For the last 7 years we heard how George Bush has "destroyed America's image around the world. Indeed, throughout his campaign, Obama spoke at length about that problem and vowed to restore that image.

And so, he has embarked on his first trip abroad as President, to meet with other world leaders at the G-20.

And so, we now have a new image.

That of Barack Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia. Let me say that again: the President of the United States of America bowed down to the King of Saudi Arabia, a nation that at best is a dubious ally and at worst is a despotic sponsor of terrorism.

What's the big deal, you may ask. That's certainly the question liberals have been asking. After all, he was just showing that he is a humble man and unlike his predecessor, he has respect for other countries.

Bullshit. One, Obama is a great many things, humble is decidedly not one of them. Two, he appears to have respect for certain countries. When introduced to the Queen of England, he did not feel compelled to bow. He nodded his head and shook hands. And that was the appropriate thing to do. In fact, that was how every other leader at the Summit greeted each other. They treated each other as equals. With one exception.

Liberals will also tell you they prefer Obama's bowing to Bush's "holding hands with the King". Well, of course they do. In the first place, BDS is their answer to everything and in the second place, they once again ignore facts. Consider this excerpt, from of all places, the NY Times:

In fact, if a man chooses not to touch another in a greeting, it can be interpreted as a sign of distance or disdain. Kissing cheeks, long handshakes and clutching hands are meant to reflect amity, devotion and most important, equality in status, noted Fuad Ishak Khuri, a social anthropologist, in his book, "The Body in Islamic Culture" (2001).

In other words, George Bush was able to pay respect to another country's leader while maintaining his not only his own dignity, but that of the country he represented. No wonder then, that liberals prefer Obama's bowing.

Because, HERE is the problem with what Obama did: bowing is a sign of subservience. With that bow, Barack Obama, President of the United States, a sovereign (for now) nation and leader of the free world subjugated not only himself but this country before another nation's King. The Revolutionary War was fought so that would never happen again.

Even better, he chose as the recipient of this gesture the ruler of an Islamic nation. That would be the same Islam whose basic philosophy preaches the enslavement of infidels...that would be us. Now, ask yourself how every jihadist interprets that image. Do they view it as "a sign of respect" or as a sign of America - the Great Infidel's submission?

Yeah. There's your new image.

That sound you hear is that of our Founding Fathers rolling in their graves.

(March 14, 2009- Washington, D.C.)- President Barrack Obama is reeling this afternoon after a morning press conference in which the most powerful man in the world confessed that the snubbing of Great Britain Prime Minister Gordon Brown was intentional.


Obama admitted transgression following a string of questions from the media outlet WAF. The shocking transcript is reprinted below:


WAF: Mr. President, Led here, from WAF. Could you please explain exactly what happened with Mr. Brown’s visit and the snubbing of our closest ally?


Obama: There was no snubbing, and that is the, uh, end of the story.


WAF: Well most of England feels like it got the shaft.


Obama: Well how does Great Britain feel?


WAF: Sir?


Obama: You know England is just one small piece of Great Britain.


WAF: Sir?


Obama: I bet you, uh, the previous President was unaware of that fact.


WAF: So you’re saying you only intended to anger England and not Great Britain.


Obama: Yes. Uh, no. There was no snubbing.


WAF: Follow-up question. What were the DVD’s that you gave to Mr. Brown.


Obama: Let’s see there was Braveheart, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, I really love that one. There was uh, King Ralph, and uh, V for Vendetta.


WAF: Sir, that is quite a list. It appears that, well, that none of those really portray England very well.


Obama: What do you mean?


WAF: Well, Braveheart was about Scottish rebels fighting the evil English king. Robin Hood took on the feudal system, you know the whole redistribution of wealth. King Ralph is about an American becoming King of England, and V for Vendetta calls for an uprising and overthrow of the English government.


Obama: What is your point?


WAF: Seems like a pretty consistent message you are trying to send.


Obama: Let me ask you this, and I am, uh, of course, a student of history. Do any of these movies present a false image of the England as it, uh, currently exists.


WAF: What?


Obama: Do they present a contradictory message?


WAF: Well, yeah, I think so.

Obama: Well then, we have a differing opinion, don’t we?


WAF: Sir, are you contending that England is more closely represented by the DVD’s you sent to Mr. Brown than by our nearly two hundred years of friendship?


Obama: Two hundred years of friendship? These people tried to kill my ancestors. They tried to kill your ancestors.


WAF: Sir, I’m English.

Obama: Well how the **** did you get in here?


WAF: Sir, I’ve been covering you since you announced you were running for President.


Obama: Well okay then. They didn’t kill, uh, your ancestors, but they did mine. And everyone else in this country. Why do we forget that, if we are so concerned about, uh, terrorism? Who has had a more tyrannical history than England?


WAF: Is it your contention that the United States should sever it’s alliances with Great Britain.


Obama: Certainly not. But I don’t think they are anything special. They are just like the other 57 states, and 190 countries- all the same.


WAF: I think the people of England would beg to differ with that.


Obama: Friends? Do friends attack friends?


WAF: Sir?


Obama: Oh yeah, everyone forgets about the War of 1812. Like it didn’t happen. But I don’t. And where the hell, uh, were they when the Civil War was going on? Suddenly we save their ass in the 20th Century a few times and we are best buds. This relationship hasn’t really been, uh, mutual has it?


WAF: Again sir, I think England would beg to differ.


Obama: You can beg all you want, you aren’t getting any stimulus.


WAF: What about all of the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq that have stood by you since September 11th and put their lives on the line.


Obama: I told you I’m bringing all the troops home soon.


WAF: The English soldiers, sir.


Obama: What about them?


WAF: What do you say to them?


Obama: Tally ho?


At this point President Obama was whisked away by Secret Service because of an emergency that we later learned was whether or not the scones for the Saint Patrick’s Day dinner should have raisins.


Follow-up calls to the White House for clarification were not returned, though a source did say he thought the President was “joking” and was likely just caught off guard when his teleprompter did not work.


Representatives from Great Britain have also not yet returned calls for comment.

Warren Buffet is going to have to turn in his cool kids club card.

While technically not an economist, Mr. Buffett has amassed enough of a fortune, and developed enough of a reputation in the investment world, that liberals have been quick to parade his endorsement of Barrack Obama out when anyone dared question the acumen behind the administration’s economic recovery efforts.

Until now.

Speaking to CNBC on Monday, Buffett related the current economic situation to Pearl Harbor, saying that we are in an economic war, and not so subtly adding that the crisis the Democrats keep talking about as an opportunity not to be missed is shameful.

“(We’ve) heard this comment recently from some Democrats recently that a `crisis is a terrible thing to waste,” Buffett said. “It’s, in my view, it’s an economic war, and–I don’t think anybody on December 7th (1941) would have said a `war is a terrible thing to waste, and therefore we’re going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things and- but we expect the other party to unite behind us on the- on the big problem. It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective, to try and muddle it up with a bunch of other things.

What Buffett fails to recognize is that this has been the Democrats plan all along. They’ve just advanced it at a quicker pace than many thought possible due to the initial overwhelming support for the President (Hope!). While Buffett gives their intentions the benefit of the doubt, he does not agree with the treatment of the GOP, which the left has attempted to label as a party of no.

“You can’t expect people to unite behind you if you’re trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat,” he said. “So I would–I would absolutely say for the–for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are–you know are contentious, and I also–I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever.”

Strike two. And then came the big no-no in Liberal Land, the defense, or at least the calling off of the dogs on the former President. He even called him George. Really.

“I would–you know, I would not say, you know, `George’–`the previous administration got us into this,’” Buffett said while signing his liberal love death certificate. “Forget it. I mean, you know, the Navy made a mistake at Pearl Harbor and had too many ships there. But the idea that we’d spend our time after that, you know, pointing fingers at the Navy, we needed the Navy. So I would–I would– I would–no finger-pointing, no vengeance, none of that stuff. Just look forward.”

In the last week, Obama’s big name advisor has called into question the Democrats ability to manage this economic crisis, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has questioned the honesty of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Nancy Pelosi threw out the idea of a second pork-filled stimulus package, and word came that Obama does not have the votes to pass his budget.

Most of this is being overlooked because the media cannot bother to talk about news, and the Dow had one of its starts Tuesday, gaining more than 5 percent.

Soon it will go back down as more government programs are proposed with no viable funding source. There will be more job losses, but we will continue to hear about how many jobs are saved or mythically created. Barring a miracle where the country rises up and stops this abhorrent taxation of achievers for the benefit of the non-contributors, there will be no light at the end of the tunnel. Not yet.

No, I am not an economist. Not that it matters anymore.

Although you’d not think it from the mainstream media, the oldest and strongest of alliances is now under threat. The alliance that has been responsible for keeping the world free of fascism. The alliance that faced down the threat of communism during the cold war. The alliance that has stood shoulder to shoulder in defiance of the new wave of terrorism and hate fueled fascism that would otherwise engulf us all.

Is it under threat because of suddenly differing policies or a change in ethical viewpoint? Because one nation was caught committing espionage upon the other? Some act of betrayal? No, it is under sudden strain because one side now wishes to be ‘cool.’

Like a hormonal teenager discarding their best friend after suddenly winning a popularity contest, President Barack Obama would have found it hard to treat Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a greater sense of contempt. Admittedly, many in Britain would like nothing more than to see Brown humiliated, but in this case, all are aware it was not the man being snubbed, but the position and by extension the country.

Much has Britain done in recent history following the 9/11 attacks beyond the usual co-operation the two countries have enjoyed for so long. Not only in military support, or the sharing of intelligence or expertise in fighting terrorism gained through the years of combating the IRA, but perhaps more crucially in simply providing symbolic and literal unity after the most horrific act of terrorism in history.

While other countries provided lip service in support, or in many cases mere condemnation, following the attacks it was Britain who first pledged unwavering military support in retaliation. It was Tony Blair who broke from international obligations to declare on international television that the UK would be there when called upon - not the hip liberal nations of France or Germany that Obama is so keen on courting. Not the Islamic states he is trying to impress. Not Russia. It was Britain, as always.

So on receiving Brown to Washington, despite paying lip service to the ‘special relationship,’ Obama made it clear how little the country that has literally shed blood for the U.S. really means to the new administration with his actions. The little things that can be dismissed by a liberal media, but only a fool takes as meaningless. Whereas a bust of Winston Churchill always took place during such press conferences as a sign of respect, Obama made a point of returning it to the UK.

No.10 was told Obama did not have the time in his diary to spend with Brown. It has since been found that such pressing demands were in fact a routine speech to the Department for Interior and a meeting with the boy scouts of America. Now unless these boy scouts are going to be taking the place of British troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan, I think most can see who should have had priority.

There was no press conference, a standard for such visits during previous administrations and the British press were made to wait in the cold for over an hour before being allowed into the White House for what was permitted. Browns speech in which he trying to push his need to work with the US against the global recession actually had several members of congress missing, their seats taken by aides. There was no lunch or dinner as had on previous visits. Let us not forget, this was not a ‘party’ thing - Britain has been warmly received by both Clinton and Bush, and Bush was friendly with Blair and subsequently Brown. Brown had made sure to bring a personal gift - a pen holder made from wood of a warship that helped abolish the slave trade. Obama gave Brown DVD’s. DVD’s that don’t play on British DVD players no less. Yes, all that was missing was essentially pomp and ceremony, but it is symbolic of the attitude that Obama feels the British aren’t worth even that despite the physical and military unity Britain has provided at the drop of a hat.

Even if ceremony can be dismissed as meaningless, this irrefutably cannot, as taken from the Daily Telegraph (a normally left wing paper) dated 7th March -

The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly.

Sadly, Labour, being full of liberal wet rags have done all they can to dismiss what was clearly a snub and pathetically try to convince people it was a diplomatic success. Anyone with a brain can see what it was, and why it happened. In his bid to keep up with his ‘cool liberal’ image, Obama has brushed off America’s most important ally to gain favour with Europeans who favour image over substance, but it has not gone unnoticed over here. Even left wing media outlets are talking of the snub for what it is. The same press that bent over backwards to hail the coming of Obama as salvation of America’s ‘soul’.

What can also only be missed by an idiot is that Labour will not be winning the next election. America may find itself with a British government with a spine. One that will take offense at such an international slight. So when America next finds itself in need of an ally, Obama may find his arrogance coming home to roost when Germany and France forget how to answer the phone. When he finds himself alone in the world beyond polite nods and condescending smiles from Europe upon finding his gloss carries no weight with Iran who still wish to see the destruction of the US, he may realise that maybe Britain wasn’t just one among the many, and maybe the relationship was actually that important after all.

Okay kids, here is today's math question presented by Professor Reardon.

To pay for all of these wonderful programs that the government is attempting to expand and create, we are going to TAX THE RICH! Universal health care? Tax the rich! Everyone goes to college? Tax. The. Rich. Cure cancer? No really, we're now going to cure cancer according to the President. You guessed it- tax the rich.

Currently the top 5 percent of income earners in the United States already pay 60 percent of income taxes to Uncle Sam. 60 percent.

The bottom 40 percent pays nothing. You know, the same people who will benefit from the universal health care and FREE college educations.

Really.

But I digress.

The answer we look for is, under these current conditions, how long will the rich last?

Be sure to provide and add any circumstances you want to your projections. Leave answers in the comments section.

Professor Reardon

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.