Latest Publius Podcast: Obama Signals the British That They Aren’t So Special

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Obama Signals British That They Aren’t So Special

-By Warner Todd Huston

Barack Obama, it was claimed, would “repair” our reputation both with our enemies and our friends. So how has he done? Let’s take Britain for example. Has he “fixed” our special relationship with the British Isles? Well, if by fixed you mean he has fastened that relationship to a negative track, well then “fixed” it is.

Let’s review some of the slights that Barack Obama delivered to our closest allies, the British.

In February, immediately after he entered office, President Obama summarily rejected the most famous bust of Winston Churchill in England loaned to the U.S. for display in the Oval Office by the people of England. The bust was sent to us by the people of the U.K. as a gesture of solidarity and friendship in the aftermath of 9/11. Despite their generosity, Obama returned the generously loaned statuette without alerting the Brits that he intended to do so, blindsiding Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government.

Then in March Obama slighted the British once again by refusing to meet PM Brown at the airport in the previously arranged welcome-to-America press conference when the Brown’s came for a state visit.

During that same visit Obama callously gave Brown, a man who is nearly blind, a set of American DVD movies as an official gift from the U.S.A., movies that won’t even play on English DVD machines (America is “Region 1” while England is “Region 2” in DVD formats). To add insult to injury Mrs. Obama gave the Brown’s boys a few cheap toy helicopters from a Washington gift shop — likely made in China. On the other hand PM Brown gave some significant and thoughtful gifts to the Obama’s and our nation.

For his part, PM Brown gave two symbolic gifts and one that expressed national pride. Brown came bearing a pen holder carved from the timbers of the sister ship of that which gave the wood to create the famous “Resolute Desk,” the desk that has been in America’s charge since 1880. He also gave Obama the framed commission for that famous ship, the HMS Resolute. His third gift was a seven-volume biography of one of England’s greatest leaders, Winston Churchill.

Also during this state visit at least one person in Obama’s administration denigrated the famed “special relationship” that the U.S. and the U.K. have had since WWII. When Brown’s aids tried to interact with Obama’s, one of Obama’s aids reportedly said that there was no special relationship and that the Brits would be treated like any other nation in the age of Obama. Not very diplomatic that.

During March, British officials began to complain that Obama’s administration was neglecting the diplomatic phone calls that British officials were making to try to coordinate international policies. Apparently no one was picking up the phone in Washington when the Brits rang.

Later in April, the Obama’s showed an utter lack of protocol when visiting the Queen of England. Obama’s wife broke protocol by placing her hand upon the Queen’s back, a definite no-no. Michelle, it seems, was entirely too casual about her appearance before the Queen and the British were appalled by Michelle’s lack of respect. By itself this incident might seem small, but taken with all the others it seems apiece with how unimportant the Obama’s consider the British. Even long-standing protocol isn’t important enough to observe as far as the Obama’s are concerned.

Then in May Team Obama left the Queen out of its D-Day memorial plans again showing the Brits that they weren’t important enough for Obama’s attention.

It should be remembered that the D-Day incident occurred around the same time that Obama was bowing in supplication before the Saudi King showing the world that Obama would pay more deference to a repressive regime than any western democracy.

By June the British press was beginning to wonder why Obama hated them so much. Even the New York Times worried that, “on a more basic level, there is a sense that the Obama administration is ignoring the needs and counsel of longtime allies.” And so, during June several other western democracies were pronouncing their disgust at how they were being mistreated or ignored by Obama and his administration. Along with the British, the Germans, the French, and the Israelis were also becoming miffed at their treatment at Obama’s hands.

We should contrast these slights with how Obama had been bowing and scraping (both figuratively and literally) to Saudi Kings, North Korean madmen, dictatorial Iranian regimes, and South American strong men throughout this entire time. Obama was also seen in November bowing nearly to the floor before another national leader, this time before Japan’s Emperor Akihito. The Brits must have really been confused by this one. He bows to a Japanese Emperor — whose predecessor was an enemy to the U.S. — but shows little interest in their Queen — who was herself one of our longest allies and fought with us during WWII?

And now Obama’s upturned nose is again shown England as she fights to retain control of the Falklands. Instead of supporting the Brit’s assertion that the Falklands are their lawful possession Obama ignored the whole question, saying nothing, and leaving the British to twist in the wind lending Argentina’s claims upon the Islands more credence than it otherwise would have had if the U.S. had officially upheld the Brit’s rights to them.

The word in London is that Obama is punishing the British for having released sensitive U.S. intelligence on a terror suspect recently. In retaliation Obama has refused to uphold the U.K.’s long-held sovereignty over the Falklands.

This wasn’t the only punishment Obama dealt the Brits over this incident. Last week Obama also abruptly canceled a planned conference to celebrate 60 years of the two nation’s intelligence sharing arrangement.

