For those who thought nothing could make Barack Obama look worse than last week's election results, the crafty president unleashed a surprise in Beijing by dressing like a complete dork (while chewing gum, no less).
Online debate has raged about whether Barry looked more like an aging hippy, a waiter in a Chinese restaurant, or a Bond villain. To Hope n' Change, he looks like a slightly updated iteration of the infamous Democratic "Pajama Boy," an opinion which is only bolstered by reports that Obama blushingly confessed to Chinese president Xi Jinping that he wants to move their relationship to "a new level." We're not exactly sure what that means, but it's a safe bet it will involve lube.
And speaking of Barry sticking things where they don't go, he's now thrusting his proboscis into a renewed push for "net neutrality," which is a highly technical term which more or less means "breaking the Internet." Seriously, he wants to regulate Internet Service Providers (and if you're reading this, you've got one) and tell them how fast data should flow, how much they should charge, collect taxes, and discourage competition and innovation.
The regulations would be based on rules originally cobbled together to handle railroads back in the 1800's, and just might return us to that same era of primitive technology. Think we're kidding? Just keep in mind that Obama's Internet experts are the same babbling idiots who gifted us with "Healthcare.gov" last year.
It's entirely conceivable that Barry's ham-handed toadies in the FCC could screw up the Internet enough to seriously damage our nation's economy. Which seems like a very high price to pay just to keep us from seeing pictures of the president looking like the doofiest nitwit in China.
Star wars? Hmmm not quite, Star Treck hmm closer, oh oh I have it now its capt jerk of the starbucks compromised!
ReplyDeleteSince when does the president of the United States don the apparel of the country he visits? What's next, Øbozo dressed as a Geisha girl while visiting Japan? Actually, I am sure he couldn't wait to dress like a communist. I, and others, thought he looked more like a Star Fleet Academy cadet:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/200599-obama-showed-china-conference-dressed-like-beamed-star-trek-movie/
Obamby is sneaking an agreement with China to cut US carbon emissions by 26 percent over the next 11 years. Cap and Trade by another name, and bets are he'll give it to this lame duck congress to approve the 'trade agreement'.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if this latest ham handed move to silence his opposition on the internets will be enough to wake the tech kids up to the reality of their messiah? Probably not, but he does just keep digging, doesn't he?
ReplyDeleteI'm sort of confused... which one is Dr. Evil, and which one is Mini-me?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I'm not a huge Rick Perry fan, but imagine a President Perry being offered those clothes. "Sorry Xi, I prefer to wear MEN'S clothing. Here, put in this hat, ya little twerp. And, no, we're not going to make some kind of grand deal; stop shipping crap to our country or we'll kick your little asses all the way to Siberia."
I'm glad you did this cartoon. When I saw IT on the news, I busted out laughing and screamed at my TV " what the ---- is he wearing?" And apparently gum chewing in front of Chinese dignitaries is considered to be in extremely bad taste. How much more do we have to endure with this as our "leader"?
ReplyDeleteWhat I heard from a prominent Beijing business traveler is that the meXican Jinping Bean said (in a commerce meeting to turn the Chinese economy into a less socialist environment than "Ramont's Amelica") he wanted to "emballass Plesident tlemendousry", and "convince nalcissistic bastald to continue agenda untir LICE become wolrd cullency, and his bony ass gets EXIRED BACK TO AFLICA! HA HA HA!"
ReplyDeleteYes, what a SAD day it will be when lamont has to share his presidential library (containing only the book "Roots") with a Chinese laundry.
Everyone worries about China ... the idiotically attired Obama, and many of his flunkies and Paul Krugman of the NY Times too, worry the US is not more like China -- so we can command the economy to the growth rates they have there.
ReplyDeleteAh, "China" -- like old "Russia" and even "India" today -- is not this seamless place of one identity. There's really only 800 Million "chinese" who speak five different identically written languages ... the rest of the 400 million or so people are of entirely different ethnic stock -- and they want out ... and blow things up to prove it. And Xinhua, the NPR of the place, admits to 80,000 violent demonstrations against the state each year. Often it's in some village of 2,000 people (of which there are far more than million people cities) where the peasants earning about $1,500 a year take out the party cadre and police man, kill 'em, and then burn the building down. Other times it's just factory workers doing a little management adjustment. There's several little Tien An Men Squares a day there.
