The American right has truly and totally lost its marbles. With the world in shambles and people worrying about how to feed their families, the most pressing and terrible thing in their eyes is Obama’s bowing to Saudi King Abdullah.
These comments from the blog with the deliciously ironic title American Thinker may take the cake:
Posted by: FulghumInk
Apr 02, 07:44 PM
Report Abuse
Reply
Well good people, Hussein Obama could be politically neutered in 2010. It is up to the American voter. This Marxist socialist miscreant needs to be politically neutered big time. I’m with Alan Keyes-Hussein Obama is not my President.This citizen loves his country. This citizen hates this government, and the rogue racketeers that occupy it. They are pure unadulterated evil.
Disgusting.
Posted by: Cincinnatius
Apr 02, 04:47 PM
Report Abuse
Reply
When I think of all the servicemen, some of them personal friends, have died before bowing to ANYONE because they were AMERICANS! To see the POTUS, the very symbol of America bowing to a fat piece of excrement. However, I think we have all witnessed the man to whom Obama pays fidelity.Posted by: ujay
Apr 02, 04:46 PM
Report Abuse
Reply
Whether it’s ignorance or his true colors, it shows that America matters little to him…from Indonesia to the Oval Office, always has, always willPosted by: Nitram
Apr 02, 04:43 PM
Report Abuse
Reply
Aye, treason – and in time of war as well. That’s not just impeachable, that’s executable. As the commander in Chief of US Forces…. utterly reprehensible.No American, regardless of station, should bow to any foreign leader. We are a sovereign people, which is to say that the poorest Citizen of America stands on an equal footing with every leader of every country in the world. That our supposed president would do so is utterly disgusting.
Posted by: Johnny Appleseed
Apr 02, 04:28 PM
Report Abuse
Reply
No impeachment = end of the American Republic. I don’t care to suffer or die for my country, land where my fathers died; but what about our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren? If we don’t rid ourselves of this Marxist-Islamist usurper, our posterity will either curse us; or worse yet, they will not know what it means to speak freely and live under freedom. Our fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers and founding fathers were willing to struggle, suffer and if necessary to die for their own freedom and so that all later generations could live free. Where are the leaders of the opposing political party? Why aren’t we hearing damning words and calls for impeachment from Republican and third party leaders? Without intense vocal opposition leadership, or massive protests by tens of millions, American freedom appears ready to die; and government of the people, by the people, for the people will perish from the earth.Posted by: Kathy
Apr 02, 04:23 PM
Report Abuse
Reply
Does this really surprise anyone? He is and has always been a Muslim, just because it was not PC to say it out loud does not change the fact that he is and that is where his loyalties lie. The only question is what are we going to do about it?
Just a quick reminder:
Why don’t they get that the days when you could get millions of citizens hysterical over a flag pin or the feeding tube of a brain-dead woman or an an utterly insignificant breach of protocol (if that’s what this “bow” even constituted) are over. Faux outrage used to distract a nervous public from what really matters, like food and healthcare and keeping their homes, are doomed to irrelevancy. They may look like rock stars within their echo chambers, but those chambers are getting smaller and smaller as they go out of their way to marginalize themselves.
If this is the very best tactic they have to slime a president with a high approval (deserved or not) and a mission ahead of him that most Americans see as life or death, then Greater Wingnuttopia is in serious trouble. Which is wonderful news.
1
By FOARP
Re: American Thinker – The guy who writes (AKA cuts-and-pastes) China Challenges, Brian Schwartz , works/worked for them.
April 3, 2009 @ 9:34 pm | Comment
2
By Richard
I wouldn’t want him as my consultant.
April 3, 2009 @ 9:50 pm | Comment
3
By Meg
“No American, regardless of station, should bow to any foreign leader. We are a sovereign people, which is to say that the poorest Citizen of America stands on an equal footing with every leader of every country in the world.”
Yet, the same wingnuts are all bent out of shape when Michelle Obama returned a hug from the Queen. Anything that can avoid the real debate on policy issues will do.
