Dinesh D'Souza Breaks the Code - What Obama Thinks

I hope everyone had a good weekend. I did, but I also found the transition from the remembrance of 9/11 to the start of the college football season to be rather clumsy. So many old feelings returned, as they did for all of us, that I felt somewhat awkward trying to enjoy an annual rite of fall. I also found that I couldn't write anything like I normally do on Friday. I'm sure both of you noticed.

Anyway, on to the week at hand. I ran across an article Forbes.com that helps complete the story I touched on recently concerning why Obama seems somewhat cool (to put it mildly) to the values that America was built upon. Notions such as individual responsibility, the idea of a small government that is responsive to the will and wishes of the people and a free market economy.

This story by Dinesh D'Souza, entitled How Obama Thinks is a gem. D'Souza is a native of Mumbai, India. He outlines the reasoning behind many of Obama's oddly anti-American policies and distills it into a single word - anti-colonialism. Barack Obama Sr. was a virulent anti-colonialist.

He know from whence he speaks when it comes to the subject,

I know a great deal about anticolonialism, because I am a native of Mumbai, India. I am part of the first Indian generation to be born after my country's independence from the British. Anticolonialism was the rallying cry of Third World politics for much of the second half of the 20th century. To most Americans, however, anticolonialism is an unfamiliar idea, so let me explain it.

Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama's acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, "The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races."

He goes on...

Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors. This dependence is called neocolonialism, a term defined by the African statesman Kwame Nkrumah (1909--72) in his book Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah, Ghana's first president, writes that poor countries may be nominally free, but they continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites. These forces of neocolonialism oppress not only Third World people but also citizens in their own countries. Obviously the solution is to resist and overthrow the oppressors. This was the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. and many in his generation, including many of my own relatives in India.

Anti-colonialism is a foreign term to Americans precisely because we have yet to colonize any country where we have shed our blood and spent our treasure. How strange it is to have the sins of Europe visited upon us, to accuse the US of doing something it has never done, nor even attempted. Pause for a moment to recall some of the lands where our sons and daughters fought and died: Afghanistan, Iraq, Viet Nam, Korea, France and ask yourself if they consider themselves to be American colonies. Their answer, and yours, would be a sounding "no."

Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?"

No rational person could argue against that last statement. However, for the Senior Obama, rationality doesn't fit inside radicalism.

As he put it, "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

Maybe it's just me, but that certainly sounds like Saul Alinsky speaking. And Bill Ayers, too. Also, communism is supposed to work "theoretically".

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned his father's article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.

Hmmm, funny, that.

It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.

For a great read and answers to the many questions that the country has concerning its' current direction under this, our most foreign president, read it all.