Friday, April 03, 2009

Obama, G20 Summit, Global Economy, New World Order

*******G20 Countries
LPACTV: Obama's Ego
LPACTV: Not Missile Defense, Ego Defense
Obama Calls for New World Order in Berlin
G20 police 'used undercover men to incite crowds'(The Observer)
11 May 2009
An MP who was involved in last month’s G20 protests in London is to call for an investigation into whether the police used agents provocateurs to incite the crowds.
Liberal Democrat Tom Brake says he saw what he believed to be two plain-clothes police officers go through a police cordon after presenting their ID cards.
Brake, who along with hundreds of others was corralled behind police lines near Bank tube station in the City of London on the day of the protests, says he was informed by people in the crowd that the men had been seen to throw bottles at the police and had encouraged others to do the same shortly before they passed through the cordon.
Brake, a member of the influential home affairs select committee, will raise the allegations when he gives evidence before parliament’s joint committee on human rights on Tuesday.
“When I was in the middle of the crowd, two people came over to me and said, ‘There are people over there who we believe are policemen and who have been encouraging the crowd to throw things at the police,’” Brake said. But when the crowd became suspicious of the men and accused them of being police officers, the pair approached the police line and passed through after showing some form of identification.
Brake has produced a draft report of his experiences for the human rights committee, having received written statements from people in the crowd. These include Tony Amos, a photographer who was standing with protesters in the Royal Exchange between 5pm and 6pm. “He [one of the alleged officers] was egging protesters on. It was very noticeable,” Amos said. “Then suddenly a protester seemed to identify him as a policeman and turned on him. He ­legged it towards the police line, flashed some ID and they just let him through, no questions asked.”
Amos added: “He was pretty much inciting the crowd. He could not be called an observer. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories but this really struck me. Hopefully, a review of video evidence will clear this up.”
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has received 256 complaints relating to the G20 protests. Of these, 121 have been made about the use of force by police officers, while 75 relate to police tactics. The IPCC said it had no record of complaints involving the use of police agents provocateurs. A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: “We would never deploy officers in this way or condone such behaviour.”
The use of plain-clothes officers in crowd situations is considered a vital tactic for gathering evidence. It has been used effectively to combat football hooliganism in the UK and was employed during the May Day protests in 2001.
Brake said he intends to raise the allegations with the Met’s commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, when he next appears before the home affairs select committee. “There is a logic having plain-clothes officers in the crowd, but no logic if the officers are actively encouraging violence, which would be a source of great concern,” Brake said.
The MP said that given only a few people were allowed out of the corralled crowd for the five hours he was held inside it, there should be no problem in investigating the allegation by examining video footage.
What are we if NOT a Christian Nation?
President Obama's “America Stinks” tour of EuropeBy Warner Todd Huston
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
As President Obama engaged in his “America Stinks” tour of Europe this week he told audiences in Turkey that the U.S. is not a Christian nation. “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation,” he said on April 6. This echoes his statement in 2007 when Obama told CBN, “whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation.”
The subtle difference between those two statements just over a year apart is interesting. Candidate Obama seemed to admit that we might have “once” been a Christian nation but are no longer “just” a Christian nation. But, suddenly as president, he seems to be saying squarely that we “don’t” consider ourselves Christian. Interesting that he seemed to feel obligated to mitigate as a candidate his now openly admitted belief that we just aren’t a Christian nation.
In any case, it is obvious that this is Obama’s way of ingratiating himself with Muslim audiences. But whatever his immediate goal, his sentiment is a popular one with Americans that sport left-wing, anti-religious ideology, people who look to Obama as their leader.
But is he right? Is it true that we aren’t a Christian nation? Did the Founding Fathers choose the Christian ethic as the one upon which they based this country, or not? The answer would appear to be an emphatic yes once the historical record is reviewed. It would also appear that we are straying far afield from that grounding.
As Ronald Reagan reminded us in 1988: “The First Continental Congress made its first act a prayer — the beginning of a great tradition. We have then, a lesson from the founders of our land, those giants of soul and intellect who¹s courageous pledge of life and fortune and sacred honor, and whose ‘firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,’ have ever guided and inspired Americans and all who would fan freedom’s mighty flames and live in ‘freedom’s holy light.’ That lesson is clear: That in the winning of freedom and in the living of life, the first step is prayer.” Reagan was ever so right to guide us toward an understanding that the Founders of this country nearly to a man were steeped in religion — and that of the Protestant, Christian variety, at that. Even the ones against organized religion believed in a God, one that put us here and gave us certain rights as espoused in the Declaration of Independence from Britain.
But let us not use just the Declaration, as the Constitution is supreme law that guides this country. We must strive to remain strict constructionists of that document and hew closely to what the founder’s intended in all their wisdom. It is well considered proper, then, that we look to what the Founders and their contemporaries wrote to construe what they “meant” concerning the principles and ethics to which they hoped we’d remain forever faithful.
Let us begin with a quote from James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. “The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it.” That sounds rather ominous, does it not? Of course Madison means that Christian concept of morality that he learned from the Anglican Church which was a required state religion in his home state, Virginia when he was a child.
Another stalwart driving force of the revolutionary days was Samuel Adams who, echoing James Madison’s idea, said, “Liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals.”
George Washington who can be quoted bestowing Christian religious principles on many of his thoughts and actions he took on the battlefield and in government is very quotable on the subject. Here are a few quotes from the Father of our country.
“Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
“And now, Almighty Father, if it is Thy holy will that we shall obtain a place and name among the nations of the earth, grant that we may be enabled to show our gratitude for Thy goodness by our endeavors to fear and obey Thee.”
Pretty straight forward, I believe.
How about Ben Franklin? Old Poor Richard himself was never considered the biggest religious fanatic of his day. In fact he is one of the few Founders that actually considered himself a Deist. But even he once said, “It is the duty of mankind on all suitable occasions to acknowledge their dependence on the Divine being.” Hardly sounds like he was against the morality of Christian ethics, does it?
John Adams, second president and indispensable founding father who was well known to be extremely pious both in religion and opinion said, “Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service, when it is violating all His laws.”
He sure did not say Allah’s service. Nor did he couple God and THEY. Adams said HIS laws. An obvious recognition of the Christian God of heaven and earth.
These quotes are all well and good but what did the early American theorists intend to pass on to the youth of America? As an answer to this I point to Benjamin Rush of Pennsylvania. Rush was a respected Doctor and was closely tied to most of the great figures of the early Republic and its national politics. He wrote,”I proceed…to enquire what mode of education we shall adopt so as to secure to the state all the advantages that are to be derived from the proper instruction of youth; and here I beg leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”
Well, we could quote dozens upon dozens of such phrases from men like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Henry Lee, George Clinton and a host of other revolutionary notables but that would tend to over burden the point.
Speaking of Thomas Jefferson, as a riposte to Christians, many half-informed secularists claim that Jefferson was a Deist that hated Christianity. But this is garbled history. Like many of the Founders, Jefferson disliked organized religion but was not in any way against religious sentiment, training and ideals. In fact, the older he got, the more religious he became. But even as our third president he regularly attended Bible class right in the the halls of Congress and never once scolded the classes from meeting on federal property. He was not against Christianity in government at all.*
The point is that the men of the revolution, those very men that created our country, its mores and conventions based their ruminations upon the Christian God and his ethics and principles. They felt this base to be entirely indispensable to the stability of republican government. They warned that to dispense with them would be our undoing and we followed those predications faithfully up until the civil war and half heatedly until the presidency of FDR.
But today, civil Libertarians strive to remake the U.S.A. into a Godless and moraless society based upon an if-it-feels-right mode of thinking. The Democrat Party tries to replace religion with statism and socialism. Even Republicans all too often shy away from the question of the religious ethics of Christianity as if it is a backward ideal that would best be forgotten.
No, Benjamin Rush had it right when he said that without religion “… there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”
Whether critics and secularists like it or not, we are at heart a Christian nation and if we cast off that ethic we will no longer be the United States, we will no longer have in us what made us great.
*For an in depth discussion of Jefferson’s misinterpreted Danbury Letter from which the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” was derived,
Obama’s International Apology Hajj
The Global Populism Campaign
By JB Williams
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Obama: Dear kind anti-American world, America has been terrible for 232 years. Even my wife was ashamed to be an American until recently, last November to be specific. I’m king now, my wife is proud of American for the first time in her life, and I’m with you on the subject of “bad arrogant America” and that horrible man, George Bush. We all hate America and Bush. We can build upon this common ground.
For the first time in world history, you can now like and trust America, because I’m not George Bush. I’m going to tax the American people into third world status, and buy your friendship with gifts from the American treasury, just like I bought voters with the table scraps of others, to win the election back home. I don’t care what I have to do to that awful slave country; I am going to be popular all over the world no matter how much it costs American citizens. I’m your friend...

If international terrorists, theocratic thugs and communist dictators like you, that’s a bad thing in AmericaAn anti-America trash talking tour might gain you rock star status in some parts of the world, but how will Americans feel about it back home? The Dixie Chicks got off easy, with smashed CDs on American streets and plummeting record and ticket sales that left them on the entertainment industry unemployment line back home. Obama may not get off that easy…
Just for the record, if international terrorists, theocratic thugs and communist dictators like you, that’s a bad thing in America. You might be the most popular US president in other parts of the world, after throwing America under the bus to gain international popularity. But that’s what cost the Dixie Chicks what was once, a very successful career.
The Problem with PopulismThe Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that only thirty-four percent (34%) of the nation’s voters now “Strongly Approve” of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President, while thirty-one percent (31%) “Strongly Disapprove.”
On January 21st, his first day in office, (44%) “Strongly Approved” while only (16%) “Strongly Disapproved.” Most Americans were at least willing to give him a chance, even many who voted against Obama last November.
Thirty days later, on February 21st, Obama’s ratings had dropped from (44%) to (38%) who “Strongly Approved,” while those who “Strongly Disapprove” almost doubled, jumping from (16%) to (28%).
In less than 90 days in office, Obama’s (+28%) approval rating has evaporated, standing at a net (+3%) approval rating as of Monday April 6th.
This is the first problem with populism. When you try to pander to all points of view in a grand effort to be “popular,” your efforts to be all things to all people will end in your being nothing of any use to anyone. At best, that’s where Obama is headed.
Watching Obama’s maiden voyage into international foreign policy is like watching a five year old climb on and off the bus for his first day of kindergarten. Frightened by the new territory, uncertain about the welcome he might (or might not) receive, and anxious to make a good first impression, he does all he knows to do… and hopes to make it through the day without his first fist fight.
So, eager to be “popular,” Obama seeks a popular message for the audience at hand. Believing that the world hates America and George Bush, he attempts to set the foundation for his new friendships upon that common ground, without realizing that he is building that foundation upon ever shifting sands.
To be sure, some around the world, namely terrorists and tyrants, hated George Bush and everything America has ever been. Even some Americans, who have been trained over the years to believe that communism is a progressive idea, hate Bush and America too. This is the common belief system that leads Obama to toss the United States under the bus on foreign soil. But it will backfire, first at home, then abroad.
He wants the world to think he is “one of them.” Of course, for the average American, this means that he is NOT “one of us...”
Popularity at a Price
The Dixie Chicks found out the hard way that international popularity based upon America bashing, comes at a very high price. Sean Penn might be an anti-American icon in Europe, but he is just a sad joke in America.
Danny Glover is a famous actor known for his repeat performances in the Mel Gibson Lethal Weapon movies. He’s also a well-known traitor to American principles and values of freedom, globe-trotting to promote communism in Cuba, Venezuela, Africa, and beyond.
Obama’s momentary rock star status is based upon his willingness to use anti-American rhetoric to lure international fans and American citizens who don’t like America much. But that foundation is built upon the shifting sands of fluid international alliances, supported by a spineless national allegiance.
Destroying America is Very Popular in Some PartsSince Obama was fraudulently elected last November, the savings and investments have lost more than 30% of their value, the dollar is in trouble and taxpayer debt, unemployment and home foreclosures are sky-rocketing. The nation has taken giant leap upon giant leap into unbridled secular socialism and Obama’s team rushes to grab control of the banking industry, the auto industry, the energy industry and the health industry.
This is all good news to many around the world who hate free-market capitalism and American prosperity and power, but love the falling sovereignty and security of the greatest nation on earth and last remaining super-power.
Freedom loving people all over the world, weep for America today. Notice that Obama is not visiting any of those nations on his whirlwind Hajj…
Obama chooses his audience very carefully. He is not drawing crowds of pro-American freedom loving capitalists. He is playing only to anti-American communist oriented thugs and theocrats in search of an American retreat from capitalism, the international spread of freedom, and the war against international Islamic terror.
Obama plays very well to America’s enemies. But how is he doing with America’s many friends?
Those Who Love America, Worry about ObamaWhen socialist states warn that Obama is spending and taxing too much, there is an undisguised message in that warning. Even Russia has warned, “We’ve tried that and it doesn’t work!” Clearly, Obama is too communist for the average international socialist.
In Obama brings home a mixed bag from Europe, the reliably liberal LA Times writes,
“The president accomplished less than he had hoped. The Group of 20 leaders agreed to funnel more money into the International Monetary Fund for struggling nations, but France and Germany resisted U.S. urging to increase domestic government spending in order to stimulate the economy. Supportive of U.S. efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, France nonetheless offered to take a grand total of one Algerian prisoner off Obama’s hands.”

For Americans who give a hoot what Istanbul thinks, Reuters reports, “President Barack Obama’s eight-day overseas trip yielded success on a top goal: signalling to the world a new US approach that breaks with the “go it alone” style of President George W. Bush.” (Note Reuters spelling of signaling...) - Obama’s “top goal” of this million dollar trip was to advise the world that George Bush was no longer president? – That the new communicator-in-chief is a communal thinker? This was the “top goal?” Talk about setting the bar low…
As even a public school third grader could have predicted, Obama’s anti-American rhetoric and empty promises garnered applause in parts of the world anxious to see America stripped of its super-power status. But when the time came for Obama to cash in on his anti-American Kumbaya Tour, the results were less than stellar… They were all but nonexistent.
Returning home with an empty bag of results, he could face an angry American mob, not at all impressed with his Dixie Chick styled willingness to talk America into the toilet. Obama’s Penn-like effort to blame America first, last and often, won little more than applause from the star-struck audience abroad.
Obama had a (+3%) approval rating before he spent several days America-bashing abroad. It will be interesting to see what that number becomes after he returns home empty handed. Like the average sniveling liberal who thinks he can buy friendship with the schoolyard bully by handing over his lunch money every day, Obama is about to learn the hard way that real friends can’t be bought. Only your enemies can be bought, and only temporarily. If you have to buy them, they aren’t your friends…
Obama returns home to explain how he lost his lunch money and still got beat up. Most Americans are proud to be citizens of the freest most prosperous and powerful nation on earth. Most see no need for Obama to apologize to the world’s thugs and theocrats, let alone give up taxpayer-funded milk money just to receive nothing in return.
The Obama press will continue to fawn over this anti-American Resident of the White House, until he reaches the low to mid twenties with a negative net approval rating. Then they will turn on him just like they did Bush, once he lost his enormous popularity following his handling of 9/11.
Like our enemies abroad, which Obama hopes will become our fair-weather friends for the next four years; his minions in the press will be friendly only up to a point. After the rhetoric fails to bring any real results and the star-struck crowds get their feet back on the ground, worsening conditions at home and abroad will leave the press anxious to turn on Obama, just as they did George Bush.
Few conservatives watch the leftist MSNBC news network, unable to stomach the anti-American rantings of talking heads like Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, each of whom has a child-like crush on Obama.
Still, even the MSNBC Obama public opinion poll demonstrates reality, though it will never make the top of the hour news, even on MSNBC…
With 1.8 million respondents thus far, (57%) give Obama a failing grade of either “D” or “F,” a full (43%) giving him an “F” for his un-presidential performance. (See the MSNBC poll)
Populism is akin to the 15 minutes of fame most people will experience at some point in life. It’s seldom based upon anything real, and it never lasts long. Obama’s 15 minutes are almost up! The people won’t fall for empty rhetoric forever...and they will soon tire of the anti-American sentiment.
People, who stand for nothing, will fall for anything. America’s free-fall will end the minute Americans begin to stand for something again, and not a moment before! The anti-American sentiment can only be overcome by a stronger pro-American action. Sadly, it seems that the tragedy befalling our nation will have to become “personal” for more Americans, before they will take a “personal” interest in ending this charade.
Police Aggravate Peaceful G20 Climate Camp in the City of London
Patrick Henningsen and Brian Viziondanz
April 4, 2009
Authors note: There were approximately 4,000 peaceful protesters at the City's second main demonstration area at Bishopsgate dubbed the "Climate Camp" Wednesday afternoon. This was a relatively mild affair compared to the larger and more pressurized gathering outside the Bank of England.
From the morning onwards, Climate Camp was clearly a festival atmosphere complete with live music, food, street theatre and dozens of small camping tents erected on the road in front the European Climate Exchange building on Bishopsgate. Activities included seminars being held to highlight some of the problems with Carbon Trading.
See video footage of the Climate Camp festivities here.
From approximately 5pm, hundreds of auxiliary police in riot gear began to seal the entire encampment, including all entrances and exits along this city block. Any peaceful protester who requested exit from the area were flatly refused on the grounds which police repeatedly told people including, "It is not safe to leave the area", and "We do not want people to leave and go on to join the other demonstration sites" and "We cannot risk you leaving the area and then throwing projectiles from behind our police lines". Police in a show of force during G20 Summit
What ensued after 7pm can only be described as a total 'Lock Down' of the public, after which protesters were hounded by a series of random forward surges by riot police, including incursions deep into the gathering. Note that by this point in the evening police forces had successfully "penned-in" approximately 4,000 peace protesters from both sides of this city block. This restriction of the public's movement was extended to all protestors including anyone under physical duress, children, elderly, members of the Press and even passers by who happened into the area. The thousands who crowded at the four corners of the exits were in effect, forced to stand waiting for more than 4 and a half hours.
This eventually caused frustration in the crowds and inevitable pushing into police lines, followed by police retaliating by pushing back into the crowds. A recipe for disaster. We witness such an incident at 11pm at the north end of Bishopsgate where pushing nearly triggered a full scale brawl, narrowly averted, as cooler head prevailed. At 11:30pm police finally allowed the public at the north end to exit one by one. Just prior to 12am, Police moved to clear the peaceful sit-in with a further series of symmetrical surges, where a number of people and innocent bystanders were injured, including some hospitalised for injuries from falls and police baton blows. Police clash with G20 demonstrators (Photo: SKY NEWS)An April 2nd article which appeared in the Guardian newspaper notes one eyewitness testimony, "Another protester recounts the way that police at the end forced them out without giving them time to get their tents or belongings, after holding them there for five hours. "It was all done in a mood of violence," she said. "It had been really peaceful all day, so I don't understand why it had to end like that."
See video footage of the Police incursions on the Climate Camp here.
Also, there are multiple reports of police getting climate campers and press with video cameras to delete images and tapes on the spot, or face threat of seizure. See a full analysis these incidents at UK Indy Media.
What these reporters experienced at the Climate Camp protest was those whose job it was to 'keep the peace' and ensure public safety, behaved in a totally opposite way- with police repeatedly instigating crowds, in effect stimulating a breach of the peace. Predictably, this created a climate in which public health and safety was indeed compromised- and in many cases, endangered. Similar operations were also used on crowds out in 2005 at the G8 Summit in Edinburgh. The question for the public remains why would police follow through with a technique that is shown time and time again to create an obvious pressure cooker? The results of this were in plain sight and are by now well documented in the mainstream media.
It would be a gross oversight for apologists to describe such crowd control tactics as the result of multiple instances of rogue police, or police under stress. These apparent crowd control tactics of "sealing in" the public were in fact consistent throughout the main demonstrations in the City that day, which would lead the casual observer to conclude that this show of force was clearly a predetermined police plan, with command and control-level orders executed on the day.
Police officials had apparently summoned Climate Camp organizers in the days ahead of the April 1st demonstrations, but judging by the results of the day, this dialogue was completely ineffectual. The fundamental question still remains: how can Police foster a healthy relationship between the public and the police, especially between young people (who are the majority of demonstrators) and the police? Is this the shape of things to come, or can police and demonstrators coexist in public spaces without the pressure created by these crowd control tactics? More importantly, are civil liberties still applicable in 2009? The public and rights advocates will be expecting answers to these important before the next big demonstration.

Russia's Medvedev hails 'comrade' Obama
AFP - Friday, April 3
LONDON (AFP) - - Russia's Dmitry Medvedev hailed Barack Obama as "my new comrade" Thursday after their first face-to-face talks, saying the US president "can listen" -- even if little progress was made on substance.
The Russian president contrasted Obama as "totally different" to his predecessor George W. Bush, whom he blamed for the "mistake" of US missile shield plans fiercely opposed by Moscow.
Obama agreed to visit Moscow in July after his talks with Medvedev on Wednesday on the sidelines of a G20 summit in London aimed at fixing the battered world economy.
"I believe that we managed to establish contact. But Moscow lies ahead. I cannot say that we made much progress on the most serious issues," he told reporters, adding: "Let's wait and see."
"I liked the talks. It is easy to talk to him. He can listen. The start of this relationship is good," he said, adding: "Today it's a totally different situation (compared to Bush)... This suits me quite well."
In their London talks, Obama and Medvedev launched a milestone quest to slash their nuclear arsenals, hoping to reverse the worst slump in the former foes' ties since the end of the Cold War.
The pair also discussed thorny issues including NATO's eastwards expansion, long opposed by Moscow which sees it as a power-grab by the West's former Cold War-era military bloc into former Soviet territory.
"Yesterday I spoke about this with my new comrade President Barack Obama," Medvedev told reporters travelling with him to the London summit.
They also discussed US plans for a missile defence shield, based in former communist-bloc countries which are now members of NATO and the European Union, like the Czech Republic.
Again, Medvedev was complimentary.
"Today from the United States there is at least a desire to listen to our arguments," he said, adding that: "Such defence measures should be carried out jointly" between Washington and Moscow.
The missile defence plan was "a mistake that the previous US administration is responsible for. Many of my European colleagues also believe this," the Russian leader added, without specifying who.
Obama, speaking on Wednesday, admitted US-Russian ties had cooled, saying: "What we've seen over the last several years is drift in the US-Russian relationship.
"There are very real differences between the United States and Russia, and I have no interest in papering those over. But there are also a broad set of common interests that we can pursue," he said.
One area of difference is Georgia -- Russia sent troops and tanks deep into the ex-Soviet republic last August in response to a Georgian military attempt to retake the breakaway region of South Ossetia.
Medvedev made clear later Thursday that Moscow's views have not changed -- in particular about Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili -- however he feels about Obama.
"Everything that has happened, I will tell you frankly, that the leader of Georgia is responsible for everything. That is my direct and honest and open opinion.
"A lot of people had to pay for the mistakes of one man. We love and appreciate the Georgian people. But I do not want to have any relations with President Saakashvili."
US President Barack Obama (L), Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (C) and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev pose for a family photo during the G20 summit at the ExCel centre, in east London. Medvedev hailed Obama as "my new comrade" Thursday after their first face-to-face talks, saying the US president "can listen" -- even if little progress was made on substance.
George Brown and the New World Order
Obama in Deep Submission to Saudi Arabian King Abdullah
US President Barack Obama greets King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
By Sean Osborne, Thursday, April 2, 2009 the Lord that Barack Obama is an usurper president and not a real President of these United States, for if he were then the above clickable image of the deep head and bended-knee bow of submission (Islam) before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia would be the surest sign that his “my Muslim faith” gaffe comment in front of the whole nation while a guest on George Stephanopoulos ‘This Week’ television program was no gaffe at all.

Photo: US President Barack Obama, center, back to camera, greets King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, center, before the official G20 leaders group photo with Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II at London’s Buckingham Palace, Wednesday, April 1, 2009. (AP Photo/John Stillwell/pool)
Obama Bows to King of Saudi Arabia
G20 pledges 5 trillion dollar war chest for crisisAgence France-Presse - April/2/2009 8:18 PM GMT
World leaders pledged a huge raft of new spending Thursday and a crackdown on tax havens and excess corporate pay to step up the battle against the economic crisis.
The Group of 20 summit said more than one trillion dollars would go to the International Monetary Fund and other finance and trade institutions helping struggling countries through the turmoil.
A tired US President Barack Obama also called the London summit accord a hoped for "turning point" but acknowledged there was no guarantee that the recession would not become depression.
The G20 had agreed "an unprecedented set of comprehensive and coordinated actions," said the US president.
Stock markets shot up in response to the accord, Wall Street's Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 3.45 percent and London's FTSE 100 index closed up 4.28 percent.
Even French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had threatened to walk out of the summit, said the results were "more than we could have hoped for". German Chancellor Angela Merkel said a "historic compromise" had been made.
Before the summit, the United States and Britain had pushed for bigger stimulus spending while France and Germany had called for the focus to be put on greater regulation of the financial sector.
Neither side got everything they wanted.
The summit promised 1.1 trillion dollars of "resources" for the IMF and other global finance bodies.
There will be 500 billion dollars of funding, 250 billion dollars in special drawing rights and 250 billion dollars in trade credit. But much of the new funding has already been promised by individual countries, including 100 million dollars each from Japan and the European Union.
After the summit, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development published a list of "non-compliant" tax havens which Brown said would face immediate action, adding that "we have agreed tough standards and sanctions for use against those who don't come into line in the future."
Costa Rica, Malaysia, the Philippines and Uruguay were among the countries named by the OECD as tax havens which had not made any commitment to respecting international standards on exchanging tax information.
Brown said there would also be new rules on corporate bonuses to discourage bankers who take short term risks.
A new Financial Stability Bureau will "implement new rules on pay and bonuses on a global level so that there are no more rewards for failure. We want to impose corporate responsibility on every part of the world."
The leaders also ordered the IMF to sell billions of dollars of gold reserves to help the world's poor countries, Brown said.
Brown said the IMF and World Bank would undergo major reforms to reflect world changes which have seen the rise of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and other new powers.
"By any measure, the London summit was historic," said Obama . Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the accord "begins to crack down on the sort of cowboys in global financial markets that have brought global markets undone."
But analysts and aid groups were not so impressed.
Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC Brokers, lamented that the package might only help prevent a deeper depression.
The G20 statement was "nothing that really softens the blow of recession -- but perhaps some things that stop it moving to depression," said Wheeldon.
Talks on the eve of the London summit were clouded by anti-capitalist protests in which one man died after collapsing. Police said bottles and other missiles were hurled at them as they tried to resuscitate the man.
Police threw up a ring of steel around the Excel Conference centre in London's Docklands district -- near the headquarters of many banks blamed for the international crisis.
Small pockets of demonstrators built up around the summit and in the main financial district, the day after thousands laid siege to the Bank of England and attacked a branch of Royal Bank of Scotland.
G20 Police Attack Protestors

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that by the end of 2010 the G20 would have spent five trillion dollars fighting the crisis and hailed what he called the start of a "new world order".

In other words, the Obama trip was BIG on anti-American rhetoric, but well short on any real results.