D'Souza's Obama

At the incessant urging of Anti-Obama alarmists, spurred on by the granting of a special link to download Dinesh D'Souza's "2016: Obama's America", I have just now availed myself of the opportunity to watch this film in full.  I was pleasantly surprised by the intellectual adequacy and even the fairness of the production, as well as the focused research.  D'Souza, in effect, describes a man he does not know and takes the liberty to complete the description using everybody except the people that would know best.

He couldn't interview Barack Obama's mother who died 15 years before his book of 2010.  He got chased out of the Kenyan village after trying to interview Obama's paternal grandmother. His real father is dead, and his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro is dead. His maternal grandparents were not alive at the time of the making of the film. Nobody who really knew Barack Obama as a child growing up was available for first hand  interviews and conversations.

Instead of directly interviewing the man of the hour, Barack Obama himself, D'Souza relies on narratives from Obama's autobiography, often read by Barack Obama as if it is he telling the story being told in actuality, by Mr. D'Souza.  A few well-placed, smartly edited speeches add to a muted sense of Barack Obama confirming the portrayal being manufactured by Dinesh D'Souza, but we miss his input more than get taken in by the ruse.

For all the invitation to inaccuracy and reliance upon conjecture, speculation and innuendo, D'Souza has given us a well orchestrated account of who he feels Barack Obama is, what and who motivated him, and where he plans to take America by 2016.  All, again, based on seasoned conjecture ignoring reasonable doubt or alternative hypotheses.

This is a movie however, not a college course where conjecture is met with counter-conjecture; where questions get asked, and where alternative hypotheses enter the mix.  Given the necessary narrowing of options and the requirement to reach conclusions that come with the production of a movie, Mr D'Souza gives us, as I said, his opinion and could well have titled the film "D'Souza's Obama".  However, such a wording would have misdirected his intent, which was to create an image of a man nobody really knows, and make it appear to be the objective truth about a man whom all of us Americans know as our President.

Ultimately, Dinesh uses the framework of anti-colonialism to achieve his end, leaving the question open as to whether that was a good thing or a bad thing.  This measure forms the heart of the film's message and provides a vehicle for engendering great respect for Barack Obama, or searing hatred tinged with fear that should he get re-elected, America is doomed. It all depends on who is watching the movie, or who is reviewing it.  For me, I welcomed the discovery of a Barack Obama I never really thought existed.  A truly black, African American far removed from the washed out vision I might have gathered from his immediate roots and his ability to walk into the lives of white Americans and convince them to vote for him to be their president.

The most telling portion of his autobiography, for me, was his choice to tackle the problems experienced by the denizens of the Chicago ghettos rather than follow his law degree into a cushy job with a reputable law firm.  I am indebted to Dinesh D'Souza for helping me to find the blacker side of Barack Obama; the more African aspect of his nature.  I had concluded after reading his book that he was indeed experienced by being black in America enough to count, despite his absence of slave roots and mixed parentage.  Yet, I needed to fill that annoying gap with its nagging and begged questions as to what he really understands about being black.  "2016: Obama's America" confirmed for me what I surmised after reading Dreams From My Father.  Barack Obama is a lot blacker than many blacks in America give him credit for.  His ability to bypass the routine characteristics and motivate many white Americans to vote for him reflects something good about America more than anything devious about this politician who happened to win the White House against all odds.

This was a Barack Obama whose pulse was on the pain and suffering not just of the lower classes of the United States, but of the world itself. He discovered, in his life in Indonesia, and narratives telling him about a father he never knew, that there existed a genuine global elephant which derived its wealth, power, and greatness from the destabilization and rape of the third world.  He developed an understanding of how this process worked and saw something wrong with it.  Something spiritually wrong.  Suddenly it dawned on me that this was indeed the right man to become the first African American President in the United States, more than deserving of another four years in the WHITE House.  America needs to be fixed from her roots and Barack Obama understands that more than anybody else running for the job.

If this movie was intended to turn me off about Barack Obama, and dismiss him, it had a completely opposite effect.  What would describe the experience of being black in America better than the references so commonly associated with the movement to overcome the onerous and continually racist system which has burdened African Americans for so many years?  And why not point the finger at colonialism?  This is exactly what created the parameters and the impasses blacks experienced being born, raised, and living in America.  Colonialism creates poverty as it generates wealth. 

Colonialism justifies racism and ethnocentrism as it continues to enshrine these evils into the framework of the dominant culture; hidden, as Mr D'Souza learns from a chat with Jesse Jackson.  (Interesting he could make this big case regarding anti-colonialism and not understand the nature of embedded, institutionalized racism.  But why should he?  He's from India.) Who wouldn't become anti-colonialist once understanding how it serves the disenfranchisement of the people whose lives are characterized by suffering and struggling. 

Instead of being affronted by the word, "anti-colonialism" I am emboldened by it; educated by it; drawn to it, and more proud and admiring of Barack Obama than I ever was.  And that's even if he maintains his silence as to whether or not he actually IS an anti-colonialist. Right now, he's a politician and would probably talk his way around the charge if it suited him.   Furthermore, the overwhelming concern regarding this movie has come from the mostly white opposition to his re-election.  What disturbs me most is that this demographic could be so insensitive to colonialism and all its wiles, especially after pounding the gavel over the last four years about the Founding Fathers and what they sought to gain during their break from the the Master Colonizer, Great Britain.

One would think that all Americans should be somewhat anti-colonialist, but the truth revealed here is that after stealing the land from the natives and enslaving  Africans for over four hundred years while building a wealth the world has never seen, original anti-colonialists have become the colonizers whose deepest worry today seems to be focused on an emerging Hispanic front along the southern border of the nation.  In their rush to condemn Barack Obama by any means necessary, they have chosen to vilify and reject the very conscience that created this country.

What's even more disturbing is how insulated Americans have become not just to the black community, not just to the Hispanic community, but to their own poor whites who themselves aren't so sure who they should side with on November 6th.  Yet standing at the podium of the Rose Garden, or seated in the armchair of the Oval Office is the answer long sought; a man whose sensitivities are more American than most Americans, and more black than many blacks.  This is a man who truly feels the needs of the people and may well be saving us from the destructive force of a revolution by opening doors that no president has ever tried to open; by reaching out to presumed enemies; by making a real effort to tone down the destructive force of all-out war and by not letting words like "communism" or "socialism" deter him from the kinds of programs that government still needs to engage in to uplift the lives of disadvantaged people and the lower classes so that they can compete a little better and seek the American dream for themselves. .

Getting back to D'Souza's Obama and as I end this piece, let me say that as the movie sought a place to end, the conjecture increased to a point where more questions were being asked than were answered.  Dinesh gets so wrapped up in his conclusions about a man who provided no input to the film, he becomes captured by his own creation.  At some point all documentaries edge toward myth in an attempt to certify the opinions dramatized in the work.  "Obama's America" is no different, and though we are left with a pretty could understanding of where Barack Obama gets his humanity from, we are also fed a heavy dose of overkill, symbolized by the all-to-frequent depiction of the grave of Barack Obama's father.  A man he did not know.

Finally, this man, Frank Marshall Davis might well have been an influence on the maturing Barack Obama.  More is made of his storied association with the Communist Party than the content of his chats with the young man destined to become President of the United States.  Why?  Again, because Frank Marshall is dead and aside from what Barack Obama wrote in his autobiography, we have no live contributions from the president himself.  Who amongst us has been influenced by people without becoming that person or joining the associations that person was connected to?  Jumping to conclusions, labeling Barack Obama a communist or a socialist, or both, is an unfortunate act on the part of those who fail to understand that the wealth of a nation might well be in the happiness and well being of the rank and file citizens that comprise most of the population.

A word on the half-brother of Barack Obama who, according to Mr D'Souza is abandoned by the US President to live in a shack in Kenya while he flies around the world in the luxurious comfort of Air Force One.  Cheap shot at best, Dinesh!  What does does he truly know about this family connection and whether or not George Obama even wants "help" from Barack Obama?  No more than he knows about any other salient aspect of the President's life, obviously.  He just used George Obama to create more innuendo, conjecture, and speculation where facts are short.

The conclusions drawn by Dinesh D'Souza are those of Dinesh D'Souza, not hardly associated with a priori truth.  This does not detract from the excellent work he has done in the creation of this film.  I took note of his mention of being of the same color as Reverend Jesse Jackson, whom he debated while in college.  He genuinely doesn't understand what is behind the mask.  This may be a clue as to his inability to aptly describe the man he chooses not to know except through the inference, the conjecture, and the innuendo he firmly establishes in this film.  See the film if you dare, but be sure to understand at all times, the difference between a balanced education and a carefully plotted indoctrination.

Robert W. Hamilton
9/23/2012

The Nobel Obama: Triumph of Symbol

Barack Obama won a historical election in November 2008. He captured the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth and arguably throughout history. Prudence demanded an avoidance of the race card during the campaign although it did manage to surface here and there despite efforts to suppress. When victory was achieved however, racially charged celebrations broke out across the nation and around the world. The party seemed never to end. Blacks and non-whites danced in the streets from Harlem to Kenya. “Yes We Can” became “Yes We Did” and for a prolonged moment in time, the hope of all people who are not white radiated with a powerful energy which has yet to dissipate.

Now Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize and many people, including myself ask “for what”? I supported and continue to support this president but do find his major accomplishments more a thing of the future than the near past. Still I have to sit back and give the folks in Sweden the benefit of the doubt. I have to assume they are intelligent and above corruption. This prestigious award is one of the most coveted, respected honors a human being can attain. Since there is no immediate issue presenting itself to account for this award, one has to seek deeper into the mystique of the Obama victory to discover reasons why this exalted community chose this man for the prize.

Avoiding the race card in this past election had the effect of obscuring the elephant in the victory (no pun). My initial thoughts regarding the celebratory reactions around the world had to do with the irony of ignoring the race of the man while he was running, but exalting it after his victory. The celebrations made no effort to camouflage the obvious. A black man had been elected president and for this reason alone there was cause to be hysterically jubilant. The media coverage displayed a wild party atmosphere going on in African–American communities around the nation, seasoned with like celebrations throughout Africa and the world as non-whites met this momentous occasion with an outpouring of unbridled joy.

The tumult was not fueled by a sudden realization that health care was coming to all, that peace was imminent in the Middle East, or that the economic recession was soon to end. The reaction was largely non-substantive, reveling mainly in the sole realization that for the first time in history the least likely of ethnic peoples was being represented first-hand in the White House. It was a dance of symbolism; a time of reference; an advance of the Civil Rights movement. It was everything but specific; a border-less passion set free as though confined throughout the entire spectrum of human history.

This victory inspired hope and energized the human spirit all over the world. It signaled the end to a human history of white people being in charge of everything powerful and economically significant. True, the idea held more symbolism than reality for the power structure rarely changes that much over the election of one president. Additionally, the election of a black man does not, did not, nor will not disenfranchise the power of the white man in politics or economic leverage. Despite the implications behind the presidential victory of a black man, racism, institutionalized in America and around the world continues to recede ever so slowly from the human landscape.

Barack Obama is an embattled president whose detractors will not rest until he is a loser in 2012. Nothing Mr. Obama does seems to meet with the approval of those who oppose him and seek his failure at any cost. The opposition media will misinterpret, twist and skew Obama’s words and acts no matter what it is he says or does. His trip to Denmark to win the Olympics for Chicago was win/win/, lose/lose, depending on who you ask.

When an aging, but still highly intelligent former president called attention to obvious racist attacks on Barack Obama from the opposition, Fox News immediately interpreted the remarks as referring to every attack on Barack Obama. Glenn Beck smirked and joked about being a racist just because you oppose Barack Obama. The tide of misinformation regarding President Carter’s remarks sought to ridicule the former president and deny any racism at all in the relentless drive to invalidate, devalue, criticize and deflate the presidency which in November, 2008 brought pure ecstasy to the majority of the world’s population.

Enter the Nobel Peace Committee. What this community has observed is that the election of Barack Obama was a significant inspiration to people all over the world, black and yes, white. It was a symbolic moment in human history that validated all people of color and demonstrated that indeed, you didn’t have to be white to count in this world. Symbols often carry more meaning that reality. Our faiths are built on symbols and non-literal meanings. Who would argue that faith does not impact the human experience in a great way, whether good or bad? The Nobel community has decided that symbol in the elevation of Barack Obama to the presidency of the USA is more important than the persistent devil trying to take command of the details. The opposition has been more than marginally successful in portraying Barack Obama as a failure and disappointment so far. The euphoria of November has abated in the wake of reactionary activity aimed solely at destroying the victory of 2008 with an unseating of Barack Obama in 2012.

My understanding of this award centers on the victory of Barack Obama as being sufficient enough to ignite and inspire the world to move towards peace and international cooperation. The momentum may be mired in a sea of impatience and dearth of accomplishments, but the victory nonetheless was significant for the very reason that race card-avoiders are reluctant to admit. It was the emergence of the Black and non white masses onto the open stage of power-sharing and the validation of all people around the world no matter their color or heritage. The Nobel Prize was the triumph of symbol; the celebration of spirit and the acknowledgment that faith in its purest form is still a potent and valuable motivator in the human experience.

President Obama wisely accepted this award in a diminutive tone, understanding that its raison d’être had less to do with substance than pure potential. It is an appropriate salute to the forces behind the fury of November 2008; a thank you to a man whose tireless effort and strong will took him through a hard-fought election where more than politics was at stake. Far more, for now it is at least a dream-able dream that the world’s people will seek to unite in a search for peace, even as wars continue to be fought more over principle than substance. I congratulate not Barack Obama, but the Nobel Committee for seeing through the camouflage and recognizing the president’s victory for what it truly was.


Robert W Hamilton: 2012: It's never too soon.

Jeremiah Wright, Article 6, And Justice Wanting

" …The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The U.S. Constitution, Article 6

The current fabricated hysteria over the sermons of Pastor Jeremiah Wright raises some serious questions regarding the above quoted Article 6 from the U.S. Constitution. I remember watching the Arizona Debates during the 2004 presidential campaign. Questions were asked of George Bush and John Kerry regarding their faith, etc. etc. Bush, an evangelistic, re-born Christian was aflame with his adoration of Christianity etc. etc. Kerry, a Catholic not accustomed to defending or saluting his faith in open forum, was rather subdued about it and failed to match the spirit of George Bush.

I have always felt that John Kerry’s lack of passion about his religion contributed in part, to loss of goal to become president of the United States. In the balance, we got the continued presidency of a man who went to war because he felt "America is led by the hand of God". Four years later, we are in serious trouble over his "divinely conceived" plan to invade a sovereign nation without legal cause. The current recession is part of the fallout. George Bush tipped the scales in that very close finish because he pandered to the more generically appreciated, bible-belt, conservative style of Christianity. His is a religion that mixes well with patriotism, mom, and a slice of old fashioned apple pie.

As a former Divinity School student, in the 70’s, I have a fair amount of knowledge about the history of black religion and its inseparable association with the politics of social justice. Slaves were not allowed to worship with their white masters even though it was from them that the religion came. At best, they were allowed to sit in the balconies of the churches and keep their silence. It wasn’t long before slaves began to worship their own unique form of Christianity, seasoned with the religions of their African homeland. Soon, the black spiritual became a venue for secret messaging which aided and abetted the success of The Underground Railroad. The black spiritual, born in the spirit of black Christianity, became most useful as a communication tool for enabling the escape of slaves to freedom in Canada. From the moment it was taught to the slaves, Christianity became a beacon of hope and a tool of justification for throwing off the shackles of slavery and every social inconvenience that has come in the wake of it’s abolition in 1863.

This is not intended to be a lecture on black religion. It is my intention here, to describe the nature of black religion as expansive. It includes not only the worship of Christ and the hope of salvation, but in a very real sense, it accommodates just about all aspects of life in the experience of being Black in America. The black church became far more fundamental to the lives of African Americans than just a place to go on Sundays and worship God. The black church is the apex of the community. Its association with freedom movements and resistance to the government of the United States came with the package. In confronting the thinking of Barack Obama’s pastor, the more fundamental question even more primary than First Amendment consideration, is the interpretation of Article 6 of the US Constitution.

Article 6 came along because the founding fathers did not want the same restrictions placed upon Americans that they escaped from by fleeing the Anglican Church of England. A test of religion implies a prerequisite based on the choice a candidate has made regarding the manner in which he practices his religion. Article 6 is an open statement that could produce a great deal of intrigue at the level of the US Supreme Court as regards interpretation. In the Arizona Debates of 2004, the questioner was clearly testing the measure of belief. One could argue that since the moderator was not a government official, the tone of Article 6 did not apply. One could also argue that if the answers given by the candidates were not satisfactory to the voting public, they would be denied the ultimate public service position; the presidency of the United States. If by failing the test of religion, an aspiring candidate loses the election, then I personally believe Article 6 has been violated by the moderators. I would leave it up to the Supreme Court to make a final decision.

In the case of Barack Obama, who has, for his own reasons, chosen to belong to the church pastored by Jeremiah Wright, the exposing of Wright’s thinking in such a way as to inhibit Mr. Obama from succeeding to the presidency, brings up the same question regarding a violation of Article 6. I know it could be a stretch to see it this way, but for the last week we have been bombarded by Jeremiah Wright’s sermons, not as they apply necessarily to a judgement of Rev. Wright, but as they apply to the candidate that belongs to his church. Questioning Barack Obama’s affiliation with the United Church of Christ as he runs for president is administering a test of his religion. It is, in effect, saying "You, Mr.Obama, belong to the wrong kind of church with the wrong kind of pastor and therefore the public has the right to dismiss your candidacy on the grounds that you may, with your religion, be associating with Anti-American sentiment."

It seems that before we elect a person to the office of president, we want to know what his religious beliefs (or lack of such) are all about. The voting constituency of the American population acts as the administrator in offering the job of the presidency to the candidates seeking that office. If the US Constitution forbids a test of religion"as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", then any undue scrutiny of a candidate’s association with his choice of religion, church, synagogue, temple, mosque, tent in the open woods or whatever, raises valid issues regarding the meaning of Article 6.

Now obviously, one might raise the example of devil worship, or witchcraft and so forth as a valid reason to question a candidate’s association with those "religions". Chances are, a voodoo priest could get elected president if objections to the practice of Voodun were not allowed in debating forums.

How many times did the Mormonism of Mitt Romney get thrust into the consideration of his becoming president? Maybe Article 6 needs to be amended. Maybe it wasn’t intended to allow Satanists or Frog Worshippers to inhabit the office of the presidency, or any other office of the US Government for that matter. Maybe a test case, or a class action suit needs to be brought before the Supreme court if it can be concluded that Barack Obama’s candidacy was offended by questions pertaining to his pastor’s sermons or the church he chose to join.

Obama’s recent speech on racism, Jeremiah Wright, and the ills of American society, attempted to link the rhetoric of preaching to the overall experience of being Black in America, reaching back into slavery. Since there is a clear connection between black religion and social activism responding to accumulated consequences of the Black experience, it should come as no surprise that Jeremiah Wright chose the pulpit to exhort his opinions about American Policy at home and overseas. His sermons were not anti-American. They were "anti" the America that has ducked under the radar of the US Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence. Wright’s sermons were a call to what America can and should be, in his opinion. They were a calling of American policies onto the carpet and a suggestion that quite possibly, the actions of American governments over the years have violated moral justice and the thought of the Founding Fathers.

Barack Obama became associated with Wright’s United Church of Christ when he was organizing and advocating for the rights of dispossessed, disadvantaged Americans, most of whom happened to be black. They lived in the worst areas of Chicago and were too poor to matter to that city’s government at the time. The United Church of Christ belonged, at that time, to a council of churches which funded support groups and active efforts to respond to issues of heat, asbestos contamination, single-parent familes, unwed mothers, incarceration issues, HIV-Aids administration and so on. Barack Obama gave up a promising legal career to work for those people and it was the churches in that area that provided money and meeting places as well as other support facilities. If Jeremiah Wright and his congregation hadn’t the heart and spirit to reach out and assist people whom the government ignored, perhaps the association would never have come to fruition.

It could be argued that the facilitation of Obama’s mission in the Chicago housing ghetto was a more fundamental reason for his joining that church. It could be argued that despite the flaming rhetoric of his pastor, he was attracted to the willingness of Jeremiah Wright to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Barack Obama found a comfort zone in the religion of the church he decided to join and enough political activism in the ideology of Reverend Wright to form a relationship with him, which suited Mr. Obama and his family. Now he is being handed a test of his choice as he continues to defend his religion against those who seek one thing: The discrediting of his candidacy for the presidency of the United States.

The ongoing exposé of the ideas and sermons of Jeremiah Wright is a masquerade; a sleight-of-hand operation to deny the presidency to Barack Obama by manipulating the mind of the electorate. If the sermons of Jeremiah Wright were so caustic and abrasively damaging to the character of America, then why NOW are they being paraded in the media and on the opinion pages of publications all over the land? This is not even a violation of Wright’s right to speak his mind. It is simply an effort to obstruct the path to the presidency of Barack Obama, using a test of religion.

Somewhere in the future of presidential campaigns, an agreement of protocol is going to have to come about which adheres to the thinking of Article 6. Hinting at his Muslim and Atheist background was a clear consensus of the idea that a person cannot be president unless his religion satisfies the public conscience. Linking him, through Jeremiah Wright, to Louis Farrakhan, a proud and prominent practitioner of Islam was designed to motivate the fears inherent in the current age of terrorism and anti-Semitism. If religion is to play a deciding part in the election of a US president, then Article 6 must come to the attention of the Supreme Court in terms of revision or official interpretation because it sure sounds to me like we have an infringement here.

The attempt to derail Barack Obama’s candidacy with the ongoing debate over the content of the sermons of Jeremiah Wright has hit its mark. There has been a drop in the Nominating polls along with a rise in the general election polls favorable to Hillary Clinton. If this association between Barack Obama’s faith choice and his chances for winning the presidency prove to be detrimental then bringing a challenge before the Supreme Court regarding Article 6 could be a reasonable consideration.

RWH 3/22/08