Obama Bows, Arabs Gloat

                                    A little lower and he could’ve sucked Abdullah’s dick.

 

 

The Washington Times nailed it when they said it was ‘a shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate’.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/07/barack-takes-a-bow/

The White House denies it. Some people, mostly Dems, say ‘so what’?  Well, here’s the ‘so what’:
The Islamofascists appreciate the gesture:

The Secret behind Obama’s Bow to the King

……Obama lived part of his childhood in Indonesia and in his meeting with the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques attempted to evoke this. For bowing is an expression of affection in Indonesian culture and in East Asia in general. And so Obama wished to demonstrate his respect and appreciation of the personality of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, who has made one of the most important calls in the modern era, namely the call for inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogue to defuse the hatred, conflict and wars. And so the American right-wing –and the media which is sympathetic towards them- is reading too much into Obama’s bow.
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=16327

Reading too much? I don’t think so. We understand all too well the lack of  ‘inter-faith’ tolerance on the part of Arab culture toward Christians, Jews, and ‘non-believer infidels’. Last I checked, there aren’t any churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia or most of the Islamic Middle East. That’s because they’re not allowed.  Saudi Arabia occupies a region of the world that produces Islamic terrorists like assemby-line parts and has contributed its fair share to conflict and wars.

On that note, Obama is contributing $900 million to Hamas as part of the ‘stimulus’ package.
The bow to Abdullah was just another sign of allegiance to hostile enemies of the United States.

As for media ‘sympathies’; the predominant leftwing media are still fawning. The luster on THE ONE’s aura hasn’t worn thin enough…yet.

6 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by sfcmac on 11/04/2009 at 22:08

    Steve,

    Wrong. There are facts to back up exactly what I’ve said. I’m not seeing anything from you other than denial.

    This is from a comment I posted to someone else. It applies here too:

    The Dems in our government have started a communist legislative assault on private industry:

    But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the “Pay for Performance Act of 2009,” would impose government controls on the pay of all employees – not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

    The purpose of the legislation is to “prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards,” according to the bill’s language. That includes regular pay, bonuses — everything — paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Beyond-AIG-A-Bill-to-let-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html

    Didja get that? That, my dear, is COMMUNISM. A centralized government policy that dictates what an American employee will earn, regardless of profession, ability, or work performance. What did Karl Marx say? “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”

    Obama’s redistribution (”spreading”) of wealth is socialism/communism at its very core. I’ve read the U.S. Constitution. No where does it state that taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not, is a birth right. There’s a big difference between the freedom to pursue wealth and happiness, and having it handed to you through the burden of working taxpayers.

    When a government takes over banks, private industry, and corporations, that is communism. And he’s doing it with taxpayer funds.

    AIG (American International Group), Chrysler, General Motors, Citi Group, and JP Morgan/Chase, are just some of the entities either partially or wholly owned by the government thanks to Obama’s ‘bailout’. They are now under the thumb of complete government regulation; a type of indentured servitude.

    What more proof do you need?

    It’s sad that all of this is happening under your nose but you refuse to admit it.

    More facts: He launched his career from the home of two radical Chicago terrorists; William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn. His mentors, friends, and associates include ACORN, Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright. He has the support of extremist muslim organizations like the Arab-American Action network, CAIR, and Hamas, who incidentally raised money for his campaign from the Gaza strip.

    Your opinion is that he’s not a socialist/communist. His background, stated policies, and actions substantiate that he is. That is a fact.

    Happy Easter.
    SFC MAC

  2. Posted by The Center Square on 11/04/2009 at 21:58

    I’m not seeing anything in your posts other than your opinions. You disagree with Obama’s policies. I get that, and that’s perfectly fair and reasonable.

    But that doesn’t make them facts.

    I’m sorry we have to disagree, but I do wish you a blessed Easter.

    http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/

  3. Posted by sfcmac on 11/04/2009 at 21:27

    Steve,

    There is no way that some of that money won’t end up in Hamas coffers. They RULE Gaza.

    The terrorist PLO has no business getting any money, either.

    Secondly, What I implied was that his ‘gaffes’ reveal alot about his thought process, his intent, and just what he thinks of this country and military. As a former (retired ) Soldier and Iraq War veteran, I cannot and will not forgive an anti-American, nihilist jackass like Obama. He had no business being a Senator, let alone presidential candidate. Unfortunately, there are many more Democrats just like him.

    Do you not think a President should be judged on his actual policies?

    You bet. And my judgement of him is based on his socialist policies; both domestic and foreign.

    My strongest objection to your comments though, is this part: “Based on his behavior and statements, what’s ‘in his heart’ is self evident.” Self-evident to whom? This statement of yours provides neither facts, nor, frankly, even a reasoned opinion. I can just easily say it is self-evident that it was merely a gaffe.

    It’s self-evident to those who pay attention to his words and deeds. Recognizing blatant socialism doesn’t require “careful thought”. Shall I cite references of his socialist policies/behavior?

    If you cannot recognize the difference between the Washington Times and the Washington Post, that explains alot.

    SFC MAC

  4. Posted by The Center Square on 11/04/2009 at 21:16

    Sorry for the mix up on the Times / Post. That actually explains a lot right there *lol*. (I doubt you will appreciate why that’s funny.)

    To answer your question, I am able to forgive EVERY gaffe provided they are merely a tangle of words or a physical gesture. I defended Pres. Bush for eight long years on that very point. I attach no importance to those. I cannot see why any would think them important. Do you not think a President should be judged on his actual policies?

    The link cited on your other post describes funding for reconstruction in the Gaza Strip. The funding was explicitly directed to the Palestinian Authority, the arch-rival of Hamas. Please read here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29352401/ and then reconsider if you have those facts straight. You have taken an act that was a strong anti-Hamas gesture and someone come to believe it was in support of Hamas.

    My strongest objection to your comments though, is this part: “Based on his behavior and statements, what’s ‘in his heart’ is self evident.” Self-evident to whom? This statement of yours provides neither facts, nor, frankly, even a reasoned opinion. I can just easily say it is self-evident that it was merely a gaffe.

    These are difficult times, requiring careful thought.

    http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/

  5. Posted by sfcmac on 11/04/2009 at 20:46

    Steve,

    There’s no inconsistencies; just facts. A ‘nervous gaffe’? Like the statement he made during the campaign accusing the U.S. military of “air-raiding villages and killing children”? Or the “negotiate without pre-conditions” comment with regard to Iran? How many ‘nervous gaffes’ are you going to excuse before you realize that at best he’s an empty suit, and at worst, a toady for the world’s Islamic (and other) despots?
    It was the Washington Times, not the Washington Post.

    Based on his behavior and statements, what’s ‘in his heart’ is self evident.

    The Saudi regime sponsores terrorism: (You need a better source than the leftwing Guardian)
    https://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/the-saudis-are-not-our-friends/

    And as for the 900 million, here you go:
    https://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/hamas-included-in-stimulus-package/

    There’s your full explanation.

    SFC MAC

  6. Posted by The Center Square on 11/04/2009 at 20:33

    Here are the inconsistencies with this post. One, someone needs to explain to me how we know this was a “shocking display of fealty” versus just a nervous gaffe. How did you, or the Washington Post opinion page for that matter, discern what is in the President’s heart?

    Two, Hamas is a declared terrorist organization (citation: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm). I seriously doubt your contention about the $900 million, and I wonder if you can support that.

    Three, the Saudi regime is opposed to the actions of Hamas. Read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/01/saudi-arabia-hamas-gaza. If Obama owes allegiance to the Saudis, then what is your explanation for why Obama is directing funding to an organization the Saudis oppose?

    http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: