The very first state dinner in history is going on as The Pink Flaming writes much of this post. It is obviously the very first state dinner ever given by a President and First Lady. NOTHING before has compared to this august event.
Second, the Obama Administration basically snubbed the GOP by inviting very few Republicans in its cast of thousands.
The Pink Flamingo is a student of history (FYI). One of the truths that strangely repeats itself is the way a “leader” who is extremely extravagant is grossly incompetent. Let’s face it, Obama and is Dems are spending like Louis XIV of France. Plus, there is his clueless and pathetically dressed Michelle Antoinette. The extravagant incompetents of history all have one interesting little tidbit in common. They all come to a very bad end.
One of the hallmarks of these sorts of narcissistic “leaders” is their petty demand to destroy the reputation of the great men who came before them. In this Obama is no different from any number of pathetic and mediocre losers of history.
Then again The Sun King, and his off-spring would NEVER bow to anyone, no matter how august. It just wasn’t done, and just isn’t done. Heads of state don’t bow to one another. The exist in this private little club where bowing is not needed. If they did go around bowing to every despot and off-spring of would-be conquerors, it would look like – well…. like Obama.
“…Politico reports that “A senior administration official said President Barack Obama was simply observing protocol when he bowed to Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko upon arriving at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo on Saturday.” Why won’t that “senior administration official” come out from behind the curtain and make that assertion in his own name? Because it’s nonsense. As these photos make clear, numerous heads of state and the former U.S. vice president didn’t bow to the emperor; they shook hands. The New York Times criticized Bill Clinton in 1994 for almost bowing to the Japanese emperor. We await the release of a State Department briefing paper that says it’s “protocol” for an American president to bow to a Japanese emperor….”
Obama is a fawning little twerp with who is incompetent as those who “run” his Administration. But – he and Michelle Antoinette are extravagant.
FOR IDIOTS WHO DON’T KNOW HISTORY:
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus was known as “Caligula” or Little Boots. He had a rather “colorful” end.
“...There are few surviving sources on Caligula’s reign, and although he is described as a noble and moderate ruler during the first two years of his rule, after this the sources focus upon his cruelty, extravagance, sexual perversity, and presenting him as an insane tyrant. While the reliability of these sources has been difficult to assess, what is known is that during his brief reign, Caligula worked to increase the authority of the princeps, possibly contemplating the introduction of an authoritarian system of an eastern type. He directed much of his attention to ambitious construction projects, notoriously luxurious dwellings for himself…”
Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus allegedly fiddled while Rome burned. He committed “suicide” in order to escape….?
“…Nero’s rule is often associated with tyranny and extravagance. He is known for a number of executions, including those of his mother and step-brother, as the emperor who “fiddled while Rome burned”, and as an early persecutor of Christians. This view is based upon the main surviving sources for Nero’s reign—Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio. Few surviving sources paint Nero in a favorable light. Some sources, though, including those mentioned above, portray him as an emperor who was popular with the common Roman people, especially in the East. The study of Nero is problematic as some modern historians question the reliability of ancient sources when reporting on Nero’s tyrannical acts…”
Lucius Aurelius Commodus Antoninus was another extravagant jerk who met an interesting fate.
“...In November 192, Commodus held Plebian Games in which he shot hundreds of animals with arrows and javelins every morning, and fought as a gladiator every afternoon, naturally winning all the bouts. In December he announced his intention to inaugurate the year 193 as both consul and gladiator on 1 January. At this point, the prefect Laetus formed a conspiracy with Eclectus to supplant Commodus with Pertinax, taking Marcia into their confidence. On 31 December Marcia poisoned his food, but he vomited up the poison and the conspirators therefore sent the wrestler Narcissus to strangle him in his bath. Upon his death, the Senate declared him a public enemy (a de facto damnatio memoriae) and restored the original name to the city of Rome and its institutions. Commodus’ statues were thrown down. His body was buried in the Mausoleum of Hadrian. However, in 195, the emperor Septimius Severus, trying to gain favour with the family of Marcus Aurelius, rehabilitated Commodus’s memory and had the Senate deify him….”
Edward II was a disaster for England.
