by Jerry Richardson 2/6/15
Shortly after Barack Obama was inaugurated as President, there occurred a prescient-event involving the return to the UK of a bust (statue) of Winston Churchill that was in the Oval Office.
What happened and why now after 6 years does the Churchill-bust-return prove to have been significant?
[2/20/2009]…the White House sent back to the British Embassy a bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had occupied a cherished spot in President Bush’s Oval Office. Intended as a symbol of transatlantic solidarity, the bust was a loaner from former British prime minister Tony Blair following the September 11 attacks.
—The White House Replace Churchill Bust
The reason the Churchill-bust-return is now significant is that it serves as a symbolic reminder of what Winston Churchill stood for; and highlights what Barack Obama does not stand-for. And what is that? Here’s the comparison of the two men functioning in their leadership roles, Winston Churchill as Prime Minister of England during WWII, and Barack Obama as President of the US during the globally-escalating Islamic-Jihadists attacks and threats.
COMPARISON OF WINSTON CHURCHILL AND BARACK OBAMA
|LEADER||POSITION ON APPEASEMENT OF EVIL||POSITION ON CLEARLY IDENTIFYING THE ENEMY|
|Winston ChurchillPrime Minister UK,
|Refused to appease Hitler as did Neville Chamberlain. Under his leadership UK fought and helped defeat Hitler’s forces in WWII.||Accurately and honestly described the inherent evil in Islam, more than 100-years ago.|
|Barack ObamaPresident USA,2009-current||Continues his appeasement of terrorists, especially Iran with its nuclear ambitions. Won’t stay-off the campaign-trail and the golf-course long enough to formulate a plan to defeat global Islamic-Jihad.||Refuses to even refer to our avowed enemies by their well-known and correct name: Islamic-Jihadists.|
The bust became an issue for the second time during the 2012 presidential race when Mitt Romney promised (when elected) to return the bust of Churchill from the UK back to the Oval office. At about the same time Columnist Charles Krauthammer, in one of his articles, discussed Obama’s return of the Churchill-bust.
[7/27/2012] White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer attacked Krauthammer on Friday for advancing a “patently false” rumor that the White House had ever returned a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Pfeiffer produced a copy of the President and U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron observing the bust in the White House as proof. In fact, Krauthammer was factually correct.
—Krauthammer Right White House Wrong
Subsequent to his blustering denials, Pfeiffer was clearly shown to have falsely attacked Krauthammer and offered a typical—for the Obama White House—insincere apology. Here is the critical part of that non-apology apology:
I take your criticism seriously and you are correct that you are owed an apology. There was clearly an internal confusion about the two busts and there was no intention to deceive. I clearly overshot the runway in my post. The point I was trying to make – under the belief that the Bust in the residence was the one previously in the Oval Office — was that this oft repeated talking point about the bust being a symbol of President Obama’s failure to appreciate the special relationship is false.
—White House: We Don’t have that Churchill Bust, Afterall
Pfeiffer admits that Krauthammer is owed an apology, but he doesn’t actually apologize. Instead he tries to justify what he did under the cover of “confusion.” In addition to not actually apologizing, Pfeiffer uses the non-apology apology as a vehicle to attack any critic who might actually suggest Obama had failed to properly appreciate a special ally (The UK)—which in fact he did fail to do.
The official White House’s excuse for the Churchill-bust-return after they were caught in a lie was to insist that the bust was due for return when Obama took office. As with many of the Obama White House excuses this was a convenient partial-truth:
The bronze torso of Churchill had been loaned to President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and although it was due to be returned when Obama took office, British officials offered to extend the loan for another four years. Obama declined, and replaced the Churchill bust with one of President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican figure in history Obama admires.
—The Churchill bust return
The preceding insincere-apology vignette has proven to be an accurate representation of how the Obama White House reacts to criticism. Attack the critic; lie if you have to; if you are caught, walk it back with weasel words and partial-truth excuses.
It has become increasing obvious even to many of his staunch supporters that as President, Barack Obama has continually refused to identify an enemy that has sworn to destroy us: Islamic-Jihadists. In addition he constantly seeks to draw false equivalences concerning Islam in order to excuse their dangerous and hateful ideology/religion.
[2/6/2015] On Tuesday [2/3/2015], the so-called Islamic State released a slickly produced video showing a Jordanian pilot being burned alive in a steel cage. On Wednesday, the United Nations issued a report detailing various “mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children, and burying children alive” at the hands of the Islamic State.
And on Thursday [2/5/2015], President Obama seized the opportunity of the National Prayer Breakfast to forthrightly criticize the “terrible deeds”. . . committed “in the name of Christ.”
“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history,” Obama said, referring to the ennobling aspects of religion as well as the tendency of people to “hijack” religions for murderous ends.
And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.
—Horse Pucky from Obama
If nothing has firmly convinced you of the evil-nature of the cowardly psychopath who currently occupies the White House, perhaps the above quote of Obama’s ill-timed, false moral-equivalence between Islam (ISIS) and Christianity will do the convincing—if not, probably nothing will.
And how did “leader of the free world” Barack Obama respond to the monstrous act of ISIS?
“You know, I just got word of the video….it’s just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. And it I think will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. It also indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they are operating off of, it’s bankrupt. We’re here to talk about how to make people healthier and make their lives better. And this organization appears only interested in death and destruction.”
In complete contrast to Obama’s refusal to even name our deadly enemy—“…this organization…whatever ideology they are operating off of”—here’s part of what Winston Churchill had to say, well over 100-years ago, about Islam (Mohammedanism):
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. 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…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 proselytising faith.
—Winston Churchill’s Comments on Islam
It is difficult to imagine two people more different in character and leadership capability than Winston Churchill and Barack Obama.
Churchill was a courageous leader who exhibited great integrity under the extreme duress of Hitler’s attacks on Great Britain; Obama is a moral and intellectual coward who exhibits a total lack of integrity via his never-ending lies and his pathetic moral-equivalence defenses of Islam. It would be terrible to have Obama as President at any time in history; but it is a frightful disaster to have him in the White House as the world totters on the brink of another Nazi-like war scenario.
Of course Obama would not want to retain any remembrance of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office; the very presence of even a statue (bust) of such a formidable man would be a constant rebuke to the pathetic phoniness of Barack Obama.
© 2015, Jerry Richardson • (2884 views)