Then, their state loans from state banks to state enterprises are worse performing than a Freddie-Fannie marriage ... the debts of the place make Obama look like a fiscal conservative.
1/2 the skyscrapers the world oohs over are empty -- built by the sons of big city party leaders and their uncles in the state banks and cousins with a state construction company ... and sometimes, like in Shanghai and Guangzhou, they're taken out an shot. Oh, they believe in the death penalty there.
"China" is slated for the dung heap of history, as much as the USSR was. I said in the 1970s USSR couldn't last - it didn't. I've been predicting the break up of CHina for two decades now -- and it's coming -- clear as bell to me. They've told everyone to go get rich an smart ... and when they did, they found controlling them impossible -- preferring control, the gov't cracks down -- preferring riches and smartness the people are fighting back. Tea Party indeed. I'd give it 10, 15 more years at the most.
As for the cheap stuff they sell us -- well, technically, the poor Chinese tax payer subsidizes the price cuts ... for the cost of goods is real, whatever the stated price. Don't worry about our trade with them ... nearly 1/2 the rice they eat is from America -- and Canada and the US share the entirety of the chopstick market.
Eh, China ... it's a goner, and soon ... and that will make the pajamas more valuable, like a Pan Am uniform on ebay.
(on a bright note, they are trying to control their homosexuals who are destroying the place by adopting the late stages of capitalist decadence, and the opiate of the masses -- as they call religion. Amazing.)
Note about the apparel - Russian leader Putin caved on it too - I think all the world leaders did so. Don't go too crazy making fun of Obama for doing this - although it is fine to note how goofy he looks in the outfit.
ReplyDeletePutin-Obama
And there is this:
Cut the shawl talk: Chinese censors wipe Putin's move on China's first lady
Dang that comment moderation - forgot to "preview" to make sure the link was right:
ReplyDeletePutin-Obama-China
Jim Hlavac,
ReplyDeleteYup, the lefties want us to be more like China. "Look at their booming economy!" Well, geez, pretty easy to make a ton of money when you don't deal with the EPA, gubmint regulations, unions, minimum wage, civil rights.... Yes, they have recently "discovered" capitalism, but they have yet to discover how to treat people like human beings.
And I think you have nailed it. They are headed for a big crash, and I wonder about the bazillions of dollars we owe them. What happens when they start calling in their markers?
The Internet was abuzz yesterday about the unseemly gum chewing by the leader of the formerly free world. Keepin it classy I see. Mrs. Econ pointed out that it's probably nicotine gum because he can't light-up in public.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Krugmans, Friedmans and their like who believe we should be more like China: There's a big difference between China and the US: China is ascending, the US is descending. 20 years ago, China only had one way to go, which was up. America could go either way. 99% of Chinese have never known affluence before, whereas most Americans today have known anything other. Until very recently, in China for thousands of years there was absolutely no social or economic mobility; if your father was a coolie, you were going to be a coolie, and your children, and children's children could be coolies. Today, that is no longer the case. That's very powerful psychologically to the Chinese.
That understood, a carbon-cut between the US and China is a joke. The Chinese couldn't care less about carbon emissions, and have absolutely no incentive to do anything about theirs. They only engage the west on carbon issues because it gives them an advantage economically over their competitors and it's easy to game the system for fun and profit. The net result of any carbon deal is that it becomes more expensive to do business in America, and we will continue to outsource carbon-intensive heavy manufacturing to China. What does that mean to the "poor" and "middle class"? Less high-value manufacturing and exports, and more cheap service (minimum-wage burger flipper) jobs.
Once again, this is a prime example of the "poor" and "middle class" taking it on the chin for the political vanity of the 1%.
On "net neutrality": A complex debate that I don't have the time or energy to entirely cover here. However, the notion that we can regulate the problem using 100-year-old theories about monopolies is absurd. At best, this is just another example of the hubris of the Progressive Left, which even after the glaring failures of the last decade still honestly believes that they can both understand and micro-manage an entire economy.
Of course, this is the most benign assessment of this proposal. The more insidious assessment is that this is simply the next logical step to gain total control of the Internet for the enforcement of ideological purity .
I still think he looks like a egg roll.
ReplyDeleteWhat? A political appointee in charge of "regulating" the Internet? "No, don't know anything about Jarlsberg being banned, it must be some rogue regulator in our Cincinnati office."
ReplyDeleteThis goombah is on a tear since the election. He wants to grant amnesty, control the internet, sic the EPA on industry with killing regulations, get cozy with Iran and make a deal with China where we cut back but they don't. All this in one week! We've got two years plus to go! He's pissed and wounded like a wild animal backed into a corner.
ReplyDelete@REM1875- I can't really picture Barry in a "Star Trek" scenario if it meant he was on a ship called the "Enterprise." Maybe the "Entitlement" would be more his style.
ReplyDelete@Geoff King- It's not actually a sin to wear the clothing of the locals, it's just a sin to look like a jackass doing it.
@Grumpy Curmudgeon- As I understand it, Barry's carbon emission agreement says that we'll slash emissions in the United States, while China gets to increase their emissions for the next couple of decades. A master negotiator he ain't.
@TrickyRicky- The language of the "net neutrality" push Barry that is making will actually appeal to the naive youth who've voted for him previously. Theoretically, it's about making sure everyone gets super-duper Internet access at a "fair" price. Because that's working so well with healthcare now. In reality, it will burden a fast-evolving system with slow-moving regulation. Or worse.
@Colby Muenster- Actually, Rick Perry would probably make that outfit look manly.
@Judi King- I was impressed (and surprised) that Barry could walk and chew gum at the same time. Perhaps I've underestimated him.
@Bruce Bleu- Sadly, it's not so much the clothing that is an embarrassment as the concessions Barry is giving to China.
@Jim Hlavac- Nice summation of the situation in China. I'm betting your analysis proves to be correct.
@alan markus- Yes, all of the invitees were sporting the same look. I'm just ragging on Barry because he, in particular, looks like such a doofus in that attire.
@Colby Muenster- When China calls in their chits, we'll pay them back with hastily printed money that won't be worth anything. Granted that will destroy all the actual wealth in our country too, but at least "income inequality" won't be a problem after that. We'll all be broke.
@John the Econ- I agree with your assessment of the carbon emission agreement (no surprise there!) but actually think that Barry is just as aware as his Chinese counterparts that this is about giving them an economic advantage while further damaging our economy and business structure. This has as little to do with climate science as Obamacare has to do with delivering actual medical care.
Regarding "net neutrality," last time I looked there was no Internet Service Provider who was monopolizing ownership or control of the Internet. Instead, I see multiple vendors actively competing to give consumers the best possible connections, prices, and perks. So exerting FCC control over Internet access will not be about accomplishing those things.
@Woodsterman (Odie)- And what I wouldn't give for a super-soaker filled with Chinese mustard...
@Anonymous- Your scenario sounds frighteningly plausible.
@Shelly- I think he's motivated partially by the desire for revenge, and partially by the knowledge that he only has two years left to bring America to its knees. So much to destroy, and so little time...
So Jonathan Gruber has finally admitted through video that the elitists in DC actually DO think we're all stupid, huh!
ReplyDeleteI am so glad that remark came was made public through the video! It just validates what we already knew!
With Obmaninable and all the rest in denial about the election results and his poll numbers still dragging bottom, the only thing that I see standing in the way of something positive for this nation getting done ....is the Republicans! I hope to God they dont snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as has happened in the past!
His behavior in China was on purpose to make last week’s behavior look adult-like.
ReplyDelete@REM1875: Star Wars? No, the casting call is for the upcoming feature Star Dreck XXVII:The Search For Schlock.
