Check out this footage, taken last week of Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev making their way down a receiving line:
The media sure didn’t hype this like they hyped the Bush snub that wasn’t, last November. Remember how the “pathetic” and “like the most unpopular kid in high school” Bush, was supposedly snubbed at the G-20?:
The difference in the two videos, is of course the fact that Bush didn’t put his hand out to shake with anyone, because he had already shaken everybody’s hand. Obama may have already shook hands with the people in the line, too, but if he was putting his hand out to shake, again, they were undeniably ignoring him. You would think that they would shake it again for appearance sake. If they hadn’t already shook hands, then wow —-awkward!
The reset button must be defective, or something.
UPDATE:
Geoff comes up with the most plausible explanation…he’s introducing Medvedevto the people in the line, who were perhaps his staff or embassy folks.
If you haven’t read Zombietime’s disturbing report about Obama’s new “Science Czar”, forced abortion, and mass sterilization enthusiast, John Holdren, you really need to. These days, he’s primarily a global warming alarmist, but in the ’70′s he was a big proponent of Paul Ehrlich’s population bomb hysteria, and co-authered the book, Ecoscience, with him.
“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . [AND] hundreds of millions of people [including Americans] are going to starve to death.” (1968)
“Smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)
“I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” (1969)
“Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.” (1976)
“India couldn’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980,” and “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971.”
For this dismal record of failure, and another doom and gloom book he authored in 1990, The Population Explosion,he was awarded:
The book he co-wrote with Obama’s new Czar, John Holdren, Ecoscience, has received scant attention, however. Michelle Malkin notes that the msm, even now, is studiously avoiding the exposition of the book’s bizarre and disturbing recommendations to save the planet.
• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.
Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.
As with Ehrlich, instead of being censored and ostracized for holding such odious and erroneous views, Holdren has been given many prestigious positions and awards:
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Member, National Academy of Engineering
Member, National Academy of Sciences
MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowship, 1981
Member of President Clinton’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), 1994-2001
Chair of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 1993-2004
Volvo Environment Prize of 1993 (with Paul Ehrlich)
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, December 1995
Chair of the Executive Committee of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, 1987-1997
Kaul Foundation Award in Science and Environmental Policy, 1999
Everyone involved with the Flight 93 Memorial knows that the Crescent of Embrace points to Mecca
In 2007, Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird told Alec Rawls (the author of these blogburst posts) that everyone at the meetings he attended is fully aware that the giant crescent, originally named the Crescent of Embrace, really does point almost exactly at Mecca. Professor Baird says they all just assume (himself included) that the Mecca orientation must be an innocent coincidence.
Pretty crazy, when they have also been told the meaning of a crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca. Every mosque is built around a Mecca-direction indicator called a mihrab, and the classic mihrab is crescent shaped. Geometrically, the Crescent of Embrace is the world’s largest mihrab.
However honestly Project Partners believe that the Mecca orientation of the crescent must be a coincidence, this is not what they tell the public. When reporters asked Memorial Project Superintendent Joanne Hanley about the Mecca orientation, she denied it:
“The only thing that orients the memorial is the crash site,” she said.
Thinking that the Mecca orientation of the crescent must be a coincidence in no way justifies lying to the public about this explosive information. If Baird’s account is accurate—that the dozens of Memorial Project Partners all know that the giant crescent actually does point to Mecca—then the Memorial Project has a lot of explaining to do. Now an overlooked article from 2007 corroborates Professor Baird’s information.
Dr. Glenn Kashurba
It turns out that a Pennsylvania psychiatrist who has been intimately involved with the memorialization of Flight 93 (writing two books on the subject) argued to a reporter before the July 2007 Memorial Project meeting that the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent (which he took as a given) should be seen as coincidental:
“When you calculate angles to Mecca – I’m going to be in Washington, D.C., this week, and I’m sure if I calculate angles of the monuments, at least one points to Mecca,” Kashurba said. “I don’t know if it will be the White House or the Lincoln Memorial, but at least one will. People looking for a way to support their way of looking at things will look at this in this way for ever and ever.”
If Dr. Kashurba was getting his information from the Memorial Project’s public statements, he would have denied that the crescent points to Mecca. Here is what Memorial Project Partner Patrick White told the press 9 days before the Kashurba story:
Rawls, of Palo Alto, Calif., contends that the centerpiece of the design points toward Mecca.
Rawls’ claims are untrue and “preposterous,” according to Patrick White, Families of Flight 93 vice president. “We went through in detail all his original claims and came away with nothing.”
Kashurba knew better, as did Patrick White himself. The week after his public denial, a local woman asked White how he could be okay with the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. This time White did not deny the Mecca orientation, but argued that it cannot be seen as honoring Islam because the inexactness of the Mecca orientation would be “disrespectful” to Islam.
Mecca orientation takes literally 2 minutes to verify, starting from source documents
It is not surprising that these Memorial Project insiders would know that the giant crescent does in fact point almost exactly at Mecca (1.8° north of Mecca to be precise, ± 0.1°). After all, they had by the summer of 2007 been examining Rawls’ report, and answering questions from the press about it, for over a year, and the near Mecca orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is trivially easy to verify.
