Archive for the ‘Anti-Colonialism’ Category

Not all Republicans are rolling over in the face of President Obama’s unconstitutional usurpation of power.Rep. Tim Scott, R-SC, said if the president moves forward with a plan to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional authority, he would consider it “an impeachable act.” Scott told the Tea Party group LowCountry 9.12 on Tuesday:

This president is looking to usurp congressional oversight to find a way to get it done without us. My position is that is an impeachable act, from my perspective. There are a lot of things people say, “Are you going to impeach the president over that?” — No. But this? This is catastrophic. This jeopardizes the credibility of our nation if one man can usurp the entire system set up by our Founding Fathers over something this significant…There will be a revolt among the American people, and that’s what it takes.

Americans are fortunate some Congressmen take their oath of office seriously. And Rep. Scott is right; it is going to take a citizens’ uprising to force Congress to do what is right. We have to be willing to do our part to hold the president accountable for his crimes. Congress must have the courage to do its part and begin impeachment. And Heaven knows, Barack Obamahas done his part.

 

Posted by Rick
Perry on April 1, 2011

This is an article written by an ex IRS investigator….very
interesting.

Trump is correct, Barry Soetoro, AKA Obama is hiding something in
his past that is very bad… and it may not be his citizenship. (Trump would
not say this if he did not know something and he has the money to get the
dirt…is an IRS tax examiner,one of many former federal jobs, I have seen
what it appears Barry Soetoro has done, mostly by illegal aliens attempting to
acquire a new identity in the U.S and/or criminals looking to acquire a new ID.

Barry, AKA Obama, was lawfully adopted by a foreign national, Lolo
Soetoro, and Barry’s name was legally changed to “Barry Soetoro”.
(Barry’s own admission) Barry Soetoro was also made an official legal
Indonesian citizen. (again Barry’s own admission)  The adoption would be
noted in Barry’s vital statistics record in Hawaii on his original birth
certificate…OR Lolo Soetoro may have always been Barry’s legal birth farther.
The public does not know for sure at this point who Barry’s father really was
and Barry himself may not know.

Barry was raised as a Muslim in Indonesia and attended a
Catholic funded school that permitted all faiths to attend.

Barry’s mother dropped him as a dependent for some reason, maybe
even when Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro.  His mother’s passport
records dropped Barry as a dependent indicating Barry was no longer a legal dependent
of his mothers. (The passport records of his mother have been produced showing
Barry was no longer a dependent when Barry was permanently residing in Indonesia.) Barry went to Hawaii to live with his
alleged grand parents after Lolo Soetoro and Barry’s mother divorced.

A “certificate of live birth” can have names changed on
it including a child’s birth name, and birth parent’s names. Even a modified
date of birth can be on a “certificate of live birth”.  This
occurs frequently for adopted children where the birth parent does not want the
child to know who they are. The public has no idea who Barry’s real birth
father is or who Barry’s real birth mother is. (Barry could have been adopted
by his mother) The original birth certificate is the only legal vital
statistics record of a person’s birth parents, birth location, birth date, etc…
I can get a “certificate of live birth” for a dead person; I cannot get a birth
certificate of a dead person without “Deceased” on it. (I’ve tried)

There is no evidence Barry Soetoro ever lawfully changed his name
to “Barrack Hussein Obama”. There is no proof Barry Soetoro was born with the
name “Barrack Hussein Obama”. I’m willing to bet the name “Barrack
Hussein Obama” is not present on the real birth certificate as Barry’s birth
name or as Barry’s birth father. I have pictures of me with my mother and Jimmy
Buffet… that doesn’t make him my father even if I start using the name Jimmy
Buffet.

The public knows Barry Soetoro finished high school in Hawaii as Barry Soetoro and
attended Occidental as Barry Soetoro where he did drugs and flunked out of
school. After dropping out of Occidental, Barry showed up in New York, homeless and on
drugs. (Barry’s own admission) Barry then hooked up with a Pakistani to live
with and traveled back to Indonesia on his new
boyfriend’s dime to renew his Indonesian passport and traveled to Pakistan with him.

Ask any law enforcement officer in a large city or detective and
they will tell you homeless young men on drugs in large cities usually end up
as male prostitutes.  Barry ended up as a world traveler with a degree…
(Not likely)

Barry Soetoro returned to New York from Pakistan and began using the
fictitious name “Obama” for some reason. (again Barry Soetoro’s own admission)
One could only suspect that a person addicted to drugs returning from Pakistan to New York, the main route for
Afghan heroin into the U.S., maybe Barry had a
reason to start using a new name. There are literally over 1 million open
warrants on file in New York… maybe Barry is one
of them?….

After spending some time in New York allegedly working
under the name “Obama”, It appears Barry used the fictitious name “Barrack
Hussein Obama” for the first time to file his federal taxes in Connecticut at a Post Office Box
for the purpose of evading paying taxes in New York and /or to establish
a new identity. (This is a felony with no statute of limitation.)

When the IRS received Barry Soetoro’s federal tax filing, the IRS
could not attach the name Barrack Hussein Obama to the SSI number provided or
the address provided. So the IRS assigned the fictitious name “Barrack
Hussein Obama” a tax ID number for a person from Connecticut (Where Barry
unlawfully filed a federal tax form using a false name). Barry Soetoro began
using the tax ID number as his SSI number when using the fictitious name
Barrack Obama. This is why Barry Soetoro has a Connecticut SSI number. When I
worked for the IRS, I saw this occur more than once and yes, it is a felony to
knowingly file a fraudulent federal tax forms. Most of the politicians that
cheat on their taxes claim it was an accident. That is how they get away with
their tax cheat crimes. Using a fake name is no accident.

It appears Barry fled New York to Chicago using his new
identity to get a job . He likely ordered a fake diploma to bolster his new
identity as “Obama”. Fake Diploma’s were very big in the 80′s and
diploma mills were even being used by federal workers to get promotions. There
is evidence his alleged attendance at Columbia was faked (Barry
never attended Columbia) and Barry lied his
way into Harvard (he had no transcripts to get in)… Including telling the
Saudi royal family he was fighting in Afghanistan with the Muslim Jihad
against the Russians, so they would help him get into a law school.

The Saudi’s apparently loved Barry’s story of Jihad in
Pakistan/Afghanistan and paid for Barry to attend Harvard under the name
“Obama”. The Saudi family has admitted to paying for Obama to attend
Harvard and gave Harvard a gift of $20 million dollars. Harvard in turn made
their special attendy President of the law review a person that never wrote a
single law review…. I guess that is what $20 million buys at Harvard.

