Obama’s Return of Churchill’s Bust

ChurchillBustby Jerry Richardson2/6/15
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,
1940-1945; 1951-1955
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:

[7/31/2012] Charles,

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.” 

Obama’s Response to Jordanian Pilot Being Burned Alive is UNBELIEVABLE

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 • (2797 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Obama’s Return of Churchill’s Bust

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    At the time the Churchill bust was returned, there were many who pointed out that he was a staunch anti-colonialist and thus hostile to Britain. His resentment of the West and especially America and America’s allies also no doubt played a part.

    As for his disgusting comments at the Prayer Breakfast, it’s typical of Jihad’s Man in the White House that someone who never allows anyone in his administration to refer to Islam as a motivation for terrorism would nevertheless point out how evil his self-professed religion is (or, more precisely was — hundreds of years ago). It was simply another reminder of his hatred of Western civilization and his affinity for Islam.

  2. Jerry Richardson says:

    Here’s a bit of an update to Obama’s tending-to-business timeline, relative to some of the events I referred to in my article.

    Obama Meets With Sharia Supporting Muslims In White House Day After ISIS Burns Pilot Alive

    Tuesday 2-3: Isis Burns Jordanian Pilot Alive in a Cage
    Wednesday 2-4: Obama meets with Sharia supporters in White House
    Thursday 2-5: Obama equates Christianity to ISIS

    Obama meets with Sharia Supporting Muslims after Pilot Burned to Death

    If this doesn’t give you a clue as to Obama’s loyalties, nothing will.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Unfortunately, the people who need to understand this will refuse to see the connection. Most of us here already understand that Jihad’s Man in the White House is, at heart, on the other side in the struggle between militant Islam and what remains of Western civilization.

  3. GHG says:

    “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Remember that saccharin line from “Love Story”? I thought it was a load of bilge when I first heard it in the movie. The only redeeming aspect was that Ali MacGraw said it and even 40+ years later my heart goes all aflutter picturing the dreamy Ms MacGraw.

    The reason I bring up this blast from the past is because the Left has turned this Hollywood pap into a pillar of their ideology. When was the last time a leftist offered a genuine apology? It doesn’t happen. They are not capable of humility because they have no soul. Apologies are looking backward and progressivism demands forward movement only. When cornered they evade, lie or qualify as to make it a non-apology.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I think I first noticed this regarding The Passion of the Christ. Liberals unanimously proclaimed the movie an inducement for anti-Semitism (which they don’t object to, of course, at least when committed by Muslims or blacks). If they were the decent people they claim to be, they would have apologized to American Christians for misjudging them when no such rise in anti-Semitism occurred. Naturally, none of them even considered it.

    • David Ray says:

      There are unusually good liars: Bill Clinton
      There are congenital liars: “Sir Edmund” Hillary Clinton
      There are cowardly narcissistic liars: B. Hussein Obama
      and
      There are compulsive liars like Al Gore. That delusional idiot just can’t help himself. When Erich Segal was informed that Al Gore claimed that he inspired the sappy “Love Story” novel, Erich laughed out loud – literally.

      (Also remember that after the media orgasm over Bush’s only naming one of the 4 world leaders, adults began to honestly admit that they could only name two at best. Only TWO said they could have named all four: Some wanna-be & future has-been named “Jenny” and . . . predictably . . . Al Gore.)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Okay, Mr. Lesser, at least you have all but admitted to have seen the movie. That’s one point for me! 😀

      But surely you are right. Sentiment (or just good intentions) is the calling card of much of the Left. Theirs is a therapeutic dogma. I’ve sometimes heard that it would have been best if Rousseau had been strangled in his cradle. Well, that’s a little drastic. But banishment to St. Helena would have been appropriate.