Just use any of the online Islamic prayer-direction calculators to print out the direction to Mecca from Somerset PA. Place this graphic over the Crescent site-plan on your computer screen, and you will see that the Mecca-direction line (which Muslims call “qibla”) almost exactly bisects the crescent:
The green circle in this image is from the qibla calculator at Islam.com (down at the moment, but you can use the one at Qibla.com, or QiblaLocator.com). A person standing between the tips of the giant crescent and facing into the center of the crescent will be facing almost exactly at Mecca.
Patrick White knows this and deceives the press and the public about it. Dr. Kashurba knows it and stands by as White and others deceive the press and the public about it. These deceptions have been blatant.
Everything points to Mecca?
The Project even went to far as to dig up an academic fraud from Texas, willing to deny that there is any such thing as the direction to Mecca:
Daniel Griffith, a geospatial information sciences professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, said anything can point toward Mecca, because the earth is round.
Was the reporter embarrassed to ask Muslims if they can really face any direction to face Mecca? Hard to blame her. Just to ask such a stupid question is to answer it, but the obviousness of the fraud is no excuse for letting it stand.
According to Professor Baird, every Memorial Project member who saw these denials knew that they were fraudulent, yet not one of them has tried to tell the public about the Project’s dishonest cover-up. When the truth does get out to the broader public, Project members are going to have a lot to answer for, which is presumably why they are keeping their mouths shut now. They have done a very bad thing and they don’t want it exposed.
What proves Islamic intent is the architect’s elaborate repetition of the Mecca orientation
No one ever claimed that the almost exact Mecca orientation of the Crescent of Embrace proves Islamic intent. Architect Paul Murdoch proves intent in a different way: by elaborate repetition of his Mecca orientations. His first confirmation of intent is to include an exact Mecca orientation.
In Murdoch’s explanation, the flight path breaks the circle, turning it into the giant crescent. To find this thematically defined crescent, remove those parts of the full Crescent of Embrace that extend out past the point where the flight path breaks the circle. The resulting true or thematic crescent points EXACTLY at Mecca:
At the upper tip of the crescent, the flight path comes down from the NNE and symbolically breaks the circle. What symbolically remains standing is the true or thematic Crescent of Embrace, pointing exactly at Mecca.
Murdoch’s next confirmation of intent is to exactly repeat this entire multi-Mecca oriented geometry in the vast array of crescents of trees that surround the Tower of Voices part of the memorial. Setting aside the chance that an architect could in the first place design a memorial to Flight 93 out of nothing but crescents just by innocent coincidence (which must be close to zero), the odds that these crescents would by random chance manifest Murdoch’s repeated Mecca orientations are 1 in 131 billion:
The only change was to include an explicitly broken off part of the circle
The original Crescent of Embrace design included the symbolically broken off parts at the upper crescent tip. When the bare naked Islamic-crescent shape caused a public uproar, the Memorial Project added another broken off part of the circle, floating out in front of the mouth of the original crescent.
They call it a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle, the symbolic result of 9/11, is still a giant Islamic shaped crescent, still pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. That makes it a mihrab, the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. The planned memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque.
To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.
Liz Cheney, in an exclusive to the WSJ allowed that a future run for office is something she would consider:
“It’s something I very well may do,” said Elizabeth “Liz” Cheney, a lawyer and State Department appointee who has worked on two Republican presidential campaigns.
It takes quite a bit of gumption for a conservative mother of five children to run for office in today’s cut throat political atmosphere… just ask Sarah Palin. Ms. Cheney knows she’ll have a target on her back, and as the daughter of Dick Cheney, she will be targeted by the left with perhaps an even more rabid intensity than Palin was.
But she’s shown herself in recent months to be a poised, fearless, knowledgeable, and competent force to be reckoned with.
Ms. Cheney, 44, has emerged as one of the strongest defenders of the effectiveness and legality of Bush-Cheney policies on enhanced interrogation methods.
Here she is, calmly making hercase back in May, in the face of Lawence O’Donnell’s feverish arguments:
The woman is absolutely unflappable. And she knows her stuff.
As for the recent bruhaha over the allegations that her father ordered the CIA to hide info from congress, she had this to say:
“It gets more and more appalling everyday,” she said. “I think they’re very worried about Speaker Pelosi.”
The super secret plan that liberals are so exercised about?
Thank Goodness CIA director, Leon Panetta halted this dastardly program…we can all feel safer now that we can be sure that our intelligence agency has no intention of killing our sworn enemies.
Drew M at AoSHQ reports that the program wasn’t super secret, anyhow, nor was it much of a program:
The official noted that Congress had long been briefed on the finding, and that the CIA effort wasn’t so much a program as “many ideas suggested over the course of years.” It hadn’t come close to fruition, he added.Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said little had been spent on the efforts — closer to $1 million than $50 million. “The idea for this kind of program was tossed around in fits and starts,” he said.
I somehow missed her kick-A piece in the WSJ, today, about Obama’s rewrite of the Cold War:
There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.
Ouch.
It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push “reset” — or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.
Mr. Obama’s method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.
The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old.”
Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, “I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, not so much.
The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism — Obama exceptionalism. “We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand,” one Obama handler has said. What they don’t seem to realize is that once you’re president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.
Read the whole thing…she’s not through kicking him around.
