Divided Loyalties 

Custom Search


U. S. Constitution

Article II

Section 1

Clause 5




help fight the media




The fear of divided loyalties and "foreigners" were the reasons for Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution . . .
Presidential Eligibility:  Why It Matters
Monte Kuligowski says what we are seeing with the way journalists are treating "Birthers" and those who doubt the Obama narratives sort of resembles the medieval inquisitions.  The faithful have their articles of faith that all must accept.  To avoid the punishment of ridicule one must denounce his heretical beliefs and affirm the truth.  The inquisition question asked of Rep. Michelle Bachmann was succinctly framed by George Stephanopoulos: "Can you just state very clearly that President Obama is a Christian and he is a citizen of the United States?"

Rather than considering, much less investigating, why some may doubt Obama’s birth story and/or Christian faith, the press demands political purity from Obama’s subjects.  Our brave journalists refuse to look into the question of why the One who promised "unprecedented transparency" is guarding his basic records -- hospital, medical, school, college, travel, etc. -- with unprecedented secrecy.  Apparently it’s easier for so-called journalists to read from the same page and disparage the unbelievers.

When asked by David Gregory if he has a "responsibility" to "stand up to" the "ignorance" of those who doubt the Obama narratives, John Boehner responded: "It’s not my job to tell the American people what to think."  That response wasn’t good enough -- Gregory demanded uniform orthodoxy.

What’s fascinating about all of this is that even if the heretics were to suddenly fall in line, Obama would still have the same eligibility problem.  Somehow the news media have ill-advisedly come to focus on the question of Obama’s self-claimed "native born citizen" status even though the U.S. Constitution requires "natural born citizen" status for presidential eligibility.

Even if Obama were suddenly to become transparent and release records showing a Hawaii birth hospital and a physician of record, that would not clear up the eligibility question.  The well-kept secret is that the question of native birth is secondary to the question of whether an individual who was born a subject of Great Britain and a citizen of Kenya -- a fact Obama admits to -- is eligible to serve as president of the united States and Commander-inChief.

[ ... snip ... ]

The ultimate question is whether the Supreme Court would define the natural born clause as requiring an unbroken chain of allegiance to the United States.  That question remains unanswered because remarkably not one congressional or judicial hearing has been held on the substance of Obama’s constitutional eligibility.  The states would do well to define the clause in their eligibility codes; which would ensure judicial review.

The natural born clause is no triviality; it is a substantive requirement to prevent a person with subversive ambitions, if not a foreign ideology, from assuming the presidency.  Ironically, the situation of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is precisely what the founders wished to prevent.  We don’t have to wonder if Obama was influenced by his neo-Marxist, anti-colonialist Muslim father -- he has a book out titled, "Dreams From My Father."

Did Obama Sr. pass on a patriotic love of the United States and her federalism system of liberty to Junior?  Of course not -- dreams from an alien from a Third World country committed to redistributive justice were transmitted.  Sound familiar?

[ ... snip ... ]

Of the myriad statements and actions to choose from, from his treatment of our allies to Obama’s apologies overseas for the greatest country in the world, let’s look at just one example for now.
During his infamous Cairo speech, Obama made the following statement to his Muslim audience:

"I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Rather than having a president who fights for America’s standing in the world, we have a man who believes part of the responsibility of a U.S. president is to fight for Islam’s image.

Constitutional eligibility is not a technicality.  It really does matter.

Read the whole thing here . . .

Why The Founders Feared "Divided Loyalties"

March 7, 2010 -- Obama does it again.  The Telegraph (UK) is reporting that Barack Obama was "too tired" to give proper welcome to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Obama's offhand approach to Gordon Brown's Washington visit last week came about because he was facing exhaustion over America's economic crisis and is unable to focus on foreign affairs, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.
Remember the kick in the teeth Obama gave Britain over the Falklands in late February, 2010.  He had his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, fly to Buenos Aires to give American support to Argentine President Kirchner's call for international negotiations over the Falklands.  Amazing.  What was more amazing is that all we've heard out of Number 10 and the Foreign Office since then is that it doesn't mean anything.

Senior aides to Barack Obama
accompanied four Uighur prisoners as they were flown from Guantanamo Bay to the British colony of Bermuda, without the United Kingdom (UK) being informed, it was revealed In early June, 2009, angering the UK.

In an escalating diplomatic row over the transfer of the former terrorist suspects, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the transfer with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in what was said to be an uneasy conversation.  Privately Whitehall officials accused America of treating Britain, with whom it is supposed to have a "special relationship," with barely disguised contempt.

Remember, in February, in one of his first exchanges with the UK, Obama sent a bust of Winston Churchill back to Britain.  Then, in March, Prime Minister Gordon Brown faced humiliation after he was snubbed by Obama.  During Brown's visit, the Prime Minister brought several meaningful and valued items to give to Obama.  What he got in return was 25 CD's of classic movies, that were incompatible with the UK format.  Then, in April, Obama gifted Queen Elizabeth II with an iPod, a gift that was criticized by etiquette experts.

In June, Queen Elizabeth -- the only living head of state that participated in WW II -- was snubbed and not invited to the D-Day ceremonies, described as a "Franco-American" event.

In September, it emerged that Barack Obama had turned down no fewer than five requests from Downing Street to hold a bilateral meeting between Obama and Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, at the United Nations in New York or at the G20 summit starting in Pittsburgh on September, 24th.
Obama has not missed a single opportunity to insult the Brits, one of our greatest allies.
Bad Blood
The US State Department, Office of the Chief of Protocol, under the direction of Acting Chief of Protocol Laura B. Wills, is responsible for avoiding these gaffes.  Career bureaucrats, working out of the White House are in place to ensure insults such as these, don't occur.  So, they must be purposeful -- but why?

Obama's divided loyalties are at the bottom of his treatment of the UK and he harbors a deep and abiding hostility towards the Brits because of the treatment he believes his grandfather and father received during British colonial rule.

During Obama's first visit to Kenya in 1988, his grandmother Sarah told him about the resentment against white colonial rule in Kenya, with rallies and mounting violence that would explode into full-scale rebellion in 1952.  "Most of this activity centered on Kikuyuland," she told him.  "But the Luo, too, were oppressed. Men in our area began to join the Kikuyu"

"Granny Sarah" told Obama that Hussein Onyango Obama, Obama's paternal grandfather, became involved in the Kenyan independence movement while working as a cook for a British army officer after World War II.  He was arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years in a high-security prison where, according to his family, he was subjected to horrific violence to extract information about the growing insurgency.  Sarah, said that her husband had supplied information to the insurgents.  "His job as cook to a British army officer made him a useful informer for the secret oathing movement which would later form the Mau Mau rebellion," she said.  "At the time the insurgents were secretly taking oaths which included promises to kill white settlers and colonialists," Mrs. Onyango said.

"To arrest a Luo, WW II veteran, who was a senior figure in the community, is pretty serious.  They must have had some damn good evidence," said Professor David Anderson, director of the African Studies Centre at the University of Oxford, and an authority on the Mau Mau rebellion.

Obama refers briefly to his grandfather's imprisonment in his best-selling memoir, "Dreams...," but states that his grandfather was held only for "more than six months."  Obama described his grandfather's physical state: "When he returned to Alego he was very thin and dirty.  He had difficulty walking, and his head was full of lice."  For some time, he was too traumatized to speak about his experiences.

Barack Obama Sr., Onyango's son and Obama's father, seems to have inherited his father's attitudes towards the colonial power.  He was also arrested, for attending a meeting in Nairobi of the Kenya African National Union (KANU), the organization spearheading the independence movement.  Sarah told Obama that his father, unlike her husband, had been held only for a short time in the white man's prison: "Because he was not a leader in KANU, Barack [Sr.] was released after a few days."

Onyango may have been a victim of the fight for Kenyan independence, but his son became a direct beneficiary of that movement.  In 1959, Barack Obama Sr. was sent, on a scholarship, to the University of Hawaii.  Obama Sr. was selected by a former Kenyan cabinet minister, the late Tom Mboya, who was earmarked as the successor to Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya's first prime minister and leader of the terrorist Mau Mau.

It is clear that the Obama's were close to the leadership of the independence movement.  It is also clear that Obama's "divided loyalty" -- his anger at the white British colonists' treatment of his grandfather and father -- is behind all of these insults to America's greatest ally.

"Divided loyalties" was an issue during the Constitutional Convention because of the Founders fear of foreign influence and the possibility of incidents, such as the ones mentioned above.

In fact, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts wanted to take the issue so far as to stop foreigners from becoming citizens at all, claiming that the naturalized citizens would always have divided loyalties both to their home land and to America.  John Jay, Superintendent of Foreign Affairs (the predecessor of today's office of Secretary of State), claimed that it would be "wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Pierce Butler, an Irish-born delegate from South Carolina, developed an intense plan that would defeat all objections arising against earlier proposals for electing the president.  However, given the doubts concerning divided loyalties that Elbridge Gerry, John Jay, and others expressed, Butler's proposal also included what became Article II, Section I of the Constitution. 

It is evident that the Founders had a clear reason to fear conspiracy and divided loyalties, and it is evident that Obama, a Kenyan and British subject, at birth, has allowed his divided loyalties influence his judgment and behavior in regards to the UK.

This is personal and purposeful.

And don't even get me started on Obama's divided loyalties and Islam.
Obama’s Eligibility Problem
Judah Benjamin, an historian and former journalist, has written a two-part series challenging the Constitutionality of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President.  It is exhaustively researched, and lengthy compared to most blog entries.  However, I have left his story in tact with only minor edits because of its importance.

Although Judah Benjamin addresses the possibility that Obama was born in foreign territory, the article’s central thesis rests on the assumption that Obama was born in the United States.

Here is my 2-sentence bottom-line summation:

Barack Obama has been a citizen of multiple nations.  And even if his citizenship outside the US was renounced, Article II of the U.S. Constitution prohibits him from being President, for the same reason that naturalized citizens are prohibited: divided loyalties.

The article must be read in its entirety to be fully understood and appreciated.  It will be presented in two parts.  PART ONE is the author’s legal reasoning.  PART TWO is the factual basis for the author’s conclusion that Obama has held dual citizenship and is therefore ineligible to be POTUS.

[Please see the Author's End Note about his qualifications and request for professional review.]

Part One -- Part Two
Obama's Kenyan Roots A Threat
Patrick Mayoyo says Britain feared that the election of Barrack Obama as US president could hurt London’s relations with America because of the way Obama’s grandfather was treated by the British, according to leaked secret diplomatic documents.

Britain feared that its so-called "special relationship" with the US would come under strain because of Obama’s history, his relative youth, which gave him no historical experience with World War II or the US cold war alliance with London.

Britain was also worried about its colonial forces' treatment of Obama’s grandfather, Hussein, who was actually jailed before Kenya gained independence.

Britain’s worries were contained in a cable dated February 9, 2009, which was among more than a quarter of a million secret diplomatic documents leaked by the whistleblower website, WikiLeaks.

"The atmospherics surrounding the relationship with the United States are always under intense scrutiny in Britain, but UK media, pundits, and parliamentarians have openly worried over the last several months that the Obama administration might downplay relations with the (Gordon) Brown Government because of a 'perfect storm' of factors," the cable said.

Among them was the Brown Government’s support for Bush administration’s foreign policies and growing US frustration with UK military failings in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The cable notes that although this period of excessive UK speculation about the relationship is more paranoid than usual, "we agree with a senior MP who told us that ultimately, the people who really matter in all this, those who do the serious business, know that where it matters -- over defense, security issues, intelligence-sharing -- the relationship is deep, ongoing and abiding.

"For many UK pundits, a break in the special relationship will come because of Obama’s personal history.  Several commentators have explored Obama’s life story to see what it might mean for his approach to the UK.

"His relative youth (which gives him no historical experience of the WW II and Cold War alliance with London), his formative years in the Pacific rather than in Europe, and his Kenyan grandfather’s treatment at the hands of British colonial forces in Kenya (where he was imprisoned) have led many UK commentators to conclude Obama has no "natural" link to the UK, perhaps even an antipathy to the UK, and this will weaken US-UK ties," the cable indicates.

"The Times correspondent in Washington, summed up this view: "Mr. Obama ... has no personal experience of our shared World War II experiences and little of our Cold War alliance.

In his memoir, ‘Dreams from My Father,’ he described his trips to drink 'tea on the Thames' before flying away from a Europe that 'just wasn’t mine' to discuss his Kenya roots with British passengers who displayed arrogant attitudes to the 'Godforsaken countries of Africa'."

Continue reading here . . .
Why Barack Obama Doesn't Much Care For Britain
Daniel Hannan says let’s review the evidence.  Obama received from Gordon Brown a pen-holder made from the timbers of a Royal Navy anti-slavery vessel, and reciprocated with DVDs.  He silkily downgraded the UK from "our closest ally" to "one of our allies".  He gave the Queen an iPod full of his own speeches.  He used the Louisiana oil spill to attack an imaginary company called "British Petroleum" (it has been BP for the past decade, ever since the merger with Amoco gave it as many American as British shareholders).  He sent a bust of Winston Churchill back to the British Embassy.  He managed, on his visit to West Africa, to refer to the struggle for independence, but not to the Royal Navy’s campaign against slavery.  He has refused to acknowledge our presence in Afghanistan in any major speech.  He has even come dangerously close to backing Peronist Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands.  There’s no getting away from it: Barack Obama doesn’t much like Limeys.

What has he got against us?  The conventional answer is that he is bitter about the way his grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was interned during the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya.  But this explanation doesn’t fit with what Obama himself has written.  Barack never knew his grandfather, but what he later found out repelled him.  Despite his detention, Onyango remained something of an imperialist, believing that the British had earned their place in Kenya through superior organization.  He even used to argue that Africans were too lazy to make a success of independence.  The young Obama was horrified: "I had imagined him to be a man of his people, opposed to white rule," he wrote in Dreams from my Father.  "What Granny [Sarah Obama, one of Onyango's wives] had told me scrambled that image completely, causing ugly words to flash across my mind.  Uncle Tom.  Collaborator.  House nigger."

No, Obama’s antipathy comes not from the grandfather he disdained, but from the father he worshipped -- albeit from a distance.  Barack Obama Senior abandoned Obama’s mother, and had almost nothing to do with the young Barry (as he was known throughout his childhood and adolescence).  He did, however, make one journey to Hawaii that had an enormous impact on the ten-year-old. Barry, as boys sometimes do, had been telling tall tales about his absent father.  He had implied to his classmates that Barack Senior was a great chief, and that he would himself one day inherit the tribal leadership.  He was mortified when his class teacher asked his father to talk to the class, fearing that his fibs would be exposed.  His anxieties vanished as the handsome Kenyan strode into the room in African dress, and proceeded to give a talk which was the defining moment of Barry’s childhood:

He was leaning against Miss Hefty’s thick oak desk and describing the deep gash in the earth where mankind had first appeared.  He spoke of the wild animals that still roamed the plains, the tribes that still required a young boy to kill a lion to prove his manhood.  He spoke of the customs of the Luo, how elders received the utmost respect and made laws for all to follow under great-trunked trees.  And he told us of Kenya’s struggle to be free, how the British had wanted to stay and unjustly rule the people, just as they had in America; how many had been enslaved only because of the color of their skin, just as they had in America, but that Kenyans, like all of us in the room, longed to be free and develop themselves through hard work and sacrifice.

In The Roots of Obama's Rage, the American author Dinesh D’Souza advances the theory that Obama’s world-view is based on his father’s anti-colonialism.  The mistake that every other analyst has made, argues D’Souza, is to try to fit Obama into America’s racial narrative.  But the battle for civil rights is only tangentially a part of his story.  Indeed, he has infuriated many black political organizations by refusing to take up the issues that they care about, such as the minimum wage and affirmative action.  His struggle was not that against desegregation in Mississippi but that of Southern colonies against Northern colonists, of expropriated peoples against those who had plundered them.

Only this explanation fits all the facts, argues D’Souza.  For example, Obama’s climate change policies make little sense either as an attempt to slow global warming or as a way to make the US more popular.  But they make perfect sense as a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth from rich nations to poor.  (D’Souza notes, as an instance, the way in which the Obama administration has banned offshore drilling in the US while sponsoring it in Brazil).  The same is true of his enthusiasm for nuclear disarmament.  It seems bizarre to be pursuing the elimination of atomic weapons in a forum that doesn’t include Iran or North Korea.  But, argues D’Souza, this isn’t really about Iran or North Korea.  It’s about making America a less warlike, less intimidating, less -- in a word -- imperial nation.

