The New York Post, last night, put up some interesting analysis  as regards what is behind this business between the President and the British. In it, Arthur Herman does some serious analysis on what is driving this animosity toward the British. In Herman’s view, what amounts to is resentment for our shared history and values. These are values which Obama overtly rejects.
At the bottom line:
Perhaps the president simply believes some other nation should replace Britain as our closest friend. (For a while, the Clinton administration meant to put Germany ahead of the UK.) Or perhaps Obama has a different view of the special relationship – one held by the likes of his onetime mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
These critics don’t see a legacy of freedom going back to Magna Carta. They see a historical procession of self-serving white males. And Churchill is not the man who singlehandedly stood up against Hitler and who warned us all about the Soviet Union’s iron curtain, but a white supremacist.In this view (which also sees an America steeped in racism, colonialism and greed, rather than a nation dedicated to the proposition of liberty under law), there is no need to preserve any precious British-born legacy.
Remember, gang, Hitler and Stalin were both wildly popular with the supposedly American left in the forties… You can understand why Obama, a student of leftists… Alinksy being one, Frank Marshall Davis being another… all of whom lived through the period, would be less than happy about a strong relationship with the Brits and have, shall we say, a less than full respect for Churchill.
This would also seem to explain other aspects of the emerging Obama foreign policy in the Middle East. Remember Churchill’s comments as regards Muslims;
“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.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But 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. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
If a new President is going to do some serious Muslim backside kissing, it doesn’t do to have the bust of a person who would write such, in his office. From what we’ve seen of Obama and his foriegn policy so far, this all fits. It should also scare the hell out of every American.
There are a great many questions that spring up from all this, but a couple of ugly answers, as well.
For example, it would appear that the questions about Jerry Wright’s influence on what kind of President that Obama would make, have come back to haunt us. Specifically, the question of how someone can sit through 20 years of liberation theology’s teachings and come out an American, dedicated to the western culture’s ideas and ideals, and freedoms implied by that distinction, appears to have been answered: They cannot.
I strongly advise reading the entire Post article.