Barack Obama

Dinesh D'Souza Is the Right's Michael Moore

2016 is the mirror image of Fahrenheit 9/11.

|

I lost an hour and a half of my life Sunday at a matinee showing of the sleeper-hit documentary 2016: Obama's America. But I kept the stub for tax purposes, and you get to read this column. With luck, we'll both end up just slightly worse off for the experience.

2016 grew out of conservative provocateur Dinesh D'Souza's 2010 Forbes article, "How Obama Thinks," which posited that dreams from the president's Kenyan absentee father motivate everything Obama Jr. does.

"It may seem incredible," D'Souza wrote, "to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States."

True enough: That theory wasn't remotely credible when D'Souza advanced it in Forbes, and it's even more ludicrous on the silver screen.

D'Souza, 2016's narrator, stresses his commonalities with the president: born the same year, both with third-world parentage, both steeped in an anticolonial tradition. "I get it," D'Souza assures us, which is why he alone has the secret decoder ring that can explain Obama's positions on the war on terror, Israel, the Falkland Islands and much else besides.

Putting aside D'Souza's distortions of those positions, it's a bit odd to hang a charge of anti-Americanism on insufficiently passionate attachment to Israel and British jurisdiction over the Falklands.

Odder still is D'Souza's claim that Obama wanted to close Gitmo because "he sees [jihadis] as freedom fighters." If so, you have to wonder why Obama keeps killing his "freedom fighters" with remote-controlled robot assassins.

Incredibly, D'Souza cites Obama's decision to attack a North African country, Libya, as evidence of an Afrocentric, anticolonialist worldview—Obama should have attacked Iran and Syria, too, D'Souza suggests. But he never mentions the president's construction of new drone and spy-plane bases, and our expanding troop presence throughout Africa. Kenyan anticolonialism ain't exactly what it used to be.

When D'Souza turns to the home front, 2016 gets less credible still. He makes much of a 1965 journal article by Barack Sr., "Problems Facing Our Socialism." In it, the Dreamfather suggested that a 100 percent income tax would be permissible if it benefited the people.

"Is this what Obama means by 'paying our fair share?' " D'Souza asks.

Obviously not. Whatever Obama Sr.'s difficulty grasping the Laffer curve (somebody should have drawn it on a bar napkin for him), Junior's position is the same as his 2008 Democratic rivals': Let the Bush tax cuts expire for top earners, and go back to Clinton-era rates. A lousy idea, but hardly "Our Socialism," or anybody else's.

"Then there was the health care bill" D'Souza segues. But who needs a decoder ring to explain why, like every Democratic president of the post-WWII era save Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama pushed for universal health insurance? Does "anticolonialism" explain Obama's embrace of a plan cooked up in a conservative think tank and first implemented by his 2012 Republican opponent?

The whole cinematic mess is the mirror image of Left-wing fascination with Skull and Bones, Haliburton and George W. Bush's alleged Oedipal complex as explanations for the Iraq War. At least Michael Moore's crackpot documentaries provide a few impish laughs. In 2016, all the yuks are unintentional.

At one point, we look over D'Souza's shoulder while he Googles the president's half-brother, "George Obama." The shot reveals the classic facemorph picture of "George W. Obama" on the top line "image" results.

It's a revealing moment. Despite their disparate backgrounds, both presidents backed expanded executive power over the economy, in surveillance and in wars abroad.

We don't need psychobiography to explain why presidents continually seek to expand their own power over the people. It's in their nature, as the scorpion explained to the frog.

This column originally appeared in the Washington Examiner. 

NEXT: Olympics Hurt Retail Performance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Obama is a Chicago hack politician. Everything he has done can be explained by that fact. In Chicago you steal as much as possible from the public till and use it to reward your supporters and fuck your opponents. When you look at Obama from that light, everything he has done makes sense.

