Notice anything? I did. Both articles, at best, are claiming things that are simply untrue or, at worst, omitting facts that don’t jive with their agenda.

This wasn’t a coup in the technical or traditional sense. It was a court-ordered, Congress-backed removal of a law-breaking president. It’s not an overthrow of democracy, but a preservation of it. Naturally, the left wants to see it crushed.

Isn’t it funny how the left refuses to stand up for democracy in Iran, but they’ll stand up for commie dictatorships in our own backyard? The left loves to beat the drums of war in support of their favorite dictatorships, but won’t support — even for a second — a war when it is actually in this nation’s national interests.

These people are steering the Great Ship America into dangerous waters. And I mean that in every way possible. Economic policy, tax and spending policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, you name it. These are children who don’t know what they want, only that they want it now, and they’re willing to do great damage in order to get it. They simply cannot be trusted to pass this country to the next generation in better shape than when they found it. In fact, it’s debateable at this point as to whether this country will be worth saving once these people have left the stage.

All kidding aside, I know it’s a conservative cliche to say “Welcome back, Carter” in regards to Obama and how he’s operating, but man, as someone who lived through the Carter years, the similarities are disturbing. Carter screwed up in regards to Iran, and here Obama may be doing the same thing. A possible — though not guaranteed — friendlier government is in the making over there, and Dear Leader is sitting on his hands. I’m sure that if/when the Iranian revolution does come and new leaders are in place, they’ll look back and remember how America basically abandoned them in their quest for freedom.

Not that that matters to the left at all. They have a sort of kinship with Iran right now: on the one hand you have a left-wing thug in power who wants to destroy Israel and America. And on the other, there’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Birds of a feather and all that.

Update: I’m not the only one to reference ACORN, btw. Jammie Wearing Fool did, too…and Don Surber makes the “Chicago” connection, as well.

Good ol’ Obama, cozying up to left-wing dictators, just like we knew he would.

So he’ll bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, but barely nod to the Queen of Great Britain?

“Grown-ups”, indeed.

Tip for Urkelbama: If you’re going to bow to a foreign monarch, then do it consistently and bow to all of them. If you’re not, then don’t do it at all. Then we’ll stop laughing at you (maybe).

The rules are set in stone, and so the eagerly watching British media sputtered when the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, briefly put her hand on the back of Queen Elizabeth II as the two chatted at a reception. Etiquette is quite stern about this (“Whatever you do, don’t touch the Queen!”). In 2000 John Howard, then Prime Minister of Australia, got plenty of criticism for apparently putting his arm around the Queen to direct her through a crowd. He denied actually touching her, but photographs suggest that he came quite close. (Another former Australian Prime Minister did put his hand on the Queen in a similar circumstance and was later branded “the Lizard of Oz.”)

Of course, there are corollaries to this. One must certainly touch the Queen if the monarch offers her hand (though you should return this not with a firm handshake but just a touch). On Wednesday, Michelle Obama put her hand on the Queen only after the Queen had placed her own hand on the First Lady’s back as part of their conversation. So there is room for theological argument as to whether the American reciprocity of touch was allowable given the social dynamics of the situation. (Less explicable was when President George W. Bush winked at the Queen.) Still, the sight of anyone apparently touching the Queen with anything more than a limp handshake is enough to send the British (or traditionalists in the old Commonwealth) twittering.

Another defense for Michelle Obama, of course, is that she is not a subject of the Queen. (Australians, despite referendums attempting to turn themselves into a republic, still recognize the Queen as their head of state.) The First Lady of the United States is not required to curtsey before her or any other crowned head. In any case, the touch lasted just a second or two, and the Queen did not seem particularly perturbed — though she appeared slightly surprised as she drew away.

No, she’s not a subject of the Queen, that is correct. And no, she’s not required to do any of those things because of that fact. However, there is thing called manners and being respectful. Diplomatic courtesy, if you will. Not showing it in this way tends to upset our friends across the Atlantic. The Obamas don’t seem to care if they do that or not. They give them lame gifts and then ignore what has been long considered to be the proper way to interact with the Queen.

Liberals tore Bush a new one when he had the audacity to “wink” at the Queen over a flub in his speech. Why is it suddenly so acceptable to give her a gift — a gift that represents the American people and how we feel about our closest allies, mind you — you can buy at any department store for a few hundred bucks? Why is it suddenly so acceptable that you not curtsy to the Queen? Why is it suddenly ok to not bow properly to her? And why is it suddenly ok to manhandle an 83-year old woman?

Short answer: because a Democrat is the one doing it. See, now it’s ok because “grown-ups” are in charge. These are not grown-ups. These are not people with experience in dealing with others in a diplomatic capacity. They are, in short, teenagers whose parents have gone out for the evening and figured out how to open the liquor cabinet.