April 4, 2009 @ 1:10 am | Comment
4
By bramerb
Wow. Thanks for providing me with a new source of entertainment. I spent entirely too much time reading some of the drivel on the American Thinker. I don’t understand how people that rally against extremism can’t recognize it spewing from their own mouths. Take care.
April 4, 2009 @ 1:54 am | Comment
5
By Martin
In case you have’t grasped the concept: Americans no longer rule the world, and perhaps its about time they showed others (especially those of another creed, religion or ethnicity) some honest respect and humility.
April 4, 2009 @ 3:58 am | Comment
6
By Raj
Putting aside what this guy had to say because I’m not interested in it, I read comments from British bloggers who noted that Obama bowed low to the Saudi monarch but gave little more than a nod to Queen Elizabeth.
I don’t feel especially hurt by that, though others did. However, it did seem a bit cynical (especially given that her country was hosting the G20) – i.e. Saudi Arabia has lots of money for an international bailout, the UK doesn’t. One reason Obama gained a lot of support in the UK was that people thought finally we wouldn’t be taken for granted. Was that a stupid hope?
April 4, 2009 @ 8:33 am | Comment
7
By Conscience
You are definitely right, support you.
April 4, 2009 @ 11:04 am | Comment
8
By Conscience
Richard, You are definitely right, support you.
April 4, 2009 @ 11:07 am | Comment
9
By Conscience
“No American, regardless of station, should bow to any foreign leader. We are a sovereign people, which is to say that the poorest Citizen of America stands on an equal footing with every leader of every country in the world. That our supposed president would do so is utterly disgusting.”
I understand and applaud this national pride and personal dignity, but self-respect is by no means undermined by respects to other nations, especially those arguably supposed to be “lower” than you. If you want deference from others, show esteem to them first.
“We come nearest to the great when we are great in humility.” — Rabindranath Tagore
April 4, 2009 @ 11:18 am | Comment
10
By Resident Poet
Comme un singe dans un bananier
Entouré de chacals
Comme Achille devant Troie
Et ses nombreux adversaires
Notre brave Richard est chaque jour
Dans une lutte terrible :
«Tu quoque!» «Ad hominem!» «Tais-toi, connard!»
Notre Achille aura-t-il donc aussi
Une faible cheville ?
April 4, 2009 @ 11:21 am | Comment
11
By Not_a_Sinophile
Raj, you can’t be that hurt when the UK is taken for granted. Its glory years have long receded into the sunset. Much of what troubles the world is a direct result of meddling by the British Empire: Iraq, Palestine, India/Pakistan, China, Northern Ireland, etc. I’m surprised that the US gives as much attention to an inconsequential “partner” like the UK. The British people certainly haven’t been well represented in their governments of late (who have acted like the lapdogs of the American government). Although, it would be easy to say that Americans went equally unrepresented by the likes of the imbecile Bush or paranoid Cheney, I actually think Americans pretty much got the “leadership” they deserved. Don’t know if that can be said about the UK.
April 4, 2009 @ 2:54 pm | Comment
12
By Richard
NotA_S, it’s a time-honored courtesy, even though the sun set over the UK more than half a century ago (but they still have great theaters and pubs). But that aside, the only ones reading in great depths of meaning into how low or how long a bow lasted to one leader compared to another are readers of either American Thinker, some of the Telegraph’s surlier columnists, or of other “pundits” who make their pound sterlings by exploiting their dumb readers’ base prejudices and ignorance.
April 4, 2009 @ 4:46 pm | Comment
13
By Thang Long
Obama: “There’s a new sheriff in dis town!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTIklFsMjjU
April 4, 2009 @ 6:14 pm | Comment
14
By Raj
I’m surprised that the US gives as much attention to an inconsequential “partner” like the UK.
Err, the fact that we provide thousands of troops for Afghanistan on the front-line (as opposed to skulking around in safe provinces like other ISAF members), previous military support to US operations, previous support to US foreign policy in outside the UN, the fact that we’re one of the world’s largest economies, a gateway to Europe for the US and vice versa, none of that counts for anything?
If we’re not worthy of American friendship/”parternship”, who is?
April 4, 2009 @ 7:30 pm | Comment
15
By Josh
Haven’t we as Americans learned anything about judging any group – political or religious – by those who carry it to an extreme?
Not all blondes are idiots.
Not all Muslims are part of Al Qaeda.
Not all of the “right” is part of “Wingnuttopia”.
Of course you know this. So may I suggest you reword that first sentence to something like “the American FAR right”? Every group has their nuts.
As a side note, I could care less who bows to whom, or if Michelle patted anybody’s back. I’ve read enough commentary on both sides of this to convince me that people waste way too much time thinking about this stuff. And here I am doing it myself. Crap.
April 4, 2009 @ 10:18 pm | Comment
16
By Richard
Yes, “far right” maybe a bit more accurate. Unfortunately, the right in America was hijacked a long time ago by the Hannitys and Coulters and Limbaughs of this world, who turned far right into mainstream right. So it’s really not that far off -today’s right in America is far more to the right than today’s left is to the left. Watch Fox news, you’ll see what I mean.
April 5, 2009 @ 12:10 am | Comment
17
By Math
China Must Guard Against the Possibility of the US Becoming A Socialist State
Why do I use “Guard”, instead of “Welcome”?
In the initial stages of Socialism, Nationalism and Chauvinism always accompany it. During Mao’s Era, this is called Socialist Imperialism. USSR was one such example, it intervenes in other countries’ internal affairs, and even may start wars.
If the day comes when the Capitalism of America can no longer deal with this crisis, it won’t “get stuck on the same tree”. It won’t sit there and see the collapse of the
country for some “principles of capitalism”. Once they realize things are not improving at all, they’ll feel free to abandon any principle of Capitalism, and add any elements of Socialism. “A live person would not be killed by not being able to find a bathroom to urinate”. And if a country whose productive force is already very advanced adopts Socialism, it may be possible to improve its productive force much more quickly.
The problem for China is that America may practice Socialist Imperialism. That is, once America announces that it has entered Socialism, it’ll try to find another way to intervene in China’s internal affairs. It’ll accuse China of not practicing true Socialism, not obeying Socialist principles, of being a traitor of Socialism. It’ll say “China! You are calling yourself Socialist but are practicing Capitalism! Your leaders are all corrupt and are all Capitalists! You need reform! You need revolution to become a true Socialist state just like us!”. You’d think once America becomes Socialist, it’ll stop nagging at China, but it’ll just find another way to nag.
And Taiwan is always pro-US. So very likely Taiwan will follow US’s footsteps and also enter Socialism. This is even a bigger problem, and may even lead the Mainland to reconsider its One Country Two Systems policy and many similar problems when dialoging with Taiwan.
This is an issue I think Chinese policy makers must take to heart and study carefully, before America becomes Socialist.
April 5, 2009 @ 8:21 am | Comment
18
By Twisted_Colour
What’s the matter, Math, the universal truth of international socialism not floatin’ your boat anymore?
April 5, 2009 @ 9:44 am | Comment
19
By Thang Long
It’s not the “Far Right” that’s the problem, but rather the mainstream media. Take it away Ralph:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/04-0
April 5, 2009 @ 11:10 am | Comment
20
By beyznd
LOL at pic of bush and the king, haha. Bush and the King … going out — shopping…yeah yeah yeah.
April 5, 2009 @ 12:27 pm | Comment
21
By amadeus
Math : I don”t buy you story but I do like your story.Funny.
April 5, 2009 @ 3:52 pm | Comment
22
By coldblooded3
It’s funny that nobody has brought the word “nationalism” to this thread, but when it comes to China this cursed word would fly out left and right.
April 5, 2009 @ 6:20 pm | Comment
23
By mor
Why do I use “Guard”, instead of “Welcome”?
Because “welcome” not only wouldn’t make any sense, it would also be linguistically wrong. Math, I hope Richard will excuse my French, but you certainly are one of the greatest dickheads ever to post a comment on The Peking Duck. Since you seem to be based in the evil US of A, I suggest you learn some English, before you continue leaving your droppings on blogsites like German dogs on sidewalks.
P.S.: No, I do not expect a response from you. I know you are above talking to us commoners.
April 5, 2009 @ 6:31 pm | Comment
24
By FOARP
@Coldblooded3 – Because many of those being described a nationalist on the Chinese side (Wang Xiaodong, Song Qiang etc.) describe themselves as nationalists? Because much of the rhetoric that comes from the American far right at least puts itself forward (although often in a contradictory fashion) as being anti-national government?
For myself, I think that it would be accurate to describe the American far-right as nationalist, but since there are so many other things that they can be accused of (racism and religious fundamentalism being foremost) it really isn’t that instructive a term. The British far-right, on the other hand, could accurately be described as being racist first (thinking particularly of the British National Party and the National Front) and nationalist second.
There are only two countries in the EU/NATO where the far-right could be said to have wielded significant influence in the past few years: France and the US. In France we have the 2002 presidential run of Jean-Marie Le Pen and his Front National, which scooped 17% of the vote in the final round – an alarmingly high figure – and beat the Socialists into second place in the first round. This can be seen to have been the result of concerns over immigration and a result of wide-spread disapproval with the Socialists.
The example of the US is far stranger, essentially the Republican party used the organisational structures of many right-leaning interest groups to mobilise the vote for them, whilst granting various minor concessions in policy towards sex education, sexual equality, religious education, the teaching of evolution. A relationship which started as the cynical exploitation of the ideological positions of these groups slowly morphed into a situation where people who genuinely held these positions took control. The nomination of the know-nothing Sarah Palin was the eventual result of this.
Chinese nationalism is more in the Japanese mould – rather than being outwardly isolationist (as with the British far right and some of the American far right) it preaches national strength and interventionism – talk of racial superiority takes a back seat to this. Chinese nationalism also enjoys a degree of licence which other popular movements within China (particularly the pro-democracy movement) does not enjoy. The example of the nationalist who was given public platform to make the most forthright anti-Japanese speeches but who was subsequently arrested for writing an article supporting democracy is instructive.
@Math – That really is one of the stupidest things I’ve read on a China blog. it combines the worst of American know-nothingism with the worst of Chinese nationalism.
April 5, 2009 @ 7:51 pm | Comment
25
By Richard
Does anybody actually read Math’s diatribes?
FOARP, excellent response, especially from someone who’s not an American. And trust me, Math has written stuff even stupider than this.
April 5, 2009 @ 9:42 pm | Comment
26
By beyznd
I’m NOT MATH JACKASSES.
I may go around to post stupid shit, but I’m not a Chinese nationalist.
You know what I think personally? Math is really some asshole who posts as a Chinese nationalist jackass, in order to troll your chains, fools. Reconize the real deal, bitches. Beyznd is just Beyznd and not Math.
April 6, 2009 @ 6:04 am | Comment
27
By Chosunking
Richard:
I assume when you talk of “Fox News” you mean the bias commentary that is on nightly and not the straight news during the day?
O’Reilly and Hannity do have their faults but, unlike Olbermann, they do have on folks that do not agree with them.
MSNBC has no bones about being partisan, Their liberal bias SHOULD be apparent to all but why would anyone watch Olberamnn? He always has on the SAME talking heads and we all now, or those of us with a brain synapse still functioning, what they will be asked by Keith and what they will answer.
So why bother?
At least Chris, Rachel and now ED have on other POV.
April 7, 2009 @ 11:00 pm | Comment
28
By Thang Long
What’s with Bush and His HOiliness holding hands?
I noticed that his Hoiliness has bowel legs.