    1. In this vein, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity…or venality. Our president is a political hack.

      1. We’ve seen this before, and we’ll see it again. What makes this instance worse than usual is that our economy is in the doldrums, and the corrupt government reacts by burning the masts, the sails, and the hull.

        1. All political scum steal anything that isn’t nailed down, ProL, and if they have to burn the place down to get away, they will.

        2. What also makes it harder to stomach is the wide-eyed insistence by the MSM and other Obama supporters that he is some kind of a saint with only the noblest of motives. And their belief that he is completely different than Bush and Romney.

      2. For the most part yes. Occasionally you really do get a fanatic. But they are rare and then they have to be competent to accomplish anything.

        I would not be surprised if Obama really does want to transform the country in some nefarious way. But he is too incompetent to accomplish much since the one political skill he learned coming up in Chicago is how to steal.

        1. You don’t have a single substantive thing to say. Just invective sprinkled with lazy FOX News buzzwords.

          1. I stand in awe and wonderment at this comment.

            1. Oh come on, that’s clearly a spoof. The timing, the lack of self-awareness..

              1. Regardless, it’s as if Sockpuppet Tony’s entire existence was designed for this one comment.

              2. Self-awareness is when supposedly nonpartisan libertarians, without fail, rush to defend Republicans and FOX News?

                1. Self-awareness is when supposedly nonpartisan libertarians, without fail, rush to defend Republicans and FOX News?

                  Where did this happen?

                  All I saw was us marveling at your astonishing comment. It really was a work of art, getting to this point.

                2. And with the 12:48 comment, Tony hits for the cycle in lack of self awareness.

                  1. may the circle be unbroken! Hallelujah!

                3. The only person who has brought up Fox or Republicans is you.

                  1. How else do you describe such phrases as “Chicago-style politics,” which mean nothing and serve only as thinly veiled code words for the sort of people who watch FOX News?

                    I am making a substantive point: John is a Republican hack who thinks in Drudge headlines instead of thoughts, and rarely gets called on it by the libertarians.

                    1. Tony,

                      This just in, but Obama is from Chicago. Maybe you missed that. But it was in a lot of the papers. I think he was actually a Senator from Illinois too.

                    2. Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot.

                    3. I had no idea that Fox News existed during the term of Mayor Daley.

                    4. And yes Tony, the stimulus, heath care, the bailouts, everything Obama has accomplished has done one thing, reward his supporters at everyone else’s expense.

                      His background in Chicago and its single party state politics explains pretty much everything he has done including his failures. In Chicago you can tell the voters and your opponents “fuck you that is why”. In Washington, not so much.

                    5. John Tony is a Republican Democrat hack who thinks in Drudge ThinkProgress headlines instead of thoughts

                      FIFY.

                      rarely gets called on it by the libertarians.

                      People get in screaming matches with John just about every day. Would you like to look at the 5,000+ comments across all Paul Ryan threads?

                      I swear you get lazier every minute. One day you’re going to Miranda-out and just lay down and die.

                    6. Dudes, it’s a sockpuppet. The most pain you can cause it is ignoring it, not arguing with it. IGNORE IT. It hates that.

                    7. And you know the funniest thing about that Randian? The thing that I am most hated for on here and have the longest screaming matches over and have caused the most hard feelings, if my defending of the legality Obama’s drone program in Pakistan. But I am a mindless Republican hack who is never called on anything on here.

                    8. Don’t go overboard, John – your bones are RED whether you believe it or not.

                    9. Sure they are Randian. That is why I stopped defending the war and thought it had become a fierce moral imperative to end it once Obama took office.

                      It is just fucking unbelievable what a peacenik I became. That God Damned Obama.

                    10. That is why I stopped defending the war and thought it had become a fierce moral imperative to end it once Obama took office.

                      What TEAM RED member has called for an end to the wars?

                    11. What TEAM RED member has called for an end to the wars?

                      Clint Eastwood did last week as I recall. Regardless, the point of slandering me with the “team red” bullshit is to imply that I don’t have consistent views and only support what helps Republicans rather than what I believe.

                      And that is simply horseshit. My views on here are very consistent and often cut against Republicans or for Democrats. You just don’t like those views. To which I say tough shit come up with an argument to persuade me otherwise. I really don’t care whether you like them or not.

                      But I do find it deeply offensive to imply that I have them for some political agenda rather than I actually believe them and have them because I thought about the issue and came to that conclusion. That is insulting and causes me to tell you or anyone who says it to go fuck themselves and remark on how the accusation just indicates you have nothing of substance to say. If I were a more charitable person I would feel sorry for you for not being able to come up with a real argument. But I am not that charitable and instead tell you to go fuck yourself.

                    12. Did that hit a little close to home there John?

                      Tell me how much Romney/Ryan loves me again. I need to hear it.

                    13. I don’t care if you think I am wrong Randian. But fuck you if you think that you can get away with attacking my integrity.

                      Why don’t you just go get a link where I have ever told you about how Romney love you. You won’t find one. You just lie and pretend there is one because you don’t have any arguments and it makes it easier for you to deal with that fact by pretending everyone who disagrees with you has no integrity. That assumption alleviates you of the need to make an argument or face the possibility that you might be wrong about something.

                      So once again, go fuck yourself and when you are done have try to have a serious thought and come up with something interesting to say once in a while rather than “Team REd” whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.

                    14. Paul Ryan loves me/This I know/For the Bible/Tells me so

                    15. No “Team Red” member likes anything that Obama does with foreign policy, especially his reflexive support of every revolution without concern for who is behind it or what might happen because of it.

                    16. John you have been known to defend things on their merits from time to time. You’d probably have quite a bit less mush sloshing around in your skull if you’d just stop taking Matt Drudge’s farts for gospel.

                      Propaganda has ruined better minds than yours. The interesting question is whether a mind soaked in propaganda can be brought back to a state of critical thinking.

                    17. “Propaganda has ruined better minds than yours.”

                      HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

                      Coming from TonY fucking awesome.

                    18. serve only as thinly veiled code words for the sort of people who watch FOX News?

                      Straight out of the mouth of Chris Matthews. Would this be an example of a person who thinks in headlines?

                    19. T o n y| 9.4.12 @ 12:58PM |#
                      “How else do you describe such phrases as “Chicago-style politics,””

                      Shithead, if you think it takes FOX news to define that, you’re dumber than dirt.

                    20. How else do you describe such phrases as “Chicago-style politics,” which mean nothing

                      Clearly you’ve never seen the Untouchables.

                    21. Tony, you’re priceless. I wonder how old you are.

                      I’ve been hearing about “Chicago style-politics” for a long, long time – way before Fox came around. Effen libs. Everytime they read something they don’t agree with they just throw out the “stop reading Fox” garbage.

                      Yet, it’s liberal places that have been held with the bag of vomit caught red handed – Please see NYT and Dan Rather.

                4. Self-awareness is when supposedly nonpartisan libertarians, without fail, rush to defend Republicans and FOX News?

                  Ummm, take a look at the article above Tony…

                  1. I thought the article was fine; I just took issue with its title, which has nothing to do with the article.

                    1. But it is true. They serve the same function on both sides of the political spectrum; spewing partisan propaganda at the masses.

                      I don’t see how any amount of Oscars won by Moore invalidates that.

                    2. Because Moore is sainted and holy and always tells the truth and D’Souza is just a redneck, tractor-pull watching, Walmart shopping, Rethuglican. Or something.

                      You know what’s sad is compared to some of the other retards that post here sockpuppet Tony looks like a Mensa level genius.