It is unlikely Barry was a Jihadist and was most likely a drug mule
if anything, maybe even a CIA street hire to haul Afghan heroin back to New
York, so the Afghans could buy U.S. made stinger missiles with U.S. dollars to
shoot down Russian helicopters?… I hired people over seas to do work below my
pay grade all the time, even foreign nationals… I think this is the story
Barry told the Saudi’s, but he was most likely really just a drug mule/dealer
and probably still wanted on an outstanding warrant in New York.

Barry’s selective service registration is not normal either…http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in…

After I looked at Barry’s selective service filing I noticed it
was most likely fraudulent too based on the name he used. Barry did not start
using the name “Obama” until he returned from Pakistan (long after he flunked
out of school in California) His selective
service record (maintained in Chicago coincidentally) shows
he registered at a Hawaiian post office as “Obama” in Sept 1980… Problem,
Barry was getting high in California at Occidental in Sept
1980 (Barry’s own admission) and was not using the fictitious name
“Obama” at that time. Barry began using the fictitious name
“Obama” only after he returned from Pakistan. The selective
service filing is fraudulent.

NEW NOTE – On the the Selective Service Registration, Barry did
not have the Connecticut Tax ID number he used on the Registration until after
he began using the name “Obama” in New York. More evidence his
Selective Service filing is fraudulent.

Barry returned to Chicago and attend a
semi-christian radical black church with his first female love Michelle. Barry
admits keeping in touch with Phil Boener, who traveled to New York from Occidental to be
with Barry and was most likely Barry’s first love.

Barry still could not get a real job, because he was still a
fraud, even with his Harvard degree in hand he could lie and take the Bar exam,
but he could not work as a lawyer for a major law firm without a back ground
investigation and he would never pass one. So, Michelle got Barry a job at her
law firm. Barry never filed a case alone and never filed a motion. He wrote
lost of memos according to the law firm where Barry worked. (I think they know
Barry is a fraud and don’t want to be sued by previous clients) Barry rescinded
his law licenses, so as not to be disbarred for fraud. The Bar knows Barry lied
on his application. Michelle also had to turn over her law license for her
involvement in corruption with the Chicago mayors office.

With time on his hands Barry, a well spoken black man, was able to
get elected to a state office, oddly because he looked for fraud in his
opponents voter registrations and got his opponent disqualified from running.
Barry a well versed liar was a natural in state politics. He used his political
influence to get himself a position as a lecturer at Chicago’s law school. Barry
embellished this position as a “professor of law” which everyone
knows is completely false. Barry was not a professor or even a specialist at
anything but lying.

On a whim Barry ran for United States Senate for the State of Illinois. Politicians do this
all the time to make a name for themselves even if they can’t win. At the time
the Republican Ryan was a shoe in for the Senate seat, so no real Democrat
contenders entered the race, but Barry did. On a fluke after the primary Ryan’s
wife Jeri Ryan (Seven of nine from Star Trek) went public that her husband was
making her have sex with other people while he watched. Ryan dropped out and
Alan Keys moved from Maryland to run against Barry
Soetoro.

The election got all kinds of press because there was no blacks in
the U.S. Senate and one of these black men was going to be a Senator. Alan Keys
did his best to warn everyone Barry was not who he claimed to be, but the
public saw him as a carpet bagger. Barry kept the lie going and presented
himself as a clean black man that talked like a white man… Illinois elected Barry to U.S.
Senate. The Democrats had already began scrubbing Barry’s back ground when Ryan
dropped out.

Phil, Barry’s boy friend from Occidental, was found working in California as a communications
specialist (receptionist) for a dental hygienist school and given a diploma
from Columbia and cover story. The
rest of Barry’s drug friends were all given jobs or money by the Democrat
machine to keep quiet.

Because Barry was such a news maker as the only Black in the
Senate, and he could speak like a white man he was made key speaker for the
Democrat convention. Barry then decided to run for President to keep the lie
going. No one thought to question Barry’s back ground in the Democrt party…
They helped cover up the ugly back ground. The only person jumping up and down
warning Barry was not who he claimed to be was Alan Keys and he was discarded
as just an angry loser.

Now we have a complete fraud sitting in the Office of the
President. Clearly the most corrupt, inexperienced, and ignorant President in
the history of the United States who’s only quality is
that he can lie with a straight face.

Barry Soetoro is as much of a fraud as Bernie Madoff and his house
of cards will soon fall down.

 

He’s ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the Marriage Act and the constitutionality of a law.

The Justice Department announced Wednesday that, at Obama’s direction, it would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act in acourt case where it’s being challenged.

Spokesman Jay Carney said Obama has always opposed the Defense of Marriage Act as “unnecessary and unfair.” He disregards the Constution. But Carney said there’s no change to how Obama views gay marriage itself. It is an important first step in instating Sharia Law.

As Google gets bigger and bigger, so do our privacy concerns. If you use Google search, Gmail, Google Docs, and YouTube, Google collects a staggering amount of data about you. And we only named a handful of the Google products.

But you can live life without Google. Here’s how. Let’s start with search.

You may think you can’t find anything on the Web without Google, but you can. In fact, you have several worthwhile options to choose from. Bing is the next most popular search engine and it will soon power Yahoo search. You can also try out Ask.com or, for some old-school fun, AltaVista.com.

I recommend Bing. Just change that default search engine in your Web browser and the majority of your Google interaction is probably gone.

Next, let’s look at Gmail. How can you live without free unlimited storage and POP3 e-mail access? Yahoo  Mail. Yes, Yahoo Mail. It may not be the belle of the ball, but it does all those things and the interface, lifted from Zimbra, works just like a modern e-mail program–unlike Gmail.

Along with Gmail, you may be using Google Calendar. You can export that calendar and then switch to Yahoo Calendar. With Yahoo, you can share the calendar, access it online, and sync it with desktop calendars.

Another biggie is documents. If you may think no other company is doing online document collaboration better than Google, you haven’t tried ZoHo. It does everything Google Docs can do and it does some things better.

Replacing YouTube is trickier. If a video’s on YouTube and your friend sends you the link, you might just have to click the link and be done with it. But you don’t have to use it to share your own videos. For those, I recommend using DailyMotion.com.

For still photos, replace Picasa with Flickr. And to replace Picasa’s editing features, use Paint.NET on Windows and Acorn on Mac OS X.

My list does hand over your calendar, photos, and e-mail to Yahoo. So if you want to diversify more, try using Microsoft for the e-mail or calendar.

December 16, 2010

Acting quietly, below the radar of U.S. public opinion and without congressional approval, the Obama administration is implementing a key policy objective of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to erase the border with Mexico and Canada.

The administration is acting under a State Department-declared policy initiative described in a March 23 fact sheet titled “United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision.”

“Mexico and the United States have a shared interest in creating a 21st century border that promotes the security and prosperity of both countries,” the State Department declared. “The U.S. and Mexican governments have launched a range of initiatives that challenge the traditional view of ‘hold the line’ and are developing a framework for a new vision of 21st century border management.”

At the same time, CTV News in Canada has obtained a draft copy of a declaration between the U.S. and Canada entitled “Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness,” to be implemented by a newly created Canadian-U.S. “Beyond the Border Working Group.”

The two documents strongly suggest the Obama administration is pursuing a stealth bureaucratic methodology to establish a common North American border around the continent, encompassing the U.S., Canada and Mexico, while simultaneously moving to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico as well as between the U.S. and Canada.

Under the Bush administration’s SPP, the U.S., Mexico and Canada organized some 20 different “shadow government” bureaucratic working groups composed of agency heads and undersecretaries in the three nations. The groups span a wide range of policy areas, from e-commerce, to aviation policy, to borders and immigration, trilateral travel, transportation, energy, environment, food and agriculture, health and financial services.

WND has reported since 2006 that a blueprint published in 2005 by the Council on Foreign Relations entitled “Building a North America Community” called for the establishment of a common security perimeter around North America by 2010 to facilitate the free movement of people, trade and capital between the three nations of North America.

In his 2001 book, “Toward a North American Community,” American University professor Robert Pastor, a co-chair of the CFR blue ribbon committee that authored “Building a North American Community,” called for the creation of a North American Commission, a North American Parliament, and a North American Court on Trade and Investment.

The language of the documents declaring “A New Border Vision” with Mexico and Canada could easily have been lifted directly from the CFR report or Pastor’s book.

The 2005 CFR report “Building a North American Community” called on page xvii of the Foreword for the “establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security perimeter, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.”

CTV News reported that the language of the draft agreement specified that “A New Border Vision” for the U.S. and Canada would involve “a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries in a way that supports economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity, and in a partnership to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people and goods between our two countries.”

Similarly, the U.S. State Department fact sheet calling for “A New Border Vision” with Mexico specified five areas of “joint border management, co-responsibility for cross-border crime, and shared commitment to the efficient flow of legal commerce and travel,” namely: enhancing public safety, securing flows of people and goods, expediting legitimate commerce and travel, engaging border communities, and setting policy.

Under “setting policy,” the State Department fact sheet with Mexico called for achieving rapid policy change through “an agile inter-agency process within each country as well as a means by which both governments can easily coordinate at a bi-national level.”

This provides additional support for the conclusion that the bureaucratic “working groups” established under SPP in the Bush administration will continue to operate under Obama administration.

CTV News reported that the draft declaration of “A New Border Vision” with Canada similarly also specified a cross-border policy agenda, including:

• An integrated cargo security strategy;
• A joint approach to port and border security and screening;
• Cross-border sharing of information between law enforcement agencies;
• A closer working relationship between the two militaries in the event of emergencies;
• A new level of collaboration on preventing and recovering from counter attacks.

Affirming the continuance of the working group process, the draft declaration with Canada specifies the U.S. and Canada “intend to address threats at the earliest point possible, including outside the perimeter of our two countries.”

The origin of the SPP can be traced to a trilateral summit meeting in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005, between President George W. Bush, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

At the end of the Waco summit, the three leaders simply declared that the U.S., Mexico and Canada were now in the Security and Prosperity Partnership, without the signing of any international agreement between the three countries or the ratifying of any trilateral treaty by the U.S. Senate.

The SPP in the administration of President Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as “the eurozone.”

The concern was that under the SPP, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could evolve into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the Amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!  IS THIS IS TREASON..

Why he should be impeached, with no questions asked. Or Imprisoned for treason. Violating his oath to “protect and defend the constitution”.

The presidential oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” If he nor anyone in his cabinet or Congress do not keep that oath, they “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

It states within Article 2 of the Constitution, that the President can hold higher allegiance to a global entity such as the United Nations, than he holds to the country that he is supposed to protect and the very Constitution that he takes an oath to uphold! You can name off every Article of the Constitution if you want, but it only states he can have civilian power “over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments”; not over the U.N.

The Posse Comitatus Act Lets You Do A Citizens Arrest

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order¹‘ on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

Barack Obama: We Must Embrace Globalism And The Emerging One World Economy

Although it received very little coverage in the mainstream media, Barack Obama made some comments about globalism during his speech in Mumbai, India that were very eye-opening. As he was discussing the new realities of world trade in 2010, Obama warned against “those who see globalization as a threat” and he spoke of the “integrated world” in which we all now live. But is merging the entire globe into a one world economy, a one world financial system and a one world labor market really the best thing for the American people?

For the past two decades, all U.S. presidents have been heralding the benefits of merging the American economy with the rest of the globe. George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have all steadfastly supported the emerging one world economy. These presidents have each used different terms to describe this process such as “globalism”, “globalization”, “an integrated world”, “the global economy” and even “a New World Order”, but they have all meant the same thing. All of these presidents have sought to integrate the United States even more deeply into the developing one world economic system.

Barack Obama showed very clearly how he feels about globalism when he made the following statement during his speech in Mumbai….

“This will keep America on its toes. America is going to have to compete. There is going to be a tug-of-war within the US between those who see globalization as a threat and those who accept we live in a open integrated world, which has challenges and opportunities.”

This is something that Barack Obama has obviously thought quite a bit about. In fact, during the same speech he warned that those supporting globalization will need to “guard against” those who would seek to put up barriers to the full integration of the economies of the world….

“If the American people feel that trade is just a one-way street where everybody is selling to the enormous US market but we can never sell what we make anywhere else, then the people of the US will start thinking that this is a bad deal for us and it could end up leading to a more protectionist instinct in both parties, not just among Democrats but also Republicans. So, that we have to guard against.”

But in this new “global economy”, aren’t jobs leaving the United States and heading to developing nations at a blinding pace? Of course, but apparently we are just supposed to shut up and accept this new reality. In fact, Obama says that persistently high unemployment is “a new normal” that we are all just going to have to get used to.
Virtually all of the proponents of globalism understand that the process of merging the United States into a one world economy will be at least somewhat painful for the American people. Our wages are going to have to go down and our standards of living are going to have to fall, according to them.
During this period of “adjustment”, a “struggling economy” is just going to have to be tolerated. In fact, Obama says that the U.S. economy might not be “fixed” for quite some time. Obama now claims that there is a limit to what the U.S. government can do to help the economy….
“Especially an economy this big, there are limited tools to encourage the kind of job growth that we need.”

But couldn’t Obama and the U.S. Congress pass laws that would discourage the offshoring and outsourcing of our jobs?
Of course.

