Monday, November 16, 2009

Obama's Real Bow

Obama apparently doesn't realize that the occupant of the office he lays claim to is supposed to represent the sovereign people of the United States.  At the following picture accompanied a story reporting his clearly deliberate bow to the Japanese Emperor Akihito.

Given the decidedly outraged reaction to his bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, there's no way this new affront is anything but a deliberate repudiation of respect for the republican form of government (of, by and for the people) established by the Constitution of the United States.  Given the cult of personality Obama worshippers have tried to promote since he won the 2008 election, we can be forgiven for suspecting that the Narcissist in Chief shows such respect for monarchs because he aspires to be what George Washington wisely refused to become- King of the United States.  Unlike Washington, of course, he has done nothing that remotely suggests he is worthy of such preferment.  But also unlike Washington he appears to believe that ambition for power is the only qualification required.  In this he resembles both Caesar and Napoleon, two historical figures who succeeded at the task Obama has undertaken- the destruction of a republican form of government in their respective countries.

As a matter of pure political calculation, however, one has to wonder at the outward appearance of stupidity involved in this latest insult to the people he's supposed to represent.  Even someone as blinded by his own self-image as Obama has to realize that his critics will pounce on this obviously deliberate reiteration of humiliated sovereignty. 

I think he not only realizes this, he means to provoke it.  Obama's bow to the Saudi King was a reflexive expression of homage to a figure he revered on account of deeply inculcated religious feeling.  It therefore  revealed Obama's allegiance to Islam.  From his insane waste of American lives in Afghanistan to his literally fishy reaction to the Ft. Hood episode; from his shutdown of Guantanamo to his decision to offer terrorists the propaganda platform of a civilian trial in the very city they assaulted; from his surrender of U.S. economic sovereignty to his determined and obvious efforts to drive the U.S. to utter bankruptcy; Obama's policies and actions are leading more and more Americans to question whether his true allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States and to the the people whose will and nationhood it represents.

This substantive issue of allegiance inevitably came to mind as people thought about the implications of his bow to the Saudi King.  Given Saudi Arabia's role in supporting the brand of Islamic fundamentalism that promotes the recruitment of Islamic terrorists like Major Hasan, these implications are intensely troubling.  The bow to the Japanese Emperor is a deliberate ploy intended to take the focus away from the issue of religious and political allegiance and put it on formalities instead.  The appearance of stupidity in the bow to Emperor Akihito covers the shrewdness of Obama's real bow, which is in fact to the requirements of the continuing deception that hides his deep betrayal of his oath and of America's trust.


Janelle said...

AMEN Alan!

Anonymous said...

Obviously, Obama believes that image is everything and therefore tries to be a well-liked, popular figure at home and abroad.

However, his actions, or lack thereof, in foreign policy (i.e. Afghan war) along with his apologies for our country and bowing to foreign heads of state make him, in my opinion, the weakest, most disrespected President we have every had....although Jimmy Carter is a close second.

Epididymus said...

Dr. Keyes,

Obama's fishy reactoin to Ft. Hood makes more sense when you realize the Ft. Hood gunman was a part of his Homeland security transitional team.

No surprise the mainstream media didn't talk about this for long.

Anonymous said...

I think this is intended as a carefully crafted insult to the Japanese. Either that, or Obama is just determined to show off how limber he is.

I mean...he's offering the Islamic style obeisance here. Other countries don't do the straight-knee bow, that's pretty unique to Muslims. And here's a clue looks terrible. In Islam it helps signify that you do your mosque attendance properly, but to everyone else it just looks rather obscene.

Akihito is trying for the 'eyes meet with a respectful inclination of the head' while Obama is apparently trying to bend over so far the guy will be looking up his rectal cavity. Also, given the peculiar position America enjoys in the Japanese self-narrative, it's grossly inappropriate in addition to being literally grotesque. But it may be giving Obama too much credit to suggest he understands any of that.

Seriously, is there any plausible motive for the things Obama does anymore?

Derek P. said...

Obama. That is the question. That seems to always be the question. Obama. Yes? No? Obama. Obama. Obama. A proven, winning strategy.

Terry Morris said...

Derek P.,

Apparently you're trying to make a ... point.

So your strategy is?...

Well, anyway, I still think BHO's smart enough to know when he's up. Everyone else seems to think that he's, what, stupid? I don't think so.

Is it too much to say that he realized his first mistake (not that he 'regrets' it) and is trying to cover it?

Derek P. said...

Terry Morris,

As far back as I can remember, whomever received the most attention, whether good or bad, prevailed at the polls.

1994 - Republicans regained Congress in spite of merciless attacks.

2000 - George Bush won the White House in spite of merciless attacks.

2004 - George Bush won the White House again in spite of merciless attacks.

2006 - Democrats regained the Congress in spite of merciless attacks.

2008 - Obama won the White House in spite of merciless attacks.

I guess I just see things differently. In the examples listed above the prevailing party usually received the lionshare of attention. The prevailing party promoted themselves, and they were promoted by the other party that tried to tear them down with negative attention. But it was the attention that mattered most.

Parrfection said...

An excellent post.

Anonymous said...

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Understandable, because the strongest contender will always attract the lion's share of attention, both positive and negative. So there is a causal relationship at work, but the truth is that all the attention is caused by, not causing, the high probability of victory.

