posted November 17, 2009 11:57 AM         

The first time O'Bomber bowed it was to the Saudi King. That stirred up Americans who understand Americans and especially American Presidents don't bow to any foreign potentate be they King, Queen or Emperor.

The White House staff tried to say O'Bomber didn't bow to the Saudi King but the pictures and video of the event put the lie to that explanation.

Now that O'Bomber has done it again, the White House is saying it's "Protocol" for American Presidents to bow to foreign leaders.

That's a flat out lie but lies are the stock in trade of the O'Bomber administration.

O'Bomber and the morons with whom he has surrounded himself do not understand the significance of bowing as it is seen in different cultures. Nor do they understand that bowing is interpreted with different meanings depending upon the culture of those to whom the bow is offered.

O'Bomber is supposed to be an American. In American culture Americans bow to no foreign power. To understand why this is true, you need to read the "Reasons" for the separation from Great Britain written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

Since it's obvious some "Americans" have never bothered to delve into the founding principles upon which the United States was founded let me lay it out for you.

After raising the issue of the "separation" from Great Britain and declaring "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"; Jefferson went on to set forth those causes.

The first cause Jefferson states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"...

Equals do not bow to one another nor do equals show subservience by bowing to anyone. This is the custom, and tradition of Americans and American Presidents down through the history of the United States....until O'Bomber.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/004933-2.html

PRUDEN: Obama bows, the nation cringes

A little traveling, like a little learning, can be a dangerous thing. Barack Obama on the loose in a foreign land is enough to frighten protocol officers and embarrass the rest of us.

He went off to Asia to tell the Chinese a thing or two about world trade, to prepare the world for a treaty to make the sun change its spots, and of course to pay his respects to assorted heads of state, with particular attention to any royal head (perhaps even including Miss Universe) who crosses his path.

So far it's a memorable trip. He established a new precedent for how American presidents should pay obeisance to kings, emperors, monarchs, sovereigns and assorted other authentic man-made masters of the universe. He stopped just this side of the full grovel to the emperor of Japan, risking a painful genuflection if his forehead had hit the floor with a nasty bump, which it almost did. No president before him so abused custom, traditions, protocol (and the country he represents). Several Internet sites published a rogue's gallery showing how other national leaders -the prime ministers of Israel, India, Slovenia, South Korea, Russia and Dick Cheney among them - have greeted Emperor Akihito with a friendly handshake and an ever-so-slight but respectful nod (and sometimes not even that).

Now we know why Mr. Obama stunned everyone with an earlier similar bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, only the bow to the Japanese emperor was far more flamboyant, a sign of a really deep sense of inferiority. He was only practicing his bow in Riyadh. Sometimes rituals are learned with difficulty. It took Bill Clinton months to learn how to return a military salute worthy of a commander in chief; like any draft dodger, he kept poking a thumb in his eye until he finally got it. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, seems right at home now giving a wow of a bow. This is not the way an American president impresses evildoers that he's strong, tough and decisive, that America is not to be trifled with.

Some of the president's critics are giving him a hard time, and it's true that this president seems never to have studied much American history. Not bowing to foreign potentates was what 1776 was all about. His predecessors learned with no difficulty that the essence of America is that all men stand equal and are entitled to look even a king, maybe particularly a king, straight in the eye. Can anyone imagine George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson making a similar gesture of servile submission? Or Harry Truman? Or FDR, who famously served the lowly hot dog, with ballpark mustard, to the king and queen of England? John F. Kennedy, on the eve of a trip to London, sharply warned Jackie not to curtsy to the queen.

Douglas MacArthur, who ranked above mere heads of state in his own mind, once invented his own protocol on greeting Emperor Hirohito. The emperor, the father of Akihito, wanted to meet MacArthur soon after he arrived to become the military regent of Japan in 1945, perhaps to thank him for saving the throne at the end of World War II. When the emperor invited MacArthur to call on him, the general sent word that the emperor should call on him - speaking of breaches of custom - and the two men were photographed together, astonishing the Japanese. The emperor arrived in full formal dress, cutaway coat and all, and MacArthur received him in summer khakis, sans tie, with his hands stuffed casually in his back pockets. Further astonishing the Japanese, he towered over the diminutive emperor.

But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.

He no doubt wants to "do the right thing" by his lights, but the lights that illumine the Obama path are not necessarily the lights that illuminate the way for most of the rest of us. This is good news only for Jimmy Carter, who may yet have to give up his distinction as our most ineffective and embarrassing president.

posted November 17, 2009 12:09 PM         

President Obama, who nearly prostrated himself before the king of Saudi Arabia last April, has once again bowed low to a monarch -- this time to the emperor of Japan.

What to make of this obsequious body language?

After the presidential frame went perpendicular before the Saudi royal, the White House at first denied that the president had bowed. He was merely leaning over, Robert Gibbs explained, because the president was "taller than the king." That might make sense -- to anyone who had not seen the video. President Obama bent so far over that he was at eye level with the king's hips.

The president's defenders suggested that he was merely being polite, or simply following protocol. Politeness consists in treating others with respect and taking care not to hurt their feelings. But a bow, well, that's a different matter.

Last week, the president did it again, bowing from the waist before Japan's Emperor Akihito. So what might have seemed a rookie mistake is now looking deliberate.

Protocol is not the explanation. While there have been exceptions, American presidents have not traditionally bowed to royalty. Nor have American diplomats or citizens of any stripe. Kings and queens of England have visited America and been quite satisfied to receive a dignified handshake from Americans high and low. President Roosevelt famously served Great Britain's King George VI and Queen Elizabeth hot dogs at his Hyde Park home.

When it comes to body language, it's best to stick to your own culture and traditions. A too-eager attempt to ingratiate by adopting others' customs can backfire. According to one Asian expert consulted by ABC's Jake Tapper, Obama's low bow caused considerable consternation in Japan. Apparently, a proper Japanese bow under the circumstances would have been executed with hands at the sides, and a slight tilt from the waist. "The bow as he performed it did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms ...The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak-looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part."

President Obama makes much of his international pedigree, the latest iteration being the boast that he is the "first Pacific president" -- whatever that means. But when he stoops to royalty this way, he invites the question: How American does he feel?

Don't hyperventilate. Of course, there is no one way for Americans to think or feel. But some American attitudes are, or used to be, woven deeply into our character. Most Americans have a visceral distaste, dating back to our founding, for truckling to royalty. Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution states: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: -- And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." Kings and emperors have been treated with courtesy, of course, but to bow is -- yes, I'll say it -- un-American.

Here, let the New York Times explain it. In 1994, the Times gently rebuked President Clinton for "almost" bowing to the Japanese emperor. "It wasn't a bow, exactly," the editorial chided, "(b)ut Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan. Canadians still bow to England's Queen; so do Australians. Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what else were 1776 and all that about?"

posted November 17, 2009 12:57 PM         

in japan, they do. when in rome...

posted November 17, 2009 02:13 PM         

That's O'Bomber and his principal backer George Soros who says his main goal in life is to reduce the power and influence of the United States in world affairs. O'Bomber is his vehicle.

posted November 17, 2009 05:32 PM         

whereas those of us who have been elsewhere have made that conscious decision.

posted November 17, 2009 06:05 PM         

It's O'Bomber and his radical leftist Socialists who are unhappy with America...oh and you seem to be too.

It's no secret in which directions the borders of the US are located and unlike the nations which make leftist Socialist radicals drool there are no fences to keep anyone here. Does that sound like a hint to seek what you consider "greener pastures"?

posted November 17, 2009 07:23 PM         

for your information there IS a barrier to getting out of this country now. it's called a passport, a little book (complete with microchip) which half the population can't afford to furnish themselves with. mine expired some time ago. no one gets out without one, or didn't you know?

even europeans whom you consider so fettered can travel from country to country without theirs...of course this is a step in the direction of a single european state but as of now they all retain their sovereignty.

but then those who have never ventured out of the house don't know what's on the other side of the first hill they see, do they?

posted November 18, 2009 12:15 AM         

It's a bit like waving to say "hi". Or smiling when you greet a friend, relative or customer.

To wave, you use your arm.

To smile, you use your face.

To bow, you use your hips.

To handshake, you use your hand.

Just simple body language.

In fact, in cultures where they bow, they probably don't want to touch someone else's dirty filthy hand that wipes its bottom.

We are created equal, but we each have cultural practices, otherwise we would be a One World Government, oops, I mean robots.

posted November 18, 2009 12:20 AM         

Can a President do that? Or do they just stand there like a person just standing there?

In New Zealand, a President will just stand there.

In Japan, a President will just stand there.

In Turkey, a President will just stand there.

There's kind of a boring ring to that. Not only boring, but disregarding of cultural differences.

posted November 18, 2009 12:27 AM         

They are talking about a nation's ego. Is it really that big a deal?

What does a nation have to prove?

Why does a nation have to prove itself (by not bowing)?

posted November 18, 2009 01:24 PM         

John Adams bowed to the King George III, Nixon bowed to Mao, etc. Lol.

posted November 18, 2009 11:45 PM         

American Buffoon
By Andrew Cline on 11.18.09 @ 6:09AM

Barack Obama was supposed to be America's answer to the suave, European head of state. A debonair gentleman of the world, he would charm even the most sophisticated foreign leaders and prove, finally, that the United States is developed culturally, not just economically.

Then he gave some DVDs.

Ian Drury of London's Daily Mail wrote on March 8, "As he headed back home from Washington, Gordon Brown must have rummaged through his party bag with disappointment.

"Because all he got was a set of DVDs. Barack Obama, a box set of 25 classic American films -- a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks."

Brown had given Obama a set of pens made from part of the HMS Gannet, a Victorian-era anti-slave ship. A desk that has sat in the Oval Office since 1880 was made from the timbers of the HMS Resolute, the Gannet's sister ship. It was a stunningly thoughtful and unique gift left unreciprocated.

But even worse, Obama refused to hold a joint press conference with Brown or invite him for an official White House dinner. And to top it all off, he sent back a bust of Churchill that was lent to the White House after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Russia Today wrote that week, "Despite Barack Obama's eloquent elocution, ivy school credentials and electric charisma, there is talk that he lacks the most crucial element of any great leader: judgment."

Since March, Obama's social gaffes have continued. In April he bowed to the Saudi king; in July he was photographed staring at the rear end of a 16-year-old girl and suggested that Cambridge Police Officer James Crowley was stupid; in October he refused to meet with the Dalai Lama; in September he refused five requests from Gordon Brown for a one-on-one meeting but found time to fly to Copenhagen to promote Chicago's Olympic bid; and this month he sent Hillary Clinton to attend the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, then topped it all with an obsequious bow to the emperor of Japan.

Obama cannot even blame the Japan bow on proper protocol. It was anything but proper. It was so inappropriate that it even offended the Japanese.

President Bush supposedly offended the rest of the world with his cowboy chauvinism, but at least he followed proper etiquette while telling the leaders of other countries that America was going to go its own way. Obama doesn't even know to invite the Prime Minister of Great Britain to a state dinner. He doesn't even bother to learn the proper way to greet kings and emperors.

For all of George W. Bush's swagger, it is Barack Obama who has systematically offended three major allies -- Britain, Germany and Japan -- in the span of nine months, needlessly straining important relationships and making his country look simultaneously backward and arrogant.

The reason for this is simple and obvious: Obama's singular arrogance. Only arrogance can explain the way Obama has treated Gordon Brown. Only arrogance can explain the president's snubbing of Germany and repeated refusal to learn the proper protocol for greeting other world leaders.

Obama might be cultivating world opinion by insulting his own country in speech after speech and undermining its interests with his foreign policy, but the joke is on him. For his transparent disdain for other world leaders and customs is making him every bit the image of the buffoonish American president he tries so hard to convince the world he is not.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/18/american-buffoon

posted November 19, 2009 08:40 PM         

quote:

---

Please explain what an "accidental" American is.

---

An 'accidental American' is one who was born in the USA, thereby possessing American citizenship, yet does not subscribe to basic American doctrine.

For instance, if I were a believer in the superior merits of a contitutional monarchy, this form of government being in direct opposition to American tenet, I would rightly be termed an 'accidental American'.

Also, bearing in mind this ... being 'American' is not a matter of blood. Rather it is the shared belief in that mandate found in our Constitution and Declaration which ties our people together. It's entirely different being "German" or "Japanese". I might one day acquire German citizenship, but I will never be "German". In contrast, my ancestors choose to come to America because they believed in the American system and culture, and so they then 'became' fully American.

posted November 20, 2009 12:08 AM         

and i hate to say it but whatever you BELIEVE, shura, were you to emigrate to germany, or even england, you would still be an american. in fact your american-ness would be even more obvious over there. you might even come to understand that being american mattered.

posted November 20, 2009 09:26 AM         

quote:

---

and where in the constitution does it say that americans have to be narrowminded stick in the muds?

---

Well, it doesn't ofcourse. As so often pointed out, a good deal of the beauty in the Constitution lies in its flexibility. Nevertheless, it provides a basic outline, yes? We could agree that a monarchy is a distinctly un-American system of government, yes? Please say yes, Kat. Please.

quote:

---

and i hate to say it but whatever you BELIEVE, shura, were you to emigrate to germany, or even england, you would still be an american. in fact your american-ness would be even more obvious over there. you might even come to understand that being american mattered.

---

Yes, that's my point as well. Philosophically, I'm an American through and through. Unfortunately, I'm also tainted with the glories of modern American culture. It's visible (although, please God, I'd like to think less so than many Americans)and it would take a generation or two to completely dissipate.
My grandparents and great-grandparents all retained a whiff -sometimes quite a bit more than a whiff - of the homeland. And yet, they were all fervent believers in 'the American way'. They became American in a way that I could never become Japanese or even, despite a heavy dose of English/Scottish blood, British.

quote:

---

on the other hand you might find out that other countries have much to offer and are not the cesspools some american CHAUVINISTS seem to think they are.

---

I've only been to Europe once, but I liked it very much. Culturally and historically, I adore Europe and all things European. On the other hand, I'm not usually a fan of their current political systems and I generally detest the EU and nearly everything it stands for. So, as much I enjoyed being there, I don't imagine I'll be applying for citizenship any time soon. As soon as my little guy is old enough to handle the 9 hour plane ride I'm going right back though. And often.

...

posted November 20, 2009 09:42 AM         

I'm a compare and contrast kinda girl, so I really enjoyed the last video.

posted November 22, 2009 12:14 AM         

They didn't seem to have a need to stand there solely to represent their Americaness.

posted November 22, 2009 11:17 AM         

Needless to say, none of us live in this old fashioned world of symbolism and protocol, so I suppose it might be difficult to wrap our minds around the meaning and importance of such things. But Presidents and Emperors do live in that world and they do speak that language.

posted November 22, 2009 12:19 PM         

Koiflower, I know you'll want to send telegrams to all the following national leaders to chide them on their churlishness, rudeness and ill manners for not bowing to the Japanese Emperor.

Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty
President of the Phillipines, Gloria Arroyo
Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister of Latvia, Ivars Gadmanis
Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Finland, Matti Vanhanen
President of Laos, Choummaly Sayanose
President of China, Hu Jintao
President of South Korea, Lee Myung Bak
Prime Minister of Slovenia, Janez Jansa
Prime Minister of France, Francois Fillon
President of Peru, Alan Garcia
Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud, Olmert
President of Vietnam, Nguyen Minh Triet
King of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf
Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel
President of Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus
King of Jordan, Abdullah II
Queen of Sweden, Silvia Sommorlath
President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus
President of Russia, Vladimir Putin....
AND, a list of many other national leaders too numerous to list...who also didn't bow to the Emperor of Japan.

You might also want to send a telegram to the Emperor Akihito to chide him on his rudeness and ill manners for not recriprocating to O'Bomber with a bow of his own...just because you suggest it's the custom of Japan.

Now, as shura has pointed out...God Bless General Douglas MacArthur...who also didn't bow but did establish a US "Governorship" over Japan at the end of WWII and guided, encouraged and helped the Japaneese establish a modern representative government in Japan...and so very much more.

Now Koiflower, IF anyone should have bowed to anyone in that setting...it was the Emperor of Japan who should have bowed to O'Bomber.

It was the United States, in the person of General Douglas MacArthur, who made the decision to not dissolve the Imperial family in the person of Emperor Hirohito.

The current Emperor of Japan, Akihito is the son of Hirohito and owes his throne..literally...to the kindness and generousity of the American General Douglas MacArthur.

posted November 22, 2009 01:06 PM         

Trying to remember if it took place here or Japan. I want to say Alaska for some reason. Where the hell am I getting that from??

posted November 22, 2009 01:32 PM         

shura, to answer your question, yes of course. though there are those who would assert that america is still the PROPERTY of the crown, which is the property of the vatican...

posted November 22, 2009 01:49 PM         

"I am a conscious American"

Well, I can't speak for Jwhop but, for what it's worth, I believe you are. I haven't read anything here that would cause me to think otherwise. Like I said, the Constitution allows a good deal of elbow room.

quote:

---

shura, to answer your question, yes of course. though there are those who would assert that america is still the PROPERTY of the crown, which is the property of the vatican...

---

posted November 22, 2009 01:52 PM         

quote:

---

Well, it doesn't ofcourse. As so often pointed out, a good deal of the beauty in the Constitution lies in its flexibility. Nevertheless, it provides a basic outline, yes? We could agree that a monarchy is a distinctly un-American system of government, yes? Please say yes, Kat. Please.

---