Couldn’t they cut regulations and taxes and encourage firms to keep factories in the United States?
Of course.

But instead, Obama and the U.S. Congress have just been piling on more taxes and more regulations and have made the business environment in the U.S. so toxic that it is amazing that anyone is willing to stay in this country at this point.

Meanwhile, every single month more of our jobs, more of our factories and more of our wealth gets shipped overseas never to return.
Every day there is more depressing news about the U.S. economy. For example, it has just been announced that Harley-Davidson has decided to open a shiny new assembly plant in India. Meanwhile, formerly great American manufacturing cities such as Detroit have turned into rotting hellholes.

The American people are not being told the truth. The following are 20 reasons why Barack Obama is wrong, wrong, wrong about globalization….
#1 American workers are being merged into a global labor pool where they must directly compete for jobs with workers on the other side of the globethat make less than ten percent of what an average American worker makes. In such an environment, it is inevitable that jobs are going to flow away from areas where labor is expensive and to areas where labor is cheaper.

#2 Globalization has caused the U.S. trade deficit to absolutely explode. In 1985, the U.S. trade deficit with China was 6 million dollars for the entire year. In the month of August alone, the U.S. trade deficit with China was over 28 billion dollars.

#3 Today, the United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that China spends on goods from the United States. This represents a massive transfer of wealth from the American people to China.

#4 According to a new study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, if the U.S. trade deficit with China continues to increase at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.

#5 The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001.

#6 The United States has lost a staggering 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

#7 Even high technology industries are leaving America. Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

#8 In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of all U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented only 11.5 percent.

#9 As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time that less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.

#10 With so much manufacturing leaving the United States, is it any wonder why people can’t find jobs? The “official” unemployment rate in the United States has been at nine and a half percent or above for 14 consecutive months.

#11 Today, there are at least 1.5 million “99ers” – those Americans that have completely exhausted all 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and that still do not have jobs.

#12 Our dependence on foreign oil also represents an absolutely shocking transfer of wealth from the American people to the oil exporters of the Middle East. Back in 1980, the United States imported approximately 37 percent of the oil that we use. Now we import nearly 60 percent of the oil that we use.

#13 Energy imports account for about approximately one-fourth of the U.S. trade deficit.

#14 In states such as Mississippi, people spend approximately 6.35 percentof their incomes just on gasoline, according to a recent report by the National Resources Defense Council.

#15 Americans end up paying to support American workers one way or another. Either they buy American-made products and services that provide jobs for American workers, or they pay to support unemployed American workers on welfare. Today, over 42 million Americans are on food stamps. A record number of Americans are receiving long-term unemployment benefits. One way or another, Americans are going to pay to take care of American workers.

#16 The U.S. trade deficit is running about 40 or 50 billion dollars a month in 2010. The United States spends 40 to 50 billion more on goods and services from the rest of the world each month than they spend on goods and services from us. That means that by the end of the year, approximately half a trillion dollars (or more) of our wealth will have left the United States for good.

#17 All of this wealth leaving the United States is having a huge impact on the standard of living of average Americans. Ten years ago, the United States was ranked number one in average wealth per adult. In 2010, the United States has fallen to seventh.

#18 It is now just a matter of time until India is going to pass us as an economic power. In fact, the economy of India is projected to become larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2050.

#19 It is now being projected that China will soon dwarf us as an economic power. One prominent economist now says that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040. According to one recent study, China could become the global leader in patent filings by next year.

#20 China has been accumulating a gigantic mountain of dollars from all of the wealth we have been sending them each month, and they have been lending massive amounts of money back to us. Over the past few decades, the communist Chinese have been able to accumulate approximately $2.5 trillion in foreign currency reserves, and the U.S. government now owes them close to 900 billion dollars. We constantly have to send top government officials over there to beg them to continue to lend us money. This is a direct threat not only to our financial system, but also to our national security.

So, in light of all of those facts, can anyone out there possibly defend Barack Obama’s position that globalization is good and that we should be happy that we are being merged into a one world economy?

Sadly, there are very, very few politicians in either major political party that will even talk about the negative effects of the emerging one world economy. It is almost as if there is an unspoken consensus that globalism is the future and that it is a good thing for America.
But it is not a good thing for America. Unless fundamental changes are made, America will continue to bleed wealth, will continue to bleed factories and will continue to bleed jobs.

The American people need to wake up and starting saying “NO” to globalization. If we continue to vote for politicians that support merging our economy with economies that allow workers to be paid slave labor wages, then we are going to see even more waves of horrific unemployment and we will continue to see the standard of living of middle class Americans diminish.

This is not a drill. America is being deindustrialized. The greatest economic machine in the history of the world is being dismantled.
Eventually, all of our cities are going to end up looking just like Detroit if we allow this to continue.

Is that what you want?

STOP THE George Soros plan of Globalisation – We are Americans – we are not just another Leming on a world stage.

On Monday, November 8, 2010 – Obama said the world needed abroad rebalancing.

‘We can’t continue to sustain a situation in which some coun­tries are maintaining massive surpluses, others massive def­icits and there never is the kind of adjustment with respect to currency that would lead to a more balanced growth pattern,” Obama said. It is time to spread the wealth around and devalue the dollar.

Soros Bets on U.S. Financial Collapse

From the Canadian Free press

By Cliff Kincaid Monday, November 8, 2010

Another financial expert is expressing his deep disgust with the Federal Reserve’s decision to print more money and buy more U.S. debt, saying it is a sign that the U.S. capitalist system is moving closer to collapse.

“This is the type of stuff we accused the communist and socialist governments of doing—interfering in free markets through currency manipulation,” declared Zubi Diamond, author of The Wizards of Wall Street. “What the Fed is doing is not good for free market capitalism and it is not good for America.”

In an interview with Accuracy in Media, Diamond went on to say, “The Fed is following the economic models of Third World countries by printing more money and devaluing their currencies. If you keep doing what Third World economies do, eventually you will become a Third World economy.”

The Fed’s new action, labeled “quantitative easing” or QE2, follows a first attempt at “QE,” known as QE1. QE means that the Federal Reserve is printing more money and buying more government debt. In total, according to Investor’s Business Daily, “the Fed will have created $2.5 trillion out of the blue.”

Diamond said the result of the Fed’s policy will be to “increase the debt, devalue our currency and create a bigger problem that won’t solve the crisis.” Eventually, America could “collapse under its own weight of massive debt,” he warned.

The QE2 “will devalue the dollar and lead to higher commodity prices, asset and price inflation. It may even lead to the end of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency,” Diamond predicted. He noted that Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner floated the idea of the dollar losing its status as the world’s reserve currency, “only to backpedal from it when it raised some eyebrows.”

“What is most troubling to me about this,” Diamond added, “is that the Fed’s QE2 is in alignment with George Soros’s agenda to destroy global capitalism.” The decline of the dollar “is what George Soros wants and what he has proposed in the past,” he noted.

Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator who finances various leftist and Marxist groups, including Media Matters, has made his fortune by betting on the collapse of national economies and currencies. He was convicted of insider trading in France.

Media Matters recently received $1 million from Soros so that it could try to mute the effectiveness of conservative media organizations and personalities, some of them critical of Soros.

In recent Fox News programs, Glenn Beck has been focusing on the decline of the dollar and how Soros has proclaimed that “an orderly decline of the dollar is actually desirable.” Programs like these have made Beck into a top target of Media Matters.

AIM has been warning for years about the intentions of Soros, noting in a 2004 reportthat he “specializes in weakening or collapsing the currencies of entire nations for his own selfish interests.”

We noted, “Despite his vision of an ‘open society,’ he operates an unregulated ‘hedge fund,’ open only to the super-rich.” His Soros Fund Management is a member of the “founder’s council” of the Managed Funds Association (MFA).

Diamond said that as Soros is betting on a U.S. financial collapse, his net worth and the amount of money under the management of his hedge fund have ballooned. The money that Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is putting into the economy, Diamond said, is designed to “replace the stolen money from American families and the capitalist corporations” under the cover of the financial crisis.

The collapse of capitalism will be “a big pay day for George Soros and members of the Managed Funds Association,” he said. “They are betting against the dollar and moving assets to gold and to the emerging economies. They are betting against U.S. survival as a capitalist nation.”

Referring to the members of the MFA who are betting against the U.S., Diamond asked: “Have you heard them say they want to restore capitalism? No. But you will hear them talk about the ‘new normal’—meaning that we are not going back to capitalism. And this is by design.”

Diamond’s criticism follows the shocking statements of Charles Ortel, managing director of Newport Value Partners, who told AIM that the Federal Reserve plan to buy $600 billion of U.S. Government securities “borders on the criminal” because the impact will be the devaluation of the dollar by 20 percent and the destruction of $10 trillion of household net worth.

Ortel told AIM that the Obama Administration’s “war on capitalism” has become a “war on wealth” under the direction of Fed chairman Ben S. Bernanke.

Republican Rep. Tom Price and Senator-elect Rand Paul have led the criticism of the Federal Reserve, with Paul saying, “With so much blame going around for the current financial crisis it is surprising that so few in the mainstream press have discussed the role of the Federal Reserve System.”

As if to prove the point, the Sunday TV interview shows featured lengthy discussions about proposed budget cuts and federal spending but no detailed examination of the actions of the Federal Reserve.

Charles Ortel had told AIM that the result of the upheaval will be a new “global regulatory regime” to manage the U.S. and other economies. In this regard, talk of global taxes by the United Nations has increased recently and Obama himself endorsed the concept in a document adopted by the September 20-22 U.N. Summit on the Millennium Development Goals.

Senator David Vitter’s Senate resolution 461 would put the Senate on record against any global tax scheme.

Like Ortel, Diamond notes that previous attempts to “save” the economy through the actions of the Federal Reserve have demonstrably failed. Rather than allow the Fed to pour more printed money into the economy, Diamond said that the new Congress should be “following the money paper trail and try to recover as much of the stolen money as possible.” Instead of holding the looters accountable, he said that the Fed is allowing the looters to digest the stolen money and dig us deeper into the hole.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), he said, should reinstate regulations designed to protect invested capital from the hedge fund short-sellers. “What is needed is the legal protection for the invested capital, protection for the value of our homes and policies that encourage capitalism and risk taking,” he said. The hedge fund short-sellers should be monitored and regulated like mutual funds, he said.

While Bernanke takes the brunt of Diamond’s critique, Diamond doesn’t lose sight of the President who re-appointed Bernanke to that post.

“President Barack Obama is doing everything he is not supposed to do—and is failing to do the things he is supposed to do—to fix this economic crisis,” he said.

Consider the matter of “stimulus” spending, for example. “Obama got $700 billion in stimulus money, supposedly for shovel ready jobs. But he later admitted there were no shovel ready jobs. So it is just more money down the drain, more debt and deficit, digging us deeper into the hole,” he said.

He concluded, “This is the person the pundits and talking heads on TV insisted is smart and intelligent. Misguided Americans may have inadvertently elected a dummy or an enemy agent as their President. Take your pick.”

WE HAVE PROPLE OUT OF WORK

WE HAVE PEOPLE LOSING THEIR HOME

WE HAVE HOMELESS PEOPLE

OBAMA IS OUT SPENDING MILLIONS OF OUR MONEY TO VACATION ON THE WORLD AND VISIT MOSQUE’S.

UNBELIVABLE

US President Barack Obama‘s trip to India next month is set to be the biggest ever by anyUS president in terms of the protocol, money and logistics.

Headlines Today accessed the details of elaborate arrangements that will be in place to guard Obama. He will be accompanied by US first lady Micehlle Obama and their daughters Malia and Sasha.

Earlier, Obama’s daughters Sasha and Malia were not to be part of the trip. But sources revealed that Michelle’s opinion prevailed and now the girls would accompany the first American couple to India.

The US president will make a historic trip to the Taj Mahal along with his family. His visit is historic in terms of logistics which is the largest ever for a visiting US president.

Elaborate security arrangements
The presidential entourage will have 40 aircraft, including the Air Force One that will ferry the president. There will be six armoured cars, including four Barack Mobiles and a Cadillac.

Cadillac is equipped with a mini communication centre to enable Obama to be in touch with the White House, US vice president and the US strategic command. It also has the US nuke launch codes and it can withstand a chemical or germ warfare and a bomb attack.

Two secret service command posts will be set up in Delhi and Mumbai to act as the communication nerve centres. These will monitor the president’s movement with real time satellite monitoring.

Three Marine One choppers will be reassembled in India to ferry the president and his family and to evacuate them in case of any emergency

We realize that George Soros is the real president and is running the country and this man Obama is really a puppet, but does he have to spend hundreds of millions of our money when we are in a recession?

How can we get rid of this man and his expense?

Proposal provides mandatory induction for ‘national defense,’ ‘homeland security’

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he visited Colorado Springs and WND broke the the story that he wanted a “Civilian National Security Force” as big and as well-funded as the $650 billion-plus U.S. military. Now Charlie Rangel is proposing that he have it.

Rangel, facing ethics charges in Congress, has proposed the Universal National Service Act that would require “all persons” from ages 18-42 “to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.”

The plan also authorizes “the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.”

A WND reader who read the plans online was outraged.

“Who Killed the Constitution?” Here’s a dirty little secret: The bedrock of our country is … dead

“May Obama be d—–,” he wrote. “It reinstitutes the draft, and is for both males and females … There is no ‘opt-out’ – if you are not ‘fit’ for actual military service, or are a ‘conscientious objector,’ then you are shunted into ‘civilian service’ which is pretty much anything the ‘president’ says it is.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&feature=player_embedded

As the presidential campaign advanced in 2008, another video appeared online that for many crystallized their concerns over such a “corps.” It shows a squad of young men marching and shouting praises to Obama. The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtGr1JFCnE&feature=player_embedded

According to the copy of Rangel’s plan, which has been assigned to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel even though it lacks cosponsors, it specifies that “nationalservice” means “military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the president, promotes national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.”

“It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages 18 and 42 to perform a period ofnational service as prescribed in this title,” it specifies.

It would require that the president provide “for the induction” of people to the service corps.

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years,” Rangel wrote.

The exceptions provide that the term of service may be extended if the “member” needs to “compensate for any time lost to training for any cause” or “for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in the line of duty.”

It gives the president the far-reaching authority to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title,” including what types of “civilian service” are required, “standards of satisfactory performance,” “penalties for failure” and “such other matters as the president determines necessary to carry out this title.”

Conscientious objectors would be ordered “to perform national civiliain service … as the president may prescribe.”

The group Operation Sit In said it is coordinating information to link up those who “have the time to go to D.C. at the drop of a hat to keep the Senate from passing the Universal National Service Act … with those who would like to go to stop it, but cannot afford to lose their jobs by taking off with no notice.”

National Director Larry Richardson said, “Most of those who have the time and freedom of time to go are out of work because of the current economy, and therefore are short on funds to go. So we match those who still have jobs with those who do not, and with everyone doing a little, no one has to do it all.

“We also are arranging for people who live fairly close to D.C., (within 50 or so miles), to let us park our cars on their property, at home or business, so we do not have to worry about them being towed while we are in D.C.,” he said.

“We need every PATRIOT to step up and help in this,” he said.

A spokesman for Rangel’s office, Emile Milne, told WND that nobody knows what such a plan would cost, but presumably those in full-time service to their country as civilians would have to be paid, how many people would be conscripted or other details.

“It would have to move through committee,” he said. “These questions … certainly would be addressed by the relevant committee.”

He said the discussion in Rangel’s office is that those in the civilian corps would work in “education, health care, they could work in our ports, various aspects of security.”

He also said the idea has been a long-term goal for Rangel.

WND reported earlier when Obama signed into law the “GIVE Act,” H.R. 1388, which massively expands the National Service Corporation and allocates to it billions of dollars.

Officials said at that time the law would allow for the “managing” of up to 8 or 9 million people.

That bill includes a “National Service Reserve Corps” whose members have completed a “term of national service,” “training” and “not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year.”

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column when the issue originally arose to alert Americans of the plans. He then elevated the issue with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.

“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.

We need the Minute Men to start their recruiting in crises mode.

We find ourselves faced with an ideologue that is an anti – colonial, believes in Marx and Lenin and surrounds himself with people that love Mao and Chavez.
To make us better informed to counteract the radical revolution we will examine Barak Obama, George Soros, Peter Lewis and Fabian Socialists Harold Icke and Herb and Marion Sandler.
We will also examine the Shadow Democratic Party started by Soros and Icke.

In Part two we will examine the anti-colonial theory of Dinesh D’Souza in his book – The Roots of Obama’s Rage

Dinesh D’Souza takes seriously Obama’s autobiography (significantly titled Dreams from My Father), seeking to understand him as both a man and a president in accord with it. Though politically conservative D’Souza (born and reared in India) rather rejoiced in seeing an African American elected president and never joined “the conservative chorus bashing” him . In time, however, he became alarmed at the policies Obama both espoused and implemented, fearing that: “If Obama serves two terms, he will likely leave America a very different country than it is now. This is certainly his objective; he has set himself the task, as he put it in his inauguration address, of ‘remaking America’. Amazingly enough, D’Souza has concluded that: “We are today living out the script for America and the world that was dreamt up not by Obama but by Obama’s father. How do I know this? Because Obama says so himself. Reflect for a moment on the title of his book: it’s not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. In other words, Obama is not writing a book about his father’s dreams; he is writing a book about the dreams that he got from his father”.

‘We are today living out the script for America and the world that was dreamt up not by Obama but by Obama’s father. How do I know this? Because Obama says so himself.’

When I first read Obama’s autobiography two years ago, I took it to be an inner journey of self-understanding, largely defined by his utterly absent but desperately desired father, Barack Obama, Sr., and his determination to self-identify as African-American. Thus, as Obama, Jr. acknowledged, there is a dreamlike, fictional dimension to the book—individuals’ names are changed and at times seem to be a composite of several persons. He devotes one-third of the book to his “origins,” one third to his community organizing efforts in Chicago, and one third to a trip to Kenya that is (I’ve learned from other sources) actually a fusion of two trips. He tells the story of his birth in Honolulu to an American woman and Kenyan man who met at the University of Hawaii. Given the opportunity to pursue a graduate degree in economics at Harvard University, his father soon abandoned his wife and son and moved to Boston. Then his mother married an Indonesian who’d come to the University of Hawaii, and they moved to Jakarta, where Obama attended both Catholic and Muslim elementary schools. That marriage also floundered, and Barack, his mother and half-sister, returned to Honolulu, where she resumed her studies in anthropology. When she finished her studies, she determined to continue her anthropological work by returning to Indonesia, but she wanted her son to get his education in Honolulu. He then spent his adolescence living with her parents, who were in many ways the only stable parents he’d ever know. His generally unemployed grandfather, who seemed to have failed at most everything he attempted while moving about the country, offered a rather constant criticism of the “system” that had failed him. But his grandmother became a highly successful woman who rose to a significant position in a Honolulu bank and provided the income for the family.

