bust of Winston Churchill

I thought President Barack Obama was supposed to bring in a new era of foreign policy; an era where everybody loves the U.S. of A., including all those “Axis Of Evil” countries???????

I looked at the bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein of Churchill and it does not come across that great. So I am putting this photo here instead.

« British Prime Minister Gordon Brown visits with U.S. President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, March 3, where the bust of Winston Churchill once resided.
(Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

Obama Sends Churchill Home

March 6, 2009 |

Some years ago, the British government gave a bust of Winston Churchill to the White House, and George W. Bush featured it directly in the Oval Office. It symbolized the special relationship between Britain and the United States that has lasted for decades.

Recently, President Obama decided to return Churchill to his home country.

As radical as the changes being proposed by the new American administration are, one of the most radical in the foreign-policy realm is its imminent redefinition of the historic British-American relationship. As Ron Fraser explainsTrumpet print edition, in the newest

The coming of the Obama administration has mortally wounded the natural symbiosis of diplomacy between Britain and America. This is a radical departure from the 200 years of mutual support and cooperation between the U.S. and Britain, particularly in matters of defense and security. The Blair-Bush years were the swan song for that strongest of natural, yet unwritten, alliances.

Last Saturday’s Telegraph reports on the same theme in its article “Will Barack Obama End Britain’s Special Relationship with America?”

In the marbled halls of the British ambassador’s residence in Washington … a quiet fear is calcifying. Hints from the White House machine suggest that the Age of Obama means a dramatic makeover not just for America, but for that old symbol of Anglo-American fealty, the special relationship. … [W]ord is spreading through political Washington that the new president wants to shake up the way the U.S. government relates to its allies, which will leave little space for the sentiment of old ties.

Two weeks ago, when the White House announced British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s visit this week, spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “The United States and the United Kingdom share a special partnership.” The Telegraph says,

Those familiar with the thinking of Mr. Obama’s top team say that use of the word “partnership” rather than “relationship” is an important distinction—it illuminates Mr. Obama’s belief in practical measures that work, not the old way of doing things.

A Washington official who is close to several members of Mr. Obama’s inner circle said: “They craft every word for the stone tablets. Words are what they do. It is not a mistake.

“A partnership is a business arrangement based on what you can do for Obama, not a relationship like a marriage that thrives through thick and thin until death do us part. He’ll judge the specialness of a partnership with Britain on what he gets out of it.” … [I]nsiders say he will be ruthless in cutting adrift countries who do not cooperate with his global agenda, whatever their historic relationships.

A British official said: “I don’t think Obama is steeped in the tradition of the special relationship going back to Churchill and Roosevelt. Of course someone of his generation is going to look at it differently. I think what he looks at are the assets that are brought to the table and the expertise you have. This is a definite change of emphasis.”

In the six decades since … Winston Churchill first coined the phrase “special relationship,” successive American presidents have paid ritual obeisance to the notion that Britain should assume a place at the White House top table.

Now even allies of Mr. Obama believe he intends to extract a higher price for access to the corridors of his power.

Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation think tank, who has links with the higher echelons of the Obama administration, said that Britain would be expected to make sacrifices in return for influence.

Mr. Obama’s approach was “all about putting a price on access and a price on the relationship,” he said. “I think Obama does believe that this is a time of historical change. He wants to push reset on a lot of things. He thinks old patterns, old framings can get you into trouble, particularly when you’re trying to encourage different parts of the world.” …

The conventional wisdom, which Mr. Obama has done little to dispel, is that he is less anglophile than his predecessors. He hailed the resilience of America’s Founding Fathers against the British “enemy” in his inauguration speech and devoted 35 pages of his memoir, Dreams From My Father, to his grandfather’s torture under British colonial rule during Kenya’s Mau Mau rebellion.

The British-U.S. relationship can only be fully understood when viewed in its true historical context, explained in rich detail in Herbert W. Armstrong’s book The United States and Britain in Prophecy. And as much as President Obama would like to push reset on these ties, biblical prophecy shows that America’s fate is inextricably linked with that of Britain. The weakening of the relationship will only weaken both countries and make them more vulnerable to being trampled by ascendant powers. Read about the stunning prophecy of their simultaneous fall in our article “Band of Brothers.”