D’Souza Turns Lie Into Fodder for His Delusions

D’Souza Turns Lie Into Fodder for His Delusions August 1, 2012

Dinesh D’Souza is on tour with his demented documentary that claims that Obama is trying to destroy America, baseball, the apple pie industry and Christianity because of his alleged “anti-colonialist worldview” and he’s using the right’s latest bit of dishonesty to push that idiotic narrative. And the Worldnutdaily is there to report on it.

Dinesh D’Souza, a former policy adviser to President Reagan and the director of a controversial new film about Barack Obama’s past, told WND he believes the roots of the current president’s infamous “you didn’t build that” speech go back to Kenya and the anti-colonialism seeded in his worldview.

And after the Washington, D.C., screening of the film, D’Souza told WND he believes Obama’s anti-colonialist past was the driving force behind telling a crowd at Roanoke, Va., on July 13, “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

In brief, D’Souza explained European colonialism as fundamentally about occupation, rule, conquest and acquiring wealth; whereas anti-colonialism is fundamentally about redistributing the wealth of the world “so that it is enjoyed equitably by everyone in the world.”

D’Souza told WND, “Anti-colonialism’s core idea is that the wealth America has now is not earned wealth, but stolen wealth. And I believe that is a very influential idea with Obama and his recent comment that business owners didn’t earn their success, they used the public school system and public roads. That is the intellectual equivalent of me saying to Obama, ‘You didn’t really win the election. You, after all, drove on the public roads to your rallies, so you don’t deserve to be president.’

“The reason Obama makes such arguments – bogus though they are – is because he’s trying to say ‘If you didn’t earn it, I have the right to take it,’” D’Souza said. “And that is an idea rooted in anti-colonialism that the rich people and rich countries don’t deserve what they have. They didn’t earn it, they stole it and he has every right to use the power of the state to confiscate it back.”

There simply is no limit to how low these people will go. There is no argument too stupid or crazy, as long as it makes Obama look bad. There are many valid criticisms of Obama and I’ve been making them for the last three and a half years, but they can’t make those arguments. So that’s all they have left.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • steve84

    Translation: Obama is a communist

  • naturalcynic

    And that is an idea rooted in anti-colonialism that the rich people and rich countries don’t deserve what they have. They didn’t earn it, they stole it and he has every right to use the power of the state to confiscate it back

    That reminds me of the asshole effusion of Sen S.I. Hayakawa about not giving back the Panama Canal Zone to Panama: “We stole it fair and square”

    D’Souza explained European colonialism as fundamentally about occupation, rule, conquest and acquiring wealth; whereas anti-colonialism is fundamentally about redistributing the wealth of the world “so that it is enjoyed equitably by everyone in the world.”

    Unfortunately, that’s not what happened in many cases. The anti-colonialists talked the talk of wealth redistribution, but turned out to be a case of Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss.

  • keithb

    No, he isn’t using the “lie”, D’Souza is using it in context. D’Souza realizes that the “you didn’t build that” applies to the infrastructure.

    D’Souza has a different lie, he basically says that because there was infrastructure, Obama states that the business owner has no right to what he earned – which might be a worse distortion of Obama’s remarks!

  • anteprepro

    So, Obama opposing a concept that is all about “occupation, rule, conquest and acquiring wealth” is a bad thing and is equivalent to socialism? D’Souza is really bad at hiding his Spin.

    Oh, and he also can’t fucking use logic. Mentioning that businesses financially benefit from public goods paid for by everyone is not at all equivalent to saying that someone’s election is invalid because they benefited from public goods paid for by everyone. Mostly because the latter doesn’t make any fucking sense. Which is pretty much Typical D’Souza.

  • d cwilson

    anteprepo @4:

    What you have to realize is that colonialism was all about redistributing wealth up the economic ladder, which is the way Jeebus intended it to be. Because once the wealthy have all the money, they’ll pee on our heads so that some of it will trickle down to us.

    Anti-colonialism is saying, “Hey, you stole that from us, give it back!” And that’s a bad thing, because if the wealthy have to give back what they stole, how can they be expected to create jobs?

    Of course, neither one accurately describes Obama’s view, which is, let’s go back to the top tax we had under Clinton so that we can fix a few of our crumbling roads and bridges. Which, of course, is radical socialism that is completely “foreign”* to the American way of life.

    *See what I did there? By slipping the word “foreign” into the sentence, I’ve subtly planted the seed in people’s minds that Obama isn’t a Real American ™. Am I clever enough to be a speech writer for Romney yet?

  • jimmiraybob

    I’d watch out. D’Souza’s the bonafide president of an office suite* in the Empire State Building.

    * some people call it the King’s College. No, really.

    No, really, I’m positive.

  • baal

    he believes the roots of the current president’s infamous “you didn’t build that” speech go back to Kenya and the anti-colonialism seeded in his worldview.

    De’Souza is lying. He knows that Obama’s infrastructure argument is based on an Elizabeth Warren viral video(and used with her support).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=necOYVjutw4 This has nothing to do with being honest and everything to do with othering Obama.

    On a related but slightly OT note, I’m getting tired of political adds that double down on this lie. I had one on youtube which starts with Obama correcting the “you didn’t build that” context only to have the right ‘refute’ him by taking even more snippets of text out of their sentences.

  • Mr Ed

    Wait wasn’t the US once a British colony and when that didn’t work we sent our colonial masters a dear John letter (the Declaration of Independence) listing what was wrong with the current colonial situation. And wasn’t our Constitution influenced by what we liked and didn’t like about our colonial past. It may have been a few years but isn’t some of that American pride from throwing off our colonial shackles.

  • ohioobserver

    “There simply is no limit to how low these people will go. There is no argument too stupid or crazy, as long as it makes Obama look bad.”

    Why is it Obama that is supposed to look bad here? Such foolishness makes D’Souza look bad — unless, of course, you are among those who want the President to look bad because it suits you to do so. D’Souza isn’t convincing anybody. He’s preaching to the choir, who are just as over the edge as he is.

  • Scott Hanley

    “The reason Obama makes such arguments – bogus though they are – is because he’s trying to say ‘If you didn’t earn it, I have the right to take it,’” D’Souza said. “And that is an idea rooted in anti-colonialism that the rich people and rich countries don’t deserve what they have. They didn’t earn it, they stole it and he has every right to use the power of the state to confiscate it back.”

    It’s curious that D’Souza would take that line of argument, because it’s a close analog of the colonialist justification for appropriating wealth: we’ll make better use of it than you, so we have a right to take it. White Americans justified removing American Indians from their land with that argument, made quite explicitly: white farmers used the land more productively than did Indian hunters, so it perfectly moral to take it for themselves.

    It’s also very similar to the argument conservatives make for increasing disparities in wealth: the wealthy invest more and use their money more productively, so policy should be designed to increase their share.

    Obama is arguing – or hinting at arguing, anyway – that using money for infrastructure development and other projects for the “common god” is a more productive use of money than are some kinds of Wall Street investment and it’s appropriate to take it and use it more productively. That argument would emerge, ironically enough, most naturally from colonialist thinking. I don’t suppose I’ll live to see D’Souza acknowledge that, though.

  • Michael Heath

    Scott Hanley writes:

    Obama is arguing – or hinting at arguing, anyway – that using money for infrastructure development and other projects for the “common god” is a more productive use of money than are some kinds of Wall Street investment . . .

    A conservative might argue this is a classic example of a Freudian slip. 😉 Fortunately there probably aren’t any who know who that is.

  • imthegenieicandoanything

    “[They’re] evil, but [they]’ll die. So I like it.”

    May they get to it soon, at their own trouble and expense. They are even worth more time hating.

  • Akira MacKenzie

    Mr. Ed @ 8

    Wait wasn’t the US once a British colony…

    That was totally different! The American colonists were hard-working, God-fearing, pioneers who were throwing off the yoke of tyranny to create the greatest nation on Earth!

    The rest of those nations were filled with lazy, heathen, savages who need proper, civilized rulers. They are such children after all!

    😉

  • No One

    This from a guy who’s family was “converted to christianity at bayonet point”.

    What a sad little tadpole.

  • M Groesbeck

    Sometimes I wish Obama really were a bit more like the “people before profits” socialist (though even their descriptions sound more like a social democrat) that the wingnuts insist he is than the lukewarm corporate centrist of reality.