    2. Pretty much

  2. Nobody expects the Goan Inquisition .

  3. I disagree. Moore at least makes an attempt to affect an “aw shucks, I’m just a working-class slob” persona. D’Souza, the avatar of Cultural Cringe made manifest in flesh, has always taken himself too seriously. D’Souza has more in common with the grimly conspiratorial 9/11 Truther crowd than Michael Moore.

    1. Does it matter whether they’re scum on the left side or scum on the right?

      1. “Obama is scum on the right side. All of his people are scum on the right side.”

        Is that racist?

        1. No, because his opponents are scum on the other side. It’s all scum, really.

    2. Moore without a doubt has a niche that works perfect for useful idiots.

      His crap about Cuba is knee-slapping stuff for us who travel but to lefards it’s “documentary” work for their side.

    3. D’Souza has more in common with the grimly conspiratorial 9/11 Truther crowd than Michael Moore.

      Since when is Michael Moore not a part of the grimly conspiratorial 9/11 Truther crowd?

  4. So you’re saying DD’S is a fat, white retard from Michigan?

    That’s racist, straight up.

    1. And othering to retards.

  5. Too late for the morning links and too early for the afternoon links.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon…..rent_.html

    Matthew Yglesias explains how destroying the economy in January will give Obama a leg up in negotiations with the incoming house and senate in 2013.

    1. If you read Yglesias long enough, at some point you just are happy to see some one with the mental handicaps and disabilities he has (probably an alphabet soup of Asbergers, mild to sever retardation, and something on the autism scale) have a job and live on their own.

      1. Every now and then, he’ll focus on some small problem that has no political implications and what he writes can be somewhat interesting. But any time he goes for big topics relevant to the big problems facing the US, he writes complete crap.

    2. Heh. “Obama’s totally going to cave on another one of our principles if he gets re-elected. Now we have to hope he’s a high priced whore.”

    3. According to the link: “Matthew Yglesias is Slate’s business and economics correspondent.”

      So the guy with a bachelor’s in philosophy and no business experience of any kind is Slate’s business and economics correspondent. Makes sense to me!

      1. Qualifying himself in the real-world would have disqualified him from the Slate gig. Its a Catch-22 position.

  6. “Problems Facing Our Socialism.”

    A link would have been nice. I enjoy turgid socialist prose.

      1. Yours, on the other hand, is tumescent.

        1. I prefer the medical term “raging boner.”

          1. Uh…priapism?

            1. The condition one gets from driving a Prius?

              1. I thought that was a “smugrection.”

                1. I accede to your superior knowledge of gentalia-related vocabulary.

    1. Here ya go:

      http://www.politico.com/static…..frica.html

      If that doesn’t work off this page, there is a link embedded here:

      http://www.politico.com/news/s…../9610.html

    2. Gah! These clowns were always so earnest.

  7. At this point, does it really matter as to Obama’s motives? Isn’t the fact that you can fill dozens of pages with facts as to just how bad of a president Barack Obama has been enough to justify tossing the bastard out on his ear?

    1. You are right – although the malice versus incompetence debate will rage on at least until Obama is gone.

      I think it fairly obvious he inherited a good dose of anti-western, far-leftist sensibilities from both parents and his grandparents.

      1. He’s got the typical disposition of a wide-eyed college freshman who never read anything of substance during high school and is positively blown away at the profundity of the gender feminist grad student teaching “Political Philosophy 101”. Except that unlike most college freshmen, he never turned into a cynical college senior venturing out into the real world and marveled at his own naive stupidity as a wide-eyed freshman. He stayed within the circle jerk of academia and then nonprofit left wing activism, so he never had any opportunity to wise up. That more than anything seems to be what shaped his world view.

  8. Dinesh D’Souza Is the Right’s Michael Moore

    Meh. The “left” has the actual Michael Moore, so why not have a “Michael Moore” of the right? If nothing else it’s good for lulz. Especially watching the left get apoplectic over seeing someone try the same old propaganda tricks that they’ve been up to for quite some time now. Now if only more would realize that whether they watch this , Michael Moore propaganda, or 24/7 news networks they’re being lied to.

