Obama Insults Great Britain Yet Again [Reader Post]



Well, it seems as if Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama has struck yet again. He has insulted our greatest ally, Great Britain. How? Let’s count the ways.

– Obama Dishonors Lady Thatcher: Lady Margaret Thatcher (and others, including Prince Charles and Prime Minister Tony Blair) attended Ronald Reagan’s funeral in June 2004. But Obama failed to reciprocate, sending instead a US representation more fitting of third world thugs to Lady Thatcher’s funeral. Instead of coming himself or sending Vice President Joe Biden or Secretary of State John Kerry, Obama sent former Secretaries of State George Schultz and James Baker, former U.S. Ambassador to Britain Louis Susman, and (the only current Obama administration official) U.S. Charges d’Affaires to the U.K. (and acting ambassador) Barbara Stephenson. It seems that Obama, et al, are “too busy” pushing gun control to attend the funeral. A US Embassy official said that it’s “a busy week in US domestic politics.” Is that a sorry excuse, or what? The MSM tried to spin Obama’s snub by saying he sent “only Reagan administration” people to Thatcher’s funeral.

And, the Democrat-controlled US Senate tried (unsuccessfully) to block a resolution honoring Lady Thatcher. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), (of Dominican Republic hooker and travel fame), Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair, objected to some of the language proposed by Republicans. Further, Democrats wanted to “black out everything but a few lines acknowledging her service as prime minister.” Said Katherine Rosario of Heritage Action For America: “To refuse to honor a woman of such great historical and political significance, who was deeply loyal to the United States, is petty and shameful.”

– Obama Returns Churchill Bust: A bust of Sir Winston Churchill, former British Prime Minister, by Sir Jacob Epstein, was loaned to George W. Bush from the Great Britain art collection after the September 11, 2001, attacks. That same bust was returned to the British soon after Obama was elected. Great Britain offered to let Obama keep the bust for four more years, but Obama said: “Thanks, but no thanks.” The bust, as of February 2009, was in the home of British Ambassador to the US Sir Nigel Sheinwald.

As if the bust removal was not insulting enough, Obama had Dan Pfeiffer, on July 27, 2012, on the White House web site, post “He [Charles Krauthammer] said President Obama ‘started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.’ This is 100% false. The bust is still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.” Well, Messieurs Obama and Pfeiffer, the Churchill bust WAS removed from the Oval Office, as Pfeiffer’s post indicates. Further, the British Embassy itself said that Krauthammer was correct, that the bust was moved to Shewinwald’s home in 2009.

– Obama Gives Russians British Missile Secrets: In an effort to appease the Russians, and to get them to ratify the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), Obama approved giving the Russians serial numbers of every Trident missile sent to Great Britain by the US. Why is this important? First, the information undermines British nuclear secrets by telling the Russians exactly how many Trident missiles Great Britain has. Said professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI):

“This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

Second, the information was not Obama’s to give. Even though Great Britain refused, the Obama administration lobbied, in 2009, for permission to give the Russians detailed information about the performance of British missiles. The US response: it supplied the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transferred to Great Britain. Third, Obama’s action borders upon, if not is, treason as outlined in Article III, section three of the US Constitution. Obama managed to insult this country as well.

– Obama Sides With Argentina Over Falklands: In 1982, PM Margaret Thatcher sent the British military to reclaim the Falkland Islands from an Argentinean invasion. The reclamation cost 255 British lives. In 2010, the Organization of American States, of which the USA is a member, called for “… the ‘need’ for UK and Argentinean talks over who owns the Falklands.” The voice vote on the resolution was unanimous. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in June 2012, said: “We would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.” What issues, Madame Secretary? And, the Obama administration continues to refer to the Falkland Islands as “The Malvinas.”By the way, the Falklands residents voted in March 2013, to remain British by a 99.8 percent margin. I guess that Hillary, ever the champion of self-determination, conveniently missed that vote.

– Obama Denigrates “Special Relationship”: Robert Gibbs, in February 2009, said “The United States and the United Kingdom share a special partnership.”   [emphasis mine]   The word “partnership” was not a mistake. An official close to the Obama administration said: “A partnership is a business arrangement based on what you can do for Obama, not a relationship like a marriage that thrives through thick and thin until death do us part.”Even though Obama tried to overcome that faux pas, the British will not soon forget what Obama really thinks of the “special relationship.”

– Obama Gives Queen Elizabeth II iPod With HIS Picture and Speeches: Besides being insulting, this “gift” was just plain tacky. But what else could we expect from Obama?

– Obama Gives British PM Brown CDs: Also in the “insulting and tacky” department, Obama, in 2009, gaveBritish PM Gordon Brown a set of 25 CDs containing “classic” American movies. What’s most insulting is that Brown could not even play the CDs

The above is but a partial list. Just how much more can Britons take is a question that now must be asked.

Why does Obama continue to insult Great Britain? One speculation is that Obama is retaliating for what he says the British did to his grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, when Great Britain suppressed the Kenya Mau Mau uprising between 1952 and 1960. Obama wrote in Dreams from My Father that Hussein Onyango Obama was unjustly detained by British colonists in Kenya for six months before being released a crippled, lice-ridden “old man.” The only problem with Obama’s claim is that it is completely false.