Post hoc reasoning is particularly fallacious when dealing with human actions. Most things humans intentionally do are actually caused by things that haven't happened by the time of the resulting actions, whether or not they eventually come to pass. In fact, that is the essential characteristic of rational behavior, that the behavior was caused by accurate perception of the future.

Most humans are not rational most of the time, but they almost always try to seem rational.

Derek P. said...

"Understandable, because the strongest contender will always attract the lion's share of attention, both positive and negative." (chiu_chunling)

Under otherwise normal circumstances that premise holds true. But conditions can be manipulated in such a manner that the weaker of two candidates can made into the focus of attention, and change the weight of a given campaign. Examples:

1. George H.W. Bush vs William J. Clinton
2. Al Gore vs George W. Bush
3. Hillary R. Clinton vs Barack H. Obama

In each case, the stronger candidates (from the outset) ended becoming the weaker candidates. In each case, the stronger candidate chose to focus their campaign attention on the weaker candidate which invariable propelled the weaker candidate into a position of strength.

"In fact, that is the essential characteristic of rational behavior, that the behavior was caused by accurate perception of the future."

Agreed. However, does this also take into account behavior cause by an inaccurate perception of the future?

My point is simply this - Dr. Keyes and other likeminded conservatives should draw attention to themselves by promoting what they believe in, and not by promoting what the other side believes in.

Ask me to evaluate Dr. Alan Keyes. But if you ask, I will be more than happy to evaluate Barack H. Obama at your request. You need only ask.

(OK. That was my irrational thought for the day! Thank you.)

Dawg_em said...

From my understanding of narcissism, it is a mental disorder. But maybe it goes deeper than that. A narcissist with a bent (pun intended) to be a servants' servant. Remember, his job is to make America subservient to globalist control vis-a-vis George Soros and his ilk. I know that sounds contradictory, what with a narcissistic servant, but truth is often stranger than fiction.

Maybe it was an attempt to cover his mistake regarding the Saudi King. But with his ego I doubt it. Why should he care when most Americans apparently don't?

Irrespective of his clownishness and buffoonery, he is the quintessential reason why the president of the United States should and must be a natural born citizen.

Derek P.,

"2008 - Obama won the White House in spite of merciless attacks."

Attacks from whom? The Clintons? The same Clintons Americans were tired of? Or the lapdogs in the MSM?

Or maybe you're referring to the same merciless attacks he's receiving because of his czar appointments to the "Legion of Doom". (Perhaps all this is taking place in Bizzaro World.)

MAW said...

With out doubt, this Obama who would be king still spending millions of dollars to hide a birth certificate is not only trying but succeeding in detroying our great nation. How can we get him out of office. What are the legal remedies to stop him?? Let us reason together to save our Nation with prayers and action.

Any one able to lead? What about you Alen?

Dawg_em said...

Obama bin Lyin' is a contradiction. He's arrogant and narcissistic, yet he knows he's in over his head, a sort of international affirmative action beneficiary. Maybe it depends on the briefing he receives because he doesn't show subservience to all foreign leaders. I'd like to know what specifically causes him to bow to some yet not to others. Although I do believe Dr. Keyes comes very close to nailing it.

At the same time he must know we are no longer a sovereign people (as far as the globalists are concerned) and, therefore, acts accordingly. Since he is not an American, he has no concept of the notion Americans are to bow to no leader or king, except to the King of Kings.

What is worse than the notion he is fully cognizant of his role and responsibility as usurper, the possibility of a mental disorder that would cause him to act in a totally irrational way is very scary indeed. And to make matters worse, he is surrounded by like-minded fiends who cannot be trusted to pull back the reins. On the contrary, these liars and deceivers will encourage him to act in very dangerous ways.

Dawg_em said...

Derek P.,

"2008 - Obama won the White House in spite of merciless attacks."

Huh? What? Where? Who? Surely you can't mean the Clintons? The same Clintons most Americans find annoying. The lapdog media helped get him elected and he remains in office thanks to their bias. John McCain? No. No way.

What merciless attacks?

Anonymous said...

Point taken. Palin attracted roughly ten times as much negative coverage and campaign rhetoric as Obama did, and yet the McCain ticket still lost (for which I am still quite grateful, considering that 'clueless lackey of the left' represents my upgraded opinion of McCain).

So the inclusion of Obama in the list really only serves to make my point, which is that the biggest threat attracts all the fire. A good fire magnet can be a key element of a winning strategy, but it has to present a credible threat in its own right.

In politics, where credence is everything, a 'credible' candidate will win without fierce opposition. The fact that they are still likely to win despite fierce opposition doesn't mean the opposition actually helps them win.

Ms. Cris Ericson said...

How much of Obama's behaviour was learned from Frank Marshall Davis
who may have been his biological father?

Frank Marshall Davis was a married man,
and may have asked a friend of his,
Barack Obama Sr.,
to be the "public" father figure,
and Frank Marshall Davis worked for a newspaper, and could have had the birth notice printed.

Barack Obama Sr. needed a wife to extend his student visa.

President Obama may have used Barack Obama Sr.'s name to get student loans.

We need to ask President Obama to take an ancestral DNA test to determine if he is related at all to the Kenya Obamas.

Obama probably had one biological father,
Frank Marshall Davis (Communist)
and two more father figures,
Obama Sr. and Soetoro,
for a total of three fathers.
No wonder he'll bow to any man!

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to