D’Souza condescendingly paints Obama’s father’s concern with, oh, about four centuries of world history, as naive and irrelevant, and even more bizarrely asserts that this has become the “worldview” of the president of the U.S.
In other words, Obama is kind of like one of those pesky, ignorant natives who for some reason are still restless about something that is just oh so passé.
And Gingrich, apparently, is lapping it up.
Yes, the President of a country with military bases in 130 of the world’s 190 countries is anticolonial. You can see clear evidence of his anticolonialism in the way he’s ramped up the war in Afghanistan, started expanding drone operations in countries like Yemen and Pakistan, etc. etc.
<Sarcasm overload. This is raw meat dangled in front of a hungry lion. Fighting back urge>
What’s the debate? How far up their own ass D’Souza and Gingrich have their heads?
I’m waiting for Gingrich to call Obama a poo-poo head. He’s already a Muslim and a Liberation Christian, a Facist and a Marxist, and not doing enough and cramming policies down people throats.
“I can see Palin from here”.
Not for an instant do I believe the United States has bases in 130 countries, unless your definition of “base” is absurd.
In response to Gingrich’s remarks, Democracy Now! interviews a real Kenyan anti-colonialist.
How about Fox News’s definition?
Currently, the United States has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries, including the Persian Gulf region nations of Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. Thousands of U.S. troops have been based in Germany, Turkey, Japan and South Korea for 50 years or longer.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/041101-iraq-basing.htm
All your bases are belong to us.
We certainly can’t be having any anticolonialism in this loyal country! God save the Queen!
Newt Gingrich is a lying, hypocritical scumbag. I’d be astounded if he knew a thing about colonialism in Kenya. And I know for damn sure that most of the people who subscribe to his brand of bullshit wouldn’t know a Kenyan anti-colonialist if it came up bit them in the ass and gave them the courtesy of a reacharound.
Speaking of anticolonialism, couldn’t all those teabaggers who dress up in Revolutionary era garb be described as anticolonialists as well?
Could someone explain what is supposed to be so terrible about Obama in the D’Souza article? I know that D’Souza feels he is making a point, and that Gingrich agrees, but whatever point he’s making it sailing right over my head.
D’Souza defines anticolonialism as:
Is there a serious dispute over those two things? I always thought it was common knowledge that Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, ect. all did get rich off their colonies. And it doesn’t take much to see that Africa and much of South/Central America still bear the after effects of that time.
He then links Anticolonialism to neocolonialism and states that Obama is a firm believer in the dangers of neocolonialism. Wikipedia says that “Neocolonialism is a term used by post-colonial critics of developed countries’ involvement in the developing world.” He then backs this up with examples of Obama involving the US in the affairs of less developed countries? 
Wouldn’t the development of oil sources in Brazil and having NASA involve itself in the Middle Eastern scientific community be examples of Obama supporting neocolonialism? It seems like D’Souza is arguing that Obama is demonstrating his hatred of neocolonialism by trying to actively involve the US in it to teach the people of the US a lesson on how horrible it is.
What am I missing? Does the article effectively undermine it’s own premise and just hope that nobody notices? They are plenty of other oddities in the article, the quoting of a guy who was born, lived, and died in France as an example of the founding father’s beliefs or the shock that Obama has never mentioned an essay his father wrote in a (obscure?) journal when Obama was 4 years old for example.
Also, did John Glenn and Neil Armstrong ever comment on the new NASA global outreach policy? I can find plenty of things about John Glenn being upset about the ending of the Shuttle missions, but everything that mentions them talking about other NASA changes always links back to D’Souza.
Consider yourself doped.
I count about 25 countries with something that could reasonably be called a “base” on that list.
Why, with all the technology at our disposal, no one has yet developed an antifungal powerful enough to rid us of the Creeping Gingrich, once and for all.
That’s quite distinctly a different claim from saying the industrialized West got rich by looting the Third World. Some European countries gained economically through colonialism (though in the case of Spain you could argue colonialism wrecked their economy) but to say the West as a whole today is rich at the expense of the rest of the world is silly.
Of course, I see no evidence Barack Obama holds such absurdly simplistic beliefs anyway.
Sorry. The debate is: Does Obama’s foreign policy–in as much as it is directed by “anti-colonialist” ideology, if any–weaken the world economic viability of the U.S.?
It’s code. It’s just a part of the “scare the bejesus out of White People” campaign. Here’s the key:
Kenyan = Black People
Anticolonial = slave reparations
Obama’s father = he isn’t one of us
Obama ‘s worldview = the President is going to take all the property away from you White People.
It’s pretty straight foreword .
Incidentally, the what constitutes a military base defugelty that’s brewing up in this thread is a pretty old and stinky red herring. That variety of changing the subject just provides cover for the reprehensibility of Newt’s and D’Sousa’s comments.
When I first saw this in the papers over the weekend I read it a Keynesian anti-colonialism. That had a certain academic tone to it but it made no sense. Kenyan still make no rational sense but has the advantage of being a pretty straight forward race bating. I can’t help but wish they would both drop the pretense and just stand in the street yelling “Nigger, nigger, nigger,” and get it over with.
D’Souza doing that would set up a mega-echo that would shatter irony meters in a 5-mile radius.*
*Not that his not-so-subtle dogwhistling isn’t pegging a few meters as it is.