Friday, March 06, 2009

Churchill, Obama and Bush

Hussein Obama is a poor sob, filled with inferior complexes facing the shadow of true leaders and historical heroes for mankind Hussein Obama feels small and insignificant

Hussein O's spiteful ignorance becomes greater when contrasted with 'Lessons From History'.

A twist of irony is a forgotten American hero, Elijah Churchill, who kicked the butt of a Henry Clinton during the war of independence which led to the birth of the great nation the United States of America, today this great nation is in the hands of a fascistoid Chicago thug whom together with Clintons are busy trying to destroy the country and all what it stands for:

Sergeant Elijah Churchill was a true hero. He was one of three known recipients of the Badge of Military Merit established by General George Washington.

He was born on September 5th, 1755, at Newington, Connecticut, the son of Giles Churchill. And, yes, he shares an ancestor with the famous Compatriot Sir Winston Churchill.

On October 2nd, 1781, General Sir Henry Clinton was trying to decide how to assist General Lord Cornwallis, who was trapped at Yorktown, Virginia, and while General Washington and French General The Comte Rochambeau were marching on his position, Sergeant Churchill struck again! He had a force of 100 Light Dragoons from the 2nd, and infantry from the 5th Connecticut of the Continental Line. They rowed their whale boats from Westport, Connecticut to Long Island. They launched a surprise attack on Fort Slongo, (near present day Northport, Long Island). In addition to the destruction of this Fort, they captured 21 prisoners, and again destroyed a great quantity of military stores and tons of hay. It is unknown if the loss of this material influenced General Clinton's thinking, but it certainly had to have had an impact.

Churchill, Obama and Bush


By Diana West in Townhall


Even before Barack Obama was inaugurated, the question of what to do with the bust of Winston Churchill on display in the Oval Office arose. The valuable bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein had been loaned by the British government to George W. Bush in mid-2001 -- before Sept. 11, contrary to recent reports -- and had gazed with weary wisdom over the Oval Office ever since. Not that Winnie was alone. Busts of Lincoln and Eisenhower rounded out the trio of wartime leaders President Bush had chosen to watch over him at work even when the nation was at peace.

The Lincoln bust remains in the Obama Oval Office. I haven't received definitive word on the fate of the Eisenhower bust, but I strongly suspect it's gone. So, definitely, is the Churchill bust, its unceremonial crating and return to the British Embassy generating a diplomatic flap and many mainly British news stories wondering, whither the "special relationship"?

There is some pathos to this reflexive plaint given that what makes this relationship special of late is the fact that the CIA considers the likeliest source of a terrorist atrocity against the United States to be British citizens traveling on the visa-waiver program -- British citizens of Pakistani descent, that is. Either way, the relationship is necessarily different when some potentially lethal percentage of the British citizenry is no longer what you could call on our side. Or should I say "our" side to denote the postmodern shambles of conceiving of sides, "ours" or "theirs"?

I don't mean to go abstruse on anyone, but there is a muddle here onto which the fate of the Churchill bronze shines a welcome if cauterizing beam. Indeed, packing up and returning Churchill to the British reveals more than the current state of U.S. ties with Britain. When President Obama declined the British offer to extend its loan, when President Obama indicated he wanted the bust out of the Oval Office, indeed, out of the White House, he sent a much more significant message. Namely, he demonstrated how completely our world has turned.

The London Telegraph attempted an explanation: "Churchill has less happy connotations for Mr. Obama than those American politicians who celebrate his wartime leadership. It was during Churchill's second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President's grandfather."

In other words, such family lore is supposed to render the British titan who roused the Free World against Nazi Germany and warned the Free World against the Communist U.S.S.R. as popular with the new president as Guantanamo Bay. For the record, though, the Mau Mau story is a historic impossibility, at least according to the known timeline of events. As noted by the blogger Papa Whiskey via the Jawa Report, Obama's grandfather was jailed and tortured between 1949 and 1951. That's the story according to his widow, Obama's "Granny Sarah." Of course, Granny Sarah is also a primary source of the claim that Obama was born in Kenya, so who really knows? Obama himself has offered conflicting accounts in both cases. In his memoir "Dreams of My Father," Obama describes his grandfather's detention as lasting "over six months" before he was found innocent (no mention of torture). Whatever the case, Churchill didn't become prime minister for the second time until the end of 1951.

The Mau Mau Rebellion didn't begin until the end of 1952, one year after Obama's grandfather's release.
It seems that what we are seeing in the return of the Churchill bust is less a personal vendetta against Churchill the man and more an open breach in the Western continuum out of which a new orientation toward the Third World will become increasingly apparent. Having achieved a Washington-like apotheosis in the American imagination, Churchill serves not only as the preeminent symbol of resolve, courage and faith against the enemies of Western civilization. He serves as a symbol of Western civilization, period. One of President Obama's first acts as president was to consign that symbol to a box and send it packing.

Somewhat complicating our understanding of the incident is the fact that even as George W. Bush may have retained the knickknacks of that same civilization, the 43rd president did more to break with it maybe than any previous president, certainly more than any previous Republican president. Yes, he ordered the military to war upon attack by Islamic terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001, to fight ill-defined "extremism." But Bush was first and always an internationalist, a globalist, with no national calling, for example, to stem the massive illegal Hispanic influx that has transformed large swaths of the United States by replacing their Western, English-speaking heritage with a Third World, Spanish-speaking culture.

In countless ways, President Obama is merely extending and expanding policies already initiated by his predecessor. From securing the border, which neither man has considered a priority, to securing a Palestinian state, which both men have considered a priority, to a shared belief in bailout packages that are nationalizing the economy, a neutered lexicon with which to address Islam, and legalizing millions of illegal aliens, there is in both leaders a transformational impulse, intensified and now recognized as radicalism in Obama's case. Does this Bush-Obama nexus represent the place where what we once called "white guilt" and "black rage" overlap? It's possible.

In the end, Bush kept Churchill in the room with him, perhaps to mollycoddle the Right. From the beginning, Obama did not, perhaps to avoid being mistaken for a "sellout." I refer to the new president's concern as expressed in his first memoir where he wrote about his maneuvering as an undergraduate at Occidental College:
"To avoid being mistaken for such a sellout, I chose my friends carefully: the more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists, and punk rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Frantz Fanon, Euro-centrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet, or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting Bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated."

Maybe he still is. Only now Barack Obama is taking that "alienation" out on the nation. Increasingly, this is how I interpret President Obama's open, aggressive war on capitalism that is designed to wrest control of the economy from the private sector and transfer it to the government. I call that Marxism. Like the symbolic repudiation of Churchill, Obama's Marxist attack on free markets plays to the same factions of the radical left he once set out to ingratiate himself with as a young man.

"When the native hears a speech about Western culture, he pulls out his knife," wrote Frantz Fanon, the seminal theorist of anti-Western Third Worldism Obama mentioned above. When a Marxist, Third World-tilting president of the United States sees a bust of Winston Churchill, he sends it packing. He may have proven once again to the Left that he's no sellout, but that doesn't mean he hasn't just alienated an awful lot of the American people.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

To be fair, Tony Blair leant the Churchill bust to Bush (without, it is said, asking too many others.) It was meant to be for his time in office and he kept it there for all of his time.

Having said that I don't think anyway here in Britain was calling for its return - but perhaps they were.

I was not impressed by this move by Obama - but how could we have expected otherwise. He was elected as the "non-war-mongering" president in opposition to the other. All rubbish of course. But symbols of leaders known for their war history would not have been welcome with the new "peace-maker at the helm.

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/obama-doesnt-wantneed-churchill-in-the-oval-office/

Two other issues interest me more right now, the second more than the first.

1. Obama's gift to Gordon Brown of 25 DVDs! That's a joke. A last-minute gift you buy the kids when you realise you haven't got them a Christmas present!

2. Tony Blair on Christianity and "aggressive secularists". Yes, my still, somewhat, more-or-less hero implying, if not saying outright that "aggressive secularists" are contributing to, maybe even to blame for the present down-grading of Christianity in Britain.

The backward slide of Christianity has been long ongoing, not just in recent decades. But the resultant "secularism" where most people are happy with the Christian-based state but don't really subscribe to religion as such, has ever been a problem.

The problem is that ANOTHER aggressive religion is filling the void. Islam.

I do not think that Mr Blair's government saw this coming any more than anyone in power saw the financial mess coming. But to blame it, even obliquely on the moderate millions who haven't seen God or who haven't any need for religion AT ALL is crazy.

Never thought I'd associate Mr Blair with the word "crazy". But there we are. When push comes to shove even I am more interested in the future of my country than in my former Prime minister.

Dangerous, leaderless times.