ReplyDeleteHot starring favourites are:
Don Knotts as President Obamayomama
Queen Latifah as the FLOTUS
Brian Dennehy as Joe Biden
Jimmy Walker as Eric Holder
The Secaucus Seven as the Inner Cabinet
Rosie O'Donnell as Hilary Clinton
& Howard Keel as Clayton Farlow
Found this collection of conservative political cartoonist's work:
ReplyDeletehttp://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2014/11/12/124815
Stilton needs to be added to the list of artists, IMHO.
Star Trek? Nah, he looks more like one of those "Heaven's Gate" goofs who commmitted mass suicide some years ago. Ol' Barry just missed the lift off for the Comet Hale Bopp.Dammit!
ReplyDeleteRegarding the FCC, not even
ReplyDeleteone of the primaries are radio/television engineers -- they are ALL attornys. Look it up! They "relay on" lower level engineers recommendations that are usually ignored ... (that's from an FCC engineer I personally know).
Jim
It's No Gouda,
ReplyDeletelamont is waiting for the Comet Hell-Crapp to pass by, then he'll put on his Nike Decades and follow his leader Frank Marshall Appleblack and take his anti-seizure meds with applesauce and vodka!
Scenes from Beijing we'd like to see: Obama asking Chinese President Xi Jinping, "Do you mind if we dance wif your girlfriends?"
ReplyDelete@ alan markus: I agree with Geoff. Our traitor in chief dressed like all the other communists and I find that offensive. But he had no problem showing disrespect to one of our greatest allies, England, by returning the bust of Winston Churchill (these gifts really belong to the American People, not him), touching their Queen(a total no no) and not standing for their national anthem. It seems he has selective respect and protocol for foreign dignitaries. A total disgrace.
ReplyDeleteI hope you do not mind Stilton, but I sent an email request to Townhall.com asking them to consider adding your cartoons to their political humor section. Here is the contact us link if anyone else here wishes to do the same:
ReplyDeletehttp://townhall.com/contact-us/
Speaking of carbon and "climate change": If this week were to have happened 40 years ago and we were to have had the same cadre of supposed "climate scientists" that we have today, every newscast mentioning the "arctic blast" would have some mention that this was just more proof of "global cooling", as it was believed at the time.
ReplyDeleteBut don't worry. They'll be back in force next summer when the first heat wave hits.
Colby Muenster ... the Chinese gov't owns just about $800 Billion in Debt .. and that's it. Spain owns that much. So does Germany, the EU ... and then 65% is owned by our own Federal Reserve ... the piddling remainder is held by you and me ... and that's the $17 trillion in "debt" (doesn't count obligations like Soc. Sec. and the rest which are not "debt" -- aka,it's all legerdemain)
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read, their T-bills are in different increments, that is 1, 5, 10, 20 even 30 year bonds (the last one no longer available) Many of them have legal mature dates that can't be overridden (well, without a presidential decree maybe.) If they try to call in I'd guess more than 10% at a time they'd upset the markets and plunge the prices ... flooding a market with government bods is like any commodity -- the price would plunge. Or -- everyone else would step out of the market ... leaving no buyers. Anyone else holding US gov't debt will not be pleased and perhaps be not nice to China somehow economically -- a boycott, say. And the US gov't doesn't actually have to pay when bonds are called early -- for various reasons the law allows them to either pay a steep discount on the interest, lowering the value, or in effect, making a $100 into a $50 -- or to simply postpone payment until maturity, and even dribble it out after that (much like a bank has 30 days to honor your request to withdraw $10,000 in cash or cashiers check (I think that's the amount, last I heard.)
Even more "delicious" in a Strangelove Star Dreck (loved that one Popular Front) way, the US could simply print $800 billion nice new $100 bills and ship them to them. And that would solve that. And that's only 10 months or so of what the gov't is printing now ...
So, eh, their debt ... it's a catch-22 and the balls are in our court ...
What's that old saying--borrow a few thousand from the bank and the bank owns you, borrow a few billion and you own the bank, right?
ReplyDelete