Posted on 12/20/2011 8:57:28 PM PST by lbryce
Click Here:You Tube Video Link
Now this is strange. What compels a Speaker of the House, as he's (supposed to be) trying to reach a deal to preserve various expiring government goodies before Congress recesses for the year, to move a resolution that would "commission the placement of a bust of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the Capitol"? Here he is, talking about it, softly crying, of course, but not in full Boehner Bawl mode. Winston Churchill, he was one helluva a guy. Anyway, this is all about race.
The reason Boehner and Co. are doing this is not merely because they admire Winston Churchill's speech before Congress 70 years ago. It's more the climax of a nearly three-year right-wing crusade against Barack Obama, whom they believe got rid of a White House bust of Winston Churchill upon assuming office in a fit of uppity anti-colonial rage. It all goes back to this Telegraph article from February 2009, which your creepy survivalist uncle almost certainly has bookmarked:
A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.
But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks." [...]
(Excerpt) Read more at gawker.com ...
Okay, so that might explain Obama's tacky, unpresidential approach towards Winston Churchill. But does that also cover the motive for the tacky, tactless, gaucheness-in-chief's diplomatic faux-pas with the presentation of 25 CD's to British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown? I say, bloody absolutely.
There is nothing “American” about slavish fealty to Perfidious Albion.
‘Okay, so that might explain Obama’s tacky, unpresidential approach towards Winston Churchill. “.....we wouldn’t have these problems with a natural born president.
Whoa. Try that in English please...:)
The author of this snide sneering Leftist piece is ignorant.
So ... he IS the Kenyan President!
Horsefeathers! I come from a long line of Irishmen who were mistreated by the Brits. So what? If I were privileged to be elected President of the United States, I sure as hell would not show such disrespect to this country’s long time ally and one of its greatest heroes. Carrying on grandpa’s grudges is breathtakingly immature. Move on, Barry, move on!
But of course. Consider the source. Gawker is notoriously anti-Republican/conservative, which assures the sort of ignorance you’ve touched upon in articles you’ll find there.
It’s simply respect for an increadible leader.
That phrase is very specific to the French. It got more popular with the rise of French leftism.
There is certainly nothing Churchillian about Obama.
God forbid we should honor a brave ally, a true leader who shared our cultural heritage.
Obama would much prefer a bust of Neville Chamberlin, whose leadership style he emulates.
That’s good. But is that really what is happening when we admire an example of something we all wish a recurrence of?
No, that approach to the Churchill bust bespeaks a distorted view of history. Much is obscured about the Mau Mau revolt, but it was highly leftist in nature socioeconomically and quite racist against whites in a nationalistic sense. The British originally characterized it as communistic.
I wonder what Jomo Kenyatta thought of Churchill?
There is no doubt what drove Obamas actions.
Racist? Isn’t Bambi half-white?
Can someone explain why Churchill fought to free Poland from the Nazis but then turned the Poles over to the Soviets? I have never understood the distinction.
Why have a bust of a Briton who sold out Eastern Europe to Stalin behind the back of his American allies?
Or this might:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.An insult to islam that "our" president could not let go unpunished.The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
— Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 [London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899]).
No, strange is giving the Queen an ipod of one's own speeches.
Very near the top of the incoming president’s to-do list should be a personal visit to Great Britian to reaffirm friendship . . and ask for a continuation of the loan of the Winston Churchill’s bust.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.