‘All my life,’ he says, ‘I had carried a single image of my father, one that I had sometimes rebelled against but had never questioned, one that I had later tried to take as my own’”

Graduating from Honolulu’s elite Punahau high school, Obama went to Los Angeles, where he attended another prestigious institution, Occidental College. Here his main concerns were still extracurricular, especially racial discussions and protest meetings. He then finished his university studies in New York, graduating from Columbia University. While there he “decided to become a community organizer” so as to “organize black folks. At the grass roots. For change”. After working a couple of years in New York, in 1985 he moved to Chicago and became a “community organizer” as an employee of a Saul Alinsky-inspired organization trying to enlist black churches in social justice endeavors. Here Obama mastered the “change” rhetoric of Alinsky and became acquainted with Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who led one of the large churches Obama needed to support his activism. Disillusioned with his glaring lack of success as a “community organizer,” thinking he could do more as an attorney, Obama set off for Harvard Law School, though he says nothing of those years. More important than Harvard Law was his deceased father! Throughout the book he seeks to identity himself as his father’s son. “All my life,” he says, “I had carried a single image of my father, one that I had sometimes rebelled against but had never questioned, one that I had later tried to take as my own”

D’Souza found that he, as a nonwhite native of India with similarly” elite educational experiences in America, enjoys a unique perspective. He also recognizes the ‘rich melange’ of anti-colonial ‘political and intellectual figures’ who shape Obama’s (and his father’s) world.”
So Obama’s dreams come neither from America’s founders (Washington or Lincoln) nor from Civil Rights leaders (Booker T. Washington or Martin Luther King) but from his Kenyan father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. The younger Obama himself is intriguing enigmatic— certainly the most obscure man to vault into the White House—and the “political mystery of his agenda is compounded by the psychological mystery of the man”. In an effort to understand and explain the man, D’Souza found that he, as a nonwhite native of India with similarly elite educational experiences in America, enjoys a unique perspective. He also recognizes the “rich melange” of anti-colonial “political and intellectual figures” who shape Obama’s (and his father’s) world . “Fortunately for me, this is intellectual terrain that I know well. Steeped as I am in the politics and history of the Third World, these are figures whom I have studied”
D’Souza insists that Obama “is his father’s son, and his dreams are derived from his father’s aspirations and failures. Everyone who knows Obama well says this about him. His ‘granny’ Sarah Obama—not his actual grandmother but one of his grandfather’s other wives—told Newsweek, ‘I look at him and I see all the same things—he has taken everything from his father. The son is realizing everything the father wanted. The dreams of the father are still alive in the son’” . This reality Obama’s autobiography makes clear, for “his whole book is an elaboration of how he internalized his father’s dreams and goals. Obama calls his memoir ‘the record of a personal, interior journey—a boy’s search for his father and through that search a workable meaning for his life as a black American.’ And again, ‘It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself’”.
This explains Obama’s decision, following his father’s death, to begin calling himself “Barack” instead of “Barry.” (His father, Barack Sr., beginning his studies in Hawaii, had adopted the American name “Barry” and his son was called the same). This name shift, D’Souza says, “was a very big deal. He didn’t just take his father’s identity; he self-consciously rejected his father’s American name in favor of the senior Obama’s African identity. He obviously “identified with his father more than anyone else, and undertook an intense psychological and ultimately actual journey to Africa in order to discover his dad and in the process to find himself. Unable to find his father, he did the next best thing: he embraced his father’s ideals and decided to live out the script of his father’s unfulfilled life”. Though forced to acknowledge his father’s many flaws and failures, he could still maintain that his dad “had great vision, great ideals, a great plan of reform” and he could live out his “heroic mission. In changing the world into the image of his father, he would complete the task that his father couldn’t, and thus he would become worthy of his father, a real African and a real man”.

His father, from most every standpoint, seems unworthy of emulation! Before coming to Hawaii he’d married a Kenyan woman and “had two children with her. Before the second child was born, he abandoned his family to come to America. There he met Obama’s mother Ann, got her pregnant, and then married her, but without telling her he was already married. When Obama was two, his father abandoned him and his mother to go to Harvard; there he moved in with a teacher, Ruth Nidesand. Eventually he took Nidesand back to Africa, married her, and had two children with her. But he also rejoined his African wife, Kezia, and had two more children with her. Later in life he took up with still another woman, Jael Otieno, and impregnated her. The two of them planned to get married after the child was born, but the marriage never took place. But the time he was done, Barack Sr. managed a grand total of three wives, one wife-to-be, and eight children. He was a terrible husband and a worse father”

“What gave dignity and depth, however, to Barack Obama Sr. was that he was part of a much larger movement—the movement to build a free and independent Africa in the aftermath of colonial rule. We know that this history made an impact on young Obama because he tells us so.”

So what’s to admire about him? He was, by all accounts, quite intelligent and charming, easily impressed people and had striking rhetorical gifts. “He had a slight British accent and called himself “Doctor Obama,” even though was neither a medical doctor nor the holder of an academic doctorate”. He drank heavily and died when he crashed his car driving drunk. Very little for a son to admire in his father! And the son has certainly taken a different course in his personal life. “What gave dignity and depth, however, to Barack Obama Sr. was that he was part of a much larger movement—the movement to build a free and independent Africa in the aftermath of colonial rule. We know that this history made an impact on young Obama because he tells us so”. And, subsequently, “This philandering, inebriated African socialist is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son”.
This became clear in a pivotal moment when Obama visited his father’s grave in rural Kenya. While sitting there watching some hyenas devouring a wildebeest in the distance, he concluded: “This is what Creation looked like. The same stillness, the same crunching of bone”. Awash with emotion, he fell to the ground and wept. Finally, “‘I saw that my life in America—the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I’d felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I’d witnessed in Chicago—all of it was connected with this small plot of earth an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain that I felt was my father’s pain’. To D’Souza this event signifies Obama’s “own death and rebirth”. Still more: though he’d earlier “resolved to imbibe his father’s personality, his magnetic charm, his persuasiveness” it was here that “Obama receives something more fundamental. In Obama’s own words, ‘I sat at my father’s grave and spoke to him through Africa’s red soil.’ . . . . It is here that Obama takes on his father’s struggle, not by recovering his father’s body but by embracing his father’s cause. And so he makes his decision. Where Obama Sr. failed, Obama Jr. will succeed, and he will succeed calmly, strategically, using the panache and persuasiveness that he also got from his father. Obama Sr.’s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.’s hatred; Obama Sr.’s failed attempt to set the right becomes Obama Jr.’s objective for the future. As Obama himself puts it, the dreams of the father forge the dreams of the son, and through a kind of sacramental experience at the family grave, the father’s struggle becomes the son’s birthright”

” Anti-colonialism explains the president’s continual criticism of and apology for America’s past behavior. It explains why a president would offend the British by rudely returning a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office for years. Such behavior appears inexplicable. “But with his anti-colonial background, Obama probably remembers Churchill as an imperialist who soldiered for empire in India and Africa.”
Accordingly, D’Souza sets forth a theory—a hypothesis—rooted in Obama’s own words, to help explain him. “My argument in this book is that it is the anti-colonial ideology of his African father that Barack Obama took to heart”. Obama’s dreams are the anti-colonial dreams of his father, and his “anti-colonialism is deeply felt, and it suffuses his writings and speeches”. Anti-colonialism explains the president’s continual criticism of and apology for America’s past behavior. It explains why a president would offend the British by rudely returning a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office for years. Such behavior appears inexplicable. “But with his anti-colonial background, Obama probably remembers Churchill as an imperialist who soldiered for empire in India and Africa”. Still more: “In the 1950s, Churchill was prime minister during Britain’s fight against he Mau Mau uprising in Kenya, the native country of Obama’s father. So when we apply the anti-colonial hypothesis, we find that the inexplicable Churchill incident suddenly makes sense”. D’Souza’s “anti-colonial hypothesis explains both Obama’s economic and his foreign policy”.