“...On 20 January 1327, Edward II was informed at Kenilworth Castle of the charges brought against him: The King was guilty of incompetence; allowing others to govern him to the detriment of the people and Church; not listening to good advice and pursuing occupations unbecoming to a monarch; having lost Scotland and lands in Gascony and Ireland through failure of effective governance; damaging the Church, and imprisoning its representatives; allowing nobles to be killed, disinherited, imprisoned and exiled; failing to ensure fair justice, instead governing for profit and allowing others to do likewise; and of fleeing in the company of a notorious enemy of the realm, leaving it without government, and thereby losing the faith and trust of his people.
Edward, profoundly shocked by this judgment, wept while listening. He was then offered a choice: he might abdicate in favour of his son; or he might resist, and relinquish the throne to one not of royal blood, but experienced in government—this, presumably, being Roger Mortimer. The King, lamenting that his people had so hated his rule, agreed that if the people would accept his son, he would abdicate in his favour. The lords, through the person of Sir William Trussel, then renounced their homage to him, and the reign of Edward II ended.
The abdication was announced and recorded in London on 24 January 1327, and the following day was proclaimed the first of the reign of Edward III—who, at 14, was still controlled by Isabella and Mortimer. Edward II remained imprisoned….The government of Isabella and Mortimer was so precarious that they dared not leave the deposed king in the hands of their political enemies. On 3 April, Edward II was removed from Kenilworth and entrusted to the custody of two subordinates of Mortimer, then later imprisoned at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire where, it was generally believed, he was murdered by an agent of Isabella and Mortimer.
On the night of 11 October while lying in on a bed [the king] was suddenly seized and, while a great mattress… weighed him down and suffocated him, a plumber’s iron, heated intensely hot, was introduced through a tube into his anus so that it burned the inner portions beyond the intestines. — Thomas de la Moore.
De la Moore’s account of Edward’s murder was not written until after 1352 and is uncorroborated by other contemporary sources. No-one writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened to Edward. The closest chronicler to the scene in time and distance, Adam Murimuth, stated that it was ‘popularly rumoured’ that he had been suffocated. The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that he had been strangled. Most chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes. Not until the relevant sections of the longer Brut chronicle were composed by a Lancastrian (anti-Mortimer) polemicist in the mid-1430s was the story of a copper rod in the anus widely circulated…”
Fast-forwarding a few years, Richard II became the King of England in 1377.
“…As an individual, Richard was tall, good-looking and intelligent. Though probably not insane, as earlier historians used to believe, he seems to have suffered from certain personality disorders, especially towards the end of his reign…..he showed clear signs of a narcissistic personality, and towards the end of his reign “Richard’s grasp on reality was becoming weaker”. … Yet his actions were too extreme, and too abrupt. For one, the absence of war was meant to reduce the burden of taxation, something that would help Richard’s popularity with the Commons in parliament. However, this promise was never fulfilled, as the cost of the royal retinue, the opulence of court and Richard’s lavish patronage of his favourites proved as expensive as war had been, without offering the same benefits. As for his policy of military retaining, this was later emulated by Edward IV and Henry VII, but Richard’s exclusive reliance on the county of Cheshire hurt his support from the rest of the country. As Simon Walker concludes: “What he sought was, in contemporary terms, neither unjustified nor unattainable; it was the manner of his seeking that betrayed him.”
Louis XVI of France came to a bad end.
“…Suspended and arrested during the Insurrection of 10 August 1792, he was tried by the National Convention, found guilty of treason, and executed by guillotine on 21 January 1793. He was the only king of France to be executed. Although Louis was beloved at first, his indecisiveness and conservatism led some elements of the people of France to eventually view him as a symbol of the perceived tyranny of the Ancien Régime. After the abolition of the monarchy in 1792, the new republican government gave him the surname Capet, a reference to the nickname of Hugh Capet, founder of the Capetian dynasty, which the revolutionaries wrongly interpreted as a family name. He was also informally nicknamed Louis le Dernier (Louis the Last), a derisive use of the traditional nicknaming of French kings. Today, historians and French people in general have a more nuanced view of Louis XVI, who is seen as an honest man with good intentions, but who was probably unfit for the herculean task of reforming the monarchy, and who was used as a scapegoat by the revolutionaries…”
Is the decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in NYC the worst Presidential decision ever?
Obama is now going to focus on deficits? Is that lowering or raising them?