Commenting on my last article this morning Samuel writes:
You are mistaken to assume that disrespect or hatred of Winston Churchill is what motivated Obama when he ordered the return of his bust to Britain. Fact is it was on loan to George Bush with the explicit understanding that it would be returned at the end of his term which is exactly what happened. Be honest for once Apollo. Had Obama failed to send the bust back to Britain when he took office, Obama-hating derangement cons like you would have proclaimed him a thief for keeping it and demanded that he return it according to the terms of the agreement."
Dinesh D'Souza wrote an entire book "The Rage of Barack Obama" attempting to prove from Obama's two autobiographies (and partially succeeding) that anti-colonialism is the defining characteristic of Barack Obama's ideological "rage filled" world view. That he blames the backwardness, squalor and suffering of third world countries (especially African and Middle East Moslem countries) on Western imperialism and colonialism with Great Britain being the worst imperial offender-they had the largest colonial empire in history.
And as Winston Churchill was perhaps the last of the great British colonialists-as Prime Minister in 1954 he put down the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya-Obama definitely has a special hidden antipathy and dislike for him. Indeed, Churchill the " racist, pro-Zionist, Moslem hating, xenophobic, war criminal who soldiered for the empire in India and Africa" is a man that Leftists love to hate as one of history's worst villains; and Obama is no exception. This is certainly true as proved by the rude and disrespectful manner in which Obama returned Churchill's bust to the Brits. You ask "what disrespectful manner" when all that Obama did was return the bust according to the loan agreement that expired when he took office? If that were the case then it would be hard if not impossible to prove any anti-Churchillian animosity in Obama. But Obama didn't just simply return the bust. He refused to keep it in the White House under any conditions as if it were something profane or just too upsetting to look at. Indeed, when the story of the returned bust came out in February 2009 (see) it was reported that the Brits were in no hurry to take it back. On the contrary, they wanted Obama to do their country the honor of holding on to it, and very generously offered him to keep it for ANOTHER FOUR YEARS. But shocking the Brits Obama declined. Why? Obama couldn't tolerate having the bust around especially in the Oval Office where it had become a fixture for many years; and where he would have been obliged to keep it if he agreed to the four year extension. How could he day in and out look at the bust of a man he utterly despised as a mass murderer of Mau Maus, Hindus and others, and one of history's original Western Islamophobes?
Then when it blew up into a controversy with Obama being accused of antipathy toward Churchill the White House said that the bust was replaced by a Lincoln. What patriotic American would object to replacing one of England's greatest statesmen and war leaders with a bust of America's greatest President? Which of the two is more important to us and our history? But this story was a blatant lie. Hoping it would be overlooked the Lincoln bust (along with Churchill's) was already in the Oval Office before Obama took his oath and entered the White House.
Anti-Colonialism and Egalitarianism
I stated above that D'Sousa's excellent eye opening book "The Roots Of Obama's Rage" only partially explains the man and his politics. As America is not a colonial power like Great Britain was, but a superpower with no territorial empire (this makes us exceptional in history) colonialism doesn't explain Obama's destructive domestic and foreign policy to grow state power at home while shrinking our might, stature and prestige as a world power abroad-trashing the Pax Americana. What explains it is his egalitarian idealism rooted in the unAmerican French Revolution. Obama believes that America is too unfairly wealthy and powerful for its own good and that of the world. It must be tamed and diminished so that other less fortunate countries can thrive and everything in time can be equalized; in short, the EQUALITY OF NATIONS is Obama's overriding utopian mission and goal. My views on this subject can be found in my 2009 piece BARACK OBAMA: THE POST-NATION STATE PRESIDENCY AND THE END OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM.
Major websites linking this piece are as follows: