'Tis the Season for Treason

In a video, Bill Whittle explained the difference between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat'. The former describes an individual who actively fights against his nation because he/she opposes it based on ideology, principles, or some agenda. The latter describes an individual who changes sides because the enemy is winning. In the case of America's most notorious traitor - Benedict Arnold - one could argue that he was both. At one point, he fought courageously for the colonists but several things happened.

Arnold married the daughter of a British sympathizer, which seemed to open the door for his providing secrets to the enemy. It was the discovery of his subsequent dealings with a British Major named John Andre' that revealed Arnold's treasonous behavior, which included the weakening of West Point's defenses. There are some indications that he had a problem with aligning with the French as well as with those who opposed the Protestant religion, though this may have involved a bit of rationalization after it became clear who he was.

Check this out from Biography.com:

Arnold gained access to even more sensitive information when he assumed command of West Point, in August of 1780. He began systematically weakening the fort’s defenses, refusing to order necessary repairs and draining its supplies. At the same time, Arnold began transferring his assets from Connecticut to England.

Arnold and André met in person on September 21, to discuss the operation. Several days later, André was captured. Papers exposing the West Point siege plot were found and sent to George Washington, revealing Arnold’s role.

A short time later, after Arnold's mask had been removed and he was free to convey his bitterness, he wrote a letter to the colonists in 1780, which said in part:

In the firm persuasion, therefore, that the private judgement of an individual citizen of this country is as free from all conventional restraints, since as before the insidious offers of France, I preferred those from Great Britain; thinking it infinitely wiser and safer to cast my confidence upon her justice and generosity, than to trust a monarchy too feeble to establish your independency, so perilous to her distant dominions; the enemy of the Protestant faith, and fraudulently avowing an affection for the liberties of mankind, while she holds her native sons in vassalage and chains.

There it is right there. Arnold himself admitted he thought it was SAFER to align with the British. Did self-preservation trump righteousness? Perhaps that's where the truth lies. That excerpt indicates that he thought Great Britain was destined to win and the colonists couldn't achieve their desire to be free.

There is a distinct difference between what happened when Arnold's activities became known by the colonists and activities of politicians in the 21st century became known to Americans. That difference is that similar behavior seems to be met with apathy on the part of modern day colonists - the American citizens.

In this comparative metaphor, Arnold has multiple manifestations in the present day but because of the colonists' apathy - as well as the unwillingness of leading politicians who hold powerful positions - these 'Arnolds' have either been caught red-handed or have relationships with individuals on par with Andre'. Yet, unlike Arnold, individuals like Chris Christie, who has taken a man with distinct ties to Hamas as his friend; Hillary Clinton, whose close adviser has irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; Dick Durbin, who has ingratiated himself to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); John Brennan, who seemed quite comfortable while speaking to representatives from several Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups at New York University.

These are just a few of several examples but when Benedict Arnold learned that he had been exposed, he fled. Conversely, Christie is being considered as a presidential candidate in 2016, ditto Hillary Clinton. Durbin is still a senior U.S. Senator and Brennan is the president's nominee for CIA Director.

That is an indictment of Senators and Congressmen who know better and who think it's "SAFER" to avoid the battle.

Republican leadership today is more interested in ignoring these red flags. In fact, when one U.S. Congressmen - Michele Bachmann - made public her concerns about Abedin, the Speaker of the House - the most powerful Republican in office - suggested that Bachmann's questions were 'pretty dangerous'.

Why?

Consider French General Henri-Philippe Petain, who reached hero status after WWI. While in his 80's, France turned to him again when his nation ran out of options to fight the Nazis. What happened is a case study in the origins of why the term 'turncoat' was invented. Petain essentially did the Nazis bidding as a figurehead in WWII.

Via First World War:

In 1940, at the age of 83, he headed the Vichy government of France during the Second World War, from 11 July 1940 until 20 August 1944. Petain established a Fascist-oriented government that became notorious for its collaboration with the Third Reich. Ruling with German approval, Petain's government passed anti-Semitic laws, rounding up French, Spanish and Eastern European Jews for deportation to German concentration camps.

For his collaboration he was sentenced to death for treason following the war, on 15 August 1944, a sentence that was commuted to life imprisonment by Charles de Gaulle, who had served as a junior officer in Petain's regiment at Charleron in August 1914.

Petain didn't act as an arm of the Nazis because he agreed with them ideologically. He did so in the interest of self-preservation. To quote Benedict Arnold, Petain likely thought it was "SAFER" to aid Hitler's forces than it was to fight against them.

Is that where far too many leaders of the United States are today?

If so, God help us if they believe not confronting the likes of Clinton, Christie, Durbin, and Brennan is "SAFER" than the alternative because it isn't.

In fact, it's the most dangerous course and while there may be a distinction between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat' based on motive, there is little to no difference when it comes to where the actions of each leads.

Video: Classic Margaret Thatcher on her 87th Birthday

First up, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher shreds a socialist...



Second, her prescience in 1990 about the then future of the Euro only solidifies her legacy...

1959 Memo shows Great Britain and U.S. Feared Barack Obama Sr.'s Anti-Americanism

The policies of the Obama administration have been incredibly damaging to the country. High unemployment, defense cuts / disarmament, soaring debt and deficits, rising gas prices, stricter regulations, higher taxes, runaway spending, etc. The list goes on and on. Many have concluded that it's intentional. The debate has been raging about whether this is all the result of his intentions or his incompetence.

Well, depending on how much of his father's views he shared, we may have our answer in the form of a 1959 memo from a British diplomat, who expressed serious concerns about Barack Obama, Sr.

Via the Daily Mail:

Mr Obama Snr had grown up in Kenya under British rule and aroused the fears of both colonial officers and American officials when he won a chance to study in Hawaii. The officials felt Kenyan students were ‘academically inferior’ with a ‘bad reputation’ for turning anti-American.

A memo from a British diplomat in Washington to Whitehall – released today by the National Archives in West London – sets out their concerns about the young Kenyans.

Dated September 1, 1959, it says: ‘I have discussed with the State Department. They are as disturbed about these developments as we are. They point out that Kenya students have a bad reputation over here for falling into the wrong hands and for becoming both anti-American and anti-white.’

In one of the Foreign Office files, the future president’s father appears on a list of Kenyan students as ‘OBAMA, Barack H’ – they shared the same name.

At the age of 23, he enrolled at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu to study economics with classmates including Ann Dunham, a 17-year-old white American from Kansas. The couple had a short marriage that led to the birth in 1961 of the future president, Barack Obama II.

Mr Obama Snr was among 100 or so Kenyan students brought to America by the African American Students Foundation.

U.S. and British officials were deeply suspicious of this outfit, observing that the AASF – though backed by singer Harry Belafonte and actor Sidney Poitier – had links to a Kenyan nationalist leader.

‘The motives behind this enterprise, therefore, seem more political than educational,’ warned a letter from the British Embassy in Washington.

Dreams From My Father, indeed.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Video: Interview with Four UK Looters

Courtesy of Sky News in London, here is a short interview a reporter had with four of the UK looters. There is no remorse for stealing; there is not even a sense that they did anything wrong. Instead, they blame the government for taking care of the wealthy while not giving them a chance. Apparently, the 'chance' they are talking about is entitlements. This is exactly where the road of an entitlement culture leads. Entitlement programs are really the path of least resistance for any government. But, just like all paths of least resistance, they lead to something far more ominous later on.



For some reason, watching those looters with their entire faces covered reminded me of this.

AP Compares London Rioters to Tea Party, then Scrubs

London is burning thanks to leftist rioters who would rather destroy their country than attempt to prevent it from being destroyed. The reason? The government has run out of money and the misery is trickling down. These thugs are no different than sports fans who riot after their team loses. However, that's not the story here. The story is that the AP quoted a rioter that compared what he was doing to what the Tea Party in the US is doing. Apparently, someone over at the AP thought better of making such a leap and scrubbed that quote. Comparing the Tea Party to rioters in the UK is almost like blaming the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords on Sarah Palin, despite the shooter listing the communist manifesto as one of his favorite books.

Via GWP, here is the relevant excerpt of what the AP published initially:

In the Hackney area of east London, hundreds of youths attacked shops and set fire to cars, leaving a trail of burning trash and shattered glass. Looters ducked into a small convenience store as the blackened shells of two cars burned nearby, filling plastic shopping bags with alcohol, cigarettes, candy and toilet paper.

“This is the uprising of the working class. We’re redistributing the wealth,” said Bryn Phillips, a 28-year-old self-described anarchist, as young people emerged from the store with chocolate bars and ice cream cones.

Phillips claimed rioters were motivated by distrust of the police, and drew a link between the rage on London’s street and insurgent right-wing politics in the United States. “In America you have the tea party, in England you’ve got this,” he said.

Uh, this guy perfectly exemplifies the kind of people the Tea Party is standing up against. Perhaps that's why the AP pulled the quote from its report. Let's see, the 'uprising of the working class' is code for communism. The 'redistributing (of) wealth' is the epitome of European-style socialism the Tea Party is rejecting. It then becomes indicting of his group that it's stealing food. Oh, and he's also a self-described 'anarchist' (like Bill Ayers).

HERE is a link to the revised AP report.

Just to show another source that posted the original AP report, HERE you go.

Here is video of the rioting via American Glob. See if you can spot the Tea Party brethren:

Tony Blair Continues Down Road to Dhimmitude

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after his stint as Britain's leader, so why does he read the Qur'an every day? Is it to understand what fuels the hatred of our Islamic militant enemies? Uh, not so much. It's to make sure he remains 'faith-literate.' Blair's sister-in-law converted to Islam some time ago so the two now share something else in common. Can you imagine this admission coming out of the mouth of the likes of Sir Winston Churchill? No word in the Daily Mail article about how much time Blair spends reading the Catholic Bible.

Via the Daily Mail:

In an interview with the Observer magazine, published yesterday he said: ‘To be faith-literate is crucial in a globalised world, I believe.

‘I read the Qur’an [Koran] every day. Partly to understand some of the things happening in the world, but mainly just because it is immensely instructive.’

Mr Blair believes that a knowledge of the faith informs his current role as Middle East envoy for the Quartet of the United Nations, United States, European Union and Russia.

The former PM’s work, which has cost British taxpayers more than £2million, aims to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Mr Blair has previously praised the Muslim faith as ‘beautiful’ and said the Prophet Mohammed had been ‘an enormously civilizing force’.

In 2006 he said the Koran was a ‘reforming book, it is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance’.

But Mr Blair has also faced the devastation wreaked by violent jihadists who interpret the Koran as a call to arms.

Courageous leaders in western civilization are in short supply these days. When cowardice reaches the point of willfully selling out your country, there's usually another term applied to it.

h/t Weasel Zippers

Latest Ben Barrack Show Podcast Available

On my last show, Chrislam was skewered along with the 'Coexisties.' You know who they are; they're the wackos who drive around with those 'Coexist' bumper stickers. Among the Coexisties - otherwise known as 'Chrislamists' were former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Rick Warren, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Also on the docket today was the recent news that the Obama administration is not only supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt but it has since been learned that they have engaged Turkey to help with the transition.

Former Muslim terrorist Walid Shoebat has been warning about the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey for years. These latest developments lend increasingly more credibility to his claims. Be sure to download the show as I've included audio clips of Shoebat from as far back as 2006 when he appeared with Glenn Beck.

If you'd like to DOWNLOAD the show to your iPod or PC, RIGHT CLICK HERE and save. CLICK HERE to play in a separate window.

To download past shows, CLICK HERE.

AWESOME VIDEO: ANOTHER MEP SLAPS THE EU IN THE FACE

In March of 2009, Member of European Parliament (MEP) for Southeast England, Daniel Hannan caught the world's attention with his righteous slap of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in full view of his colleagues - and cameras. We can now add a man named Nigel Paul Farage to the list of MEP's not afraid to attack clueless supporters of the European Union. Watch him here, as he thoroughly dresses down EU leadership, leaving them all with deer-in-the-headlights looks on their faces.

Watch what happens when the truth is finally told with force and vigor.

Via Breitbart



Time to revisit Daneil Hannan's smack down of British PM Gordon Brown back in 2009.

VIDEO: IS BBC STARTING TO REPORT ON ISLAMIST PROBLEM?

While the contents of this news report certainly are striking, the fact that it appeared on the very liberal BBC network show known as 'Panorama' makes it all the more shocking. The BBC - if you can believe it - is actually more liberal than the American broadcast networks. 'Panorama' is a show very much like '60 Minutes' on CBS. In this report, the subject is Islamic schools in Britain and what they teach children. Typically, we've seen extremely kind and biased portrayals of such things in the past but not here.

The good news is that if the liberal media in Great Britain is waking up, perhaps the truth can finally be told. The bad news is that they may have waited too long to decide to report on it.

Here is Part 1:



Part 2:



For more on Panorama, click HERE.

h/t to Shoebat Foundation

VIDEO: GREAT BRITAIN'S DANIEL HANNAN ON CAVUTO

We all remember the three minute righteous rant that Daniel Hannan went on for all to see in March of 2009. He directed his ire at then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who couldn't have been more embarrassed if he had been paddled in his boxers at the time. Hannan has now written a book called, 'The New Road to Serfdom,' based on Friedrich Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom.' Hannan granted Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto an interview recently and continued making sense.

In a particularly interesting part of the exchange, Hannan referred to how the Tea Party is being demonized worldwide as extremist. He then rightfully states that the Tea Party is more moderate than the Democrat Party.



h/t to Freedom's Lighthouse

Just in case you'd like to reminisce, here is the now forever famous rant from 2009. Note the camera catches Gordon Brown for a brief moment looking shell-shocked. He probably would have preferred a literal paddling. It would have stung less.

BRITAIN'S NEW PRIME MINISTER PROVES HE'S CLUELESS

For those hoping that Britain's new Prime Minister, David Cameron would be an improvement over the leftwing incompetent Gordon Brown, one look at his behavior in Turkey will show he may actually be worse. Cameron is billed as a conservative but when it comes to understanding the Islamic threat to the west, he's clueless. Ironically, he's doing so by being an appeasement advocate, calling for Turkey to be allowed entry into the European Union. In so doing, he has alienated European nations who oppose that absurd notion by painting them as 'prejudiced'.

As a result, he epitomizes what Winston Churchill thought of appeasers:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Cameron is attempting to cozy up to a regime that has become all but Islamist while pointing the finger at neighboring western countries who oppose Turkey's entry into the EU.

Some westerners were hoping against hope that a "conservative" Cameron would usher in policies that reminded people of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. Quite the contrary, Cameron's speech in Turkey demonstrates his name doesn't belong in the same sentence as those two former leaders - sorry for doing it.

Here's an excerpt of Cameron's speech via Barry Rubin at Pajamas Media:

Turkey’s relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey’s relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.

Let me be clear. The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.

But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it’s Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.

That "attack" on the Gaza flotilla was anything but. Besides, that flotilla had the backing of Hamas, Hezbolla, the IHH, and the Free Gaza Movement, which is supported by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Cameron is placing himself on the side of the enemy with words like this.

As for Cameron's alienation of his neighbors - he doesn't just go to the front of the crocodile feeding line. He covers those neighbors in meat sauce before throwing them in the river by painting them as racists toward Islam:

The prejudiced. Those who willfully misunderstand Islam. They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the problem is Islam itself. And they think the values of Islam can just never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies, or cultures.

Again, one needs only to refer to the words of Churchill to refute Cameron, a man who would surely repulse Churchill (sorry, I did it again). In the words of Sir Winston in 1899:

"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. The effects are apparent in many countries. 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 - 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 proselytizing 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 civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Interestingly, at the time Churchill wrote these words in 1899, the Ottoman Empire was the center of the Islamic world and was based in what is today known as Turkey.

Read Rubin's entire piece.

Also, more at the Telegraph

OBAMA VS. CAMERON OVER BP

As Obama continues to flail like a president caught in an oil slick and as members of congress grandstand in front of BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward, the politicians need to be careful that the public doesn't begin to side with BP. However, the roadblocks to such a scenario seem to involve BP leadership. A couple of weeks ago, Hayward pleaded that he wanted to have his life back and now BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg says he's concerned about the "small people".

Watch as Svanberg refers to the "small people" three times after his meeting with the Obama administration. The only possible excuse for Svanberg honestly making this mistake is the argument that something is lost in the translation. He's from Sweden so I don't know if he said "small" and thought he was saying something like "citizens" but in any case it's a PR nightmare for BP.

Frankly, I find that argument hard to believe. This man has likely traveled the world over multiple times and is well versed in many different cultures. As head of BP, I'm almost tempted to wonder if this wasn't done intentionally. The potential reason for such a conscious blunder is as inexplicable as his doing it accidentally.

UPDATE: The more I think about this incident, the more inclined I am to believe that Svanberg simply misspoke and his intent was lost in the translation. That said, if BP would like to start being seen by the public as the lesser of two evils - with the government being the greater - it would be well served not to make these kinds of mistakes.



It should be interesting to see how Great Britain's new Prime Minister chooses to deal with this battle between Obama and BP. It's beginning to drastically impact the "small people" of Great Britain who are relying on pensions heavily invested in BP stock. David Cameron is beginning to challenge Obama's aggressive posturing with BP; we'll see how long it lasts and if he's got the stomach of Governors of different states in America. Governors like Jan Brewer in Arizona, Chris Christie in New Jersey, and Bobby Jindal in Louisiana.

Via the Telegraph

OBAMA'S ANTI-BRITISH BIAS?

One of the first things Obama's Administration did after the inauguration was return a bust of Winston Churchill that had been loaned to the White House after 9/11. Only a couple of months earlier - December of 2008 - the London Times reported that Obama's paternal grandfather was allegedly tortured by the British in Kenya. At the time, Kenya was a British colony.

Via the London Times:

Barack Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned and brutally tortured by the British during the violent struggle for Kenyan independence, according to the Kenyan family of the US President-elect.

Hussein Onyango Obama, Mr Obama’s paternal grandfather, became involved in the Kenyan independence movement while working as a cook for a British army officer after the war. 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.

The Times now has an article that references the allegation about Obama's grandfather. It can be inferred that many are wondering if Obama is demonstrating an anti-British bias in his dealings with BP that dates back to when his grandfather was imprisoned.

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.

Is this really all that much of a stretch? Not only has Barack Obama visibly demonstrated at best, a disdain for Great Britain by shipping that Churchill bust back to them, but he's currently in a situation where he appears to be looking for as many scapegoats as possible when it comes to this oil disaster. We may be getting to the truth about why Obama doesn't want to meet with BP Executive Tony Hayward.

Lastly, the very fact that both sides appear to be downplaying the notion that there is resentment toward Great Britain on the part of Obama quite likely could mean there is some.

h/t to Hot Air for the link.

VIDEO: MASK OF BRITISH PM SLIPS OFF

It would appear that British Primer Minister has been watching too much Mainstream Media coverage of the U.S. tea parties. While on the campaign trail, Brown was confronted by an elderly woman that would fit in quite nicely with the American Tea Party movement. She had legitimate concerns about her government's deficits and debt. She politely but assertively challenged Brown on a wide array of things.

In front of the cameras, Brown was cordial and congenial. Then, he called 65 year-old Gillian Duffy a "bigot", obviously thinking the microphones were turned off.

First up, click HERE to watch the actual interaction between Brown and Duffy.

Now, after watching that, check out Brown's reaction while appearing on a Radio 2 in Great Britain as he listens to the uncovered audio of him calling Duffy a "bigot". Click HERE for video.

More at the UK Sun here and here.

h/t to Drudge

VIDEO: BRITISH MUSLIM LOWERS BAR ON HIMSELF

I've posted about Anjem Choudary before. He's arguably Great Britain's most recognizable Muslim leader, which begs an important question. If Islam is a moderate religion, how come this man is its biggest representative in England? Watch and listen to this February 3rd interview as he outwardly says Great Britain should accept Shariah Law.

Note that Choudary also calls for the demolition of Nelson's Column, which is a monument of extreme national pride for the British - at least it used to be. The fact you have not heard of this interview as a direct result of the ripple effect from the outrage of British citizens is an indictment of those British citizens for not creating it.

Bald-Faced Sedition. Period.



h/t to MEMRI

VIDEO: BRIT PAT CONDELL SLAMS ISLAMIST ANJEM CHOUDARY

This righteous rant by Pat Condell against perhaps the most notorious British Islamist, Anjem Choudary, when compared to the 86 pages of dreck put out by the Department of Defense about the breakdown at Fort Hood makes the top military leaders in the free world look even more embarrassingly feckless.

The vacuum left by the cowardice in the DOD's report is filled by Condell. A good dose of the latter is the prescription for those feeling outraged by the former.



In case you'd like to see Anjem Choudary in action, here's a nice little snippet. My recommendation is that you watch Condell again after seeing this one.



HERE again is a link to the Ralph Peters column in which he excoriates the DOD report on Fort Hood.

h/t to SIOA

OBAMA HAS A LOCKERBIE PROBLEM

The London Daily Mail has revealed some disturbing allegations from the British government on what Obama knew about the release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. We may be face to face with an example of why Obama's tendency to distance himself from hard core decision making is possible as a legislator but far more difficult as an executive.

Here is the statement released by the White House on August 20th about Megrahi's release:

"The United States deeply regrets the decision by the Scottish Executive to release Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi. Megrahi was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which blew up over Scotland on December 21, 1988.

"As we have expressed repeatedly to officials of the government of the United Kingdom and to Scottish authorities, we continue to believe that Megrahi should serve out his sentence in Scotland. On this day, we extend our deepest sympathies to the families who live every day with the loss of their loved ones. We recognize the effects of such a loss weigh upon a family forever."

As you can see, that statement serves the distancing function but when you occupy a position where the buck is supposed to stop, there are usually other implications to consider.

Sure enough, the UK is speaking up about what they claim both Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew in the run up to Megrahi's release. The DAILY MAIL reports:

British officials claim Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return.

The officials say the Americans spoke out because they were taken aback by the row over Megrahi’s release, not because they did not know it was about to happen.

‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.

‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.

Disingenuous, huh? When will people start listening to us conservatives?

Not to bring up something only tangentially related but in light of this latest revelation, I wonder if more will be coming out about MICHAEL SAVAGE being banned from Britain. On more than one occasion, he has intimated his conerns that his banning may have connections with the United States government. If that is true, how much do you think the sitting UK government is going to sit back and take?

The Obama administration has slapped them in the face a few times, to include the returning of the WINSTON CHURCHILL BUST that had been loaned to the White House after 9/11.

h/t to AMERICAN THINKER