Some will dismiss D’Souza as an angry conservative.  In fact, until now, he has said nothing critical about Obama.  He is obviously uncomfortable with shrill attacks on Obama that alienated so many people (including me) at the 2008 election ("he’s a Muslim, he’s a Marxist, he pals around with terrorists, where’s his birth certificate blah blah").  An Indian immigrant himself, D’Souza has no time for those who imply, however elliptically, that Obama is somehow un-American.  Nor does he believe that he is a socialist.  Indeed, as he shows in his book, socialism -- in the traditional sense of state control of the economy -- is a very inexact description of Obama’s strategy.  Obamanomics is far better understood as an attempt to redistribute wealth -- which, to the anti-colonialist mind, is simply an act of restitution.

Stated baldly, D’Souza’s thesis sounds improbable.  But he backs his assertions with a mass of evidence from the best possible source: Obama’s own words.  Think about the title of his book.  It’s not Dreams of my Father, but Dreams from my Father.  What were those dreams?  They were the dreams of a 1950s Kenyan trade union activist.  The rich got rich by taking from the poor, the imbalance of wealth in the world is the chief ill of our times, the system is rigged in favor of industrialized countries, etc.  These ideas, associated as they were with the father whom he idealized, became the template of the young Barry’s thinking.  They explain why, in early adulthood, he Africanized his name.  They explain, as no other theory does, his relationship with Jeremiah Wright.  American conservatives have focused on Wright’s loopier Afrocentric theories; but Obama plainly doesn’t share these views.  What observers tend to miss is the centrality of anti-colonialism to Wright’s sermons.  We have watched, over and over again, the passage about America’s chickens coming home to roost.  What is in many ways more representative is the passage that came immediately before:

We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Iroquois, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.   We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear.  Terrorism.  We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel; we bombed the black civilian community of Panama, with stealth bombers, and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard-working fathers.  We’ve bombed Gaddafi’s home and killed his child.  "Blessed are they who bash your children’s heads against the rocks."  We bombed Iraq; we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living.  We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back an attack on our embassy.  Killed hundreds of hard-working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day, not knowing that they would never get back home.  We’ve bombed Hiroshima, we’ve bombed Nagasaki, we’ve nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.  Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.  We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant.  Because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards.

Now anti-colonialism is not the same thing as anti-Americanism.  On the contrary, a measure of anti-colonialism was encoded in the DNA of the new republic, as Obama reminded his Inauguration Day audience ("In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river.  The capital was abandoned.  The enemy was advancing.  The snow was stained with blood…")  Although the US has had some minor colonial adventures -- Guam, the Philippines, Puerto Rico -- most Americans think of themselves, quite sincerely, as opponents of empire.  Obama does not, as his more hysterical critics allege, "hate America."  As he sees it, making America more peaceable, more internationalist and more engaged with global institutions is in the national interest.  He may be wrong, but I don’t doubt that, after his fashion, he loves his country.

Ours is a different matter.  Britain created the greatest and most extensive empire the world has known.  For Obama, Winston Churchill is not simply the man who defeated Nazism; he is also the man who defeated the Mau Mau insurrection.  No wonder he didn’t want to have the bust in his office.  For Obama, the Falkland Islands are not a democratic society threatened by an autocratic aggressor, but a colonial relic.

Of course, I might be wrong about all this.  Perhaps D’Souza’s interpretation is fanciful.  Perhaps Obama appreciates that we are the only country that can generally be relied on to deploy troops in serious numbers alongside our American allies.  If this is the case, it would be nice to hear him say so.

This is the reason the Founders required the Commander-in-Chief to be a "natural born" American citizen.  No foreign entanglements or loyalties.
Obama Snubs Britain (Again)
Obama told French leader Sarkozy that no country had closer ties with America than France.

Don Mackay says this shatters the idea that Britain still has a special relationship with the US.

Obama said: "We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy and the French people." (video)

The remarks will infuriate the thousands of British troops who have risked their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The UK has lost 349 troops in the war against the Taliban -- seven times as many as France.  There are more than 10,000 British soldiers serving in Helmand province, compared with just 3,850 from France.

Obama's remarks will be seen as an embarrassing rebuff to the UK's David Cameron because no US president in modern times has described France as America's closest ally.

And it comes after Sarkozy made a series of cutting remarks about Obama after he was elected in 2008.  The French President was recorded saying: "Obama has never run a ministry.

"There are a certain number of things on which he has no position." ... "And he is not always up to standard on decision-making and efficiency."

And at a D-Day memorial service, Sarkozy joked: "I'm going to ask him to walk on the Channel and he'll do it, you'll see."

Obama's remarks, made during Sarkozy's visit to the White House, will add fuel to the fire in British diplomatic circles that the American leader does not value the special relationship with the UK that was first mentioned by Winston Churchill in 1946.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer, a former commander of the Sherwood Foresters regiment, says he is fed up with Obama's attitude to Britain.

It also follows Gordon Brown's trip to the UN in New York in 2009 when he had several requests for a meeting with Obama turned down.

Some commentators say his attitude stems from the time when his grandad was jailed in Kenya in 1949.  Hussein Onyango Obama was imprisoned for two years and allegedly tortured for information on the movement trying to gain independence from Britain.
Obama Sells Out The British
The Telegraph (UK) is reporting that information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by Barack Obama.

Defense analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that Obama used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called "special relationship," which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today.

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the "New START" deal.
Obama Sides With Argentina, Hugo Chavez On Falklands
Ed Morrissey says the Obama administration sided with Argentina in demanding that the UK open negotiations over the status of the Falkland Islands, joining such stalwart American allies as Nicaragua and Venezuela.  The OAS declaration even uses the Argentinian name for the islands, a particular insult, as Nile Gardiner notes:

Obama was effusive in his praise for the Special Relationship when he visited London recently, but his administration continues to slap Britain in the face over the highly sensitive Falklands issue.  Washington signed on to a "draft declaration on the question of the Malvinas Islands "passed by unanimous consent by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) at its meeting in San Salvador yesterday, an issue which had been heavily pushed by Argentina.  In doing so, the United States sided not only with Buenos Aires, but also with a number of anti-American regimes including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua. …

Washington backed a similar resolution in June last year, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear in a joint press conference with Cristina Kirchner in Buenos Aires in March 2010 that the Obama administration fully backs Argentina’s calls for negotiations over the Falkands, handing her Argentine counterpart a significant propaganda coup.  The State Department has also insultingly referred to the Islands in the past as the Malvinas, the Argentine name for them.

As far as the British are concerned, there is no "sovereignty dispute."  According to the Falklanders themselves (from last year), there isn’t a dispute, either.  The 3,000-strong community is already proudly British -- the phone boxes are the old red ones, the groceries are from Waitrose and many still refer to the UK as "home".

So the people who live there want to remain part of the UK.  On what basis does the US intend to demand talks over sovereignty?  It can’t be self-determination, because if that were the case, there would be no question that the Falklands are British, and should stay British.  Nor can it be a question of colonialism, as the Falklands have their own home-rule government within the UK’s sovereignty, and the people of the islands consider themselves fully British.  Moreover, the OAS declaration comes in response to a threat of military action from Argentina, which has publicly talked about a blockade of British shipping in the region over sovereignty claims by Buenos Aires.

Gardiner says it is hugely disappointing that the Obama administration has chosen once again to side not only with the increasingly authoritarian regime in Argentina, but also with an array of despots in Latin America against British interests.  Mrs Clinton should be reminded that 255 brave British servicemen laid down their lives in 1982 for the freedom of the Falkland Islanders, who are overwhelmingly British, following the brutal Argentine invasion.

The sovereignty of the Islands is not a matter for negotiation, and Britain will never give in to threats from Argentina or its tyrannical allies in places such as Venezuela.  The White House recently declared that Britain remains America’s most important ally.  Now it should live up to its words by supporting Washington’s closest friend and partner on matters of vital British interest, including the future of British subjects living in the South Atlantic, whose only wish is to remain free under the protection of the Union Jack.

There seems to be no reason for the Obama administration to back a demand for negotiations over the Falklands, unless it’s just to curry favor with anti-American regimes by tossing our allies under the bus as appeasement.  It’s an absurd stance and an insult to the British, as well as to the actual people on the islands themselves.
Comments . . .

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2009 - 2011
All right reserved