So, where we now? There is no doubt that Obama has and continues to insult our greatest ally. The reason he continues the insults may be that Obama believes his own lies. Why else could he be so delusional?

In the interest of full disclosure, I have several friends in Great Britain, and have traveled the entire country extensively on several occasions. The British people are very subdued, nice, and polite (stiff upper lip, and all). But I personally think Obama is trying their patience. I also find his actions to be quite insulting.

But that’s just my opinion

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The MSM has been corrupted and is no longer useful to the Republic.

The MSM tried to spin Obama’s snub by saying he sent “only Reagan administration” people to Thatcher’s funeral.

HERE is an individual which is the perfect incarnation of the 4th estate’s disintegration into a blob of socialistic crusaders.

Tammy Haddad has made her mark and fortune rounding up imbeciles who need visibility through the use of ‘pretend-that-I-care’ sessions such as this one and in the process, the no longer respected journalists gain personal ‘access’ and surrender all objectivity.

Actually, Obama is a walking insult.

Interesting choice of complaints, but most are inaccurate at best.

Margaret Thatcher was a past Prime Minister, which in Britain is not even the legal Head of State. She also was anathema to the British Labour party and, indirectly, to anything that our Democratic Party has stood for. It would be both foolish and unnecessary for the Obama Administration to send someone as a U.S. representative other than people who had close relationships with Thatcher during the Reagan Administration.

The Bust story has been repeatedly debunked, since the Churchill bust is still residing in the residence area of the White House. The second bust was in Bush’s office, and was returned to the British when Bush left office. Since Britain is the only nation to have ever physically invaded the continental U.S., why would you want to have a bust of a former British PM in our WH anyway? Even the British people removed Churchill from office immediately after the end of WWII, so the Republican fetish with him is very strange.

Britain is a signatory to the START Treaty, and the Trident missiles with which that nation arms its submarines are produced and provided by the U.S. The Russians are not our “enemy,” so your claim about treason under our constitution is both meaningless and foolish.

Suggesting that it is in our own national interest to prevent a future conflict over the Falklands between Britain and Argentina is, again, just good diplomacy. The islands remain contested territory, regardless of the British success in their military defense of them in the early 1980’s. At some point a diplomatic arrangement will be required to provide a final settlement between the two countries involved, and it is in our own interest to be part of such a discussion.

We have had both a special relationship and a special partnership with the British for nearly a century now, during which time it has cost us something in the neighborhood of 500,000 men to help them fight their wars and untold trillions in our own treasure to provide a defense umbrella for that nation. We are both independent and sovereign countries, so why do you care how our ongoing relationship might be described?

The Queen asked for the iPod she received, which also contained video of her trips to the U.S. and specific musical arrangements she had requested. In addition, the Queen received a first-edition, signed Richard Rogers songbook from the President. In return, the Queen gave our President a signed photograph of herself and Prince Phillip in a nice silver frame. She clearly got the better official presents in that exchange.

Gordon Brown’s staff requested the state gift he received, which is how all such protocol gifts are arranged.

Given your apparent fealty to Britain and sensitivity to any perceived slight to that nation, I only suggest that you should quit being such a wanker.

Warning dog stuff — dog stuff!

Clean up on aisle 3!!

Screw GB

@John: #2,
Strange that the MSM hasn’t understood some simple concepts on this – Obama’s handlers absolutely haven’t but there is probably another agenda.

When you have in fact almost NO ‘friends’ in this world of almost 200 countries, which you can depend on, truly depend on, you better be good to the few you have.

Canada is at the top of the list, and Great Britain comes second with others like Germany, France, Japan, Italy, Israel, etc., following behind to varying degrees. The list is actually quite short.

Obama has insulted Harper (Ottawa), so that’s cooked for now till someone else sits in the Oval Office, and Great Britain should be treated like a ‘family’ friend, . . . but not with this Administration. The event of a funeral of Britain’s former Prime Minister, any former Prime Minister, is very relevant to the people of the Nation which that Prime Minister led. Even if they are divided and argue amongst themselves about how they felt, or feel, about that former leader, the people would expect that leader to be respected, particularly upon their passing, by foreign leaderships.

The British people have good reason to feel the insult. Friend? What friend? Leadership means rising above personal ideology and hate, when a National relationship is at stake. Of course, . . . that requires caring.

@James Raider:

The British people have good reason to feel the insult. Friend? What friend? Leadership means rising above personal ideology and hate, when a National relationship is at stake. Of course, . . . that requires caring.

I’m actually tearing up right now. So moving. I’m happy to see how important the opinion of the population of Great Britain is to all of us here. If only we could return to the good old days before Obama, when the British people actually loved our President. If I remember correctly, they were polled and Obama’s predecessor was second only to Kim Jong-Il in their hearts. When the British use words like “fascist:, “war monger” and “war criminal”, they mean them with love.

@Tom: But how did Bush treat them? This isn’t about public opinion, it’s about honor and respect.

Besides, the eight years of Bush was the time that the MSM really took off as a propaganda machine serving only the left.

If I remember correctly, they were polled and Obama’s predecessor was second only to Kim Jong-Il in their hearts. When the British use words like “fascist:, “war monger” and “war criminal”, they mean them with love.

Yes, tell me all about the “polls”. What a joke.

obama being asked to attend Margaret Thatcher’s funeral would be like Franklin Roosevelt being asked to attend Hitler’s funeral. I’m guessing that most Brits were glad obama didn’t attend. If Thatcher watched her funeral, I’m sure she is glad obama didn’t attend. I bet obama wanted to go to Chavez’s funeral, but knew it wouldn’t look good for him.

There is no doubt that Obama has and continues to insult our greatest ally. The reason he continues the insults may be that Obama believes his own lies. Why else could he be so delusional?

Maybe because he wants to turn the USA into a socialist or Muslim State. He is friendly with our enemies, and shrugs our friends.

@SkippingDog: #3
Using your philosophy, should Queen Elizabeth have been invited to the Normandy invasion ceremony that she wasn’t invited to, but obama was? She was a truck driver and mechanic during the war. obama should have said that if she wasn’t invited, he wouldn’t go. It wouldn’t surprise me if he suggested that she not be invited.

I’m waiting for all of you Anglophiles to tell us exactly what Great Britain, or the UK if you prefer, has actually done for us in the last century. When has that nation actually come to our aid? If you’re going to claim they did so during our recent forays into the Middle East, remember that they have their own interests to protect in that region.

The only reason we ever had a “special relationship” with Britain in the first place was because it was our “mother country” and the old-line WASP’s that controlled our government throughout most of the 20th Century had both business and family ties there.

@Smorgasbord: All of the published reports show it was French President Sarkozy, a right-wing conservative, who did not want her invited to what he considered primarily a Franco-American celebration. Some reports also include the fact that the British themselves made the choice of whom to send as a representative, and they chose their Prime Minister.

@Nathan Blue:

But how did Bush treat them? This isn’t about public opinion, it’s about honor and respect.

And you’ve formed this opinion based on what, the Churchill bust canard? Or is it more likely it’s just something you want to believe, and someone could have just as easily spun an “Obama is too submissive to Great Britain” story, and you would have bought that one too hook line and sinker.

@Nathan Blue:

Yes, tell me all about the “polls”. What a joke.

I think Mitt Romney’s campaign team shared your opinion on polls not too long ago.

@SkippingDog: #12
If it was the propaganda media who said French President Sarkozy didn’t want her their, I can understand that, but I wouldn’t believe much of what they print. I find it hard to believe the British didn’t want the queen there, especially since she served in that war.

@SkippingDog: When has Great Britain come to our aid in the last century? Hmm….Maybe by participating in the coalition of nations that went into Afghanistan and Iraq to fight along side with us? Oh, that’s right. I’m not allowed to mention that because …. because SkippingDog says so. You see, those things somehow don’t count. Gotcha buddy.

Our countries have historically cooperated with one another on military matters, and intelligence sharing on a daily basis, in ways that you don’t have a clue about, because they are not made public. I’m probablly not supposed to count that either. We are countries whose interests are in close alignment, and with whom we have strong economic and social ties that span hundreds of years. That’s essentially the definition of an ally. If they help us out in a way that also benefits them, so what? Is that a problem? You could make a strong case that their decision to participate in our military endevours in Afghanistan and Iraq actually put them at greater risk, but they did it anyway. They were also our allies in two world wars in the 20th century. All that aside, what have they ever done to help us? Gee, you got me. Why should we want to show respect for a nation that has allied itself with us time and time again? I guess we should follow your advice and pretend they are not an ally, don’t treat them aas an ally, and then one day, if we’re lucky they no longer will be an ally. Good plan.

@SkippingDog: Not to beat a dead horse SkippingDog, but I forgot to mention that Great Britain was our ally in the cold war, which we eventually won. Margaret Thatcher’s decision to allow us to place 160 cruise missles on British soil was part of the military build up of the U.S. and NATO which eventually pressured the Soviets into compromise and eventually dissolution. With an alliance that strong, the burden should not be on Anglophiles to justify our close ties with Great Britain. The burden should be on Anglohaters like yourself to justify why we should walk away from an alliance that has been so beneficial to both countries just to satisfy their dislike for “WASPS”.

Be sure to curtsy and sing God Save the Queen!

@SkippingDog: Lol! Nice comeback /sarc. Is that really the best you’ve got?

The Brits that love Obama won’t care, the Brits that love America will already know that Obama is the most anti-American US President in history and just hope that you guys won’t be stupid enough to vote for someone like him again.
– London

@Mike: It is called taking a skip on the rug!

@Budvarakbar: Now that IS a good comeback. LOL!

@This one: Screw GB? Screw Obama, and all his minions and useful idiots.

You see, o’bammy wants America to be friendless- he has been actively seeking to tear down America and Great Britain all because he has a Daddy complex, as if a drunken Marxist is something to adore.