Obama Thumbs Nose at Thatcher's Funeral

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/17/obama-shameful-thatcher-snub/?intcmp=trending

Does anyone still think that there is a limit to Obama's spite?

Obama has always had an ax to grind against the UK, England specifically, but more on that later.

Margaret Thatcher will be remembered for pretty much everything that to which Obama is opposed. She rolled back much of the socialist structure of her nation, took unions that wrecked their own member's jobs to task, called Argentina's bluff and sent an expeditionary force to retake the Falklands*, stood firmly with the US against the Soviet Union, and - worst of all to a Leftist, she was not only a contemporary of but a partner of sorts with Ronald Reagan.

What the Left may detest most of all is our shared heritage with her nation. Leftist need to excise all memory or knowledge of the identities of  a nation and its people. Only by doing so can they hope to succeed in achieving their ultimate aim - Year Zero..

*(Note that Obama intentionally spoke of the Falklands by utilizing the name used by the Argentines for those islands, but the dolt could not even get that name right- at bottom)

Despite Obama's ideological, behavioral, and intellectual shortcomings, a reasonable person still would have expected the US to send a high-ranking individual to represent the US at her funeral.

The US under Obama is a nasty and resentful neighbor state. We are forced to be complicit in both shameful  acts and admissions; the consequences of  a man that will cling with desperation to a 19th century ideology that from the start was morally bankrupt as well as poorly conceived. If that was not enough, he also refuses to drop the clannish hatred for people that were responsible for things that happened a long time ago. He does not posses one single attribute that qualifies him to hold a seat on a municipal town council as even this requires that the office-holder puts aside personal feelings for the purpose of doing his job.

-From a previous post on the return of the Winston Churchill bust:

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2011/11/obama-and-return-of-winston-churchill.html

...........By February 15, 2009, the event had made it to the press. Obama was not interested in having Churchill’s representation in the Oval Office. His press team of course went through their gyrations to try to justify the return, which left Britain's diplomatic corps (no doubt pronounced as "corpse" by Obama as he did when speaking about a Navy Corpsman) embarrassed, probably hurt, and without words for a response. White House staff pretended to hold that since the bust had been a loan (often used in diplo-speak for gifts - did anyone really think that Britain ever wanted it back?) it had been G.W. Bush's responsibility to return it and that Obama was just getting his predecessor's work done. When that attempt fell flat, the media naturally gave Obama one their first of soon-to-be scores of free passes for nasty, jerky, or insufferably foolish moves or statements and promptly ignored the return and its effects in London.

Obama has not hidden the fact that he has an axe to grind against the civilization of the West. His father was a Kenyan. Apparently his grandfather was involved in the Mau Mau rebellion and subsequently captured and tortured by the colonial authorities - all this during the second Premiership of whom? - Winston Churchill! To paraphrase The British statesman while simultaneously putting words in Obama's mouth, "Having that bastard's bust in the Oval Office is something up with which I will not put".

The example of the American president in this case illustrates much of the utter abandonment of civility, honest-thinking, maturity, and basic common sense that we regularly see from the Left. Obama will not allow himself to admit that much of what the West accomplished was good for the world, that the fact that it was not perfect does not make it inherently bad, and most of all, that personal vendettas/past family sufferings simply have no place when you have an official position of authority.

Churchill was a bridge both between the old British Empire and the new and even more obviously, between all nations that have legal, cultural, and linguistic roots with his country. His four-volume "A History of the English Speaking Peoples" does a thorough and convincing job of arguing that so much links the US and the Commonwealth with the people and events of English/British history. His work leaves it plain and clear that the common foundations of these nations/peoples mandates cooperation and mutual assistance among and with each other. .........

Back to the return of the bust - The US and nations of the British Commonwealth have literally millions of people descended from the very people who suffered under misrule/malrule ofBritain, including myself. These people are nevertheless fortunate to be living in a society that has foundations based on English Law. All those who enjoy benefits derived from this situation *traditionally have opportunities and rights that far surpass those of other nations. Almost every part of our daily lives are affected by the minutiae of British history, right down to that of the native Britons, Roman Legionaries, Saxon conquerors, and those who followed.

When coupling the above fact with that of the responsibility of one in public office to dispense with personal grievances (at least while he is in office), the return of the Churchill bust is seen for its atrocious, detestable, sickening, and utterly boorish motivations. Obama's qualities are those of a peasant who is ruled by a clannish hatred. He is like a spoiled, stuck-up, crude, and vengeful child who won't allow himself to be governed or even mildly influenced by rules of civility or the ethics of his [sic?]country.

* Note that in recent decades much of those freedoms have been removed from the citizens of those countries. The most notable have been the right of the individual to own weapons (firearms) and the right to free speech. The former has been largely removed almost across the board (Britain, Australia, Canada, South Africa). The loss of the latter occurred mostly in Britain. Those who protest the splintering of the nations population into groups with a Dark Ages-type of application of different laws to different peoples are routinely accused of hate speech and charged with breaches of law.

* http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/04/obama-calls-falklands-malvinas-well-he.html

In demonstrations both of his staunch support for our British allies and his impeccable knowledge of geography, Obama referred to the Falkland Islands as the Malvinas.

Well, he didn't quite use the Argentine name for the Falklands. What he actually said was "Maldives". The Maldives are on the other side of the world. Now, I can hear the chorus of his supporters jumping in to defend the highly intelligent, high-IQ having, (Did I forget anything) President they admire like a 17 year-old High School girl may admire the Varsity Quarterback from her school. They will say “The Malvinas and Maldives are not that different in the way they are pronounced” or, "He was just trying to say it in manner that would be understood by the attendees of the Summit". Firstly, the names of the two different places are pronounced quite differently. Even if you are speaking in English, the Malvinas winds up being pronounced very closely to the manner in which it rolls off the Spanish-speaking Tongue - Mahl - veen-ahs. The Maldives are pronounced Mal- Deevs. Not even close. Thirdly, please do not pretend to be under the impression that educated people in Latin American are not aware of the British (And world’s) name for the islands. In addition to that, if he wanted the Spanish-speakers to understand, then maybe he should have taken a few practice swings with pronouncing the name.

As noted in the post which is linked below, Argentina has been back on the 'reclaim the Falklands/Malvinas wagon' for some time. Leftist President Cristiana Kirchner had tried to get the topic put on the agenda of the Cartagena Summit but failed in her efforts, in part due to the vetoes exercised by the US and Canada.....

Back to our Obamian move and the resulting gaffe, (They are related but not the same thing - other Obamian moves are still stupid but are not accidents), in short, the man is an embarrassment. I am not going to go into an historical discourse on the history of the political control of the Falklands; you can read it briefly on the post below or look it up elsewhere. The facts of the matter are these; Britain has controlled the Falklands, (Without any real military conquest) since before the US civil war, Argentina made no real issue about the islands until the early 80's, and the inhabitants are all English speakers and British by culture. Obama is fully aware that, by intending to go with the Argentine name, he is attempting to lend credibility to Argentina’s claim. Now, in truth, the last thing you want for your cause, if you desire that it have any credibility, is for Obama to speak in favor of it. A statement of support from Obama puts your cause, by association, in a junk pile with a whole lot of other foolish, false, or plainly wrong positions.......

I have tried to think of a US President whose lack of knowledge of the world, the US, or any other subject of which a head of State should be at least familiar, comes within a thousand miles as that of Obama. He does not know anything.

Not only does he insult our British allies by trying to use the Argentine name for the islands, he can't even do that right. The man, aside from a Leftist-controlled primary school curriculum devoid (Thanks to other Leftists) of any appreciable information and what he gleaned from his Law and Critical Race Theory classes in college, knows about as much of the world and its history as I do about the Hadron Particle Collider. Not only that, but he seems to be perfectly fine with this.