Anti-colonialism can certainly explain Obama’s continual commitment to “spreading the wealth,” redistributing income from the haves to the have-nots, for he considers the United States a “neocolonial giant eating up more than its share of the world’s resources”. As an anti-colonist (following the positions his father set forth in a pivotal 1965 essay wherein even a 100% tax rate was justified) he “believes that the rich have become rich at the expense of the poor; the wealth of the rich have become rich at the expense of the poor; the wealth of the rich doesn’t really belong to them; therefore whatever can be extracted from them is automatically just”. He sponsored, as a senator, “the Global Poverty Act that would have committed the United States to spending over $800 billion over a decade or so to eradicate poverty in the Third World and also to enable Third World countries to follow Western environmental standards. He supports legislative initiatives such as “cap and trade” less because of any environmental concern but because it affords an opportunity to equalize the world’s wealth. “Obama’s basic assumption is that America and the West are using up too much of the planet’s resources. This is a huge theme with Obama; he never stops talking about it”.

Anti-colonialism underlay Barack Obama’s decision to strongly identify with his African father rather than his American mother. In part this was a political decision, for he “seems to have recognized that race was now a source of power in American society”. Obama attended Honolulu’s elite high school, Punahau, but he says little about his classes. On his own, however, he read (rather voraciously) writers such as W.E.B. DuBois, Richard Wright, Malcolm X and Franz Fanon, whose radicalism shaped his budding race-consciousness. Though he seems to have encountered little actual race discrimination (the minor incidents he mentions are quite trivial), his reading fueled a “black rage” that seemed to become part of his self-identification as an oppressed African-American (though his Kenyan father was neither American nor in the remotest sense affected by this nation’s history of slavery). He was also quite taken by an elderly friend (and drinking buddy) of his grandfather’s, a black poet identified only as Frank (in fact Frank Marshall Davis, who was well-know for his advocacy of radical, often overtly Communist causes).

Obama’s formal studies also seem to have buttressed his father’s anti-colonial understanding of the world. He no doubt soaked in the postmodern, multicultural, anti-Western biases of his educational institutions. At Columbia University he studied under Edward Said, the author of Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism and a vigorous champion of the Palestinian cause. “He seems to have had a lasting influence on Obama: some of Obama’s writings are highly resonant with Said’s themes and arguments”. At Harvard Law School he impressed professors such as Laurence Tribe, but “his real mentor was Roberto Mangabeira Ungar. Born in Rio de Janeiro to a Brazilian mother and a German father, Unger is perhaps the leading anti-colonial scholar in the field of legal studies”. He espoused a “total criticism” approach that employs the law to attain political ends. Though Obama never refers to Unger, the two have stayed in touch, “all the way up to the presidential campaign”.

Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s controversial pastor of Trinity Church in Chicago who routinely celebrated African themes, further contributed to Obama’s anti-colonial convictions. “The Audacity of Hope,” the first sermon Obama heard Wright preach (and the message the provided the title for the second of Obama’s books), was filled with angry references to suffering peoples around the world—all victims of the white man’s ways. Moved to tears by the message, Obama decided to join the church, wherein he would be married and have his children baptized. (Years later, Wright’s notorious sermon following 9/11, assailed American activities, past and present, for killing and exploiting Japanese and Iraqis and American Indians and Palestinians. The true terrorists, to Wright, are not Muslim killers but American leaders.) “The anti-colonial themes,” in Wright’s sermons, D’Souza notes, “are obvious here: North versus South; rich, white Europeans versus the poor, dark-skinned people of Africa and the Caribbean. These were the themes of Obama’s life, and he was drawn in from the start”.

“Though he has no sympathy with Islamic Jihadists, Obama shares their critique of America’s foreign policy, holding “that America is the neocolonial aggressor and that the best way to promote peace and security in the world is to curb America’s power and influence” (p. 178). He wanted, when he entered the U.S. Senate, to immediately withdraw American troops from Iraq; he opposed General David Petraeus’s “surge” strategy; and he now sets time tables for withdrawing from Afghanistan because he sees them both as lingering colonial efforts to occupy third world nations.
Though he has no sympathy with Islamic Jihadists, Obama shares their critique of America’s foreign policy, holding “that America is the neocolonial aggressor and that the best way to promote peace and security in the world is to curb America’s power and influence”. He wanted, when he entered the U.S. Senate, to immediately withdraw American troops from Iraq; he opposed General David Petraeus’s “surge” strategy; and he now sets time tables for withdrawing from Afghanistan because he sees them both as lingering colonial efforts to occupy third world nations. One of his first decisions as president was to “reduce the size and resources of the U.S. armed forces”. He regularly apologizes for his nation’s sins. He supports the Palestinians rather than the Israelis because it jibes with his anti-colonial ideology. He’s activated by any chance to reduce America’s nuclear weapons but unmoved by efforts by Iran or North Korea to develop them.

President Obama’s anti-colonial stance shapes his foreign and domestic policies but he appears to D’Souza as “the last anti-colonial.” Most of the world has moved on while Obama remains mired down in his father’s antiquated worldview. The roaring success of Indian and Chinese free trade economies have “refuted the anti-colonial economics of the 1950s, the economics that shaped the mind of a whole generation of Asian, South America, and African thinkers, including Obama’s father” . “The blunt truth is that anti-colonialism is dead; no one in today’s world cares about it—except the man in the White House. He is the last anti-colonial”. Sadly enough, the president seems mired down in his father’s world, raging against exploitation and entrenched wealth and empires. His “warped ideology,” D’Souza concludes, “really scares me.

His vision for America may be therapeutic for his psyche, but it is a ridiculous one for America in the twenty-first century”.
This is a thought-provoking treatise. D’Souza has carefully read President Obama’s published works and provides an interpretative hypothesis that does in fact help explain the man and his policies. His footnotes are accurate, and he persuasively demonstrates his conclusions. While anti-colonialism cannot explain everything about the man, if one takes seriously his autobiography many of D’Souza’s insights ring true.

Part Three – coming – George Soros -The Shadow party