obama, the guy the fawning U.S. media has said is "like God", has met with the Vicar of Christ, H.H. Pope Benedict XVI (last Christian absolute monarch in the world). In order to satisfy Obama the audience was held in the afternoon rather than in the morning as is traditional so that Obama could continue on quickly to Africa. Of course, no one knows exactly what was said between the President and the Pontiff but we have been told that the economic crisis, global warming, abortion and embryonic stem-cell research are on the agenda. I can't see the economic crisis causing much of a dust up, I'm sure there will be agreement on environmentalism (sigh, I guess you have to have something to agree on and the Prince of Wales has been beating the Al Gore drum again) but when it comes to the life issues the Pontifex Maximus might have done a little finger-wagging at the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall of the Apostolic Palace for that exchange. I'm sure Obama assured the Pope he's in favor of making abortions less common (and that's what we all want to do with things like theft, rape, murder etc, just make them less common rather than stopping them -and that's sarcasm if you couldn't tell). The one good thing is the gift-giving formality of this meeting. Evidently Obama went to the experts this time and presented to Benedict XVI a 2nd class relic, the stole of St John Neumann donated from St Peter's Church at the saint's shrine. Say what you will, it is at least an improvement over DVD's, an Ipod of his speeches or junk from the White House gift shop. The Pope also reportedly gave Obama a letter to deliver to Catholic Senator Ted Kennedy, perhaps a warning from the Pontiff that the Senator needs to repent and confess -for the Kingdom of God may be soon at hand for Teddy.

The Obamas Meet Royalty

In his first overseas trip as President and First Lady the Obamas have made some tongues wag over their interaction with royalty. Could it be the simple mistakes of the New World versus the Old World? Possibly, but taken altogether many people are wondering if there is not more to it than this. The two incidents which made the most headlines were Michelle Obama putting her arm around Queen Elizabeth II, thus violating the taboo of not touching royalty, and Barack Hussein Obama bowing very low to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Liberals of the "Obama can do no wrong" crowd are inclined to dismiss both the over-familiarity with the British Queen and the over-reverence to the Saudi King -as inconsistent as that is. Others, in the more critical camp, tend to be outraged for a number of reasons.
The Obamas have behaved oddly if not badly toward the British from day one. First there was the snubbing of Prime Minister Gordon Brown on his visit to the US, accompanied by a White House aid saying there was nothing "special" about our relationship with Britain and efforts to brush it off by saying that Obama (one of the youngest presidents in US history) was simply "tired". They also note that while Obama barely gave Queen Elizabeth II a nod he bowed nearly to the hip to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Family history has also caused some to question whether or not the two extremes were intentional. Obama's grandfather was put in prison for a couple years in Kenya for revolutionary activity against the British Crown and the family claims the British authorities tortured him. On the other hand Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a Muslim, Obama Jr's step-father in Indonesia was a Muslim and he himself was listed as a Muslim on his school records in that country. Obama has since stated he is a Christian though since being elected president he has yet to attend any services.
There is also quite a vast gulf of difference between the Saudi and British monarchies. Whereas Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy with elected leaders, freedom of speech, assembly, religion and all the rest of it, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with none such freedoms where Bibles are shredded at the border and women are not even allowed out in public without a male escort. This has left many Americans wondering why, if Obama is going to bow to a monarch, would he bow to the King of Saudi Arabia instead of Queen Elizabeth? This is what puzzles me about the President's behavior. I really have no problem with Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia; he is royalty and one would try to show all due respect for the customs and traditions of the people one is dealing with. However, why is the British monarch treated with such familiarity and the Saudi monarch with such obeisance?
The White House has denied that Obama bowed to the Saudi king but frankly that only seems to have made the situation worse because the video and the pictures speak for themselves. He did it. When taken in context with his other words and writings over the years and his family history it does seem that the Obamas have a certain disdain for Great Britain whom, Michelle Obama in particular it has been said, still associate the British with the British Empire and, let me just say she does not seem to view the British Empire as the glorious past organization that I do. Given Obama's politics and family history I would not expect his view to be very different.