      And the same for Sigmund Freud, the man who almost single-handedly (along with Jung) turned us into a pseudo-introspective species of ninnies and navel-gazers. I contend (and I’m quite sure that I’m right about this) that the Hippie Generation has yet to confront their complicity in all that is going wrong with America. It’s one thing to bemoan Obama. It’s another thing to connect the dots to their inane and stupid Utopian philosophy of Dylan and Company.

      Progressives wish to live their life like the saccharine verses of a Hallmark card.

  4. Jerry Richardson says:

    GHG,

    When was the last time a leftist offered a genuine apology? It doesn’t happen. They are not capable of humility because they have no soul. Apologies are looking backward and progressivism demands forward movement only. When cornered they evade, lie or qualify as to make it a non-apology. —GHG

    Wow! I wish I had had this quote to put in my article when I was talking about Dan Pfeiffer’s non-apology apology.

    Thanks.

  5. Jerry Richardson says:

    Timothy,

    Most of us here already understand that Jihad’s Man in the White House is, at heart, on the other side in the struggle between militant Islam and what remains of Western civilization.

    I think you have thrown-down a very significant and true phrase: “Jihad’s Man in the White House.”

    Will you be offended if I use this phrase in the future and forget that it’s yours—I won’t do that on purpose, I just might forget?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I would be quite happy to see my memes used by others. After all, some of mine come from other people (e.g., Slick Willie was originated by Paul Greenberg). The more people who realize that Feckless Leader actually meets the strict Constitutional definition of treason, the better.

  6. Rick Hirsch says:

    I always puzzled over why Obama returned the bust of Churchill. After all, America and Britain forged a bond in WWII through shared sacrifice.

    An editorial by Paul Sperry in Investor’s Business Daily answered my question –
    “Until the ’60s, Britain colonized Kenya, and according to Obama, mistreated his father and Muslim grandfather (a story biographers now dispute). Winston Churchill was prime minister at the time, and became the object of family scorn. . . . Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was a Kenyan Muslim who hated the British even more than the French.”

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/011515-734928-obama-channels-frantz-fanon-in-boycott-of-french-terror-march.htm?p=full

  7. Jerry Richardson says:

    Rick Hirsch,

    Yes, Rick, this is the standard theory and much publicized. I chose not to discuss it because I believe the reasons for the return of the bust are due to much broader and deeper ideological stances. Obama’s anti-colonialism feelings are certainly in-line with his overall animosity toward western culture; but I simply do not believe those feelings are “the single reason” why Obama returned the Churchill-bust; in fact consistent with my article I don’t believe there is any single reason—I think there are at least two: 1) Obama’s desire to appease our enemies; and 2) Obama’s desire to defend Islam from critics. And I think it highly likely that either Obama and/or his advisers knew for sure where Winston Churchill stood on both of these issues.

    In support of my hunch, I offer as evidence all of the many instances leading-up-to and including current events where Obama has attempted to appease terrorists and has refused to label these blood-thirsty enemies as Islamic-Jihadists—Obama has been a consistent apologist for Islam.

    Of course, you could be correct; or we both could be correct in the speculation we offered; or neither. The fact is, to my knowledge the only “official reason” (excuse) that has ever been given by the Obama White House is the one mentioned in my article: “it was due to be returned when Obama took office.”

    Of course neither you nor I nor any other sensible Obama observer buys that dodge.

    Thanks much for your proper and thoughtful comment. And thanks for going to the extra effort of providing a link. Please continue to register your thoughts and comments on Stubborn Things; and consider contributing some articles.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It’s hard to believe that the Obama Gang would have known enough about Churchill to know his views on Islam, though it’s quite possible they (in this case rightly) assumed them to be negative. His resentment of the Western civilization and of Anglo-American colonialism were sufficient to explain his disdain for Churchill. The fact that Churchill was a fierce leader (a graduate of Sandhurst, though I doubt the Gang knew that either) who was ready to confront evil with all necessary violence was also sufficient. You’re no doubt quite right that there were many reasons, all basically emotional, why Barry Zero had no wish to contemplate Winston Churchill.

    • Rick Hirsch says:

      Where does one develop their ideological leanings? Are they innate or learned? I think primarily learned. They start with our parents. We develop and reinforce it further into adulthood.

      Let’s use Obama’s parental foundation and choices as an example. His mother, Ann Dunham, was the primary parent. His father and stepfather were present only a few years each.

      Ann’s parents deliberately enrolled her in Mercer Island High School knowing its Chairman of the School Board testified to the House Un-American Activities Sub Committee that he was a communist.

      She attended church at East Shore Unitarian church, which promoted debates and discussion of Red China’s admission to the U.N. She is better described as an atheist as the church teaches secular world views.

      Obama’s mother is described as a “wanderer” by friends. She challenges the norms of societal order. She becomes a civil rights activist and later works for the ideological left Ford Foundation. She lives her communist upbringing.

      Obama was raised during his teenage years by his grandparents. What was their ideology? The grandparents were attracted to Frank Marshall Davis, a well-connected communist sympathizer in Hawaii. When Obama returned to Hawaii from Indonesia, the grandparents ingratiated Obama into Davis’ sphere of influence. Obama credits Davis with being a decisive influence in his African American identity.

      In adulthood Obama reinforces his ideological development in Jeremiah Wright’s church. Obama spent two decades listening to Black Liberation Theology and the famous sermon “not God bless America, but God damn America.” He immersed himself in the merging of theology, social and ethnic ideals, all more secular in nature than religious.

      So the icons of Obama’s religion, afro centrist religion and communist ideology learned from Wright, his mother and grandparents, replace the traditional icons of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage.

      Churchill is an icon representing Judeo-Christian America. Churchill doesn’t comport with Black Liberation Theology and communism.

      Like anyone, when we move-in we install the icons of our religion removing the icons of the other’s religion. The ideal of Judeo-Christian America represented in Churchill is not an acceptable icon to Obama.

  8. Jerry Richardson says:

    David Ray,

    There are unusually good liars: Bill Clinton
    There are congenital liars: “Sir Edmund” Hillary Clinton
    There are cowardly narcissistic liars: B. Hussein Obama
    and
    There are compulsive liars like Al Gore. That delusional idiot just can’t help himself. —David Ray

    I like your taxonomy of liars. I think it is a great start; but more can be added. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least four more categories:

    There are robotic liars such as Susan Rice.
    There are incoherent, robotic liars such as Jen Psaki and Marie Harf (the barf).
    There are klutz liars such as John “Swift Boat” Kerry.
    There are professional narrative liars such as Brian Williams.

    David, I see an article you wrote for Stubborn Things dated 7/21/14. Write some more stuff, you obviously have interesting things to say.

  9. Jerry Richardson says:

    Timothy,

    It’s hard to believe that the Obama Gang would have known enough about Churchill to know his views on Islam, though it’s quite possible they (in this case rightly) assumed them to be negative. —Timothy Lane

    We see considerable evidence of ignorance in the Obama administration mostly from Obama himself and others who are spox-persons for the administration. We don’t see or hear very much, directly, from his back-room people, or really even know who they are (at least I don’t).

    If there is one lesson that I learned indelibly from my 12-years of coaching it is that it’s a dangerous mistake to ever suppose that you know more than your opponent, whether that opponent is a hard-core enemy, a frenemy, a political opponent (like Obama), or just a competitor in a friendly or not-so-friendly game.

    You may know more, but then you may not. Just like in poker, some people are good at sand-bagging.

    During the time that I coached, I quickly learned that as a group, coaches were world-class pore-mouthers. If you listened to them they would have you believe they had the most inept team you were ever likely to play against, and that they themselves were not very knowledgeable at the game in question. Big mistake, if you got taken-in by this ruse; you could easily bring your team home after a contest wearing a real butt-kicking administered by this rube coach and his “inept” players.

    Over confidence relative to anyone’s knowledge or intelligence or abilities is a dangerous mind-set that I firmly believe is best avoided. In fact, if you assume that your opponents know more than you do; then if your are a sensible person you will be motivated to work and study harder before you face them.

    I am not a member of the Obama-worshiping, gullible-group who believes that Obama is super-smart; I don’t even think he is above-average smart; but that doesn’t necessarily translate to ineptness in all of the people who are in his direct administration. I simply don’t know.

    In addition, information is so available now online that anyone who is at all interested can jump onto the Internet and find reams of information on Winston Churchill or any other well-known person of history. I am therefore inclined to assume that any information that I can easily come-up with on the Internet can be just as easily found by anyone else with a computer and an online connection.

    How do you know that some unrecognized member of Obama’s staff did not get on the Internet and research Winston Churchill during the time they were deliberating what to do with the bust?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Could be, but note that Barry Zero himself is the first to claim that he knows more about everything than specialists in the field do. As can be seen by his ignorant comments about the Crusades, he has at best a very superficial knowledge of history. To him, the Crusades were the Christian (i.e., evil) Europeans (i.e., evil) invading the Asian (i.e., good) Muslims (i.e., good). The context (a struggle between Islam and Christendom started when the former began its conquests in the mid-7th Century). How likely do you suppose it is that Barry Screwtape Obama has ever heard of Charles Martel? (Well, most likely he vaguely heard of him sometime, but without paying much attention and never remembering.) And I think the same thing would largely be true of Churchill. But, obviously, I can’t prove it. In any case, one can only identify reasons — lots of them — why the Black God never wanted to keep the bust.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Barry Zero himself is the first to claim that he knows more about everything than specialists in the field do

        What, you don’t agree with him?

        My favorite is still his remark about his visiting almost all “57 states”. That alone should have told everyone he was no American. Nobody who had attended a US school as a child could have ever made that mistake. No one who felt himself to be an American could have made that mistake. The man is the Muslim Candidate.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          As I believe I’ve mentioned before, a friend suggests that Obama came from an alternate universe — one with more than 57 states, in which Kentucky borders Arkansas but not Illinois (as Crybarry whined gave Hillary the advantage in the state in 2008). Since a Wisconsin Democrat later said that the Arizona immigration law was inappropriate for an interior state like Arizona, but would have been for a border state, perhaps he’s been teaching geography to Party members.

      • Jerry Richardson says:

        Timothy,

        Good points! I thoroughly enjoy playing comment ping-pong with you.

        I thoroughly agree with your analysis of Barry Zero.

        I suspect though that he gets a lot of good info that he simply ignores—because he’s arrogant and besides he is THE Barack Obama.

  10. Jerry Richardson says:

    GHG,

    I’m a relative new-coming to this website (since June last year) and I am a bit embarrassed that I don’t know why Brad and others address you as Mr. Lesser. I hope I don’t offend by asking.

  11. Jerry Richardson says:

    An age old rule of sensible and principled governments is that you DO NOT negotiate with blackmailers or terrorists.

    Of course, since Barack Obama is neither sensible nor principled—unless you count his idiotic, leftist, Islam-loving, ideological principles—he does not follow this simple, but necessary rule. So how is that working out:

    Not A Surprise – Bergdahl Swap With Taliban Made ISIS Change Demands For Hostage Kayla Mueller…

    Posted on February 23, 2015 by sundance

    This argument was made by all reasonable people back when the White House decided it was more politically opportune to trade GITMO detainees for Bowe Bergdahl. The newsworthy aspect is the confirmation from the other hostage’s family.

    WASHINGTON DC – The brother of an American woman who was killed after spending months as a hostage of Islamic State militants says Kayla Mueller’s situation worsened after the government [Obama] traded five Taliban commanders for a captive U.S. soldier.

    Obama’s Bergdahl swap with the Taliban

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *