The BP Spill Further Reveals Barack Hussein Obama's Hatred of Britain

A lot of us here in America warned our brothers and our sisters before the 2008 election that first of all, we simply did not know enough about Barack Hussein Obama to elect him President and secondly, what we did know, was disturbing enough to make his election an absurd option. Well, our brothers and sisters didn't listen and now, we Americans, and almost as importantly, our allies like Britain, Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic and India are paying the price of the election of this man whose past is filled with a hatred of each and every one of those countries.

The BP oil spill has showcased Obama's hatred of Britain to such an extent that the President literally had to try and reassure BP and the Brits this week that he isn't holding a grudge. Well, that is lie #237 from the President of the United States since his inauguration.

Make no bones about this, folks ... Barack Hussein Obama detests Britain and its people.

Here's is some of the damage control that Obama tried to do with conversations with British government officials from the article at Times Online:

BARACK OBAMA yesterday told David Cameron that his aggressive stance towards BP over the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster was not motivated by anti-British prejudice.

The US president, whose grandfather was allegedly tortured by the British in colonial Kenya, has pointedly referred to the oil giant as “British Petroleum”, although it changed its name nine years ago. British politicians claimed he was exploiting BP’s origins to deflect attention from his failure to manage the crisis.

You see that? The Times Online is a British publication and you see how they worked into this article the blatant rumor that has been going around for ages that Barack Hussein Obama holds Britain responsible for atrocities committed by the Brits in Kenya.

Let's look at that more closely from an article written by a British journalist in the Wall Street Journal last year (entire article excerpted below):

Britain is the only European country President Barack Obama can really count on to respond positively to his plea for NATO to provide extra forces for Afghanistan. So why is it, then, that the Obama administration can barely conceal its disdain for a nation that, by its deeds, time and again proves itself to be America's staunchest and most reliable ally?

Before he became president it was said that Mr. Obama harbored a deep grudge against Britain for its colonialist past. It is alleged that his paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was tortured by the British during the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s, when it was controlled by Britain. In his autobiographical book "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama unflatteringly compares the British Empire to South Africa's apartheid regime and the former Soviet Union.
Soon after his inauguration, he sent back to the U.K. a bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had been loaned to President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks. The sculpture had enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office.

So, while Obama tries to lie his way through his own prejudices today, the past has once again reared its head and it simply is too clear and too evident that Obama simply hates the British. Let's just recap the indicators:

1. Barack Hussein Obama, in writing his book, compares Britain to the apartheid regime of South Africa and the Soviet Union.

2. Obama wastes no time in removing the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and shipping it back to the Brits.

3. Since the beginning of the BP oil spill, Obama constantly refers to BP as "British Petroleum" - that is not the name of the corporation.

4. Obama has ignored additional troop commitments by the British to the war in Afghanistan, making no mentions of British contributions.

5. And finally, Michelle Obama was used to signal to British Royalty that the Obama's have no respect for them - not only did Michelle Obama dress like a frump going out to the shopping mall for her meeting with the Queen of England, but she put her arm around the Queen which is an etiquette no-no ...this was all to show the Queen that the Obamas not only don't respect British royalty but abhor it.

What we are finally finding out about Barack Hussein Obama is this - in his early years, his exposure to socialistic and communistic revolution and theory, coupled with his perceptions of oppression of his half race, African, is what truly fuels this man's policy and perception of the world today. The white influences on Obama's life as a child were those of Marxist ideology who helped feed his hatred for America's capitalism and the black influences of his childhood substantiated that and also instilled in him a hatred of what happened to his ancestors in Kenya.

The end result is that American now has a President who, in his informative years, NEVER heard a good thing about America or western Europe. He was literally set up to be a modern Malcolm X - he was preened and manipulated to become a black nationalist revolutionary until the day that someone or some group, decided to change the course of his path - and sent him into the mainstream of politics. But the hate, the drive, the goal of this man has never left him and we are all having to deal with that being in the hands of the most powerful person in the world.

Obama Gives Britain the Cold Shoulder

Britain is the only European country President Barack Obama can really count on to respond positively to his plea for NATO to provide extra forces for Afghanistan. So why is it, then, that the Obama administration can barely conceal its disdain for a nation that, by its deeds, time and again proves itself to be America's staunchest and most reliable ally?

Shortly before Mr. Obama's Afghan policy speech at West Point earlier this month, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced Britain was sending another 500 troops to that beleaguered country, bringing the total number of British troops to around 10,000. Yet the president never mentioned Britain's support—even though, unlike most other European countries, British soldiers are prepared to undertake combat operations, and have incurred significant casualties in so doing.

While NATO officials trumpeted the fact that they had secured an additional 7,000 troops from a variety of NATO and other states to support Mr. Obama's surge strategy, there been only silence from France and Germany. For domestic political reasons, both French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are reluctant to increase their military contributions.

This makes Britain the most important European contributor to Mr. Obama's war against the Taliban, in which British soldiers are fighting alongside U.S. Marines in southern Afghanistan. Add to this the close and long-established intelligence-sharing operation that exists between the two countries, which has prevented a number of major terrorist atrocities, and it is easy to understand why the bond between America and Britain has long been the cornerstone of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

That is not how the Obama administration sees it.

Before he became president it was said that Mr. Obama harbored a deep grudge against Britain for its colonialist past. It is alleged that his paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was tortured by the British during the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s, when it was controlled by Britain. In his autobiographical book "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama unflatteringly compares the British Empire to South Africa's apartheid regime and the former Soviet Union.

Soon after his inauguration, he sent back to the U.K. a bust of Sir Winston Churchill that had been loaned to President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks. The sculpture had enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office.

There is also an important ideological reason that Britain's leading policy makers find themselves increasingly shunned by the U.S. Key foreign-policy advisers to Mr. Obama are keen advocates of a federal Europe, one in which the European Commission based in Brussels is the main center of power and influence, rather than the individual capitals, such as London, Paris and Berlin. In this context, Britain's dogged attachment to a "special relationship" with America is regarded as an embarrassing relic of a previous era.

Michèle Flournoy, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, is a leading supporter of an integrated European defense policy, which was anathema to the Bush administration because it would challenge the future of NATO. Philip H. Gordon, the State Department's assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, is another committed Europhile.

Before taking office Mr. Gordon wrote that America should "support the European project" and warned that Britain's historic resistance to closer European integration could seriously damage London's standing in Washington. "Fully in Europe, Britain has every chance to remain America's preferred and privileged partner," he said. "Marginalized from the EU [European Union], Britain could find itself less influential in Washington as well."

Yet in recent years, whenever the EU has been faced with a major international crisis, whether in the Balkans or the Middle East, the major European powers have tended to put their national interests first. This was graphically illustrated in Bosnia and during the build up to the Iraq war. And in Afghanistan, Europe divides between those who are prepared to fight, such as Britain, and those that are not, such as France and Germany.

For this reason alone, Mr. Obama and his advisers may regret their disregard for their most important battlefield ally in Afghanistan.