Change! Change! Change!

Change! Change! Change!

JANEANE GAROFALO: Thank you. You know, there’s nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they’re not quite certain what he’s saying. It sounds right and then it doesn’t make sense. Which, let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don’t know, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?

That was April 16, 2009. You have to give her credit, she was the first fruit loop to come out with the racist charge and the frequency and fervency hasn’t diminished since. In fact, the vilification of the Tea Party by the left has almost become a religious tenet, a dogmatic right of passage, a ritual of faith necessary for advancement in the ranks of liberalism. If you want respect on the left, you need to have the documentation showing you’ve thrown the race card at the Tea Party.

To justify these claims of racism, though justification wasn’t needed for Garofalo, the left has focused generally on any opposition to Obama and specifically on some of the signs at the Tea Party rallies. Two popular signs for criticism have been the “Lying African” and the “Obama Witchdoctor” signs.

Lyin’ African

Obama Witchdoctor

Now, for those who don’t live life looking through racist toned ruby-red glasses, and actually have a political ear to the arguments being made, the signs are actually great examples of political satire. Lyin’ African- Lying African, or Obamacare-Witchdoctor.

Regardless, for arguments sake, let us accept the left’s claim that the Tea Party is racist based on the premise of association, witch is absurd but exactly what they are doing. One objectionable sign and the entire movement is to be labeled. Guilt by association.

Socialists loud and proud:

Well, not exactly an outlier of a sign. In fact, when you look at the list of folks who sponsored the rally, the sign isn’t a fringe element- it’s the main attraction. For more on the sponsors of the rally, check out Beck, but let us carry on with the main point: Guilt by Association.

The Left does everything they can to deflect the socialism charge from Obama. So, when the President’s organization Organizing for America endorses the rally, it is hard to separate the two. So, let us review the One Nation rally…

And what would a rally be without signs? Well, it’d be Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor rally, but that’s beside the point, or is it? Hmmmmmm….

Socialism on display

Socialism still on display

But this is the most important, if for no other reason than to show the level of stupidity on the left.

SCHULTZ: Now, conservatives want you to believe that Glenn Beck’s phony religious revival was way bigger than the One Nation rally. Well, let me take you back to the day of the Beck rally on August 28th, 2010, at 6:32 P.M., proved Beck’s crowd was, as I said, no big shakes. “An estimated 87,000 people attended the rally organized by radio talk show host and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck Saturday in Washington, according to a crowd estimate commissioned by CBS News. The company,, based the attendance on aerial photos it took over the rally.” Now to be fair, NBC News put the size of Beck’s crowd at 300,000 people. So, somewhere in between all of this, 87,000, give or take 9 grand by that company, and 300,000 is reported by NBC. Pretty much, would you say that the size of the crowd is pretty much the same? I would. I was there. The people I saw, it was packed.

Well, let us nip this in the bud right now.

8/28 vs. 10/2

Clearly, Doughboy’s ego is getting in the way of his vision. But hey, could you expect anything different?

Here’s the moral of the story, while it is politically convenient for the Left to label the Tea Party racist, using sporadic one-off signs to label the entire movement as such is not only factually inaccurate but is intellectually dishonest. Now, compare this to claims of Obama’s socialism. His organization endorsed the rally, witch was sponsored by socialists. A lot has been written documenting the positions of socialism that seem to permeate the actions of Obama. Most recently, it was Dinesh D’Souza’s book Root’s of Obama’s Rage. He recently penned an article in Forbes titled How Obama Thinks. In it, D’Souza gets into the premise anticolonialist ideology, Obama Sr.’s belief in that ideology and Obama Jr.’s actions in support of it. I’ll leave you with this- be careful in painting groups with broad strokes of the brush, because eventually it’ll paint you as well.

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

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

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

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

While the senior Obama called for Africa to free itself from the neocolonial influence of Europe and specifically Britain, he knew when he came to America in 1959 that the global balance of power was shifting. Even then, he recognized what has become a new tenet of anticolonialist ideology: Today’s neocolonial leader is not Europe but America. As the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said–who was one of Obama’s teachers at Columbia University–wrote in Culture and Imperialism, “The United States has replaced the earlier great empires and is the dominant outside force.”

From the anticolonial perspective, American imperialism is on a rampage. For a while, U.S. power was checked by the Soviet Union, but since the end of the Cold War, America has been the sole superpower. Moreover, 9/11 provided the occasion for America to invade and occupy two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and also to seek political and economic domination in the same way the French and the British empires once did. So in the anticolonial view, America is now the rogue elephant that subjugates and tramples the people of the world.

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

For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. And here is where our anticolonial understanding of Obama really takes off, because it provides a vital key to explaining not only his major policy actions but also the little details that no other theory can adequately account for.


3 thoughts on “Change! Change! Change!

  1. I’ll comment more fully later, time allowing but I did have to say one thing. The witchdoctor sign certainly hones in on Obamacare and therefore can be at least minimally justified. Depicting Obama as tribal is the “Obama not born in America” dog whistle … and you know it. But I’ll give that a pass.

    However, there is NO justification for “Lyin’ African”. It might as well have said “Lyin’ Ni**er” except that would not have achieved the “clever” wordplay. When calling a politician a “Lyin’ Polock” or a “Lyin’ Guinea” passes muster with everyone then I’ll sign up for “Lyin’ African”. Until then, it is blatantly racist and despicable.

    1. Sure, if the focus is on their race, this is a question of citizenship- not the same thing.

      You just need a strawman to attack, but you seem to miss the point of the post: one or two signs do not define a movement. However, your rally on Saturday is defined by its sponsors, those who officially endorse it- to include the President’s pet organization- and that definition is socialism. Focus on the point and leave the stawmen at home…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s