Joke: “Why do Texas women have bowel legs? Because Texas men eat with their hats on!
April 7, 2009 @ 11:03 pm | Comment
29
By AndyR
Thank god we have someone defending Fox news…really? You took time to write all that about a stupid Cable news channel? More important things to care about and I think Fox news marketing department has things under control, but I’m sure they appreciate your voluntary defense of their great programming…CHUMP!!!!
April 7, 2009 @ 11:11 pm | Comment
30
By Richard
I hate Olbermann and would never watch him. But MSNBC is not in the ranks of Fox News. Fox News is a Republican – not conservative – network, started by Roger Ailes and dedicated to slanting stories deeply and perversely in favor of the GOP. MSNBC does no such thing. They have Olbermann and Raddow and Joe Scarborough. They do not pimp the Democratic Party. Olbermann’s belligerence and intolerance toward Hillary Clinton was legendary and shameful. Fox, on the other hand (with the exception of Shepard Smith on occasion), goes far out of its way to present both news and commentary with an embarrassing GOP slant. There is no liberal equivalent – not even close. MSNBC’s news coverage is strictly mainstream. Fox’s news coverage is atrocious, constantly using “analysts” from the Heritage Foundation and other GOP front groups and pretending they are unbiased third parties. An eerie, disconcerting phenomenon and nothing at all comparable to the so-called “liberal media,” which is a fallacy, a concoction of clever and ruthless political strategists who know exactly how to manipulate the public through crying permanent victimhood, whether in or out of power. Needless to say, while the media is not liberal in the derogatory sense Ronald Reagan and other Republicans have invested in the term, there is a degree of built-in liberal bias in the media, because liberalism is a good quality, a sign of intelligence and open-mindedness, the spirit in which America was conceived. Any reporter worth his salt has to be to liberal to a large extent (again, not in the popular sense but the traditional sense). This is far from the Republican-bias of Fox, a pseudo-news station designed solely to pimp for the Republican Party and foment ignorance, hysteria and hatred.
April 7, 2009 @ 11:18 pm | Comment
31
By AndyR
@Richard…thou dost protest too much…all the cable news networks are to be condemned, and I love how Americans love to get into debates over which one is more “objective”, it’s infotainment…not news…journalism died long ago…
April 7, 2009 @ 11:22 pm | Comment
32
By Richard
I think all the cable pundits are to be condemned. The news reporting – weak, mediocre, uninspiring perhaps. But CNN and MSNBC do not inject prejudice and poison into every story. With Fox is it simply reflexive.
By it’s very nature (being based on ratings) the cable news stations have to seek to titillate and gain viewership. But CNN’s news reporting, I’ve felt, has actually improved in the past couple of years, it’s inane pundit and soft-news crapola aside. In terms of news coverage, Fox News stands by itself as putrescent. Note the distinctions I’m drawing.
April 7, 2009 @ 11:34 pm | Comment
33
By AndyR
CNN?!?!?! God forbid…what will the fenqing say? Haha…agree totally with your analysis. Personally, I’ve given up on any news that is broadcast on TV, but to each his own.
April 7, 2009 @ 11:36 pm | Comment
34
By Elijah Minott
Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil that is what it is about. There is no black hand,
the president is not some wind up doll that you can play around with, and USA is just trying to get back on track ( put it under the rug ). Everybody just wants to forget about how Amerikans caused Amerikans to go to war and die for nothing, then Amerika broke it’s bank and that set off a chain reaction that rippled threw the world.
If this was Japan would it matter?
Also Amerika does not rule the world. They just buy all the worlds crap and then send it to Arica for it to be striped of it’s gold.
Again if this was Japan would it really matter? I understand that the goverment is royalty but there is nothign wrong with that at all. YOu have to respect other people when your in there house.
April 8, 2009 @ 9:59 pm | Comment
35
By Charlie P. in the P.R of China
Haha, I like that “truly and totally lost its marbles”.
April 11, 2009 @ 3:14 pm | Comment