In the final analysis it seems that Obama can act tough with the British, can callously dismiss the French and the Germans, but goes all soft in the face of murderous regimes like Iran, the Saudis, and North Korea. One would suspect that Obama hasn’t the spine to deal with real problems but, like the cuckolded hubby, lashes out where he knows its safe to do so but not where some lashing out would do some good.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius’ Forum. It’s what’s happening NOW!

(Originally posted at BigGovernment.com)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Media’s Obsession With ‘Multicultural Britain’

-By Warner Todd Huston

On February 27 the Times Online from Britain published what it hailed as amazing proof that 4th century Britain was “multicultural” and “diverse” during the Roman occupation of the island nation. This “new” revelation came from a recent scientific investigation into the burial in York of an African woman. The problem with this whole report is that it does not at all show that Britain was “multicultural” in the 4th century. The truth is the newspaper misapplied the word “multicultural” to this burial in an effort to celebrate the politically correct ideal of multiculturalism as it exists today.

There is nothing as ahistorcal as applying today’s standards and ideas to the past, but The Times falls headlong into this trap in an effort to show that the Romans were somehow just like us today in their acceptance of “multiculturalism.” The problem, of course, is that Rome did not accept other cultures in the same way that Britain’s modern, self-destructive dalliance in “multiculturalism” does.

The story of the 4th century burial is very informative and interesting, to be sure. Originally found in 1901 in Bootham, York, the grave was located in what was a Roman fortress and settlement named Eboracum, founded in AD71. The researchers found that an African woman (or one of mixed-race, they couldn’t be sure) was buried in a stone sarcophagus and laid to rest with several of her possessions proving that she was a person of wealth and station in life. The medical examination of the skeleton also seemed to show that the woman did not live a life of strenuous labor. A Latin inscription on one of her possessions indicates that she may have been a Christian, too.

It is well known that throughout the Roman Empire many African soldiers filled the ranks of the Roman legions and that some of them became officers of high rank. It is likely that this woman was the wife of one of these Roman officers of African descent.

So what does the Times and its quoted researcher make of this wealthy black woman from Britain’s 4th century society?

Archaeologists have discovered that wealthy black Africans lived in Roman Britain in one of the country’s earliest examples of multiculturalism.

….

Hella Eckardt, who carried out the study, said: “Multicultural Britain is not just a phenomenon of more modern times. Analysis of the ‘Ivory Bangle Lady’ and others like her, contradicts assumptions about the make-up of Roman-British populations as well as the view that African immigrants were of low status, male and likely to have been slaves.”

….

Dr Eckardt continued: “We’re looking at a population mix which is much closer to contemporary Britain than previous historians had suspected. In the case of York, the Roman population may have had more diverse origins than the city has now.

These are non sequitur assumptions and prove that neither the Times nor this foolish Dr. Hella Eckardt should be taken as informed, worthy sources of information.

Romans did not consider their conquered peoples as having cultures worth celebrating and nurturing. To be ROMAN was the goal and they did not just willy nilly accept into their own culture all the customs and practices of the lowly peoples that were taken over. Only today is there an abdication of local, western customs and practices so that immigrant’s cultural influences can prevail, this is now the case with Britain’s (and the west’s) self-hating practice of “multiculturalism.”

This rich black woman was not wealthy because she was “multicultural,” she was wealthy because she observed the Roman’s rules. She did not move to Britain to bring all her African practices with her, she did not become a woman of station in 4th century Roman Britain because she retained her multicultural identity, thumbing her nose at Roman practices.

Did the Roman Empire consist of people of many cultures? Of course. Did some of those cultures influence Roman practice and custom? Over the long term they did, most certainly. In fact, that is the history of mankind. Man’s history is a repetition of the actions of conquering a people, then living with them, followed by a taking of the best ideas and practices (as well as languages) from that conquered people and incorporating them into a new, stronger society. But this is not “multiculturalism” as now so sadly celebrated by the PC set.

Further, the history of the Roman Empire spanned many hundreds of years. Tolerance for local customs, religions, languages, and the like waxed and waned with the times and the whims of the Emperors back in Rome. So, to present 4th century Britain as multicultural in today’s terms is absurd as the climate for the other-than-Roman was not a fixed quantity.

So, for this report to announce that 4th century Britain was “multicultural” is a slap in the face to truth because the concept of multiculturalism as we now understand it simply did not exist in the 4th century. The Roman Empire was not multicultural. It was Roman. 4th century Britain was not multicultural but was ruled by Romans that were Roman despite their diverse racial makeup. They were Romans acting like Romans ruling a subjugated Celtic people. That Rome often turned a blind eye to the continued practices of their conquered peoples does not mean that Rome was “multicultural” in the same way we’d think of it today.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Amnesty Inat’l Am Nasty for Supporting Taliban

-By Warner Todd Huston

If it’s anti-west, anti-British, Anti-American, Anti-Israeli… well, be sure that Amnesty International supports it. Here’s another bit of proof for that bromide with AmNasty International’s suspension of human rights specialist Gita Sahgal. Why was Sahgal removed from her AI position? Because she criticized AI for supporting Moazzam Begg, Britain’s biggest supporter of al Qaeda, the Taliban and religious oppression against women.

Interesting to see the clash of political correctness here, isn’t it? They’ve booted a female, minority civil rights worker from her position because she came out against an Islamofascist that AI is in love with.

I am sure this had the PC heads at AI roiling in a tizzy. Their dilemma was do they support, a). the female, minority, civil rights worker, or b). the aggrieved Islamofascist that was once held at Guantanamo. What a dilemma for the politically correct, eh?

Tellingly, Amnesty International chose to support the fanatic Muslim that supports al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Here’s what occurred: Last January Gita Sahgal, who was head of the “Gender Unit” at Amnesty International, became alarmed that AI was aligning itself with Moazzam Begg. At that time she sent a letter to her employers at AI saying in part, “To be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment.”

AI replied by suspending her and launching an “internal investigation.” This prompted Sahgal to release a public statement.

“Amnesty International has sanitised the history and politics of ex-Guantanamo detainee Moazzam Begg, and completely failed to recognise the nature of his organisation Cageprisoners.”

“The issue is a fundamental one about the importance of the human rights movement maintaining an objective distance from groups and ideas that are committed to systematic discrimination and fundamentally undermine the universality of human rights. I have raised this issue because of my firm belief in human rights for all.”

So, who is this Begg character? He runs an organization called Cageprisoners and has been an outspoken supporter of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Originally from Birmingham, Mr Begg went to a training camp in Afghanistan in 1993 and then moved there with his family in 2001.

In his memoirs, he said the Taliban were “better than anything Afghanistan has had in 20 years.”

He was picked up by the CIA in 2002 after fleeing to Pakistan. The U.S. claimed he was a member of al-Qaeda who had helped recruit others and fund training camps.

Since his release, he has been a vocal campaigner for the rights of detainees and has been involved with Amnesty for several years.

Begg’s group has come to the aid of Islamic hate preacher al Al-Awlaki (linked to Major Hassan’s act of terror in Texas in late 2009) as well as 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the group has also given support to Abu Hamza, and Abu Qatada.

Sahgal says that Cageprisoners “‘actively promotes Islamic Right ideas and individuals.” Obviously she is right.

Yet she is the one that got canned by Amnesty International. AI claims they don’t support terrorists, but this action makes this claim very, very hard to believe.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Green Wackos Forcing Women To Be Stay At Home Moms?

That is what a leading French feminist is saying

Elisabeth Badinter, a leading French feminist, has warned the green movement is threatening decades of improvements in gender equality by forcing women to give up their jobs and become earth mothers.

Mrs Badinter claims a “holy reactionary alliance” of green politicians, breast-feeding militants, “back to nature” feminists and child psychologists is turning Frenchwomen into slaves to green “fads” like re-usable nappies and organic food.

In her new book, Conflit, la Femme et la Mere (Conflict, the Woman and the Mother), Mrs Badinter contends that this politically correct cabal is burdening mothers with intolerable guilt unless they stay at home and breast-feed for as long as possible.

And, of course (and unfortunately), a good chunk of these Greenies are climate alarmists who link virtually every issue to globull warming. For instance, you should not use disposable diapers because they end up in a landfill and create methane, so, switch to re-usable, because they aren’t made from petroleum, because petroleum creates CO2. The greenies tend to avoid discussion that disposable diapers tend to be safer from a health point of view for babies and those who handle the toxic mix filled diapers. And, oh, put out less CO2 in reality.

If you want a good take on organic food, I’d suggest you read the book The Last Centurion by John Ringo. Yes, it is a science fiction book, however, it describes how n0t-well organic works, much in the same way Michael Crichton’s book, State Of Fear describes climahysteria.

Their perfect French mother, she writes, “breastfeeds for six months and doesn’t put her baby in a crèche or not too early, because baby needs to be with mum and not in a nest of germs; she is wary of all things artificial and is ecologically-minded. The jar of baby food has become a sign of selfishness; we’re back to the purée mashed by mum.”

Women in childbirth are even made to feel that epidurals are wrong, she goes on, adding: “We don’t need to bow down to nature.”

Those who choose to stay at work or to not have children are ostracised.

Of course, it is the Left who tends to, in practice, expose themselves as true sexists. Witness recently the treatment of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. And the greenies tend to be primarily composed of …… leftists!

The Telegraph does provide some quotes from those who disagree with Badinter, but, as one would expect, the replies are in Lib Speak, and do not even come close to answering the charges.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post