- Boston-area tornado rips 100 homes: ‘Are we in Kansas?’
- Rush Limbaugh: ‘There is no journalism anymore’
- Scott Brown struggles for political traction in New Hampshire Senate race
- California’s Jerry Brown cites God, ‘religious call’ to embrace illegals
- Hamid Karzai’s cousin killed by suicide bomber at Eid al-Fitr party
- Obama thanks Muslims for ‘building the very fabric of our nation’
- Israel flattens home of top Hamas leader, takes out power plant
- Texas man arrested for powder-letter hoax
- Islamic State opens ‘marriage bureau’ for single jihadists
- Drone almost blocks California firefighting planes
Question of the Day
When President Obama met King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia during the Group of 20 summit in London last week, he made a deep bow from the waist, to which the reaction in conservative blogs was (paraphrased) “We fought a king in 1776, for this.”
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom recalled how New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani “once practically spit in the face of a presumptuous Saudi Prince” before going on to draw an obscenely unfavorable comparison to the regime to whose leader Mr. Obama was bowing.
“Our President? He … bowed. He bowed to religious intolerance. He bowed to misogyny. He bowed to anti-semitism. He bowed to homophobia. In short, he surrendered our country’s ideals, offering up our principles for sacrifice on the altar of Otherness … … And by bowing before a Saudi Prince, our President — in addition to [ignoring] 200+ years of precedent — has shown himself to be as principled as many of us knew him to be. Which is not principled at all.”
Also getting conservative dander up was the lack of coverage given to the bow by the American press. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air noted that even former President Bill Clinton once got excoriated for appearing to bow to a foreign monarch.
“The New York Times sharply criticized Bill Clinton for a mere inclination of his shoulders towards Japanese Emperor Akihito in 1994: ‘It wasn’t a bow, exactly. But 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?’
“The media took Clinton to task for even suggesting the unthinkable. Now they remain silent on Obama’s leap to the unthinkable. When will the New York Times cover this, even to the extent [it] covered Clinton’s inclined shoulders? Or is the unthinkable in 1994 turned into the unmentionable in 2009, thanks to a national media that has completely sold out to Barack Obama?”
Political gunfire I
Michelle Malkin did a roundup of coverage of Friday’s shooting rampage in Binghamton, N.Y., in which a Vietnamese immigrant killed 13 people and then himself in an immigration office. She listed all the people who had been at fault for the rampage. Blame was not placed on the shooter, Jiverly Voong — don’t be silly. There are real culprits out there.
“Because despite having no concrete information yet on what motivated this killer to go on his shooting spree, leftists have already decided: It’s all our fault. Who’s responsible?” Mrs. Malkin wrote at her self-titled site before providing a series of links blaming “IBM and corporate greed. The Second Amendment. The NRA. Fox News. Me, FreeRepublic.com [and] RedState.com. Lou Dobbs. ‘Your 2nd Amendment rights at work. The NRA is answerable for this.’ Michele Bachmann. Conservative talk radio. All right-wingers.”
“Look, I’m all for finding root causes,” she concluded. “But someone please explain to me how conservatives who espouse immigration enforcement and assimilation led a nutball of Vietnamese descent who reportedly could barely speak English to slaughter innocent people taking a citizenship test and trying to naturalize the right way?”
Political gunfire II
Apparently, some people at Daily Kos have standards.
On their Twitter feeds, site founder Markos Moulitsas and front-page diarist Dana Houle saw the political angle in the ambush attack Saturday that killed four Pittsburgh policemen. Joked Mr. Houle, “With no Veep to shoot people, folks are taking things into their own hands.” Mr. Moulitsas approvingly reposted the joke about former Vice President Dick Cheney (called a “Retweet” in Twitter-ese).
When Tommy Christopher, a fellow Daily Kos diarist, called the two men on it and asked “what does this mean,” Mr. Moulitsas responded: “When we were out of power, we organized to win the next election. Conservatives, apparently, prefer to talk ‘revolution’ and kill cops.”
About the Author
- Senate Democrats plan bill to reimpose Obamacare birth-control mandate
- '12 Years a Slave,' 'Gravity' take top honors at Oscars
- Cruz, Lee among top scorers in ACU conservative survey
- CNN to cancel Piers Morgan show amid ratings collapse
- Lineman likely to become NFL's first openly gay player
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- Border surge puts Obama legacy on immigration at stake
- White House says Russia 'losing' war in Ukraine
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- EPSTEIN: All IRS roads lead to the archivist
- Illegal immigrants demand representation in White House meetings
- PRUDEN: When the hangman botches the job
- Federal appeals court rules against Virginia's gay marriage ban
- KEENE: Thinking outside nanny-state box with Paul Ryan
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq