Barack Obama

Dinesh D'Souza: Obama Sees America as Global Child-Molester, Serial Killer, Rogue Elephant, or Something


Over at Mediaite, Matt Wilstein posts and comments on a Fox News appearance by Dinesh D'Souza that left host Megyn Kelly wondering if the scandalridden, symposium-inducing, and super-successful documentarian and author has "jumped off the deep end."

In explaining his new film and book, America: Imagine a World Without Her, D'Souza contends that President Barack Obama believes in a perverted version of American Exceptionalism in which the United States is "exceptionally evil."

Kelly asks, "If he were anti-American, if he didn't love his country, why would he want to be president of it?"

Here's D'Souza's response:

"If I was in a family and I believed my dad was some kind of a serial killer or a child molester, I would still love him. He would be part of my family, but I'd do everything I could to prevent him from doing evil actions.

I would think that would be good for the world and for my dad. So with Obama, he believes he's doing the world a favor and America a favor by controlling this rogue elephant that is the United States."

More, including video, here.

Blast from Past: In 2007's The Enemy at Home, D'Souza's widely-panned argument about the "the cultural left and its responsibility for 9/11," D'Souza notes that Abu Ghraib malefactors "Lynndie England and Charles Graner were two wretched individuals from red America who were trying to act out the fantasies of blue America." 

The Enemy at Home, which rails against "the garbage heap of American excess," provoked a symposium at National Review in which Victor Davis Hanson, who can hardly be labeled anti-American or thinking that the U.S. is a child molester or serial killer or an evil actor, noted

D'Souza writes: "And yet these pundits on the Right are doing their best to cover up the Left's role in 9/11."

What does this conspiratorial charge of "cover up" mean exactly? That many of us continue to believe that al Qaeda terrorists blew up innocent Americans for a variety of perceived grievances rather than an understandable Muslim unhappiness with Britney Spears and Brokeback Mountain? But Al Qaeda did not attack New York and Washington because those on the Left, such as Bill Moyers, Robert Reich, or Sharon Stone (to quote from D'Souza's own list of the guilty), encouraged or allowed the terrorists to commit mayhem.

No, they struck from two broader causes, apparent for much of the 1980s and 1990s….

In The Enemy at Home, D'Souza evinced strong sympathy for attitudes of Sayyid Qutb, the father of contemporary Islamism, who similarly felt disgusted by the American culture he experienced during a visit to the States in the 1940s. 

What exactly freaked out Qutb, who was executed in 1966 by Abdel Nasser for plotting to assassinate the Egyptian ruler (D'Souza says Qutb was "martyred")?

From Charles Paul Freund's discusson of Arab pop videos in 2003:

Qutb's most notorious reaction to American life was occasioned by, of all things, a church social in Greeley, Colorado, a community originally organized along utopian lines and one that had maintained a tradition of temperance and moral rigor. Qutb found it a black hole of degeneracy. He had been invited to a dance in Greeley's church basement, where the pastor was playing dance records for the congregation. At one point, the pastor lowered the lights and cued a 78-rpm version of the flirtatious but otherwise innocent tune, "Baby, It's Cold Outside," then popular because it had been used in a 1949 Esther Williams movie. Qutb was scandalized. "The dancing intensified," he wrote. "The hall swarmed with legs….Arms circled arms, lips met lips, chests met chests, and the atmosphere was full of love."

It is as a result of such encounters that Qutb's Islamism was to intensify. Oddly, the whole of the Western, liberalized world sometimes seems to have presented a sexual threat to Qutb, a threat that began aboard the ship that brought him to the U.S. There, a "drunken, semi-naked" woman knocked at his cabin door; he believed the woman could only have been sent to corrupt him by the CIA. It would be interesting to know just why women and sex represented threat and corruption to Qutb; there may be clues in his 1947 novel, Thorns, an autobiographical tale of romance and heartbreak, but the work is untranslated. In any event, two years after he returned from the U.S., Qutb joined Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the fountainhead of modern Islamism, and became its leading theorist.

Well, home is where they have to take you in, right? Even if it's during a staged reading of The Vagina Monologues (which makes its first appearance in The Enemy at Home on page 18)? And even if it's in a country where the president's critics say he thinks of his own country as a child molester but maybe is right to because, after all, as D'Souza has written, "American culture has become increasingly trivial, vulgar, and disgusting."

Related: Why nobody ever named an anti-authoritarian revolution after Van Cliburn but they did name one after the Velvet Underground.

NEXT: Does TSA = Troyer Squeezing Administration?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can’t both sides’ rhetoric about the other being satanic baby killers be right?

    1. This is my general default assumption.

  2. “scandal-ridden”

    That links to a story about his campaign-finance conviction.

    The scandal is that these laws exist at all.

    1. He’s facing jail time over what Dems get probation for.


        1. BUSHPIGS!!111!!!CHRISTFAGS!!11!!

  3. as D’Souza has written, “American culture has become increasingly trivial, vulgar, and disgusting.”

    Sounds like he thinks jihad is exactly what we need to get us back on the straight and narrow.

    1. A jihad is an ugly thing….and I think it’s about time that we had one!!!

        1. +1 Lumberyard

          Is there a lumber yard in Young Frankenstein?

          Up! +1 Inspector Kent!

  4. I hope he doesn’t go so far off the deep end as to oblige people to defend Obama.

  5. Kelly asks, “If he were anti-American, if he didn’t love his country, why would he want to be president of it?”

    Yes, Kelly, only people who love their country want to be president.

  6. Sorry Nick, whatever other crazy D’Souza produces that’s hardly an original argument about Obama’s worldview. Agree or disagree it’s one we’ve been seeing for years now. The language may be colorful, but that’s about it. Lazy hit piece.

    1. It may not be original but it is truly foaming-at-the-mouth insane.

      1. And shreek knows foaming-at-the-mouth insane.

      2. No, foaming at the mouth insane is devoting thousands of words in the press as to who actually gave birth to Trig Palin.

  7. are we offended that Obama has fucked some things up or that D’Souza is talking about the elephant in the living room?

    1. Hey, if it craps all over the living room, there is an ex-mayor in CA that might want the dung…

  8. Obama neither hates everything about America nor loves everthing American. I don’t know anyone who loves the US totally, holistically, & unconditionally — I suspect such a person would be a true wacko. I am sure we all have our own massive lists of loves and hates about the US of A.

    1. Obama clearly loves the US government and despises large swaths of American culture.

      1. sad but true

    2. True. I love the idea of this country. Forged in tax defiance, claiming liberty above all else. The execution has left quite a bit to be desired.

      1. agree

  9. I don’t get it…is Reason implying that D’souza is wrong because other assertions of his were “widely panned” ? [Aren’t libertarian positions – Reason’s positions – “widely panned” by both the right and the left? Is appeal to general populace truly the best tactic here?]

    Obama stated that he believes in American exceptionalism – the way other countries believe in their own exceptionalism (translation: we’re all special, making no one special).
    He said that no country “can or should” dominate other countries [Since the US is a superpower, what does this possibly imply other than distaste for our policies and a desire to reduce our influence?]

    Abroad, he has spoken with tyrannical nations about human-rights abuses. OUR OWN, that is. As if that is even remotely comparable. The association itself drags us down into the deepest muck there is.

    The founding fathers believed in free speech; Obama believes “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” We believed in a country of laws. Obama has declared that HE decides when congress is in session, and rules via executive fiat (just look at the list of MAJOR policies and laws he has unilaterally chosen not to enforce).

    He promised to “fundamentally change” the country.
    What other explanation is there, other than that he doesn’t like the country on a fundamental level?
    Those are Obama’s words, not D’souza’s. He’s right on target.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.