    1. Howard Dean, then the chairman of the Democratic Party said on national TV that 9-11 trutherism was a serious line of thought. I think the Right can be forgiven for having D’Souza.

      1. There is some debate over that charge. I’m not a Dean backer or a truther. But every now and then I teach a class on conspiracy theory and I also wrote a brief essay on the idea. As part of that, I went looking for this Dean quote. I think there is a solid case to be made that Dean was citing the growing truther movement as a reason to have a full enquiry into 9/11 as a means to dispel the conspiracy thinking.

        I don’t think inquiries dispel much (see, e.g. the Warren Commission) but that was his argument.

        1. He clearly didn’t say they were right. But he said he considered it a serious if flawed position.

  9. Not that this article makes the case presented in its title and subtitle, but D’Souza isn’t winning an Oscar or Palme D’Or any time soon, and it’s not because the film community is a bunch of biased leftists (much as that may be the case).

    It’s like saying Krugman and Coulter are equivalent, or Obama and Bush. Lazy equivalences that serve as both self-congratulations and intellectual affirmative action for the Right.

    1. Would you say you have gotten lazy or downright lethargic?

      1. It is tough times for Tony. Defending the indefensible is really hard. I think even he is starting to doubt the talking points his handlers give him. Lately he has been increasingly demoralized and seems to be just mailing it in.

        1. Defending the indefensible is really hard.

          Are you talking about Mitt Romney or the Republican policy platform?

          1. needs more panache! more snappy comeback with a dose of insulting rhetoric.

      2. Tony loves to smell his own farts.

    2. You’re absolutely right. It is lazy to compare a Phi Beta Kappa scholar and current college president to Michael Moore, a college dropout and failed journalist.

      1. That’s just an Evangelical school. And I was Phi Beta Kappa too. The relevant comparison is skill at being a documentary filmmaker. One is clearly superior, being interested in something more than half-witted rightwing propaganda.

        1. OK, since when is “T o n y” a sockpuppet?

          1. He’s always at least been a caricature. His old e-mail is a pretentious reference to James Joyce, fer cryin’ out loud.

            1. If you see kay
              Tell him he may
              See you in tea
              Tell him from me.

          2. That’s not Tony of old. Tony has been gone for at least a couple of years. He left the same time as Chad. This is someone sockpuppeting under the Tony brandname. That he or she uses “Tony” was always supposed to be part of the joke, like coming out with a like of facial tissue called TardWipes–you aren’t supposed to take a name like that seriously.

            Go back and read old threads. Tony used to be barely more coherent than o3.

            1. Pre-registration Tony was about 2/3 spoofs. I admit the plausible deniability was useful for off days.

        2. T o n y| 9.4.12 @ 1:02PM |#
          “And I was Phi Beta Kappa too.”

          Got lucky in a Cracker Jack box, did you shithead?

        3. Michael Moore is a documentary filmmaker?

          I’ve seen Roger and Me, it’s no more a documentary than Canadian Bacon is.

          1. It’s a documentary in the sense that Moore is presenting us with his partial autobiography My Life as a Douchebag.

            1. Seeing Roger and Me was enough to ensure I would never see another Michael Moore “documentary” just as Canadian Bacon was enough to put me off Michael Moore “comedies”.

        4. When did Bluto take over Phi Beta Kappa?

        5. When did Bluto take PBK over?

    3. You’d complain if they hanged you with a silk rope.

    4. That Michael Moore has won an Oscar for doing nothing more than harassing doormen and taking people’s quotes out of context doesn’t bode well for the prestige of the award.

      1. Sort of like a certain Swedish prize?

    5. Obama and Bush are equivalent, a point championed by Michael Lind at Salon as a counterpoint to the Tea Party:

      Today’s center, shared by Clinton and Obama with Reagan and the Bushes, would become the new center-right…Better yet, if the public tired of Tea Party conservatism, the far right could implode and the new “far right” would be moderate economic conservatism of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Obama variety.

      Reason link. Not surprisingly, you skipped over the Reagan = Bush = Obama = blood-for-oil that Lind touted as a virtue.

    6. MY DAD CAN BEAT UP YOUR DAD!

  10. “Junior’s position is the same as his 2008 Democratic rivals’: Let the Bush tax cuts expire for top earners, and go back to Clinton-era rates. A lousy idea, but hardly “Our Socialism,” or anybody else’s.”

    Hmmmm. Under Clinton, unemployment dropped to record lows and the budget surplus (yes, surplus) rose to record highs. We should have more such “lousy” ideas. Otherwise, nice column.

    1. Under Clinton, unemployment dropped to record lows and the budget surplus (yes, surplus) rose to record highs. We should have more such “lousy” ideas.

      Alan, do you have any evidence that the tax rates were responsible for either of these things?

      I get this little smile on my face every time you comment, because you’re so stupid that it’s kind of cute at this point.

      1. Alan comes in, drops his pants and lays some douchy comment on the floor and then runs. He doesn’t even stay around to clean it up or defend it.

        Why the Reason staff love him so much is beyond me. I think he has compromising pictures or something.

        1. “Sherlock Holmes and The Mystery of the Orange Line Deuce”

    2. You mean Clinton and a GOP Congress. Or wait, weren’t those all bad people because Glass-Stegall and the Commodity Future Modernization act were passed under his presidency?

      So basically, Anal, make up your mind: either Clinton was the greatest liberal president ever or he was a corporate shill. Democrats and Occutards argue both at the same time.

      1. Alan is consistently 180 degrees from correct. It’s amazing.

      2. Why does it have to be either/or?

        Lots of the seeds of the 2008 crisis were sown under Clinton. And I think the relative prosperity during his term was largely due to luck.

        The point is the country will not go to shit if we raise taxes a couple percentage points, and we might even pay down some of the deficit you guys claim is more dire a threat even than unemployment.

        1. T o n y| 9.4.12 @ 1:07PM |#
          “The point is the country will not go to shit if we raise taxes a couple percentage points,…”

          So just making it worse is fine by you, shithead?

    3. The tax question is always a good litmus test for idiocy and emotionalism.

      Any proposal to raise revenues that will impact the budget include raising tax on the working class. Any proposals to raise taxes on millionaires by a few points will have no impact on the public budgets.

      So, my question for anyone who wants higher taxes is: Which do you prefer: enlarging government at the expense of the poor or making a futile gesture of spite against the rich?

      Either way, you are a moron.

      1. Yes, exactly. A meaningful tax increase would need to be across the board. The Democratic Party keeps telling people untruths that they so desperately want to hear: “we can pay for it all, but none of you will pay for it at all”

        It’s garbage.

        1. Yes, it’s funny to hear Team Blue complaining that Team Red wants to raise taxes on the middle class when the fact is that all the countries that have expansive welfare states finance them (or at least, try to)with high taxes on the middle class. Why? Because that’s where all the money is no matter how much Team Blue wants to pretend it isn’t.

    4. Let me know where you find all that $15/barrel oil, while you’re at it.

      1. Jersey Patriot| 9.4.12 @ 1:16PM |#
        “Let me know where you find all that $15/barrel oil, while you’re at it.”

        ^?

    5. Umm, there WAS that 1994 Republican “takeover” of the House and Senate…remember Newt’s “Contract with America”?

  11. I agree with John that Obama is just a trumped-up Chicago machine politician.

    What I couldn’t understand for a long time was why anyone would BOTHER to concoct this “anti-colonialist” argument, when the “Chicago machine politician” explanation was lying so near at hand.

    I think the Chicago thing resonates with voters more. It hurts Obama more to link him with the public mind’s substrata memory of the Daley machine corruption. So why do what D’Souza is doing? What’s the point?

    Then it struck me. What if the point is not to get people to hate Obama, but to get people to hate anticolonialism? What if D’Souza is trying to get people who already hate Obama to accept his argument, in order to get them to look more sympathetically on the history of European colonialism, and not the other way around?

    It actually makes a certain amount of sense that way. More sense than it makes if you look at it as a straightforward critique. Because the National Review crowd is in the tank for Empire, and that task is made easier if people decide to accept direct hegemony as an option in intractable cases like Afghanistan and Somalia.

    1. It also makes sense when you realize that D’Souza’s other hobby horse is his argument that the West brought Islamic terrorism on itself by allowing too much freedom. Once you realize that D’Souza is willing to argue that the West deserves terror attacks because we provoke them by letting people buy pornography and by letting women into public life, it makes more sense. D’Souza’s “long game” is Victorianism. He literally is campaigning to rehabilitate the image of “culturally repressed colonial empire” as a Civ IV style government type option.

    2. That actually makes some sense. D’Souse has about a million hobby horses and neurosis and anti-anti-colonialism is probably the biggest. That the point of the film is to discredit anti-colonialism by associating it with Obama is just clever enough to be true.

    3. Last year when “Boss” came on the Starz network, it became so clear to me that Obama was a classic Chicago-machine dirty politician. Ever single action take by Barry can be explained by looking at who is getting paid off.

    4. Then it struck me. What if the point is not to get people to hate Obama, but to get people to hate anticolonialism? What if D’Souza is trying to get people who already hate Obama to accept his argument, in order to get them to look more sympathetically on the history of European colonialism, and not the other way around?

      Yeah, I think the phrase when all you have is a hammer… is a better description of DDS motivation.

    5. It’s strange – anti-imperialism is arguably the most compelling point of Marxian politics – the idea that uncouth savages in less developed countries need to be force-fed Western corporate capitalism through dictatorial control does not sit well with me.

      It seems to me D’Souza has looked back on his ancestral homeland’s pre-colonial history and decided that despite all the rampant injustices and violence of the British Empire, he’s glad in retrospect for the final economic and political outcomes of it. That’s an understandable position, but he’s personally removed from the direct actions and injustices that made the empire so reprehensible in the first place, so it’s easy for him to look back in 20/20 hindsight unemotionally and criticize those who can’t.

    6. The Chicago politician part explains his crookery; it’s his foreign policy that needs to be explained, and that’s why I think they came up with the anti-colonial stuff

  12. Besides the Chicago machine politics, Obama is more a product of the Communist grandparents who raised him than he is of an anti-colonialist father he only met a couple times. It’s not really that difficult to understand.

    My take on Obama is that he is a bit of a Gatsby figure–someone who has gone around inventing and reinventing himself many times over, to make up for the lack of an inner core identity. In that sense, the Chicago machine hack was merely his final reinvention–he married into the Robinson family, attended the wackadoodle church and sucked up to various Daley cronies (Valerie Jarratt etc.) in order to invent himself.

    1. Since he father and mother both basically abadoned him, it would make sense that he developed an overly idealized view of them. Kids in that situation almost always do that or go into the other ditch and hate their parents.

      To me the real tragedy of Obama’s life is that his mother couldn’t get along with his Indonesian step father. If you read Dreams of my Father, Lolo seems like a decent man with a realistic understanding of the world. Obama’s mother ended up hating him for it and worried he would infect her son with capitalist ideology ran back to Hawaii.

    2. I’m pretty sure that he needed to attend the wackadoodle church to prove that he was black enough for the black faction of the Chicago machine. Probably influenced who he married as well.

      1. He was a half black man from Hawaii. He had not cultural affinity to actual Chicago black people. The Wright church was totally there to solve that issue.

        1. My parent’s political views had very little to do with the ones I developed. I probably affected theirs’ more than they did mine, in the end. And I’m not clever enough to become president. So what exactly is the point of this weird fascination with Obama’s genetic heritage?

          1. If Obama had become a conservative, you would have a point. But he became a leftist. So clearly he didn’t completely reject his parents.

            As far as Chicago goes, Obama grew up in Hawaii as a half black person. That is about as far as South Chicago as you can get.

          2. So was it your extreme wit and intellect that convinced your parents, or did they just start nodding their heads because they got tired of hearing your hackery and floundering attempts at reason?

            And if you’re a sockpuppet, does that mean your parents are sheep?

            1. “My parent’s political views had very little to do with the ones I developed. I probably affected theirs’ more than they did mine”

              This stuff writes itself.

              INT. EVENING. KITCHEN. Tony Burgundy eating supper with his parents. They chew nervously as they await the Pri Kappa Crappa alumni begin his sockpuppetry.

              Tony: And you know it’s all a Fox plot to rape the poor. Education is best served through the barrel of a bureaucratic gun. Taxes are in fact good for you, like cauliflower. And…

              Tony’s father: But Tony…

              Tony’s mother: Just nod and agree, Wilbur.* Eat your cherries. I pitted them for you.

              *I’m guessing that’s Tony’s dad’s name.

              1. I grew up in a churchgoing Republican home, and by the time I was 20 my parents were atheist Democrats, almost entirely because of discussions we had. My only point is that Obama’s inner beliefs should probably be judged by his actions more than the self-serving genetic conspiracy theories of known opposition hacks.

            2. My mom is a bigger fire breathing Democrat than I am, having been raised an oil country Republican. It’s not just because she’s my mother that I attribute it to her intelligence and open-mindedness.

  13. Whether the original source of Obama’s radical leftist beliefs are, he IS a radical leftist. He simply tries to pose as someone who isn’t by lying about his past associations – with the help of the bootlicking MSM of course, who are in the tank for him.

    He joined a radical leftist party called the New Party when he was getting started in Chicago politics. He lied about that during the 2008 election and denied he had but the evidence shows he did indeed join it.

    1. My impression is that Obama’s deep convictions consist of nothing more than furthering the career of this persona he developed for himself.

      Joining the New Party was undoubtedly useful during his stint with the Hyde Park cocktail set.

      Ultimately, looking for the “real” Obama is fruitless, because there probably isn’t one.

  14. Yeah, he is a Michael Moore…just minus the documentary making talent.
    Here’s the difference…Moore tackles a subject (9/11, health care, democracy, Columbine). D’Souza goes after an individual, which makes it nothing more than a smear job.

  15. Here are More characteristics, novel style,varieties,and good quality low price
    http://avoo.net/ajgjk

    http://avoo.net/ajgjk

  16. Has D’souza become insanely wealthy by incessantly railing against capitalism all while denying the blatantly obvious fact that he could never get that rich in a socialist country?

    Michael Moore is only of any value as a walking lesson in how not to be a documentary film maker. As far as I know, D’souza’s life is not such a blatant display of hypocrisy…so right there he’s got one up on Moore.

  17. The whole cinematic mess is the mirror image of Left-wing fascination with Skull and Bones, Haliburton and George W. Bush’s alleged Oedipal complex as explanations for the Iraq War. At least Michael Moore’s crackpot documentaries provide a few impish laughs. In 2016, all the yuks are unintentional.

    At one point, we look over D’Souza’s shoulder while he Googles the president’s half-brother, “George Obama.” The shot reveals the classic facemorph picture of “George W. Obama” on the top line “image” results.

    It’s a revealing moment. Despite http://www.chaussuresfree.com/ their disparate backgrounds, both presidents backed expanded executive power over the economy, in surveillance and in wars abroad.

    We don’t need psychobiography to explain why presidents continually seek to expand their own power over the people. It’s in their nature, as the scorpion explained to the frog.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.